Iowa

Wetland Management District

Environmental Assessment 

and Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 3 (Midwest Region)

Division of Conservation Planning; Bloomington, MN

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
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.
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990

Bloomington, MN 55437-1458

Monday, August 19th, 2013

Dear Reader:

We are pleased to provide you with this Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (EA/CCP) for the Iowa Wetland Management District (WMD, district).

The Iowa WMD encompasses 35 counties in north-central and northwest Iowa following the 

southern range of the poorly drained Prairie Pothole Region. The primary purposes of the 

district are production areas for waterfowl and habitat for migratory birds. Together with the 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides 

wetland habitat with adjacent upland grassland habitat across the district. 

This EA/CCP identifies and evaluates a range of alternatives for managing the Iowa WMD. 

Four alternatives are described, compared, and assessed, including a No Action Alternative 

(Alternative A) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act regulations. The final 

version of this plan will guide management of the district over the next 15 years. It will also help 

the district meet its purposes and contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System as well as provide both broad and specific guidance for management of the district’s 

physical, biological, socio-economic, and cultural resources.

Public involvement in the planning process is essential for development of a quality plan. We 

invite you to review the document and submit comments to ensure that the final CCP is both 

visionary and practical. We will host open houses where you will be able to ask questions and 

voice concerns and suggestions. Meeting dates and locations will be announced through local 

media outlets and by other means.

Please submit your comments to the Service during the 30-day public review period so they can 

be taken into consideration during the preparation of the final CCP. Address comments to: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Iowa WMD, Attention: CCP Comment, 1710-360th Street, Titonka, 

Iowa, 50480; fax comments to "District Manager” at 515-928-2230; and e-mail comments to

r3planning@fws.gov (include “Iowa WMD CCP Comment” in the subject line). 

Please review and provide comment on the plan’s content by Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. 

All comments received from the public will become part of the Service’s planning record. 

We look forward to continuing the dialogue about the future of the district, and thank you for 

your continued interest in keeping the district a special place for both wildlife and people.

Sincerely,

Tom Larson

Chief, Division of Conservation Planning

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Iowa

Wetland Management District

Environmental Assessment and Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

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

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action.................................................... 1

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

The Chapter............................................................................................................................................ 2

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

Easements ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action....................................................................................... 5

Decisions to be Made ............................................................................................................................. 6

Chapter 2: District Planning Context...................................................................................... 7

Refuge System Planning Guidance........................................................................................................ 7

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................................. 7

FWS Mission.............................................................................................................................. 7

The National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................................. 7

NWRS Mission........................................................................................................................... 8

NWRS Goals ............................................................................................................................. 8

NWRS Guiding Principles.......................................................................................................... 8

Ecological Integrity ........................................................................................................................... 9

Cooperative Farming......................................................................................................................10

Legal and Policy Compliance.........................................................................................................11

Wilderness Review.........................................................................................................................11

District Management Guidance ............................................................................................................11

Brief History of District Establishment and Acquisition ..................................................................12

District Purposes ............................................................................................................................14

District Vision Statement................................................................................................................17

District Goals..................................................................................................................................17

Relationship to Other Conservation Initiatives .....................................................................................17

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..........................................................................................17

Strategic Habitat Conservation ......................................................................................................18

SHC Guiding Principles ...........................................................................................................20

Plains and Prairie Pothole Landscape Conservation Cooperative ................................................20

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities........................................................................21

Climate Change Planning ..............................................................................................................21

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................................21

State of Iowa............................................................................................................................22

Iowa’s State Wildlife Action Plan....................................................................................................24

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ..........................................................................................24

Iowa DNR Private Lands Program.................................................................................................26
Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Bird Conservation Areas ................................................................................................................26

Important Bird Areas ......................................................................................................................26

Wetland Reserve Program.............................................................................................................27

Conservation Reserve Program.....................................................................................................27

Other Conservation Lands in the Area...........................................................................................29

The Planning Process ..........................................................................................................................29

Public Involvement.........................................................................................................................29

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research.............................................................................................31

Plan Review and Revision .............................................................................................................32

Planning Issues..............................................................................................................................32

Issues that Drive an Alternative...............................................................................................32

Wildlife...............................................................................................................................32

Habitat...............................................................................................................................32

People ...............................................................................................................................34

Issues that Do Not Drive an Alternative ..................................................................................34

Public Use .........................................................................................................................34

Inventory, Monitoring, Research.......................................................................................35

The Partnership.................................................................................................................36

Land Acquisition................................................................................................................36

Management Tools ...........................................................................................................36

Wildlife...............................................................................................................................37

Chapter 3: Management Alternatives ....................................................................................38

Development of the Management Alternatives ....................................................................................38

Selecting the Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................................41

Elements Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................................................41

Summary of the Alternatives ................................................................................................................42

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)..................................................................................45

Alternative B: Breeding Waterfowl........................................................................................................46

Alternative C: Migrating Waterfowl .......................................................................................................46

Alternative D: Preferred Alternative – Breeding Waterfowl ..................................................................47

Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail .............................................................................48

Solutions Considered but Eliminated.............................................................................................48

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated.........................................................................................49

Summary of Environmental Consequences .........................................................................................49

Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental 

Consequences ........................................................................................................................52

Physical Environment ...........................................................................................................................52

Geographic Setting ........................................................................................................................52

Current Management...............................................................................................................52

Effects......................................................................................................................................52

Ecosystem Setting .........................................................................................................................53

Current Management...............................................................................................................53

Effects......................................................................................................................................53

Topography and Geology ..............................................................................................................54

Current Management...............................................................................................................56

Effects......................................................................................................................................56

Climate ...........................................................................................................................................56

Predicted Change....................................................................................................................57

Effects......................................................................................................................................59

The Soil Resource..........................................................................................................................60

Current Management...............................................................................................................61

Effects......................................................................................................................................61

Water Resources ...........................................................................................................................62

Current Management...............................................................................................................69

Effects......................................................................................................................................69

Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................71
Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Current Management...............................................................................................................71

Effects......................................................................................................................................72

Habitat ..................................................................................................................................................73

Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................78

Current Management...............................................................................................................79

Native Grasslands..........................................................................................................................80

Current Management...............................................................................................................81

Non-Native Grasslands ..................................................................................................................82

Current Management...............................................................................................................82

Other Habitats ................................................................................................................................83

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

Effects for all Habitats ....................................................................................................................84

Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................................85

Resident Wildlife ............................................................................................................................85

Plants.......................................................................................................................................85

Mammals .................................................................................................................................86

Fish and Mussels.....................................................................................................................86

Reptiles and Amphibians.........................................................................................................86

Insects .....................................................................................................................................87

Threatened and Endangered Species ...........................................................................................87

Least Tern – Endangered (Sterna antillarum).........................................................................87

Current Management ........................................................................................................88

Topeka Shiner – Endangered (Notropis topeka).....................................................................88

Current Management ........................................................................................................88

Indiana Bat – Endangered (Myotis sodalis).............................................................................88

Current Management ........................................................................................................88

Prairie Bush Clover – Threatened (Lespedeza leptostachya).................................................89

Current Management ........................................................................................................89

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid – Threatened (Platanthera praeclara) ..................................89

Current Management ........................................................................................................89

Poweshiek Skipperling – Candidate Species (Oarisma poweshiek).......................................91

Current Management ........................................................................................................91

Dakota Skipper – Candidate Species (Hesperia dacotae)......................................................91

Current Management ........................................................................................................92

Migratory Birds ...............................................................................................................................92

Waterfowl.................................................................................................................................92

Current Management ........................................................................................................93

Shorebirds ...............................................................................................................................93

Current Management ........................................................................................................94

Waterbirds ...............................................................................................................................95

Current Management ........................................................................................................95

Grassland Birds .......................................................................................................................95

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

Invasive Species ............................................................................................................................96

Current Management...............................................................................................................97

Effects for all Wildlife......................................................................................................................97

People.................................................................................................................................................102

Socioeconomic Setting.................................................................................................................103

Current Situation....................................................................................................................103

Demographics .................................................................................................................103

Agriculture, Commodity Prices and Land Valuation .......................................................103

Environmental Justice.....................................................................................................104

Land Use Patterns ..........................................................................................................104

Effects....................................................................................................................................106

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................108

Current Management.............................................................................................................108
Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Effects....................................................................................................................................109

Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................111

Native American History and Early Settlement .....................................................................111

Cultural Resource Management............................................................................................112

Effects....................................................................................................................................113

District Administration ..................................................................................................................113

Current Situation....................................................................................................................113

District Support.............................................................................................................................114

Current Situation....................................................................................................................114

Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative .................................................115

Objectives and Strategies...................................................................................................................115

Goal 1: Wildlife .............................................................................................................................115

Issue 1-1: Focal species group and life cycle........................................................................115

Goal 2: Habitat .............................................................................................................................118

Issue 2-1: Prolonged decline of grassland-dependent bird populations due to the decline of 

grassland habitat ...................................................................................................................118

Issue 2-2: Upland habitat quality ...........................................................................................120

Issue 2-3: Focal wetland type................................................................................................123

Issue 2-4: Wetland quality .....................................................................................................126

Issue 2-5: Food plot use ........................................................................................................129

Strategic Land Protection.............................................................................................................131

Issues 2-6 and 2-7: Decreasing purchasing power of existing funds and priority areas for 

acquisition..............................................................................................................................131

Goal 3: People .............................................................................................................................133

Issue 3-1: District awareness and understanding .................................................................133

Issue 3-2: Appropriate recreational opportunities..................................................................135

Appendix B: Species Lists ...................................................................................................140

Plants..................................................................................................................................................140

Mammals ............................................................................................................................................146

Birds....................................................................................................................................................148

Fish and Mussels................................................................................................................................158

Reptiles and Amphibians....................................................................................................................164

Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary...........................................................................166

Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................166

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................167

Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance.............................................................................178

Appendix E: Literature Cited................................................................................................191

Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations........................................................................199

Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations ...............................................................202

Appendix H: List of Preparers and Contributors ................................................................250

Appendix I: Communications...............................................................................................252

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................................................252

Tribes..................................................................................................................................................252

Individuals...........................................................................................................................................252

Media ..................................................................................................................................................252

Congressional Officials.......................................................................................................................253

Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

...............................................................................................................................................257
Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: The Iowa WMD........................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1-2: The Prairie Pothole Region ........................................................................................................ 4

Figure 1-3: Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements (black dots) and Area of Responsibility (gray 

shading) Managed by the Iowa WMD........................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2-1: Significant Events in the Establishment of the Iowa WMD.......................................................13

Figure 2-2: WMDs Established Under the Small Wetlands Program .........................................................14

Figure 2-3: Priority Wetland Complexes for Acquisition and Restoration in the Iowa WMD ......................15

Figure 2-4: Existing Basins in the Iowa WMD for Potential Wetland Restoration (Example).....................16

Figure 2-5: Conservation Initiatives Relevant to the Iowa WMD ................................................................19

Figure 2-6: Protected* Land in Iowa ...........................................................................................................28

Figure 4-1: Bailey’s Ecoregional Provinces, Sections, and Subsections for the Iowa WMD......................55

Figure 4-2: The Landforms of Iowa.............................................................................................................56

Figure 4-3: Soils of the Iowa WMD .............................................................................................................63

Figure 4-4: Historic and Existing Wetland Comparison of the Iowa WMD .................................................65

Figure 4-5: Watersheds, Rivers, and Lakes of the Iowa WMD...................................................................67

Figure 4-6: Iowa’s Remaining Tallgrass Prairie Remnants.........................................................................74

Figure 4-7: Potential Natural Vegetation of the Iowa WMD ........................................................................75

Figure 4-8: National Land Cover (2006) of the Iowa WMD.........................................................................76

Figure 4-9: Vegetative Cover for Spring Run Waterfowl Production Area in the Iowa WMD.....................77

Figure 4-10: National Wetlands Inventory of the Iowa WMD......................................................................80

Figure 4-11: Topeka Shiner Critical Habitat in Iowa ...................................................................................90

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Past Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Projects within the Iowa WMD ............................25

Table 2-2: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Projects within the Iowa WMD Recorded in HabITS* .26

Table 2-3: Step-Down Management Plan Completion Schedule for the Iowa WMD .................................31

Table 3-1: Alternative-driving Issues and all “Solutions” Considered for the Iowa WMD ...........................39

Table 3-2: Management Alternatives Initially Considered for the Iowa WMD ............................................40

Table 3-3: Management Alternatives Considered in Detail for the Iowa WMD ..........................................42

Table 3-4: Objectives for All Management Alternatives Considered in Detail for the Iowa WMD ..............43

Table 3-5: Solutions to Issues Initially Considered but Eliminated for the Iowa WMD ...............................48

Table 3-6: Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative for the Iowa WMD .........................51

Table 4-1: Iowa WMD Vegetative Cover Type Classifications as of Summer 2011...................................74

Table 4-2: National Wetlands Inventory Water Regime for the Iowa WMD’s Wet Acres ...........................79

Executive Summary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-1

Executive Summary

Introduction

This Environmental Assessment documents the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process for developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Iowa Wetland 

Management District (WMD, district). In general, scoping reveals issues that drive alternative 

ways of managing the district. Implementation of each of those alternative management styles 

(including the No Action Alternative) may have different effects on the physical, biological, and 

socio-economic environment. Analysis of these effects reveals the “preferred” alternative, which 

constitutes the CCP. The CCP includes goals, objectives, and strategies for the district to guide 

overall management for the next 15 years. 

The Iowa WMD consists of scattered tracts of habitat (both wetland and upland grassland) 

known as Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs). As of 2011, there are 75 WPAs in 18 counties 

in north-central Iowa totaling 24,712 acres in fee title primarily managed by the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Even though district acquisition has only occurred in 

18 counties to date, a larger 35-county boundary is approved. This boundary follows the 

historic range of the poorly drained Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) in Iowa, an area known for its 

waterfowl production. The district also includes 575 WPA acres and approximately 434 Farm 

Service Agency acres in conservation easements on private land. This plan was prepared with 

the intent that the strong partnership with the Iowa DNR will continue over the next 15 years. 

District Vision

Waterfowl and other winged wildlife herald the richness of resilient, productive wetlands and 

tallgrass prairies, bringing appreciation and satisfaction to visitors, the rewards of enduring 

commitments across ownerships throughout the Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa.

District Goals

Wildlife: In partnership with the Iowa DNR and others, restore a natural diversity and 

abundance of waterfowl, migratory birds, and other native fauna within the Iowa WMD.

Habitat: In partnership with the Iowa DNR and others, conserve, restore, and expand grassland 

and wetland habitat managing for a natural diversity of native flora within the Iowa WMD.

People: In partnership with the Iowa DNR and others, promote understanding, appreciation,

and support for the Iowa WMD as well as stewardship and understanding of the southern Prairie 

Pothole Region and its native ecosystems to visitors and local residents.

Public Involvement

Initial conversations about comprehensive planning for the district began mid-year of 2009;

however, the official scoping period began in December 2011. In addition to identifying 

information that would be needed in the planning process, district staff also developed a 

communication plan and a preliminary list of issues to be addressed in the CCP. The public 

scoping period began on January 30, 2012 and lasted for 30 days. The public was contacted 
Executive Summary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-2

through letters, new releases, and open house meetings. The open houses gave the public an 

opportunity to discuss issues with district and Iowa DNR staff and regional planners. 

Issues

Scoping produced ten issues that were addressed when developing alternative ways of 

managing the district: 

• What species group and life cycle is the focus of district management?

• How should the district address the decrease in populations of grassland-dependent

birds due to the decline of grassland habitat?

• How can the district improve/maintain upland habitat quality?

• What wetland type is the focus of district management?

• How can the district improve/maintain wetland quality?

• How can the district manage food plot use?

• How will the district address the decreasing purchasing power of existing funds? 

• What are the district’s priority areas for acquisition? 

• How can the district promote awareness and understanding of WPAs as well as educate 

the public on the importance of their management?

• What public uses can the district allow that are appropriate and compatible with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) and National Wildlife Refuge System mission 

and meet the public demand for more recreational opportunities? 

Preferred Alternative

Four management alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) were developed based on 

the issues determined during scoping. The primary driver for each alternative was focal species 

group and life cycle. Alternative D is the preferred alternative and is mostly a combination of the 

other alternatives (including parts of the No Action Alternative). Breeding waterfowl, primarily 

represented by Mallard and Blue-winged Teal would be the focus for management activities. 

The dominant activity would be restoring cropland to perennial grassland and wetlands. 

Restoration efforts would be the same as current management with a focus on a variety of 

prairie pothole wetlands, in particular temporary and seasonal types, many of which would 

complement shallow lake restoration by the Iowa DNR. More diverse habitat would allow for 

more diversity in wildlife, in particular, other grassland/wetland birds. Acquisition of the potholes

would initially be the same as current management, working with partners to pursue perpetual 

protection of wetland and grassland of up to 112,000 acres in the PPR, but may be modified by 

new landscape-level planning tools and models developed (with more recent data/information). 

Food plot use would be at levels that do not materially detract from breeding waterfowl. 

Additional public use opportunities that have been found to be appropriate and compatible

would occur. Environmental education, interpretation, and outreach, however, would remain 

similar to current levels with more effort placed on distributing a consistent message for the 

entire district through coordination meetings, additional kiosks, trails, pull-offs, etc., and an 
Executive Summary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-3

informational and regulatory brochure. Other “elements common to all alternatives” that are 

also a part of the preferred alternative include the following:

• The general management direction in this plan would apply to all district properties in 

which the Service has acquired an interest across the 35 counties.

• Existing WPAs or other district properties would be inventoried as necessary; any new 

techniques implemented would be monitored as necessary to allow for adaptive 

management; and research would be designed when and where it was needed to 

support and/or guide management.

• Since one of the goals of refuge/district planning is, “to provide a basis for adaptive 

management by monitoring progress, evaluating plan implementation, and updating 

refuge plans accordingly” (FWS, 2000), the adaptive management process would be 

utilized in the district.

• The portions of three WPAs—Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh 

(Worth County), and Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties)— currently closed by 

state regulation as waterfowl refuges will remain closed.

• After the Federal Register codification process (50 CFR) is completed in 2014, the 

following regulation would apply to the Service’s fee title property within the Iowa WMD: 

“You may only use or possess approved nontoxic shot shells while in the field, including 

shot shells used for hunting wild turkey (see § 32.2(k)).”

• The district would attempt to reduce its contribution to climate change as well as monitor 

the effects of climate change in the district. 

Environmental Consequences

The effects on the environment from implementing the various alternatives were disclosed, 

analyzed, and summarized. Most effects from all alternatives will be beneficial, in particular, 

over the long-term at the landscape level. Converting cropland to perennial grassland, restoring 

wetlands, and improving habitat for wildlife are key benefits to the natural system as well as the 

services it provides. There will be some adverse effects as well; however, most will be 

generally short-lived and at a local scale from particular activities. Examples include prescribed 

fire, new kiosk, trail or pull-off construction, and increased visitor use. Some of the larger or 

more intense adverse effects include operational inputs contributing to climate change and 

reduction in farm income for some cooperative farmers/managers. 

Implementation

The following objectives will guide management of the district over the next 15 years:

• Over the 15-year life of the CCP, increase the breeding population of Mallard by 450 

pairs and Blue-winged Teal by 450 pairs on protected wetlands (permanent state and 

federal ownership) in the PPR of Iowa, and develop strategies, as part of the district’s 

Inventory and Monitoring Plan, to set recruitment goals for these species in the PPR of 

Iowa. 

• Over the 15-year life of the CCP, increase native grassland habitat by 7,500 acres with a 

plant diversity of 100 or more species, and provide more suitable habitat (in terms of 
Executive Summary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-4

vegetative structure as will be defined in the district’s Habitat Management Plan) in 

existing grassland for a wide variety of grassland-dependent birds within the Iowa WMD.

• At the end of the 15-year life of the CCP, perennial grassland, preferably native, is 

present on at least 97 percent of the uplands of the Iowa WMD. 

• At the end of the 15-year life of the CCP a variety of wetland types (75 percent 

temporary and seasonal, 15 percent semi-permanent, and 10 percent permanent) exist 

across the Iowa WMD as representative of the pre-Euro-American settlement landscape. 

• Over the 15-year life of the CCP, wetlands within the Iowa WMD are restored and 

managed to provide breeding waterfowl pair densities of at least 0.9 pairs per wetland 

acre.

• During the 15-year life of the CCP, food plots are present on no greater than three 

percent of the upland acres within the Iowa WMD.

• Over the 15-year life of the CCP, continue to pursue perpetual protection of wetland and 

grassland of up to 112,000 acres in the PPR of Iowa in collaboration with county, state,

and other federal governments, conservation organizations, private businesses, and 

concerned citizens. Landscape-level planning tools (i.e., four-square mile survey, 

restorable wetlands layer, etc.) utilized by Iowa DNR and the Service’s Habitat and 

Population Evaluation Team office will guide partners as to where strategic land 

acquisition should occur. 

• Within 15 years of CCP approval, provide the infrastructure on three WPAs (such as 

trails, kiosks, pull-offs, etc.) and information (brochure, website, Facebook page, etc.) 

necessary for visitors to appreciate resources in the Iowa WMD, as defined in the Visitor 

Services Plan. 

• Upon implementation of the CCP, allow uses required by regulation (hunting, 

recreational fishing, and recreational trapping—all in accordance with state regulations) 

as well as other public uses deemed appropriate and compatible across the Iowa WMD. 

Within four years of CCP approval, appropriate and compatible uses will be clearly 

articulated to the public through uniform signage, brochures, and Iowa DNR and Iowa 

WMD websites as identified in the Visitor Services Plan.
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed 

Action

In this chapter:

The Process and the Plan

The Chapter

The District

Proposed Action

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Decisions to be Made

The Process and the Plan

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process for developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Iowa Wetland 

Management District (WMD, district). The planning process to develop a CCP includes eight 

steps (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS, Service], 2000):

1. Preplanning: Planning the Plan

2. Initiate Public Involvement and Scoping

3. Review Vision Statement and Goals and Determine Significant Issues

4. Develop and Analyze Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

5. Prepare Draft Plan and NEPA Document

6. Prepare and Adopt Final Plan

7. Implement Plan, Monitor, and Evaluate

8. Review and Revise Plan

In general, scoping reveals issues that drive alternative ways of managing the district. 

Implementation of each of those alternative management styles (including the No Action 

Alternative) may have different effects on the physical, biological, and socio-economic 

environment. Analysis of these effects reveals the alternative that best:

• Achieves the district purposes, vision, and goals;

• Fulfills the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) mission;

• Maintains and where appropriate restores ecological integrity of the district and the 

Refuge System (of which the district is a part);

• Addresses significant issues and mandates; and is

• Consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

This alternative is preferred and therefore constitutes the CCP. The CCP includes goals, 

objectives, and strategies for the district to guide overall management for the next 15 years. 

Monitoring and evaluation of implementing the plan provides a basis for eventual review and 

revision (as necessary). Public, partner, tribal, and other stakeholder input guides the planning 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

process and, in turn, the long-term management decisions of the district. The plan primarily 

applies to fee title properties; however, it also applies to all easement types within the district if 

legally allowed with the general exception of management direction regarding visitor services. 

The Chapter 

Chapter 1 provides introductory material that explains the purpose and need for the proposed 

action, provides background information about the district, and describes the decisions to be 

made from this EA. 

The District

The Iowa WMD consists of scattered tracts of habitat (both wetland and upland grassland) 

known as Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs). As of 2011, there are 75 WPAs in 18 counties 

in north-central Iowa totaling 24,712 acres in fee title and 575 acres in wetland and habitat 

easements (FWS, 2011a) (figure 1-1). While the Duck Stamp funds used to purchase the land 

are federal, the agency primarily responsible for restoration and management of the habitat is 

the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Even though district acquisition has only occurred 

in 18 counties to date, a larger 35-county boundary is approved. This boundary follows the 

historic range of the poorly drained Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) (figure 1-2) in Iowa, an area 

known for its waterfowl production due to its prime “pothole” wetland habitat. Union Slough 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) in Titonka, Iowa administers the district, which also 

includes 18 tracts (434.6 acres) of Farm Service Agency (FSA) conservation easements on 

private land (figure 1-3). This plan was prepared with the intent that the strong partnership with 

the Iowa DNR will continue over the next 15 years. 

Easements 

The district currently inspects 44 wetland easements, one habitat easement, and 18 FSA

conservation easements annually. These inspections include a visual search of aerial 

photography to look for tile drainage, ditches, filling, excavation, dumping, or any other violation. 

Field evaluations are also completed to make recommendations for habitat improvements and 

to discuss weed control and other general management issues. Letters are also sent to 

easement owners reminding them of its provisions and importance for waterfowl production. 

Violations are typically addressed by Service law enforcement staff seeking voluntary 

compliance. Some of the most common easement violations in the district are crop 

encroachment, rock dumping, and excavation (consolidation drainage). Finally, the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program biologist stationed at Union Slough NWR prioritizes habitat 

enhancement projects and works with easement owners to repair and replace dikes and other 

water control structures. 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

Figure 1-1: The Iowa WMD
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

Figure 1-2: The Prairie Pothole Region

Figure 1-3: Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements (black dots) and Area of 

Responsibility (gray shading) Managed by the Iowa WMD

Proposed Action

The Service proposes to prepare and implement a CCP for the Iowa WMD. Per the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) (Public Law, 1997), the 

CCP must identify and describe the following:
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

• Purposes of the district

• Fish, wildlife, and plant populations, their habitats, and the archeological and cultural 

values found in the district

• Significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and 

ways to correct or mitigate those problems

• Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities

• Opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation

More specifically per Service Manual direction (FWS, 2000), the CCP includes the following:

• A vision for the district, which is a concise statement of what the district should be, or 

what it is desired to be, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific 

district purposes, and other mandates

• Goals, which are broad statements of desired future conditions

• Objectives, which are concise statements of what, how much, when, and where to 

achieve something and who is responsible for the work

• Strategies, which are specific actions, tools, techniques, etc. to meet the objectives

Finally, the CCP for the Iowa WMD focuses on the following aspects of management:

• Focal species group and life cycle

• Prolonged decline of grassland-dependent bird populations due to the decline of 

grassland habitat

• Upland habitat quality

• Focal wetland type

• Wetland quality

• Food plot use

• Decreasing purchasing power of existing funds and priority areas for acquisition

• District awareness and understanding 

• Appropriate recreational opportunities

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

The Improvement Act requires the development of a CCP for each refuge/district of the Refuge 

System. These CCPs are to be completed within 15 years of enactment of the Improvement 

Act, which is October 2012. No CCP currently exists for the district, so there is a need to 

develop one. The purpose then, of the proposed action is to determine the desired future 

conditions of the Iowa WMD and develop long-range (15-year) guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the district. This management direction will provide for the 

conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related habitats, as well as 

opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses (FWS, 2000) especially in the 
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

face of a changing climate (temperature and moisture changes may dramatically alter the entire 

PPR’s available waterfowl habitat). 

Per the Service Manual (FWS, 2000), the CCP for the district will not only describe the desired 

future conditions and management direction to achieve those conditions but will also:

• Help fulfill the NWRS Mission, which includes WMDs; 

• Maintain and where appropriate restore the ecological integrity of the district and the 

greater Refuge System of which it is a part; 

• Help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

• Meet other mandates, especially Secretarial Order 3289 Amendment 1: Addressing the 

Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural 

Resources of 2010.

Decisions to be Made

The Regional Director for the Service’s Midwest Region (Region 3) will make the following two 

decisions based on this EA: 

• Select an alternative to serve as the CCP, and provide long-term management direction 

for the district; and 

• Determine if the selected alternative is a major federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment, thus requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement.

The planning team recommends Alternative D: Breeding Waterfowl, the preferred alternative, to 

the Regional Director. The Draft CCP, as described in chapter 3 and appendix A, was 

developed for implementation based on this recommendation.
Chapter2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

Chapter 2: District Planning Context

In this chapter:

Refuge System Planning Guidance

District Management Guidance

Relationship to Other Conservation Initiatives

The Planning Process

This chapter describes the organizational, legal and policy context in regards to planning for and 

management of the Iowa Wetland Management District (WMD, district). This includes the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) mission, the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 

Refuge System) mission, goals, and guiding principles as well as the history of the district and 

its purpose, vision, and goals.

Refuge System Planning Guidance

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Iowa WMD is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary federal 

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

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

management and protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant 

fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species Act, restoration of wildlife habitat such as 

wetlands, collaboration with international conservation efforts, and the distribution of 

conservation funding to states, territories, and tribes. Through its conservation work, the 

Service also provides a healthy environment in which Americans can engage in outdoor 

activities. Additionally, as one of three land managing agencies in the Department of the Interior 

(DOI), the Service is responsible for the Nation’s Refuge System.

FWS Mission

Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

The National Wildlife Refuge System

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

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

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

refuge), 38 districts, and 49 coordination areas covering over 150 million acres of public lands 

and waters. Over 50 percent of these lands (over 76 million acres) are contained within Alaska’s 

16 refuges, with the remainder distributed throughout the other 49 states and U.S. territories. 

Since 2006, Marine National Monuments have been added to the Refuge System, bringing over 

50 million additional acres in the Pacific Ocean under federal protection and conservation 

management.

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

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

220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species, 200 species of fish, and more 
Chapter2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

than 280 threatened or endangered plants and animals. As a result of international treaties for 

migratory bird conservation and related legislation (e.g., Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929), many refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migration 

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

also play a vital role in preserving threatened and endangered species. 

Refuges also provide important recreation and education opportunities for visitors. When public 

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

places where people can enjoy hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

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

refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental education 

programs. Nationwide, over 41 million people visit national wildlife refuges annually.

NWRS Mission

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

NWRS Goals

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

601, chapter 1, (601 FW1) of the Service Manual (FWS, 2006). The goals are:

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

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered;

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

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed 

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

ranges;

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

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

underrepresented in existing protection efforts;

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

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

education and interpretation); and

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

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

NWRS Guiding Principles

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

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

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

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

quality of the American life;
Chapter2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Refuge System;

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

essential;

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

empowering, mentoring, and caring work environment; 

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

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

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

of our work.

Ecological Integrity 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the Service to ensure 

that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. In response to this direction, the 

Service used a public process to develop policy that provides specific guidance to maintain 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, collectively referred to as ecological 

integrity (FWS, 2001). The policy contains a process to evaluate each refuge/district and identify 

the best management direction to prevent degradation of environmental conditions; and where 

appropriate and in concert with refuge/district purposes and the Refuge System mission, restore 

lost or severely degraded components of ecological integrity as compared to those found under 

historic conditions. The ecological integrity components include the following: 

• Biological Integrity—Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, 

organism, and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the 

natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities. 

• Biological Diversity—The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur. 

• Environmental Health—Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and 

other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic 

processes that shape the environment. 

• Historic Conditions—Composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting 

from natural processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were 

present prior to substantial human-related changes to the landscape. 

Maintaining the ecological integrity of a WMD is particularly challenging given that Waterfowl 

Production Areas (WPAs), although locally large complexes, are rather small and isolated within 

their larger landscape. For Iowa WMD, like many others, much of the larger landscape is in 
Chapter2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

heavy agricultural use. Therefore, WPAs are greatly influenced by the movement of sediment, 

nutrients, and agricultural chemicals from adjacent crop fields. This has led to decreased plant 

diversity and openings for many invasive plants to become established. These invasive plants 

often form dense stands and crowd out native vegetation. 

Furthermore, water quality in district wetlands has deteriorated due to sedimentation and 

eutrophication caused by runoff from neighboring farm fields. According to an unpublished 

report from a 1995 U. S. Geological Survey study at Union Slough NWR, the mean sediment 

increase in refuge pools from 1938 to 1995 was 2.62 feet, or more than 0.5 inches per year. In 

addition to sedimentation problems, a contaminant study conducted at Union Slough NWR from 

1995 to 1997 found numerous wetland quality issues including: nitrate loading, elevated levels 

of ammonia, low dissolved oxygen levels, limited benthic macroinvertebrate diversity, limited 

wetland plant diversity, massive phytoplankton blooms, and elevated selenium levels (Coffey,

2000). The source of many of these problems is the effluent of drainage tiles that dump into 

wetlands. The tile introduces a pathway for excess sediment, nutrients, and pesticides to enter 

the wetlands. The influence of consolidated water from drainage tile in wetlands can effectively 

interrupt the important and natural wet/dry cycle of Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) wetlands. The 

combination of more stable water conditions and the introduction of more sediment, nutrients,

and pesticides have contributed to dense cattail stands in shallow water areas and wet meadow 

zones that are dominated by reed canarygrass. Collaborating with the Iowa DNR and others, 

working within watersheds, and building complexes through acquisition rather than smallscattered tracts all help maintain the ecological integrity of the district within its landscape. 

Cooperative Farming

The Service has utilized farming on district land as a tool in restoring native habitats, controlling 

noxious weeds, and providing food for migratory birds and resident wildlife. Typically, farming 

programs involve both Department of Natural Resources (DNR) staff and equipment or a third 

party, often referred to as a “cooperator,” who farms under the terms and conditions of a 

cooperative habitat management agreement. The DNR develops and manages the agreements 

to establish how long farming is allowed on a specific tract, the crops and crop rotation that will 

be used, the process of selecting cooperators, and payment rates. For the past several years, 

the Service has been reducing the number of acres farmed on Refuge System land. Farming 

policy and changes in agricultural practices, such as the increased use of genetically-modified 

crops, prompted a need to reevaluate farming on Service land in the Midwest Region. 

In 2011, the Service’s Midwest Region completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) for row 

crop farming and the use of genetically modified glyphosate tolerant (GMGT) corn and 

soybeans on refuge/district land (FWS, 2011c). Under the selected alternative, beginning in 

calendar year 2012, the use of GMGT corn and soybeans on Refuge System land in the 

Midwest Region would continue only for the purpose of habitat restoration. According to the EA, 

the use of GMGT corn and soybeans would be limited to five years on any individual tract being 

prepared for habitat restoration. Farming could continue to be used as a management tool for 

achieving multiple objectives; however, it would be limited to non-GMGT crops for objectives 

other than habitat restoration. Multiple objectives include but are not limited to the following:

• Habitat restoration

• Habitat management

• Supplemental food for wildlife 
Chapter2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

• Providing lure crops on public lands to reduce wildlife depredation on private lands

• Enhancing opportunities to hunt, view, and photograph wildlife for the visiting public

Similarly, the Service’s ecological integrity policy specifies that GMGT crops cannot be used on 

Refuge System land unless they are “essential to accomplishing refuge [district] purposes.” 

Habitat restoration is a core objective of most refuges (districts) in achieving their purpose and 

in some circumstances, the use of GMGT crops could be essential. However, habitat 

management, supplemental food, and wildlife viewing objectives can more readily be 

accomplished without the use of GMGT seeds, and thus, their use is not likely essential.

Furthermore, refuge and district managers are required to demonstrate that their proposed use 

of GMGT crops is essential for habitat restoration. The Service has established an approval 

process for the use of GMGT corn and soybeans that includes completion of an Eligibility 

Questionnaire for Genetically Modified Crops. When managers propose to use GMGT corn and 

soybeans, they are required to complete this questionnaire as part of the approval process. 

Legal and Policy Compliance

Laws, Executive Orders, and DOI and Service policies guide administration of refuges (including 

WMDs). A list of pertinent statutes and policy guidance are in appendix D.

Wilderness Review

Refuge/district planning policy mandates that wilderness reviews be conducted through the 

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

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

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

wilderness are analyzed for areas that meet the criteria for wilderness established by Congress. 

The criteria are size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, and 

supplemental values. Areas that meet the criteria become Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). In 

the study phase, a range of management alternatives are developed and evaluated for the 

WSAs to determine if they are suitable for recommendation for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. In the recommendation phase, the suitable recommendations 

are forwarded in a Wilderness Study Report that moves from the Director through the Secretary 

and the President to Congress.

No lands within the Iowa WMD meet the criteria for wilderness established by Congress and 

described in Service policy (FWS, 2008b). The Iowa WMD does not contain 5,000 contiguous 

acres of roadless, natural lands, nor does it possess any units of sufficient size to make their 

preservation practicable as wilderness. District lands and waters have been substantially altered 

by humans, especially by agriculture and residential and industrial developments. 

District Management Guidance

General guidance for managing the district comes from several sources including its purposes, 

the Refuge System mission, Service policies, and other laws. The vision and goals developed 

during this planning process will also guide management of the district. 
Chapter2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Brief History of District Establishment and Acquisition

The Iowa WMD, like many other WMDs, was established due to the success of the Small 

Wetlands Program (figure 2-1). To help permanently protect habitat for waterfowl, the Small 

Wetlands Program was officially created in 1958, with an amendment to the 1934 Migratory Bird 

Hunting Stamp Act (also known as the Duck Stamp Act). This amendment allowed proceeds 

from the sale of federal Duck Stamps to be used to acquire WPAs in any state with the 

Director’s (or Director’s appointee) approval (figure 2-2). 

In 1962, to help effectively manage the increasing number of WPAs acquired through the Small 

Wetlands Program, the Service created an administrative organization called a wetland 

management district (WMD). WMDs were established not only to manage all the WPAs in a 

multi-county area, but also to work closely with the private landowners, government and 

nongovernment organizations, businesses, and other federal agencies in their districts to 

improve wildlife habitat. Uniquely, however, in Iowa, with the signing of a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) in 1978, it was decided that while the Service would provide federal Duck 

Stamp funds for land acquisitions, the Iowa DNR would supply the personnel necessary to 

restore and manage those acquisitions (WPAs). The initial approval from the state limited 

acquisition of land to 17 counties in north-central and northwest Iowa. This approval 

established the Iowa WMD, and in 1979 the first tract of land (WPA), known as West Swan 

Marsh, was purchased in Emmet County. A second tract, also in Emmet County, was 

purchased in 1980. Yearly acquisition, however, did not resume in the district until eight years 

later. 

In 1988, through the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) Program, the Iowa DNR established a 

priority area within the state to focus the use of Small Wetlands Program funds. This 35-county 

area in north-central Iowa generally follows the geologic area referred to as the Des Moines 

Lobe. This represents the southernmost advancement of the glaciers that shaped the prairie 

pothole landform in Iowa. Both the approval for acquisition from the state and the MOU with the 

Iowa DNR were revised to include these 35 counties. 

In 2000, the MOU was updated again, and while the 35-county acquisition area remained the 

same, priority was given to the wetland complexes identified in “Identification of potential 

wetland complex restorations in the Iowa Prairie Pothole Region” (Iowa DNR, 1998). The Iowa

DNR revised this plan in 1999 and 2002, and then in 2007, it completed a modeling exercise to 

revise focus areas for acquisition (figure 2-3). 

Between 2000 and 2010, the Service’s Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) also 

developed and completed three revisions of thunderstorm maps utilizing the National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) data to help identify priority sites for acquisition and restoration. Most recently, 

in 2010, the Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) began a 

wetland assessment and restorable wetland inventory to help refine priority acquisition areas. 

This project used Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data to find depressions and substituted 

the NWI wherever available for existing water and wetlands to produce a layer of depressions 

where, if flooded, wetlands may be established (figure 2-4). Currently, the Iowa WMD consists 

of 75 WPAs totaling just over 25,000 acres (including fee title and both wetland and habitat

easements) in 18 counties. Finally, a revision to the MOU was completed in 2012 during the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) planning process (appendix J). 
Chapter2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

Figure 2-1: Significant Events in the Establishment of the Iowa WMD
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Figure 2-2: WMDs Established Under the Small Wetlands Program

District Purposes

Iowa WMD is part of a national network of lands administered by the Service as the Refuge 

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

the legal instrument that established, authorized, or expanded it. The first obligation is to fulfill 

and carry out the purposes of each refuge (or district) (FWS, 2006). The purposes for Iowa 

WMD are based upon its land acquisition authority, which is, the:

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934

. . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to “. . . all of the provisions of such Act 

[Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929]

. . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . ." 16 U.S.C. § 718(c) 

. . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

Figure 2-3: Priority Wetland Complexes for Acquisition and Restoration in the Iowa WMD
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Figure 2-4: Existing Basins in the Iowa WMD for Potential Wetland Restoration (Example)

*Restorable Wetlands Layer Courtesy Iowa DNR
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

District Vision Statement

The vision provides a concise statement of what the district is, or what it is desired to be, based 

primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific district purposes and other mandates. 

The Iowa WMD vision is: 

Waterfowl and other winged wildlife herald the richness of resilient, productive wetlands 

and tallgrass prairies, bringing appreciation and satisfaction to visitors, the rewards of 

enduring commitments across ownerships throughout the Prairie Pothole Region of 

Iowa.

District Goals

The goals are broad statements that describe the desired future conditions of the district.

Goal 1: Wildlife

In partnership with the Iowa DNR and others, restore a natural diversity and abundance 

of waterfowl, migratory birds, and other native fauna within the Iowa WMD.

Goal 2: Habitat

In partnership with the Iowa DNR and others, conserve, restore, and expand grassland 

and wetland habitat managing for a natural diversity of native flora within the Iowa WMD.

Goal 3: People

In partnership with the Iowa DNR and others, promote understanding, appreciation, and 

support for the Iowa WMD as well as stewardship and understanding of the southern 

Prairie Pothole Region and its native ecosystems to visitors and local residents.

Relationship to Other Conservation Initiatives

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Several migratory bird conservation plans have been published over the last decade that can be 

used to help guide management decisions for the district. Bird conservation planning efforts 

have evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation to a regional, even intercontinental, 

landscape-oriented perspective. Several transnational migratory bird conservation initiatives 

have emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. The one regional plan 

most relevant to the majority of the district is the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation 

Plan (http://www.ppjv.org/) (figure 2-5). This plan is a product of stepping-down and 

incorporating all other larger-scale (North American, United States, international, etc.) species 

and other management plans, in particular the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

The PPJV of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an effort by government 

agencies and conservation organizations to protect and restore waterfowl habitat within the PPR 

of the United States and Canada. Although initially targeted at waterfowl species, emphasis 

within the PPJV has been extended to nongame species as well. Research sponsored by Iowa
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

DNR and Iowa State University has demonstrated that a variety of birds and other species of 

greatest conservation need have successfully re-colonized the restored habitats (Zohrer, 2005).

More specifically, the district lies primarily within the Prairie Potholes Bird Conservation Region 

(Bird Conservation Region [BCR] 11) (figure 2-5). This BCR is a glaciated area of mixed-grass 

prairie in the west and tallgrass prairie in the east. This is the most important waterfowl 

production area on the North American continent, despite extensive wetland drainage and 

tillage of native grasslands. Breeding dabbling duck density may exceed 100 pairs per square 

mile in some areas during years with favorable wetland conditions. The region comprises the 

core of the breeding range of most dabbling duck and several diving duck species, as well as 

providing critical breeding and migration habitat for over 200 other bird species, including such 

priority species as Franklin’s Gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan), Yellow Rail (Coturnicops 

noveboracensis), and Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Baird’s Sparrow (Ammodramus 

bairdii), Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii), Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius ornatus), 

Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor), Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa), and American Avocet 

(Recurvirostra americana) are among the many priority non-waterfowl species breeding in this 

region. Wetland areas also provide key spring migration sites for Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa 

haemastica), American Golden-Plover (Pluvialis dominica), White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris 

fuscicollis), and Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis). Continued wetland 

degradation and fragmentation of remaining grasslands threaten future suitability of the PPR for 

all of these birds. 

BCR 11 contains 27 bird species listed as “Of Conservation Concern” by the Service (FWS,

2008a). This list identifies species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds 

that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act. The overall goal of this report is to identify the migratory and nonmigratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or 

endangered) that represent the Service’s highest conservation priorities. The Service based its 

2008 list of Birds of Conservation Concern primarily on the landbird, shorebird, and waterbird 

status assessment scores. Some of the species on this list include Horned Grebe (Podiceps 

auritus), Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Mountain Plover 

(Charadrius montanus), Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus), Short-billed Dowitcher 

(Limnodromus griseus), Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), Grasshopper Sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum) and Dickcissel (Spiza americana).

Strategic Habitat Conservation

Strategic habitat conservation (SHC) is a science-based approach to conservation focused on 

providing landscapes capable of sustaining trust species populations at objective levels. This 

approach is founded on an adaptive, iterative process of biological planning, conservation 

design, conservation delivery, monitoring, and research. SHC is an application of the scientific 

method and adaptive management to conservation at multiple spatial scales. This strategic 

conservation approach will include all Service programs and address both habitat and nonhabitat factors limiting fish and wildlife populations.
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

Figure 2-5: Conservation Initiatives Relevant to the Iowa WMD
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

As a leader in fish and wildlife and habitat conservation and management, the Service is 

embracing a framework designed to maximize agency efficiency and increase on the ground 

conservation impacts. SHC enables the Service to:

• Respond to new environmental challenges;

• Advance opportunities with new and existing partners;

• Utilize science-based tools and resources to plan and evaluate conservation efforts; and

• Continue to ensure conservation successes locally, while advancing landscape 

objectives.

The Service mission can be met at a landscape scale, especially in the face of climate change, 

by:

• Fully utilizing existing technology such as Geographic Information System (GIS);

• Becoming trained in better decision making through the Structured Decision Making 

process;

• Reaching out to even more partners that have the necessary expertise to advance 

knowledge of the resource and its needs at multiple spatial and temporal scales; and 

• Being diligent and transparent in planning and decision making processes. 

SHC Guiding Principles

• Habitat conservation is simply a means to attain the Service’s true goal—the 

conservation of populations and ecological functions that sustain them.

• Defining measurable population objectives is a key component of SHC, at any scale.

• Biological Planning must use the best scientific information available, both as a body of 

knowledge and a method of learning. Service understanding of ecological conditions is 

never perfect. An essential element of SHC is managing uncertainty through an iterative 

cycle of planning, doing, and evaluating.

• Management actions, decisions, and recommendations must be defensible and explicit 

about the nature and magnitude of potential errors.

• Conservation strategies consist of dynamic suites of objectives, tactics, and tools that 

change as new information enters the SHC cycle.

• Partnerships are essential, both for management and for developing conservation 

strategies. 

Plains and Prairie Pothole Landscape Conservation Cooperative

The Service, with support and cooperation from the U.S. Geological Survey, has developed a 

national geographic framework for “putting science in the right places” to conserve our Nation’s 

fish and wildlife resources. Just as flyways provided an effective spatial frame of reference to 

build capacity and partnerships for international, national, state, and local waterfowl 

conservation, the national geographic framework provides a continental platform upon which the 

Service can work with state and other partners to connect project- and site-specific efforts to 
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

larger biological goals and outcomes. By providing visual context for conservation at 

“landscape” scales—the entire range of a priority species or suite of species—the framework 

helps ensure that resource managers have the information and decision making tools they need 

to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats in the most efficient and effective way 

possible.

The Service is using the framework as a basis for locating LCCs. Facilitated by DOI as part of 

its collaborative, science-based response to climate change, LCCs complement and build upon 

existing science and conservation efforts—such as fish habitat partnerships and migratory bird 

joint ventures—as well as water resources, land, and cultural partnerships. Iowa WMD is 

primarily within the boundary of the Plains and Prairie Pothole LCC, which is one of a network of 

partnerships working in unison to ensure the sustainability of America’s land, water, wildlife, and 

cultural resources.

The Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC is dedicated to the conservation of a landscape 

unparalleled in importance to a vast array of unique species whose populations are in steep 

decline. The LCC boundary transcends existing Service regional boundaries and the 

international border with Canada (figure 2-5). Currently, the Service and its partners are 

working to develop and apply the scientific tools necessary to determine how climate change, 

coupled with existing stressors such as the conversion of native prairie for agricultural purposes 

may affect the health and productivity of shared natural resources in this landscape. The actions 

of the Plains and Prairie Pothole LCC will support and supplement state wildlife action plans and 

enhance protection for fish and wildlife resources in the region.

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities

Every species is important; however, the number of species in need of attention exceeds the 

resources of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 of the Service compiled a list of 

Resource Conservation Priorities in 2002. The list includes: 

• All federally listed threatened and endangered species and proposed and candidate 

species that occur in the region;

• Migratory bird species derived from Service-wide and international conservation 

planning efforts; and 

• Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals that represent an 

abbreviation of the Endangered Species Program’s preliminary draft “Species of 

Concern” list for the region. 

Climate Change Planning

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Service’s Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change (FWS, 2010) establishes a basic framework within which the Service will work 

as part of the larger conservation community to help ensure the sustainability of fish, wildlife, 

plants, and habitats in the face of accelerating climate change. It was developed in an effort to 

rise up and respond to, as well as in recognition of, what is perhaps the 21st century’s largest 

stressor on fish, wildlife, and plants: climate change. Part of the plan’s primary purpose is to lay 

out a vision for accomplishing the Service mission to “work with others to conserve, protect, and 
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people” in the face of accelerating climate change. In this plan, a commitment to the Service’s 

vision is expressed through strategic goals and objectives that must be accomplished to sustain 

fish and wildlife nationally and internationally. A 5-Year Action Plan for Implementing the 

Climate Change Strategic Plan identifies specific actions that will lead to the accomplishment of 

these goals and objectives. The goals and objectives most relevant to this planning effort 

include the following: 

• Goal 2: Develop long-term capacity for biological planning and conservation design and 

apply it to drive conservation at broad, landscape scales.

• Objective 2.1: Access regional climate science and modeling expertise through regional 

climate science partnerships.

• Objective 2.2: Develop landscape conservation cooperatives to acquire biological 

planning and conservation design expertise.

• Objective 2.3: Develop expertise in and conduct adaptation planning for key species and 

habitats.

• Objective 2.4: Incorporate climate change in service activities and decisions.

• Objective 2.5: Provide requested support to state and tribal managers to address climate 

change issues that affect fish and wildlife service trust resources.

• Objective 2.6: Evaluate fish and wildlife service laws, regulations, and policies to identify 

barriers to and opportunities for successful implementation of climate change actions.

The Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation (FWS, 2011b) document 

is the Service’s bold, new vision for the Refuge System. This 21st-century strategic vision for 

the Refuge System acknowledges the broad social, political, and economic changes that have 

made habitat conservation more challenging since the agency last set comprehensive goals in 

1999. In the intervening 12 years, the new vision states the Nation’s population has grown 

“larger and more diverse . . . and the landscape for conservation has changed—there is less 

undeveloped land, more invasive species, and we are experiencing the impacts of a changing 

climate.” The document includes 24 recommendations to guide the future of the Refuge 

System. The recommendation most relevant to this planning effort concerning climate change 

is:

Recommendation 2: Develop a climate change implementation plan for the Refuge 

System that dovetails with other conservation partners’ climate change action plans and 

specifically provides guidance for conducting vulnerability assessments of climate 

change impacts to refuge/district habitats and species as well as direction for innovation 

in the reduction of emissions and improved energy efficiency on federal lands.

State of Iowa

The Iowa General Assembly enacted legislation in 2007 and 2008 to create the Iowa Climate 

Change Advisory Council (ICCAC). The ICCAC conducted most of its business from late 2007 

through the end of 2008, concluding with a final report (ICCAC, 2008) to the governor and 

legislature. The focus of that report was the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

in the state. Some progress has been made, but much work remains to be done to reverse the 

general trend of increasing Iowa GHG emissions during the past two decades.
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Following this report, the Iowa Legislature requested additional information on the ramifications 

of climate change for Iowans, and it enacted a new bill in 2009 (amendment). The amendment 

set in motion a review of climate change impacts and policies for the State of Iowa. The final 

product was another report of findings and recommendations to the governor and general 

assembly by the Iowa Climate Change Impacts Committee (ICCIC). The major requirements of 

the study included the following:

• An initial review of available climate change impacts studies relevant to Iowa

• A summary of available data on recent changes in relevant climate conditions

• Identification of climate change impacts issues, which require further research and an 

estimate of their cost

• Identification of important public policy issues relevant to climate change impacts

Therefore, the Climate Change Impacts on Iowa 2010 report was released in 2010 (ICCIC,

2010). One of the major recommendations from this report was to, “Increase investments in 

state programs that enhance wildlife habitat and management and restore public and private 

lands.” The report stated, “Changes in climate will have a direct impact on both game and nongame species.” In general, this report sought to highlight the latest literature documenting 

impacts in Iowa caused by a changing climate. In doing so, several key themes emerged 

including:

• The world is interconnected; changes in climate can easily reverberate across the globe.

• Iowans cannot reverse global climate change alone.

• Climate extremes cause the greatest impacts on people and the planet.

• Water: Too little limits drinking water and causes disease; too much generates floods, 

soil erosion, and other disease; changes in precipitation may prove to be one of the 

greatest impacts to such an agricultural region.

While this report relates most to how Iowans might adapt to climate change, ultimately 

mitigation efforts will be needed worldwide to reverse the trends discussed within.

Furthermore, the Iowa Smart Planning Act was signed into law in 2010, which articulates ten 

Iowa Smart Planning Principles. Smart Planning Principle 8: Natural Resources and Agricultural 

Protection includes three relevant adaptation planning strategies:

• Identify and protect wetland areas that are critical to slow the release of water into 

streams during times of extreme rain events;

• Establish strategies to promote redevelopment and compact new development that will 

minimize the conversion of farmland and woodland for urban use, to reduce the amount 

of impervious surface coverage in watersheds; and

• Develop state plans and programs to help farmers incorporate environmental protection 

practices, such as wetland protection, wetland restoration, buffer strips, and natural 

ground cover (grasses) that have been shown to lessen the “flashiness” of stream flow. 

Promote federal, state, and local funding for preservation of open space, farm, and 

forest land.
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

Iowa’s State Wildlife Action Plan

The Iowa DNR and over 100 public and private partners developed the Iowa state wildlife action 

plan with a 25-year vision for addressing concerns regarding 999 of Iowa’s birds, mammals, 

fish, amphibians, reptiles, mussels, land snails, dragonflies, and damselflies. Of the species 

considered, 147 are game species, and 297 are considered species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN); nearly one third of all Iowa species are in need of conservation effort to prevent 

eventual candidacy for threatened or endangered status. Fish and birds have the greatest total 

number of species listed as SGCN, but aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife have the highest 

percentages of their total number of species listed. Riverine habitats have the greatest number 

of SGCN among aquatic habitats, and woodlands have the most among the terrestrial habitats 

(Zohrer, 2005). 

The vision elements and conservation actions in the plan are not specifically designed to be 

implemented by Iowa DNR. They are designed to provide a broad framework of actions that can 

be undertaken by conservationists at all levels of government, by private conservation 

organizations, and by private citizens. Extensive coordination will be necessary between 

stakeholders to make the vision a reality.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

It is estimated that 73 percent of land in the United States and 98 percent of the land in Iowa is 

privately owned, and that the majority of fish and wildlife resources occur on those lands. 

Consequently, the conservation lands held by federal and state agencies and other 

conservation groups cannot completely provide for fish and wildlife needs. Because the habitat 

needs of all species of interest to the Service cannot be met solely on public lands, public funds 

are also expended on private lands to accomplish habitat improvements through programs such 

as the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program).

The Partners Program provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners and 

tribes who are willing to, on a voluntary basis, help meet the habitat needs of the Service’s 

federal trust species. The Partners Program assists with projects in a diversity of habitat types, 

which conserve or restore native vegetation, hydrology, and soils associated with imperiled 

ecosystems. Locally based field biologists work one-on-one with private landowners and other 

partners to plan, implement, and monitor their projects. The Partners Program field staff help 

landowners find other sources of funding and help them through the permitting process. This 

personal attention and follow-through is a strength of the program and has led to national 

recognition and wide support.

The Partners Program is guided by a national policy (FWS, 2003) with the following objectives:

• Promote and implement habitat improvement projects that benefit federal trust species; 

• Provide conservation leadership, and promote partnerships; 

• Encourage public understanding and participation; and 

• Work with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement conservation programs.
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

The Partners Program works in a diversity of habitat types throughout the State of Iowa. 

Designated as a Partners Program focus area, the Des Moines Lobe lies within the boundaries 

of the district. Typical Partners Program efforts within this focus area strive to restore wetlands 

and surrounding upland habitats to form complexes of habitat for maximum benefit to grassland 

and wetland migratory birds. Most of the original tallgrass prairie and wetlands within this focus 

area are now row crop agriculture, primarily corn and soybeans. 

Over the past fifteen years, the Partners Program at Iowa WMD and Union Slough NWR has 

assisted with restoring nearly 3,600 acres of upland and wetland habitat in over 185 projects 

(tables 2-1 and 2-2). The program has a five-year target for habitat restoration of 250 wetland 

acres and 500 upland acres as well as a five-year target for habitat enhancement of 150 

wetland acres and 250 upland acres. Primary partners in this effort include the USDA, Iowa

DNR, County Conservation Boards (CCBs), Pheasants Forever, The Nature Conservancy, 

Ducks Unlimited, and private landowners.

This work has the potential to affect a variety of wildlife species. For example, the endangered 

Topeka shiner will benefit directly from wetland restoration of riverine oxbows and secondarily 

from both tallgrass prairie and oak savanna restoration through improved water quality. In 

addition, this type of restoration project will help improve habitat conditions for numerous other 

species such as the federally threatened western prairie fringed orchid and prairie bush clover 

as well as additional species of special concern to the state and other conservation agencies. 

Many of these species are listed as SGCN by the Iowa DNR including Buff-breasted Sandpiper 

(Tryngites subruficollis), American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Bobolink (Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus), and Dickcissel (Spiza americana).

The result of a century and a half of change on Iowa’s landscape has been a huge shift in the 

composition of Iowa’s plant communities and the wildlife that inhabits them. With fertile soils and 

a favorable climate, it is likely that much of Iowa will remain in agriculture and private ownership 

in the near future. Large tracts of land for biodiversity management are seldom available; 

therefore, utilizing a private lands approach is a critical part of overall conservation in Iowa. 

Table 2-1: Past Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Projects within the Iowa WMD

Year Wetland Riparian Upland

Acres Number* Acres Number* Acres Number*

1997 650.9 31 0 0 649.4 24

1998 185.8 25 0 0 97.5 10

1999 130.9 25 0 0 119.6 10

2000 44.9 13 0 1 229.1 17

2001 66 11 225 ft. 0 112.9 14

2002 32.7 5 225 ft. 1 80 12

*Refers to individual projects. 
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

Table 2-2: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Projects within the Iowa WMD

Recorded in HabITS*

Year Wetland Upland Invasive Species Wood Duck Box/

Nesting Structure

Acres Number** Acres Number** Acres Number** Boxes

2001 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

2002 37.2 6 76.5 11 0 0 0

2003 23.5 4 37.1 6 0 0 5

2004 10 3 283.25 11 0 0 5

2005 13 3 40 5 0 0 1

2006 10.48 4 0.66 1 0 0 0

2007 4.5 1 132.34 3 342.77 6 0

2008 61.1 5 5.33 3 150.48 4 0

2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2010 0 0 0 0 103 3 0

*Current tracking database for Partners Program Projects, Habitat Information Tracking System.

**Refers to individual projects. 

Iowa DNR Private Lands Program 

The Iowa DNR’s Private Lands Program has also completed substantial habitat work within the 

district. Since the program began, over 148,000 acres of habitat restoration or improvement 

have been planned and nearly 70,000 acres have been implemented (figure 2-6). This includes 

activities such as converting cropland to grassland, interseeding, prescribed burning, woody 

invasion removal, wetland restoration, and edge feathering. 

Bird Conservation Areas

Bird Conservation Areas (BCAs) have been designated by Iowa DNR as significant habitat 

complexes for birds generally following guidelines established by Partners in Flight. They are 

areas of 10,000 acres or more made up of a core area of permanently protected natural habitat 

surrounded by a matrix of public and private natural lands. While targeted specifically at birds, 

large tracts of natural habitat such as these have been identified as providing significant habitat 

protection and restoration potential for SGCN. Seven BCAs occur within the district: Spring Run 

in Dickinson County, Eagle Lake Wetlands in Winnebago and Hancock Counties, Dewey’s 

Pasture in Emmet, Palo Alto, and Clay Counties, Union Hills in Cerro Gordo County, Lower 

Morse Lake in Wright County, Raccoon River Savanna in Guthrie County, and Chichaqua-Neal 

Smith in Polk and Jasper Counties (figure 2-5). 

Important Bird Areas

Iowa Audubon's Important Bird Areas (IBAs) Program is a citizen-led, science-based and datadriven bird conservation initiative. The district contains nine IBAs with joint BCA designation 

and 18 other IBAs scattered across its counties (figure 2-5). The intent of the program is to:

• Identify, recognize, and prioritize habitats that support the most seriously declining 

species of birds;
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

• Monitor bird populations and habitat conditions, and organize education programs at 

designated IBA sites where appropriate; and

• Work with landowners and land managers to develop and implement long-term 

conservation plans to protect, restore, enhance and manage IBAs according to their 

environmental threats and conservation needs. 

Wetland Reserve Program

The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) was established with the 1990 Farm Bill. Major flooding 

that covered Iowa and the Midwest in 1993 led to an effort designed to get development and 

agriculture out of areas prone to flood and return them to their original wetland condition. Iowa

DNR in cooperation with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and other 

partners have been able to acquire permanent easements in nearly every county within the 

district (figure 2-6). Iowa DNR is working with landowners to enroll lands in the WRP and 

acquire their residual value so that these lands will be managed for wildlife.

According to the NRCS, the cumulative acres enrolled in WRP in the State of Iowa in 2008 

totaled just over 80,000. In 2010, an additional 3,548 acres were enrolled in WRP across the 

state, down from 4,184 acres enrolled in 2009. Cumulatively then, in 2010, nearly 88,000 acres 

were enrolled in WRP across the state.

Furthermore, the Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program, which is a component of WRP and 

is administered through NRCS, is and will continue to be an important habitat protection tool 

used in the district. This program has been instrumental in stretching the funding of the Small 

Wetlands Program in Iowa by enrolling private lands in WRP. In this program, willing 

landowners in priority complex areas work with Iowa DNR biologists to enroll their properties in 

WRP. Once the properties are accepted by NRCS, Iowa DNR completes and carries out 

restoration plans. The Service as a partner in the program would target this property for 

acquisition in either a permanent WPA easement or purchase as a WPA through fee title. 

Throughout this process both acquisition and restoration costs are greatly reduced. 

Conservation Reserve Program

The USDA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) protects millions of acres of American 

topsoil from erosion and safeguards the Nation's natural resources. By reducing water runoff 

and sedimentation, CRP protects ground water and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, 

ponds, and streams. More recently, an emphasis has been placed on wetland and native prairie 

restoration as a condition of enrollment so the program has also become a major contributor to 

increased wildlife populations in many parts of the country. 

In Iowa, new participants are making their lands available for wildlife habitat restoration. This 

presents an important role for the district to lend its restoration experience and expertise to 

make these CRP restorations as high quality as possible. According to the USDA Farm Service 

Agency, the total acres enrolled in CRP within the 35 counties of the district were 375,867 in 

2010. This was the fourth year in a row for a decrease following an eight-year increase. This is 

likely due to recently high commodity prices, which are causing some producers to terminate 

their CRP contracts early to get the land back into row crop as soon as possible. Peak years for 

the district with just over 450,000 acres enrolled were 1993 and 1994. Guthrie County had the 

most acres (nearly 28,000) enrolled in 2010 while Cherokee had the least (just over 3,000). 
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Figure 2-6: Protected* Land in Iowa

*Protected land does not necessarily imply permanency. Conservation Reserve Program as well as the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program project locations were unavailable.
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

Other Conservation Lands in the Area

The district is administered by the staff of the Union Slough NWR, which was established in 

1938 to provide refuge and breeding ground for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge

proper is 2,916 acres including 70 acres of easement (FWS, 2011a). The refuge also manages 

160 acres of the Tallgrass Prairie NWR that were purchased near the Prairie Smoke WPA 

(FWS, 2011a). 

The Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR overlaps the majority of the district in Iowa and continues 

up into northern Minnesota along its western border. The refuge was established in 1999 with a 

primary goal of preserving 77,000 acres of native prairie and buffer lands at widespread 

locations within the historic range of the northern tallgrass region of Minnesota and northwest 

Iowa. Currently, the refuge includes over 5,200 acres in fee title, easement, and under lease or 

agreement (FWS, 2011a). 

Neal Smith NWR is in the far south central part of the district. It was established in 1990 to recreate a large expanse of tallgrass prairie and oak savanna. Currently, the refuge is 5,387 

acres (of the 8,645 acres approved for acquisition) (FWS, 2011a). However, an expansion was 

recently approved, which added 3,207 acres to the existing acquisition boundary of the refuge.

Nearly 190,000 acres of state land exist within the district including 27 state parks, 32 state 

preserves, over 160 Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) and eight recreation areas. Nearly 

2,000 acres of county parks and preserves exist within the district as well. The Nature 

Conservancy also owns several preserves within the district and continues work in two major 

project areas: Boone River Watershed and Little Sioux Valley (figure 2-5). Finally, the 

Department of Defense and Department of Energy maintain the Red Rock and Saylorville 

Reservoirs, both of which contain recreational land around them (figure 2-6).

The Planning Process

Public Involvement

Initial conversations about comprehensive planning for Iowa WMD began mid-year 2009 to 

review policy, discuss the core team, 

tour the district, discuss the Iowa

DNR and Service partnership, and 

gather some background information. 

Then, in December 2011, the scoping 

period began with a kick-off meeting 

held at the Dickinson County Nature 

Center in Spirit Lake, Iowa. Scoping, 

according to the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for 

implementing National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), is “ . . . an early 

and open process for determining the 

scope of issues to be addressed and 

for identifying the significant issues 

related to the proposed action.” 

CCP Kick-off Meeting
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

District, Iowa DNR, and regional planning staff met to review existing baseline data, discuss the 

district vision statement and goals, and finalize the core planning team. Both Iowa DNR and 

tribal representatives from the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi were invited to join the core 

planning team. A work plan was developed for the following reasons:

• Ensure that the district manager, refuge supervisor, and Planning Division staff agree on 

the direction for preparation of the EA and CCP for the district;

• Identify the core planning team as well as others to support development of the EA and 

CCP; 

• Provide a timeline for the planning effort; and

• Outline responsibilities of work for the planning effort.

In addition to identifying information that would be needed in the planning process, district staff 

also developed a communication plan including a list of stakeholders and a preliminary list of 

issues, concerns, challenges, opportunities, new directions, and potential sources of conflict to 

be addressed in the CCP. 

Next, the planning team invited cooperative farmers, state agencies, tribal governments, nongovernment organizations, the general public, and others interested in the future of the district to 

identify issues and opportunities with district management. The public scoping period began on 

January 30, 2012 and lasted for 30 days. Approximately 400 letters were mailed to stakeholders 

announcing the public scoping period, inviting them to the open houses and explaining how to 

comment. The comment period was also announced through a press release sent to a wide 

variety of media in Iowa and Minnesota. A series of open houses was held across the district

from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the following locations and dates:

• Lakeview Community Room in Clear Lake on Monday, February 13, 2012

• Water’s Edge Nature Center in Algona on Tuesday, February 14, 2012

• Dickinson County Nature Center near Spirit Lake on Wednesday, February 15, 2012

• Milwaukee Railroad Depot in Jefferson on Thursday, February 16, 2012

These open houses gave the public an 

opportunity to discuss ideas with 

district and state staff and regional 

planners. Thirty-nine people attended 

the open houses and 25 written 

comments were received during the 

public scoping period. Anytime 

throughout the planning process, 

stakeholders and others could fax, 

email, phone, or mail comments to the 

district or the regional office 

Conservation Planning group. 

On April 10, 2012, an internal scoping 

review took place at the FWS regional 

office in Bloomington, Minnesota. 

Leaders from the Refuge System, Migratory Birds, Ecological Services, and other key Midwest 

Dickinson County Public Open House
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

Region programs met with district and planning staff to further develop and refine the list of 

issues around which to focus the CCP. 

During the first week of June 2012, the district hosted a planning workshop, which included 

nearly 40 invitees from the Service (regional office, district, HAPET, Partners Program, and Neal 

Smith NWR staff), Iowa DNR, Iowa State University, University of Minnesota, University of 

Northern Iowa, and the Kossuth CCB. 

The workshop included a variety of 

exercises to review the issues and 

begin to develop the alternative ways 

of managing the district over the next 

15 years. There was a general review 

and evaluation of the biological and 

visitor services programs at the district

as well as a brainstorming for 

planning the future of those programs. 

The workshop also included field trips

to a variety of Iowa DNR and district

properties to gain a better 

understanding of the current 

management situation. 

Step-Down Management Plans

The CCP is a plan that provides general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, and peoplerelated objectives. Step-down management plans provide detail to managers and employees 

who will carry out the strategies described in the CCP. The district staff will develop the stepdown plans listed in table 2-3 after completion of this CCP.

Table 2-3: Step-Down Management Plan Completion Schedule for the Iowa WMD

Step-Down Management Plan Amount of Time for Completion after CCP 

Approval

Habitat Management Plan 3 years

Inventory and Monitoring Plan 3 years

Visitor Services Plan 4 years

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research

Following approval of the CCP and public notification of the decision, implementation will begin. 

Funding and staff time will be allocated to implementation of the CCP as appropriations and 

budgets allow. Development of a stepped down Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and other 

plans (i.e., Visitor Services Plan) will begin and serve to guide habitat management, restoration 

and reconstruction priorities, and public use. A companion Inventory and Monitoring Plan or 

additional chapters on inventory and monitoring appended to the HMP will be written to guide 

the district's priorities for monitoring. Information gained via inventories, monitoring, or research 

activities will allow the station to evaluate its progress in achieving the planning unit purposes, 

vision, and goals. The associated step-down plans will address habitat and/or population 

objectives and provide a means for evaluating the effects of management activities and public 

Partner Planning Workshop
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

use. Through adaptive management, evaluation of monitoring, and research results may 

indicate the need to modify district objectives or strategies.

Plan Review and Revision

The CCP is meant to provide guidance to the district manager and staff over the next 15 years. 

However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flexible document, and several of the strategies 

contained in this plan are subject to uncontrollable events of nature. Likewise, many of the 

strategies are dependent upon Service funding for staff and projects. For these reasons, the 

recommendations in the CCP will be reviewed annually and revised if necessary (FWS, 2000). 

The annual plan review process will include an evaluation of changing information and 

ecological conditions related to climate change. If significant changes are identified that 

compromise the district’s purpose, vision, or goals, then the CCP will be revised. The CCP will 

be revised every 15 years or sooner when significant new information becomes available, 

ecological conditions change, major district expansion occurs, or when determined necessary 

by the periodic review (FWS, 2000). All plan revisions will follow the Service’s planning process 

and will be compliant with NEPA. Minor plan revisions that meet the criteria of a categorical 

exclusion will be handled in that manner; however, if the plan requires a major revision, then the 

CCP process starts anew at the preplanning step (FWS, 2000).

Planning Issues

An issue is any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, such as an initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition (FWS, 2000). Issues arise 

from both within and outside of the Service. Public scoping as well as scoping of district and 

regional Service staff and other agencies produced ten issues that suggest alternative ways of 

managing the district and several others that did not. 

Issues that Drive an Alternative 

Wildlife 

• What species group and life cycle is the focus of district management?

The primary purposes of the district are to serve as production areas for waterfowl and to 

provide habitat for migratory birds. However, WPAs provide habitat for a variety of other wildlife 

as well. Therefore, management of WPAs should primarily be for waterfowl production and 

other migratory birds. Resident wildlife or other species should be a secondary focus. 

Focusing management on all species can lead to not managing for any one species or group 

very well.

Habitat

• How should the district address the decrease in populations of grassland-dependent

birds due to the decline of grassland habitat?

• How can the district improve/maintain upland habitat quality?

• What wetland type is the focus of district management?
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

• How can the district improve/maintain wetland quality?

• How can the district manage food plot use?

While much of the surrounding landscape is agricultural row crop, the district provides a real 

opportunity to build larger grassland/wetland habitats. However, the use of cooperative farming 

as a management tool has kept even the district habitat relatively small and somewhat 

fragmented. Agricultural row crop is not ideal habitat for grassland-nesting birds, in decline 

across much of their native range. Furthermore, many grassland-nesting birds have differing 

habitat structure requirements. Some species prefer thick, dense, tall cover; others need 

shorter, thinner cover. Meeting all of these needs is challenging in a landscape with limited 

habitat. 

The large size of the district makes restoration of complete plant communities in both the upland 

and wetland (primarily the wetland) difficult. Other challenges such as how to best manage the 

invasive woody vegetation across the district, the expense and limit of local ecotype seeds, and 

the time and size of crop conversion to natives are also present. Furthermore, the Iowa DNR 

has numerous shallow lake (water quality) improvement projects underway on state land with 

many more planned. Restorations include in-lake management strategies as well as on-going 

efforts to implement best management practices on public and private land in the watersheds. 

Since 2006, the amount of land under cooperative farming leases across the district has 

decreased while the total number of acres in WPAs has increased. Currently, the Iowa DNR 

manages approximately 21,200 acres of WPAs of which approximately 17 percent is under a 

cooperative farming lease. The Iowa DNR has a goal of seeding at least 500 acres of row crop 

agriculture in WPAs to native tallgrass prairie species during the 2013 season. This is also an 

annual target for the district over the next 15 years as described in appendix A as an objective. 

This is the result of recent collaborations between the Service and Iowa DNR to make it a 

district priority to convert cooperative farmed land to perennial cover at a more rapid rate. 

Currently, the district manages complexes that contain a variety of wetland types often within 

the watershed of a shallow lake owned by the State of Iowa. However, the wetland type the 

district will focus on in the future will be determined primarily by the habitat needs of the focal 

species group and life cycle. This is also true for the use of food plots. Currently, they account 

for approximately three percent of the total upland WPA acres and are used to discourage 

depredation on private land, provide winter food, and improve recreational opportunities. 

However, there is a desire for future use to be eliminated or reduced in number and more 

strategically located. 

Strategic Land Protection

• How will the district address the decreasing purchasing power of existing funds? 

• What are the district’s priority areas for acquisition? 

In general, the public supports growing the district both for wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities as well as to improve/protect water quality. However, much of the land within the 

district is privately owned, and much of that land is in row crop agriculture. High commodity 

prices in recent years have driven land values within the district to an all-time high, therefore 

decreasing the amount of land that can be acquired with existing traditional funding. 
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

Current acquisition is based on priority complexes established by the state in conjunction with 

the Service many years ago. Recently, however, a project was completed that could aid in 

determining the restorable wetlands left within the State of Iowa. This and other new 

information could help refocus priority areas for acquisition. 

People

• How can the district promote awareness and understanding of WPAs as well as educate 

the public on the importance of their management?

• What public uses can the district allow that are appropriate and compatible with the 

Service and Refuge System mission and meet the public demand for more recreational 

opportunities? 

The purpose of and reason for managing WPAs is not well known by some adjacent 

landowners, local communities, and larger cities within the district (especially by nonconsumptive users). Therefore, the support and appreciation of these sites is lacking and better 

stewardship on adjacent private land (minimize overspraying and loss of wetland/grassland 

marginal areas) is desired. Marketing and utilization of the private lands and easement 

programs for the Service as well as the state could be improved across the district.

While WPAs are generally open to hunting (unless deemed a “waterfowl refuge” by the state), 

fishing, trapping by law, and other public uses have not yet been determined appropriate and/or 

compatible for the district. In general, there is demand from the public for more recreation 

(hiking, environmental education, etc.), wildlife observation opportunities (bird watching, etc.), 

public access, and hunting opportunities. Some of the specific public use requests for the 

district include the following: 

• Ride horses

• Ride bikes

• Train dogs

• Operate motorboats

• Geocache

• Creatively write, paint, and photograph

Issues that Do Not Drive an Alternative

Public Use

• How can the district better align Service regulations for public use with state regulations, 

improve enforcement and clearly communicate regulations to users?

Many federal WPAs are adjacent or close to many state WMAs (habitat complexes). Currently, 

the rules and regulations for public use are not entirely consistent across ownership. This lack 

of consistency and clear signage/outreach on the rules and regulations has led to public 

confusion. Furthermore, with so many WPAs scattered across the district, some lack clear 

directional signage. This issue did not drive alternatives, because it will be addressed through 
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

appropriate use designations and compatibility 

determinations (appendices F and G). District public use 

regulations will be aligned with the state’s regulations as 

much as possible.

Several comments were received from the public to 

require non-toxic shot and tackle for all hunting and 

fishing in the district. Currently the only hunting in the 

district that is not required by law to use non-toxic shot is 

turkey hunting and slug deer hunting. Lead is a toxic 

metal that, in sufficient quantities, has adverse effects on 

the nervous and reproductive systems of animals and can 

be lethal to wildlife if ingested, even in small amounts. A 

ban on the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting was 

phased-in starting with the 1987–88 hunting season. The 

ban became nationwide in 1991. Many refuges and, per 

state regulations, most counties within the Iowa WMD, 

also ban the use of toxic shot for upland game hunting for 

such species as squirrel, rabbit, quail, pheasant, and/or 

partridge. The Service continues to look at options and 

ways to reduce the direct and indirect impacts of toxic shot to scavengers and other wildlife. The 

Service is and has been phasing out the use of lead shot by hunters on Refuge System land.

As for fishing tackle, there are nontoxic fishing weights, such as split shots, for use in nontidal 

waters that are readily available on the marketplace. Many anglers use fishing tackle made from 

nontoxic materials such as tin, bismuth, steel, and tungsten alternatives, which are found in all 

50 states. Many refuges/districts have banned lead sinkers for years. 

As part of the Service's effort in implementing the vision stated in Conserving the Future: 

Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation (FWS, 2011b), there are several implementation 

teams that will consider developing and implementing education products on the dangers of 

lead shot and fishing tackle. The Service invites and encourages the involvement of those 

interested parties in developing outreach elements relating to the dangers of toxicity in

continuing efforts to educate the public on alternative ammunition and fishing tackle.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the Service to make 

refuge/district regulations as consistent with state regulations as practicable. The Service 

shares a strong partnership with the states in managing wildlife and, therefore, is proceeding 

with the phase-out of toxic ammunition and tackle in a coordinated manner with the respective 

state wildlife agency. At this time, the Service desires to have the nontoxic shot shell 

regulations for the Iowa WMD be consistent with other WMDs within Region 3. Therefore, the 

topic of nontoxic shot shell usage for turkey hunting did not drive an alternative, because it will 

be a common element to all alternatives—a change from the current management but not 

differing across alternatives. However, the issue of using all nontoxic shot and tackle for all 

hunting and fishing in the district is a larger agency decision that is beyond the scope of this EA. 

Inventory, Monitoring, Research

• How should the district measure success of management techniques?

Federal-State Habitat Complex Signage
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

There are currently very few inventory and research efforts in the district and minimal 

monitoring. Hence, there is a need for a sound evaluation of the current management 

philosophies to assess the influence that habitat acquisition and restoration are having on 

waterfowl and other wildlife populations as well as ecosystem function. Likewise, the Iowa 

Environmental Council requested regular water quality monitoring of wetlands within the district

not only to document wetland quality, loss, and degradation, but also to provide a model for 

standardized wetland monitoring in the state long-term. Since the Iowa DNR has employed 

multiple species inventory and monitoring statewide, there is also a need to coordinate any new 

district efforts with the state to eliminate gaps and overlaps. This issue did not drive an 

alternative, because it will be a common element to all alternatives—a change from the current 

management but not differing across alternatives.

The Partnership 

• How can the partnership be more efficient in habitat management, leveraging funding, 

and land acquisition?

The partnership refers to the agreement between the Service and the Iowa DNR; federal money 

is used to purchase district land while state staff manages most of what is acquired. While the 

partnership has long been a success, with limited funds and staff there is always a need to be 

as efficient as possible in operations and achieving habitat goals. More shared resources 

(shared funding, shared staff positions) may be necessary especially if the district continues an 

aggressive land acquisition program. This issue did not drive an alternative, because it is 

addressed in the recently updated MOU with the Iowa DNR (appendix K). 

Land Acquisition

• How will the district address the public desire for more acquisition in the southern portion 

of the district, especially the Dunbar Slough/Willow Creek area? 

The State of Iowa, local leaders, and nonprofit organizations submitted a proposal, as part of 

the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, to expand the existing Dunbar Slough/Willow Creek 

wetland complex by 5,000 acres and to establish the area as a refuge 

(http://www.slideshare.net/USInterior/americas-great-outdoors-fiftystate-report). This Dunbar 

Slough/Willow Creek wetland complex lies within the Iowa WMD approved acquisition 

boundary. Any acquisition that happens in this area would be under the Small Wetlands 

Program as a WPA. WPAs are part of the Refuge System. Furthermore, this area is already 

within one of the priority wetland complexes for district acquisition. Acquisition could also occur 

under the Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR as this area is within that refuge boundary as well. 

For these reasons, this issue did not drive an alternative. 

Management Tools

• What tools should the district utilize for habitat restoration and management, and what 

should be the season of their use?
Chapter 2: District Planning Context

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

The most commonly used 

management tool in the district is 

prescribed fire; however, utilizing 

other tools such as haying, mowing,

and grazing may provide a more 

sustainable and efficient means of 

managing. Focal species group and 

life cycle will drive the major habitats 

that the district manages and will 

help determine which tools are best 

for managing those habitats. 

However, the details of which

management tools will be used in the 

district will be addressed in the HMP

that will be prepared in the future. 

Therefore, this issue did not drive an 

alternative, because it is beyond the scope of this EA.

Wildlife 

• How can the district mitigate negative impacts to desirable wildlife including disease,

wind turbines, predators, pesticides and other contaminants, and human disturbance?

• How should the district reduce the impact of feral cats and nuisance populations of 

wildlife such as Canada geese, muskrats, and beavers in the district and adjoining 

private lands and urban areas?

Since water management is more difficult with scattered tracts of habitat, flood events are 

particularly degrading for the district in terms of sedimentation and spreading carp and other 

invasive species. Effects from nuisance wildlife such as beavers, muskrats, and feral cats are 

also amplified in this landscape, as are the effects on wildlife from human disturbance, 

contaminants, chemical use, drainage, predators, wildlife disease, and wind turbines. These 

specific issues did not drive alternatives, because they are generally addressed through the 

issues of wetland and upland habitat quality improvement (which did drive alternatives), and 

more details can be addressed in the HMP that will be prepared for the district in the future. 

Managing with Prescribed Fire
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

In this chapter:

Development of the Management Alternatives

Selecting the Preferred Alternative

Summary of the Alternatives

Elements Common to All Alternatives

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

Alternative B: Breeding Waterfowl

Alternative C: Migrating Waterfowl

Alternative D: Preferred Alternative ̶Breeding Waterfowl

Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail

Summary of Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the four alternatives considered and analyzed in detail for how to 

manage the Iowa Wetland Management District (WMD, district) over the next 15 years (chapter

1 defines alternatives). These include current management as the “No Action Alternative" and 

baseline for analysis, as well as three other “action” alternatives. One of the three action 

alternatives (Alternative D) is the preferred alternative and constitutes the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) (appendix A). This chapter also describes and includes a rationale for 

other management action alternatives that were considered but not analyzed in detail. In 

addition, the end of this chapter includes a summary of the environmental consequences 

expected to occur from implementing the four alternatives considered in detail. More detail 

regarding the environmental consequences is in chapter 4. 

Development of the Management Alternatives

Developing the management alternatives began with the issues that were derived from both 

public and internal scoping. While many issues were brought up and considered (chapter 2), 

only 10 were crucial drivers for developing the alternatives. 

Next, a variety of possible solutions or different approaches to address each issue were 

developed (table 3-1). Some solutions were initially considered but were eventually determined 

to be unreasonable (did not fit the purpose of the district) and were ultimately eliminated (dark 

shading in table 3-1). 

Then, one or a combination of solutions for each of the issues were packaged together to form 

alternatives. The primary driver for each alternative was focal species group and life cycle. 

Some solutions, for any given issue, did not fit into an alternative package, because they were 

less than ideal for the focal species group and life cycle around which that alternative was 

developed (light shading in table 3-1). Five action alternatives were initially developed in 

addition to the current management alternative (table 3-2). 

Finally, some of the alternatives that were initially considered were, after further vetting, 

combined or eliminated and not considered in detail for various reasons. This process resulted 

in three action alternatives in addition to the current management or No Action Alternative 

(tables 3-3 and 3-4). 
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

Table 3-1: Alternative-driving Issues and all “Solutions” Considered for the Iowa WMD

Goal Issue Solution Solution Solution Solution

Wildlife

Focal species group 

(representative species) 

and life cycle.

Breeding waterfowl (Mallard, Bluewinged Teal).Migrating waterfowl (Lesser 

Scaup).

Breeding and migrating 

grassland-dependent

birds (Bobolink, 

Northern Harrier).

Native resident species 

(Blanding’s turtle, 

damselflies).

Prolonged decline of 

grassland-dependent

bird populations due to 

the decline of grassland 

habitat.

Focus management on restoring 

cropland to native grassland.

Focus management on 

improving remnant prairie.

Focus management on 

improving previously 

restored low diversity 

prairie.

Focus management on 

restoring non-native 

(brome/alfalfa) dominated 

grasslands.

Habitat

Upland habitat quality. Primarily focus management on 

restoring cropland to perennial

grassland, secondarily manage 

remnant prairie, old brome and low 

diversity native planting conversion 

to higher diversity seedings are 

lowest priority.

Focus management on 

restoring remnant prairie and 

converting low diversity 

native plantings to a higher 

diversity.

Focal wetland type. A variety of wetland types with an 

emphasis on seasonal and 

temporary wetlands. 

Semi- or less permanent 

pothole wetlands important to 

restoring semi-permanent to 

shallow lakes.

Riparian wetlands that 

connect existing 

conservation land.

Wetland quality. Restore and manage wetlands for 

waterfowl production; water quality 

secondary.

Restore and manage 

wetlands for food for 

migrating waterfowl, 

particularly water quality.

Address threats through 

active outreach and 

education.

Food plot use. None. At levels that do not 

materially detract from 

breeding waterfowl.

Strategic 

Land 

Protection

Decreasing purchasing 

power of existing funds

and priority areas for 

acquisition.

Land protection is focused on fee 

title and easements. Existing

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

(PPJV) priority complexes remain 

the priority for acquisition.

Land protection is focused on 

working with partners for 

perpetual protection of up to 

112,000 acres. Priority areas 

are determined by new PPJV 

landscape-level planning 

tools and models developed. 

Riparian wetland areas 

that facilitate 

connectivity between 

existing protected areas 

are the focus for 

acquisition.

Endangered and 

threatened species 

habitat is the focus for 

acquisition.

People

District awareness and 

understanding.

Public use information (brochure, 

Facebook page, etc.) is provided 

through Union Slough National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) and 

Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) offices and 

websites with a consistent 

message.

Facilities (kiosks, trails, pulloffs, etc.) are provided at

three locations across the 

district.

Outreach occurs in 

every county of the 

district through the 

County Conservation 

Boards.

Outreach is focused near 

city centers.

Appropriate recreational 

opportunities.

Provide only hunting, fishing, and 

trapping per regulation.

Provide recreational 

opportunities in addition to 

those required by regulation.

Provide “big six” 

recreational 

opportunities in addition 

to trapping.
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Table 3-2: Management Alternatives Initially Considered for the Iowa WMD

Goal Issue Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wildlife

Focal species group 

(representative 

species) and life 

cycle.

Breeding waterfowl 

(Mallard, Blue-winged 

Teal).

Migrating waterfowl (Lesser 

Scaup).

Same as Alt. A. Breeding and 

migrating grasslanddependent birds 

(Bobolink, Northern 

Harrier).

Native resident 

species 

(Blanding’s turtle, 

damselflies).

Prolonged decline of 

grassland-dependent

bird populations due 

to the decline of 

grassland habitat.

Focus management on 

restoring cropland to native 

grassland.

Same as current 

management.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A.

Habitat

Upland habitat quality. Primarily focus 

management on restoring 

cropland to perennial

grassland; secondarily 

manage remnant prairie;

old brome and low diversity 

native planting conversion 

to higher diversity seedings 

is lowest priority.

Same as current 

management.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A.

Focal wetland type. A variety of wetland types 

with an emphasis on 

seasonal and temporary 

wetlands.

Semi- or less permanent 

pothole wetlands important to 

restoring semi-permanent to 

shallow lakes.

Same as Alt. A. Same as current 

management.

Riparian 

wetlands.

Wetland quality. Same as current 

management.

Restore and manage 

wetlands for food for 

migrating waterfowl, 

particularly water quality.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. B.

Food plot use. None. At levels that do not 

materially detract from 

breeding waterfowl.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. B.

Strategic 

Land 

Protection

Decreasing 

purchasing power of 

existing funds and 

priority areas for 

acquisition.

Land protection is focused 

on working with partners 

for perpetual protection of 

up to 112,000 acres. 

Existing PPJV priority 

complexes remain the 

priority for acquisition.

Land protection is focused on 

private land agreements and 

conservation programs and 

same as Alt. A for priority 

acquisition.

Same as Alt. A 

and priority areas 

are determined by 

new PPJV 

landscape-level 

planning tools and 

models 

developed.

Same as current 

management and 

same as Alt. A for 

priority acquisition.

Same as Alt. B

and riparian 

wetland areas 

facilitating 

connection of 

existing 

conservation land

focus acquisition.

People

District awareness 

and understanding.

Same as current 

management WITH a 

consistent message.

Same as current 

management WITH a 

consistent message AND 

facilities (kiosks, trails, pulloffs) provided at three 

locations across the district.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. B.

Appropriate 

recreational 

opportunities.

Provide only hunting, 

fishing, and trapping per 

regulation.

Provide recreational uses in

addition to Alt. A.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B.
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Selecting the Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative (Alternative D) was primarily chosen by the focal species group and 

life cycle that best fit the district’s primary purpose of waterfowl production and primary funding 

source of migratory bird or Duck Stamp funding. While the other action alternatives are all 

reasonable, some of the other components of this alternative make it more comprehensive in 

providing the most wildlife diversity overall. 

While breeding waterfowl is the focus of this alternative, the district could also provide important 

habitat for other migrating and breeding grassland/wetland birds. Therefore, quality wetlands 

surrounded by grassland cover in the uplands would be the focus for habitat management. 

This, when coupled with the limited funding and staff of the district, drove the preference to 

focus on converting the existing cropland to perennial grassland and wetlands rather than 

diversifying existing grassland cover. Food plots are not essential for breeding waterfowl, but 

can be important for other wildlife and may assist in detraction from depredation on private land. 

Therefore, a reduction in the current food plot level, but not an elimination of all food plots, is 

preferred. Furthermore, the existing priority areas (pothole complexes) for acquisition were 

based on a model using the best data available at the time; however, new landscape-level 

models and tools are being developed that may alter the priority areas. Alternative D allows for 

adaptation of those new models and tools if necessary.

And finally, while the district is generally open to hunting, fishing, and trapping by law the 

Improvement Act of 1997 declared wildlife-dependent recreational use as a priority and 

generally compatible for units within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge 

System). It defined these uses as those involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, or environmental education and interpretation. Furthermore, the Conserving the 

Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS, 

Service], 2011b) vision document recommendation number 18 is to “support and enhance 

appropriate recreation opportunities on national wildlife refuges . . . ” and encourages the 

Refuge System to provide opportunities to the public without “traditional links to wild lands and 

wildlife.” This suggests that at least some non-wildlife-dependent public uses may be 

appropriate and compatible as well. The public has requested additional wildlife-dependent and 

non-wildlife-dependent use opportunities in the district. Alternative D would allow for many of 

these requested uses, which have been found to be appropriate and compatible, to occur to be 

more consistent with neighboring WMDs and state regulations. The appropriate use 

designations and compatibility determinations in appendices F and G detail the uses that would 

be allowed. 

Elements Common to All Alternatives

One element common to all the alternatives is the scale at which they would be implemented. 

The general management direction set under any alternative would apply to all district 

properties in which the Service has acquired an interest across the 35 counties. Currently, 

properties in Kossuth County, one in Pocahontas County, and all the WPA and FSA easements 

are managed by Union Slough NWR staff, while all other district properties are managed by the 

Iowa DNR. However, the management direction set under any alternative in this plan applies to 

all properties regardless of who manages them now or in the future. 
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

Summary of the Alternatives

Table 3-3: Management Alternatives Considered in Detail for the Iowa WMD

Goal Issue Alternative A: Current Management Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D: 

Preferred Alternative

Wildlife: In partnership with the Iowa 

DNR, restore a natural diversity and 

abundance of waterfowl, migratory birds 

and other native fauna within the Iowa 

WMD.

Focal species 

group 

(representative 

species) and life 

cycle.

Breeding waterfowl (Mallard and Bluewinged Teal) and resident wildlife 

(Ring-necked Pheasant).

Breeding waterfowl 

(Mallard, Blue-winged Teal).

Migrating waterfowl (Lesser 

Scaup).

Same as Alt. B.

Habitat: In partnership with the Iowa DNR

conserve, restore, and expand grassland 

and wetland habitat managing for a natural 

diversity of native flora within the Iowa 

WMD. 

Prolonged decline 

of grasslanddependent bird 

populations due 

to the decline of 

grassland habitat.

Declining grassland-dependent birds 

secondarily benefit from management 

focused on waterfowl that includes 

restoring cropland to native grassland, 

rotational cover (brome/alfalfa) and 

increasing plant diversity in low diversity 

plantings.

Focus management on 

restoring cropland to 

perennial grassland.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. B.

Upland habitat 

quality.

Acquired properties are restored to 

native grasslands, portions are in 

rotational cover (brome/alfalfa), and 

portions of low diversity grass stands 

are converted to higher diversity, as 

budgets allow.

Primarily focus 

management on restoring 

cropland to perennial

grassland; secondarily 

manage remnant prairie; old 

brome and low diversity 

native planting conversion 

to higher diversity seedings 

is lowest priority.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. B.

Focal wetland 

type.

Variety of prairie pothole wetlands,

especially those important to restoring 

semi-permanent to shallow lakes.

Semi- or less permanent 

pothole wetlands.

Semi- or less permanent pothole 

wetlands important to restoring 

semi-permanent to shallow lakes.

Same as Alt. A.

Wetland quality. Wetland management and restoration is 

focused on waterfowl production with a 

secondary benefit of improving water 

quality.

Same as Alt. A. Wetland management and 

restoration is focused on 

providing food for migrating 

waterfowl, particularly through 

good water quality.

Same as Alt. A.

Food plot use. Food plots are present throughout the 

district to mitigate wildlife depredation 

on private land, provide winter food, 

and improve recreational opportunities.

None. At levels that do not materially 

detract from breeding waterfowl.

Same as Alt. C.

Strategic Land 

Protection

Decreasing 

purchasing power 

of existing funds

and priority areas 

for acquisition.

Fee title and easements are utilized 

with partners as perpetual land 

protection tools for up to 112,000 acres.

Properties are acquired in the PPJV 

priority complexes.

Same as Alt. A except 

priority areas determined by 

new PPJV landscape-level

models and tools

developed.

Acquisition is focused on private 

land agreements/ conservation 

programs. Priority areas are 

determined the same as in Alt. B.

Same as Alt. B.

People: In partnership with the Iowa DNR, 

promote understanding, appreciation, and 

support for the Iowa WMD as well as 

stewardship and understanding of the 

southern Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) and 

its native ecosystems to visitors and local 

residents.

District 

awareness and 

understanding.

Public use information is provided 

through Union Slough NWR and Iowa 

DNR offices and websites.

Same as Alt. A WITH a 

consistent message.

Same as Alt. B AND facilities

(kiosks, trails, pull-offs, etc.) are 

provided at three locations across 

the district.

Same as Alt. C.

Appropriate 

recreational 

opportunities.

Hunting, fishing, and trapping 

opportunities are provided per 

regulation.

Same as Alt. A. Provide recreational opportunities 

in addition to those required by 

regulation.

Same as Alt. C.
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

Table 3-4: Objectives for All Management Alternatives Considered in Detail for the Iowa WMD

Goal Issue

Objectives

Alternative A: Current Management Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D: 

Preferred 

Alternative

Wildlife: In 

partnership with the 

Iowa DNR, restore a 

natural diversity and 

abundance of 

waterfowl, migratory 

birds and other native 

fauna within the Iowa 

WMD.

Focal species 

group and life 

cycle.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

maintain breeding pairs of ducks 

targeted in the four square mile survey 

at 0.9 pairs per wet acre across the 

Iowa WMD while also contributing to a 

stable population of Ring-necked 

Pheasant in Iowa. 

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

increase the breeding population of 

Mallard by 450 pairs and Bluewinged Teal by 450 pairs on 

protected wetlands (permanent 

state and federal ownership) in the 

Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of 

Iowa and develop strategies, as part 

of the district’s Inventory and 

Monitoring Plan, to set recruitment 

goals for these species in the PPR 

of Iowa.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

contribute to maintaining the 40 

percent average Lesser Scaup 

population detected in the 

Mississippi flyway mid-winter 

waterfowl survey by providing food 

resources within the PPR of Iowa 

thereby improving body condition 

of birds arriving at nesting 

grounds. 

Same as Alt. B.

Habitat: In 

partnership with the 

Iowa DNR conserve, 

restore and expand 

grassland and 

wetland habitat 

managing for a 

natural diversity of 

native flora within the 

Iowa WMD. 

Prolonged 

decline of 

grasslanddependent

bird 

populations 

due to the 

decline of 

grassland 

habitat.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

grassland nesting bird habitat within 

the Iowa WMD results from the 

district’s breeding waterfowl upland 

management strategy; diverse native 

grasslands with some rotational cover 

(brome/alfalfa). 

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

increase native grassland habitat by 

7,500 acres with a plant diversity of 

100 or more species, and provide 

more suitable habitat (in terms of 

vegetative structure as will be 

defined in the district’s Habitat 

Management Plan) in existing 

grassland for a wide variety of 

grassland-dependent birds within 

the Iowa WMD.

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. B.

Upland habitat 

quality.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

acquired upland within the Iowa WMD

is restored to native grasslands with 

some rotational cover (brome/alfalfa) 

and existing upland is diversified.

At the end of the 15-year life of the 

CCP, perennial grassland, 

preferably native, is present on at 

least 97 percent of the uplands of 

the Iowa WMD. 

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. B.

Focal wetland 

type.

At the end of the 15-year life of the

CCP a variety of wetland types (75 

percent temporary and seasonal, 15 

percent semi-permanent, and 10 

percent permanent) exist across the 

Iowa WMD as representative of the 

pre-Euro-American settlement 

landscape.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

wetland acquisition is focused on 

semi- or less permanent pothole 

wetlands representative of the preEuro-American settlement 

landscape across the Iowa WMD. 

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

wetland acquisition is focused on 

semi- or less permanent pothole 

wetlands important to restoring 

semi-permanent to shallow lakes 

providing loafing, feeding, and 

stopover wetlands for spring and 

fall migrating waterfowl. 

Same as Alt. A.

Wetland 

quality.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

wetlands within the Iowa WMD are 

restored and managed to provide 

breeding waterfowl pair densities of at 

least 0.9 pairs per wetland acre.

Same as Alt. A. Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

shallow lake water quality is 

protected, restored, and 

maintained to provide abundant 

native food for migrating waterfowl.

Same as Alt. A.
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Food plot use. During the 15-year life of the CCP, 

food plots (primarily row crop corn or 

beans) are distributed at various 

locations across the Iowa WMD to 

provide for the winter food needs of 

resident wildlife and to reduce the 

impacts of both resident and migratory 

wildlife on neighboring property. 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, 

no food plots exist on any Waterfowl

Production Areas (WPAs) within the 

Iowa WMD.

During the 15-year life of the CCP, 

food plots are present on no 

greater than three percent of the 

upland acres within the Iowa 

WMD.

Same as Alt. C.

Strategic 

Land 

Protection

Decreasing 

purchasing 

power of 

existing funds.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

continue to pursue perpetual 

protection of wetland and grassland 

of up to 112,000 acres in the Prairie 

Pothole Region of Iowa in 

collaboration with county, state, and 

other federal governments, 

conservation organizations, private 

businesses, and concerned citizens. 

Landscape level planning tools (i.e., 

four-square mile survey, restorable 

wetlands layer, etc.) utilized by Iowa 

DNR and the Service’s HAPET office 

will guide partners as to where 

strategic land acquisition should 

occur. 

Same as Alt. A and over the 15-

year life of the CCP, acquisition is 

focused in refined PPJV priority 

complexes.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

protect, enhance and restore 

3,500–4,000 acres of migratory 

waterfowl habitat in the Iowa 

WMD, regardless of ownership 

and over the 15-year life of the 

CCP, acquisition is focused in 

refined PPJV priority complexes.

Same as Alt. A.

People: In 

partnership with the 

Iowa DNR, promote 

understanding, 

appreciation, and 

support for the Iowa 

WMD as well as 

stewardship and 

understanding of the 

southern PPR and its 

native ecosystems to 

visitors and local 

residents.

District 

awareness 

and 

understanding.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

public use information is available at 

Union Slough NWR and Iowa DNR

offices for visitors using the Iowa 

WMD.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, 

public use information is available 

with a consistent message about 

the district to visitors of the Iowa 

WMD.

Within 15 years of CCP approval, 

provide the infrastructure on three 

WPAs (such as trails, kiosks, pulloffs, etc.) and information 

(brochure, website, Facebook 

page, etc.) necessary for visitors to 

appreciate resources in the Iowa 

WMD, as defined in the Visitor 

Services Plan.

Same as Alt. C.

Appropriate 

recreational 

opportunities.

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, allow 

uses required by regulation (hunting, 

recreational fishing, and recreational 

trapping—all in accordance with state 

regulations) as deemed compatible 

across the Iowa WMD. 

Same as Alt. A. Upon implementation of the CCP, 

allow uses required by regulation 

(hunting, recreational fishing, and 

recreational trapping—all in 

accordance with state regulations) 

as well as other public uses 

deemed appropriate and 

compatible across the Iowa WMD. 

Within four years of CCP approval, 

appropriate and compatible uses 

will be clearly articulated to the 

public through uniform signage, 

brochures, and Iowa DNR and 

Iowa WMD websites as identified 

in the Visitor Services Plan.

Same as Alt. C
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Inventory, monitoring, and research would also be common to all alternatives. Existing WPAs 

or other district properties would be inventoried as necessary; any new techniques implemented 

would be monitored as necessary to allow for adaptive management; and research would be 

designed when and where it was needed to support and/or guide management. 

One of the goals of refuge/district planning is “to provide a basis for adaptive management by 

monitoring progress, evaluating plan implementation, and updating refuge [district] plans 

accordingly” (FWS, 2000). Therefore, adaptive management will be a part of any alternative 

implemented as monitoring reveals, which actions are working, and which ones are not working 

to achieve the purposes of the district. Currently, at least some portion of three WPAs—

Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and Rice Lake 

(Winnebago and Worth Counties)—are closed by state regulation as waterfowl refuges. These 

refuges will remain regardless of which alternative is implemented as the CCP. This is not a 

change from the current situation nor would it vary across alternatives. 

Requiring the use of nontoxic shot shells for turkey hunting was one part of an issue brought up 

during scoping. In an effort to gain consistency with other WMDs in Region 3, this requirement 

would also be common to all alternatives. After the Federal Register codification process (50 

CFR) is completed in 2014, the following regulation will apply to the Service’s fee title property 

within the Iowa WMD: “You may only use or possess approved nontoxic shot shells while in 

the field, including shot shells used for hunting wild turkey (see § 32.2(k)).” The primary activity 

proposed under each of the alternatives below, including the No Action Alternative, is converting 

cropland to grassland. This transition increases soil carbon as perennial grasses take up

carbon from the air, store it in their root, and shoot biomass, year round. As the stems, leaves, 

and roots die, that carbon is transferred into the soil―that is carbon sequestration. Annual 

crops absorb carbon from the air during the growing season, but then release it after harvest. 

The soils in Iowa, along with Minnesota, Vermont, New York, and Maine have the potential to 

store the most carbon across the Nation. Therefore, each of the alternatives was developed 

with climate change in mind. Reducing the district’s contribution to climate change as well as 

monitoring the effects of climate change in the district is common to all alternatives. 

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)

Alternative A is the No Action Alternative. The National Environmental Policy Act and Service 

planning policy each require full consideration of a No Action Alternative with as rigorous of 

effects analysis as for any other action alternative. For this planning process, “No Action” refers 

to the continuation of the current management direction, and therefore, no CCP would be 

prepared or implemented. Alternative A is the least focused of all the alternatives considered in 

detail. 

Breeding waterfowl, primarily represented by Mallard and Blue-winged Teal, and resident 

wildlife, primarily represented by Ring-necked Pheasant, are the current focus for management. 

However, declining grassland-dependent birds secondarily benefit from this management. 

Several different activities dominate management efforts, as budgets allow, including restoring 

cropland to native grassland, providing rotational cover (brome/alfalfa), and increasing plant 

diversity in low diversity plantings, but no one activity is focused on more than any other. 

Restoration efforts are centered on a variety of prairie pothole wetlands and cooperation with 

Iowa DNR to complete shallow lake projects as habitat for the focal species groups. Acquisition 

is focused on wetland complex priority areas determined by the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

(PPJV) that contain restorable wetland basins with a secondary benefit of improving wetland 

quality and clean water. Fee title, easement, and perpetual conservation programs are all 

utilized as land protection tools. Food plots are also present throughout the district to mitigate 

wildlife depredation on private land, provide winter food, and improve recreational opportunities 

for the public. 

Environmental education, interpretation, and outreach are either absent or limited in the district, 

mostly due to the small staff. However, public use information is provided through Union Slough 

NWR and Iowa DNR offices and websites. Hunting, fishing, and trapping opportunities are 

provided at most WPAs per regulation. 

Alternative B: Breeding Waterfowl

Alternative B is one of the two (along with Alternative C) most focused alternatives considered in 

detail. It was developed by considering that waterfowl production is the primary purpose of the 

district and Duck Stamp money is the primary funding source for land acquisition in the district. 

Therefore, breeding waterfowl, primarily represented by Mallard and Blue-winged Teal, would 

be the focus of management activities. Restoring cropland to perennial grassland would be the 

dominant activity while managing remnant prairie, converting old brome, and diversifying older 

native plantings would be lower priority. 

Restoration efforts would be centered on the essential habitat needs of breeding waterfowl with 

a focus on temporary and seasonal pothole wetlands. Acquiring land where these potholes are 

located would likely be based on a new landscape-level tools and models developed by the 

PPJV since the current model is based on old data. However, fee title, easement, and 

perpetual conservation programs would all still be utilized by the Service and partners to protect 

up to 112,000 acres of grassland and wetland habitat. 

In stark contrast to the current situation, food plots would be eliminated from the district. 

Breeding waterfowl do not rely on food plots for survival. With no other species group and life 

cycle as the focus, food plots would not be essential or appropriate regardless of their number 

and location. 

Environmental education, interpretation, and outreach would remain at current levels with public 

use information being provided through Union Slough NWR and Iowa DNR offices and 

websites. More effort would be placed on distributing a consistent message for the entire 

district. Public use opportunities would remain limited to hunting, fishing, and trapping per 

regulation―uses that best fit with a breeding waterfowl focus. 

Alternative C: Migrating Waterfowl

Alternative C is the other most focused alternative considered in detail. It was developed by 

mostly considering the secondary purpose of the district (migratory birds). Therefore, migrating 

waterfowl, primarily represented by Lesser Scaup, would be the focus for management 

activities. However, breeding waterfowl and declining grassland-dependent birds would still 

benefit from this management. Several different activities would dominate management efforts,

as budgets allow, including restoring cropland to perennial grassland, providing rotational cover 

(brome/alfalfa), and increasing plant diversity in low diversity plantings, but no one activity would 

be focused on more than any other. This alternative was designed around ensuring good water 

quality across the district to support native vegetation and invertebrates that provide high quality 
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

food for migrating waterfowl, such as the Lesser Scaup. High quality food helps maintain body 

quality and health throughout the migration so birds arrive at their destination, especially 

breeding grounds, as healthy as possible. 

Restoration efforts would be centered on the essential habitat needs of migrating 

waterfowl―that is, semi-permanent to shallow lakes. Therefore, acquisition would be focused 

on semi- or less permanent pothole wetlands that are important to restoring semi-permanent to 

shallow lakes. Acquiring land where these potholes are located would be based on a new 

model developed by the PPJV specifically targeting habitat for migrating waterfowl. The current 

model would not be adequate as it is based on old data that targeted breeding waterfowl. 

The solutions in Alternative C to four other issues are in direct contrast to Alternatives A and B. 

These include the following:

• Wetland restoration and management would be focused on providing food for migrating 

waterfowl, in particular through good water quality

• Food plots are limited as to not materially detract from breeding waterfowl

• Public use facilities (kiosks, trails, pull-offs, etc.) would be provided at three locations 

across the district

• Other recreational opportunities would be provided in addition to hunting, fishing and 

trapping

Some food plots can be essential to migrating waterfowl. However, their usefulness depends 

on what is planted and where they are located. Row crop food plots can also be a source of soil 

erosion, contamination of nearby water and detract from grassland habitat size. 

Since migrating waterfowl are better suited for observation, strategically located additional 

public use facilities (i.e., kiosks, trails, pull-offs) and opportunities are appropriate for such a 

focus. The public has requested additional wildlife-dependent and non-wildlife-dependent use 

opportunities in the district. Alternative C would allow for many of these uses, which have been 

found to be appropriate and compatible, to occur. The appropriate use designations and 

compatibility determinations in appendices F and G detail the uses that would be allowed. 

Environmental education, interpretation, and outreach, however, would remain at current levels 

with public use information being provided through Union Slough NWR and Iowa DNR offices 

and websites. As in Alternative B, more effort would be placed on distributing a consistent 

message for the entire district. 

Alternative D: Preferred Alternative – Breeding Waterfowl

Alternative D is the preferred alternative and is mostly a combination of the other alternatives,

including parts of the No Action Alternative. It is more focused than the current management 

but less focused than Alternatives B and C. It was developed by considering the primary 

purpose of the district: production areas for waterfowl and habitat for migratory birds. Therefore, 

breeding waterfowl, primarily represented by Mallard and Blue-winged Teal would be the focus 

for management activities. The dominant activity would be restoring cropland to perennial 

grassland and wetlands. Managing remnant prairie, converting old brome, and diversifying old 
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

native plantings would be secondary since it is important for so many resources (air, water, soil, 

etc.) to get perennial cover on the bare ground first. 

Restoration efforts would be the same as current management with a focus on a variety of 

prairie pothole wetlands, in particular temporary and seasonal types, many of which would 

positively influence and enhance Iowa DNR shallow lakes projects (i.e., acquire high densities 

of temporary and seasonal wetlands in proximity to existing or restorable semi-permanent and 

permanent basins to be used for brood rearing). More diverse habitat would allow for more 

diversity in wildlife, in particular, other grassland/wetland birds. Acquisition of the potholes 

would initially be the same as current management, working with partners to pursue perpetual 

protection of wetland and grassland of up to 112,000 acres in the Prairie Pothole Region, but 

may be modified by new landscape-level planning tools and models developed (with more 

recent data/information). 

Food plot use would be the same as Alternative C, at levels that do not materially detract from 

breeding waterfowl. Public use opportunities and facilities would also be the same as Alternative 

C. The public has requested additional wildlife-dependent and non-wildlife-dependent use 

opportunities in the district. Alternative D would allow for many of these requested uses, which

have been found to be appropriate and compatible, to occur to be more consistent with 

neighboring WMDs and state regulations. The appropriate use designations and compatibility 

determinations in appendices F and G detail the uses that would be allowed. 

Environmental education, interpretation, and outreach, however, would remain similar to current 

levels with public use information being provided through Union Slough NWR and Iowa DNR 

offices and websites. However, as in Alternative B, more effort would be placed on distributing 

a consistent message for the entire district through coordination meetings, additional kiosks, 

trails, pull-offs, etc., and an informational and regulatory brochure. 

Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail

Solutions Considered but Eliminated 

Table 3-5 is a subset of table 3-1. It shows some possible solutions for some issues that were 

initially considered but were later eliminated. 

Table 3-5: Solutions to Issues Initially Considered but Eliminated for the Iowa WMD

Issue Solution

Wetland quality Address threats through active outreach and 

education.

Priority areas for acquisition Endangered and threatened species habitat.

District awareness and understanding Outreach occurs in every county of the district

through the CCBs.

Outreach is focused near city centers.

Appropriate recreational opportunities Provide “big six” recreational opportunities in 

addition to trapping.

The three solutions dealing with outreach were eliminated simply due to the limited staff and 

budget of the district. Some outreach currently occurs, but it is limited in scope and only as 
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

budgets allow. It was determined that approaches, which focus on outreach as a solution, were 

not reasonable or viable given the current staff and funding. 

The solution to focus areas for acquisition on endangered and threatened species was 

eliminated, because it does not meet the purposes of the district. These species will 

secondarily benefit from management activities proposed in the alternatives considered in

detail. 

Providing the “big six” recreational opportunities in addition to trapping was eliminated, because 

it was limiting and not in line with the future vision of the Refuge System. The “big six” public 

uses are defined as wildlife-dependent and include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The future vision of the Refuge 

System encourages providing, where appropriate, some non-traditional (i.e., non-wildlifedependent) public uses. Therefore, the solution to provide recreational opportunities in addition 

to those required by law (hunting, fishing, trapping) was included in some of the alternatives 

considered in detail. Appendices F and G detail the uses that would be allowed within the 

district. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

Two alternatives were initially considered but were not analyzed in detail. This sub-section 

includes rationale for why these alternatives were not considered in detail. 

Breeding and Migrating Grassland-Dependent Birds Focus 

This alternative was not considered in detail, because it does not completely fit the purposes of 

the district—as areas for waterfowl production and habitat for migratory birds. It was also 

determined that since many of these species will secondarily benefit from management 

activities focused on waterfowl or prairie pothole dependent birds, there was not a need to focus 

an alternative around them. Furthermore, all of the solutions to the issues for an alternative with 

this focus were captured in other alternatives. 

Native Resident Species Focus

This alternative was not considered in detail, because it does not fit the purposes of the 

district—as areas for waterfowl production and habitat for migratory birds. This approach would 

have focused management and acquisition on riparian wetlands that connected existing 

conservation land for less mobile species. However, these areas would not have served as 

ideal habitat for waterfowl and migratory birds. Again, many of these species will secondarily 

benefit from management activities proposed in the alternatives considered in detail; however, it 

was not appropriate to focus an alternative around them. Furthermore, most of the solutions to 

the issues for an alternative with this focus were captured in other alternatives. 

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table 3-6 compares and contrasts the various environmental effects that are expected to result 

from implementation of the four alternatives. The environmental consequences of each impact 

topic were defined based on type of effect, intensity, context, and duration for the following 

resources: Climate Change, The Soil Resource, Water Resources, Air Quality, Habitat, 
Chapter 3: Management Alternatives

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Ecosystems, Wildlife, Socioeconomics, and Visitor Services. Further description of the effects 

can be found under each resource in chapter 4. 

Type refers to an effect being either neutral, adverse, or beneficial for the topic being analyzed. 

Some resources may not be affected by a given activity; therefore, the type of effect is none. 

Effects also can be direct or indirect. Direct effects are caused by an action, and occur at the 

same time and place as the action. Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later or 

farther away but are still reasonably foreseeable.

Duration refers to how long an impact would last. The planning horizon of this plan is 

approximately 15 years. The following terms were used to describe the duration of the impacts: 

• Short-term: The effect would be temporary, lasting only during the management activity.

• Medium-term: The effect would be temporary, lasting less than the life of the plan.

• Long-term: The effect is expected to persist beyond the life of the plan. 

Intensity refers to the degree or magnitude to which a resource would be positively or 

negatively affected. Each effect was identified as negligible, minor, moderate, or major in 

conformance with the criteria for the classifications established for each impact topic. Further 

definitions and indicators for intensity by resource can be found in chapter 4. The planning 

team qualitatively evaluated the intensities of effects on all the resources.

Context refers to the setting within which an effect is analyzed, such as the affected region or 

locality. In this document, most effects would be either local (site-level where the action is 

occurring) or landscape (district-wide or larger).
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

Duration

Table 3-6: Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative for the Iowa WMD

Context Type

Alternative A

 Short Medium Long

Alternative B

 Short Medium Long

Alternative C

 Short Medium Long

Alternative D

 Short Medium Long

Climate Change

Landscape

Beneficial

Adverse

Local

Beneficial

Adverse

Soil Resource

Landscape

Beneficial

Adverse

Local

Beneficial

Adverse

Water Resources

Landscape

Beneficial

Adverse

Local

Beneficial

Adverse

Air Quality

Landscape

Beneficial

Adverse

Local

Beneficial

Adverse

Habitat

Landscape

Beneficial

Adverse

Local

Beneficial

Adverse

Ecosystems

Landscape

Beneficial

Adverse

Local

Beneficial

Adverse

Wildlife

Landscape

Beneficial

Adverse

Local

Beneficial

Adverse

Socioeconomics

Landscape

Beneficial

Adverse

Local

Beneficial

Adverse

Visitor Services

Landscape

Beneficial

Adverse

Local

Beneficial

Adverse

Intensity

Major

Moderate

Minor

Negligible
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, 

and Environmental Consequences

In this chapter:

Physical Environment

Habitat

Wildlife

People

This chapter describes the existing physical, biological and social environment of the Iowa 

Wetland Management District (WMD, district) and its surroundings. Much of this environment 

will be affected, positively or negatively, by implementing any of the previously mentioned 

management alternatives. The consequences of those effects are also analyzed in this chapter. 

Physical Environment

Geographic Setting

The Iowa WMD is part of the larger Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) (figure 1-2). This geographic 

area of central North America, mostly the Midwestern Great Plains, consists primarily of 

midgrass and tallgrass prairies interspersed with wetlands. Stretching northwest from northern 

Iowa through southwest Minnesota, eastern South Dakota, eastern and northern North Dakota, 

southwest Manitoba, and southern Saskatchewan to southeast and east-central Alberta (and 

even a little of northern Montana), the region is covered with thousands of shallow, sometimes 

seasonal ponds known as potholes or sloughs. The area is the summer home and breeding 

grounds of some 45 million mallard, pintail, gadwall, and teal ducks as well as many other 

shorebirds, songbirds, and gamebirds. 

More specifically, the Iowa WMD acquisition boundary includes a 35-county area in northcentral and northwest Iowa (figure 1-1). The district spans from the Minnesota border to Des 

Moines, from Cherokee to Grundy Center, and from Guthrie Center to Newton. The district

includes the cities of Fort Dodge, Spencer, Mason City, Clear Lake, Marshalltown, Webster City, 

and Charles City. The acquisition boundary encompasses over one-third of the State of Iowa 

including both the largest county by size (Kossuth) and the largest county by population (Polk). 

Current Management

The geographic setting of the district and its surroundings cannot be managed. 

Effects

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

None of the actions included in any of the alternatives will have any effect on the geographic 

setting of the district or its surroundings. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

Ecosystem Setting

At the time of the periodic advance and retreat of glaciers, the district was a mix of grasslands 

and forests of spruce, aspen, and oak. Stretching north of Des Moines—in areas where the ice 

had melted—marshes, wetlands, and bogs were common. This environment supported a 

variety of herbivores, revealed today in fossils, including mammoth, mastodon, giant ground 

sloth, musk ox, a variety of bison, and elk. However, within a few centuries, temperatures 

warmed and the ice melted for the last time. New forests filled the river valleys, and prairies 

stretched west and south with marshlands to the north (State Historical Society of Iowa, 2010). 

Two ecoregional provinces are represented in the district: Eastern Broadleaf Forest and Prairie 

Parkland (Bailey, 1995). Within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province the district lies within the 

Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Oak Savanna section. Within the Prairie Parkland 

Province the district lies primarily within the North-Central Glaciated Plains section with a small 

portion in the Central Dissected Till Plains. Furthermore, the district lies primarily within the 

Southern Des Moines Lobe and Upper Minnesota River-Des Moines Lobe subsections with 

much smaller portions reaching into seven other subsections (figure 4-1). The Des Moines 

Lobe is also recognized as a landform of Iowa (figure 4-2) and is described in the Topography 

and Geology section of Chapter 4. A smaller portion of the district also stretches into the 

Northwest Iowa Plains, Iowan Surface, and the Southern Iowa Drift Plain landforms; however,

these are most prevalent farther to the northwest, northeast, and south, respectively (Prior,

1991). 

Current Management

The district manages the ecosystem setting primarily through activities designed to restore 

cropland to perennial grassland in the uplands and to wetlands in the lowlands. Wetland 

restoration is directly linked to, generally improved, hydrology.

Effects

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Indicators used for evaluating effects on ecosystems include the following:

• Features: These are site-specific characteristics of a natural resource system including

soil, ground cover, and hydrology, which establish its capacity to support various 

ecosystem functions.

• Functions: These are biophysical processes including fish and waterfowl habitat, cycling 

carbon, and trapping nutrients, which take place within an ecosystem typically 

characterized apart from any human context. The level of a given function depends on 

the innate capacity of the ecosystem including local site characteristics and its 

relationship to the larger landscape context such as the connectedness to other natural

or human features or the accessibility to wildlife.

• Services: These are beneficial outcomes that result from ecosystem functions, which 

include better fishing and hunting, cleaner water, better views, and reduced human 

health and risks. They require an appreciation by humans and can be measured or 

expressed in physical terms including catch rates, water quality, and property damage 

avoided. Services depend on ecosystem functions and certain aspects of landscape 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

context such as the proximity to floodwaters, people, and property and the accessibility 

to hunters, birders, and anglers.

• Values: Merriam-Webster defined values to be the quality of a thing according to which it 

is thought of as being more or less desirable, useful, estimable or important. Using this 

definition the values of an ecosystem might be defined in terms of its beauty, its 

uniqueness, its irreplaceability, its contribution to life support functions or commercial or 

recreational opportunities, or its role in supporting wildlife or reducing environmental or 

human health risks, or providing many other services that benefit humans. 

The intensity categories for determining effects on ecosystems are defined as the following:

• Negligible: No measurable or detectable change

• Minor: Slight effect, may be a detectable change

• Moderate: Clearly detectable, appreciable change

• Major: Substantial improvement or a severe decrease

The effects on the ecosystem from implementing the various alternatives described above were 

determined to be the following:

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

For all alternatives, restoring wetlands and converting uplands from cropland to perennial 

grassland would have a district-wide and perhaps wider effect on ecosystem features, functions, 

services, and values. Restored wetlands and perennial grassland cover are features that would 

improve functions such as habitat and nutrient cycling, which in turn would provide better 

services including hunting, trapping, and cleaner water and would increase the values of the 

district and the PPR. These features also hold soil in place and allow water to infiltrate during 

heavy rain events, thereby reducing flash flood damage to human property and lives. Acquiring 

and restoring wetlands and associated uplands in complexes, especially in conjunction with the 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and other conservation partners, builds larger 

blocks of habitat, promotes connectedness, and improves wildlife accessibility. 

Other conservation agencies are also acquiring and restoring wetlands and their associated 

uplands on public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would 

have a greater, beneficial, long-term effect on the ecosystem as described above. However, 

there are private lands within the district that are still being drained and planted to agriculture. 

Some private land in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) for example, has expiring contracts, which is also being returned to agriculture.

Topography and Geology

The landscape of the district is considered geologically young, as it was affected by the most 

recent glacial advance in Iowa. The Pre-Illinoian (over two million years ago) and Illinoian 

(300,000 to 130,000 years ago) glacial deposits are buried under the Wisconsinan deposits 

from about 50,000 years ago. As the environment cooled, a large ice sheet formed in the 

Hudson's Bay region and began to spread south. One lobe entered central Iowa and moved as 

far south as Greene County. Then, as the climate warmed about 30,000 years ago, this lobe 

retreated. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

Figure 4-1: Bailey’s Ecoregional Provinces, Sections, and Subsections for the Iowa WMD
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Figure 4-2: The Landforms of Iowa

As temperatures cooled again, another glacier known as the Des Moines Lobe, entered Iowa 

and moved down through its center to the modern-day city of Des Moines about 17,000 years 

ago. By 15,000 to 12,000 years ago, the ice sheet was gone, leaving behind a flat to undulating 

terrain. The landscape was poorly drained and filled with pebbly deposits from the stagnant 

decaying ice; sand and gravel from swift meltwater streams; as well as clay and peat from 

glacial lakes. The landscape was also left devoid of any loess deposits since the ice sheet was 

still covering it while those deposits were occurring elsewhere in the state. Today, glacial 

moraines form prominent features in the area including Ocheyedan Mound in Osceola County, 

Pilot Knob in Hancock County, and Pilot Mound in Boone County. 

Current Management

The topography and geology of the district and its surroundings cannot be managed. 

Effects

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

None of the actions included in any of the alternatives will have any effect on the topography or 

the geology of the district or its surroundings.

Climate

The district climate is characterized as extreme mid-continental or humid continental with warm, 

usually hot, and humid summers and cold, snowy winters. The average summer temperature is 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

76 oF, and the average winter temperature is 33 oF. The July high averages 85 oF while the 

January low averages 8 oF. The average annual daytime relative humidity is around 72 percent, 

increasing across the district from southwest to northeast. Prevailing winds are from the 

northwest with average wind speeds of 11 miles per hour. 

Total annual precipitation increases across the district from the northwest to the southeast with 

an average of 30 inches. About two-thirds of this precipitation falls between April and 

September with a peak in late spring/early summer. Average annual snowfall is around 31 

inches. The length of the growing season varies from 135 days in the northwest portion of the 

district to 155 days in the southeast portion. An approximate twenty-year drought cycle occurs 

in Iowa, which may be important in limiting the occurrence of some prairie species and certain 

northern wetland species and is critical in restricting woody species (Eilers and Roosa, 1994).

Predicted Change

Iowa is no exception to the well-documented changing climate across the globe (ICCIC, 2010). 

Geologic records of Iowa show that the state’s climate has always been changing, although at a 

slower rate than today. Statistically significant changes in Iowa’s precipitation, streamflow, 

nighttime minimum temperatures, winter average temperatures, and dewpoint humidity readings 

have occurred during the past few decades. Iowa has already been experiencing warmer 

winters, longer growing seasons, warmer nights, higher dewpoint temperatures, increased 

humidity, greater annual streamflows, and more frequent severe precipitation events than were 

prevalent during the past 50 years (ICCIC, 2010). 

Regardless if the impacts from such changes seem positive or negative; it is likely that these 

trends will continue, especially with increased global release of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions. Unfortunately, Iowa is among the states with the largest GHG emissions per capita. 

However, Iowa is also among the states that could benefit the most economically by mitigating 

climate change using energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy (ICCIC, 2010).

More specifically, the PPR of Iowa appears to be particularly vulnerable to impacts from climate 

change. Even though much of the land in this area is in row crop agriculture, most of what is left 

of the state’s wetlands also occur here. Since climate, precipitation, and temperature heavily 

influence the functionality of wetlands, these systems are expected to change dramatically with 

the changing climate. The most recent literature (Johnson et al., 2010) predicts the Iowa portion 

of the PPR will become the most dynamic and therefore productive when compared to the 

western portion of the PPR that is expected to dry significantly. However, the literature also 

suggests that the area will have “too few functional wetlands and nesting habitat to support 

historic levels of waterfowl and other wetland-dependent species.”

According to the Iowa Climate Change Adaptation & Resilience Report (EPA, 2011), Iowa’s 

climate has changed in the following ways:

• Precipitation in Iowa has increased since the 1940s: Total annual precipitation has 

increased about 10 percent; more rain falls during spring and early summer with more 

heavy downpours.

• Stream and river flow have increased about 20 to 50 percent since the 1940s: More 

days have high stream flow in central Iowa, and spring soil moisture is close to 

saturation more frequently.
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

• Statewide winter temperatures have increased: On average, there are about five more 

frost-free days than in 1950; thaw-freeze cycles are more frequent.

• Wind speeds have declined over the last 30 years, potentially worsening air quality.

These increases are predicted to continue well into the future. Floods, heat waves, and severe 

weather events are all also predicted to increase with these changes in Iowa’s climate. 

In general, these trends are similar to those found throughout the PPR from 1906 through 2000 

(Millet et al., 2009). More specifically, the western portion of the PPR, which includes the 

Dakotas and portions of Montana and Canada, has been getting drier while the eastern portion, 

which includes Iowa and southwestern Minnesota is becoming wetter. As this gradient 

steepens, the productive wetland ecosystems of the PPR will shift and shrink. 

Historically, the climate of the western (portions of Montana, Saskatchewan, and Alberta) and 

eastern (Iowa and southwestern Minnesota) portions of the PPR would have limited wetland 

productivity due to either insufficient moisture and very long time between vegetation cover 

change or slow vegetation cover change, prolonged lake-marsh conditions, and too much water, 

respectively (Johnson et al., 2010). The most dynamic and therefore most productive wetlands 

would have occurred in the middle of these two extremes, across the Dakotas and parts of 

Canada. 

Three climate change scenarios, (temperature increase by 2 oC, 4 oC, and 4 oC plus a 10

percent increase in precipitation) suggest that in the future, the eastern portion of the PPR could 

see improvements in wetland productivity (Johnson et al., 2010). A dryer climate could create a 

more balanced water/vegetation cycle, more dynamic wetlands, and therefore more productive 

wetlands. This both highlights the importance of the Iowa WMD within a changing climate but 

also poses a potential conservation challenge since much of the area has been drained and 

plowed for agriculture. It seems likely that this area will “have too few functional wetlands and 

nesting habitat to support historic levels of waterfowl and other wetland-dependent species” 

(Johnson et al., 2010). The challenge is further compounded by the high cost of wetland and 

grassland restoration in Iowa, high commodity prices, increased agricultural desires, and in turn 

high land values. Restoration of drained wetlands in Iowa, although expensive, could help 

diminish the effects of climatic drying and droughts in the western portion of the PPR (Millett et

al., 2009). If any of these scenarios hold true, climate change would strongly reduce the 

contribution of the western PPR to overall wetland-associated biodiversity and would make the 

eastern PPR much more important. However, significant wetland restoration would have to 

occur in the eastern PPR to offset less productive conditions in the western PPR (Millett et al.,

2009). Furthermore, adaptation of farming practices in wetland watersheds may buffer the 

effects of climate change on wetlands (Johnson et al., 2010). 

Overall, a decrease in water supply to wetlands in the western PPR will likely cause significant 

shifts in plant communities either as direct responses to water level changes or indirectly 

through altered soil chemistry, decomposition, and disturbance regimes. For example in 

Minnesota, calcareous fens, providing habitat for a relatively large portion of rare plant species, 

may have reduced flow from lower hydraulic head in the ground water recharge favoring noncalciphitic vegetation (Galatowitsch et al., 2009). Unfortunately, several invasive species, 

including reed canarygrass, will also be favored. A shortened hydroperiod for wetlands will also 

severely affect vertebrates because of their longer life cycle requirements. These changes 

(based on a doubling of carbon dioxide output) could cut the U.S. mid-continent breeding duck 

population in half (Johnson et al., 2010). 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

Effects

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Indicators used for evaluating effects on climate change include the following:

• Carbon footprint: Both addition (emission) and removal (sequestration) of carbon from 

the atmosphere. Emission implies that the station is adding carbon to the atmosphere 

through outputs such as combustion and fossil energy use. Reduction implies that the 

refuge/district is trapping and storing carbon in biomass via sequestration.

• Awareness: The refuge/district’s relationship with the general public understanding of 

climate change. Components of this understanding include such things as education, 

research, monitoring, policy, outreach, capacity-building, and collaboration.

• System fortitude and resiliency: Changes in the ability of natural and human systems

including habitat, wildlife, human populations, and ecological processes to withstand or 

adapt to climate change due to characteristics such as susceptibility to threats, level of 

stress, system health, connectivity, size, diversity, and so forth.

The intensity categories for determining effects on climate change are defined as the following:

• Negligible: Management effect would be slight and undetectable; therefore, it would 

have no discernible effect on climate change

• Minor: Management might result in a slightly detectable effect regarding climate change 

but would result in little overall detraction or improvement

• Moderate: A noticeable change in management impacts on climate change

• Major: A substantial improvement or a severe decrease in management impacts on 

climate change

The effects on climate change from implementing the various alternatives described above were 

determined to be the following:

Beneficial, Long-Term, Negligible, Landscape

For all alternatives, restoring cropland, which may include some food plots, to perennial 

grassland or wetland would have a district-wide and perhaps wider effect on climate change in 

terms of reducing carbon footprint through sequestration and improving system fortitude and 

resiliency. A system such as this is less altered and closer to its natural state, with more 

perennial cover that sequesters more carbon and is more resilient to climate change. 

Other conservation agencies are also restoring cropland to perennial grassland or wetland on 

public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would have a 

greater, beneficial, long-term effect on climate change as described above. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Adverse, Short-Term, Negligible, Landscape

For all alternatives, localized increase in emissions from operation of vehicles or heavy 

equipment associated with potential future facility construction such as kiosks, trails, and pulloffs, which are needed to improve district awareness and understanding, increased public use 

providing appropriate recreational opportunities, or general management activities (acquisition) 

would increase the carbon footprint of the district. 

Other sources of emissions adding to the overall carbon footprint are present across the 

landscape as well. Expected changes in these sources are unknown at this time but would 

likely be minor given the rural nature of the district and general lack of large growing 

metropolitan areas. A general awareness of climate change and actions citizens can take to 

reduce their impacts is present across the district. 

The Soil Resource

The parent material of the district is all sedimentary rock including shales, sandstones, 

limestones, and dolomites. The western one-half is from the Cretaceous Era, the eastern onehalf is from the Middle Paleozoic Era featuring Silurian, Devonian, and Mississippian Periods. 

The southern portion is from the Upper Paleozoic Era featuring Pennsylvanian and Permian

Periods. The soils of the district are those typical of much of the Midwest, primarily mollisols 

with some alfisols. Mollisols naturally form under grassland cover with deep organic matter and 

are prime farmland especially if drained. Alfisols naturally form under hardwood forest cover 

with clay-enriched subsoil and high native fertility and are also prime farmland (figure 4-3). 

Changes to the soil resource, such as erosion, are common occurrences in Iowa. It is well 

known that land use has a large influence on soil erosion rates and that soil erosion has a 

negative influence on soil fertility and its overall production potential (farmers often have to add 

fertilizer to maintain crop production). In the 1950s, after recognizing the increased potential for 

soil erosion under modern agriculture, the USDA developed soil-loss tolerance values, also 

known as “T-value.” This represents the amount of erosion loss the soil can withstand without 

sacrificing long-term productivity. The T-value for most soils in Iowa is 5 tons/acre/year. While 

the T-value is a useful concept for maintaining long-term sustainability of the site, there are 

conditions where those values could result in excessive sediment delivery to receiving waters to 

the detriment of fish and other aquatic organisms. In fact, Montgomery (2007) compiled studies 

from across the globe and confirmed that erosion rates from conventionally plowed agricultural 

fields average 1–2 orders of magnitude greater than rates of erosion under native vegetation 

and rates of soil production. Many of the erosion rates from fields in this study were at or above 

T-value, while most rates from native vegetation were less than T-value. 

The Science-based Trials of Rowcrops Integrated with Prairies (STRIPs) project through Iowa 

State University at Neal Smith NWR has had similar results. The project is looking at the 

impacts of integrating small strips of prairie within row-cropped agricultural landscapes. 

Treatments consist of varying proportions of perennial vegetation within a row crop system. The 

10 percent perennial vegetation treatments either have the perennial vegetation all at the 

bottom of the watershed or in contour strips distributed from the lower to the upper portions of 

the watershed. The 20 percent perennial vegetation treatment has contour strips distributed 

across the watershed. Two additional watersheds located adjacent to the study area with 100 

percent reconstructed native prairie are also included for comparison. Preliminary data shows 

that from 2008 to 2012 soil lost from watersheds that contain 100 percent agricultural fields 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

ranged from over 19,000 lbs./acre/year to over 1,000 lbs./acre/year. Soil lost from watersheds 

with the 20 percent perennial vegetation treatment ranged from 960 lbs./acre/year to 32 

lbs./acre/year. Soil lost from watersheds with 100 percent reconstructed native prairie ranged 

from 300 lbs./acre in 2010 to 118 lbs./acre in 2011. Therefore, wetland and grassland cover 

types like those in the district are not only contributing less to soil erosion but are also trapping 

runoff water, soil, and nutrients from adjacent agricultural land. Furthermore, as this positive 

effect ripples across the landscape, downstream infrastructure including roads, culverts, and 

bridges are protected from the force of sedimentation and water as well. 

Current Management

The soil resource is currently managed indirectly through habitat and vegetation management. 

Conversion from agricultural row crops to perennial grassland and wetland cover, permanent 

protection of remnant prairie, restoration of existing non-native grassland, restoration of pothole 

hydrology, and the use of prescribed fire all affect the soil resource.

Effects

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Indicators used for evaluating effects on the soil resource include the following:

• Erosion: The removal of soil and/or rock from a surface (typically by wind or water), and 

the subsequent transport and deposition of these materials in another location.

• Structure: The arrangement of solid particles that compose a soil and the space between 

them. This indicator includes compaction and consolidation—pressure or stress applied 

to a soil surface causing densification as air (compaction) and water (consolidation) are 

displaced from the pores between the soil grains. Structure influences the movement of 

air, water, and nutrients; erosion potential; as well as biological activity such as 

burrowing animals, soil organisms, root growth, and seedling success.

• Profile: The horizontal stratification of soil layers, which differ by physical characteristics 

such as particle type and texture.

The intensity categories for determining effects on the soil resource are defined as the following:

• Negligible: No measurable or detectable effect

• Minor: Slight effect; there may be a detectable change

• Moderate: Clearly detectable effect, appreciable change, noticeable, and potential to 

remove small quantities of additional soil

• Major: Permanent loss or alteration of soil, large change, and strong likelihood to remove 

large quantities of additional soil

The effects on the soil resource from implementing the various alternatives described above 

were determined to be the following:
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

For Alternatives A and C, restoring cropland, which may include some food plots, and new 

acquisition to perennial grassland or wetland would have an effect on soil erosion by stabilizing 

the soil, protecting it from rain and wind, absorbing precipitation by storing it rather than allowing 

it to run off, and slowing down any runoff that does occur. Areas that are restored to perennial 

native grassland and wetland cover would also have localized effect on soil structure by adding 

to the organic layer over time as the vegetation naturally dies and decomposes. Soil with native 

perennial cover may have greater stabilization and a thicker organic layer as most native 

species, especially in grasslands, have deeper roots and some have greater above-soil 

biomass. 

Beneficial, Long-Term, Moderate, Landscape

For Alternatives B and D, focusing on restoring cropland, which may include some food plots 

and new acquisition, to perennial grassland or wetland would have an effect on soil erosion. 

This restoration would stabilize the soil, protect it from rain and wind, absorb precipitation by

storing it rather than allowing it to run off, and slow down any runoff that does occur. Areas that 

are restored to perennial native grassland and wetland cover would also have localized effect 

on soil structure by adding to the organic layer over time as the vegetation naturally dies and 

decomposes. Soil with diverse native perennial cover, compared to native perennial cover and 

non-native cover, may have greater stabilization and may gain a thicker organic layer as most 

native species, especially in grasslands, have deeper roots and some have greater above-soil 

biomass. 

Other conservation agencies are also restoring cropland to perennial grassland or wetland on 

public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would have a 

greater, beneficial, long-term effect on the soil resource as described above. 

Adverse, Long-Term, Negligible, Local

For Alternatives C and D, any areas with increased visitor use that results from providing 

appropriate recreational opportunities may have increased compaction from foot traffic, although 

this would likely not be measurable. In sites where new facilities such as kiosks, trails, and pulloffs are constructed to improve district awareness and understanding, there would be localized 

movement of small amounts of soil for the footers or foundation; however, that would likely not 

be noticeable. Soil erosion associated with these activities would also likely be undetectable.

Other construction and use activities are also occurring within the district both on public and 

private land. However, most of them have a local effect, which is diminished once the activity 

has stopped and the areas are re-vegetated. Specific projects are unknown, but are not likely to 

have a large adverse impact on the overall landscape. 

Water Resources

Iowa's Des Moines Lobe forms the southernmost extent of the PPR of central North America. It 

terminates at the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers of which the Raccoon 

forms the southern and western border of the lobe. Small potholes and large, open water lakes 

are scattered throughout the landscape.
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Figure 4-3: Soils of the Iowa WMD
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

Prairie Potholes

Prior to agricultural drainage, this region contained abundant wetlands, many associated with 

"prairie potholes" or "kettles” evident from the General Land Office (GLO) surveyors’ maps and 

notes (figure 4-4). Recent geologic studies of the Des Moines Lobe have changed ideas 

concerning the origin and hydrology of these wetlands and their relationship to other aspects of 

the landscape. Geologists previously 

thought that Iowa's potholes and kettles 

formed when chunks of buried glacial ice 

melted to create isolated, bowl-shaped 

depressions on the freshly exposed land 

surface between 14,000 and 11,500 years 

ago. These depressions were thought to 

be "closed," having no drainage outlets. 

More recently, detailed examination of 

aerial photographs and subsurface earth 

materials has revealed that many of these 

depressions are only partially closed; they 

actually join with neighboring depressions 

to form linked systems. 

While subtle features on the ground, the 

linked depression systems stand out as 

dark web-like patterns when viewed from the air. The links outline the routes of former 

meltwater channels, and some of these actually connect drainage ways that today lie in two 

separate surface drainage basins. The linked-depressions originated as part of a glacial karst 

system that developed in a stagnant glacier loaded with sediment. As the glacier's surface 

melted, water entered cracks in the ice and began to widen and deepen. These eventually 

formed drainage tunnels within the stagnant glacier that joined with other drainage ways near 

the base of the ice. As water flowed through the system, sediment within the ice also entered 

the tunnels. Over time, fine-grained silt and clay were flushed from the tunnels, but more coarse 

sand and gravel settled along the routes. When all the ice was melted, the former branching 

passages, with their permeable sand and gravel deposits, were preserved as linked systems set 

into and intermingling with other surrounding glacial materials.

The real importance of this finding is in ground water quality. Rather than the sluggish ground 

water system previously envisioned for large parts of the Des Moines Lobe, the linked

depressions actually act as a system of "natural drainage tiles" that join poorly drained upland 

areas with surface waters. This linkage provides a previously unrecognized pathway for 

dissolved contaminants, such as crop nutrients, to enter the region's waters (Iowa DNR, 1997).

Historically, these depressions provided an infiltrative hydrology, allowing surface water to be 

collected, stored, and gradually released to larger streams and underground aquifers. However, 

for nearly a century and a half, farmers drained, dredged, and tiled the wetlands and small 

streams on the Des Moines Lobe until approximately 99 percent were gone (figure 4-4). Larger 

streams and rivers were dredged and straightened for faster removal of surface water. Today, 

the landscape looks much different, dominated by agriculture that consists primarily of corn and 

soybeans. This alteration has led to an imbalanced hydrological regime. In the upstream or 

headwater portion of small streams, water moves off the land much faster, allowing greater 

stream bank and bed erosion, creating increased transport and deposition of materials 

(including soil and agricultural chemicals), along with more severe flooding downstream. 

Prairie Pothole
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Figure 4-4: Historic and Existing Wetland Comparison of the Iowa WMD
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Draining of wetlands has lowered the water table, causing natural underground springs and 

small streams to stop flowing. Most of these hydrological changes have occurred within a 

human lifetime (Anderson, 2001). 

Watersheds and Rivers

Historically, small prairie streams, meandering through the tall grasses, subtly linked the 

marshes, sloughs, and wetlands to larger streams and rivers, making it difficult to determine 

exact watershed boundaries. Today, after improved drainage from both natural and 

anthropogenic causes, the watersheds of the district are more easily defined. The western most 

portion (about one-third) of the district drains to the Missouri River, while the rest of the district

drains to the Mississippi River. The primary watersheds, from west to east include the MissouriLittle Sioux, Des Moines, and Upper Mississippi-Iowa-Skunk-Wapsipinicon. Major rivers that 

run through the district include the Little Sioux, Des Moines, Raccoon, Iowa, Cedar, Shell Rock, 

Upper Iowa, Boone, Winnebago, and Skunk (figure 4-5). 

Many of these rivers have been environmentally degraded since they have been dammed, 

deepened, straightened, and rerouted to better regulate flood control and allow for development. 

Only the Boone and Upper Iowa do not have stretches within the district listed as impaired on 

the Iowa Impaired Waters List for 2010. However, several stretches of the Upper Iowa outside 

the district are listed as impaired. Reasons for listing include concerns for human health (fish 

consumption), aquatic life, and primary contact—recreation due to high levels of bacteria, 

mercury, and unknown impacts on freshwater mussels (Iowa DNR, 2010).

Lakes

The district includes many lakes, large 

and small, shallow and deep (figure 4-

5). Saylorville Lake near Des Moines 

is a large man-made lake completed in 

1977 as interest in flood protection for 

the city of Des Moines peaked after 

several major floods of the Des Moines 

River. Spirit Lake, East Okoboji Lake,

and West Okoboji Lake near Spencer 

are Iowa’s largest natural (glacial) 

lakes and have become known as the 

Iowa Great Lakes. Storm Lake near 

the City of Storm Lake is Iowa’s fourth 

largest natural lake, while Lake 

Panorama near Guthrie Center is 

Iowa’s largest private lake. Clear Lake 

near Mason City is another large natural lake of Iowa. Saylorville, West Okoboji, Spirit, and 

Clear lakes are all listed as impaired waters for the state due to high levels of bacteria (Iowa

DNR, 2010). 

Shallow Lake
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

Figure 4-5: Watersheds, Rivers, and Lakes of the Iowa WMD
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

Drainage and Pesticides

The PPR of Iowa has been drastically altered since settlement. The glaciation that created this 

area left a landscape that was flat to rolling with few well defined drainage networks. Wetlands 

were connected by small, subtle prairie streams. Dense, deep-rooted vegetation and poorly 

developed drainage resulted in an infiltrative hydrology. Water was collected, stored, and slowly 

released to larger rivers and underground aquifers. This is in stark contrast to the present 

conditions in Iowa’s PPR. Streams 

and drainage ways have been 

deepened and straightened. 

Thousands of miles of drainage tile 

have been installed. The once vast 

prairie has been replaced with corn 

and beans. The result is a landscape 

that removes water quickly and 

increases soil erosion, nutrient and 

pesticide transport, and downstream 

flooding. Hydrologic changes in the 

landscape go far beyond the loss of the 

vast majority of the wetland basins. 

The water table has been lowered 

significantly, and both surface and 

subsurface drainage patterns have 

been drastically altered. 

Since Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) are only islands in this sea of intensive agriculture 

with highly altered drainage patterns, the frequency, intensity, and duration of water flowing into 

many units is abnormally high. Siltation, nutrient loading, and contamination from point and 

non-point sources of pollution are a serious problem on many WPAs. WPAs are also 

threatened by farming trespass, dumping, wildfires, and pesticide applications on adjacent 

agricultural land. A study in Ontario, Canada examined the effects of habitat and agricultural 

practices on birds breeding on farmland and determined that the most important variable 

decreasing total bird species abundance was pesticide use (Freemark and Csizy, 1993).

Recent changes in agriculture have accelerated the impact of pesticides on surrounding land. 

Genetically altered Roundup® ready corn, soybeans, cotton, and sugar beets have expanded 

the window of opportunity for pesticide applications and promises to kill everything green on 

fields except the genetically altered crops. Another altered crop, Bt. Corn, contains a genetically 

engineered insecticide. Even the pollen from this plant can kill certain insects, such as monarch 

butterflies. 

Research has shown that insecticides commonly used for sunflowers, soybeans, and corn can 

kill wildlife directly and indirectly by decreasing the amount of food available. For example, 

ducks feed on grain much of the year, but in the spring they shift to aquatic invertebrates such 

as insect larvae, amphipods, and snails and depend on this food source for reproduction and 

survival. Even when aerial insecticide applications are completed carefully and wetlands are 

avoided, the chemicals drift into wetlands in measurable amounts and kill aquatic invertebrates 

(Tome et al., 1991 and Grue et al., 1986).

Insecticides have a direct effect by killing aquatic invertebrates, but herbicides also have an 

indirect effect on food available to waterfowl. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service)

Drainage Tile Installation
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

conducted a study of the impact of agricultural chemicals on selected wetlands in four WMDs in 

Minnesota (Ensor and Smith, 1994). Herbicides from surrounding agricultural land enter 

wetlands and disrupt the functional interaction between vegetation structure and aquatic 

invertebrate life. The changing dynamic reduces food available to breeding waterfowl. 

Seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands, which are the majority of WPA wetlands, are the most 

exposed to agricultural chemicals. These wetlands are small and interspersed with croplands, 

which increases the probability of pesticides from overspray and aerial drift. Most pesticides are 

applied to crops in the spring and early summer, coincident with maximum runoff and waterfowl 

breeding. Therefore, prairie pothole wetlands may involve interactions of multiple herbicides 

and possibly insecticides creating a unique “chemical soup" in each individual wetland (Ensor 

and Smith, 1994). Ensor and Smith’s study showed that "typical agricultural use" of pesticides 

on surrounding land had a significant impact in reducing the biological quality of WPA wetlands. 

The extensive open ditches and drainage tile also play a critical role as conduit for the 

transmission of exotic species into wetlands. Rough non-native fish species such as carp can 

reside in ditches and drainage tile surviving even low dissolved oxygen levels. These fish travel 

upstream through ditches and tile reaching wetlands, where they cause turbidity in the water, 

disturbing wetland soils, and preventing aquatic plant growth.

Current Management

At the district level, water resources are primarily managed indirectly through habitat and 

vegetation management. For example, the planting of perennial grassland cover around district

wetlands provides a protective buffer that reduces silt and nutrient loading of the wetlands. 

However, some district wetlands use water control structures to allow the manipulation of water 

levels for management purposes such as rough fish control, wetland revegetation, or the 

prevention of negative impacts to adjacent private cropland. In fact, agricultural drainage 

activities are the biggest challenge for the district when implementing management actions. 

Wetland restoration in the district must be carefully orchestrated as not to interrupt drainage on 

adjacent private land. In many cases, drainage must be maintained across WPAs so 

neighboring fields continue to drain. This often involves outletting tile into district wetlands, 

rerouting tile and/or replacing tile with nonperforated pipe, and/or installing water control 

structures. As mentioned above, this water brings excessive soil and nutrient runoff from 

adjacent crop fields into the wetlands in the district. Restoring wetlands in this landscape have 

foreseen consequences. If a restorable wetland is connected to a surface ditch, the restored 

wetland may act as a sediment retention basin and not function as a true wetland. This effects 

the vegetation in the wetlands and ultimately waterfowl production in those wetlands.

Effects

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Water resources refer to surface, ground, and atmospheric water. Indicators used for 

evaluating effects on water resources include the following:

• Water quantity: Water delivery (source, amount, rate, and distribution), water movement 

(pathways), and water storage (duration and frequency of inundation)

• Water quality: Sedimentation, turbidity, nutrients, and heavy metals
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

The intensity categories for determining effects on water resources are defined as the following:

• Negligible: No measurable or detectable change

• Minor: May be a detectable change

• Moderate: Clearly detectable change

• Major: Substantial and/or permanent change

The effects on water resources from implementing the various alternatives described above 

were determined to be the following:

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

For Alternatives A and C, even though the primary function of wetlands within the district is to 

produce waterfowl, once properly restored, wetlands also act like a sponge, slowing and filtering 

water moving down the landscape and underground. This improves water quality by catching 

sediment, filtering nutrients, and absorbing water. With a more natural hydrologic cycle, 

nutrients and water are stored in the soil and vegetation reducing runoff and slowing 

evapotranspiration. 

Similarly, in the uplands, restoring cropland—which may include some food plots and new 

acquisition—to perennial grassland has a positive effect on water quantity by intercepting rain 

before it hits the soil, allowing water to infiltrate and thereby slowing down and minimizing 

runoff. Areas restored to native grassland will better protect against soil moisture loss during a 

drought event as well. Both uplands and wetlands with native perennial cover better protect 

water quality and balance water quantity in heavy rain events. 

Finally, focusing restored wetlands within a watershed serves a secondary purpose of protecting 

water quality. The more wetlands that are restored closer to the top of a watershed and the 

more interception with water, sediment, and nutrients moving across the landscape, the cleaner 

the water quality is in the central, lowest water body in the watershed. Restoring uplands within 

a watershed to perennial grassland has an even greater effect on water quality overall rather 

than just restoring individual wetlands and lakes.

Beneficial, Long-Term, Moderate, Landscape

The effects for Alternatives B and D are the same as those listed above under Beneficial, LongTerm, Minor, Landscape in addition to the following:

With a focus on restoring cropland to perennial grassland, the quality of upland cover and the 

rate at which it would change would have a larger and immediate effect on water quality than 

slowly converting smaller areas over time. 

Other conservation agencies are also restoring cropland to perennial grassland or wetland on 

public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would have a 

greater, beneficial, long-term effect on water resources as described above. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

Adverse, Short-Term, Negligible, Local

For Alternatives C and D, localized decrease in water quality from increased runoff and erosion 

could lead to increased nutrient loading or sedimentation from potential future facility 

construction such as kiosks, trails, and pull-offs. This effect would be so minor; it would likely 

not be measurable. Any effect would mostly be eliminated once some of the disturbed areas 

were re-vegetated.

Other construction and use activities are also occurring within the district both on public and 

private land. However, most of them have a local effect, which is diminished once the activity 

has stopped and the areas are re-vegetated. Specific projects are unknown but are not likely to 

have a large adverse impact on the overall landscape. 

Air Quality

Iowa’s rural setting tends to promote better air quality than some other states in the Nation. 

However, Iowa’s tradition as a working lands state, especially agriculturally, actually exposes its 

air to numerous potential sources of pollution. Existing air quality within the district is subject to 

air pollutants from the following:

• Internal combustion engines, including vehicles, tractors, outboard motors, and 

chainsaws

• Agricultural sources, including livestock confinements and field dust

• Private sources, including burning brush piles

• Industrial sources, including factory and other large industry output in larger cities

Current Management

While several district management activities, such as using chainsaws, seeding cropland to 

native prairie, and driving trucks and tractors, release pollutants into the air, perhaps the activity 

of most concern regarding air quality is prescribed fire. Prescribed fire is one of the basic tools 

used to achieve a variety of management objectives in the fire dependent tallgrass prairie 

ecosystem within the district. Tallgrass prairie evolved with recurring fire and is therefore 

dependent on recurring fire for maintenance.

While prescribed fire affects air quality by releasing particulates and pollutant gases, it is only a 

sporadic and temporary source of air pollution. Air quality impacts are short-lived since a 

specific burn plan is written, indicating, among other variables, particular wind requirements 

(direction and speed) for igniting any given fire. Wind typically dissipates smoke rapidly. 

Approximately 5,000–7,000 acres of habitat are burned in the district each year either for 

restoration or maintenance of grasslands. This acreage will likely increase if the district

continues acquisition. Presently, the vast majority of prescribed fire occurs in the spring with 

little accomplished in the fall. There is a desire for more autumn and summer prescribed fires; 

however, a variety of factors makes this challenging. Overall careful planning and good 

communication has reduced negative impacts to neighbors and sensitive facilities in the area. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

Effects

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Indicators used for evaluating effects on air quality include the following:

• Air emissions: The introduction of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gasses (i.e.,

chemicals, particulate matter, biological materials) into the atmosphere from natural or 

anthropogenic sources

• Visibility: The transparency of the air, or distance at which objects or light can be clearly 

discerned as a result of the absorption and scattering of light by particles and gases in 

the atmosphere

The intensity categories for determining effects on air quality are defined as the following:

• Negligible: No measurable or detectable effect

• Minor: Slight effect, causing a change

• Moderate: Clearly detectable effect, appreciable change

• Major: Substantial, highly noticeable change locally or regionally

The effects on air quality from implementing the various alternatives described above were 

determined to be the following:

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

For all alternatives, restoring cropland to perennial grassland or wetland would stabilize soils, 

reduce wind-blown particulate matter, and increase the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed from 

the atmosphere and stored as carbon in biomass and soils. See the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Air Quality site: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/air/quality/?cid=stelprdb1047144.

Other conservation agencies are also restoring cropland to perennial grassland or wetland on 

public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would have a 

greater, beneficial, long-term effect on air quality as described above. 

Adverse, Short-Term, Minor, Local

For alternatives C and D, there could be a localized increase in emissions from operation of 

vehicles or heavy equipment associated with potential future facility construction such as kiosks, 

trails, or pull-offs or increased public use.

Other construction and use activities are also occurring within the district both on public and 

private land. However, most of them have a local effect, which is diminished once the activity 

has stopped and the areas are re-vegetated. Specific projects are unknown, but are not likely to 

have a large adverse impact on the overall landscape. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

Adverse, Short-Term, Major, Local

For all alternatives, with more land in perennial cover than row crop and continued acquisition, 

prescribed fire may be used more as a management tool, causing localized increases in 

emissions from smoke. However, grazing, mowing and haying will likely also be used as 

management tools to accomplish some of the same objectives as prescribed fire. 

Other conservation agencies and some private landowners within the district utilize prescribed 

fire as a management tool as well. If multiple fires were burning at the same time, there would 

be a larger impact from smoke emissions. However, most conservation agencies follow similar 

burn plans in regards to weather conditions, wind direction, notifying local residents, etc. It is 

unlikely that there would be enough fires burning at the same time to have a large adverse 

effect on the landscape, especially since the limited conservation agency staff in Iowa often 

works together to accomplish burning and can only burn so may acres at a time. 

Habitat

Often called the Prairie Pothole Region, the Des Moines Lobe was glaciated up until 12,000 

years ago. As the glaciers receded, the lobe that extended into north-central Iowa left behind 

7.6 million acres of grasslands, with the tallgrass prairie biome as a prime example, and two to 

three million acres of wetlands and small interconnected swamps. This prairie/wetland complex 

evolved under the influence of climate and processes such as fire and grazing. After the 

glaciers receded, the climate became much warmer and drier. This change led to a dramatic 

expansion of prairie over a period of several thousand years. About 3,000 years ago, the 

climate turned cooler and wetter. This should have favored the expansion of trees, but the 

prairie in Iowa was maintained by regular fires and grazing by large herbivores. However, in the 

late 1800s, Iowa suffered significant losses in wetland and grasslands as settlers began 

converting the rich soils of these habitats to cropland. Nonetheless, this region contains some 

of Iowa's finest remnants of the tallgrass prairie (figure 4-6). Prairie bush clover (Lespedeza 

leptostachya), a plant endemic to the upper Midwest, is found on some of these remnants 

(Eilers and Roosa, 1994). 

Based on the Potential Natural Vegetation data derived from the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic database soil descriptions, historically over 90 

percent of the district was prairie; over six percent was savanna and just over one percent was 

forest (figure 4-7). Pothole wetlands were not uniquely identified as a habitat type; however 

marsh, bog, muck/peat, and water were identified (figure 4-7). Since not much of these 

categories show up in the district, it is likely that the pothole wetland habitat is included in 

prairie, considered “wet prairie.” Currently, over 80 percent of the district is in row crop 

agriculture while nearly eight percent is developed. Surprisingly, seven percent remains in 

grassland agriculture or herbaceous cover. Finally, two percent is forested and just over one 

percent is wetlands (figure 4-8). 

During the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) planning process, a vegetative cover type 

Geographic Information System (GIS) layer was created. Aerial photography interpretation was 

used to classify the vegetation covering the district into several general categories including 

agriculture, developed, disturbed, grassland, open water, trees, and wetland. This layer was 

compared to a similar layer created by the Iowa DNR a couple of years ago; however, that layer 

did not include WPAs managed by Union Slough NWR (within the district) or the district’s 

newest acquisitions. Table 4-1 summarizes the number of acres per cover type category. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Figure 4-9 displays one WPA as an example showing the layer that was created during the CCP 

planning process. 

Table 4-1: Iowa WMD Vegetative Cover Type Classifications as of Summer 2011

Cover Type DNR Managed 

(acres)*

Union Slough 

NWR Managed 

(acres)*

Acquired After 

DNR 

Classification 

(acres)*

Total (acres)*

Agriculture 3,385 0 342 3,727

Developed 143 23 0.4 166.4

Disturbed 34 8 1 43

Grassland 13,262 2,839 86 16,187

Open Water 850 54 0 904

Trees 311 93 3 407

Wetland 3,235 276 6 3,517

Total 21,220 3,293 438.4 24,951.4

*Acres are based on GIS polygons and calculations, not on legal survey documents. 

Figure 4-6: Iowa’s Remaining Tallgrass Prairie Remnants
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Figure 4-7: Potential Natural Vegetation of the Iowa WMD
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

Figure 4-8: National Land Cover (2006) of the Iowa WMD
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Figure 4-9: Vegetative Cover for Spring Run Waterfowl Production Area in the Iowa WMD
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Wetlands

Prairie wetlands and prairie streams are an important part of the prairie ecosystem. The PPR is 

characterized by numerous, shallow wetlands known as potholes. These wetlands provide 

essential fish and wildlife habitat, permit ground water recharge, and act as filters of sediment 

and pollutants. They reduce floods by storing water and delaying runoff. The PPR of more than 

300,000 square miles once included about 20 million acres of wetlands; today, only about 5.3 

million acres remain in 2.7 million basins within five pothole area states, including Iowa. More 

than 78 percent of these wetland basins are smaller than one acre in size. They were poorly 

drained, and in the spring they retained water, acting like a great landscape sponge. Over the 

course of the season, water drained slowly.

Settlers found the shallow wetlands difficult to farm as the high water table kept the ground 

saturated for extended periods in wet years. Therefore, the vast prairie pothole wetlands of 

north central and northwest Iowa took longer to impact. Through the first 20 years of settlement 

there was plenty of good land available without trying to farm around wet acres. However, in 

1850, Congress passed the Swamp Land Act. It directed each county to survey all wetlands and 

sell them at auction for five cents per acre. County drainage commissions and drainage districts 

were soon organized. Eventually pothole soils were discovered to be some of the most 

productive when dry, further accelerating the demand for drainage. When the land was 

converted to farms, the new owners built drainage ditches, straightened streams, and drained 

shallow wetlands off their land. Now, in the spring, water rushes off the land and floods the 

streams and rivers. Drainage has been so extensive that in many areas the water table has 

been lowered and the hydrology of the entire region has been transformed. In Iowa, 99 percent 

of pre-settlement wetlands have been lost (from 2.3 million to 26,470 acres), primarily between 

the 1780s and the 1980s (Noss et al., 1995).

The fluctuating water levels in the shallow wetlands are natural to the dynamic pattern of 

precipitation in the prairie. The changing water level results in circular bands of vegetation 

around each basin, because different plant species have different tolerances for saturated soils. 

The depth of the basin also affects the kind of vegetation that grows. The drying pattern is one 

of the features used to classify wetland basins. Deeper basins have perennial emergent 

vegetation such as cattails and dry up every five to 10 years. Wetlands that dry up every other 

year or on a several year cycle are called semi-permanent or permanent wetlands. Basins that 

dry up every year are temporary or seasonal wetlands. Some very shallow basins, called 

ephemeral wetlands, dry up early in the spring after the frost leaves the ground.

Freshwater wetlands like those in the PPR are among the most productive in the world (Weller,

1981). The dynamic water cycle creates a rich environment for many waterfowl and other 

marsh birds. Cycling water accelerates decomposition of marsh vegetation, resulting in a 

natural fertilizer. When the basins recharge in the spring, the water becomes a soup of 

nutrients and supports a diverse and healthy population of aquatic invertebrates, which feed 

reproducing waterfowl and marsh birds throughout the spring and summer. In the larger basins, 

the vegetation changes from densely closed cattail (Typha sp.) or bulrush (Scirpus sp.) cover to 

open with little cover over a period of years. In the process of transition, the cover vegetation 

moves through a phase, known as hemi-marsh, when clumps of emergent vegetation are 

interspersed with open water (Weller, 1981). In this phase, the structure of the vegetation itself 

creates habitat and stimulates the production of aquatic invertebrates, which in turn hosts the 

maximum number of marsh birds. Unfortunately, this phase is only temporary and most 

wetlands cycle out of it in one to three years.
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Unfortunately, large-bodied fish appear to be critical determinants of wetland condition. 

Common carp (Cyprinus carpio), bullhead (Ameiurus sp.) and other large fish were not 

historically abundant in Iowa prairie pothole wetlands but now occur in many of these 

ecosystems and are causing significant problems. Large fish stir up wetland sediment while 

foraging, which reduces water clarity. Fish foraging activities also increase nitrogen and 

phosphorus in the water, which stimulates noxious algae blooms. Fish can also physically 

uproot plants and reduce the number of invertebrates by eliminating their habitat and consuming 

them. Large fish may be introduced to wetlands when nearby streams and rivers flood. When 

the flood water recedes, many fish are stranded in the ponds where they often thrive. Fish can 

also invade wetlands from streams and rivers via constructed drainage ditches (Galatowitsch 

and van der Valk, 1994).

According to the National Wetlands Inventory, updated over the past several years, the district

contains approximately 372,722 wet acres. Those wet acres are either associated with rivers 

(riverine: 35,498 acres), lakes (lacustrine: 55,065 acres), or marshes, swamps or ponds 

(palustrine: 282,159 acres). However, nearly 40 percent (107,893 acres) of the palustrine acres 

are temporarily wet areas that have been farmed through, usually having very little or no 

wetland emergent vegetation (figure 4-10). The various water regimes for the wet acres in the 

district are presented in table 4-2.

Table 4-2: National Wetlands Inventory Water Regime for the Iowa WMD’s Wet Acres

National Wetlands Inventory Water Regime Acres

None 470

Temporarily Flooded including "ditched and farmed" 194,960

Saturated 1,107

Seasonally Flooded 54,438

Semi-permanently Flooded 19,504

Intermittently Exposed 24,586

Permanently Flooded 75,014

Artificially Flooded 2,642

Current Management

The goal of wetland management in the district is to provide diverse wetland complexes that 

provide high quality nesting and migratory habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds. Most new 

lands acquired for the district have been crop fields for many decades. This has resulted in the 

draining of all wetlands on the property. After acquisition, one of the first management actions 

taken on these lands is to restore the drained wetlands. Wetland restoration is accomplished in 

a variety of ways including the removal and/or alteration of underground drainage tile, the 

plugging of drainage ditches, the construction of dikes or the installation of water control 

structures. After restoring the hydrology, most wetlands are allowed to naturally revegetate. 

Seeding appropriate wetland plants into the various zones of the wetland can increase plant 

diversity. This is rarely completed due to a lack of appropriate seed source, high cost, and 

extensive time commitment. The few attempts that have been made to increase plant diversity 

by seeding wetland areas have been met with mixed results at best. Once restored, the 

manipulation of vegetation is the primary management action that is being used more often with 

Iowa DNR zone seedings. Prescribed fire and water level manipulation are the most common 

tools used to manage wetland vegetation.
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

Figure 4-10: National Wetlands Inventory of the Iowa WMD

Native Grasslands

The natural prairie of Iowa was more than just a monolithic sea of grass, with some containing 

200 plant species. Prairie plants are adapted to subtle changes in moisture and soils that occur 

along a gradient from lowlands to drier prairie ridges. Poorly drained wetlands and wetland 

margins supported rank growths of sedges (Carex sp.), sloughgrass (Beckmannia sp.), 

cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), and various panicgrasses. 

Common forbs (constituting 80 percent of the plant species in some areas) included such 

species as gayfeather (Liatris pycnostachya), cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum), turk’s-cap lily 

(Lilium superbum), prairie clover (Dalea sp.), various coneflowers, and New England aster 

(Symphyotrichum novae-angliae). Better-drained loamy soils on slopes and broad ridges were 

covered with more moderate stands of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), big bluestem 

(Andropogon gerardii), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and forbs like compass plant 

(Silphium laciniatum), rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium), smooth blue aster 

(Symphyotrichum laeve), wild indigo (Baptisia sp.) and goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Drier sites on 

gravel and sand ridges or steep slopes supported shorter and more open stands of little 

bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), and 

needlegrass (Stipa sp.), with forbs like pasqueflower (Pulsatilla patens), ground plum 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

(Astragalus crassicarpus), pucoon (Lithospermum sp.) and downy gentian (Gentiana 

puberulenta). 

Today, remnants of prairie and their 

associated wetlands are scattered and 

rare across their historic range, 

especially in Iowa. In fact, all types of 

tallgrass prairie are considered 

endangered ecosystems (85–98

percent decline), but tallgrass prairie 

east of the Missouri River and on 

mesic sites across its range is critically 

endangered (>98 percent decline). In 

Iowa, 99.9 percent of the natural 

tallgrass prairie has been lost. 

Remnants totaling approximately 

30,000 acres remain mostly on dry 

and dry-mesic sites too rocky, sandy, 

dry, or inaccessible to plow (Noss et 

al., 1995). These remnants form the last refuge for many species of prairie plants and wildlife 

(Zohrer, 2005). 

As is often the case when something reaches levels so low that it is in danger of disappearing 

completely, tallgrass prairie has enjoyed a resurgence of interest over the last several decades. 

This has led to more plantings using native species. At first, monotypic stands of switchgrass 

were planted. Then mixes of three to five species of native grasses were used. Today, many 

prairie plantings include diverse mixes of native grasses and forbs, often up to 70 species of 

forbs and grasses. Although they still fall short, these diverse plantings do more closely 

resemble remnant prairie.

Savannas are areas of scattered, open canopy trees surrounded by tallgrass prairie. The 

dominant savanna tree species is burr oak (Quercus macrocarpa). Historically, pockets of 

savanna were found in portions of the Des Moines Lobe landform in Iowa. Notably, Winnebago 

and Worth Counties contained significant tracts of savanna. Savanna is important to bird 

species such as red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), Eastern bluebird 

(Sialia sialis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus,) and orchard oriole (Icterus spurius).

Current Management

Remnant prairie in the district is managed to provide high quality habitat for migratory birds. It is 

also important to preserve the remnant prairie for its intrinsic value. Some remnant prairie 

provides habitat for threatened and endangered species, and in fact, tallgrass prairie is itself an 

endangered ecosystem. All management activities on these lands occur only after considering 

the long-term effects they will have on the prairie community, especially effects on any known 

threatened or endangered species. Common management activities on these lands include 

prescribed fire, tree and brush removal, invasive species control, haying, and grazing.

The majority of district lands were crop fields when they were purchased. Therefore, most of 

the upland in the district was seeded with a goal of planting vegetation attractive as nesting 

cover to waterfowl and other migratory grassland birds. Currently, most new seedings planted 

Purple Prairie Clover
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

in the district are diverse mixes of local 

ecotype native grasses and forbs. 

These diverse mixes often contain 50 

to over 130 species. Some of the 

oldest native seedings in the district

contain a single species such as 

switchgrass or big bluestem. There 

are also intermediate diversity 

seedings that contain anywhere from a 

mix of three to seven native grasses to 

a mix of ten to twenty native grasses 

and forbs. As the seed mixes evolved 

from low diversity to high diversity, it

became clear that the geographic 

origin of the seed used was important. 

Southern ecotype seed will grow in 

northern Iowa but frequently does not produce viable seed. Varieties from too far north of Iowa 

tend to be susceptible to disease. Therefore, great care is taken to ensure that all native 

seedings use appropriate ecotype seed. Once established, planted native grasslands are 

managed with prescribed fire, tree and brush removal, invasive species control, haying and 

grazing. 

Savanna is not a habitat type that is targeted for purchase by the district. Restoring and 

managing savanna has little, if any, benefit to ground nesting waterfowl. In fact, savanna 

habitat is likely to attract avian and mammalian predators that will be a detriment to ground 

nesting waterfowl. However, some past acquisitions have contained a few small areas that may 

be degraded savanna. Savanna is an important habitat type; however, it is not currently the 

district’s highest priority. Therefore, the current strategy to manage these savanna areas is 

passive—to leave them as they are for now. 

Non-Native Grasslands

Prior to settlement, most of Iowa was covered with tallgrass prairie. As the state was settled 

and the prairie was broken up, introduced species gained a foothold. Europeans brought 

familiar plant species with them as they settled Iowa. Some of these new species were 

introduced intentionally as pasture “improvement.” Other species were introduced by accident 

from hay that was imported from overseas to feed livestock. Regardless of how they got here, 

many of these species have flourished since their introduction to Iowa. Grasses like smooth 

brome (Bromus inermis), timothy (Phleum pretense), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), and 

Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) are now common grasses throughout Iowa. Broad-leaved 

plants such as crownvetch (Coronilla varia), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), alfalfa 

(Medicago sativa), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) are also commonly found in Iowa’s 

grasslands today.

Current Management

There are many acres of non-native grassland in the district. In some cases, the land was 

purchased with existing stands of the non-native grassland. Hayfields, old pasture or land that 

had been enrolled by the previous landowner in CRP are frequently covered with non-native 

species such as smooth brome.

Tallgrass Prairie
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

Non-native grasslands are, at times, planted on old crop fields in the district, because they are 

attractive as dense nesting cover for ducks and other migratory birds. Haying after July 15 is 

the primary tool used to manage these areas. Waiting until July 15 to mow the grass allows 

nesting birds a chance to hatch and fledge before the field is cut. Haying controls invasive 

woody vegetation and invigorates the alfalfa in the stand. Cool season introduced species are 

also planted at times as firebreaks around building sites or other sensitive areas.

Prescribed fire is also used to manage non-native grasslands. If the fire is conducted in the 

early spring, it will also invigorate the stand. Fire also works well as a first step in converting the 

non-native stand to native grassland. The fire removes all the vegetation from a site, and then 

as the plants resprout, the area is sprayed with a non-selective herbicide, killing the non-native 

plants and preparing a clean seedbed for the native seeding.

Other Habitats

In the northern part of the lobe, glacial knobs and ridges were partially or wholly surrounded by 

shallow marshes. The wetlands protected the ridges from frequent prairie fires and promoted 

the establishment of savannas. These are especially noticeable near Pilot Knob State Preserve. 

Some of these glacial knobs are known as “dry knobs” and contain such species as sideoats 

grama, hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), cutleaf 

anemone (Pulsatilla patens), and little bluestem. Unfortunately, many of these knobs are being 

highly modified by land use; especially gravel mining (Eilers and Roosa 1994). Conversely, the 

shallow marshes or wet depressions in the area contain an array of plants most of which are at 

or near the southern terminus of their ranges. Some of these include watershield (Brasenia 

schreberi), water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), tall cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium), 

common mare’s-tail (Hippuris vulgaris), tufted loosestrife (Lysimachia thyrsiflora), buckbean 

(Menyanthes trifoliata), cosmopolitan bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus), and common 

rivergrass (Scolochloa festucacea) (Eilers and Roosa, 1994). 

The Des Moines Lobe contained many peatlands and sedge swales as well. The peatlands 

contained drepanocladus moss, unlike those of the more northern parts of the United States, 

which are largely composed of sphagnum. However, in this part of the lobe is found the state's 

only example of a sphagnum bog (called by some researchers a "nutrient-poor fen" or "poor 

fen"), existing in Pilot Knob State Preserve. Recent palynological evidence indicates that this 

bog has been present since before Euro-American settlement and is probably a relic from 

conditions that prevailed at the end of the Pleistocene. A number of rare taxa, such as the 

following, are found on the floating mat: star sedge (Carex echinata), creeping sedge (C. 

chordorrhiza), mud sedge (Carex limosa), roundleaf sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), slender 

cottongrass (Eriophorum gracile), and bog willow (Salix pedicellaris) (Eilers and Roosa, 1994). 

The Des Moines Lobe was also known to contain fen habitat. In fact, the northwestern portion 

of the lobe was thought, until recently, to be the only part of Iowa where fens existed. Today, 

fens are known to exist on the Iowa surface as well yet exhibit different characteristics. Des 

Moines Lobe fens are more likely to have a deposit of tufa (calcareous or siliceous rock deposits 

of springs or ground water) at the surface; are divided into distinctive vegetative zones; lack 

ferns and are less likely than Iowa surface fens to have trees and shrubs. Plants unique to Des 

Moines Lobe fens include: cutleaf waterparsnip (Berula erecta), tall cottongrass (Eriophorum 

angustifolium), lesser fringed gentian (Gentianopsis virgata), Ontario lobelia (Lobelia kalmia), 

Huron green orchid (Platanthera huronensis), needle beaksedge (Rhynchospora capillacea), 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

low nutrush (Scleria verticillata), hooded lady’s tresses (Spiranthes romanzoffiana), seaside 

arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima), marsh arrowgrass (T. palustris), and lesser bladderwort 

(Utricularia minor) (Eilers and Roosa 1994). In Iowa, 40 percent of potential fen sites and 65–77

percent of actual fens have been destroyed by cultivation or drainage. Most of the remaining 

fens have been altered or threatened by grazing, cropland edge effects, woody plant invasion, 

drainage, excavation, or mining (Pearson and Leoschke, 1992).

Historically, forest in Iowa was concentrated in the eastern half of the state along the Iowa, 

Skunk and Des Moines Rivers and their major tributaries (Thompson, 1992). Today, Iowa’s 

forest is widely scattered as woodlots and wooded margins of streams and rivers. The majority 

of the forest in the district is found along the middle section of the Des Moines River in Webster 

and Boone Counties. The Little Sioux River in the western part of the district also contains a fair 

amount of forest. Guthrie, Jasper, and Dallas Counties contain measurable amounts of forest 

as well. 

Current Management

Currently, glacial knobs and ridges, sedge swales, fens, and peatlands in the district are not 

generally sought out for specific management. Prescribed fire as well as invasive species 

control, including tree and brush removal, are the primary management tools used on all these 

habitat types.

Forest is not a habitat type that is targeted for purchase by the district. Restoring and managing 

forest has little, if any, benefit to ground nesting waterfowl. Currently, district lands are not 

restored to or managed as forest.

Effects for all Habitats

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Indicators used for evaluating effects on habitat include the following:

• Species Composition: The number and types of plant life present

• Age Structure: The age-class diversity of plant life present, which is most relevant to 

forests

• Spatial Distribution and Heterogeneity: The areal extent, location, and pattern of plant 

life

The intensity categories for determining effects on habitat are defined as the following:

• Negligible: Changes to plant life would not be measurable or would be at the lowest level 

of detection

• Minor: May be a detectable change, but the change would be slight and have a local 

effect on plant life

• Moderate: Clearly detectable change or appreciable effect plant life

• Major: Severe alteration of plant life, substantial, and highly noticeable; could result in 

widespread change to plant life and could be permanent
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

The effects on habitat from implementing the various alternatives described above were 

determined to be the following:

Wetlands

Beneficial, Long-Term, Moderate, Local

For all alternatives, restoring cropland, which may include some food plots, to perennial 

grassland in the uplands will decrease soil and nutrient runoff flowing into the wetlands, which 

will in turn alter species composition. Reducing nutrient loading to wetland basins will help 

lessen invasions by reed canarygrass and hybrid cattail and allow more natural, perhaps native 

species to persist. 

Other conservation agencies are also restoring cropland to perennial grassland or wetland on 

public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would have a 

greater, beneficial, long-term effect on wetlands as described above. 

Native and Non-native Grasslands

Beneficial, Long-Term, Major, Landscape

For all alternatives, restoring cropland, which may include some food plots, to perennial 

grassland increases the species composition, age structure, spatial distribution, and 

heterogeneity of both native and non-native grasslands, depending on what is planted. This is 

especially true if land acquisition continues and a variety of tools are used to manage those 

grasslands. 

Other conservation agencies are also restoring cropland to perennial grassland or wetland on 

public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would have a 

greater, beneficial, long-term effect on grasslands as described above. 

Other Habitats

No Effect

There are no specific activities included in any of the alternatives to directly benefit or have an 

adverse effect on the species composition, age structure, spatial distribution, or heterogeneity of 

other habitats including fens, sedge swales, glacial knobs and ridges, peatlands, and forest. 

Wildlife

Resident Wildlife

Plants

Plant species found within the district are numerous as 157 species alone are state listed (Iowa

National Areas Inventory). Two, prairie bush clover and western prairie fringed orchid 

(Platanthera praeclara) are federal and state threatened; they are discussed in more detail 

under the Threatened and Endangered Species section below. Forty-eight other species are 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

also state threatened, 18 species are 

state endangered, and 89 species 

are considered to be of special 

concern in the state (appendix B). 

Mammals

Iowa has 40 species of mammals that 

are considered common in the state. 

Appendix B contains a list of 50 

mammals known or likely to occur 

within the district (Iowa Gap Analysis 

Program [GAP]). The Indiana bat

(Myotis sodalist) is both federal and 

state endangered, while the spotted 

skunk (Spilogale putorius) is state

endangered. The southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi) is considered state threatened,

and the flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) is considered of special concern. Mammals 

extirpated from the state include pygmy shrew (Sorex hoyi), eastern woodrat (Neotoma 

floridana), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), gray wolf (Canus lupus), swift fox (Vulpes velox), 

black bear (Ursus americanus), marten (Martes americana), fisher (M. pennant), wolverine 

(Gulo gulo), mountain lion (Puma concolor), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), moose (Alces 

alces), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana).

Fish and Mussels

The water bodies within the district are home to many species of fish and mussels. Historically, 

Iowa waters were home to approximately 55 species of freshwater mussels; today only about 

half of those species can be found. Appendix B contains a list of fish species known to occur 

within the district (Iowa GAP) and mussel species primarily listed as species of greatest 

conservation need (SGCN) in Iowa (Zohrer, 2005). The Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) is 

federally and state listed and is discussed in more detail under the Threatened and Endangered 

section below. Twenty other species are also state listed as threatened or endangered; they 

are noted in appendix B. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

Iowa is home to 66 known species of reptiles and amphibians. Appendix B contains a list of the 

species known to occur within the district (HerpNet). The wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta) is 

state endangered, while the ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata), Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea 

blandingii) and mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus) are state threatened. The smooth green 

snake (Opheodrys vernalis) and bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer sayi) are considered of special 

concern in the state. The eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) is the only snake species 

to occur within the district that is not considered “protected”—that is, it is legal to kill or collect 

them in Iowa. 

Swamp Milkweed
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

Insects

The habitats of the Des Moines Lobe contain a great variety of insects, although likely fewer 

species exist today than in the past. In the prairie, insects are important pollinators and food 

sources, especially for birds. Moths, butterflies, bees, and wasps are attracted to showy prairie 

flowers. The great mass of grasses, leaves, and stems provides an abundance of habitat for 

grasshoppers and other insects. Spittlebugs are responsible for the wet, saliva-like liquid that is 

found at the base of many grass leaves. Their young cover themselves with a frothy, bubbly 

liquid after they hatch that protects 

them from predators, parasites, and

the drying wind and sun. Multitudes of 

ants aerate and mix the rich prairie 

soil. Insects are literally at the center of 

life on the prairie as prairie mammals, 

birds, reptiles, and amphibians need 

an abundance of insects in their food 

chains. 

In the wetlands, insects were also 

important food sources for birds, 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians as 

they outnumbered all other animals. In 

open waters, insects such as the water 

boatman (Corixa sp.) and 

backswimmer (Notonecta sp.) feed on 

plants, carrying bubbles of air with them as they make their dives. Water scorpions (Nepidae 

family), predacious diving beetles (Thermonectus sp.), and giant water bugs (Belostomatidae 

family) are predators that search wetland waters for zooplankton, other insects, and even

tadpoles and larger crustaceans. Even the surface film of wetland waters contains insects, 

mosquito larvae, water striders (Gerridae family), whirligig beetles (Gyrinus sp.), and fishing 

spiders (Dolomedes sp.). Above the water, dragonflies and damselflies eat swarms of gnats, 

flies, and mosquitos; mayflies flutter after a hatch in spring and summer; and butterflies feed on 

the nectar of wetland flowers.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The district contains seven federally listed species. Three (Least Tern, Topeka shiner, and 

Indiana bat) are endangered, two (prairie bush clover and western prairie fringed orchid) are 

threatened. The Dakota skipper and Poweshiek skipperling are listed as candidate species. 

The district also contains numerous state listed species. Most of these are discussed in their 

relevant subsections above. The following provides more information on the federally protected 

species: 

Least Tern – Endangered (Sterna antillarum)

Least Terns nest along large rivers of the Colorado, Red, Mississippi, and Missouri River 

systems on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars, sand and gravel pits, and lake or reservoir 

shorelines. They winter in coastal Central and South America. Threats to Least Terns include 

unusable nesting habitat due to human disturbance and alteration of river systems and pesticide 

use that reduces food availability such as small fish.

Bee Pollinating Purple Prairie Clover
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Current Management

The Least Tern is currently only in one county of the district, Polk. Its recovery plan calls for 

protecting, enhancing, and restoring breeding habitat to increase the population to 7,000 birds. 

However, most of the district does not contain suitable habitat currently, nor is it targeted for 

future acquisition. The focus for the district is prairie potholes and surrounding uplands that are 

generally heavily vegetated. Therefore, management of the district has virtually no impact on 

Least Terns.

Topeka Shiner – Endangered (Notropis topeka)

Topeka shiners were historically common in small to mid-sized prairie streams, oxbows, and offchannel pools, in the central United States. Currently, Topeka shiners are found primarily in 

small, isolated populations in Iowa, Minnesota and portions of South Dakota in small streams 

that run continually with good water quality and cool to moderate temperatures. Threats to the 

Topeka shiner include habitat destruction, sedimentation, and changes in water quality. Stream 

segments in the Raccoon River, Boone River, and Rock River watersheds in Iowa have been 

designated as critical habitat for Topeka shiners (figure 4-11). Critical habitat is a specific 

geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species 

and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area 

that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. 

Current Management

Although the district does not target stream habitat for purchase, the Topeka shiner may receive 

benefits from habitat management within the district. Wetland and grassland restoration on 

former crop fields can have dramatic impacts on downstream water quality. Most land 

purchased in the district is cropland. The restoration of grassland/wetland complexes in the 

district acts to slow the movement of water across the land. This results in a slower release of 

water to area streams and a corresponding reduction in sediment and other pollutants entering 

the streams. The Topeka shiner does not currently have a recovery plan. 

Indiana Bat – Endangered (Myotis sodalis)

Indiana bats can be found hibernating during winter in caves or, occasionally, in abandoned 

mines and in summer roosting in forest gaps, fencelines, or edges of wooded areas under the 

peeling bark of dead and dying trees. Indiana bats eat a variety of flying insects found along 

rivers or lakes and in uplands. Threats to the Indiana bat include human disturbance, 

commercialization of caves, loss of summer habitat, pesticides and other contaminants, and 

most recently, the disease white-nose syndrome.

Current Management

Currently within the district, the Indiana bat only utilizes summer habitat in Jasper County. 

However, this location is not in one of the four priority recovery units; therefore, the recovery 

plan calls for enhancing and improving habitat on private lands and protecting foraging habitat, 

water sources, and travel corridors. The recovery plan does not include a specific population 

objective. The district is primarily managed for waterfowl and other migratory grassland birds; 

thus, forested land is not targeted for acquisition. In fact, many district resources are expended 

to prevent and/or remove woody species. Therefore, the majority of the district does not provide 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

roosting sites for Indiana bats. However, the restoration of grassland/wetland complexes does 

provide areas that produce insects, which can be important to foraging Indiana bats. 

Prairie Bush Clover – Threatened (Lespedeza leptostachya)

Prairie bush clover is found in midwestern hill prairies that are dry and gravelly and in thin soil 

prairies containing big bluestem and Indiangrass—especially in the Little Sioux River and Des 

Moines River valleys. Prairie bush clover is apparently able to grow in disturbed areas so its 

population may be stable or, if declining, declining slowly.

Threats to the prairie bush clover include conversion of pasture to cropland, overgrazing, 

agricultural expansion, herbicide application, urban expansion, rock quarrying, and 

transportation right-of-way maintenance and rerouting. Hybridization with the more common 

round-headed bush clover has also been identified as a potential threat in some areas.

Current Management

Prairie bush clover is only in remnant prairie vegetation on a few sites throughout the district. 

The recovery plan calls for protecting and managing 20 populations in the core area and 15 

outside the core area. Five counties within the district are completely within the core area 

including Dickinson, Clay, Emmet, Kossuth, and Palo Alto; four other counties (Humboldt, 

Pocahontas, Osceola and O’Brien) are partially within the core area. Management activities 

occurring in the district that could affect prairie bush clover include prescribed fire, haying, 

grazing, and invasive plant treatments. Fire promotes healthy prairie plant communities and 

helps control invasive woody plants that may shade out prairie bush clover. However, fire 

during the growing season may kill prairie bush clover seedlings. Therefore, most district burns 

are conducted early enough in the spring that seedlings have not yet emerged. Fire and any 

other district management action that may affect prairie bush clover are carefully planned to 

avoid negative impacts to the plant. 

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid – Threatened (Platanthera praeclara)

Western prairie fringed orchid occurs in moist, calcareous subsaline prairies and prairie sedge 

meadows and swales. The species may be stable, but loss of tallgrass prairie habitat has 

markedly reduced its original range. Present sites are threatened by human activities, land use 

changes, competition by invasive plants, indiscriminate grazing, annual mid-summer haying, 

and poorly timed prescribed fire.

Current Management

Currently, there are no known populations of western prairie fringed orchid in the district. The 

recovery plan calls for protectively managing sites harboring 257 more additional plants. 

Although prescribed fire is the main management tool used in the district grazing, haying, and 

invasive plant removal may also be used. Depending on timing and duration, all of these 

management tools can have either positive or negative impacts on western prairie fringed 

orchid. If a new acquisition contains orchids or a new population is discovered on existing 

property, the use of all of these tools will be carefully planned and implemented to avoid 

negative impacts.
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

Figure 4-11: Topeka Shiner Critical Habitat in Iowa
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

Poweshiek Skipperling – Candidate Species (Oarisma poweshiek)

Poweshiek skipperlings are small, moth-like butterflies that are obligate residents of high, dry 

and low, wet tallgrass prairies. They are most often found in native prairie remnants in Iowa, 

Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin and in fens in Michigan. During 

preparation of a status assessment in 2005, there was evidence that populations were declining 

throughout its range, particularly in Iowa and Minnesota. Data since then confirms sharp 

population declines in most of its range. Of particular concern is its apparent disappearance 

from the majority of sites in the heart of it range in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota. 

Population numbers in Iowa have likely dropped dramatically due to the huge losses of prairie 

across the landscape. In fact, the Service may propose critical habitat by the end of 2013 for 

the Poweshiek skipperling. 

One important larval host plant is slender spike rush (Eleocharis elliptica), although there is 

good evidence from Minnesota and Wisconsin to indicate that prairie grasses, especially prairie 

dropseed (Sporobolis heterolepis) and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), are also 

important larval host plants (Shepherd, 2005). Adult Poweshiek skipperlings depend on nectar 

from a variety of flowers including blackeyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta) and pale purple 

coneflower (Echinacea pallida). Threats to the Poweshiek skipperling include widespread 

conversion of native prairie for agriculture and other uses, woody and non-native plant invasion 

of prairie, over use of prescribed fire and overgrazing.

Current Management

The district is managed primarily to provide healthy, vigorous vegetation for the benefit of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Prescribed fire is the primary management tool used. Fire, 

if used too aggressively, however, can be a serious detriment to the Poweshiek skipperling. Fall 

and spring prescribed burns are likely to expose Poweshiek skipperling larvae and pupae to 

lethal temperatures. However, lack of fire can allow invasion of woody and non-native plants 

that threaten the long-term viability of the prairie. Losing the prairie plants will threaten the longterm viability of the Poweshiek skipperling and undermine the primary management goal of 

providing healthy, vigorous vegetation for use by migratory birds. 

Currently, it is unknown if any Poweshiek skipperling populations occur in the district. There is a 

need to inventory all remnant prairie across the district to determine any presence. The 

Poweshiek skipperling does not currently have a recovery plan; however, protecting existing 

habitat, managing in a “butterfly friendly” manner, which includes mowing, burning, grazing, 

haying, and tree removal, and connecting fragments of native prairie are recommended. If the 

skipperling is found, management practices can be adjusted. Units could be subdivided and 

then burned on a rotational basis to leave some unburned refuge areas. Alternatively, haying 

could be used in place of fire, as long as cutting occurs after late July once skipperling eggs 

have hatched. 

Dakota Skipper – Candidate Species (Hesperia dacotae)

The Dakota skipper is a small butterfly that is found on relatively flat and moist native bluestem 

prairie in which three species of wildflowers are usually present and in flower when in their adult 

(flight) stage: wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum), harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), and smooth 

camas (Zigadenus elegans). The Dakota skipper also is found on dry upland prairie that is often 

on ridges and hillsides dominated by bluestem grasses and needlegrasses where three 

wildflowers are typically present: pale purple coneflower (Echinacea pallida), upright coneflower 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

(Ratibida columnifera), and blanketflower (Gaillardia aristata). Its only known location in Iowa 

was in the Little Sioux River valley; however, as of 2013, the Dakota skipper is believed to be 

extirpated from the state. Threats to the skipper include widespread conversion of native prairie 

for agriculture and other uses, over use of prescribed fire, and overgrazing. 

Current Management

The district is managed primarily to provide healthy, vigorous vegetation for the benefit of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Prescribed fire is the primary management tool used. 

Dakota skippers are vulnerable to fire at virtually all life stages and likely depend on 

repopulation from unburned areas to persist. This strategy worked well when the prairie was a 

large, continuous, intact ecosystem. However it does not work well with the district’s present 

situation of small, isolated remnant prairie tracts. Healthy prairie tracts are essential for the 

long-term survival of the Dakota skipper. However, most management tools used to maintain 

small, isolated tracts of prairie can be detrimental to the Dakota skipper. Fire, haying, and 

intensive grazing can all eliminate Dakota skippers from a site. The challenge then, is 

managing remnant prairie in a high quality condition with the appropriate tools and timing as to 

not eliminate the Dakota skipper from the site.

The Dakota skipper is presumed extirpated from Iowa, so it is unlikely that any Dakota skipper 

populations occur in the district. There is, however, a need to inventory all remnant prairie 

across the district to determine any presence. There is no recovery plan for the Dakota skipper 

at present, but protecting existing habitat, managing in a “butterfly friendly” manner, which 

includes mowing, burning, grazing, haying, and tree removal, and maintaining or creating tracts 

that are at least 1,000 acres in size are recommended. If the skipper is found, management 

practices can be adjusted. Units could be subdivided and then burned on a rotational basis to 

leave some unburned refuge areas. Alternatively, haying could be used in place of fire, as long 

as cutting is delayed until at least mid-August to reduce adverse effects to any life stage.

Migratory Birds

Approximately 270 species of birds are known or likely to occur within the district (appendix B). 

Seventy-eight of those species are listed as SGCN in the Iowa state wildlife action plan. 

Thirteen of those SGCN are state listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern. The 

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) is the only federally listed (endangered) bird species in the 

district. 

Waterfowl

The largest group of birds to utilize the district is waterfowl since the PPR is considered the 

largest breeding ground for waterfowl in the continental United States. National wildlife refuges 

account for less than two percent of the landscape, yet they are responsible for producing 

nearly 23 percent of the region's waterfowl. Surveys have shown that although the PPR 

represents only 10 percent of the breeding habitat, it averages 50 to 75 percent of the duck 

recruitment each year in North America (North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. 

Committee, 2011). Waterfowl species that use the prairie wetlands of Iowa include: Mallard 

(Anas platyrhynchos), Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors), Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata), 

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta), American Wigeon (Anas americana), Gadwall (Anas strepera), 

Wood Duck (Aix sponsa), Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), Redhead (Aythya americana), 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis), Canvasback (Aythya valisineria), Ring-necked Duck (Aythya 

collaris), and Canada Goose (Branta canadensis). 

The Service’s Habitat and Population Evaluation Team office receives survey data from the 

Iowa DNR for waterfowl populations within the nine most north and central counties of the 

district. In 2012, the survey resulted in 19.5 breeding pairs of all 13 species combined (Mallard, 

Gadwall, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail, American Wigeon, Greenwinged Teal [A. carolinensis], Wood Duck, Redhead, Canvasback, Lesser Scaup, Ring-necked 

Duck, and Ruddy Duck). This was up from 16.0 in 2011, but down from 23.1 in 2010. The 

average duck pair density (pairs per square mile) in 2012 was 4.3, up from 3.6 in 2011 but down 

from 5.1 in 2010 (FWS, 2012a). 

Rich soils and prairie wetlands make the region ideal for waterfowl but also highly productive for 

agriculture. The corn and soybean belt overlaps extensively with the southern PPR. Massive 

conversion of wetlands and prairie to agricultural fields has dramatically altered the landscape, 

the hydrology, and the region's carrying capacity for waterfowl. Some waterfowl species are 

more susceptible than others are to the transformation of prairie into agriculture. Mallards, Bluewinged Teal, and Canada geese have been successful in agricultural landscapes while species 

such as Northern Pintail, Gadwall, Canvasback, Redhead, and Lesser Scaup have not. 

Current Management

The district is managed to produce a 

mosaic of wetland and upland habitats 

that are attractive to waterfowl and 

other migratory birds. Wetlands are 

restored and managed to provide 

diverse wetland complexes that support 

the various life requirements of 

migrating and nesting waterfowl. Once 

the wetland basins have been restored, 

manipulation of vegetation becomes 

the primary management action. 

Prescribed fire, mowing during dry 

periods, and water level manipulation 

are the tools used to manage wetland 

vegetation. Most prescribed fire in the district occurs in the spring, although some fall burning 

has been used in recent years with good success. In the late summer or fall, mowing and/or 

prescribed fire have been used to remove dense wetland vegetation from some shallow 

wetlands. This effectively opens up the wetland and makes it more attractive to waterfowl the 

following spring. Fish barriers have been installed on some wetlands in the district to reduce 

water quality problems caused by rough fish populations. Water quality improvements lead to 

improved plant and invertebrate resources that directly benefit waterfowl.

Most upland in the district is converted from row crop fields to permanent grass cover. In 

addition to reducing erosion by slowing water’s movement across the land, grass cover also 

provides important nesting cover for waterfowl. 

Shorebirds

Mallard Brood
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

The PPR occurs within one of the major migration routes for shorebirds in North America. The 

U.S. PPR provides breeding habitat for 13 of 20 species of shorebirds that breed in the 

contiguous United States and offers important stopover habitat for 30 species of arctic breeders. 

The long distance migrations made by shorebirds are energetically expensive and require 

stopover sites to rest and refuel. During migration, shorebirds find protein rich food available in 

abundance in small, shallow wetlands scattered across the PPR. Some of the shorebird 

species that use the PPR of Iowa include: Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), Upland Sandpiper 

(Bartramia longicauda), Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa 

flavipes), Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus), Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica), 

American Golden-Plover (Pluvialis dominica), Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos), Spotted 

Sandpiper (Actitis macularia), Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor), Long-billed Dowitcher 

(Limnodromus scolopaceus), and Dunlin (Calidris alpina).

Shorebirds are a morphologically 

diverse group that use a wide range of 

habitat types within the PPR, including 

dry grasslands, riverine beaches and 

sandbars, natural wetlands, lake 

margins, and flooded agricultural 

fields. During migration, shorebirds 

are generally associated with shallow 

water and moist mudflats. More than 

70 percent of the species require 

water depths of less than 10 

centimeters, and many are less than 

five centimeters (Skagen and 

Thompson, 2000). Many species 

prefer vegetation height to be less 

than half their body height, and most 

species prefer foraging sites with less than 25 percent vegetative cover (Skagen and 

Thompson, 2000). Due to the dynamic nature of prairie pothole wetlands, shorebird use of 

these potholes varies dramatically through time and space and is closely related to current 

wetland conditions. 

The PPR has been dramatically altered since settlement. Agricultural fields have replaced the 

once vast grassland/wetland complexes that supported huge flocks of shorebirds. This is 

especially true in Iowa. As the landscape was transformed to agriculture, wetlands, especially 

seasonal and ephemeral wetlands, and grasslands have been reduced to the point where the 

Iowa PPR struggles to consistently provide for the needs of shorebirds.

Current Management

The district is managed primarily to produce a mosaic of wetland and upland habitats that are 

attractive to waterfowl and other migratory birds. Shorebirds are directly impacted by these 

management actions. Most of the district properties are managed as part of a bigger complex 

of habitat with various ownerships. Managing the district within a bigger complex of wildlife 

habitat increases the potential to provide a variety of wetland types in one area. This allows a 

greater diversity of shorebird species to find suitable habitat to meet their current life 

requirements. 

Shorebirds Feeding in Shallow Water
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Wetland drawdowns, prescribed fire, haying, and grazing are all management tools used to 

manipulate water levels and/or vegetation. Wetland drawdowns produce shallow water and 

exposed mudflats that are critical to many species of shorebirds. Prescribed fire, haying, and 

grazing are all used to manipulate vegetation with the goal of altering the current habitat in a 

way that will be beneficial to one or more groups of migratory birds. 

Waterbirds

Waterbirds are a diverse group of birds that are closely tied to water bodies for a large portion of 

their life history. The group includes loons, grebes, pelicans, cormorants, herons, night-herons, 

bitterns, egrets, ibises, rails, coots, moorhens, cranes, gulls, and terns. This diverse group uses 

nearly every type of wetland habitat available, from large deep lakes to ephemeral, shallow 

marshes (Beyersbergen et al., 2004). Some of the more common waterbirds found throughout 

the district include; Great Blue Heron (Ardea hoerodias), Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), Piedbilled Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), Sora (Porzana Carolina), 

American Coot (Fulica americana), Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), and 

American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos). 

As previously mentioned, Iowa has lost 99 percent of its pre-settlement wetlands (Noss et al., 

1995). Wetland loss of this magnitude has greatly hampered the ability to provide sufficient 

wetland habitat for waterbirds in the district. The remaining wetlands are frequently influenced 

by adjacent agricultural practices. Water clarity, vegetation characteristics, and prey base can 

all be impacted in wetlands located in an agricultural landscape. Waterbirds benefit from 

preservation and restoration of wetlands and uplands. Grassland preservation and restoration 

in uplands directly maintains or improves water quality in the wetlands and provides sites for 

foraging and nesting. 

Current Management

The district is managed primarily to produce a mosaic of wetland and upland habitats that are 

attractive to waterfowl and other migratory birds. Most of the district properties are managed as 

part of a bigger complex of habitat with various ownerships. Managing the district within a 

bigger complex of wildlife habitat increases the potential to provide a variety of wetland types in 

one area. Larger blocks of habitat also help mitigate the influences from adjacent agricultural 

lands. 

Generally, management actions in the district are intended to improve the habitat for migratory 

birds. The waterbirds mentioned above are considered migratory birds and are directly 

impacted by these management actions. Restoring wetlands and grasslands provides vital 

habitat. After restoration, the goal of management is to maintain high quality habitat conditions 

that can help sustain healthy populations of migratory birds. Management tools used to 

accomplish this include water level management, prescribed fire, haying, mowing, and grazing. 

Grassland Birds

Although agriculture has been an important feature in this area for over 100 years, it has been 

particularly intensive during the last several decades. Conversion from small, diverse, family 

farms to large agricultural operations specializing in monocultures of small grain and row crops 

has greatly reduced habitat on private lands such as pasture, hayed areas, and wetlands. 

Grassland birds are forced to nest in ever-dwindling fragments of remaining cover. Often the 

only nesting sites available are small isolated areas such as roadside ditches, abandoned 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

farmsteads, rock piles, or other isolated patches of habitat. In North America, grassland birds 

have exhibited steeper declines than any other avian group. Their decline has a number of 

causes including loss of breeding and wintering habitat from agriculture, urbanization, habitat 

degradation from fire suppression, inappropriate grazing regimes, woody plantings, pesticides, 

nest predation, and Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism. 

Within the category of "grassland birds," individual species show a variety of habitat preferences 

based on vegetation height, cover density, grass/forb ratio, soil moisture, litter depth, degree of 

woody vegetation, and plant species composition. A mosaic of grassland habitats is needed to 

meet the varying needs of grassland birds. Some of the species of concern found in the district

are area-sensitive, which means they require large, contiguous blocks of habitat to reproduce 

successfully. Area-sensitive species include the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), Northern 

Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), Bobolink (Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus), Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), and Savannah Sparrow 

(Passerculus sandwichensis).

Current Management

The district is managed primarily to produce a mosaic of wetland and upland habitats that are 

attractive to waterfowl and other migratory birds. Most of the district properties are managed as 

part of a bigger complex of habitat with various ownerships. Managing the district within a 

bigger complex of wildlife habitat increases the potential to provide a variety of wetland and 

grassland types in one area. Larger blocks of habitat also help mitigate the influences from 

adjacent agricultural lands. 

District grasslands are managed to produce vigorous stands that will be attractive nesting sites 

for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Generally, new seedings are diverse mixes of native 

grasses and forbs that provide enough structural diversity to be attractive to a wide variety of 

birds. Since natural processes such as wildfire and grazing by free roaming ungulates have 

been virtually eliminated from the landscape, grasslands require management to keep them 

healthy and free from woody and other invasive plants. Prescribed fire is the primary 

management tool used on district grasslands. Haying, grazing, and invasive plant 

control/removal are also used to maintain healthy grasslands throughout the district.

Invasive Species

Noxious weeds are a continuing problem both ecologically and socially/politically. Invasive 

species present a daunting challenge to land managers. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), 

musk thistle (Carduus nutans), crown vetch (Coronilla varia), sweet clover (Melilotus sp.), leafy 

spurge (Euphorbia esula), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), and spotted knapweed 

(Centaurea biebersteinii) can displace native vegetation over large areas and are a serious 

concern to neighboring farmers and county officials. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) can 

effectively displace cattails and other native wetland vegetation and turn productive marshes 

into a sea of purple flowers. Carp can destroy native submergent vegetation, which provides 

the base for invertebrates. Minnows, often from past stockings by bait dealers, can cause 

serious damage to wetland food chains by reducing invertebrate populations needed by 

breeding waterfowl and ducklings. 

Control of these problem species is often costly, both in terms of chemicals, equipment, and 

staff time. Managers strive to use a balanced approach in controlling these species. Direct 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

control, such as chemical application or mowing, is often needed on serious problem areas. 

Once healthy native plant communities are reestablished, they can often compete successfully 

against non-native and invasive species. Water level control, including complete drawdowns, 

can eliminate carp and minnow populations on wetlands where this capability is present. 

Current Management

Many district resources in the form of time and money are spent attempting to control invasive 

species. Mowing, applying chemicals, and properly timed prescribed burning are all methods 

used to control invasive species. In cases where diverse prairie mixes are planted, frequently 

the best management tool is patience. As the seeding develops and matures during the first 

five to ten years, it will often crowd out mild infestations of Canada thistle with only a few well 

timed prescribed fires. Heavy infestations of Canada thistle and more persistent weeds like 

crown vetch, leafy spurge and sericea lespedeza often require more active management like 

mowing or chemical treatment. At times, chemical treatment is the only practical way to get 

control of some invasive species. Although carefully directed chemical use can be effective in 

controlling invasive plants, care needs to be taken to avoid killing the desirable plants that 

provide the long-term competition for the invasive plants. Killing non-target plants may create 

openings in the seeding that are susceptible to reinvasion by more invasive plants. Invasive 

species management is a balancing act of minimizing collateral damage while achieving 

effective control. 

Effects for all Wildlife

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Indicators used for evaluating effects on wildlife include the following:

• Abundance: The relative representation, or number of individuals, of any given species 

in a geographic area

• Distribution: The spatial arrangement of wildlife, and describes the dispersion or local 

densities of individuals within a geographical area over time

• Health and vitality: The overall well-being of wildlife populations related to disturbance, 

stress, disease, environmental toxicity, mortality, reproductive success, and a multitude 

of behavioral factors

The intensity categories for determining effects on wildlife are defined as the following:

• Negligible: May be a change in wildlife, but the change would not be measurable or 

would be at the lowest level of detection

• Minor: May be a detectable change, but the change would be slight and have a local 

effect on a population; could include changes in the abundance or distribution of 

individuals in a local area but not changes that would affect the viability of local 

populations

• Moderate: Clearly detectable change in a population and could have an appreciable 

effect; could include changes in the abundance or distribution of local populations but 

not changes that would affect the viability of regional populations
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

• Major: Severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial to a population, substantial, and 

highly noticeable; could result in widespread change and be permanent, could include 

changes in the abundance or distribution of a local or regional population to the extent 

that the population would not be likely to recover (adverse) or would return to a 

sustainable level (beneficial)

The effects on wildlife from implementing the various alternatives described above are included 

below under their respective sections. The effects of the consumptive uses hunting, fishing, and 

trapping, applying to any game species and allowed under all alternatives were determined to 

be the following:

All alternatives generally allow hunting, fishing, and trapping on most of the district. Hunting, 

fishing, and trapping cause mortality and wounding of individuals (adverse effect) but are all 

regulated so they don’t threaten the perpetuation of populations and in some instances are 

actually utilized to keep populations at a healthy level (beneficial effect). The effects of hunting, 

fishing, and trapping on wildlife and fish populations are monitored within the state and across 

the Nation and are considered in setting annual bag limits. Therefore these uses are likely to 

have a neutral overall effect on wildlife and fish. 

Implementing a nontoxic shot shell regulation under any of the alternatives would have a 

beneficial effect on wildlife health and vitality. Requiring the possession and use of only 

approved nontoxic shot shells will reduce the amount of lead added to the district environment 

thereby reducing the chances of lead ingestion by wildlife. Lead is a toxic metal that, in 

sufficient quantities, has adverse effects on the nervous and reproductive systems of animals 

and can be lethal to wildlife if ingested, even in small amounts. 

Resident Wildlife

The effects on resident wildlife from implementing the various alternatives were determined to 

be the following: 

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

Even though all the alternatives were developed with a different focus than resident wildlife, 

their needs are still provided for secondarily. Converting cropland, which may include some 

food plots, to perennial grassland will provide habitat for many species of resident wildlife. 

Acquiring and restoring wetlands, regardless of type, will also provide habitat for a wide variety 

of resident wildlife. Alternatives A, C, and D retain some food plots in the district, which will 

provide a supplemental food source for some resident wildlife as well. All of these actions will 

contribute to maintaining or increasing resident wildlife abundance, distribution, health, and 

vitality. 

Other conservation agencies are also restoring cropland to perennial grassland or wetland on 

public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would have a 

greater, beneficial, long-term effect on wildlife as described above. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Effects to threatened and endangered species vary by species. Acquiring and restoring more 

natural and perhaps native vegetation on the landscape, both in uplands and wetlands, will 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

provide better habitat for most any species than currently exists. In general, there will be no 

adverse effects to any federally threatened or endangered species from implementing any of the 

alternatives. However, a particular action completed for the benefit of the greater population 

could have a negative effect on one or a few individuals. For example, prescribed fire can have 

a negative impact on skippers and butterflies; however, it is essential for maintaining the 

tallgrass prairie that they need to survive. If certain stipulations are followed regarding when, 

where, and how much of an area is burned, the adverse effect is usually reduced or eliminated. 

One objective for this plan is to increase native grassland with a plant diversity of 100 or more 

species and provide more suitable habitat (in terms of vegetative structure as will be defined in 

the district’s Habitat Management Plan) in existing grassland for a wide variety of grasslanddependent birds and other species. One strategy related to that objective is annual treatment of

a minimum of 25 percent of district grasslands with a combination of the following types of 

treatment: haying, prescribed grazing, prescribed fire, mowing, or tree removal. This strategy 

will be employed in such a way as to have all district grassland acres receiving a treatment at 

least once every four years. This management direction will leave some grassland untreated, 

while still improving/treating smaller portions of habitat. Given the more programmatic nature of 

the objectives in this document and the unknown presence of any given species in future 

acquisitions, effects that are adverse or beneficial to any particular threatened or endangered 

species are difficult to determine at this time. 

Other conservation agencies are also restoring more natural and perhaps native vegetation to 

the landscape, both in uplands and wetlands, on public land, and to a lesser extent private land. 

Cumulatively these actions would have a greater effect on threatened and endangered species 

as described above.

Migratory Birds

Waterfowl

The effects on waterfowl from implementing the various alternatives were determined to be the 

following: 

Breeding Waterfowl

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

Even though Alternative C was developed around a focus on migrating waterfowl, the needs of 

breeding waterfowl are still provided for secondarily. Continuing acquisition, albeit focused on 

semi-permanent to shallow lakes, provides necessary habitat for late-season brood rearing and 

molting for post-breeding waterfowl, which contributes to their abundance, health, and vitality, 

and possibly their distribution. Converting cropland, which may include some food plots, to 

diverse native grassland with some rotational cover provides suitable nesting cover for breeding 

waterfowl, thus, increasing their abundance and distribution as well. Limiting food plots to three 

percent or less of the district uplands should ensure an important food source for migrating 

waterfowl but should not detract from breeding waterfowl production. 

Beneficial, Long-Term, Moderate, Landscape

Since Alternatives A, B, and D were developed around a focus on breeding waterfowl, they will 

have the most beneficial effect. Increasing the population of Mallard and Blue-winged Teal, in 

particular, will increase their abundance and probably their distribution as well. Continuing to 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

acquire land with restorable wetland and upland breeding waterfowl habitat in the most 

productive areas (determined by new landscape-level tolls and models) will also increase their 

abundance and most certainly their distribution as well. Converting cropland, which may include 

some food plots, to perennial grassland will increase the amount of suitable nesting cover for 

breeding waterfowl, thus, increasing their abundance and distribution as well. Restoring a wide 

variety of wetland types will provide the complete life cycle needs of breeding waterfowl from 

pair bonding to brood rearing. All of these acquisition and restoration activities will ultimately 

provide good quality habitat across the landscape, which help to increase the health and vitality 

of breeding waterfowl. 

Other conservation agencies are also acquiring and restoring cropland to perennial grassland or 

wetland on public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would 

have a greater, beneficial, long-term effect on breeding waterfowl as described above. 

However, there are private lands within the district and the PPR of Iowa that are still being 

drained and put into row crop agriculture. Some private conservation land in CRP that is being 

returned to row crop agriculture, for example, either has expiring contracts or has contracts that 

are deliberately terminated early by producers. 

Migrating Waterfowl

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

Even though Alternatives A, B, and D were developed around a focus on breeding waterfowl, 

the needs of migrating waterfowl are still provided for secondarily. The acquisition and

restoration activities mentioned above for breeding waterfowl also affect the abundance, 

distribution, health, and vitality of migrating waterfowl—just to a lesser degree. Acquiring land 

with restorable habitat provides more stopover sites for migrants such as Lesser Scaup. In 

particular, restoring semi-permanent to shallow lake habitats as one of the many focal wetland 

types provides an important food source for waterfowl during migration. Alternatives A and D 

allow food plots in the district, which also provide supplemental food for migrating waterfowl. 

Providing good quality stopover sites and numerous food sources ultimately helps to increase 

the health and vitality of migrating waterfowl so they arrive at their breeding/wintering grounds in 

better overall condition. 

Beneficial, Long-Term, Moderate, Landscape

Since Alternative C was developed around a focus on migrating waterfowl, it will have the most 

beneficial effect. Maintaining the 40 percent Lesser Scaup population detected in the 

Mississippi flyway mid-winter waterfowl survey, in particular, will maintain their abundance and 

probably distribution as well. Focusing acquisition around semi-permanent to shallow lakes 

provides the best stopover habitat and food source for migrating waterfowl. Allowing up to three 

percent of the district uplands to be planted to food plots provides an important supplemental 

food source for birds during migration. Providing good quality stopover sites and numerous 

food sources ultimately helps to increase the health and vitality of migrating waterfowl so they 

arrive at their breeding/wintering grounds in better overall condition. 

Other conservation agencies are also acquiring and restoring cropland to perennial grassland or 

wetland on public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would 

have a greater, beneficial, long-term effect on migrating waterfowl as described above. 

However, there are private lands within the district and the PPR of Iowa that are still being 

drained and put into row crop agriculture. Some private conservation land in CRP that is being 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

returned to row crop agriculture, for example, either has expiring contracts or has contracts that 

are deliberately terminated early by producers. 

Shorebirds

The effects on shorebirds from implementing the various alternatives were determined to be the 

following: 

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

Even though all the alternatives were developed with a different focus than shorebirds, their 

needs are still provided for secondarily. Acquisition that includes restorable wetlands will 

provide habitat for shorebirds, which may benefit their abundance, distribution, health, and 

vitality. Shorelines and vegetation around the water will provide areas for mating, nesting, and 

feeding. This is especially true if a variety of wetland types are provided. Seasonal and other 

less permanent wetlands can provide excellent foraging opportunities for shorebirds in shallow 

water and exposed mudflats. Restoration of the uplands to perennial or native grasslands 

lessen nutrient and soil runoff, thereby contributing to better water quality. Good water quality in 

the wetlands is essential for maintaining the necessary food that shorebirds need. 

Other conservation agencies are also acquiring and restoring cropland to perennial grassland or 

wetland on public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would 

have a greater, beneficial, long-term effect on shorebirds as described above. However, there 

are private lands within the district and the PPR of Iowa that are still being drained and put into 

row crop agriculture. Some private conservation land in CRP that is being returned to row crop 

agriculture, for example, either has expiring contracts or has contracts that are deliberately 

terminated early by producers. 

Waterbirds

The effects on waterbirds from implementing the various alternatives were determined to be the 

following: 

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

Even though all the alternatives were developed with a different focus than waterbirds, their 

needs are still provided for secondarily. Acquisition that includes restorable wetlands will 

provide habitat for waterbirds, which may benefit their abundance, distribution, health, and 

vitality. Open water and vegetative structures in and around the wetlands will provide areas for 

mating, nesting, and feeding. This is especially true if a variety of wetland types are provided. 

Restoration of the uplands to perennial or native grasslands lessen nutrient and soil runoff, 

thereby contributing to better water quality. Good water quality in the wetlands is essential for 

maintaining the necessary food that waterbirds need. 

Other conservation agencies are also acquiring and restoring cropland to perennial grassland or 

wetland on public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would 

have a greater, beneficial, long-term effect on waterbirds as described above. However, there 

are private lands within the district and the PPR of Iowa that are still being drained and put into 

row crop agriculture. Some private conservation land in CRP that is being returned to row crop 

agriculture, for example, either has expiring contracts or has contracts that are deliberately 

terminated early by producers. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Grassland Birds

The effects on grassland birds from implementing the various alternatives were determined to 

be the following: 

Beneficial, Long-Term, Moderate, Landscape

For all alternatives, converting cropland, which may include some food plots, to perennial 

grassland will provide more suitable habitat for grassland birds, which will increase their 

abundance, distribution, health, and vitality. Acquisition and restoration of new upland and 

wetland habitat will increase the distribution of grassland birds. 

Other conservation agencies are also acquiring and restoring cropland to perennial grassland 

on public land and to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would have a 

greater, beneficial, long-term effect on breeding grassland birds as described above. However, 

there are private lands within the district and the PPR of Iowa that are still being drained (wet 

grasslands) and put into row crop agriculture. Some private conservation land in CRP that is 

being returned to row crop agriculture, for example, either has expiring contracts or has 

contracts that are deliberately terminated early by producers. 

Invasive Species 

For all alternatives, effects to invasive species vary by species. In general, all effects to 

invasive species would be adverse as they are an undesirable part of the district. Actions will 

be taken to reduce or eliminate them. Restoring more natural and perhaps native vegetation to 

the landscape, both in uplands and wetlands, should eliminate available space for invasive 

species and lessen their ability to dominate an area. Some species, such as reed canarygrass, 

are particularly competitive, and it seems unlikely that they will ever be eliminated from the 

district. However, management actions will continue to at least keep those species in check. 

Given the programmatic nature of the objectives in this document and the unknown presence of 

any given species in future acquisitions, effects to any particular invasive species are difficult to 

determine at this time. 

 

Other conservation agencies are also treating and removing invasive species on public land and 

to a lesser extent private land. Cumulatively these actions would have a greater, beneficial,

long-term effect on invasive species as described above. 

People

According to the 2010 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), the population of all 35 

counties in the district is estimated to be 1.1 million while the population base of the largest 

cities combined is nearly 800,000. Few counties had population growth in the last two 

decades, and few are projected to have growth in the next five years. Pocahontas County has 

the biggest declines for the past and future while Dallas County has the biggest increases for 

the past and future. Changes in population from 1990–2000 varied across the district ranging 

from a decrease of 1 percent to an increase of 3.2 percent with an average 0.04 percent 

increase for the decade. The change in population from 2000–2010 ranged from a decrease of 

1.18 percent to an increase of 4.34 percent with an average 0.2 percent decrease for the 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

decade. The predicted change in population from 2010–2015 ranges from a 1.13 percent 

decrease to a 3.51 percent increase with an average 0.25 percent decrease for the five years. 

Socioeconomic Setting

Current Situation

Demographics

The average household size across the district ranges from two to three people with a median 

age of 40–46 years old. Buena Vista, Webster, Dallas, and Polk Counties have median ages of 

36–39 while Story County has a median age of 28, likely due to it being home to Iowa State 

University. The majority of the district has a median household income between 41,000 and 

70,000 dollars per year with Palo Alto, Pocahontas, and Sac Counties at 40,000 dollars per 

year. However, the unemployment rate across most of the district in 2010 was between four 

and eight percent, with six counties between eight and 15 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). 

In general most employment across the district is in manufacturing, educational, health or social 

services, and retail trade. Agriculture employment is higher in some counties while finance, real 

estate, and insurance are higher in others. Thirty-two to 40 percent of the population has a high 

school diploma while 11–20 percent of the population has a bachelor’s degree (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2010).

Agriculture, Commodity Prices and Land Valuation

According to Iowa State University’s 2011 Farmland Value Survey, 2011 was “one of the most 

remarkable years in Iowa land value history” (Duffy, 2011). The percentage increase reported 

for 2011 (32.5 percent) was the highest ever recorded by the survey. The previous high was 

31.7 percent increase recorded in 1973. In addition, the 2011 survey value ($6,708/acre), when 

adjusted for inflation, was at an all-time high. The previous inflation adjusted high was in 1979. 

The average land value per acre in 2011 for the four reporting districts that encompass the Iowa 

WMD: north central, northwest, west central, and central Iowa was $7,356, $8,338, $7,419, and 

$7781 respectively. These were the four highest values across the entire state.

High commodity prices were the most frequently mentioned positive factor influencing the 

agricultural real estate market, mentioned by 86 percent of survey respondents. According to 

Duffy, 

“Farmland values are highly correlated with gross farm income. As gross farm income 

increases so will land values. In 2005, corn prices averaged $1.94 per bushel in Iowa. 

The preliminary estimated price for November 2011 is $6.05. Soybean prices changed 

from $5.54 to $11.40 over the same time period.” 

Even though there has been “considerable variation” in commodity prices over the past few 

years, net farm income has increased substantially and is expected to continue. This increased 

income has been the primary cause for the increased farmland values along with historic low 

interest rates for loans to purchase farmland and a dismally performing stock market, where 

investing in land appears safer and wiser than investing in traditional stocks (Duffy, 2011).

These trends pose a challenge to management of existing and continued acquisition of new 

public land in Iowa. Available funds will not buy as much land, desirable land may not be for 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

sale, and even marginal land will likely be farmed. Increased agriculture in the PPR of Iowa 

may lead to increased drainage and decreased habitat for many grassland and wetlanddependent species. 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 

1994. Its purpose was to focus the attention of federal agencies on the environmental and 

human health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving 

environmental protection for all communities. The order directed federal agencies to develop 

environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on 

minority and low-income populations. The order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in 

federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide 

minority and low-income communities access to public information and participation in matters 

relating to human health or the environment.

None of the management alternatives for the Iowa WMD described in this Environmental 

Assessment would disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or 

health affects onto minority and low-income populations. The percentage of minorities in northcentral and northwest Iowa counties is lower than the State of Iowa (and much lower than the 

United States) as a whole. Average incomes and poverty rates within the counties are 

comparable to other counties in the state with the more populated counties ranking higher in 

poverty rates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Public use activities proposed for each alternative 

would be available to any visitor regardless of race, ethnicity, or income level.

Land Use Patterns

Croplands

The majority of the land in the district is farmed. Corn and soybeans are major crops grown in 

the area. Iowa had a record corn crop in 2010 and once again led the Nation in soybean 

production. Over the past fifty years, the state has seen a steady reduction in the overall land in 

farms and net income from farming, while farm size and crop yields have grown (USDA, 2011). 

With farm size expanding and commodity prices rising, agriculture threatens remaining wetlands 

and prairie now more than ever.

Grasslands

In Iowa, less than one-tenth of one percent of the remaining prairie is permanently protected. 

Much of this land is in public ownership. Recreational access is different for different sites, and 

there are varying degrees of protection and management on native prairie tracts. Natural prairie 

diversity is dependent upon intermittent grazing and burning. Prescribed burns are often used 

by government and private conservation organizations, but some protected tracts, such as 

those in easements, may not receive as much attention. 

Hay fields, pastures, and fields in CRP are also grasslands. More quantifiable and less diverse, 

these areas may be restorable to some extent, but these areas cannot be restored to virgin 

prairie. Monoculture stands of alfalfa are obviously less diverse than the prairie they have 

displaced. Fenced pastures grazed by cattle are quite different from the prairie once grazed by 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

wandering bison. Cattle are often permitted to overgraze, weakening native grasses, 

eliminating native flowers, and encouraging colonization by non-native weedy forbs and trees.

Wetlands

In Iowa, nearly 99 percent of all natural wetlands have disappeared from the landscape. Most 

have been tiled, drained, and converted to agriculture. Across the district, some wetlands have 

been preserved or restored and are primarily in public ownership while others have been 

enrolled in the Wetlands Reserves Program, remaining in private ownership but protected by 

permanent easement. Recreational access to these sites varies. 

Urban Development

The largest urban center within the district is Des Moines, Iowa, with over one-half of a million 

people residing in the five-county metropolitan area. Other cities include Fort Dodge, Spencer, 

Mason City, Boone, Ames, Ankeny, and Marshalltown. All of these areas require 

manufacturing, retail services, government, education services, transportation, utilities, and 

other commercial services. Urban spread into rural areas is resulting in the conversion of 

additional agricultural lands and prairie and grassland areas. According to the 2010 U.S.

Census, the major area of anticipated growth within the district is around the Des Moines 

metropolitan area. The Waterloo-Cedar Falls metropolitan area just outside of the district is 

expected to grow as well, which would affect the eastern edge of the district. 

Aggregate Resources

Nearly every county within the district contains underlying materials that could be utilized for 

crushed stone or construction sand and gravel. Concentrated operations of these minerals exist 

in Cerro Gordo and Polk Counties, while Webster County contains a gypsum deposit with an 

active gypsum plant. Numerous rock quarries exist throughout the district providing materials 

for building and maintaining roads, construction, and concrete. In 2008, the production of such 

operations across the entire state was valued at $680 million. This was nearly a two percent 

decrease from 2007 and an additional nearly two percent decrease from 2006 (U.S. Geological

Survey, 2008). 

Rural Development

Rural development also threatens district lands in counties with growing populations. Lands 

adjoining WPAs are often seen as highly desirable rural building lots that are purchased as 

small hobby farms or rural homesites. This can result in the WPA being "ringed" by homes, with 

a series of negative impacts on the WPA. This development can limit the use of prescribed fire 

for future management and can lead to the following:

• Increased trespass on district lands by neighbors using ATVs, horses, or vehicles

• Increased threats to wildlife from stray pets such as cats and dogs

• Increased use of district land by neighbors for illegal uses such as dumping, gardening, 

equipment storage, etc.

• Hunter and neighbor discrepancies about safety during the hunting seasons; 

• Increased noise
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

• Increased storm water runoff

Alternative Energy Developments

Iowa is the leading state in wind 

power generation of electricity. The 

north and west portion of the state

has, on average, stronger winds, 

making that area best suited for wind 

turbines. Numerous wind farms exist 

within or near the district, and other 

new ones are planned. While finding 

alternatives to fossil fuel consumption 

is important, turbines are potential 

threats to wildlife. Collision mortality, 

negative visual stimulus (similar to 

trees) and construction and access 

disturbance are all problematic. The 

Service, working with the Wind 

Turbine Guidelines Advisory 

Committee, developed voluntary land-based wind energy guidelines in 2012 to provide a 

structured, scientific process for addressing wildlife conservation concerns at all stages of landbased wind energy development. They also promote effective communication among wind 

energy developers and federal, state, and local conservation agencies and tribes. When used in 

concert with appropriate regulatory tools, the guidelines form the best practical approach for 

conserving species of concern (FWS, 2012b).

Effects 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Indicators used for evaluating effects on socioeconomics include the following:

• Social: The change in the state or condition of an individual, group of individuals, 

community, or society. This may include physiological, psychological, cultural, spiritual, 

or other forms of social change. Examples include physical health, mental health, 

education, incidence of crime or conflict, place attachment, stewardship, community 

pride, family cohesion, cultural understanding, spiritual health, and appreciation of 

nature.

• Economic: The change in a financial value, state, or condition of something to an 

individual, group, business, community, government, or society. Examples include direct 

fiscal impacts (e.g., sales, jobs, and income), perceived values, worker productivity, 

business success, and organizational wellness.

The intensity categories for determining effects on socioeconomics are defined as the following:

• Negligible: Very few individuals, families, social groups, businesses, communities, or 

government entities are impacted. Impacts are barely detectable or detectable only 

Waterfowl and Wind Turbines
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

through indirect means and with no discernible impact on regional social and/or 

economic conditions

• Minor: A few individuals, families, social groups, businesses, communities, or 

government entities are impacted. Impacts are small but detectable, limited to a small 

geographic area, comparable in scale to typical year-to-year or seasonal variations, and 

not expected to substantively alter social and/or economic conditions over the long-term

• Moderate: Many individuals, families, social groups, businesses, communities, or 

government entities are impacted. Impacts are readily apparent and detectable across a 

wider geographic area and may have a noticeable effect on social and/or economic 

conditions over the long-term

• Major: A large number of individuals, families, social groups, businesses, communities, 

or government entities are impacted. Impacts are readily detectable and observed, 

extend across much of the study area, and have a substantial influence on social and/or 

economic conditions over the long-term

The effects on socioeconomics from implementing the various alternatives described above 

were determined to be the following:

Beneficial, Long-Term, Moderate, Local

For Alternatives C and D, with more public use and facilities provided, a broader group of users 

may go to the district and would likely spend more money at local businesses for their 

amenities. According to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated

Recreation, hunters spent $121.5 million in Iowa on hunting trip-related expenses. In addition, 

residents and nonresidents spent over $64 million on wildlife-watching trip-related expenses in

Iowa during 2011 (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, and U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Municipalities and community 

organizations could bring additional tourism revenues into their economies by establishing 

partnerships with the Service broadening the benefit of this effect.

It is also likely that with more land acquisition and more restoration of agricultural land to 

grassland and wetland habitat, there will be more visitors, particularly hunters. According to the 

Service’s Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP) report prepared by the district staff, 

there were 58,000 total hunting visits to the district in 2012. This is approximately 0.4 visits per 

acre. Therefore, if the district acquires an additional 3,000 to 4,500 acres over the next 15 

years, an additional 1,400 to 1,600 visits could occur over that same period. These additional 

visits will add more money to the local economy in food, supplies, and gas. 

Beneficial, Long-Term, Minor, Landscape

For all alternatives, one issue for the district is the prolonged decline of grassland-dependent

bird populations due to the decline of grassland habitat. One of the strategies to address this 

issue is to annually treat a minimum of 25 percent of WPAs in the district with at least one of a 

variety of treatments. These treatments include haying and grazing to mimic natural processes 

that historically diversified grassland types across the landscape. Both of these uses provide an 

economic gain to local farmers. It is likely that one-eighth of the district may be under haying 

and/or grazing in any given year. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Adverse, Long-Term, Moderate, Landscape

For Alternatives B, C, and D, converting productive and profitable cropland to perennial 

grassland has a negative impact on the local cooperative farmers and their farm management 

company. Currently 52 cooperative farmers are under contract with the district. One farm 

management company oversees 28 of those contracts. The Iowa DNR oversees the other 24 

contracts. 

Currently, migratory bird funding provides two million dollars annually to the district for 

acquisition and the average land value across the district is $7,700/acre (Duffy, 2011). 

Assuming this trend is constant, the district would grow by approximately 260 acres per year—

although land values will likely continue to increase and the two million dollars is not guaranteed 

every year. For Alternatives B and D, cropland is to be reduced to no more than two years’ 

worth of acquisition (520 acres) at any given time; the rest is to be converted to perennial 

grassland.

Since the district currently has approximately 3,700 acres in cropland with 52 cooperative 

farmers, each cooperative farmer is responsible for 70 acres on average. If a maximum of 520 

acres of cropland existed in the district (Alternatives B and D) at any given time to control 

weeds, invasive species, and woody encroachment until it can be converted to perennial 

grassland, then only approximately seven cooperative farmers would need to be under contract. 

Therefore, approximately 45 farmers will be negatively impacted by Alternatives B and D if 

implemented. Since the average farm size across the district in 2010 was 384 acres (USDA, 

2011), these 45 cooperative farmers could each lose 18 percent of their current operation. 

Reducing (possibly in Alternative D) or eliminating (Alternative B) food plots would worsen this 

impact. 

Visitor Services

The main office for the Iowa WMD is located at Union Slough NWR, located approximately two 

and one-half hours southwest of Minneapolis, MN and northwest of Des Moines. Driving from 

Algona, Iowa take Highway 169 north to Bancroft; turn right (east) on A-42, and proceed six 

miles to the office. From Interstate 90, take the Blue Earth, MN exit, and follow Rt. 169 south 

into Iowa. At Lakota, follow P60 south to A-42, then west 0.25 miles on A-42 to the office. 

Interpretive displays, wetland district public use regulations, and other information are available 

7:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m., Monday–Friday (excluding federal holidays). The Iowa DNR has six 

wildlife field offices that serve as points of contact for district visitors as well.

The Union Slough NWR office provides a visitor contact station for the Iowa WMD. The office is 

staffed with an administrative technician that also serves as a visitor contact liaison. The refuge

office maintains a wildlife display interpreting both the district and the refuge. Both indoor and 

outdoor kiosks orient visitors to the area. District public use information and regulations are 

current and available both indoors and outdoors at the office. 

Current Management

Waterfowl Production Areas differ from NWRs in that they are open to hunting, fishing, and 

trapping in accordance with state law. Therefore, WPAs are "open until closed” by state or 

federal law for hunting, fishing, and trapping. National Wildlife Refuges on the other hand are 

“closed until opened” to these uses. However, WPAs can be opened to other uses if 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

determined to be appropriate and compatible with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and the purposes of the district. 

Hunting, in particular, has a long history with WPAs. When Congress amended the Duck Stamp 

Act in 1958, it authorized the acquisition of wetlands and uplands as WPAs and waived the 

usual "inviolate sanctuary" provisions. Thus, WPAs were intended to be open to waterfowl 

hunting, in part because waterfowl hunters, through the purchase of Duck Stamps and support 

for price increases of the stamp, played a major role in acquisition of these areas. Hunting, for 

both waterfowl and resident game species accounts for more than half of the visits to WPAs.

However, state regulations classify some WPAs as “waterfowl refuges.” According to Iowa 

Code 52.1(3):

“Waterfowl refuges: The following areas under the jurisdiction of the department of 

natural resources are established as waterfowl refuges where posted. It shall be 

unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, where posted, at any time 

during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the following areas, 

where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ 

For Iowa WMD these regulations apply to at least some portion of the following WPAs: 

Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and Rice Lake 

(Winnebago and Worth Counties). The Service’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with 

the Iowa DNR states, “. . . other wildlife-dependent uses (wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation) are generally allowed." 

Since the district is overseen by staff from Union Slough NWR, environmental education and 

interpretation programs are nearly always hosted at the refuge rather than the district. A 

recently rekindled partnership with the 

Kossuth County Conservation Board 

(KCCB) has also led to KCCB 

naturalists conducting environmental 

education and interpretation programs 

at the refuge particularly on 

prairie/wetland habitats and their 

dependent wildlife. However, other 

education, interpretation and outreach 

happens through the partnership. 

The Iowa DNR provides these 

services at the county and WPA level 

via the staff at each wildlife unit 

(biologist and technicians) as well as 

through their private lands program. 

Effects 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

Indicators used for evaluating effects on visitor services include the following:

Upland Interpretation for Children
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

• Public Access: The quantity of refuge/district land open and available to the public, 

seasonal variability in this access, and the universality of accessibility for refuge/district

facilities and programs.

• Availability of Information: Visitors’ ability to find the refuge/district, on-site orientation, 

information interpreting refuge/district resources and describing recreation opportunities, 

and the presence of refuge/district staff.

• Range of Activities: The types and availability of wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities and programming associated with a refuge/district, including but not limited 

to the ‘Big Six’ uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation.

• Level of Developed Infrastructure: The perceived quantity of facilities and quantity of the 

environment altered from its natural condition to accommodate refuge/district recreation 

and management.

• Safety: A refuge/district environment that protects visitors from danger, risk, or injury, or 

otherwise reduces recognized hazards.

• Visitation: The volumes and patterns of visitation on a station over a period of time as 

indicated by the number, timing, location, and duration of visits. These visitation factors 

have implications on station activities, services, infrastructure, law enforcement, and 

user interaction.

The intensity categories for determining effects on visitor services are defined as the following:

• Negligible: Effect not detectable by visitors or barely perceptible to most visitors; 

therefore, not discernible.

• Minor: May be a slightly detectable effect that would result in little detraction or 

improvement in the quality of the visitor experience.

• Moderate: Change in the experiences of a large number of visitors, resulting in a 

noticeable decrease or improvement in the quality of the experience.

• Major: Substantial improvement or a severe decrease in the quality of many visitors 

experience would result from a clearly detectable action that dramatically alters the 

availability of important aspects of the visitor experience such as the addition or 

elimination of a recreation opportunity or a permanent change in access to a popular 

area.

The effects on visitor services from implementing the various alternatives described above were 

determined to be the following:

Beneficial, Long-Term, Moderate, Landscape

For Alternatives C and D, providing more public uses and facilities (kiosks, trails, pull-offs, etc.) 

will increase the range of activities, availability of information, safety, and possibly the amount of 

visitation for the district. 

The requirement to use and possess only approved nontoxic shot shells in the district, may 

have an adverse effect on some visitors. However, the effect would be negligible since this is 

already a requirement for waterfowl hunting in the district. Nontoxic shot is readily available in 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

stores, and the only real change involves wild turkey hunting. Furthermore, the Iowa DNR 

hunting regulations help hunters adapt to using non-toxic shot for wild turkey hunting by allowing 

hunters to use larger shot sizes (heavier loads).

Historic and Cultural Resources

Native American History and Early Settlement

Archeological evidence in northwestern Iowa indicates people have occupied this area for 

approximately the past 12,000 years. As the glaciers retreated to the north in the warming 

period known as the Holocene, small bands of hunters moved into the tundra and boreal forest 

and hunted Pleistocene megafauna. The Clovis and Folsom fluted lanceolate spear points and 

other tools of these PaleoIndians have been found in several locations near the district in 

Minnesota and Iowa. Folsom materials seem to be found in diverse settings, often associated 

with kill-sites although none of these sites have been identified in the district. 

By 7,000 B.C. the glacial ice was north of Iowa, even north of Minnesota. Glacial Lake Agassiz 

in northwest Minnesota drained for the final time around 7,600 B.C. An oak and pine forest and 

early prairie replaced the boreal forest in western Iowa and Minnesota. The megafauna were 

extinct, and late PaleoIndian people adapted to reliance upon hunting bison and smaller game. 

Their representative artifact is the unfluted lanceolate spear point. Plano materials have been 

found in Iowa and across Minnesota except in Lake Agassiz. Dalton materials have been found 

in Iowa and southern Minnesota.

The long Archaic Period commenced just prior to the hot and dry Altithermal that peaked at 

approximately 6,000–4,000 B.C. Apparently the prairie-forest line moved east of the Mississippi 

River, surface waters reduced in size or disappeared, and many water courses changed their 

locations. Bison herds were much reduced in size, and the archeological record would indicate 

a decrease in human populations as well. The people developed a diverse array of stone tools, 

also bone and copper tools, and broadened their hunting and gathering to include many plant 

and animal species in addition to bison. Archeological sites indicate that after the Altithermal 

Period the human population expanded significantly. Due to the changing climate, Archaic sites 

are situated in areas that might appear to be unlikely based on modern topography, including 

within wetland basins. They would also be expected in alluvial fan deposits and other burial 

conditions.

Human populations continued to expand in the Woodland (or Ceramic/Mound) Period. With 

some exceptions, climate and vegetation patterns were similar to the modern era. The people 

adopted pottery and mound building from the Woodland cultures to the east but not horticulture 

to the same extent. Plains Woodland peoples continued reliance upon bison hunting. Sites are 

found on the margins of lakes, rivers, and streams.

Increasingly complex human cultures of the Late Prehistoric Period, beginning about A.D. 900, 

in western Iowa contended with fluctuating climatic conditions and shifting vegetation patterns. 

Initially during this period temperatures were warm. Agriculture became a large component of 

subsistence, although bison remained important when available. The bow and arrow came into 

use. Some groups lived in large, often fortified, villages composed of earth lodges. Exotic items 

indicate trade and some influence by the Mississippian culture from the southeast. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Arrival of Europeans and their Western civilization had a greater impact on Native American 

cultures. During the Proto-historic Period, tribes migrated from their prehistoric locations and 

gave up their prehistoric material culture. This change was so momentous that modern Native 

American tribes often cannot be identified with prehistoric antecedents. In the district, however, 

archeologists have identified some continuity from the Late Prehistoric through the contact 

period to modern tribes. The Late Prehistoric Oneota culture of northwestern Iowa was likely 

the antecedent for the Ioway, Oto, and perhaps Omaha tribes. 

First the French, then the British, and last the Americans entered Iowa. Fur trading and early 

exploration had little apparent impact on the prairie. Fur traders built their fur trade posts at the 

confluence of rivers or on the shores of larger lakes, usually near a Native American village. In 

the second half of the 19th century during the Historical Period, American and European 

immigrants settled the prairie and started to transform Iowa into an agricultural state. The 

Native Americans were largely removed through treaty and war. Frontier trails and government 

roads, followed by railroads, improved accessibility and markets. Homesteader dugouts and 

sod houses were replaced with frame houses and larger farmsteads. Highway construction and 

farm consolidation marked the 20th century.

A review of the National Register of Historic Places showed that, as of August 1, 1996, the 35

Iowa WMD counties contained 397 properties listed on the National Register. The vast majority 

of these properties are buildings in towns and cities. However, a number of the properties are 

located in rural areas and are indicative of the kinds of historic properties that could be found in 

the district: farmsteads and farm buildings, especially barns; bridges, segments of the Red River 

Oxcart trail, mill sites, battle sites, and prehistoric archeological sites such as mounds, villages, 

camps, and rock art.

Cultural Resource Management

Cultural resources—such as 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 

potentially 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 on federal land, not just sites meeting the criteria for the National 

Register. It requires archeological investigations on federal land be performed in the public 

interest by qualified persons. 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences 

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the regional director (RD) 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 the RD 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. This includes 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/district 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. In addition, the refuge/district 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.

Effects

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative

There are no specific activities included in any of the alternatives to directly benefit cultural 

resources. A variety of laws prohibit any adverse effect on cultural resources as a result of 

management activities on public land. Additional review and approval of specific site-level 

projects will be completed if and when those projects are planned. Any effects to cultural 

resources will be determined at that time. 

District Administration

Current Situation

An MOU with the Iowa DNR establishes the working relationship and how staffs are shared in 

the district. Through this partnership, the vast majority of the WPAs are maintained and 

managed by six Iowa DNR offices: Prairie Lakes, Clear Lake, Black Hawk, Great Lakes, 

Saylorville, and Red Rock. Current staffing at most of these units include a wildlife biologist, 

wildlife technician II and wildlife technician I. Some of these units also staff seasonal employees 

at times. These positions are not reflected in the current district budget, because they are 

funded by the state.

 

The Service does not currently pay any staff member’s salary out of district funds; however, all 

Union Slough NWR staff as well as zoned fire and law enforcement resources are utilized and 

available to work in the district. Current Service staff, funded through Union Slough NWR and

performing work in the district, includes project leader, deputy project leader, wildlife biologist, 

prescribed fire specialist, administrative technician, maintenance worker, and private lands 

biologist. Zone fire resources are also utilized almost entirely in the district including a Wildland 

Urban Interface Coordinator and Prescribed Fire Technician, located in Milford, Iowa. This staff 

plans and implements prescribed fire on all the WMD properties and also coordinates with 

partners to accomplish management goals. Funding for the fire program for both the refuge and 

WMD is administered through the refuge. Currently, the district receives $250,000 to fund 

restoration projects on district land managed by the Iowa DNR. In addition, the district receives 
Chapter 4: District Environment, Current Management, and Environmental Consequences

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

$15,000 for management capability. Union Slough NWR funds are also regularly used for 

projects in the district.

Currently the MOU describes law enforcement as a shared responsibility of the Iowa DNR and 

the Service. According to the MOU, the Iowa DNR assumes primary law enforcement 

responsibility on WPAs necessary to protect the resource. The Service has the responsibility to 

control use for the protection of the resource and prosecute all possible violations in federal 

court. The Service also assumes the responsibility for enforcing Service conservation/wetland 

easements. The Iowa WMD currently does not have a law enforcement officer; however, the 

zoned law enforcement officer located in Prairie City, Iowa and others have provided assistance 

as available. Therefore, the district often has difficulty dealing with easement violations in a 

timely manner as required by the Region 3 Easement Manual. 

District Support

Current Situation

The Service and the Iowa DNR have a long developed partnership in the district. This 

partnership was established in 1978 and has been effective in facilitating goals outlined in the 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. Currently, an MOU between the two agencies codifies the 

partnership. In this agreement, the Service requests two million dollars annually from the 

Migratory Bird Commission for land acquisition and the Iowa DNR finds properties for sale, 

negotiates with landowners, and completes inspections. Iowa DNR also provides on the ground 

restoration and day-to-day management of most WPAs within the district. Properties in Kossuth 

County, one in Pocahontas County, and the WPA and FSA easements are managed by Union 

Slough NWR staff. All other district properties are managed by the Iowa DNR. Wildlife 

management biologists from six different Iowa DNR units manage these WPAs in their 

respective areas similar to state WMAs. One of the many advantages to this partnership is that 

properties can be targeted within priority complexes, providing excellent opportunities for public 

hunting and recreation.

While the Iowa WMD does not have its own Friends group, the Friends of Union Slough NWR 

also support the district. They support the district in many ways including financial assistance, 

volunteer labor, and educational outreach about the district. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

The purpose of this appendix is to make it easier for the reader to understand the preferred alternative and what would be required 

for its implementation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) policy directs that certain elements be included in a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Most of those elements are included in the Environmental Assessment (EA)/Draft CCP. 

Elements dealing with the implementation of the plan, not included in the EA/Draft CCP, are included in this appendix. Following 

public review and comment of the EA/Draft CCP, a stand-alone CCP will be produced that draws on much of the information in the 

EA.

Objectives and Strategies

Goal 1: Wildlife

In partnership with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and others, restore a natural diversity and abundance of 

waterfowl, migratory birds, and other native fauna within the Iowa Wetland Management District (WMD, district).

Issue 1-1: Focal species group and life cycle

Objective 1-1-1

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, increase the breeding population of Mallard by 450 pairs and Blue-winged Teal 

by 450 pairs on protected wetlands (permanent state and federal ownership) in the Prairie Pothole Region 

(PPR) of Iowa and develop strategies, as part of the district’s Inventory and Monitoring Plan, to set recruitment 

goals for these species in the PPR of Iowa. 

Measures

• Mallard breeding population increased by 900 individuals on protected wetlands (permanent state and 

federal ownership) in the Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa 

• Blue-winged Teal breeding population increased by 900 individuals on protected wetlands (permanent

state and federal ownership) in the Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa

• Recruitment goals established in the district’s Inventory and Monitoring Plan for Mallard and Blue-winged 

Teal within the PPR of Iowa

Rationale

Many species of wildlife use Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) in the district; however, its main purpose is for 

waterfowl production and to provide habitat for migratory birds, especially those that are grassland-/wetlanddependent. With limited staff and budgets it would be difficult to manage for all these species individually. 

Therefore, it is more practical to focus on a few species that represent a guild or group of other species. Mallard 

and Blue-winged Teal were chosen as focal species for the district, because their habitat and life cycle 

requirements are representative of a wide scale of other wetland and grassland-dependent migratory birds. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

A measure that is often used to determine nesting site suitability for ground nesting birds is a visual obscurity 

rating (VOR) (Robel et al., 1970). After looking at VOR readings for various species of both waterfowl and other 

grassland-dependent birds, it was clear that both Mallard and Blue-Winged Teal encompass most of the other 

ground nesting birds using the PPR (Laubhan et al., 2006). These focal species also require the various 

wetland types represented in the PPR of Iowa, such as temporary and seasonal wetlands for pair bonding and 

semi-permanent to permanent wetlands for brood rearing and molting. Thus, managing the district to provide 

the habitat requirements of these focal species will in turn provide for the needs of many other migratory birds 

and resident wildlife. 

According to conversations with retired Iowa DNR waterfowl biologist Guy Zenner in 2012 and 2013 and other 

supporting literature, Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, and Wood Ducks are the most common nesting waterfowl 

species in the district (Bishop et al., 1979; Fleskes, 1986; Ohde et al., 1983; Weller, 1979). Mallard pairs 

represented 36 percent and Blue-winged Teal pairs represented 35 percent of the breeding ducks surveyed 

during the four-square mile pair counts across nine counties of the district from 2006 through 2011. Wetlands 

surveyed during the pair count are 69 percent privately owned and 31 percent publicly owned and therefore, 

protected or managed by the state or federal agency (FWS, 2012a). Although breeding pair density varies from 

newly restored to existing wetlands, Iowa has an average of 0.9 pairs per wetland acre (FWS, 2012a). Since 

the district has an acquisition goal of 3,000–4,500 acres over the next 15 years, with generally a 3:1 ratio of 

uplands to wetlands, new habitat could be provided for approximately 900 new duck pairs. Based on the land 

acquisition and wetland restoration objectives in this CCP, increasing the populations from the current average 

from 2006 through 2011 breeding pair population of 6,406 Mallard pairs and 6,221 Blue-winged Teal pairs (state 

and federally protected wetland) by 450 pairs each, seems to be most realistic and achievable. This equates to 

an increase in the cumulative breeding population of Mallards and Blue-winged Teal by 1800. It is important to 

note that the wetlands restored in the district will be representative of the historic PPR of Iowa—that is, 

representing the area prior to Euro-American settlement. 

Currently, recruitment rates are available for both Mallard and Blue-winged Teal nesting in the PPR of Iowa;

however, many managers and biologists question the validity of these estimates due to the great variability in 

factors effecting recruitment. Studies such as nest dragging tend to be somewhat localized and difficult to 

extrapolate for the entire district. Brood count data is highly variable as well due to many factors such as 

vegetation cover on wetlands and survey methods. For these reasons, recruitment goals will not be used in this 

management plan but will be developed with partners in the Inventory and Monitoring Plan. 

Even though the district will be adding protected and restored wetlands to the landscape, agricultural drainage 

on private land will likely continue to remove them. However, this objective only addresses the land that the 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Service and its partners control under permanent protection. The FWS Partners Program will continue working 

with private landowners using various Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs such as the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands Reserves Program (WRP), and conservation 

agreements and easements to reduce the loss of wetlands on private land. 

Strategies

• Restore a minimum of 500 acres of existing cropland to native grassland annually as budget, staff, and 

weather allow. 

• Continue to acquire land (approximately 350–400 acres per year) per the FWS Region 3 Strategic 

Growth of the Small Wetland Acquisition Program’s Guidelines for Fee and Easement Purchase and the 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iowa DNR.

• Convert newly acquired cropland in the uplands to native grassland ideally within two years of 

acquisition. (Exceptions to the two year goal will be outlined in the individual unit plan.)

• Restore the wetland portion(s) of newly acquired property as soon after acquisition as funding and 

resources allow.

• Assess the status of Objective 1-1-1 annually per Iowa DNR four-square mile survey results. 

• Work with Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (Iowa State University), Iowa DNR Waterfowl 

Biologist and the Service’s Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) and secure funding to 

establish research to determine scientifically sound recruitment rates for Mallard and Blue-winged Teal 

populations in the PPR of Iowa as part of the development of the district’s Inventory and Monitoring Plan.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Goal 2: Habitat

In partnership with the Iowa DNR and others, conserve, restore, and expand grassland and wetland habitat managing for a natural 

diversity of native flora within the Iowa WMD. 

Issue 2-1: Prolonged decline of grassland-dependent bird populations due to the decline of grassland habitat

Objective 2-1-1

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, increase native grassland habitat by 7,500 acres with a plant diversity of 100 

or more species, and provide more suitable habitat (in terms of vegetative structure as will be defined in the 

district’s Habitat Management Plan) in existing grassland for a wide variety of grassland-dependent birds within 

the Iowa WMD.

Measures

• The district contains 23,687 acres of grassland habitat after the 15-year life of the plan

• Twenty-five percent of existing grassland bird habitat is managed annually (e.g., hay, graze, burn, mow, 

tree removal) assuring that all lands are treated at least once every four years to improve vegetative 

structure and diversity 

Rationale

As Iowa was settled, the rich soils of the state were steadily converted from an almost endless sea of diverse 

prairie to a very orderly succession of row crop fields. Today, more than 99.9 percent of Iowa’s prairies have 

disappeared (Smith, 1992). The huge loss of habitat produced a corresponding reduction in grasslanddependent birds. Maintaining prairie remnants and reconstructing prairie on crop fields is a critical first step to 

providing essential habitat for grassland-dependent migratory birds in a landscape that has lost almost all of the 

historic grasslands. 

As a group, grassland birds have a wide range of habitat requirements that can be categorized based on their 

vegetation height and density preferences (Ribic et al., 2009). For example, Vesper Sparrows (Pooecetes 

gramineus) prefer short, sparse habitats maintained by disturbances such as grazing, while Sedge Wrens 

(Cistothorus platensis) prefer tall, rank cover on moist sites (Ryan, 1986). In addition, there is great variability in 

preference for factors other than vegetation height, including litter depth, woody vegetation tolerance, and tract 

size. Historically, the sheer size of the unbroken prairie provided numerous opportunities for the expression of 

many different habitat conditions. This allowed many different bird species to find their preferred habitat within 

the larger matrix of the tallgrass prairie. The fragmented nature of current grasslands is much less likely to 

provide that kind of habitat diversity. This is especially true if grasslands are not subjected to some kind of 

periodic disturbance. Annually treating a portion of fragmented grasslands with some form of disturbance like 

haying, grazing, mowing, or burning will increase the structural diversity across the district. A combination of all 

these disturbance tools applied strategically throughout the district will create a continuum from bare ground to 

tall, dense standing vegetation. Burning generally removes all standing vegetation and litter from the ground. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Mowing or haying generally remove most of the standing vegetation but frequently leave some amount of litter 

on the ground. Depending on stocking rates, timing and/or duration, grazing can remove virtually all standing 

vegetation and most of the litter, or it can be used to reach some predetermined vegetation condition that can 

vary across a wide spectrum of structural diversity. 

Prairie vegetative productivity declines and extensive invasion of woody and other invasive plant species occur 

in the absence of disturbances such as prescribed fire, grazing, haying, or mowing (Herkert, 1994). In addition, 

there is evidence that there is a positive relationship between plant species diversity and ecological stability in 

response to climatic stressors like drought, flooding, and climate change (Tillman and Downing, 1994). Various 

management tools must be used to manipulate grasslands to achieve the mosaic of habitat conditions needed 

to attract a diversity of grassland bird species. Management actions such as haying, mowing, burning, grazing, 

tree removal, and rest will all have positive influences for some bird species while simultaneously having 

negative influences for other bird species. The careful application of these management actions across the 

lands in the Iowa WMD will help to ensure that a wide variety of grassland-dependent bird species can find 

appropriate habitat throughout the Iowa prairie pothole landscape.

Strategies

• Restore a minimum of 500 acres of existing cropland to native grassland annually as budget, staff, and 

weather allow. 

• Convert newly acquired cropland to native grassland ideally within two years of acquisition. Exceptions 

to the two year goal will be outlined in the individual unit plan.

• Annually treat a minimum of 25 percent of district grasslands with a combination of the following types of 

treatment: haying, prescribed grazing, prescribed fire, mowing, or tree removal. This strategy will be 

employed in such a way as to have all district grassland acres receiving a treatment at least once every 

four years.

• Develop an appropriate research and monitoring protocol to evaluate grassland bird use of WMD lands. 

Work with the Iowa DNR’s Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Program if possible.

• Complete the district’s Habitat Management Plan that details the desired varying vegetative structure for 

the district’s grasslands.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Issue 2-2: Upland habitat quality

Objective 2-2-1 At the end of the 15-year life of the CCP, perennial grassland, preferably native, is present on at least 97 

percent of the uplands of the Iowa WMD. 

Measure • Perennial grassland covers at least 97 percent of the district uplands 

Rationale

Grasslands can support greater abundance and diversity of birds than row crop fields (Rodenhouse and Best, 

1983). Grasslands also provide far superior nest cover for the vast majority of ground nesting waterfowl as 

compared to annually tilled fields (Higgins, 1977). The main purpose of the district is to benefit waterfowl and 

other grassland-dependent migratory birds. Currently, about 15 percent of district land is in row crop fields. 

Therefore, it is a top priority to convert the vast majority of these fields to grassland as quickly as is financially 

and logistically possible. Planting these areas to diverse native seed mixes will help to ensure the long-term 

maintenance and restoration of healthy populations of native fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats as is 

required by the Service’s Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health policy (FWS, 2001). 

The majority of new land acquisitions in the district are row crop fields. These row crop fields will be seeded to 

diverse prairie plantings ideally within two years of acquisition. After the crop ground in the district has been 

seeded to grassland, degraded remnant prairie and old, low diversity plantings, both native and non-native, will 

be evaluated to determine if conversion to diverse native plantings is warranted. The advantages of planting 

diverse native mixes include increased structural diversity with an appeal to a wide array of grasslanddependent wildlife, increased ability to deal with climatic stressors, increased ability to compete with invasive 

plants, and increased acreage of critically endangered tallgrass prairie habitat (see rationale for Objective 2-1-

1).

The district includes both food plots and fields of rotational cover that have been planted to non-native 

vegetation such as smooth brome and alfalfa. Food plots are discussed in Objective 2-5-1. The rotational cover 

exists for a variety of reasons. In some cases, these fields were enrolled in CRP and planted to non-native 

vegetation such as smooth brome. When the Service acquired the land, the non-native cover was already 

established. In other cases, smooth brome and alfalfa were planted after purchase by the Service to provide 

attractive cover for nesting waterfowl. Since district resources will be focused on planting the existing crop 

ground as well as all newly purchased crop ground to diverse native plantings, the status quo of these existing 

rotational cover plantings will be maintained until at least the backlog of crop ground has been planted. This will 

allow the district to evaluate and compare bird use and nest success in brome/alfalfa plantings versus diverse 

native plantings. The information gathered during the comparison will help determine the ultimate fate of the 

existing brome alfalfa plantings. Proposals for new rotational cover plantings will be evaluated for 

appropriateness and compliance with Service policies. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Woody encroachment into grasslands can happen rapidly without proper management (Herkert, 1994). 

Historically, the district was dominated by tallgrass prairie. Soil surveys and historic vegetation maps based on 

Iowa’s original land surveys from the mid-1800s indicate trees were generally restricted to the major rivers 

throughout most of the district. Large portions of the area were almost treeless. Today, native grasslands are 

extremely rare across the district. In fact, grasslands of any type are rare across the district. To provide the 

open grassland habitat needed by many bird and other wildlife species, district uplands will be managed to 

prevent the establishment and/or spread of woody vegetation. Management tools such as grazing, mowing, 

haying, prescribed fire, and tree removal will all be used to promote and maintain open grasslands.

District lands occur in a highly altered agricultural landscape. This has contributed to the introduction and 

spread of aggressive, invasive plants across the district (Solecki, 1997). Grasslands are subject to invasion by 

some of these plants. If left unchecked, invasive plants can form monotypic stands that suppress the native 

plants and associated diversity (Solecki, 1997). As a result, a great deal of effort goes into managing these 

invasive species. Control efforts use the least destructive method possible to control and discourage invasive 

species, including hand pulling, mowing, grazing, haying, and chemical treatment.

Multiple strategies and techniques are used to seed native grassland across the district. Purchasing seed mixes 

allows for the creation of an exact mix with desired percentages of cool and warm season grasses, sedges, and 

forbs. However, much of the time, there are variable yearly limitations in species, quantities, and budgets. 

Therefore, a combination of techniques to acquire seed mixes for the district must be utilized. Existing native 

grassland is harvested in bulk with a combine. This provides a base seed mix with some known species based 

on what is growing in the field but unknown amounts of those species. A seed test is usually completed to 

determine what species are in the mix, the relative proportion of each species, and the viability of each species. 

However, the sample sent in for testing is very small compared to the total seed lot harvested. Generally, the 

most abundant species present in the seed (usually big bluestem and/or Indiangrass) is fairly accurate, but there 

is much less certainty about the many other species present in the mix. 

As a result, a combination of purchased seed and hand harvested seed are added to the mix for more diversity. 

The purchased mix is usually more of what is available and affordable and not so much about what is desirable. 

Generally, the species most lacking in the seed harvested with the combine includes early growing plants (cool 

season), low growing plants (mostly cool season), and plants that grow in wet areas (sedges and others). Most 

cool season species have dropped their seeds by September when the harvest occurs and it is too difficult to 

combine in wet areas to get sedges and other wet-tolerant plants. These species can be hand collected, but 

getting large quantities is difficult without a large volunteer group. Furthermore, it is very difficult to find large 

quantities of local ecotype cool season species (grasses, forbs, sedges) to purchase. There is often reluctance 

by seed dealers to grow such species that are not generally in high demand especially when Service budgets 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

are unstable from year to year. In the end, the most diverse seed mix that is affordable and available is planted, 

but percentages of certain species or groups (cool season grasses, forbs, sedges, etc.) remain unknown.

Strategies

• Restore a minimum of 500 acres of existing cropland to native grassland annually as budget, staff, and 

weather allow. 

• Convert newly acquired cropland to native grassland ideally within two years of acquisition. Exceptions 

to the two year goal will be outlined in the individual unit plan.

• Remove encroaching woody vegetation.

• Only after existing cropland is planted to native grassland, replace low diversity grasslands, both native 

and non-native, with higher diversity native species seed mixes including warm season grasses, cool 

season grasses and sedges, and forbs to increase species and structural diversity on district grasslands.

• Treat/remove aggressive, invasive species to minimize loss of species and structural diversity.

• Develop an appropriate research/monitoring project to compare use and nest success rates of waterfowl 

and other grassland-dependent birds in diverse native seedings versus brome/alfalfa seedings.

• Evaluate, before planting, any new rotational cover of brome/alfalfa on district land by considering factors 

such as budget, seed availability, purpose, location, and ecological integrity. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Issue 2-3: Focal wetland type

Objective 2-3-1

At the end of the 15-year life of the CCP a variety of wetland types (75 percent temporary and seasonal, 15 

percent semi-permanent, and 10 percent permanent) exist across the Iowa WMD as representative of the preEuro-American settlement landscape. 

Measure • District wetlands are 75 percent temporary and seasonal, 15 percent semi-permanent, and 10 percent 

permanent

Rationale

Wetland Complexes and Cycling: The Des Moines Lobe contains wetlands varying in size and water regime 

including temporary, seasonal, semi-permanent, and permanent (Stewart and Kantrud, 1971). The dynamic 

wet-dry precipitation cycles of the prairie region create corresponding water, nutrient, and vegetative cycles that 

maintain the productivity and ecological health of these wetlands (Euliss et al., 1999). These cycles historically 

maintained wetlands in a clear water state, which supports healthy wetland vegetation providing seeds, tubers, 

aquatic insects, and other foods used by waterfowl and other migratory birds. A cluster or “complex” of these 

varying wetland types is required for waterfowl to complete their life cycle including nesting, brood rearing, 

molting and migration (Swanson and Duebbert, 1989). This wetland variety increases the likelihood that 

productive and suitable habitat will be available at any given time as the water conditions vary both seasonally 

and from year to year. The quantity and quality of wetland habitat within Iowa not only affects the production of 

locally nesting birds but also affects the productivity of birds nesting farther north. These wetlands are critical in 

providing proper food resources to improve breeding condition of the birds when they arrive at their breeding 

grounds (Devries et al., 2008; Anteau and Afton, 2011).

Altered Wetland Systems: The intensive agricultural development currently dominating the Des Moines Lobe 

has had a dramatic effect on the quantity and quality of wetland habitat within the district. Due to extensive 

wetland drainage only three to four percent of the historic wetland acreage currently exists within the lobe (Miller 

et al., 2012). These drainage systems have lowered regional water tables creating dryer water regimes within 

the few remaining wetlands across broad landscapes. In many cases, these systems drain hundreds or even 

thousands of acres containing smaller basins into a larger basin lower on the landscape. This process is 

commonly called “consolidation drainage.” Consolidation drainage creates a more unchanging, permanent 

water regime in the receiving basin, which interrupts the wet-dry cycles critical to the productivity of the receiving 

wetlands (Weller and Fredrickson, 1974; Anteau, 2012). Because these drainage systems are interconnected, 

invasive and non-native fish are given a conduit to invade historically isolated wetlands leading to turbid 

conditions with low productivity and providing direct competition for aquatic food resources. Unchanging high 

water levels from consolidation drainage often prevent the fish from “freezing out” in winter as had occurred 

during historic wet-dry cycles (Anteau et al., 2011). Similarly, the more permanent water regime may interrupt 

natural predator cycles and, consequently, reduce duckling survival (Krapu et al., 2004). Surface and tile runoff 

from upstream cropland frequently carries excess nutrients, contaminants, and sediment into wetlands 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

exacerbating the turbid state of the wetlands. As a result of these impacts, the existing wetland base within the 

lobe is skewed toward deeper water regimes, many of which are in poor ecological condition (Miller et al., 2012; 

Anteau and Afton, 2011; Anteau, 2012). 

Temporary and Seasonal Wetlands: Smaller temporary and seasonal wetlands are preferred by nesting 

Mallards during pre-nesting and egg production (Krapu et al., 1997). As a result, these basins support more 

pairs of breeding waterfowl than larger, more permanent basins (Kantrud and Stewart, 1977; Cowardin et al., 

1995). Krapu et al., (2000) found that the survival rate of Mallard broods was substantially higher when 

seasonal wetlands contained water, underscoring the importance of seasonal wetlands as a major component of 

wetland complexes for breeding waterfowl. LaGrange and Dinsmore (1989) found that Mallards migrating 

through Iowa used “sheetwater” wetlands almost exclusively for feeding while using larger, more permanent 

basins for roosting at night. More recently, the restoration of temporary and seasonal wetlands upstream from 

larger basins and shallow lakes has been recognized as highly beneficial to restoring the hydrologic cycle 

needed to return the productive clear water state to these deeper basins (Anteau, 2012).

Semi-permanent Wetlands and Shallow Lakes: In most years seasonal wetlands are dry by mid-summer. 

Consequently, semi-permanent wetlands and shallow lakes are typically needed for brood rearing later in the 

growing season (Swanson, 1986). In mid- to late-summer, larger more permanent wetlands also provide 

important molting habitat for post-breeding waterfowl (Swanson and Duebbert, 1989). Naturally, semipermanent basins and shallow lakes also provide the only migratory habitat for fall migrating wetland-dependent 

species.

Priority Wetland Complexes: The identification and restoration of landscapes with high densities of temporary 

and seasonal basins in proximity to brood habitat is critical to meet the population objectives for the district. 

Beginning in the 1980s, the Iowa DNR collaborated with the Service and other partners to identify priority 

wetland complexes for restoration within the Des Moines Lobe as part of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture 

(PPJV) of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Zohrer and Garner, 2002). Since that time, the 

Service has been working side by side with the Iowa DNR and a variety of other partners to restore large blocks 

of habitat that reestablish wetland complexes as well as the underlying water tables. Many of these complexes 

have targeted the watersheds upstream from existing larger wetlands and shallow lakes within these identified 

complexes. Because these existing larger basins are at the elevation of the water table, the true hydrology of 

the upstream wetlands can be established more effectively. Once restored, these complexes provide productive 

and ecologically healthy wetland habitats critical to meeting the life cycle needs of waterfowl. Due in large part 

to the PPJV initiative, the wetland acreage in the lobe has increased from an estimated 29,652 acres in the 

1970s to an estimated 124,367 acres in 2011 (Miller et al., 2012).

Strategies • Engage HAPET and/or other partners to inventory, categorize, and map wetlands on WPAs within the 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

district.

• Ensure restoration plans for new acquisitions address all restorable wetland basins within the acquired 

property.

• In acquisition planning, prioritize areas with high temporary and seasonal wetland densities, ideally within 

one-half mile of existing or restorable brood habitat (semi- to permanent wetlands).

• Review existing WPAs for small temporary or seasonal wetland basins that may have been overlooked 

during initial restoration.

• Remove, non-perforate and/or reroute drainage tile within WPAs to maximize water table restoration 

where financially, legally, and physically feasible. 

• Remove sediment from basins prior to restoration where soil samples document the sedimentation.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

Issue 2-4: Wetland quality

Objective 2-4-1 Over the 15-year life of the CCP, wetlands within the Iowa WMD are restored and managed to provide breeding 

waterfowl pair densities of at least 0.9 pairs per wetland acre.

Measure • Breeding waterfowl densities surveyed during the April and May four-square mile pair count in Iowa are 

at least 0.9 pairs per wetland acre

Rationale

Restoration and Management Challenges: Lowered regional water tables, consolidation drainage, invasive fish, 

and agricultural runoff present challenges to wetland managers within the Des Moines Lobe. In addition, 

invasive plants, primarily reed canarygrass and hybrid cattail, commonly form dense monotypic stands in and 

around wetlands (Aronson and Galatowitsch, 2008), which limit the productivity and suitability of the habitat for 

waterfowl. Although native to the Des Moines Lobe, cottonwood and willow trees form dense monotypic stands 

in and around wetlands in areas where they were historically uncommon to non-existent based on records from 

the original land surveys and soil surveys. These dense stands of woody vegetation often shade out the desired 

marsh vegetation (Fredrickson and Reid, 1988) and interrupt the open landscape needed by many birds using 

the adjacent grasslands as discussed in the rationale for Objective 2-2-1. A wetland that contains a 50:50 mix of 

emergent vegetation in relation to open water (or “hemi-marsh”) provides the ideal habitat interspersion to 

maximize waterfowl pair densities and invertebrate food resources needed during breeding (Kaminski and 

Prince, 1981; Murkin et al., 1982). Nelson and Kadlec (1984) found that increased habitat interspersion among 

wetlands within a complex increases the suitability of the complex as a whole for breeding waterfowl. Left 

unmanaged, the current forces within the lobe tend to lock more permanent basins into a “lake phase” 

dominated by open water with little interspersed emergent vegetation while shallower wetlands become choked 

by reed canarygrass, hybrid cattail, and woody vegetation with little interspersed open water. In the end, the 

ultimate challenge is to restore and manage individual wetlands as well as wetland complexes to provide the 

interspersion needed to provide suitable habitat for nesting waterfowl.

Wetland Restoration: The vast majority of wetland restoration within the Des Moines Lobe has occurred within 

the past 30 years (Miller et al., 2012). Over that time a variety of guidelines and recommendations have been 

developed to improve the interspersion and overall ecological health of restored wetlands. Aronson and 

Galatowitsch (2008) tracked the floristic characteristics of 37 wetlands restored in the southern PPR over a 19-

year period. They recommended five guidelines to improve native vegetative colonization in wetland 

restorations, which serve as the basis for many of the strategies below. Furthermore, Galatowitsch and van der 

Valk (1994) stressed that restored basins need to be surrounded by a vegetative buffer to filter sediments from 

entering the wetland. They also recommended that all semi-permanent and permanent basins have water 

control structures to allow for water level manipulation. 

Water Management on Deeper Basins: Wet/dry cycles can be artificially simulated on deeper wetlands that 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

have water control structures installed on them. Because wetlands are dynamic systems that require cycling to 

maintain their productivity, it is unrealistic to maintain constant hemi-marsh conditions. Weller and Spatcher 

(1965) recommend targeting 30 to 70 percent interspersion on manipulated wetlands while recognizing that they 

will invariably fall outside this range in years of extreme drought or deluge. Deeper basins on WPAs commonly 

have water control structures that allow for water level manipulation. However, in many cases the large 

wetlands and shallow lakes within a complex are under the jurisdiction of another conservation entity, most often 

the Iowa DNR. In recent years, the Iowa DNR and other conservation organizations have been actively 

developing water control systems and fish barriers on these larger basins and shallow lakes to mimic wet-dry 

water regimes, control rough fish, and ultimately restore the basins’ ecological health (Brown et al., 2008). Many 

of these endeavors require infrastructure on WPAs and/or other cooperation from the Service. The Iowa DNR 

and Ducks Unlimited have acquired PPJV grant funding from the Service to evaluate these projects and 

establish thresholds for management actions on shallow lakes (Harland and Meyers, 2012). 

Vegetation Management in Wetlands: Temporary and seasonal wetlands are highly susceptible to invasion by 

reed canarygrass and hybrid cattail (Aronson and Galatowitsch, 2008) as well as cottonwood and willow. 

According to a conversation with Susan Galatowitsch in 2012, once these invasive species (particularly reed 

canarygrass) become dominant in these basins, the investment (labor and otherwise) required to establish a 

native plant community is impractical. However, management actions that create interspersion within dense 

vegetative stands have been successful including mowing, crushing, grazing, burning, disking, and chemical 

treatment (Solberg and Higgins, 1993; Sojda and Solberg, 1993; Murkin et al., 1982). Since these wetlands are 

essentially imbedded within the uplands, treatments will most often occur as part of an upland treatment regime 

(see Objective 2-1-1).

Strategies

• Prioritize restoration sites near remnant natural wetlands as source populations for recolonizing native 

species.

• Restore semi-permanent basins, which are more floristically stable in addition to seasonal and temporary 

basins.

• Promote natural hydrology by restoring temporary and seasonal basins, avoiding excavation of pits and 

the concentration of water.

• As resources permit, plant vegetative stock and seeds to establish sedge meadow and wet prairie 

species.

• Control invasive reed canarygrass, cattail, and woody vegetation early in the restoration process, if 

possible.

• Manage for an emergent vegetation to open water ratio between 30:70 and 70:30 on basins with water 

control structures.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

• Periodically open dense areas of cattails and reed canarygrass within existing wetlands through a variety 

of tools including mowing, crushing, grazing, burning, disking, and chemical treatment.

• Control dense stands of woody vegetation in existing wetlands through a variety of tools including 

mowing, cutting, grazing, burning, disking, dozing, and chemical treatment.

• Control invasive fish in wetland complexes using a variety of techniques including installing fish barriers, 

eliminating transport mechanisms (tile, ditches, etc.), water level management, chemical treatment, etc.

• Install water control structures on semi-permanent and permanent basins if feasible.

• Continue to partner with the Iowa DNR and other conservation entities to improve the ecological health of 

deeper wetlands and shallow lakes not under federal jurisdiction.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Issue 2-5: Food plot use

Objective 2-5-1 During the 15-year life of the CCP, food plots are present on no greater than three percent of the upland acres 

within the Iowa WMD.

Measure • Food plots cover three percent or less of the upland acres in the district 

Rationale

Through the Service’s partnership with the Iowa DNR, food plots have been established as an acceptable 

practice to provide winter food resources, reduce wildlife impacts to neighboring private lands, and provide 

wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities. The MOU between the Service and the Iowa DNR states that 

permanent food plots are permitted at levels identified in this CCP, the Iowa WMD Habitat Management Plan (to 

be written), and the WPA unit plans. Collaborative goals in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

(2012) include the following:

• Goal #2: Wetlands and related habitats sufficient to sustain waterfowl populations at desired levels, while 

providing places to recreate and ecological services that benefit society

• Goal #3: Growing numbers of waterfowl hunters, other conservationists, and citizens who enjoy and 

actively support waterfowl and wetlands conservation

The goals in this plan focus on engaging people with nature and growing the number of hunters. Food plots in 

Iowa are thought of as a positive practice providing excellent viewing and hunting opportunities. Allowing food 

plots on WPAs within the district, albeit limited, will assist the Iowa DNR (a key Service partner) in providing 

hunting opportunities that will in turn gain public support for waterfowl and wetland protection. 

Food plots will not be necessary on all WPAs within the district. Service managers and Iowa DNR wildlife 

biologists will determine areas that would be appropriate for food plot placement. Given the waterfowl 

production/migratory bird purposes of the district, creation of edge, size of habitat patch (Warner et al., 2012), 

timing of disturbance related to farming practices (Korschgen and Dahlgren, 1992), and herbicide treatments of 

crops will be considered in the determination. Although some species of both migratory and resident birds have 

been documented nesting in corn and soybean row crop this may create an ecological trap (Best, 1986). For 

this reason managers need to be cautious with locations of food plots within the district. 

It would not be reasonable to have food plots on every WPA within the district and still maintain its waterfowl and 

migratory bird purpose. Preparing a data layer within the first year of this plan will facilitate discussions and 

strategic positioning of food plots on district properties. New management plans for individual units will involve 

evaluating the need for food plots on the tract and potential locations to lessen the impacts of disturbance, edge, 

chemical use, and soil erosion. Individual unit plans will also insure that food plots are not located in wetland 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

basins or remnant prairie sites. Many times food plots may be better situated on adjacent state WMAs, county 

conservation areas or private land. Currently, approximately 15 percent of the district WPA properties are in row 

crop agriculture, mostly in reconstruction to prairie. It is reasonable to believe that Iowa DNR food plot 

objectives can be met with three percent of the district’s uplands in food plots without materially detracting from 

the waterfowl production purpose for the district. Three percent of the district uplands equates to approximately 

500 acres of the WPAs in food plots. This rate of food plot use in the district will be evaluated through the early 

stages of this CCP to determine the minimum acceptable level for food plots, especially given the partnership 

with the Iowa DNR and the district’s waterfowl production purpose. 

Wildlife food plots generally consist of plantings of corn, soybeans, sunflowers, wheat, barley, oats, rye, 

buckwheat, millet, milo, and sorghum. Cultivation of these crops is usually accomplished by cooperative farmers 

through an agreement with Iowa DNR. Food plots will not be manipulated in any way to constitute baiting of 

migratory game birds and waterfowl as defined in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703–712 P.L. 

105–312) and 50 CFR 20.11–21. Standard agricultural practices will be used in farming operations with the 

exception that insecticide use will not be permitted. Crops will be left standing in the field, and may be 

harvested in the early spring each year. 

Some food plots that are designed, in particular, for winter survival of Ring-necked Pheasant include planting 

shelterbelts of conifer trees and shrubs. WPAs would not be locations considered for shelterbelt placement in 

conjunction with food plots. Grassland bird research suggests that some birds experience reductions in nest 

success and higher predation rates in grasslands that have been fragmented by trees (Johnson and Temple, 

1990). Wetland vegetation can provide excellent winter cover for resident wildlife, therefore negating the need 

for shelterbelt plantings on WPAs. 

Strategies

• Within one year of CCP approval, create a database with a spatial component, for all existing food plots 

across the district.

• Determine criteria for proper location of food plots considering amount of edge created, size, timing of 

disturbance to plant, effects from pesticide application, etc.

• Maintain and update the food plot database at least annually.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Strategic Land Protection

Issues 2-6 and 2-7: Decreasing purchasing power of existing funds and priority areas for acquisition

Objective 2-6-1

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, continue to pursue perpetual protection of wetland and grassland of up to 

112,000 acres in the Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa in collaboration with county, state, and other federal 

governments, conservation organizations, private businesses, and concerned citizens. Landscape level 

planning tools (i.e., four-square mile survey, restorable wetlands layer, etc.) utilized by Iowa DNR and the 

Service’s HAPET office will guide partners as to where strategic land acquisition should occur. 

Measures

• All partner accomplishments of wetland and grassland perpetual protection will be tracked through the 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

• Wetland and grassland perpetual protection by the Service within the PPR of Iowa is at least 200–300 

acres annually

Rationale

It is estimated that the PPR of Iowa has lost at least 96 percent of the once 3.4 million wetland acres in the area. 

(Miller et al., 2012). Recent increases in grain prices coupled with inexpensive drainage tile has led to the rapid 

conversion of once avoided and untilled wetland areas to row crops. The district currently manages just over 

25,000 acres of both fee title and both wetland and habitat easements. With the extensive agricultural drainage 

the district is experiencing on private lands it is imperative that the Service continue to acquire properties in fee 

title, easements, and work with partners to secure wetland habitat protection on private lands. 

Since 2006, the PPJV target for Iowa has been to increase breeding ducks by 25,000 pairs (extrapolated by Rex 

Johnson [FWS, HAPET] from U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2007). These 25,000 new pairs would 

need approximately 28,000 wetland acres of habitat. However, a 3:1 ratio of upland to wetland habitat is

desired. Therefore, the wetland/grassland habitat target for Iowa is 112,000 acres in perpetual protection. 

The two million dollars requested annually by the FWS to acquire WPAs currently does not buy as much land as 

it once did due to ever increasing land values. However, the district still manages to grow by 200–300 acres 

annually, through purchase in fee title and supporting the WRP. One method the district has utilized to acquire 

WPA properties is to purchase the residual of WRP easement properties in the PPJV priority areas. Iowa DNR 

biologists negotiate with willing landowners to enroll in the WRP with the final outcome of either a permanent 

WPA easement through the Service or the purchase in fee title of the property as a WPA, using the Small 

Wetlands Program and Migratory Bird Conservation Funds (federal Duck Stamp). Using this process aids in 

wetland/upland restoration and reduces the final closing costs for the property. It is also essential that the 

district continue to provide support for the use of other FSA programs in the state that provide wetland and 

grassland protection, such as the CRP program. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

Since 1978 the Iowa DNR and the Service have worked under a partnership for WPA acquisition and 

management. Through this partnership the Iowa DNR has cooperated in identifying and delineating land of high 

waterfowl production capabilities. The strategy has been to acquire properties in complexes connecting state

and county land with federal WPAs. Several models have been developed narrowing the focus within the 

district based on production potential, wetland densities, and existing conservation land. The current Iowa PPJV 

priority complexes were developed as a result of these modeling efforts. These priority complexes have allowed 

for strategic acquisition to create large areas of habitat with more completely restored hydrology. 

Since so much effort has been focused in these priority complexes, the Service and Iowa DNR do not want to 

abandon these sites. However, it is important to use the best available science and data to make sure the 

district is growing into areas that have the highest waterfowl production potential if cost effective. Newer and 

more accurate data and some potential models are becoming available through the Iowa DNR and HAPET that 

should be utilized to refine the existing areas of priority for acquisition. Currently, acquisition objectives focus on 

fee title and easement WPAs with natural or restorable wetlands possessing brood rearing cover and associated 

upland nesting cover in close proximity to existing public wetlands. Other areas of priority include uplands in the 

vicinity of wetlands where nesting cover is lacking. The ideal waterfowl production habitat to be acquired is a 

3:1 ratio of uplands to wetlands. Acquisition will continue to be focused on areas identified as Iowa PPJV 

priority complexes; however, these will be altered if better scientific information suggests such a change.

Strategies

• Work with Iowa DNR, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS), county conservation boards, Non-Government Organizations, and others to achieve 

this objective.

• Continue to utilize fee title and conservation easement options for acquisition of at least 200–300 acres 

annually.

• Utilize the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to promote conservation programs. 

• Support WRP proposals and other USDA conservation programs that perpetually protect wetland and 

grassland habitats within the Iowa WMD. 

• Within two years of CCP approval, work with Iowa DNR and HAPET to utilize any new models developed 

to select the areas of greatest waterfowl production within the district.

• As priority areas are identified, develop a new Geographic Information System (GIS) layer or map book

to guide acquisitions.

• Apply for and secure grant funds for wetland and grassland acquisition and restoration (North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act, etc.).
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Goal 3: People

In partnership with the Iowa DNR and others, promote understanding, appreciation, and support for the Iowa WMD as well as 

stewardship and understanding of the southern PPR and its native ecosystems to visitors and local residents.

Issue 3-1: District awareness and understanding

Objective 3-1-1

Within 15 years of CCP approval, provide the infrastructure on three WPAs (such as trails, kiosks, pull-offs, etc.) 

and information (brochure, website, Facebook page, etc.) necessary for visitors to appreciate resources in the 

Iowa WMD, as defined in the Visitor Services Plan. 

Measures • A minimum of 500 “hits” annually on the district website

Rationale

District users have expressed some confusion over WPA locations, ownership and management, and permitted 

uses. Since the district’s inception, most of the properties have been managed by the Iowa DNR through an 

MOU. Many WPAs in the district are in complexes with Iowa DNR WMAs, and county conservation areas. 

WPAs that are managed through the MOU are signed with both a “Waterfowl Production Area” (FWS) sign and 

a “Public Hunting, Wildlife Management Area” (Iowa DNR) sign. This signing procedure can confuse users as 

many are not likely aware of the district’s partnership, and not all state and federal public use regulations are the 

same. 

Informing visitors about this partnership and the differences in ownership is essential. The public should be able 

to easily find the locations of all fee title WPA properties and know what special regulations are enforced on the 

properties. Utilizing 21st century social media will likely prove to be essential to reach the public with such 

information. Large and frequently used WPAs may be excellent locations to place informational kiosks to inform 

the public about the importance of wetlands, WPAs, and the unique partnership of the Iowa DNR and Service. 

Visitors to the district deserve consistency in signage, messaging, and regulations. It may be possible to tie the 

district website containing regulations to a Quick Response code for mobile phones at a site such as a parking 

area. 

Newly acquired WPAs will also need the proper infrastructure to allow safe access to the property for users. 

Included in this access would be the development of gravel parking areas. Most parking areas would be 30 feet 

by 50 feet up to 80 feet by 100 feet. Users should be able to easily locate the parking areas and be able to turn 

vehicles around prior to exiting onto the roadway.

Strategies • Within two years of CCP approval, update and coordinate information (regulations, planned events, 

hunter atlas, etc.) on the Iowa DNR and district website.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

• Within five years of CCP approval, develop an informational and regulatory brochure for the district in 

cooperation with Iowa DNR.

• Within five years of CCP approval, identify three key locations and cost estimates to place informational 

kiosks interpreting the wildlife resources and partnership efforts of the district. 

• Over the 15-year life of the CCP, strive for consistent signage on WPAs across the district.

• Continue annual coordination meetings with local Iowa DNR Wildlife Bureau staff and include Service

zone law enforcement as well as Iowa DNR conservation officers.

• Within four years of CCP approval, complete a Visitor Services Plan for the Iowa WMD.

• Promote public use facilities on WPAs to Service partners, in particular the three enhanced WPAs 

referenced in Objective 3-1-1.
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

Issue 3-2: Appropriate recreational opportunities

Objective 3-2-1

Upon implementation of the CCP, allow uses required by regulation (hunting, recreational fishing, and 

recreational trapping—all in accordance with state regulations) as well as other public uses deemed appropriate 

and compatible across the Iowa WMD. Within four years of CCP approval, appropriate and compatible uses will 

be clearly articulated to the public through uniform signage, brochures, and Iowa DNR and Iowa WMD websites 

as identified in the Visitor Services Plan.

Measure

• Appropriate and compatible uses of the district are up-to-date and accurate on signs, brochures, and 

websites 

• Violations on WPAs are reduced by 25–30 percent over the 15 year life of the plan

Rationale

Hunting: Hunting is one of the most popular public uses of WPAs in the Iowa WMD. Waterfowl, Ring-necked 

Pheasant, deer, and other migratory game birds are the most hunted species on WPAs. Hunting seasons 

generally occur from September through mid-January each year. Some hunting use also occurs for light geese 

with a conservation season open from mid-January through mid-April.

WPAs are open to hunting as authorized by the Code of Federal Regulations. This regulation states, ”Lands 

acquired as ‘waterfowl production areas’ shall annually be open to the hunting of migratory game birds, upland 

game, and big game subject to the provisions of state law and regulations . . . ” (50 CFR Ch. 1 (10-1-12 Edition) 

Part 32, Subpart A, Section 32.1. However, according to state regulations, (Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl 

refuges) “The following areas under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as 

waterfowl refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, where 

posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the following areas, where 

posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . :

• Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County); 

• Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County); and

• Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties) within the Iowa WMD.”

These areas will continue to be waterfowl refuges during the implementation of the CCP.

As hunting opportunities dwindle on private land due to CRP loss, hunting leases, and intensified farming 

practices that eliminate cover, public hunting lands have experienced an increase in use. As of 2004, public 

conservation lands in Iowa only accounted for 1.7 percent of the state, which is one of the lowest in the country 

(Zohrer, 2005). Therefore, WPAs provide an important opportunity for hunting in Iowa. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

Recreational (Sport) Fishing: Sport fishing is another use allowed on WPAs per the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This regulation states, “Lands acquired as ‘waterfowl production areas’ are open to sport fishing 

subject to the provision of state laws and regulations . . .” (50 CFR Ch. 1 (10-1-12 Edition) Part 32, Subpart A, 

Section 32.4. Few areas in the Iowa WMD provide fishing opportunities; however, anglers may find perch, 

northern pike, largemouth bass, blue-gill, and bullhead on some WPAs. Sport fishing use can occur during any 

month of the year; however, winter ice fishing and early spring tend to be the most popular. Sport fishing is 

permitted in accordance with State of Iowa law.

Recreational Trapping: Trapping of furbearers is an additional consumptive public use of WPAs in the Iowa 

WMD. Furbearer trapping in the State of Iowa continues to be a popular public use but tends to fluctuate with 

the fur prices. WPAs are open to trapping as authorized by the Code of Federal Regulations which states, 

“Lands acquired as ‘waterfowl production areas’ shall be open to public trapping without federal permit . . . ” (50 

CFR Ch. 1 (10-1-12 Edition) Part 31, Subpart B, Section 31.16. Trappers are required to comply with Iowa state

trapping laws and regulations. 

Furbearer trapping for most species occurs from early November through the end of January with the exception 

of spring beaver trapping, which is open through mid-April. According to the Iowa DNR’s 2012 Furbearers 

Report, the most numerous mammal species trapped in Iowa is the raccoon with 236,943 harvested during the 

2010–2011 season. The second most popular furbearer trapped in Iowa is the muskrat with a total 2010–2011 

season harvest of 98,079 (Iowa DNR, 2012). Both of these species occur on most WPAs within the district. 

Other Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses: There are six priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 that are considered to be wildlife-dependent. Each unit of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) is encouraged to find these uses compatible. In the past, the Iowa 

WMD only considered hunting, fishing, and trapping as approved public uses based on statutory requirements. 

However, compatibility determinations can be used to allow the other priority public uses if deemed compatible 

with the purpose of the district. These other uses include wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography: Wildlife observation and photography are growing activities in the United 

States drawing enthusiasts to natural areas such as national wildlife refuges (NWRs, refuges) and WMDs. 

WPAs can provide visitors with tremendous opportunities to both view and photograph wildlife species 

representative of the PPR. During the spring visitors can view and photograph numerous birds using the 

wetlands as they migrate. During the summer and fall, tallgrass prairie and wetlands can display inspiring vistas 

of color that change during the growing season with various wildflower blooms. Many of the WPAs in the district 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

are excellent places to both observe and photograph resident wildlife such as white-tailed deer and Ring-necked 

Pheasant. Currently, however, there is very little infrastructure in place to support this use with the exception of 

parking areas, the Visitor’s Center at Union Slough NWR and some pull-offs along roads. The district will 

evaluate potential areas for interpretive signage and observational areas to be developed. A draft compatibility

determination has been developed for wildlife observation and photography (appendix G).

Environmental Education: Currently WPAs are spread across eighteen counties in the state, providing excellent 

areas for local schools, clubs, and county programs to utilize for teaching the public about Iowa’s rich wetland 

and prairie heritage. The Iowa WMD does not have the staff or budget to produce large environmental 

education programs; however, this can be mitigated by developing partnerships with County Conservation 

Board (CCB) naturalists. The district’s WPAs provide great settings for programs about migratory birds, 

tallgrass prairie, and wetlands. Public understanding of how productive Iowa soils were developed from 

tallgrass prairie and wetlands will foster an appreciation for future wetland and prairie conservation efforts. A 

draft compatibility determination has been developed for environmental education (appendix G).

Interpretation: Similar to environmental education, the Iowa WMD has little staff and budget to develop 

interpretive programs. Several events are held each year at Union Slough NWR in partnership with the Friends 

of Union Slough NWR including International Migratory Bird Day, National Wildlife Refuge Week, and Wood 

Duck banding. These events could also include or be held in the district. Currently, interpretive displays about 

wildlife and habitats found in the district are housed at Union Slough NWR. Areas with excellent wildlife viewing 

opportunities or exceptional features near higher populated areas within the district could be potential target 

areas for interpretive displays in the future. Partnerships with CCB naturalists in the district could be explored to 

provide programs/media interpreting the importance of tallgrass prairie and wetland habitat. A draft compatibility 

determination has been developed for interpretation (appendix G).

Another growing interest is in the use of technology to interpret various natural things. One of the ways this may 

be accomplished in the district is through the use of virtual geocaching. This activity leads the user to a location 

such as a parking area on a WPA or a road pull-off, and then the user receives information about the site such 

as geologic features, wildlife, or the importance of wetlands and tallgrass prairie habitat. Local instructors have 

requested this use as a way for them to interpret the natural process of Iowa. Virtual geocaching differs from 

typical geocaching in that the user does not take or leave any items at the site. The end prize is to learn about 

the area or be directed to the refuge/district office. A draft compatibility determination has been developed for 

virtual geocaching (appendix G).

Economic Uses for Management Purposes: Some economic uses of the district have proven to be the most 

efficient and cost effective tools for management. These include:
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

• Wood cutting to remove woody vegetation and restore tallgrass prairie/wetland habitat.

• Hay harvest to increase primary productivity in grasslands.

• Livestock grazing to reduce standing litter, fertilize, mimic natural disturbance of bison and other large 

ungulate grazing, and increase primary productivity.

With limited staff and funding, these uses are essential tools that make meeting the purpose of the district 

easier. Draft compatibility determinations have been developed for all of these uses (appendix G).

Other Uses: A number of other uses for the Iowa WMD have been requested and considered. For various 

reasons, including wildlife disturbance, legality, availability on adjacent properties, damage to wildlife resources, 

and conflict with the district’s purpose (waterfowl production and migratory birds), these uses have been 

deemed not appropriate. Future requests for other uses will be considered in a similar manner. 

Strategies

Upon approval of the CCP, 

• The following uses are allowed by Regulation and are Compatible: hunting in accordance with state 

regulations, recreational fishing in accordance with state regulations, and recreational trapping in 

accordance with state regulations.

• The following uses are Appropriate and Compatible (some require a special use permit or have other 

limitations described in the compatibility determination for that use): bicycle riding on roads and trails 

open to vehicular traffic, wood cutting (including firewood), hay harvest, environmental education, food 

plot cultivation for wildlife, virtual or waypoint geocaching, interpretation, prescribed livestock grazing, 

photography, and wildlife observation. 

• The following uses are Not Appropriate: dog training, horseback riding, off road vehicle use (including 

ATV, UTV, dirt bike, motor vehicle), overnight camping, private Ring-necked Pheasant stocking, 

snowmobiling, and target shooting. 

• Upon approval of the CCP complete an annual inspection of WMD/DNR websites to update allowable 

uses.

• Upon approval of the CCP annually evaluate the Uniform Crime Report and any reports submitted by 

Iowa DNR Conservation Officers, of non-appropriate uses.

• Evaluate appropriateness and compatibility (if found appropriate) of other uses upon request per the 

Service’s appropriate use and compatibility determination policy. 
Appendix A: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

• Within four years of CCP approval, complete a Visitor Services Plan that includes the baseline violation 

numbers for the district. 

• Within four years of CCP approval complete a review of regulatory signage in the district and ensure 

signs in the district are consistent with the Refuge Sign Manual. 

• Ensure all district regulations are listed in the refuge-specific 50 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Appendix B: Species Lists

In this appendix:

Plants

Mammals

Birds

Fish and Mussels

Reptiles and Amphibians

The following species lists were compiled by the Region 3 office from a variety of sources, and 

were reviewed and approved by the Iowa Wetland Management District biologist. A file of more 

detailed species lists and a file explaining the methodology used to compile them is in the 

Project File (completed under contract by the U.S. Geological Survey). 

Plants

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Alkali Muhly Muhlenbergia asperifolia S

Alpine Rush Juncus alpinus S

Arrow Grass Triglochin maritimum T

Beakrush Rhynchospora capillacea T

Bicknell Northern Crane's-bill Geranium bicknellii S

Bigroot Prickly-pear Opuntia macrorhiza E

Bird's-eye Primrose Primula mistassinica S

Blue Giant Hyssop Agastache foeniculum E

Bog Bedstraw Galium labradoricum E

Bog Birch Betula pumila T

Bog Willow Salix pedicellaris T

Brittle Prickly Pear Opuntia fragilis T

Broadleaf Water-milfoil Myriophyllum heterophyllum S

Brook Lobelia Lobelia kalmii S

Buckbean Menyanthes trifoliata T

Canada Plum Prunus nigra E

Cliff Conobea Leucospora multifida E

Clustered Broomrape Orobanche fasciculata E
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Clustered Poppy-mallow Callirhoe alcaeoides T

Coast-blite Goosefoot Chenopodium rubrum S

Common Mare's-tail Hippuris vulgaris S

Creeping Juniper Juniperus horizontalis T

Creeping Sedge Carex chordorrhiza E

Crowfoot Ranunculus gmelinii S

Cutleaf Water-milfoil Myriophyllum pinnatum S

Drooping Bluegrass Poa languida S

Dry-spike Sedge Carex foenea S

Earleaf Foxglove Tomanthera auriculata S

Eastern Jointweed Polygonella articulata E

False Loosestrife Ludwigia peploides S

Fewflower Spikerush Eleocharis pauciflora S

Fineberry Hawthorn Crataegus chrysocarpa S

Flat Top White Aster Aster pubentior S

Flatleaf Bladderwort Utricularia intermedia S

Flax-leaved Aster Aster linariifolius T

Fogg's Goosefoot Chenopodium foggii S

Fragrant False Indigo Amorpha nana T

Frost Grape Vitis vulpina S

Glade Mallow Napaea dioica S

Glandular Wood Fern Dryopteris intermedia T

Glomerate Sedge Carex aggregata S

Golden Corydalis Corydalis aurea T

Grass Pink Calopogon tuberosus S

Great Plains Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes magnicamporum S

Green Adder's Mouth Malaxis unifolia S

Green Arrow Arum Peltandra virginica E
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Green Violet Hybanthus concolor T

Green's Rush Juncus greenei S

Hawksbeard Crepis runcinata S

Hill's Thistle Cirsium hillii S

Hooded Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana T

Hooker's Orchid Platanthera hookeri T

Illinois Pinweed Lechea racemulosa S

Interrupted Wildrye Elymus diversiglumis S

Kitten Tails Besseya bullii T

Large-leaf Pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius S

Large-leaf White Violet Viola incognita E

Leafy Northern Green Orchid Platanthera hyperborea T

Ledge Spikemoss Selaginella rupestris S

Lesser Bladderwort Utricularia minor S

Limestone Rockcress Arabis divaricarpa S

Little Grape Fern Botrychium simplex T

Low Hairy Ground-cherry Physalis pubescens S

Low Nut Rush Scleria verticillata T

Marginal Shield Fern Dryopteris marginalis T

Meadow Bluegrass Poa wolfii S

Meadow Spikemoss Selaginella eclipes E

Missouri Lambsquarters Chenopodium missouriensis S

Muskroot Adoxa moschatellina S

Narrowleaf Pinweed Lechea intermedia T

Narrow-leaved Milkweed Asclepias stenophylla E

Nodding Thistle Cirsium undulatum S

Northern Adder's-tongue Ophioglossum pusillum S

Nuttall Pondweed Potamogeton epihydrus S
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Oak Fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris T

One-sided Pyrola Pyrola secunda T

Oval Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes ovalis T

Ovate Spikerush Eleocharis ovata S

Pale Green Orchid Platanthera flava E

Pennsylvania Cinquefoil Potentilla pensylvanica T

Philadelphia Panic Grass Panicum philadelphicum T

Pink Milkwort Polygala incarnata T

Pod Grass Scheuchzeria palustris S

Prairie Bulrush Scirpus maritimus S

Prairie Bush Clover Lespedeza leptostachya T T

Prairie Moonwort Botrychium campestre S

Pretty Dodder Cuscuta indecora S

Purple Angelica Angelica atropurpurea S

Purple Fringed Orchid Platanthera psycodes T

Queen-of-the-prairie Filipendula rubra T

Raccoon Grape Ampelopsis cordata S

Ragwort Senecio pseudaureus S

Rattle Milk-vetch Astragalus adsurgens S

Rose Turtlehead Chelone obliqua S

Roundleaf Sundew Drosera rotundifolia E

Roundstem Foxglove Agalinis gattingeri T

Rush Aster Aster junciformis T

Sage Willow Salix candida S

Sand Cherry Prunus pumila S

Saskatoon Service-berry Amelanchier alnifolia S

Scarlet Hawthorn Crataegus coccinea S

Sedge Carex cephalantha S
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Shadbush Amelanchier sanguinea S

Shining Willow Salix lucida T

Showy Lady's Slipper Cypripedium reginae T

Showy Milkweed Asclepias speciosa T

Shrubby Cinquefoil Potentilla fruticosa T

Silver Bladderpod Lesquerella ludoviciana S

Silver Buffalo-berry Shepherdia argentea T

Silverweed Potentilla anserina T

Slender Arrow Grass Triglochin palustris T

Slender Cotton Grass Eriophorum gracile T

Slender Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes lacera T

Slender Sedge Carex tenera S

Slim-leaved Panic Grass Dichanthelium linearifolium T

Small Fringed Gentian Gentianopsis procera S

Small Spikerush Eleocharis parvula S

Small White Lady's Slipper Cypripedium candidum S

Smith Bulrush Scirpus smithii S

Smooth Black-haw Viburnum prunifolium S

Spear Needlegrass Stipa comata S

Spiral Pondweed Potamogeton spirillus S

Spring Avens Geum vernum S

Spurge Euphorbia missurica S

Straight-leaf Pondweed Potamogeton strictifolius S

Swamp Thistle Cirsium muticum S

Sweet Indian Plantain Cacalia suaveolens T

Tall Cotton Grass Eriophorum angustifolium S

Three-seeded Mercury Acalypha ostryifolia S

Toad Rush Juncus bufonius S
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Toothcup Rotala ramosior S

Tumble Grass Schedonnardus paniculatus S

Tunnel-formed Penstemon Penstemon tubiflorus S

Valerian Valeriana edulis S

Vasey Pondweed Potamogeton vaseyi S

Virginia Rockcress Sibara virginica S

Water Marigold Megalodonta beckii E

Water Milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum S

Water Parsnip Berula erecta T

Water Shield Brasenia schreberi S

Water Starwort Callitriche heterophylla S

Waterwort Elatine triandra S

Waxleaf Meadowrue Thalictrum revolutum E

Waxyfruit Hawthorn Crataegus pruinosa S

Western Parsley Lomatium orientale T

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara T T

White Prairie Aster Aster falcatus S

White Water Crowfoot Ranunculus circinatus S

White-stem Pondweed Potamogeton praelongus S

Widgeon-grass Ruppia cirrhosa S

Winterberry Ilex verticillata E

Wolf Spike-rush Eleocharis wolfii S

Woodland Horsetail Equisetum sylvaticum T

Wooly Milkweed Asclepias lanuginosa T

Yellow Monkey Flower Mimulus glabratus T

Yellow Trout-lily Erythronium americanum T

Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris torta E

E = Endangered, T = Threatened, S = Species of Concern
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Badger Taxidea taxus

Beaver Caster canadensis

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Coyote Canis latrans

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus

Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus

Ermine Mustela erminea

Evening Bat Nycticeius humeralis

Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans S

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger

Franklin'S Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinenesis

Hayden'S Shrew Sorex haydeni

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis E E

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis

Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus

Long-Tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Mink Mustela vison
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster

Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis

Northern Short-Tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda

Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

River Otter Lutra canadensis

Silver-Haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi T

Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius E

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Thirteen-Lined Ground Squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

White-Footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus

White-Tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

White-Tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

Woodchuck Marmota monax

Woodland Vole Microtus pinetorum

E = Endangered, T = Threatened, S = Special Concern
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

Birds

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens SGCN X

Alder Flycather Empidonax alnorum X X

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana SGCN X

American Bittern**** Botaurus lentiginosus SGCN X

American Black Duck Anas rubripes X

American Coot Fulica americana X X

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica SGCN X X

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis X X

American Kestrel Falco sparverius X X

American Pipit Anthus rubescens X

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla X X

American Robin Turdus migratorius X X

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea X X

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos SGCN X X

American Wigeon Anas americana X

American Woodcock Scolopax minor SGCN X X

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii X

Bald Eagle  Haliaeetus leucocephalus E, SGCN X X

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia X X

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica X X

Barred Owl Strix varia X X

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea X X

Bell's vireo Vireo bellii SGCN X

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon X X

Black Tern** ** Chlidonias niger S, SGCN X X

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia SGCN X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola X X

Black-billed Cuckoo  Coccyzus erythropthalmus SGCN X X

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca X X

Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus X X

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax SGCN X X

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus X

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata X X

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens X X

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata X X

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea X X

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors X X

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus SGCN X

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus SGCN X X

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia X X

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus X

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus SGCN X X

Brown Creeper Certhia americana SGCN X X

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum X X

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater X X

Buff-breasted Sandpiper** ** Tryngites subruficollis SGCN X

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola X

Canada Goose Anser fabalis X X

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis SGCN X X

Canvasback Aythya valisineria SGCN X

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina X

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia X

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis X X

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea SGCN X

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica X X

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica X X

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina X X

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera X

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida X X

Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota X X

Common Barn Owl** Tyto alba E, SGCN

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula X

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula X X

Common Loon Gavia immer X

Common Merganser Mergus merganser X

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus SGCN X

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor SGCN X X

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea X

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago X X

Common Tern Sterna hirundo X

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X X

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis X

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii X X

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis X X

Dickcissel  Spiza americana SGCN X X

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus X X

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens X X

Dunlin Calidris alpina X

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis X

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis X X

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna SGCN X X

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe X X

Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio X X

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus SGCN X X

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens X X

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris X X

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla SGCN X X

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri S, SGCN X

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca X X

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan X X

Gadwall Anas strepera X X

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos X

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa X X

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera SGCN X X

Grasshopper Sparrow** ** Ammodramus savannarum SGCN X X

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis X X

Gray Partridge Perdix perdix X

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus X X

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias X X

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus X X

Great Egret Ardea albus X

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus X X

Great White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons X

Greater Scaup Aythya marila X

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca SGCN X X

Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus X

Green Heron Butorides virescens X X

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus X X

Harris's Sparrow Zonotrichia querula X X

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii T, SGCN X

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus X X

Herring Gull Larus argentatus X X

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus X

Hooded warbler* Wilsonia citrina SGCN

Horned Grebe**** Podiceps auritus X

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris X X

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus X X

House Sparrow Passer domesticus X X

House Wren Troglodytes aedon X X

Hudsonian Godwit  Limosa haemastica SGCN X

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea X X

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus SGCN X

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus X X

King Rail Rallus limicola E, SGCN X

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus X X

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus SGCN X

Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii SGCN X X

Least Bittern** ** Ixobrychus exilis SGCN X X

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus SGCN X X

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla X X

Least Tern*** Sterna antillarum E, SGCN X

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis X X

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes SGCN X X

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X X

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus SGCN X X

Long-billed Curlew  Numenius americanus X

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus X X

Long-eared Owl Asio otus T, SGCN X

Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla SGCN X

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia X X

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X X

Marbled Godwit** ** Limosa Fedoa SGCN X

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris X X

Merlin Falco columbarius X

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura X X

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia X X

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla X X

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus SGCN X X

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis X X

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus X X

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis X

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus E, SGCN X X

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos SGCN X

Northern Oriole Icterus galbula X X

Northern Parula Parula americana X

Northern Pintail Anas acuta SGCN X

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis X X

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus X

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata X X

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor X X

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis X X

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata X X

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius X X

Osprey Pandion haliaetus SGCN X X

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus X X

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum X X

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos X X

Peregrine Falcon  Falco peregrinus E, SGCN X

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus X X

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps X X

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus X

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus X X

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus X

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea SGCN X

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus X X

Purple Martin Progne subis X X

Red Knot Calidris canutus X

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus X X

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator X

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis X X

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus X X

Redhead Aythya americana SGCN X

Red-headed Woodpecker** ** Melanerpes erythrocephalus SGCN X X

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena X X

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus X

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus E, SGCN X

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis X X

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X X

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris X X

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus X X

Rock Dove Columba livia X X

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus X X

Ross' Goose Anser rossii X

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus X X

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula X X

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris X X

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis X X

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres X

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus SGCN X X

Sanderling Calidris alba X

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis SGCN X X

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis X X

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea X X

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis SGCN X X

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus X X

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla X

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus X X

Short-billed Dowitcher  Limnodromus griseus SGCN X X

Short-eared Owl** ** Asio flammeus E, SGCN X X

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis X X

Snow Goose Anser caerulescens X X

Snowy Egret Egretta thula X

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca X

Solitary Sandpiper  Tringa solitaria SGCN X X

Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius X X

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

Sora Porzana carolina X X

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia X X

Stilt Sandpiper Micropalama himantopus SGCN X

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra X

Swainson's Hawk** ** Buteo swainsoni SGCN X X

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus X X

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana X X

Tennesse Warbler Vermivora peregrina X X

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor X X

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor X

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator SGCN X

Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor X

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus X

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura X X

Upland Sandpiper**** Bartramia longicauda SGCN X X

Veery Catharus fuscescens SGCN X X

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus X X

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola X

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus X X

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis X X

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta X X

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri X

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus SGCN X

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis X X

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X X

White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus SGCN X

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi X

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Common Name Scientific Name State Status U.S. N.S.

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis X X

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo X X

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus X

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii SGCN X X

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor SGCN X X

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla X X

Wood Duck Aix sponsa X X

Wood thrush* Hylocichla mustelina SGCN

Worm-eating Warbler* Helmitheros vermivorus SGCN

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia X X

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris X X

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius X X

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus SGCN X X

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens SGCN X X

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea SGCN X

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus X X

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata X X

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons X X

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica X

E = Endangered, T = Threatened, S = Special Concern, SGCN = Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need, U.S. = Union Slough NWR Checklist, N.S. = Neal Smith NWR Checklist

*From Iowa Breeding Bird Atlas, **From Iowa Natural Areas Inventory, ***Federally Endangered

****U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region 3 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

Fish and Mussels

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix T, SGCN

American Eel Anguilla rostrata

Banded Darter Etheostoma zonale

Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanus

Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus

Bigmouth Shiner Notropis dorsalis

Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger SGCN

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei T, SGCN

Blackchin Shiner Notropis heterodon

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus

Blacknose Shiner Notropis heterolepis T, SGCN

Blackside Darter Percina caprodes SGCN

Blackstripe Topminnow Fundulus notatus

Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus SGCN

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus

Blutnose Darter Etheostoma chlorosomum

Bowfin Amia calva SGCN

Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni

Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis SGCN

Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus SGCN

Brown Trout Salmo trutta

Bullhead (Sheepnose) Plethobasus cyphus SGCN
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax

Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata SGCN

Central Mudminnow Umbra limi SGCN

Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

Chain Pickerel Esox niger

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Chestnut Lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus T

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio

Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Creek Heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa T, SGCN

Creeper Strophitus undulatus T, SGCN

Cylinder Anodontoides ferussacianus SGCN

Cylindrical Papershell Anodontoides ferussacianus T, SGCN

Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena SGCN

Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata SGCN

Ellipse Venustaconcha ellipsiformis T, SGCN

Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides

Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas

Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis SGCN

Flat floater Anodonta suborbiculata SGCN

Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris

Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis SGCN

Fluted shell Lasmigona costata SGCN

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens

Gilt Darter Percina evides

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides SGCN

Goldfish Carassius auratus

Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella

Grass Pickerel Esox americanus T, SGCN

Gravel Chub Erimytax x-punctatus SGCN

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria SGCN

Higgins’ eye pearlymussel Lampsilis higginsi SGCN

Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer

Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus

Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile

Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum

Lake chub Couesius plumbeus

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

Largescale Stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis SGCN

Least Darter Etheostoma microperca E, SGCN

Lilliput Toxolasma parvus SGCN

Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae SGCN

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus

Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus

Mississippi Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis SGCN

Monkeyface Quadrula metanerva SGCN

Mooneye Hiodon tergisus

Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene

Muskellunge Esox masquinongy
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Northern Hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans

Northern Logperch Percina caprodes

Northern Pike Esox lucius

Northern Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris

Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis

Orangethroat Darter Etheostoma spectabile T

Ozark Minnow Notropis nubilus SGCN

Ozark Pigtoe Fusconaia ozarkensis E, SGCN

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula SGCN

Pallid Shiner Notropis amnis

Paper pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis SGCN

Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita E, SGCN

Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa E, SGCN

Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus SGCN

Plains Topminnow Fundulus sciadicus

Pondhorn Uniomerus tetralasmus SGCN

Pondmussel Ligumia subrostrata SGCN

Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus E, SGCN

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Purple pimpleback Cyclonaias tuberculata SGCN

Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus

Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleum

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis

Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus

Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis SGCN

River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

River Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

River Shiner Notropis blennius

Rock pocketbook Arcidens confragosus SGCN

Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus

Round Pigtoe Pleurobema sintoxia E, SGCN

Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus

Sauger Stizostedion canadense

Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus

Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus SGCN

Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana

Silver Lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis SGCN

Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum

Slender Madtom Noturus exilis SGCN

Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala SGCN

Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus SGCN

Slippershell Alasmidonta viridis SGCN

Slippershell Mussel Alasmidonta viridis E, SGCN

Slough sandshell Lampsilis teres teres SGCN

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu

Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

Southern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus erythrogaster

Speckled Chub Macrhybopsis aestivalis SGCN

Spectacle case Cumberlandia monodonta SGCN

Spike Elliptio dilatata SGCN

Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera

Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius SGCN

Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus

Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status

Starhead Topminnow Fundulus dispar

Stonecat Noturus flavus

Strange floater (Squawfoot) Strophitus undulatus SGCN

Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis

Tadpole Madtom Noturus gyrinus SGCN

Topeka Shiner Notropis topeka T, SGCN E

Trout-Perch Percopsis omiscomaycus SGCN

Walleye Sander vitreum

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus

Wartyback Quadrula nodulata SGCN

Weed Shiner Notropis texanus E, SGCN

Western Sand Darter Ammocrypta clara T, SGCN

Western Silvery Minnow Hybognathus argyritis SGCN

White Bass Morone chrysops

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres E, SGCN

E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SGCN = Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

Reptiles and Amphibians

Common Name Scientific Name State Status

American Toad Bufo americanus

Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii T

Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris maculata *

Brown Snake Storeria dekayi P

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana *

Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer sayi S

Cope's Gray Tree Frog Hyla chrysoscelis *

Crayfish Snake Regina grahamii P

Cricket Frog Acris crepitans *

Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Fox Snake Elaphe vulpina P

Green Frog Rana clamitans *

Lined Snake Tropidoclonion lineatum P

Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum P

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus T

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens *

Northern Prairie Skink Eumeces septentrionalis 

Northern Water Snake Nerodia sipedon P

Ornate Box Turtle Terrapene ornata T

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta *

Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix P

Plain's Leopard Frog Rana blairi *

Racer Coluber constrictor P

Redbelly Snake Storeria occipitomaculata P

Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus P

Smooth Earth Snake Virginia valeriae P

Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis S
Appendix B: Species Lists

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

Common Name Scientific Name State Status

Smooth Softshell Turtle Apalone mutica *

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina *

Spiny Softshell Turtle Apalone spinifera *

Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer *

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum *

Western Ribbon Snake Thamnophis proximus P

Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta E

E = Endangered, P = Protected, cannot kill or collect in Iowa

S = Special Concern, T = Threatened

*A valid fishing license is required to possess this species for bait 

and/or food.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Abbreviations

The following is a quicklist of the most frequently used abbreviations in this document. More 

detail on some of them is in the Glossary that follows.

NOTE: “Abbreviations” is used generically to refer to abbreviations (shortened version of a term 

or series of words), acronyms (word formed from letters or parts of a series of words), and 

initialisms (initial letters pronounced separately).

BCA: Bird Conservation Areas

BCC: Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR: Bird Conservation Region

CCP: Comprehensive Conservation Plan (also plan)

CD: Compatibility Determination

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CRP: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program

DNR: Department of Natural Resources (usually preceded by state 

abbreviation)

DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior

DU: Ducks Unlimited

EA: Environmental Assessment

EAS: Environmental Action Statement

EE: Environmental Education

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

EO: Executive Order

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA: Endangered Species Act

FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact

FR: Federal Register

FTE: Full-time equivalent

FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also USFWS and Service)

FY: Fiscal Year

GAP: Gap Analysis Program

GIS: Geographic Information System

HAPET: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

IBA: Audubon Society’s Important Bird Area

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LCC: Landscape Conservation Cooperative

LCD: Landscape Conservation Design

MOA: Memorandum of Agreement

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding

NABCI: North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NAI: Natural Areas Inventory

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NRHP: National Register of Historic Places

NWR: National Wildlife Refuge (also Refuge)

NWRS: National Wildlife Refuge System (also Refuge System)

PFT: Permanent full-time
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

PPJV: Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

PPR: Prairie Pothole Region

R3: Region 3 (Midwest) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin)

ROD: Record of Decision

SGCN: Species of (in) Greatest Conservation Need

SHC: Strategic Habitat Conservation

TFT: Temporary full-time

UMR/GLR JV: Upper Mississippi River & Great Lakes Region Joint Venture

USC: United States Code

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey

WMA: Wildlife Management Area (usually State owned)

WMD: Wetland Management District (also District)

WPA: Waterfowl Production Area

WRP: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wetland Reserve Program

WSA: Wilderness Study Areas

Glossary

Adaptation: Adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment. 

Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to 

actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial 

opportunities. Various types of adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory and 

reactive adaptation, private and public adaptation, and autonomous and planned adaptation.

Adaptive Management: The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to 

gain information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A 

process that uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of 

management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels (FWS, 

602 FW 1.6(A)).

Alternatives: Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes 

and goals, helping fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and resolving issues 

(FWS, 602 FW 1.6(B)). 

Appropriate Use: A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the 

following four conditions (FWS, 603 FW 1.6):

• The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Fish and Wildlife 

Improvement Act of 1978.

• The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan 

approved after October 9, 1997, the date the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 was signed into law.

• The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations.

• The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

Approved Acquisition Boundary: A project boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance 

process. An approved acquisition boundary only designates those lands that the Service has 

authority to acquire and/or manage through various agreements. Approval of an acquisition 

boundary does not grant the Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it 

does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Lands do not become part of the Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under 

an agreement that provides for management as part of the Refuge System. 

Biological Control: The use of organisms or viruses to control weeds or other pests. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities in which they occur (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(C)). 

Biological Integrity: Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, organism, 

and community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural biological 

processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(D)).

Candidate Species: Plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, but for which development of a 

proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.

Carbon Sequestration: The uptake and storage of carbon. Trees and plants, for example, 

absorb carbon dioxide, release the oxygen, and store the carbon. Fossil fuels were at one time 

biomass and continue to store the carbon until burned.

Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such 

as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). 

Climate change may result from (1) natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or 

slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; (2) natural processes within the climate 

system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); (3) human activities that change the atmosphere's 

composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, 

reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.).

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the federal government. It 

is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The 50 subject 

matter titles contain one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar 

year, on a staggered basis. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An Executive Office of the President whose 

members are appointed by the President. CEQ recommends national policies to promote the 

improvement of the quality of the environment.

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of 

a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

purposes of the national wildlife refuge (FWS, 603 FW 2.6(B)). 
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

Compatibility Determination (CD): A written determination signed and dated by the refuge 

manager and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional chief signifying that a proposed or 

existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use or is not a compatible use. The 

director of the Service makes this delegation through the regional director (FWS, 603 FW 

2.6(A)).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System; and meets other mandates (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(E)).

Consumptive Use: Use of a refuge resource that removes the resource from the refuge (e.g., 

killing an animal to eat, catching and keeping fish, harvesting berries or plants, or removal of 

mineral or other specimens).

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted study designed to locate and 

evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories 

may involve various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field 

examination to identify all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified 

cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places follows the 

criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4. 

Cultural Resources: “Those parts of the physical environment—natural and built—that have 

cultural value to some kind of sociocultural group . . . [and] those non-material human social 

institutions . . . .” Cultural resources include historic sites, archeological sites and associated 

artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and structures.

Easement: A privilege or right that is held by one person or other entity in land owned by 

another. 

Ecological Integrity: The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and 

environmental health; the replication of natural conditions (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(G)).

Ecosystem: A biological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit. For 

administrative purposes, 53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions have 

been designated. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(H)). 

Effects (Impacts): Effects include:

• Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

• Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growthinducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

• Cumulative effects, which result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that, collectively, become significant over time.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological 

(such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of 

affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, 

indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both 

beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be 

beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8).

Endangered Species: Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range 

and published in the Federal Register.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Through federal action and by encouraging the establishment 

of state programs, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provided for the conservation of 

ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. 

The act authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 

prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; provides 

authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to 

states that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for 

violating the act or regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing 

information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the act or any regulation issued 

thereunder. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires federal agencies to insure that any 

action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat. 

Environmental Action Statement (EAS): The decision document for an environmental 

assessment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The EAS will consist of a one-page 

document indicating the proposal, the Service decision, references to supporting documents (if 

any), and a signature block. The purposes of the EAS are to establish a process for internal 

review of National Environmental Policy Act-related decision documents and to provide an 

appropriate administrative record of NEPA-related decisions at all management levels of the 

Service (FWS, 550 FW 3.3 (C)).

Environmental Analysis: The process associated with preparing documents such as 

environmental assessments and environmental impact statements and the decision whether to 

prepare an environmental impact statement. It is an analysis of alternative actions and their 

predictable short-term and long-term effects, which include physical, biological, economic, and 

social factors and their interactions.

Environmental Assessment (EA): A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions 

would result in a significant effect on the quality of the environment.

Environmental Consequences: The scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of 

alternatives. The environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any 
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the 

relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented (40 CFR 1502.16). 

Environmental Health: Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment 

consistent with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(I)).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement, required by section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a 

proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of 

action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 

1508.11).

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income.

Extirpation: The local extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality or country but 

exists elsewhere in the world.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act and supported by an environmental assessment that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effects on the human environment and for 

which an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13).

Global Warming: Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere 

near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global 

climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human 

induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a 

result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

Goal: A descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys purposes but does not define measurable units (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(J)).

Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. 

Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), 

ozone (O3), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6).

Habitat: The physical and biological resources required by an organism for its survival and 

reproduction; these requirements are species-specific. Food and cover are major components 

of habitat and must extend beyond the requirements of the individual to include a sufficient area 

capable of supporting a viable population.

Incompatible: Any use (recreational or nonrecreational) of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will materially 
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

or the purposes of the refuge. Incompatible uses are not allowed to occur on Service areas.

Indicator: In effects analysis, a way for measuring effects from management alternatives on a 

particular resource or issue.

Interjurisdictional Fish: Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states, 

for which there is an interstate fishery management plan or which migrates between the waters 

under the jurisdiction of two or more states bordering on the Great Lakes.

Invasive Species: Invasive species are organisms that are introduced into a non-native 

ecosystem and that cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment, or human 

health.

Inventory: Accepted biological methods to determine the presence, relative abundance, and/or 

distribution of species (FWS, 701 FW 2.6(A)).

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision—that is, a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources 

of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition 

(FWS, 602 FW 1.6(K)).

Landscape Conservation Cooperative: A national network of public-private partnerships that 

provide shared science to ensure the sustainability of America’s land, water, wildlife, and 

cultural resources.

Landscape Conservation Design: A partnership-driven activity that results in an assessment 

of current and anticipated future resource patterns and processes, and a spatially explicit 

depiction of a desired future condition. These products guide partners’ identification of broad 

management, restoration, and protection strategies that could be implemented on the ground to 

address identified resource concerns, attain desired future conditions, sustain ecosystem 

function, and achieve the missions, mandates, and goals of partner agencies, organizations, 

and tribes.

Major Federal Action: Includes action with effects that may be major and that are potentially 

subject to federal control and responsibility. “Major” reinforces but does not have a meaning 

independent of significantly. “Actions” include new and continuing activities. Federal actions 

include adoption of official policy, formal plans, programs, and approval of specific projects (40 

CFR 1508.18).

Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement (MOU or MOA): A legal document outlining 

the terms and details of an agreement between parties (often U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

a state natural resource agency), including each party’s requirements and responsibilities. It 

sets forth the basic principles and guidelines under which the parties will work together to 

accomplish their goals. A memorandum of understanding or agreement are generally 

recognized as binding, even if no legal claim could be based on the rights and obligations laid 

down in them. 

Migratory Birds: Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and songbirds are all migratory birds.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

Monitoring: Accepted biological methods to determine the status and/or demographics of 

species over time (FWS, 701 FW 2.6(B)). 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): This act, promulgated in 1969, requires all 

federal agencies to disclose the environmental effects of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all 

actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements and must 

prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making (40 

CFR 1500). The law also established the Council on Environmental Quality to implement the 

law and to monitor compliance with the law.

National Wilderness Preservation System: A network of federally owned areas designated by 

Congress as wilderness and managed by one of four federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or the U.S. Forest 

Service. Includes over 600 areas and more than 105 million acres. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System includes over 20 million acres of wilderness in more than 60 refuges (FWS, 610 

FW 1.9).

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge): A designated area of land, water, or an interest in 

land or water within the National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include Coordination 

Areas. A complete listing of all units of the Refuge System is located in the current Report of 

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(L)).

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System): All lands, waters, and interests 

therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, 

wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (improvement act): Sets the 

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for each refuge by the year 2012. This act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

Native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that occurs within its natural 

range or natural zone of potential dispersal (i.e., the geographic area the species occupies 

naturally or would occupy in the absence of direct or indirect human activity or an environmental 

catastrophe). 

No Action Alternative: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this refers to the 

current management direction. With this alternative, no change from the current CCP would be 

implemented.

Non-consumptive Uses: Recreational activities (e.g., hiking, photography, and wildlife 

observation) that do not involve the taking or catching of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

Non-native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that has been introduced by 

humans (intentionally or unintentionally) outside its natural range or natural zone of potential 

dispersal.

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, 

when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive 

from goals and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Objectives are to be attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(N)).

Ozone (O3): Ozone, the triatomic form of oxygen (O3), is a gaseous atmospheric constituent. In 

the troposphere, it is created both naturally and by photochemical reactions involving gases 

resulting from human activities (photochemical smog). In high concentrations, tropospheric 

ozone can be harmful to a wide range of living organisms. Tropospheric ozone acts as a 

greenhouse gas. In the stratosphere, ozone is created by the interaction between solar 

ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen (O2). Stratospheric ozone plays a decisive role in the 

stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric ozone, due to chemical reactions that 

may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet (UV) 

B radiation. 

Planning Area: The area upon which the planning effort will focus. A planning area may include 

lands outside existing planning unit boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and/or partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or 

ecosystems outside of our jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. At a minimum, the planning 

area includes all lands within the authorized boundary of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(O)).

Planning Team: A planning team is interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consist of a planning team leader, refuge manager, staff biologists, a state natural 

resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social 

scientist, ecologist, recreation specialist). Other federal and tribal natural resource agencies 

may also be asked to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act 

documentation (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(P)).

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fire to the landscape that allows the fire to be 

confined to a predetermined area while producing the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

required to achieve planned management objectives.

Preferred Alternative: A proposed action in the National Environmental Policy Act document 

for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifying the alternative that the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service believes best achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and goals; helps fulfill the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; addresses the significant issues and 

mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

Priority Public Uses: Six uses authorized by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 to have priority and are found to be compatible with the refuge purposes. This 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

Proposed Action: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this is the same as 

the Preferred Alternative.

Public Involvement: A process that offers affected and interested individuals and organizations 

opportunities to become informed about, and to express their opinions on, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service actions and policies. In the process, these public views are studied thoroughly and are 

thoughtfully considered in shaping decisions for refuge management.

Purposes of the Refuge: The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

For refuges that encompass congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the 

Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(S)).

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public record of a decision prepared by the federal 

agency, pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act, that contains a statement of the 

decision, identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a statement whether all practical means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were 

not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any mitigation (40 

CFR 1505.2). 

Resident Species: A nonmigratory species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year. 

Examples include white-tailed deer, muskrat, raccoon, mink, and fox.

Scoping: A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and for identifying the significant issues. Involved in the scoping process are 

federal, state, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals.

Shorebird: Long-legged birds, also known as waders, belonging to the order Charadriiformes 

that use shallow wetlands and mud flats for foraging and nesting. 

Significant Issue: A significant issue is typically: within Service jurisdiction, suggests different 

actions or alternatives, and will influence the decision (FWS, 602 FW 3.4 (3)(b)). 

Species: A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that 

can interbreed and produce young. A category of biological classification.

Sound Professional Judgment: A finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and 

resources, and adherence to the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 and other applicable laws. 

Stakeholder: A person or group who has an interest in activities within the Planning Area.

Step-down Management Plan: A plan that provides specific guidance on management 

subjects (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes 

strategies and implementation schedules for meeting Comprehensive Conservation Plan goals 

and objectives (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(U)).
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC): A structured, science-driven approach for making 

efficient, transparent decisions about where and how to expend Service resources for species, 

or groups of species, that are limited by the amount or quality of habitat. It is an adaptive 

management framework integrating planning, design, delivery, and evaluation.

Strategy: A specific action, tool or technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques 

used to meet unit objectives (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(V)).

Surrogate Species: Species that are used to represent other species or aspects of the 

environment.

Threatened Species: Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species 

throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future. A plant or 

animal identified and defined in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and 

published in the Federal Register.

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be or hope to do, 

based primarily upon the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, specific refuge purposes, 

and other mandates. The vision statement for the refuge should be tied to the mission of the

Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological 

integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other mandates (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(Z)).

Waterfowl: A group of birds that include ducks, geese, and swans (belonging to the order 

Anseriformes). 

Waterfowl Production Area (WPA): Prairie wetlands with associated uplands managed to 

provide nesting areas for waterfowl and owned in fee title by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

These lands are purchased from willing sellers with funds from federal Duck Stamp sales. They 

are open to public hunting, fishing, and trapping according to state and federal regulations.

Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a river/stream or 

river/stream system.

Wetland: A wetland is land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water 

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes 

of this classification a wetland must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at 

least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is 

predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water 

or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et 

al. 1979).

Wetland Management District (WMD): An area covering several counties that acquires (with 

federal Duck Stamp funds), restores, and manages prairie wetland habitat critical to waterfowl 

and other wetland birds. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use: A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 

other than the six priority public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. These 
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

other uses will also be considered in the preparation of refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans; however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(Y)).

Wildlife Diversity: A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their relative 

abundance.

Water Birds: This general category includes all birds that inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and 

other wetlands at some point during the year. The group includes all waterfowl such as ducks, 

geese, and swans and other birds such as loons, rails, cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, 

pelicans, shorebirds, and passerines that nest and rely on wetland vegetation. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies with respect to 

identification of information to be made public; publication of material in the Federal Register; 

maintenance of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and 

hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Establishes as policy of the United States the protection and preservation for American Indians 

of their inherent right to freedom to believe, express, and practice their traditional religions. The 

act directs federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures, in consultation with native 

traditional religious leaders, in order to determine changes required to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 

2008

Prohibits discrimination of individuals based on disability. It requires that public transportation 

services be accessible to individuals with disabilities and prohibits discrimination in employment 

of qualified individuals with disabilities. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission to issue regulations relating to discrimination of disabled individuals, and requires 

the National Council on Disability to conduct a study of areas designated as wilderness to 

determine the effect of the designation on the ability of individuals to enjoy such areas. The ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 restored the intent and protections of the original act.

Antiquities Act of 1906

Authorizes the President to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The act requires that a 

permit be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites, and the 

gathering of objects of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture, and Army; and provides penalties for violations.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. This act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for 

or removal of archaeological resources from federal or Indian lands. It also established civil and 

criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; 

for any trafficking in such resources removed from federal or Indian land in violation of any 

provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such resources acquired, 

transported or received in violation of any state or local law. This act also required the land 

managing agencies to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of 

archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended

This act carries out the policy established by the Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 

1935 (known as the Historic Sites Act). It directs federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the 

Interior whenever they find a federal or federally assisted, licensed, or permitted project may 

cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. The act

authorizes use of appropriated, donated, and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection,

and preservation of such data. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 

Ensures that certain buildings financed or leased by federal agencies are constructed (or 

renovated) so that they will be accessible to the physically handicapped.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or part, 

nest, or egg except as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition 

purposes or for the religious purposes of Indians.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization in 

order to correct maladjustments in land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil 

erosion, reforestation, preservation of natural resources, and protection of fish and wildlife. 

Some early refuges and hatcheries were established under authority of this act.

Clean Air Act of 1970 

Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. The act and its amendments 

charge federal land managers with direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and related 

values” of land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and their habitats.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, 

removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. Requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires the states to include 

wetlands in their comprehensive outdoor recreation plans, and transfers to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund amounts equal to import duties on arms and ammunition. It established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. It also extended the Wetlands Loan Act authorization 

through 1988 and required the Secretary to report to Congress on wetlands loss. 

In addition, it directed the Secretary, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to continue the 

National Wetlands Inventory; to complete mapping of the contiguous United States; and to 

produce at ten-year intervals reports to update and improve in the September 1982 "Status and 

Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the Coterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s." 

This act also increased the price of Duck Stamps.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Directs federal agencies to take actions that would further the purposes of the act and to ensure 

that actions they carry out, authorize, or fund do not jeopardize endangered species or their 

critical habitat. The act also provides authority for land acquisition. Conservation of threatened 

and endangered species has become a major objective of both land acquisition and refuge 

management programs. 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969

This act expanded the provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 to 

include the listing of species in danger world-wide and added mollusks and crustaceans to the 

animals that could be listed.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966

This act was the predecessor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to produce a list of native U.S. vertebrate species in danger of 

extinction for the limited protection of those animals. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990

Established the Office of Environmental Education within the Environmental Protection Agency 

to develop and administer a federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)

States that if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes any development activities that may 

affect the archaeological or historic sites, the Service will consult with federal and state Historic 

Preservation Officers to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended.

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands (1972)

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands 

will be controlled and directed to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of 

all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. EO 

11989 (1977) amends section 2 of EO 11644 and directs agencies to close areas negatively 

impacted by off-road vehicles.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (1977)

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy 

and modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In 

the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies “shall take action to reduce 

the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands (1977)

Directs federal agencies to: (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands; and (2) 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative 

exists.

Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (1982)

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by requiring federal agencies to use the state 

process to determine and address concerns of state and local elected officials with proposed 

federal assistance and development programs.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994)

Mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. This order also creates an Interagency Working Group on Environmental 

Justice to provide guidance to federal agencies in overcoming these issues. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

Executive Order 12906: Coordinating Geographical Data Acquisition and Access: The 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (1994), as amended by Executive Order 13286:

Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection With the Transfer of 

Certain Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security (2003)

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in cooperation with state, local, and tribal 

governments, and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial Data Infrastructure to 

support public and private sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular importance to 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans is the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), 

which is the adopted standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of 

regional and national summaries, which, in turn, can provide an ecosystem context for individual 

refuges.

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fisheries (1995)

Directs federal agencies to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and 

distribution of United States aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities in 

cooperation with states and tribes.

Executive Order 12996: Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (1996)

Defines a conservation mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System, six compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities, and four guiding principles for management of the Refuge 

System. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake several actions in support of 

management and public use and to ensure the maintenance of the biological integrity and 

environmental health of the Refuge System. It also provides for the identification of existing 

wildlife-dependent uses that will continue to occur as lands are added to the Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage 

Rivers (1997)

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for the purpose of natural resource and 

environmental protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. The act

directs federal agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources 

important to our history, culture, and natural heritage.

Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 

(2000)

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration 

with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species (1999)

Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost effective and environmentally sound 

manner, accurately monitor invasive species, provide for restoration of native species and 

habitat conditions, conduct research to prevent introductions, to control invasive species, and to 

promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them. This EO 

replaces and rescinds EO 11987: Exotic Organisms (1977).
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

(2001)

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by several means, including the 

incorporation of strategies and recommendations found in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation

plans, the North American Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

and the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, into agency management plans and 

guidance documents.

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (2007)

Directs federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on 

public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the 

Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction projects and the 

management of federal lands.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, as amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that provide advice to the federal 

government. Advisory committees may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise specified and 

meetings must be open to the public.

Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1968

Establishes requirements for approval of federal highways through wildlife refuges and other 

designated areas to preserve the natural beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation 

is directed to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal agencies before 

approving any program or project requiring the use of land under their jurisdiction.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act) of 1950

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state fish restoration 

and management plans and projects. It is financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of 

rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) of 1937

Taxes the purchase of ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds to be distributed to 

the states for wildlife restoration. 

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988

Established requirements for the management and protection of caves and their resources on 

federal lands, including allowing the land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves 

from the public and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities in caves on federal 

lands.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) of 2004

Allows the government to charge a fee for recreational use of public lands managed by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. The recreation fee program is a program by which 

fees paid by visitors to certain federal recreation sites are retained by the collecting site and 

used to improve the quality of the visitor experiences at those sites. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

183

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975, as amended

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate plants as noxious weeds and 

to cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies; farmers associations, and private 

individuals in measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such weeds. The 

act requires each federal land-managing agency, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

designate an office or person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the agency’s 

land and implement cooperative agreements with the states, including integrated management 

systems to control undesirable plants.

Federal Records Act of 1950

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, 

decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, as frequently amended particularly by the 

Clean Water Act of 1977 

This act and its amendments have as their objectives the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters and, therefore, regulates the 

discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The act protects fish and wildlife, 

establishes operation permits for all major sources of water pollution, limits the discharge of 

pollutants or toxins into water, and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant 

from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under the Clean Water 

Act. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regulating discharge of dredge 

or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The "Clean Water Act" 

became the common name with amendments in 1977.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, as amended

Declares the intent of Congress that recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement be given full 

consideration as purposes of federal water development projects. The act also authorizes the 

use of federal water project funds for land acquisition in order to establish refuges for migratory 

waterfowl when recommended by the Secretary of the Interior, and authorizes the Secretary to 

provide facilities for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife at all reservoirs under his control, 

except those within national wildlife refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as frequently amended 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources policy with emphasis 

on the commercial fishing industry but also with a direction to administer the act with regard to 

the inherent right of every citizen and resident to fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment 

and to maintain and increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. The 1998 amendments to the act modified the powers of the Secretary of the Interior 

in regard to volunteer service, community partnerships, and education programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify species of management 

concern, and implement conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water 

resource development programs by requiring consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or other body of 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

184

water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted . . . or 

otherwise controlled or modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. This act also 

authorized use of surplus federal property for wildlife conservation purposes and authorized the 

Secretary of the Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of lands and funds. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

Improves the administration of fish and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws 

including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 

and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts 

and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the 

use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer program.

Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), as amended

Known as the Farm Bill, this act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who convert wetlands for the 

purpose of planting after enactment of the law are ineligible for most farm program subsidies. 

The act also established the Wetlands Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands 

through easements and restoration of the functions and values of wetlands on such easement 

areas.

Freedom of Information Act of 1966

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for inspection and copying 

administrative staff manuals and staff instructions; official, published and unpublished policy 

statements; final orders deciding case adjudication; and other documents. Special exemptions 

have been reserved for nine categories of privileged material. The act requires the party seeking 

the information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs.

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related resources on public lands. 

Section 15(c) of the act prohibits issuing geothermal leases on virtually all U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-administered lands.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 

Popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended in 1965, declared it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It 

provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. 

Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of 

this act. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as amended

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals and to safeguard U.S. crop 

production from harmful foreign species. The act prohibits interstate and international transport 

and commerce of fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. It 

regulates the introduction to the United States of foreign species into new locations.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

Provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil 

and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching grants to states for 

outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by various federal agencies including the 

Fish and Wildlife Service.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

185

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

Establishes a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve areas recommended by the 

Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. Authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with local authorities in wildlife conservation and to 

conduct investigations, to publish documents related to North American birds, and to maintain 

and develop refuges. The act provides for cooperation with states in enforcement. It establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Commission for 

migratory birds. This act includes acquisition authority for purchase or rental of a partial interest 

in land or waters and requires the Secretary of the Interior to consult with the appropriate units 

of local government and with the governor of the state concerned, or the appropriate state 

agency, before recommending an area for purchase or rental. This provision was subsequently 

amended in 1983, 1984, and 1986 to require that either the governor or the state agency 

approve each proposed acquisition. The role of the Commission was expanded by the North 

American Wetland Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, restoration, and 

enhancement proposals recommended by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934

Known as the Duck Stamp Act, this act requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older 

to carry a stamp, and earmarks proceeds of Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl habitat. A 

1958 amendment authorizes the acquisition of small wetland and pothole areas to be 

designated as “Waterfowl Production Areas,” which may be acquired without the limitations and 

requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

Implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, 

Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by 

special regulations, the act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, 

purchase, barter, export, or import any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands.

Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas, and 

other hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this act

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over federal lands for pipelines.

Mining Act of 1872, as amended

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called “hardrock” minerals (such as 

gold and silver) on public lands.

National and Community Service Act of 1990

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the United States in full and/or part-time 

projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, 

and fulfill environmental needs. Among other things, this law established the American 

Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young adults in approved human and natural 

resource projects, which will benefit the public or are carried out on federal or tribal lands.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

186

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended

This act and the implementing regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 CFR 1500–1508) require federal agencies to integrate the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process with other planning at the earliest possible time to provide a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach to decision making; to identify and analyze the environmental effects 

of their actions; to describe appropriate alternatives to the proposed actions; and to involve the 

affected state and federal agencies, tribal governments, and public in the planning and decision

making process. This act requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of any major 

federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Repeatedly amended, the act provides for preservation of significant historical features 

(buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a 

National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under the existing 

National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468–468d). The act established an Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent independent agency in 1976 

(90 Stat. 1319). That act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a 

reasonable opportunity to comment. Section 110 requires federal agencies to manage historic 

properties, e.g., to document historic properties prior to destruction or damage; section 101 

requires federal agencies consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs and 

requires each federal agency to establish a program leading to inventory of all historic 

properties on its land.

National Trails System Act of 1968

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, scenic, and historic values of 

some important trails. National Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of the

Interior or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the consent of the 

involved state(s) and other land managing agencies, if any. National scenic and national historic 

trails may only be designated by an act of Congress. Several national trails cross units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

This act consolidates the authorities relating to the various categories of lands for the 

conservation of fish and wildlife administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife Service by designating all such areas part of a single National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Areas include wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas,

and waterfowl production areas. The law also prohibits knowingly disturbing any area within the 

system or the take of Refuge System wildlife without a permit. The act addresses the growing 

need for recreational opportunities by providing a decision framework for allowing appropriate 

and compatible uses of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000

Establishes a commission to promote awareness by the public to develop a long-term plan to 

meet priority needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System, require an annual report on the 

needs, and improve public use programs and facilities. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

187

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

This act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, serves 

as the "organic act" for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The act states first and foremost 

that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is focused singularly on wildlife 

conservation. It establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System, reinforces the importance 

of refuge purposes to guide management direction, articulates a process for determining 

compatible uses of refuges, identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), 

and adds a requirement for preparing comprehensive conservation plans through a public 

planning process. The act requires the Secretary of the Interior to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act of 1998 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to encourage the use of volunteers to help in the 

management of refuges within the National Wildlife Refuge System; facilitates partnerships 

between the Refuge System and nonfederal entities to promote public awareness of the 

resources of the Refuge System and public participation in the conservation of the resources; 

and encourages donations and other contributions.

National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Improvement Act of 2010 

Maintains the current funding authorization level for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

volunteer and community partnerships programs that are vital to national wildlife refuges but 

makes a number of important amendments. The law amends the National Wildlife Refuge 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 to direct the Service to carry 

out a National Volunteer Coordination Program within the National Wildlife Refuge System. It

also requires the Director of the Service to publish a national strategy for the coordination and 

utilization of volunteers within the Refuge System and provide at least one regional volunteer 

coordinator for each Service region to implement the strategy.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. This act imposes serious delays on a project 

when human remains or other cultural items are encountered in the absence of a plan.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation of 

neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to 

recommend projects to be funded under the act to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Available funds may be expended for up to 50 percent of the United States’ share cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the 

cost of projects on federal lands).

Partnerships for Wildlife Act of 1992

Established a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to receive appropriated funds and 

donations from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for conservation of non-game 

species. The funding formula is no more than 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, 

and at least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended

Requires that any recreational use on areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System be 

"compatible" with the primary purpose(s) for which the area was acquired or established. This 

act also requires that sufficient funding be available for the development, operation and 

maintenance of recreational uses that are not directly related to the area's primary purpose(s). 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935

Provides for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. A major revision in 1964 requires all revenues received from refuge 

products be distributed to counties for public schools and roads (this stipulation later removed). 

Another revision in 1974 requires that any remaining funds be transferred to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for land acquisition. A 1978 amendment stated payments to counties were 

established as: 

• on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 

three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts 

produced from the land, and

• on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic 

payments.

This amendment also required counties to pass payments along to other units of local 

government within the county that suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service areas.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under any program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, as amended

Requires the authorization by the Chief of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides authority 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review and comment on the effects on fish and wildlife 

activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the COE. Service concerns include 

contaminated sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters.

Secretarial Order 3289 Amendment 1: Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on

America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (2010)

Secretarial Order 3285, issued in March 2009, made production and transmission of renewable 

energy on public lands a priority for the Department of the Interior. This Secretarial Order, 

3289A1, issued in February 2010 establishes a Department-wide approach for applying 

scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective 

response to its impacts on tribes and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural 

resources that the Department manages.

Sikes Act of 1960, as amended

Provides for the cooperation by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Defense with state 

agencies in planning, development, and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

189

recreation facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals to manage the wildlife and 

fishery resource under his jurisdiction and requires federal and state fish and wildlife agencies 

be given priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military reservations.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 

coal industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948

Provides that upon a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, 

real property no longer needed by a federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement 

to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds or to a state 

agency for other wildlife conservation purposes.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation planning that includes public 

involvement, and provides funding for approved public use roads and trails and associated 

parking lots, comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000

In December 2002, Congress required federal agencies to publish their own guidelines for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they 

disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The amended language is included in section 

515(a). The Office of Budget and Management directed agencies to develop their own 

guidelines to address the requirements of the law. The Department of the Interior instructed 

bureaus to prepare separate guidelines on how they would apply the act. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” to address the law.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The act requires that any purchase offer be no less 

than the fair market value of the property.

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

Established the Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, including 

the Secretary of the Interior. The Council reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, 

urban, energy, industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. The act also established a 

grant program to assist states in participating in the development of related comprehensive 

water and land use plans.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Established a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribes the methods and 

standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. Section 

5(d)(1) requires that in all planning by federal agencies for the use and development of water 

and related land resources, consideration be given to potential wild, scenic, and recreation 

rivers. Rivers are added to the national system based on their free-flowing character and their 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, 

ecological, or other values. Rivers in the system are managed to maintain and protect these 

outstandingly remarkable values for present and future generations. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

190

Wilderness Act of 1964

Defined the Wilderness resource and established the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

It directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 

or more acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems and to recommend to the President the suitability of each such area or 

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, with final decisions made 

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend suitable areas 

in the National Forest System. This act also prescribes the management of new inclusions as 

wilderness.

Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps program within the Departments of the

Interior and Agriculture. Within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, YCC participants perform 

many tasks on refuges, fish hatcheries, and research stations.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

191

Appendix E: Literature Cited

Anderson, Kathy. 2001. “Historic alteration of surface hydrology on the Des Moines Lobe.” Iowa 

Geology 2000, No. 25. Iowa Geological Survey Bureau, Iowa City, Iowa. p. 4. 

Anteau, M. J. 2012. “Do interactions of land use and climate affect productivity of waterbirds and 

prairie-pothole wetlands?” Wetlands. 32:1–9.

Anteau, M. J. & A. D. Afton. 2011. “Lipid catabolism of invertebrate predator indicates 

widespread wetland ecosystem degradation.” PLoS ONE. 6(1):3e16029.

Anteau, M. J. A. D. Afton, A. C. E. Anteau, & E. B. Moser. 2011. “Fish communities and land

use influence Gammarus and Hyalella (Amphipoda) densities across the upper Midwest.”

Hydrobiologia. 664:69–80.

Aronson, M. F. J. & S. M. Galatowitsch. 2008. “Long-term vegetation development of restored 

prairie pothole wetlands.” Wetlands. 28:883–895.

Bailey, R. G. 1995. “Description of the ecoregions of the United States, 2nd edition.”

Washington, D. C: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Best, L. B. 1986. “Conservation tillage: Ecological traps for nesting birds?” Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 14(3):308–317.

Beyersbergen, G.W., N. D. Niemuth, & M.R. Norton, 2004. “Northern prairie & parkland 

waterbird conservation plan.” Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, Denver, Colorado. p. 183.

Bishop, R. A., R. D. Andrews, & R. J. Bridges. 1979. “Marsh management and its relation to 

vegetation, waterfowl and muskrats.” Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science. 86:50–56.

Brown, J., T. Bishop, & M. Hawkins. 2008. “Reviving Iowa’s shallow lakes.” Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources. Des Moines, Iowa.

Coffey, M. 2000. “Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Iowa Contaminants Investigation 

Final Report.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Contaminants Program. Rock Island 

Field Office, Rock Island, IL. pp. 56. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, & E. T. LaRoe. 1979. “Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States.” U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Washington, D.C. p. 131.

Cowardin, L. M., T. L. Shaffer, & P. M. Arnold. 1995. “Evaluations of duck habitat and estimation 

of duck population sizes with a remote-sensing-based system.” National Biological Service, 

Biological Science Report 2. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown, ND.

Available on-line: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/duckhab/index.htm.

Dahl, T.E. 1990, “Wetlands-losses in the United States, 1780's to 1980's.” Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

192

Devries, J. H., R. W. Brook, D. W. Howerter, M. G. Anderson. 2008. “Effects of spring body 

condition and age on reproduction in mallards (Anas platyrhynchos).” Auk. 125:618–628.

Duffy, M. D. 2011. “Farmland value survey Iowa State University.” Available on-line: 

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c2-70.html.

Eilers, L. & D. Roosa. 1994. “The vascular plants of Iowa: An annotated checklist and natural 

history.” University of Iowa Press. Iowa City, Iowa. p. 319. Available on-line:

http://uipress.lib.uiowa.edu/vpi/IowaFlora.aspx.

Ensor, K. & S. Smith. 1994. “Herbicide concentrations in wetlands in west central Minnesota, 

1992.” Completion Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Environmental 

Contaminants. Federal Building, Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, MN. p. 70.

Environmental Protection Agency (Pilot Project with FEMA and the Rebuild Iowa Office). 2011.

“Iowa climate change adaptation & resilience report.” Available on-line: 

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/iowa_climate_adaptation_report.pdf.

Euliss, N. H. Jr., D. M. Mushet, & D. A. Wrubleski. 1999. “Wetlands of the Prairie Pothole 

Region: Invertebrate species composition, ecology and management.” Pages 471–514 In D. P. 

Batzer, R. B. Rader, & S. A. Wissinger, eds. Invertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands of North 

America: Ecology and Management, Chapter 21. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Available 

on-line: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/pothole/index.htm.

Fleskes, J. P. 1986. “Evaluation of waterfowl recruitment in relation to habitat management at 

Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 (Project 2670).

pp. 14–15.

Fredrickson, L.H. & F.A. Reid. 1988. “Control of willow and cottonwood seedlings in herbaceous 

wetlands.” Section 13.4.10 In Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13, United States Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.

Freemark, K. & M. Csizy. 1993. “Effect of different habitats vs. agricultural practices on breeding 

birds.” Pages 284-285 (abstract) In Agricultural Research to Protect Water Quality: Proceeding 

of the Conference. Feb. 21–24, 1993. Minneapolis, Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation 

Society.

Galatowitsch, S. M. & A. van der Valk. 1994. “Restoring prairie wetlands: an ecological 

approach.” Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa. p. 247.

Galatowitsch, S., L. Frelich, & L. Phillips-Mao. 2009. “Regional climate change adaptation 

strategies for biodiversity conservation in a midcontinental region of North America.” Biological 

Conservation. 142(2009): 2012–2022.

Grue, C.E., L. R. DeWeese, P. Mineau, G.A. Swanson, J.R. Foster and P. M. Arnold, J. 

Huckins, P. J. Sheechan and W. K. Marshall, & A. P. Ludden. 1986. “Potential impacts of 

agricultural chemicals on waterfowl and other wildlife inhabiting prairie wetlands: an evaluation 

of research needs and approaches.” Transactions of the 51st North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference. pp. 357–383.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

193

Harland, B. & N. Meyers. 2012. “Monitoring and evaluating the ecological condition of Iowa’s 

shallow lakes: 2010–2012 pre- and post-renovation.” Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Des Moines, Iowa.

Herkert, J. R. 1994. “Breeding bird communities of Midwestern prairie fragments: The effects of 

prescribed burning and habitat-area.” Natural Areas Journal. 14(2):128–135.

Higgins, K. F. 1977. “Duck nesting in intensively farmed areas of North Dakota.” The Journal of 

Wildlife Management, 41(2):232–242.

Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council (ICCAC). 2008. “Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council 

final report.” Available on-line: http://www.iaclimatechange.us/capag.cfm.

Iowa Climate Change Impacts Committee (ICCIC). 2010. “Climate change impacts on Iowa: 

Report to the Governor and the Iowa General Assembly.” Available on-line: 

http://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/air/environment/climatechange/complete_report.pdf

?amp;tabid=1077.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR). 1997. “Iowa Geology, No. 22.” Geological 

Survey Bureau. Iowa City, Iowa. p. 29.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR). 1998. “Identification of potential wetland 

complex restorations in the Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa.” Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources Wildlife Bureau. pp. 1–8.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR). 2010. “Draft 2010 impaired waters list.”

Available on-line: http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/ImpairedWaters/303d.html#2010

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR). 2012. “Furbearers Report.” p. 18.

Johnson, R. G. & S. A. Temple. 1990. “Nest predation and brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie 

birds.” The Journal of Wildlife Management. 54(1):106–111.

Johnson, W. C., B. Werner, G. R. Guntenspergen, R. R. Voldseth, B. Millett, D. E. Naugle, M. 

Tulbure, R. W. H. Carroll, J. Tracy, & C. Olawsky. 2010. “Prairie wetland complexes as 

landscape functional units in a changing climate.” BioScience. 60(2):128–140.

Kaminski, R.M., & H.H. Prince. 1981. “Dabbling duck and aquatic macroinvertebrate responses 

to manipulated wetland habitat.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 45:1–15.

Kantrud, H. A. & R. E. Stewart. 1977. “Use of natural basin wetlands by breeding waterfowl in 

North Dakota.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 41(2):243–253.

Korschgen, C. E. & R. B. Dahlgren. 1992. “Human disturbances of waterfowl: Causes, effects, 

and management. Waterfowl Management Handbook. pp. 1–7.

Krapu, G. L., R. J. Greenwood, C. P. Dwyer, & K. Kraft. 1997. “Wetland use, settling patterns, 

and recruitment in mallards.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3):736–746.

Krapu, G. L., P. J. Pietz, D. A. Brandt, & R. R., Jr. Cox. 2000. “Factors limiting mallard brood 

survival in prairie pothole landscapes.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(2):553–561.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

194

Krapu, G. L., P. J. Pietz, D. A. Brandt, & R. R., Jr. Cox. 2004. “Does presence of permanent 

fresh water affect recruitment in prairie-nesting dabbling ducks?” Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 68(2):332–341. 

LaGrange, T. G. & J. J. Dinsmore. 1989. “Habitat use by mallards during spring migration 

through central Iowa.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(4):1076–1081.

Laubhan, M. K., R. A. Gleason, G. A. Knutsen, R. A. Laubhan, N. H. Euliss, Jr. 2006. “A 

preliminary biological assessment of Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, North 

Dakota.” Biological Technical Publication BTP-R6006-2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. p. 

76.

Miller, B. A., W. G. Crumpton, & A. G. van der Valk. 2012. “Wetland hydrologic class change 

from prior to European settlement to present on the Des Moines Lobe, Iowa.” Wetlands Ecology 

and Management. 20:1–8.

Millett, B., W. C. Johnson, & G. R. Guntenspergen. 2009. “Climate trends of the North American 

Prairie Pothole Region 1906-2000.” Climate Change. 93:243–267.

Montgomery, D. R. 2007. “Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability.” Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences. 104(33):13268–13272. 

Murkin, H. R., R. M. Kaminski, & R. D. Titman. 1982. “Responses by dabbling ducks and 

aquatic invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh.” Canadian Journal of 

Zoology. 60:2324–2332.

Nelson, J.W., & J.A. Kadlec. 1984. “A conceptual approach to relating habitat structure and 

macroinvertebrate production in freshwater wetlands.” North American Wildlife Natural 

Resources Conference Transactions. 49:262–270.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee, 2011. The State of the Birds

2011 Report on Public Lands and Waters. U.S. Department of Interior: Washington, DC. 48 

pages.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee. 2012. North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan 2012: People Conserving Waterfowl and Wetlands. p. 48.

Noss, R.F., E. T. LaRoe III, & J. M. Scott. 1995. “Endangered ecosystems of the United States: 

A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation.” Biological Report 28: Washington, D. C. U. 

S. Department of Interior, National Biological Service.

Ohde, B. R., R. A., Bishop, & J. J. Dinsmore. 1983. “Mallard reproduction in relation to sex 

ratios.” The Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(1):118–126.

Pearson, J. A. & M. J. Leoschke. 1992. “Floristic composition and conservation status of fens in 

Iowa.” Journal of Iowa Academy of Sciences. 99(2-3):41–52.

Public Law 105-57. 1997. “National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.”

Available on-line: http://refugenet.org/new-pdf-files/NWRS%20Improvement%20Act.pdf
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

195

Prior, J. C. 1991. “Landforms of Iowa.” University of Iowa Press. Iowa City, Iowa. p. 168.

Ribic, C. A., R. K. Rolf, R. H. James, H. J. Douglas, D. N. Neal, E. N. David, & B. R. Rosalind. 

2009. “Area sensitivity in North American grassland birds: Patterns and processes.” The Auk. 

126(2):233–244. Available on-line at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/auk.2009.1409.

Robel, R. J., J. N. Briggs, A. D. Dayton, & L. C. Hulbert. 1970. “Relationships between visual 

obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation.” Journal of Range Management. 

23(4): 295–297.

Rodenhouse, N. L., & L. B. Best. 1983. “Breeding ecology of vesper sparrows in corn and 

soybean fields.” American Midland Naturalist. 110:265–275.

Ryan, M. R. 1986. “Nongame management in grassland and agricultural ecosystems.” Pages 

117–136 in J.B. Hale, L.B. Best, and R. L. Clawson, editors. Management of nongame wildlife in 

the Midwest: a developing art. North Central Section of the Wildlife Society. BookCrafters, 

Chelsea, Michigan.

Skagen, S.K. & G. Thompson. 2000. “U.S. shorebird conservation plan. Northern Plains/Prairie 

Potholes regional shorebird conservation plan.” U.S. Geological Survey and National Audubon 

Society. p. 36.

Smith, D. D. 1992. “Tallgrass prairie settlement: Prelude to demise of the tallgrass ecosystem.”

1992 Proceedings of Twelfth North American Prairie Conference. Tallgrass Prairie Center, UNI, 

Cedar Falls, Iowa. 

Sojda, R.S. & K.L. Solberg. 1993. “Management and control of cattails.” Section 13.4.13 In Fish 

and Wildlife Leaflet 13, United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington D.C.

Solberg, K.L., & K.F. Higgins. 1993. “Effects of glyphosate herbicide on cattails, invertebrates, 

and waterfowl in South Dakota wetlands.” Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21:299–307.

Solecki, M. 1997. “Controlling invasive plants.” In S. Packard & C. F. Mutel (eds.), The Tallgrass 

Restoration Handbook. Washington, D.C., Island Press. pp. 251–258.

State Historical Society of Iowa. 2010. “Mammoth: Witness to change.” Available on-line at: 

http://www.iowahistory.org/museum/exhibits/mammoth/learn.htm.

Stewart, R. E. & H. A. Kantrud. 1971. “Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated 

prairie region.” Resource Publication 92, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service., Washington D. C. Available on-line at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/pondlake/index.htm.

Swanson, G. A. 1986. “Wetland habitats for breeding waterfowl [abstract].” Proceedings of the 

North Dakota Academy of Science. 40:46.

Swanson, G. A. & H. F. Duebbert. 1989. “Wetland habitats of waterfowl in the prairie pothole 

region.” Pages 228-267 In A. van der Valk, ed. Northern prairie wetlands. Iowa State University 

Press. Ames, Iowa. p. 400.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

196

Thompson, J.R. 1992. “Prairies, forests, and wetlands: The restoration of natural landscape 

communities in Iowa.” Page 43. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City 52242.

Tilman, D. & J. A. Downing. 1994. “Biodiversity and stability in grasslands.” Nature. 367:363–

365.

Tome, M. W., C. Grue, & L. R. DeWeese. 1991. “Ethyl parathion in wetlands following aerial 

application to sunflowers in North Dakota.” Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19:450-457.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “State and County Quickfacts.” Available on-line: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19000.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Small area income and poverty estimates.” Available on-line: 

http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2011. “Iowa agricultural statistics.” USDA – National 

Agricultural Statistics Service Iowa Field Office. Des Moines, Iowa. Available on-line: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Iowa/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/201

1/2011%20Annual%20Bulletin.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation. Available on-line: http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-ia.pdf.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. “Refuge Manual: Grazing and Haying Management, 6 RM 

9.” National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. p. 20.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. “Refuge planning.” 602 FW 1 Refuge Planning Overview 

and 602 FW 3 Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process. National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Department of Interior. Available on-line: http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw1.html and 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw3.html.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. “Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.”

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available on-line: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw3.html.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. “Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.” 640 FW 1.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. National Wildlife Refuge System. Department of Interior.

Available on-line: http://www.fws.gov/policy/640fw1.html.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. “National Wildlife Refuge System mission and goals and 

refuge purposes.” 601 FW 1. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available 

on-line: http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw1.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. “Birds of conservation concern 2008.” United States.

Available on-line: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.

pdf.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

197

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. “General overview of wilderness stewardship policy.”

610 FW 1. Wilderness Stewardship. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. 

Available on-line: http://www.fws.gov/policy/610fw1.html.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. “Rising to the urgent challenge: Strategic plan for 

responding to accelerating climate change.” Available on-line:

http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCStrategicPlan.pdf.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. “Annual report of lands under control of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service: As of September 30, 2010.” Available on-line:

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/land/LandReport.html.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. “Conserving the future: wildlife refuges and the next 

generation.” Available on-line: http://americaswildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/FinalDocument-Conserving-the-Future.pdf.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011c. “Environmental assessment: Use of row crop farming 

and genetically-modified glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans on National Wildlife Refuges 

and Wetland Management Districts.” Available on-line:

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/farmingNEPA/eafinal.pdf.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. “Annual Report for 2012 waterfowl breeding populations 

and production estimates for the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota and Iowa and population 

estimates for the transition zone of Minnesota.” Division of Migratory Birds, Habitat and 

Population Evaluation Team, Fergus Falls, MN. p. 129.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land-based wind energy 

guidelines.” p. 82.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012c. “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region 

easements manual.” p. 266.

U. S. Geological Survey. 2008. “2008 minerals yearbook, Iowa [Advanced Release].” 6 pp.

Warner, R. E. 1994. “Agricultural land use and grassland habitat in Illinois: Future shock for 

Midwestern birds?” Conservation Biology. 8(1):147–156.

U. S. Government Accountability Office. 2007. “Prairie Pothole Region–At the current pace of 

acquisitions, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is unlikely to achieve its habitat protection goals 

for migratory birds.” Report to the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. pp. 49.

Warner, R. E., J. W. Walk, & J. R. Herkert. 2012. “Managing farmlands for wildlife.” Wildlife 

Society Wildlife Management Textbook. pp. 157–168.

Weller, M. W. 1979. “Density and habitat relationships of blue-winged teal nesting in 

northwestern Iowa.” The Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(2): 367–-374.

Weller, M. W. 1981. “Freshwater marshes.” University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.

Weller, M. W. & L. H. Fredrickson. 1974. “Avian ecology of a managed glacial marsh.” Living 

Bird. 12:269–291. 
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

198

Weller, M. W. & C. S. Spatcher. 1965. “Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of 

marsh birds.” Department of Zoology and Entomology Special Report Number 43. Agriculture 

and Home Economics Experiment Station. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.

Winter, M. & J. Faaborg. 1999. “Patterns of area sensitivity in grassland-nesting birds.”

Conservation Biology. 13(6):1424–1436. 

Winter, M., D. H. Johnson, & J. Faaborg. 2000. “Evidence for edge effects on multiple levels in 

tallgrass prairie.” The Condor. 102(2):256–266.

Zohrer, J. J. 2005. “Securing a future for fish and wildlife: A conservation legacy for Iowans.” E 

Resources Group for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Des Moines, Iowa. p. 378.

Zohrer, J. J. & D. L. Garner. 2002. “Identification of potential wetland complex restoration in the 

Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa.” Wildlife Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. p.

140.
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

199

Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

Introduction

Iowa Wetland Management District (WMD, district) managers decide if a new or existing use is 

an appropriate district use. This appendix includes a list of the appropriate use designations for 

the Iowa WMD.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) appropriate use policy (603 FW 1) explains 

the decision process the district manager follows when first considering whether or not to allow 

a proposed use on a district. The district manager must first find a use to be appropriate before 

undertaking a compatibility review of the use and outlining the stipulations of the use. 

The appropriate use policy clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy (603 FW 

2.10(D)(1)), which describes when the district manager should deny a proposed use without 

determining compatibility. If a proposed use is found “not appropriate,” the use will not be 

allowed and a compatibility determination will not be prepared. By screening out proposed uses 

not appropriate to the district, the district manager avoids unnecessary compatibility reviews. 

Although a use may be both appropriate and compatible, the district manager retains the 

authority to not allow the use or modify the use. 

This policy does not generally apply to proposed public use of wetland and grassland easement 

areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System). The rights acquired on 

these areas generally do not extend to control over such public uses except where those uses 

would conflict with the conditions of the easement (603 FW 1.2(A)). The Service’s Midwest 

Region Easements Manual provides more direction on applying the appropriate use policy to 

easements (FWS, 2012c). 

Background for this policy as it applies to Iowa WMD is found in the following statutory 

authorities: 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Improvement Act) (16 U.S.C. § 668dd–668ee). This law provides the authority for 

establishing policies and regulations governing district uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The Administration Act does not authorize any 

particular use, but rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when 

they are deemed compatible. The Improvement Act provides the Refuge System mission 

and includes specific directives and identifies six wildlife-dependent uses as priorities for 

the Refuge System. 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. § 460k). This law authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an 

“appropriate incidental or secondary use.” 

District uses must meet at least one of the following four conditions to be deemed appropriate: 

1. It is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act.
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

200

2. It contributes to fulfilling the district purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a district management plan approved after the Improvement Act 

was signed into law.

3. The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. 

4. The district has evaluated the use following the guidelines in this policy and found that it 

is appropriate. The criteria used by the manager to evaluate appropriateness can be 

found on the appropriate use forms completed for the district. 

Uses that have been administratively determined to be appropriate but still require compatibility 

determinations are: 

• six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as defined by the Improvement Act as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation; 

and

• take of fish and wildlife under state regulations including hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Also covered under this policy are “specialized uses,” or uses that require specific authorization 

from the Refuge System, often in the form of a special use permit, letter of authorization, or 

other permit document. These uses do not include uses already granted by a prior existing right. 

Appropriateness findings for specialized uses are made on a case-by-case basis.

This policy does NOT apply to the following: 

• Situations where reserved rights or legal mandates provide certain uses must be 

allowed.

• District management activities conducted by the Refuge System or a Refuge Systemauthorized agent designed to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. These 

activities fulfill district purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission and are based on sound 

professional judgment. 

Appropriate use findings are made without public review and comment. However, if a proposed 

use is found to be appropriate, we must still determine that the use is compatible. The 

compatibility determination includes an opportunity for public involvement (603 FW 1.9(B)).

The following uses are deemed appropriate for the Iowa WMD:

• Bicycle Riding on Roads and Trails Open to Vehicular Traffic

• Wood Cutting (including firewood)

• Hay Harvest

• Food Plot Cultivation for Wildlife

• Virtual or Waypoint Geocaching

• Prescribed Livestock Grazing

The following uses are deemed not appropriate for the Iowa WMD:
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

Iowa WMD / Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

201

• Dog Training

• Horseback Riding

• Off Road Vehicle Use: ATV, UTV, Dirt Bike, Motor Vehicle

• Overnight Camping

• Pheasant Stocking, Private

• Snowmobiling

• Target Shooting

Districts are national treasures for the conservation of wildlife. Through careful planning, 

consistent application of regulations and policies, diligent monitoring of the impacts of uses on 

wildlife resources, and preventing or eliminating uses not appropriate, the Refuge System 

conservation mission can be achieved while also providing the public with lasting opportunities 

to enjoy quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

202

Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

In this appendix:

Introduction

Bicycle Riding on Roads and Trails Open to Vehicular Traffic

Wood Cutting (including firewood)

Hay Harvest

Environmental Education

Food Plot Cultivation for Wildlife

Virtual or Waypoint Geocaching

Hunting in Accordance with State Regulations (includes motorboat use)

Interpretation

Prescribed Livestock Grazing

Photography (includes creative nature writing and art)

Recreational Fishing in Accordance with State Regulations (includes motorboat use)

Recreational Trapping in Accordance with State Regulations (includes motorboat use)

Wildlife Observation

Introduction

Compatibility determinations are documents written, signed, and dated by the district manager 

and the regional chief of refuges that signify whether proposed or existing uses of the Wetland 

Management District (WMD, district) are compatible with its establishing purposes and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System). This appendix 

provides copies of the compatibility determinations for Iowa WMD.

Before undertaking a compatibility review of a use, the district manager must first determine that 

the use is appropriate. A compatible use is any proposed or existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or other use of a district by the public or entity other than the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from fulfilling the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the 

district. The final policy and regulations required by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 provide guidance for determining compatibility.

If a proposed use is not appropriate, the use will not be allowed, and a compatibility 

determination will not be prepared.

A compatibility determination is required for activities on a refuge/district by the public or entity 

other than the Service including:

• all refuge/district recreational and educational programs;

• construction or expansion of recreational and educational facilities such as boardwalks 

and boat ramps;

• management activities performed by private parties in return for a market commodity, 

such as cooperative farming to provide food for wildlife; and

• granting or modifying rights-of-way through refuges/districts for pipelines, roads, or 

electrical transmission lines.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

203

Activities when a compatible determination is NOT required include:

• refuge/district management activities such as prescribed burning, managing water 

levels, and controlling invasive species;

• routine scientific monitoring, studies, surveys, and censuses;

• conducting historic preservation;

• law enforcement activities; and

• maintaining refuge/district facilities, structures, or improvements.

Although a refuge/district use may be both appropriate and compatible, the district manager 

retains the authority to not allow the use or modify the use. The Service’s Midwest Region

Easements Manual provides more direction on applying compatibility to easements (FWS,

2012c). 

A district compatibility determination was previously completed and approved for farming 

(cooperative farming) in December of 2011. A copy of that compatibility determination will be 

included in the final CCP. 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

204

Compatibility Determination

Use: Bicycle Riding on Roads and Trails Open to Vehicular Traffic

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.” 

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715k-5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . ” 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Riding bicycles on the Iowa WMD for the purposes of pleasure, exercise, transportation, and 

wildlife viewing as environmentally sound transportation without noise or air pollution, typically 

associated with motor vehicles. 

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Proposed new use.

Is the use a priority public use?

No.

Where would the use be conducted?

On all roads and trails open to vehicular traffic, self-guided by regulatory signage on Waterfowl 

Production Areas (WPAs) within the WMD.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

205

When would the use be conducted?

Year round; however, snow levels during the winter months would make this use difficult

How would the use be conducted?

Self-guided. The number of users at any one time is expected to be minimal. The large size of 

the district is expected to keep users spread out; the frequency of users is expected to be 

irregular.

Why is this use being proposed?

Public request.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Few to no new resources would need to be utilized to allow bicycle riding on roads and trails 

open to vehicular traffic. Currently WPAs contain regulatory signs showing where vehicles can 

and cannot travel. Service roads are currently gated with chain gates restricting vehicles 

including bicycles. No new infrastructure is anticipated such as bicycle lanes, racks, etc. WPAs

are currently set up for vehicles with parking areas and pull-offs, and are annually maintained. 

The approximate annual cost to maintain these parking areas is $4,000 and is completed 

regardless of this use. 

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

The short-term impact of bicycle riding on roads and trails open to vehicular traffic within the 

district would be conflicts with other users such as hunters, anglers, trappers, and wildlife 

observers. Impacts would be temporary and be less than that of other motor vehicles. Impacts 

may occur if bicycles travel off the designated open roads creating ruts and damage to wildlife 

habitat. Short-term temporary disturbance to waterfowl may occur but most likely will not 

negatively affect production due to infrequency. No long-term impacts are anticipated with this 

use. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

206

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges: “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This 

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

WPAs: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and 

Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Use limited to non-motorized pedal powered bicycles.

2. No infrastructure will be constructed for this use including construction of bicycle trails, 

racks etc.

3. Bicycle use will only be permitted on existing trails open to motorized travel, and parking 

areas open to the public.

Justification: 

Use of bicycles by visitors to the Iowa Wetland Management District is an excellent method to 

observe wildlife. Bicycles are quiet and pose little to no effect to nesting waterfowl when they 

remain in designated areas. Using bicycles can enhance a priority public use of wildlife 

observation. This use provides a green solution to visitors wishing to get exercise and observe 

the wildlife of the district. 

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

207

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wood Cutting (including firewood)

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . ” 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Removal of standing and/or fallen trees applies to all wood removal activities regardless of the 

ultimate use of the wood (firewood, lumber, pulp, etc.). Wood cutting by the public is considered 

an economic use of a district natural resource and would be allowed in the district under the 

authority of a special use permit issued by the district manager.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Existing use.

Is the use a priority public use?

No.

Where would the use be conducted?

Harvest would occur throughout the district varying in size from a portion of an acre up to 

several hundred acres depending on the management objective of the area, as well as the 

quantity and quality of the wood. These sites would typically be found at abandoned 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

208

farmsteads, along existing shelter belts and windbreaks, and in other areas where trees are 

encroaching on grassland and wetland habitats. 

When would the use be conducted?

Wood cutting activities could be authorized throughout the year; however, the majority of activity 

would occur during the winter months when frozen ground would facilitate access and afford 

protection to underlying soils and desired vegetation. 

How would the use be conducted?

The district is located at the southernmost portion of the Prairie Pothole Region, an area known 

for its duck production. Land is primarily acquired, restored, and managed for the production of 

waterfowl. These uplands and wetlands provide the first suitable breeding habitat available to 

waterfowl on their northern flight. They also benefit other migratory birds and resident wildlife as 

well. Today, the tallgrass prairie ecosystem is globally endangered, and most of Iowa’s 

wetlands have been drained. As a result, many grassland- and wetland-dependent migratory 

birds are in great peril. 

The majority of the district is comprised of restored and intact grassland in the uplands and 

restored wetlands in the lowlands. These habitat complexes contain both native and nonnative 

grass and forb species, as well as encroaching woody vegetation. If left untreated, overtime, 

the encroaching woody vegetation reduces or eliminates desirable prairie/wetland herbaceous 

vegetation growth necessary for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Typically, prescribed 

burning, haying, and grazing are used as tools to inhibit the encroaching woody vegetation. 

However, various factors can limit the use of these tools on all or portions of some Waterfowl 

Production Areas (WPAs). Nevertheless, active removal of the encroaching woody vegetation 

by wood cutting is often less limiting. Therefore, wood cutting would be another tool that would 

accomplish the same objectives by promoting the reestablishment of the grasses and forbs in 

the uplands and maintain healthy wetlands. Due to the loss of large wildfires and large-ungulate 

grazing prior to European settlement and the fast-growing nature of many tree species, wood 

cutting has become a more frequently utilized tool to help restore and maintain the tallgrass 

prairie community and its associated wetlands. This is especially true as funding and other 

factors limit the use of primary grassland management tools.

Equipment used for harvest would depend on the site and its management objectives, as well 

as the permittee’s capabilities and may include axes, chainsaws, tractor-mounted shredders 

and shears, and traditional logging equipment.

Why is this use being proposed?

District management tool and public request.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Staff time will be needed to administer special use permits for wood cutting, along with mapping 

and designating areas that need woody encroachment removed. Approximately twelve staff 

hours per year are anticipated for this use. 

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

209

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

In permitting this type of activity, the potential exists to directly impact waterfowl production. 

This could happen by displacement of birds from localized areas due to disturbance, or crushing 

of nests because of access for this activity. These impacts are easily avoided by timing of the 

activity in accordance with site-specific characteristics. In limited and rare instances, a small 

number of individuals of tree-nesting species (e.g. wood duck, hooded merganser, etc.) may be 

displaced from a local area after their nest trees are removed. The indirect impacts to waterfowl 

production that will occur would be primarily beneficial by facilitating the restoration of tallgrass 

prairie and removing artificially created predator habitat from within the WPAs. Access for 

removing wood may affect habitat by rutting soils, destroying ground cover, creating weed 

seedbeds, and increasing sedimentation due to runoff in nearby wetlands. However, these 

impacts can also be avoided by regulating the timing of the activity.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges. “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This 

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

WPAs: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and 

Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Travel off designated routes, will be limited to periods when ground is frozen.

2. Wood harvest activities will avoid the primary nesting period for waterfowl and migratory 

birds.

3. Special use permits are required for this use.

4. Best management practices will be implemented to avoid disturbance, erosion, desirable 

habitat damage, weed dispersal and migratory bird take.

5. All applicable federal, state, and special district regulations will apply.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

210

Justification: 

Any direct impacts on waterfowl production (take, disturbance, etc.) can be largely avoided by 

timing the activity so that it is not coincident with the waterfowl production season. Removal of 

trees in certain instances will, on occasion, eliminate Wood Duck, Hooded Merganser, or other 

cavity-nesting species habitat. This would be an irregular and occasional impact and, since 

most wood harvest will be associated with restoration sites, it is unlikely that these areas would 

have provided historic nesting sites. Due to the benefits that would be realized by other 

waterfowl species, and the abundance of artificial and natural nest sites for cavity-nesting 

species in the area, these impacts would not significantly detract from the WPAs’ purpose or 

Refuge System mission.

Impacts to the habitat because of access to WPAs for wood removal purposes are potentially 

significant but also easily avoided. Areas where woody species are removed for the purpose of 

conversion of the habitat type to prairie will likely receive follow-up treatments of burning, 

farming, or both. Ground disturbance in these areas is less problematic and possibly desirable 

depending on the specific site. Access to and from these areas will need to be carefully 

controlled via special use permit to avoid impacts such as rutting and increased sedimentation 

in area wetlands due to runoff. If existing roads are not present, access can be restricted to 

periods of frozen ground to avoid or minimize impacts to underlying vegetation and soils.

Other indirect impacts are generally considered positive and thus do not materially interfere with 

or detract from the purpose of waterfowl production or the Refuge System mission. The removal 

of trees along trails, in shelterbelts, and within old homesites will benefit waterfowl production by 

assisting with the restoration of prairie habitat and eliminating predator habitat and perch sites. 

Individuals participating in the wood harvest program will be under special use permit, and thus 

site-specific stipulations will ensure resource protection and achievement of management goals. 

Control of woody species encroachment on prairie habitats is a necessary management activity 

for the district in converting areas back to their historical grassland condition and directly 

supports the mission of the Refuge System.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

211

Compatibility Determination

Use: Hay Harvest

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

The cutting and removal, by baling and transport to an off-district location, of grasses and forbs, 

either non-native cool season species such as brome or native warm or cool season species. 

This use is typically completed by a cooperative farmer under authority of a cooperative farming 

agreement or special use permit issued by the district manager or Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources district biologists. 

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Existing use.

Is the use a priority public use?

No.

Where would the use be conducted?

Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) tracts in Iowa average 100 acres in size and are intermingled 

with private and other public lands. Although specific acreages for fields to be hayed will vary by 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

212

unit, they would typically range from five-acre firebreaks to 80-acre units. In that case, haying 

could possibly occur over the entire unit and up to several hundred acres. Hay acreages for 

firebreaks would be very small, estimated at less than five acres per WPA. 

When would the use be conducted?

Seasonally, after July 15 of each year. 

How would the use be conducted?

Haying can be an effective management tool as part of an overall grassland management plan 

to improve and maintain grasslands for the benefit of migratory birds. Grasslands need periodic 

renovation to maintain vigor, diversity, and the structure necessary for migratory bird use. 

Haying is an effective alternative to burning or grazing, which are the two other primary means 

used to maintain grassland vigor. If local site conditions preclude use of prescribe fire due to 

hazards to neighboring property or a similar challenge, removal of accumulated biomass 

through haying would reduce unwanted overstory cover and encroaching woody vegetation. 

This would allow for more vigorous regrowth of desirable species following the haying, although 

results are neither as dramatic nor as positive as with the use of prescribed fire.

Haying of a nonnative cool season field is an effective prepatory step prior to spraying the field 

with herbicide to kill all existing vegetation. Removal of the heavy grass overstory through 

haying allows the chemical to be more effective at treating the target plants. Thorough removal 

of the unwanted grasses ensures greater success of the planted native grasses for both 

interseeding or plowing the soil prior to seeding. Haying is also effective at preparing WPAs for 

wetland restoration activities. The haying can be used to remove the tall vegetation and 

facilitate the construction of dikes, water control structures, and rerouting drainage tile. Finally, 

haying can be used to establish firebreaks that facilitate safe prescribed fire. Strategically 

placed grass strips are hayed in early fall, so the vegetation green-ups earlier in the spring with 

no dead overstory biomass. Firebreaks have also been developed on WPAs and hayed 

annually to create defensible space for houses and other Wildland Urban Interface structures. 

Haying of these firebreaks creates a green space between neighboring houses and dense grass 

fuels.

Why is this use being proposed?

District management tool.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Planning for this use would not require any additional resources and would be a normal part of 

grassland management. Staff time will be need to complete the hay bid process, develop public 

notices, and issue special use permits and bills for collection. 

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

213

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Haying will result in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident and 

migratory wildlife that use WPAs. Short-term impacts will include disturbance and displacement 

typical of any noisy heavy equipment operation. Cutting and removal of standing grasses will 

also result in short-term loss of habitat for those species requiring tall grasses for feeding and 

perching (i.e., Bobolink and Dickcissel). Long-term benefits will result as increased vigor of 

regrown grasses and establishment of highly desirable native tallgrass species improves 

conditions for those same species affected by the short-term negative impacts. Longer-term 

negative impacts may occur to resident wildlife species such as pheasant that would lose 

overwintering habitat in the hayed areas. However, strict time constraints placed on this use will 

limit anticipated impacts to these relatively minor areas.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Haying will only be allowed after July 15 to minimize disturbance to nesting migratory 

birds. In normal years, most birds are off the nest by this date.

2. Bales must be removed from the WPA within two days of baling.

3. Windrowed grass left lying to dry prior to baling must be raked and moved every two 

days if left on newly seeded native grass and under no circumstances should remain on 

the ground more than six days prior to baling.

Justification: 

Haying will not materially interfere with waterfowl production if completed within the necessary 

stipulations. Use of haying, as a management tool can be a valuable technique for providing 

long-term habitat improvements to grassland that otherwise, would degrade through natural 

succession or dominance of non-native plants. Without this tool, the areas would suffer 

encroachment of undesirable woody species such as box elder or ash or would remain in 

unwanted non-native cool season grasses such as brome. Use of the areas by waterfowl or 

grassland-dependent species such as Bobolink, Dickcissel, or Grasshopper Sparrow would 

slowly decline in the absence of haying or other similar management.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

214

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

215

Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

A process designed to teach citizens and visitors the history and importance of conservation 

and the biological and the scientific knowledge of the Nation’s natural resources. Environmental 

education within the Refuge System incorporates on-site, off-site, and distance learning 

materials, activities, programs, and products that address the audience’s course of study, 

district purpose(s), physical attributes, ecosystem dynamics, conservation strategies, and the 

Refuge System mission. Programs across the district will include interpretation of wetland, 

tallgrass prairie resources, migratory birds, resident wildlife, and water quality. FWS staff or 

partner organizations including Iowa Department of Natural Resources, County Conservation 

Boards (CCBs), Friends organizations, colleges, and 4-H and scouting groups could conduct 

environmental education activities in the district. 

Partner colleges and universities may use Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) to observe, and 

study prairie seeding and restoration efforts. Other academic efforts like star observation by 

school classes and groups may take place in parking areas and access points on WPAs in the 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

216

district. Management of this use will be through a signed special use permit issued by the 

district manager or a similar agreement with the Iowa DNR.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Proposed new use.

Is the use a priority public use?

Yes.

Where would the use be conducted?

Across the district, except in prohibited areas.

When would the use be conducted?

Activities may be authorized throughout the year, but participants will be encouraged to abstain 

from activities during the primary waterfowl-nesting season (April through July). 

How would the use be conducted?

Access for this use will be mainly by foot but may include snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, 

and canoe/kayak (boating). 

Why is this use being proposed?

Priority public use and public request.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Most of the district is managed by Iowa DNR biologists through a Memorandum of 

Understanding. Limited staff and funds are available to conduct and enhance environmental 

education opportunities on the WMD; however, partnering with neighboring CCBs and schools 

has proven to be a cost effective solution to staffing for this use. Staff time to develop and issue 

special use permits will be necessary for this use along with monitoring and working with 

partners on developing a message for the use. Some structures, boundary and regulatory 

signs, parking lots, and other minor facilities are currently on WPAs and will facilitate 

environmental education without any further costs. 

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes, if utilize partners.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Overall, the impacts to WPAs and their associated wildlife populations from environmental 

education uses will be minimal. There will be temporary disturbance to waterfowl and other 

wildlife, but it will not likely interfere with waterfowl production. Special use permits for this use 

will be limited to times and locations that will have the least impact during pair bonding, nesting,

and brood rearing of waterfowl. Group sizes will be limited to lessen possible impacts to 

waterfowl and WPA purpose. Vehicles and school busses will be limited to parking areas and 

service roads to minimize disturbance to vegetation and wildlife. If auto tour roads are proposed 

to facilitate this use, they will be designed to minimize disturbance to waterfowl during the spring 

breeding/nesting season. 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

217

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges. “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This 

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

WPAs: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and 

Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Environmental education may be authorized at various times of the year; however,

partners are encouraged to avoid the primary nesting period (April through July).

2. Travel off designated routes and parking areas is prohibited, except as stipulated in a 

special use permit.

3. All applicable federal, state, and special district regulations will apply. 

Justification: 

This use is a wildlife-dependent priority public use and will not diminish the primary purposes of 

the district, which is to serve as production areas for waterfowl and to provide habitat for 

migratory birds. This use will meet the mission of the Refuge System by furthering 

understanding and knowledge of the Nation’s migratory bird status, needs, and conservation 

efforts. Use of WPAs for environmental education will increase the public’s appreciation for 

conservation areas and local efforts, along with providing local schools and communities a look 

into the natural wildlife heritage of this area prior to settlement.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

218

Compatibility Determination

Use: Food Plot Cultivation for Wildlife

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Establishment of wildlife food plots on Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) throughout the Iowa 

Wetland Management District to provide important food and cover resources in harsh winter 

conditions. The vast majority of WPAs are managed by the Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Food plots are addressed in 

the MOU which authorizes the Iowa DNR to establish and maintain food plots at levels identified 

in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Habitat Management Plan (to be written), and 

individual unit plan. 

Food plots are small agriculture fields typically ranging in size from three to 10 acres consisting 

mainly of corn, soybeans, sunflowers, wheat, barley, oats, rye, buckwheat, millet, and sorghum. 

Placement and movement of individual food plots within a WPA will vary based on factors such 

as food plot availability on neighboring properties, best conservation practices, shape and 

arrangement of other habitat types within a WPA, invasive species control, neighboring crop 

damage complaints, and wildlife disturbance factors. Establishment of food plots will provide 

winter cover and food resources to resident wildlife during harsh weather conditions. 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

219

Food plots are not a priority public use as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. Food plots are a nonessential but helpful tool to facilitate other 

priority public uses including hunting, wildlife observation, and photography. Food plots may 

also be helpful in reaching goals outlined in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(NAWMP) of growing hunters and other outdoor enthusiast groups to conserve and protect 

wetland areas. These plots may help provide desirable densities of wildlife for public viewing, 

hunting and photography.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Existing use.

Is the use a priority public use?

No.

Where would the use be conducted?

Select WPA tracts within the Iowa WMD that have been identified as a strategic location for a 

food plot. 

When would the use be conducted?

Crops will typically be planted in spring and may be harvested in early spring the following year. 

How would the use be conducted?

Food plots are generally planted and maintained by private individuals (cooperative farmers), 

other agencies (Iowa DNR) or sporting clubs. Cropping activities are controlled through an 

agricultural agreement between the cooperator and the Iowa DNR; however, the Service 

provides guidelines such as pesticide use.

Why is this use being proposed?

Wildlife management tool for the district.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

The staff time required for this use is already committed through partnership efforts with Iowa

DNR and the MOU. The agriculture program in the district is the responsibility of the Iowa DNR. 

Service staff time will only include planning efforts to evaluate the need for food plots on newly 

acquired properties and reviewing management plans for food plot use. Service staff will be 

needed within the first year of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan implementation to review 

food plot locations in the district, along with preparing a Geographic Information System (GIS)

map layer with food plot locations. On years following this evaluation, staff time will be required 

to update the GIS layers annually. Currently staff time is available and committed for this use. 

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

220

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

The proposed use will positively affect wintering Ring-necked Pheasants by providing reliable 

food resources near high quality cover, thus reducing exposure to predators and harsh weather 

conditions. Food plots also make high-energy grains available to waterfowl, Mourning Doves,

and other migratory birds during spring and fall migration. The borders of food plots often 

contain annual forbs, which provide forage for a variety of sparrows and other songbirds. Some 

species of wildlife, such as white-tailed deer, will benefit from the type of habitat produced by 

the creation of a food plot. 

Food plots help facilitate priority public uses that engage the public with wildlife such as hunting, 

wildlife observation, and photography. Food plots can be used to divert foraging white-tailed 

deer from adjacent cropland, consequently reducing conflicts with neighboring farmers. Good 

neighbors and an engaged public provide positive long-term support for the conservation of 

waterfowl and other migratory birds, as well as their habitats.

Minimal negative impacts are anticipated, because food plots will typically be smaller than10 

acres in size. In addition, food plots will be limited to three percent or less of district uplands. 

Food plots will reduce the available nesting cover for waterfowl, migratory birds, and other 

wildlife. Grassland bird research suggests that birds will utilize crop fields for nesting; however, 

the disturbance common with farming practices may be detrimental to nest success (Warner 

1994 and Best, 1986). Many grassland nesting birds and all upland nesting waterfowl species 

have better nesting success in larger contiguous blocks of grassland habitat (Winter and 

Faaborg, 1999 and Winter et al., 2000). Careful placement of food plots can lessen the impacts 

of edge and the fragmentation of habitat.

Impacts to waterfowl may be lessened by placing food plots strategically in the best locations for 

critical resident wildlife needs. The public uses associated with food plots may increase wildlife 

disturbance somewhat. However, the beneficial aspects of food plots for these uses are 

typically realized outside of the breeding season, and food plots can be used to concentrate 

these uses to areas where the associated disturbance is less detrimental (Korschgen and 

Dahlgren, 1992). Since WPAs are open to hunting, any increases in the white-tailed deer 

population related to food plots will be controlled. Soils will be impacted through the placement 

and management of food plots. Farming practices that disturb the soil by tilling create the 

potential for soil erosion. Chemical usage on food plots could potentially have negative effects 

on adjacent waters, vegetation, and associated wildlife. Food plot farming practices will use 

best management practices to lessen the effects of soil erosion and chemical usage. The 

stipulations listed later in this document will address the criteria needed for food plot placement

and management in the district. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

221

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. No greater than three percent of the Iowa WMD uplands may be in food plots at any one 

time. 

2. Food plot species will be limited to corn, soybeans, milo, sunflowers, wheat, barley, oats, 

rye, buckwheat, millet, and sorghum. The entire crop will remain standing through the 

winter. Manipulation of the crop such as mowing is not allowed. 

3. Food plot farming and maintenance will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 

U.S.C. 703–712 P.L. 105–312 and 50 CFR 20.11–21 and not constitute baiting. 

4. Crop seeds used in food plots will be from a non-genetically modified seed source.

5. Chemicals used on food plots must be approved through the pesticide use proposals. 

No insecticides will be allowed on food plots. 

6. New WPA acquisitions requesting food plot placement will need project leader approval. 

Justification: 

Food plot use in the Iowa WMD is a compatible practice when the above stipulations are in 

place. This use as proposed will not materially detract from the waterfowl and migratory bird 

purposes of the district. Allowing the use of food plots will assist the Iowa DNR in reaching their 

resident wildlife goals and provide the public with opportunities to recreate on district properties. 

Use of food plots may also grow the number of hunters that will support a goal of the NAWMP. 

An MOU between the Service and Iowa DNR establishes that food plots are an acceptable 

practice in the district. Any negative impacts to waterfowl will be lessened by following the 

stipulations and evaluating the effects of the program. 

The goals of the NAWMP focus on engaging people with nature and growing the number of 

hunters. Within Iowa, the Iowa DNR and the public generally view food plots as a positive 

practice providing excellent viewing and hunting opportunities. Allowing food plots on WPAs 

within the district, albeit limited, will assist the Iowa DNR (a key Service partner) in providing 

hunting opportunities that will in turn gain public support for waterfowl and wetland protection.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

222

Compatibility Determination

Use: Virtual or Waypoint Geocaching

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Geocaching is a game of adventure using handheld Geographic Positioning System (GPS) 

devices. The devices are used to locate caches of “prizes,” which are found using coordinate 

points only. Often a cache is a container filled with treasures and a cache log, among other 

things. “Cachers” obtain coordinates to a cache, use their handheld GPS to make their way to 

the cache, record their adventure, take a prize, and leave a prize. The placement of these 

caches, depending on the location, can require digging into the ground, moving rocks or 

vegetation, or other alterations to the area in order to somewhat hide the cache. 

An ideal alternative to the physical cache is a virtual cache, or waypoint cache. A waypoint 

cache uses existing landmarks, while the cache itself is held at a public use site. Cachers have 

to visit a starting landmark determined by given coordinates then follow somewhat of a 

scavenger hunt, going from landmark to landmark using clues or additional coordinate points 

until a final clue is given, leading the cachers to the public use site (e.g., office or visitor center). 

Cachers can then pick up their prize, leave a prize if they like, and write in the virtual cache log. 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

223

The challenge of a virtual cache can be just as great as, if not more than, that of looking for a 

physical cache and will not impact areas outside of normal public use locations.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Proposed new use.

Is the use a priority public use?

No.

Where would the use be conducted?

Near roadsides and parking areas where disturbance would be limited, under special use 

permit.

When would the use be conducted?

Outside the primary waterfowl nesting season (April through July).

How would the use be conducted?

To teach users about a geologic or biologic feature such as glaciated pothole wetlands or 

northern tallgrass prairie within the district. This type of geocaching would involve a teacher or 

professor using the geocache to teach an environmental principle. This use would be regulated 

by a special use permit issued by the district manager. 

Why is this use being proposed?

One public request for teaching the natural history of the area, in particular how glaciers shaped 

the landscape.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Resources needed for this use would include the time to write special use permits with 

parameters as well as to monitor the use. Some law enforcement efforts may be needed to 

address permit compliance and other non-permitted geocaches (with physical digging or 

caching). However, current staff and budget would not preclude this use.

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Use of the district for virtual geocaching will benefit fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their 

habitats, because it will introduce a different audience to the Refuge System and its purpose. 

Geocachers, as a community, are warned against establishing caches, physical or virtual, on 

federal public lands without permission of the land manager. However, it can be anticipated that 

un-permitted caches may currently be on district property, and actual caches in the ground or 

hidden on site may occur. This unpermitted activity will cause disturbance to the soil and 

surrounding vegetation. The use of geocaches as an environmental education tool, with virtual 

or waypoint caches may cause temporary disturbance to nesting waterfowl; however, it is shortterm and is not anticipated to negatively impact the purpose of the district. This type of 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

224

geocaching will assist the district with providing the public a message about the natural heritage 

of the Iowa landscape and how the Service plays a role in restoring this landscape. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges. “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This 

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

Waterfowl Production Areas: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh 

(Worth County), and Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Special use permits are required for all geocache sites.

2. Sites permitted will be near roadsides and parking areas where disturbance will be 

limited.

3. Geocaching activities should avoid waterfowl nesting periods.

4. Geocache sites will be waypoint of virtual only, no physical cache is allowed. 

Justification: 

Waypoint and virtual geocaching use in the district is a unique opportunity to use technology to 

help spread a conservation message. This use, if managed by the above stipulations, will only 

cause temporary and short-term disturbance to waterfowl production. Waypoint and virtual 

geocaching will enhance the wildlife-dependent priority public uses by exposing a new user 

group to the district’s landscapes and wildlife. Geocaching will assist in meeting the district’s 

goal of a unified conservation message and will connect more youth with the outdoors.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

225

Compatibility Determination

Use: Hunting in Accordance with State Regulations (includes motorboat use)

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Shooting migratory game birds, upland game birds and mammals, and big game on Waterfowl 

Production Areas (WPAs) throughout the district in accordance with state seasons and 

governed by both federal and state regulations. Hunting on WPAs may be suspended due to 

unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. Hunting 

will facilitate four other priority public uses: wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Existing use.

Is the use a priority public use?

Yes.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

226

Where would the use be conducted?

On all open WPAs; see Determination section below.

When would the use be conducted?

The majority of the use occurs in the fall, from mid-September through the end of December. 

Spring turkey hunting occurs on a few WPAs with a state season running from early April to the 

end of May. 

How would the use be conducted?

This use must occur In accordance with state regulations. Some WPAs have trails to them from 

public roads to gain access. Most WPAs have parking areas, usually less than one acre in size,

to keep vehicles and traffic off public roads. The State of Iowa uses hunting as a management 

tool through appropriate season setting and harvest objectives. This tool allows for wildlifedependent public recreation and supports the harvest of surplus wildlife. 

Why is this use being proposed?

Regulation, wildlife management tool, priority public use, and public request.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Few additional fiscal resources are necessary to conduct this use. WPAs are open by statue to 

hunting, fishing, and trapping and have provided such opportunities since acquired. As a result, 

some infrastructure is already in place to facilitate this use. The majority of the WPAs in the 

district are managed cooperatively through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Iowa

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which includes some law enforcement responsibilities. 

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes, by partnering with the Iowa DNR staff of conservation officers and local wildlife biologists. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Although hunting causes mortality and temporary disturbance to migratory birds and other 

wildlife, harvesting populations to the carrying capacity of existing habitat insures long-term 

health and survival for the species and its habitat. Most hunting occurs well after the breeding 

season for migratory birds and other wildlife so there would be little or no disturbance to the 

district’s central purpose. Since most access for hunting occurs by foot traffic, some 

disturbance is anticipated; however, it would be temporary. Hunting on WPAs will assist in 

promoting an understanding and appreciation of wetland and prairie natural resources as well 

as management of land administered by the Refuge System. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

227

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges. “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

WPAs: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and 

Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Travel in, or use of, any motorized or other vehicle is prohibited except by special use 

permit. Parking in designated areas or on public roads is permissible for access, but use 

of horses is not permissible.

2. Personal property may not be left unattended or abandoned.

3. Hunting tree stands that are not removed daily must have the hunter’s name or Iowa 

hunting license number clearly marked on the stand. Tree stand installation and 

removal will comply with regulations for state Wildlife Management Areas. Current 

regulations: seven days prior to hunting season and removal seven days after hunting 

season.

4. All watercraft are restricted to no larger than 15 horsepower motors.

5. All applicable federal, state, and special district regulations apply. 

Justification: 

WPAs are open to hunting of migratory game birds, upland game, and big game by regulation

and in accordance with state law. Hunting will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

purposes for which these units were established. As a management tool, hunting can be used 

to ensure healthy wildlife populations and sustainable habitat. Hunting is a priority wildlifedependent public use and will facilitate four other priority public uses: wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The use of hunting will assist 

the district in meeting the mission of the Refuge System by managing the Nation’s wildlife and 

plant resources for the benefit of the American public.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

228

Compatibility Determination

Use: Interpretation

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Interpretation is a communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections 

between the audience and the resource. Programs may include activities, talks, publications, 

audio-visual media, signs, and exhibits that convey key natural and cultural resource messages 

to visitors. Programs across the district will include interpretation of wetland, tallgrass prairie 

resources, migratory birds, resident wildlife, and water quality. Service staff or partner 

organizations including Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), County Conservation 

Boards (CCBs), Friends organizations, colleges, and 4-H and scouting groups could conduct 

environmental education activities in the district. 

Partner colleges and universities may use Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) to observe, and 

study prairie seeding and restoration efforts. Management of this use will be through a signed 

special use permit issued by the district manager or a similar agreement with the Iowa DNR.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

229

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Proposed new use.

Is the use a priority public use?

Yes.

Where would the use be conducted?

Across the district, except in prohibited areas.

When would the use be conducted?

Activities may be authorized throughout the year, but participants will be encouraged to abstain 

from activities during the primary waterfowl-nesting season (April through July).

How would the use be conducted?

Access for this use will be mainly by foot but may include snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, 

and canoe/kayak (boating).

Why is this use being proposed?

Priority public use and public request.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Most of the district is managed by Iowa DNR biologists through a Memorandum of 

Understanding. Limited staff and funds are available to conduct and enhance interpretation 

opportunities on the WMD; however, partnering with neighboring CCBs and schools has proven 

to be a cost effective solution to staffing for this use. Staff time to develop and issue special use 

permits will be necessary for this use along with monitoring and working with partners on 

developing a message for the use. Some structures, boundary and regulatory signs, parking 

lots, and other minor facilities are currently on WPAs and will facilitate interpretation without any 

further costs. 

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes, if utilize partners.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Overall, the impacts to WPAs and their associated wildlife populations from interpretation will be 

minimal. There will be temporary disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife, but it will not likely 

interfere with waterfowl production. Special use permits for this use will be limited to times and 

locations that will have the least impact during pair bonding, nesting, and brood rearing of 

waterfowl. Group sizes will be limited to lessen possible impacts to waterfowl and WPA 

purpose. Vehicles and school busses will be limited to parking areas and service roads to 

minimize disturbance to vegetation and wildlife. If auto tour roads are proposed to facilitate this 

use, they will be designed to minimize disturbance to waterfowl during the spring 

breeding/nesting season. 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

230

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges. “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

WPAs: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and 

Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Interpretation may be authorized at various times of the year; however, partners are 

encouraged to avoid the primary nesting period (April through July).

2. Travel off designated routes and parking areas is prohibited, except as stipulated in a 

special use permit.

3. All applicable federal, state, and special district regulations will apply. 

Justification: 

This use is a wildlife-dependent priority public use and will not diminish the primary purposes of 

the district, which is to serve as production areas for waterfowl and to provide habitat for 

migratory birds. This use will meet the mission of the Refuge System by furthering 

understanding and knowledge of the Nation’s migratory bird status, needs, and conservation 

efforts. Use of WPAs for interpretation will increase the public’s appreciation for conservation 

areas and local efforts, along with providing local schools and communities a look into the 

natural wildlife heritage of this area prior to settlement.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

231

Compatibility Determination

Use: Prescribed Livestock Grazing

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Limited removal of grass and forb vegetation by domestic livestock, chiefly cattle, but potentially 

including other domestic livestock to improve grassland vigor and health. Prescribed controlled 

grazing is recognized as a valuable tool to remove standing vegetation, reduce vegetative litter, 

and suppress undesirable woody vegetation. 

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Proposed new use.

Is the use a priority public use?

No.

Where would the use be conducted?

Across the district, as necessary for management .
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

232

When would the use be conducted?

Grazing may take place anytime from April through November. Most commonly, the grazing will 

be of high intensity and short-term duration, for example, 200 yearlings for one month on 40 

acres. There will be three typical seasons of use: 

1. Early spring (mid-April to late May) on native prairie or seeded native grasses designed 

to reduce the vigor of exotic species and increase the vigor of native species.

2. Summer grazing (July 15 to September 1) may be used, especially on non-native 

grasslands, to stimulate the grassland after the peak nesting season yet allow vegetative 

regrowth in the fall.

3. Fall grazing (September 1 to October 31) will be designed to have effects similar to 

spring grazing, mostly on native prairie remnants or fields seeded with native tallgrass 

prairie species.

How would the use be conducted?

Fencing and control of livestock will be the responsibility of the cooperating livestock producer. 

Market rate grazing fees will be required of permittees. Market grazing fees will include typical 

market deductions for unusual fencing requirements, required cattle movement, or special 

watering needs. Rates will be assessed in Animal Unit Months (AUM). One AUM is equal to 

one adult cow for one month (thirty days). One cow/calf pair is equal to 1.20 AUM. Market 

rates will be determined annually in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture based 

on prevailing local average grazing rates.

Frequency of grazing on any unit will be based on site-specific plans and availability of other 

management tools such as prescribed fire and haying. Typically, a unit would be grazed for 

either one or two years and then would not be grazed for several years, allowing a period of 

rest. Cooperating livestock producers will be selected by closed bid process, drawing, or the 

priority system outlined in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manual 6 RM 9 (1982). 

Why is this use being proposed?

District management tool.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Developing grazing agreements and monitoring compliance and biological effects will require 

some Service resources. Most grazing costs, such as fencing, monitoring herd health, and so 

on, are assumed by the permittee. Station resources will be used to acquire some unit 

infrastructure such as boundary fencing and electrical fencing. Some alternative grassland 

management tools such as prescribed burning, mowing, or haying would be required if grazing 

is not utilized. Haying has comparable costs to controlled grazing since it also requires 

administering special use permits. Mowing is more expensive since all costs are assumed by 

the agency. Prescribed burning is an effective grassland management tool, but staff limitations 

prevent burning as many acres as is desirable each year. In addition, there is an ecological 

benefit to rotating grassland management techniques and seasons, such as grazing one year 

and burning another.

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

233

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Grazing by domestic livestock has severe short-term effects on grassland communities. Many of 

these effects are desirable and are designed to maintain and improve healthy grassland 

communities. Some of these effects include removing standing vegetation, trampling of other 

vegetation, and reducing populations of pioneering woody plants. Other effects of grazing are 

more harmful but generally short-lived.

Grazing in the spring can cause direct loss of grassland bird nests due to trampling and loss of 

standing vegetation. Grazing at any time of year creates an aesthetic issue of concern; seeing 

public land being grazed by domestic livestock reduces the appeal of the visit for some visitors. 

Fortunately, controlled grazing is typically of short duration and does not occur annually on any 

unit. Grazing livestock can create minor direct disturbance of wildlife, but any harm should be 

negligible. There is a slight potential for conflict between members of the public and livestock or 

the permittee, particularly in the autumn when most Waterfowl Production Areas receive their 

heaviest use. All permittees will be advised that the unit is open to the public for hunting and 

other recreation. There is a very slight risk of injury to the public caused by livestock. Most 

visitors who are uncomfortable using property containing livestock are likely to select another 

unit or another time of year for their visit.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Grazing will not occur more frequently than three out of every five years without the 

preparation of a site-specific compatibility determination.

2. No insecticides, including insecticidal dusting bags, will be used on WPAs.

3. Control and confinement of the livestock will be the responsibility of the permittee.

Justification: 

Prescribed controlled grazing by domestic livestock will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the purposes for which the units were established. Limited livestock grazing creates 

temporary disturbances to vegetation of which many are desirable for grassland management. 

Grazing produces an undesirable but short-term impact to grassland bird nesting and site 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

234

aesthetics. Prescribed controlled grazing is an alternative management tool that can be used to 

replace or complement prescribed burning, mowing, or haying on grasslands. Without 

occasional disturbance caused by mowing, haying, burning, or grazing, the health of the 

grassland community would decline, as would the potential for waterfowl production.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

235

Compatibility Determination

Use: Photography (includes creative nature writing and art)

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Year round general public access to Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) to photograph, write 

creatively about, or draw/paint nature and its associated flora and fauna. Access for 

photography, creative nature writing and art will allow for public enjoyment of an array of wildlife 

and plant species including waterfowl, grassland birds, resident mammals, tallgrass prairie, and 

wetland plants. WPAs provide the public with a view into the past of landscapes that early Iowa 

pioneers and Native Americans saw.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Proposed new use.

Is the use a priority public use?

Yes.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

236

Where would the use be conducted?

All open WPAs. Allowable access to the WPAs includes hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country 

skiing, and non-motorized boating. Limited motorized and bicycle access for this use will be 

allowed in designated parking areas, and open designated routes of travel. Entry on all or 

portions of WPAs may be suspended, by posting, upon occasion of unusual or critical conditions 

affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety. 

When would the use be conducted?

Year round. The frequency is expected to be irregular, the large size of the district is expected 

to spread out users, so the intensity of use is expected to be minor as well.

How would the use be conducted?

Typically individuals or small groups on foot either moving through a WPA or sitting at a location 

of interest for a longer period to capture the flora, fauna, or scenery. Artist’s easels, camera 

tripods, cameras, sketchpads, notebooks, or other small and minor equipment may be used to 

facilitate the use. 

Why is this use being proposed?

Priority public use and public request.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Photography, creative nature writing, and art require little to no additional resources. Since 

WPAs have been open by regulation to hunting, fishing, and trapping, infrastructure is in place 

for public use. Parking areas and regulatory signs are present at most WPAs. The Iowa

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) assumes most management and maintenance 

responsibilities of the WPAs in the district though a Memorandum of Understanding. Iowa DNR 

conservation officers provide the primary enforcement of the public use regulations. Updated 

brochures would need to be developed for each of the Iowa DNR’s six geographic units within 

the WMD. The Service also provides some law enforcement support; however, it is lacking a 

dedicated officer to the WMD. Assistance from the zone law enforcement officer in Prairie City, 

Iowa has been utilized in the past. It is not anticipated that this use will entail any greater 

enforcement issues than what currently exist.

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Photography, creative nature writing, and art pose minimal impact on the purpose for which 

WPAs were established. Access is typically by individual or small groups on foot. Damage to 

habitat by foot traffic is minimal and temporary. There may be some temporary disturbance to 

wildlife due to human activity on the ground. The most likely impact to breeding waterfowl 

would be during the spring and early summer nesting and brood rearing period; however, the 

expected sporadic and limited use by the public should not create unreasonable impacts. 

Disturbance to wildlife, such as flushing a nesting bird, is inherent to these activities; however,

the disturbance is temporary and generally not malicious. Many WPAs are located in sparsely 

populated rural areas, compared to a few that are located near highly populated areas. 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

237

Monitoring of this use will be needed to insure anticipated impacts are not exceeded. Winter 

activities pose no impacts to nesting waterfowl and little impact to vegetation. The winter 

disturbance to resident wildlife would be temporary and minor.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges. “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

WPAs: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and 

Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Certain modes of access such as motorized vehicles and bicycles are limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking lots. All watercraft are restricted to no larger 

than 15 horsepower motors.

2. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

3. No photo or viewing blinds may be left overnight.

4. Harassment of wildlife including hazing and calling at birds and other wildlife is 

prohibited.

5. All applicable federal, state, and special district regulations apply. 

Justification: 

Photography, creative nature writing, and art will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

district purposes, including waterfowl production. The level of use for photography, creative 

writing, and art is moderate on most WPAs. The associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary 

and minor. Photography is a priority public use and inspires visitors with the joys of abundant 

wildlife and wild lands. These uses also help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. Those 

WPAs with increased activities generally have facilities present to accommodate the public use 

with minor impacts to the habitat.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

238

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

239

Compatibility Determination

Use: Recreational Fishing in Accordance with State Regulations (includes motorboat use)

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Recreational fishing on Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) throughout the district in 

accordance with State of Iowa regulations. Fishing on WPAs may be suspended due to 

unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, or wildlife populations. Fishing 

will facilitate four other priority public uses: wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Existing use.

Is the use a priority public use?

Yes.

Where would the use be conducted?

Although the entire wetland acreage is open to recreational fishing only about one percent of the 

wetlands provide water deep enough to support viable fisheries. The few WPAs with viable 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

240

fisheries are generally connected to adjacent streams or lakes, located off Service property, and 

aquatic species move between these bodies of water. 

When would the use be conducted?

Year round. The frequency is expected to be irregular, the large size of the district is expected 

to spread out users, so the intensity of use is expected to be minor as well.

How would the use be conducted?

The State of Iowa uses recreational fishing to help maintain healthy populations of these 

species. Some WPAs have trails necessary to gain access from public roads and for safety 

reasons in high traffic areas; parking lots, usually less than one acre in size, may exist. 

Why is this use being proposed?

Priority public use, regulation, and fish management.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Few additional fiscal resources are necessary to conduct this use. WPAs are open by statue to 

hunting, fishing, and trapping and have provided such opportunities since acquired. As a result, 

some infrastructure, such as parking lots, signs, etc., is already in place to facilitate this use. 

The majority of the WPAs in the district are managed cooperatively through a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which includes some law 

enforcement and facility management responsibilities. Currently, Iowa DNR staff of 

conservation officers and local wildlife biologist are adequate to support this public use;

however, some staff time will be needed to develop and maintain a brochure for fishing in the 

district.

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Recreational fishing activities may cause brief disturbance to migratory birds and other wildlife 

using WPAs, which may temporarily displace individual animals to other parts of the WPA. 

However, this brief disturbance will be limited in scope due to the small number of WPAs with 

viable fisheries, limited access to fishing (mainly by foot travel), and lack of boat launching 

facilities. Recreational fishing at anticipated levels and on small areas of relatively few WPAs 

should not materially interfere with the district’s purpose. Recreational fishing will promote 

understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their management on all land included 

in the Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

241

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges. “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

WPAs: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and 

Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Travel off designated routes and parking areas is prohibited, except as stipulated in a 

special use permit; travel by horse is not permissible. 

2. All watercraft are restricted to no larger than 15 horsepower motors.

3. All applicable federal, state, and special district regulations apply. 

Justification: 

WPAs are open to fishing by regulation. Fishing will not materially interfere with or detract from 

the purposes for which these units were established. Fishing is a priority public use and will 

facilitate four other priority public uses: wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. The use of fishing will assist in meeting the mission of the Refuge 

System by facilitating the management of the Nation's wildlife and plant resources for the 

benefit of the American public.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

242

Compatibility Determination

Use: Recreational Trapping in Accordance with State Regulations (includes motorboat use)

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Trapping of furbearers is a consumptive public use of Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) in 

the Iowa WMD. Furbearer trapping in the State of Iowa continues to be a popular public use but 

tends to fluctuate with the fur prices. WPAs are open to trapping as authorized by the Code of 

Federal Regulations which states, “Lands acquired as ‘waterfowl production areas’ shall be 

open to public trapping without federal permit . . . ” (50 CFR Ch. 1 (10-1-12 Edition) Part 31, 

Subpart B, Section 31.16). Trappers are required to comply with Iowa State trapping laws and 

regulations. A copy of the current Iowa Trapping Regulations may be viewed at 

www.iowadnr.gov. Furbearer trapping for most species occurs from early November through 

the end of January, with the exception of spring beaver trapping, which is open through midApril. According to the Iowa DNR’s 2012 Furbearers Report, the most numerous mammal 

species trapped in Iowa is the raccoon with 236,943 harvested during the 2010–2011 season. 

The second most popular furbearer trapped in Iowa is the muskrat with a total 2010–2011 

season harvest of 98,079 (Iowa Department of Natural Resources [DNR], 2012). Both of these 

species occur on most WPAs within the district. 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

243

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Existing use.

Is the use a priority public use?

No.

Where would the use be conducted?

All open WPAs; the majority of the trapping activity on WPAs concentrates around wetland 

areas. 

When would the use be conducted?

Trapping seasons for most of the Iowa furbearers run from November through the end of 

January. Beaver trapping season runs from November through the middle of April most years. 

With the exception of the early spring beaver trapping, most of the trapping use occurs during 

the late fall and winter months. Trap tending typically occurs during daylight hours; however, 

state regulations do not restrict trap-tending times. 

How would the use be conducted?

Trappers may use leg hold traps, snares, “body gripping Conibear” style, and live box traps. 

Iowa DNR sets regulations for trap dimensions and set locations for the various permitted trap 

types These regulations are contained in Iowa Code 481a and 483a and are available in the 

Iowa Hunting and Trapping Regulations guide at www.iowadnr.gov. Access for trappers using 

WPAs is primarily by foot; however, they also may use snowshoes or cross-country skis. Some 

WPAs contain large enough waterways to allow use of both motorized and non-motorized boat 

use for trapping. Travel onto WPAs using wheeled motorized vehicles such as ATVs, trucks

and passenger vehicles, and motorcycles is restricted to parking areas and designated open 

roads. The majority of trappers will access the WPAs by foot and park their vehicles in the 

parking areas.

Why is this use being proposed?

Regulation and wildlife management.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Few additional fiscal resources are necessary to conduct this use. WPAs are open by statue to 

hunting, fishing, and trapping and have provided such opportunities since acquired. As a result, 

some infrastructure is already in place to facilitate this use. The majority of the WPAs in the 

district are managed cooperatively through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Iowa

DNR, which includes some law enforcement responsibilities. Currently, the Iowa DNR staff of 

conservation officers is adequate to support this public use.

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

244

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Recreational trapping can potentially affect the waterfowl production of WPAs both directly and 

indirectly. Direct impacts may include such effects as killing or displacing of waterfowl during 

the pair bonding/nesting season or destruction of nest by trampling. Indirect impacts may 

include catch of target and not-target species that are predators on waterfowl and/or nests or 

removal of species that induce habitat change (i.e., beaver and muskrat). Impacts, either direct 

or indirect, may be positive, neutral, or negative. 

With the exception of beaver season (November to April 15), all the other trapping seasons are 

during periods that will not negatively affect waterfowl production. Beaver trappers will be 

checking traps daily during the pair bonding and early nest cycle. These disturbances are 

temporary and generally of short duration. Most of the impacts from this use will be during the 

fall migration time. The greatest impact times will be during the trap-setting phase; however, 

this is still short and temporary. Trap line checks are required daily and represent a frequent but 

short-lived disturbance. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges. “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

WPAs: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and 

Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Travel in or use of any motorized or other vehicle is prohibited except by special use 

permit. Parking in designated areas or on public roads is permissible for access, but use 

of horses is not permissible.

2. Traps must be attended and tagged by the owner in accordance with State of Iowa 

trapping regulations. Traps and personal property may not be left unattended or 

abandoned.

3. All watercraft are restricted to no larger than 15 horsepower motors.
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

245

4. All applicable federal, state, and special district regulations apply. 

Justification: 

Most trapping use occurs outside the time for pair bonding, nesting, and brood rearing 

(waterfowl production), so this use will have little to no direct impact on waterfowl production. 

Spring beaver trapping is the one exception. Its impact, however, would be temporary and 

isolated due to the short duration of the visits, small number of waterfowl involved, and the 

limited geographic area impacted by the presence of one or a few individuals. These impacts 

on waterfowl production and the WMD mission are negligible. 

Most species of interest to trappers and common “non-target” catches such as skunks and freeranging house cats are predators on waterfowl at some point in the production cycle. 

Management of red fox, raccoon, mink, opossum, and skunk populations through a regulated 

trapping program is, at worst, a neutral impact and likely a positive. Due to edge effects and 

concentrations of nesting waterfowl, the impacts of predator management are likely inversely 

related to WPA size. The average size of WPAs in the Iowa WMD is 100 acres. In these small 

parcels, the effects of only a few individual predators can be highly significant on waterfowl 

production in the local area. Timing of removal of predators also affects the impact that this 

activity has on waterfowl production. Again, depending on the time of year, impacts on 

waterfowl production may be neutral or positive. The harvest through the trapping program of 

other species such as those permitted by state regulations (coyote, muskrat, badger, beaver, 

otter, and bobcat) that may or may not be predators of waterfowl is insignificant. 

Waterfowl production is also impacted by the natural habits of beaver and muskrat populations. 

Upon initial analysis, it is often thought that beaver and their wetland construction activities and 

muskrat with their propensity to maintain open water are beneficial to waterfowl production. In 

exceptionally large marshes and in pre-settlement times, this was likely the case. However, the 

landscape of the district has been so altered through agricultural conversion that few ecosystem 

functions remain intact. Current hydrologic function resembles very little of that from presettlement. Dikes, levees, roads, culverts, tile lines, pumps, and water control structures work 

to move and confine water with calculated purpose. Ramifications of disruption to this system 

can include private property damage, public safety hazards, disgruntled neighbors, and legal 

liability. As a result, the Service and Iowa DNR manage wetlands in WPAs through 

manipulating water levels, providing for the needs and stages of target waterfowl. Left 

unchecked, beaver activity results in disruption to the water flow when culverts and other water 

control structures are blocked. High muskrat populations are detrimental to levees and dikes as 

individuals burrow into these structures and compromise the structural integrity. Without the 

ability to control water levels, the waterfowl production purpose of the district would suffer, as 

would the Refuge System mission. 

A public trapping program facilitates management of beaver and muskrat populations at such 

levels that the many benefits created of these species are realized, yet the ability of the district

to manage water levels is not compromised. According to the Iowa DNR’s 2012 Furbearer’s 

Report for Iowa on a statewide level, beaver harvest has depended on the weather and 

conditions and fluctuating fur prices. Total Iowa beaver harvest during the 2010–2011 trapping 

season was 5,382 (Iowa DNR, 2012). Muskrat harvest in Iowa has also tends to fluctuate with 

fur prices and populations. 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

246

Overall trapping is a minor public use of WPAs but is an important management tool in localized 

areas. Trapping on WPAs will provide the public the opportunity to assist the WMD with 

furbearer management. Consistent with the mission for the Refuge, trapping on WPAs results 

in management of populations and is not a “control program” intending to eliminate components 

of the ecosystem for the benefit of others. Data from the Iowa DNR on trapping indicate that the 

current level of furbearer harvest is not resulting in harm to these populations. The public 

trapping program as managed by state regulations does not materially interfere with or detract 

from the Service’s ability to meet the district’s purpose of waterfowl production or the mission of 

the Refuge System.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

247

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation

Refuge/District Name: Iowa Wetland Management District

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp), March 16 1934, (16 U.S.C. 

§ 718–718h, 48 Stat. 452) as amended August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85–585; 72 Stat. 486) for 

acquisition of “Waterfowl Production Areas.”

Wetlands Loan Act, October 4, 1961, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715k–5, Stat. 813).

Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act are merged with Duck Stamp receipts in the 

fund and appropriated to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, February 18, 1929, (16 U.S.C. § 715, 715d–

715r).

Refuge/District Purposes: 

Iowa Wetland Management District was established in 1979:

“ . . . as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to . . . all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929] . . . except the inviolate sanctuary provisions . . . " 16 U.S.C. §

718(c) “ . . . for any other management purpose, for migratory birds." 16 U.S.C. § 715d

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Visitors observing wildlife. This can instill an appreciation for the value of and need for fish and 

wildlife habitat conservation. Access for wildlife observation will allow for public enjoyment of an 

array of wildlife and plant species including waterfowl, grassland birds, resident mammals, 

tallgrass prairie, and wetland plants. Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) provide the public 

with a view into the past of landscapes that early Iowa pioneers and Native Americans saw.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Proposed new use.

Is the use a priority public use?

Yes.

Where would the use be conducted?

All open WPAs, entry on all or portions of WPAs may be suspended, by posting, upon occasion 

of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

248

safety. Certain modes of transportation for wildlife viewing will be limited to designated roads, 

trials, and parking lots. 

When would the use be conducted?

Year round.

How would the use be conducted?

Allowable access to the WPAs includes hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and nonmotorized boating. Limited motorized and bicycle access for this use will be allowed in 

designated parking area, and open designated routes of travel. 

Why is this use being proposed?

Priority public use.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Wildlife observation requires little to no additional resources. Since WPAs have been open by 

regulation to hunting, fishing and trapping, infrastructure is in place for public use. Parking 

areas and regulatory signs are present at most WPAs. The Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) assumes most management and maintenance responsibilities of the WPAs in 

the district though a Memorandum of Understanding. Iowa DNR conservation officers provide 

the primary enforcement of the public use regulations. Updated brochures would need to be 

developed for each of the Iowa DNR’s six geographic units within the WMD. The Service also 

provides some law enforcement support; however, it is lacking a dedicated officer to the WMD. 

Assistance from the zone law enforcement officer in Prairie City, Iowa has been utilized in the 

past. It is not anticipated that this use will entail any greater enforcement issues than what 

currently exist.

Are existing district resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

How does the use affect district purposes, the Refuge System mission, and district goals

and/or objectives?

Wildlife observation poses minimal impact on the purpose for which WPAs were established. 

Access is typically by individual or small groups on foot. Damage to habitat by foot traffic is 

minimal and temporary. There may be some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human 

activity on the ground. The most likely impact to breeding waterfowl would be during the spring 

and early summer nesting and brood rearing period; however, the expected sporadic and limited 

use by the public should not create unreasonable impacts. Disturbance to wildlife, such as 

flushing a nesting bird, is inherent to these activities; however, the disturbance is temporary and 

generally not malicious. Many WPAs are located in sparsely populated rural areas, compared 

to a few that are located near highly populated areas. Monitoring of this use will be needed to 

insure anticipated impacts are not exceeded. Winter activities pose no impacts to nesting 

waterfowl and little impact to vegetation. The winter disturbance to resident wildlife would be 

temporary and minor. 

Public Review and Comment: 
Appendix G: Draft Compatibility Determinations

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

249

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Iowa WMD 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan from Monday, August 

19th, 2013 to Tuesday, September 17th, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final Iowa WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations*

*According to state regulations Iowa Code 52.1(3) Waterfowl refuges. “The following areas 

under the jurisdiction of the department of natural resources are established as waterfowl 

refuges where posted. It shall be unlawful to hunt ducks and geese on the following areas, 

where posted, at any time during the year. It shall be unlawful to trespass in any manner on the 

following areas, where posted, during the dates posted, both dates inclusive . . . “ This

compatibility determination does not apply to at least some portion of the following 

WPAs: Jemmerson Slough (Dickinson County), Elk Creek Marsh (Worth County), and 

Rice Lake (Winnebago and Worth Counties). 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Certain modes of access such as motorized vehicles and bicycles are limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking lots. Non-motorized boats are permitted with 

the exception of state designated waterfowl refuge sites (see above).

2. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

3. No photo or viewing blinds may be left overnight.

4. Harassment of wildlife including hazing and calling at birds and other wildlife is 

prohibited.

5. All applicable federal, state, and special district regulations apply.

Justification: 

Wildlife observation will not materially interfere with or detract from the district purposes, 

including waterfowl production. The level of use for wildlife observation is moderate on most 

WPAs. The associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary and minor. Wildlife observation is a 

priority public use and inspires visitors with the joys of abundant wildlife and wild lands. These 

uses also help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. Those WPAs with increased activities 

generally have facilities present to accommodate the public use with minor impacts to the 

habitat.

Signature: District Manager /<name>/ _ /_<date>_/_

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /<name>/ _/_ <date> _/__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix H: List of Preparers and Contributors

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

250

Appendix H: List of Preparers and Contributors

Preparers

The following individuals were members of the core planning team, instrumental in the 

development of this document, and/or made major contributions throughout the planning 

process.

Iowa Wetland Management District Staff

Tim Miller, Project Leader

Erich Gilbert, Deputy Project Leader 

Tom Skilling, Wildlife Biologist

Anne Szelag, Administrative Technician

AnnMarie Krmpotich, Wildlife Biologist (Partners Program)

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Mark Gulick, Northwest District Supervisor

Rick Trine, Central District Supervisor (retired during the planning process)

Jeff Joens, Central Office Executive Officer

Northwest District Biologists and Technicians

Central District Biologists and Technicians

FWS Branch of Conservation Planning Staff, Region 3 

Connie Rose, Biologist Planner

Gabe DeAlessio, GIS Specialist

Mark Hogeboom, Writer/Editor

Contributors

The following individuals also provided guidance, contributions, and support to the 

Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan:

FWS Regional Office Staff, Region 3

Matt Sprenger, Area 2 Refuge Program Supervisor (relocated during planning process)

Josh Eash, Regional Hydrologist 

Patricia Heglund, Regional Biologist 

James Myster, Regional Archaeologist
Appendix H: List of Preparers and Contributors

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

251

Maggie O’Connell, Chief, Visitor Services Branch

Rick Speer, Refuge Program Specialist 

Jim Leach, Area 3 Refuge Program Supervisor, and Jason Goldberg, Acting Area 2 Refuge 

Program Supervisor, provided comments during internal review. 

FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Staff

Doug Helmers, State Private Lands Coordinator, Iowa Private Lands Office

Academia

Steve Dinsmore, Professor, Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University

Susan Galatowitsch, Professor of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota (Twin Cities)

Daryl Smith, Director and Professor Tallgrass Prairie Center, University of Northern Iowa
Appendix I: Communications

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

252

Appendix I: Communications

In this appendix:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Tribes

Individuals

Media

Congressional Officials

Organizations

The following groups and individuals were contacted to solicit their involvement throughout the 

planning process:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Regional planning chiefs and other planners as requested

National planning coordinator

National Conservation Training Center librarian

Tribes

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota

Prairie Island Indian Community of Minnesota

Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa

Santee Sioux Nation

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe

Upper Sioux Community of Minnesota

Individuals

District cooperative farmers

Other general public as requested

Media

All Iowa and Minnesota media on file with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife were contacted at various 

times throughout the planning process. 
Appendix I: Communications

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

253

Congressional Officials

Kevin McCarthy Daniel Muhlbauer Jo Oldson Pat Ward

Helen Miller Daryl Beall John Kibbe Peter Cownie

Beth Wessel-Kroeschell Dave Deyoe John Wittneben Ralph Watts

Henry Rayhons David Tjepkes Josh Byrnes Rick Olson

Ako Abdul-Samad David Johnson Julian Garrett Robert Bacon

Amanda Ragan Dennis Black Kent Sorenson Royd Chambers

Annette Sweeney Dick Dearden Kevin Koester Ruth Ann Gaines

Bill Anderson Erik Helland Kim Pearson Scott Raecker

Bill Dix Gary Worthan Lance Horbach Sharon Steckman

Brad Zaun Herman Quirmbach Linda Upmemer Steve Sodders

Bruce Hunter Jack Hatch Lisa Heddens Steve Kettering

Chip Baltimore Jack Whitver Mark Smith Stewart Iverson

Chris Hagenow James 

VanEngelenhoven Mathew McCoy Tim Kapucian

Clel Baudler Janet Petersen Merlin Bartz Tom Shaw

Daniel Huseman Jeff Smith Nancy Boettger

Daniel Kelley Jerry Behn Pat Grassley

Organizations

Northwestern 

University -

Environmental 

Policy And 

Culture

Calhoun 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Floyd County 

Conservation 

Board (CCB)

Iowa Lakes 

Regional 

Water

Pocahontas 

County Board 

Of 

Supervisors

Marshall 

County Farm 

Service Agency

National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Association

Calhoun CCB Franklin County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Iowa Pork 

Producers

Pocahontas 

CCB

Algona Service 

Center

PEER Refuge 

Keeper

Carroll County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Franklin CCB Iowa Soybean 

Association

Polk County

Board Of 

Supervisors

Humboldt 

Service Center 

And Humboldt 

Soil and Water 

Conservation 

District (SWCD)
Appendix I: Communications

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

254

Defenders Of 

Wildlife

Carroll CCB Greene County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Iowa Turkey 

Federation

Polk CCB Kossuth County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Wilderness 

Watch

Center Lake 

Improvement 

& Preservation 

Association

Greene CCB Jasper County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Sac County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Cerro Gordo 

County Farm 

Service Agency

National 

Trappers 

Association, 

Inc.

Cerro Gordo 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Grundy County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Jasper CCB Sac CCB Adel Service 

Center And 

Dallas SWCD

The Wilderness 

Society

Cerro Gordo 

CCB

Grundy CCB Kossuth 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Spirit Lake 

Protective 

Association

Butler County 

Farm Service 

Agency

The Humane 

Society Of The 

United States

Cherokee 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Guthrie County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Kossuth CCB Story County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Northwood 

Service Center

National Wildlife 

Federation

Cherokee 

CCB

Guthrie CCB Marshall 

County Board

Of Supervisors

Story CCB Thompson 

Service Center 

And Winnebago 

SWCD

Sierra Club –

Midwest Office

Clay County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Hamilton 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Marshall CCB Webster 

County Board 

Of 

Supervisors

Iowa Native 

Plant Society

The 

Conservation 

Fund

Clay CCB Hamilton CCB Mitchell 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Webster CCB Wessling Ag. 

Inc.

Colleen 

Hovinga, 

Friends Of 

Union Slough 

NWR

Dallas County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Hancock 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Mitchell CCB Winnebago 

County Board 

Of 

Supervisors

Dallas County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Audubon 

Society Of The 

District Of 

Columbia

Dallas CCB Hancock CCB O’Brien 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Winnebago 

CCB

Estherville 

Service Center

Boone County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Dickinson 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Hardin County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

O’Brien CCB Worth County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Spirit Lake 

Service Center 

And Dickinson 

SWCD

Boone CCB Dickinson 

CCB

Hardin CCB Okoboji 

Protective 

Association

Worth CCB Storm Lake 

Service Center 

And Buena 

Vista SWCD
Appendix I: Communications

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

255

Buena Vista 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

East Okoboji 

Lakes 

Improvement 

Corporation

Horizon Wind 

Farms, Upper 

Midwest 

Regional Office

Osceola 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Wright County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Carroll Service 

Center

Buena Vista 

CCB

Emmet County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Humboldt 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Osceola CCB Wright CCB Clarion Service 

Center And 

Wright SWCD

Butler County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Emmet CCB Humboldt CCB Palo Alto 

County Board 

Of Supervisors

Xenia Rural 

Water

Iowa Trappers 

Association

Butler CCB Floyd County 

Board Of 

Supervisors

Iowa Corn 

Growers 

Association

Palo Alto CCB Story Soil And 

Water 

Conservation 

District

Newton Service 

Center And 

Jasper SWCD

Polk County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Iowa Falls 

Service Center 

And Hardin 

SWCD

R.S. Stover 

Company

Hamilton Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

Webster City 

Service 

Center

Webster Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

Marshalltown 

Service Center 

And Marshall 

SWCD

Humboldt 

County Farm 

Service 

Agency

Boone Service 

Center, NRCS

Calhoun 

County Farm 

Service 

Agency

Hardin County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Dickinson 

County Clean 

Water Alliance

Nevada Service 

Center

Webster 

County Farm 

Service 

Agency

Greene County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Iowa 

Cattlemen’s 

Association

Primghar 

Service 

Center And 

O’Brien 

SWCD

Izaak Walton 

League, 

Oakdale 

Chapter

Guthrie County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Iowa Prairie 

Network

Ducks 

Unlimited

Osage Service 

Center

Arco 

Dehydrating

Grundy County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Hancock 

County Farm 

Service Agency

Garner 

Service Center 

And Hancock 

SWCD

Rockwell City 

Service Center

Ankeny 

Service Center 

And Polk 

SWCD

Franklin 

County Farm 

Service 

Agency

Iowa Natural 

Heritage 

Foundation

Izaak Walton 

League, Rice 

Lake Chapter

Guthrie Center 

Service Center 

And Guthrie 

SWCD

Sac City 

Service Center

Iowa 

Ornithologists 

Union

Osceola 

County Farm 

Service 

Agency

Story County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Emmetsburg 

Service Center 

And Palo Alto 

SWCD

Boone Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

Pocahontas 

Service Center 

And 

Pocahontas 

SWCD

Pocahontas 

County Farm 

Service 

Agency

Jasper County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Cerro Gordo 

Soil And Water 

Conservation 

District
Appendix I: Communications

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

256

Spencer 

Service Center 

And Clay 

SWCD

Worth Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

Dickinson 

County Farm 

Service Agency

PMB Farms Wright County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Izaak Walton 

League, Boone 

Valley Chapter

Charles City 

Service Center 

And Floyd 

SWCD

Pheasants 

Forever And 

Quails Forever

Allison Service 

Center And 

Butler SWCD

Creating Great 

Places

M&M Divide 

RC&D

Kossuth CCB

Fort Dodge 

Service Center

Sac County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Hampton 

Service Center 

And Franklin 

SWCD

Iowa 

Bowhunters 

Association

White Rock 

Conservancy

Izaak Walton 

League, Emmet 

County Chapter

Sac Soil And 

Water 

Conservation 

District

Floyd County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Boone County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Izaak Walton 

League, Floyd 

County 

Chapter

Agren, Inc. Carroll County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Izaak Walton 

League, Worth 

County Chapter

Diversity 

Farms

Clay County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Cherokee 

Service Center 

And Cherokee 

SWCD

Hamilton 

County Farm 

Service 

Agency

Emmet Soil And 

Water 

Conservation 

District

Cherokee 

County Farm 

Service Agency

Mitchell Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

Izaak Walton 

League, 

Dickinson 

County Chapter

Buena Vista 

County Farm 

Service 

Agency

Waterfowl 

Association Of 

Iowa

Grundy Center 

Service Center

Winnebago 

County Farm 

Service Agency

Saving Our 

Avian 

Resources

Palo Alto 

County Farm 

Service Agency

Izaak Walton 

League, East 

Fork Chapter

Mason City 

Service 

Center

Jefferson 

Service Center 

And Greene 

SWCD

Ducks 

Unlimited

Osceola Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

Emmet County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Izaak Walton 

League, 

Marshall 

County 

Chapter

Calhoun Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

O Brien County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Mitchell County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Sibley Service 

Center

Iowa 

Environmental 

Council

Grundy Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

Carroll Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

Worth County 

Farm Service 

Agency

Kossuth Soil 

And Water 

Conservation 

District

Iowa 

Department of 

Natural 

Resources
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

257

Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

258
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

259
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

260
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

261
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

262
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

263
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

264
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

265
Appendix J: Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa WMD/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

266

Iowa Wetland Management District

1710 360th Street

Titonka, Iowa 50480 

(515) 928-2523

http://www. fws.gov/refuge/iowa_wmd

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest