U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Marais des Cygnes

National Wildlife Refuge

Proposed Addition

Environmental Assessment and

Concept Management Plan
Contents

Chapter 1.0 – Purpose And Need For Action............................................................. 1

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

1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Need for Action .................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Background ......................................................................................................... 4

1.4.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................... 5

1.4.2 Floodplain Hardwood Forest ................................................................ 6

1.4.3 Tallgrass Prairie ...................................................................................... 6

1.4.4 Prairie River ............................................................................................ 6

1.4.5 Trust Species ........................................................................................... 7

1.4.5.1 Migratory Birds ............................................................................. 7

1.4.5.2 Migratory Fish .............................................................................. 7

1.4.5.3 Federally Listed Threatened/Endangered Species ................ 7

1.5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................. 8

1.6 The National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................ 8

1.7 Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 9

1.7.1 Background .............................................................................................. 9

1.7.8.1 Issues, Opportunities and Concerns ........................................... 9

1.8 Public Comments ............................................................................................ 10

1.9 Decisions ............................................................................................................ 10

1.10 Legal Compliance ........................................................................................... 10

1.10.1 Establishing Authority ...................................................................... 11

Chapter 2 – Description of Alternatives ................................................................... 12

2.1 Formulation of Study Area Boundary and Alternatives ......................... 12

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ........ 13

2.2.1 East Highway V Addition ............................................................. 13

2.2.2 Mulberry Creek Addition ............................................................. 13

2.2.3 East Worland Addition .................................................................. 13

2.3 Explanation of Alternatives ................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Alternative A: No Action ............................................................ 13

2.3.2 Alternative B: Protect and Restore Habitat in the Marais des

Cygnes Floodplain in Missouri Through Land Acquisition .............. 13

2.3.3 Alternative C: Protect and Restore Floodplain and Adjacent

Upland Habitat Along Missouri Reaches of the Marais des Cygnes

River by Acquiring Additional Lands (Preferred Alternative)....... 16

2.3.4 Alternative D: Protect and Restore Additional Floodplain and

Adjacent Uplands through Long-term Easements and Private Land

Programs ................................................................................................... 16

Chapter 3 – The Affected Environment .................................................................... 23

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Climatic/Geologic Features .......................................................................... 24

3.2.1 Temperature .......................................................................................... 24

3.2.2 Precipitation .......................................................................................... 24

3.2.3 Growing Season ..................................................................................... 25

3.2.4 Geology ................................................................................................... 25

3.2.5 Soils ......................................................................................................... 25

3.2.6 Minerals .................................................................................................. 25

3.2.7 River Hydrology ................................................................................... 26
3.2.8 River Water Quality ............................................................................. 28

3.3 Description of Habitat .................................................................................... 28

3.3.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................. 28

3.3.2 Floodplain and Upland Forests .......................................................... 30

3.3.3 Tallgrass Prairie and Other Grasslands ............................................ 30

3.3.4 Cropland ................................................................................................ 31

3.3.5 Prairie River .......................................................................................... 31

3.4 The Current Ecological Condition ............................................................... 32

3.4.1 Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................... 32

3.4.1.1 Mammals ...................................................................................... 32

3.4.1.2 Birds .............................................................................................. 32

3.4.1.3 Fish and Mussels ......................................................................... 33

3.4.1.4 Reptiles and Amphibians ........................................................... 34

3.4.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................... 34

3.4.2 Biological Diversity ............................................................................. 35

3.5 Archaeological and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 36

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Consequences ............................................................ 37

4.1 Environmental Consequences Related to Natural Resource Concerns . 37

4.1.1 Alternative A: No Action ................................................................... 37

4.1.2 Alternative B: Protect and Restore Habitat in the Marais des

Cygnes Floodplain in Missouri through Land Acquisition ...................... 39

4.1.3 Alternative C: Protect and Restore Floodplain and Adjacent

Upland Habitat along Missouri Reaches of the Marais des Cygnes River

by Acquiring Additional Lands (Preferred Alternative) ......................... 41

4.1.4 Alternative D: Protect and Restore Additional Floodplain and

Adjacent Uplands through Long-term Easements and Private Land

Programs .......................................................................................................... 44

4.2 Consequences of Alternatives Related to the Socioeconomic Environment.......................................................................................................................... 46

4.2.1 Recreational Opportunities .................................................................. 46

4.2.2 Taxes ....................................................................................................... 47

4.2.3 The Local Economy .............................................................................. 47

4.3 Consequences of Alternatives Related to Local Land Use Including

Land Acquisition, Cultural Resources, Refuge Management and Administration....................................................................................................................... 49

4.3.1 Landowner Rights Adjacent to Refuge Lands ................................ 49

4.3.2 Service Land Acquisition Policies ...................................................... 49

4.3.3 Revenue Sharing Payments ................................................................ 50

4.3.4 Relocation Benefits Policies ................................................................ 50

4.3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 51

4.3.6 Effects on Current Drainage Patterns.............................................. 51

4.3.7 Water Pumping ..................................................................................... 52

4.3.8 Crop Depredation ................................................................................. 52

4.3.9 Invasive Species .................................................................................... 52

4.3.10 Refuge Administration ...................................................................... 52

4.3.11 Impact on Public Roads ..................................................................... 53

4.3.12 Fence Maintenance and Cropland Loss .......................................... 53

4.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 53

4.5 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 54

4.6 Summary of Issues and Consequences by Alternative ............................. 54
Chapter 5 – List of Preparers ..................................................................................... 57

Chapter 6 – Consultation and Coordination With the Public and Others ............ 58

Chapter 7 – Literature Cited / References / Personal Communications ............. 59

Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix A: Concept Management Plan .................................................................. 63

Appendix B: Letters of Comment and Other Correspondence ............................ 75

Appendix C: Legal Compliance ................................................................................. 89

Appendix D: Lists of Species...................................................................................... 95

Appendix E: Interim Compatibility Determination ............................................. 111

Appendix F: Land Protection Plan ......................................................................... 117

List of T List of TList of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, C and D on USFWS

 Habitat, Wildlife and Visitor Services and Their Associated

 Management Priorities ................................................................................ 17

Table 2: Summary of Issues and Consequences by Alternative ........................... 55

List of Figures

Figure 1: Marais des Cygnes NWR and Study Area for the Proposed Additon . 2

Figure 2: Study Area for Proposed Addition to Marais des Cygnes NWR ......... 3

Figure 3: Alternative B, Proposed Additon to Marais des Cygnes NWR.......... 14

Figure 4: Alternatives C and D, Proposed Addition

 to Marais des Cygnes NWR ..................................................................... 15

Figure 5: Cover Types of Proposed Area Superimposed Upon

 an Aerial Photograph................................................................................. 29

Figure 6: Floodplain Cover Types ............................................................................. 31

Figure 7: Upland Cover Types ................................................................................... 31
1

Chapter 1 / Purpose and Need for Action

Chapter 1.0 – Purpose And Need For

Action

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides the public and agency decision-makers

with an analysis of the range of options to restore, enhance, and protect wetland and

upland habitats within a proposed new addition (Addition) to an existing national

wildlife refuge. The Addition is proposed for Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife

Refuge, which is located in Linn County, Kansas (Figure 1). The Addition would occur

in Bates County, Missouri, and includes parts of Homer

and Walnut townships (Figure 2). The proposed Addition could eventually restore and protect a landscape of

5,255 acres of floodplain hardwood forest with associated

shallow and deepwater wetlands, 5,890 acres of tallgrass

prairie and savannah, 7.2 miles of large streams, and 8.8

miles of river.

The EA also publicly discloses the direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects of each strategy on the quality of the

human environment, as required by the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), as

amended). The Interim Comprehensive Conservation

Plan found in Appendix A presents a blueprint for

management practices and public recreational opportunities on the proposed addition to Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge).

1.2 Purpose

An Addition to the Refuge is being proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) as a means of preserving and restoring floodplain hardwood forest, wetlands,

tallgrass prairie, and riverine habitats for the fish and wildlife species dependent on

them. Protection of the area would meet goals of the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan which in 1998 identified the need to restore and protect an additional

8,030 acres of wetland within the mid and upper reaches of the Marais des Cygnes

River. In a 1998 assessment of the West Osage River Basin, the Missouri Department

of Conservation stated “Expansion of this refuge [MDC NWR] into Missouri should be

given a high priority”. This assessment was based largely on the area’s importance to

reproduction of paddlefish (Dent et al. 1998). The Nature Conservancy in 2000 identified the reach of the Marais des Cygnes River along the Kansas/Missouri State Line as

one of 177 areas in the Great Plains that should be protected . The areas it identified

only encompass 14 percent of the Great Plains and are considered to be ecologically

functioning landscapes of biological significance. The mid reach of the Marais des

Cygnes River was specifically identified by the Nature Conservancy as a “High

Quality River System” (TNC 2000).

“Oxbow Wetland”

along Marais des

Cygnes River
2

Marais Des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

Figure 1: Marais des Cygnes NWR and Study Area for

Proposed Addition
3

Chapter 1 / Purpose and Need for Action

Figure 2: Study Area for Proposed Addition to Marais des Cygnes NWR
4

Marais Des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

1.3 Need for Action

There is a need to prevent further fragmentation and degradation of the rare

habitats found in this area in as large of contiguous blocks as possible, benefiting

the species that depend upon them. Many species of Service interest are sensitive

to the impact of other competing species due to the “edge effect” of small habitat

blocks.

Native prairie has declined by 99.67 percent in Missouri, and there is a critical

need to protect and restore the remnant prairie found on the Refuge. Protection

of the Addition area in Missouri, in conjunction with the adjacent Marais des

Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge and Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Area in Kansas, and with successful land acquisition, could protect a continuous block of 27,000

acres of wildlife habitat and 27 miles of river.

There is a need to protect large blocks of floodplain hardwood forests and their

associated wetlands, which are critical habitat for trust species such as the Redshouldered Hawk, the Cerulean Warbler and the broadhead skink. The Redshouldered hawk and the Cerulean Warbler are rare/declining species and habitat

degradation has been identified as a factor contributing to their decline.

Prairie rivers throughout the Midwest have lost

many species of fish and mussels due to changes

in hydrology, siltation, and pollution. There is a

need to protect relatively unmodified prairie

rivers from further habitat degradation.

1.4 Background

Quality floodplain hardwood forest, wetlands,

tallgrass prairie, and riverine habitat are

critical for a host of migratory birds, waterfowl,

and indigenous species. These highly productive

habitats should be protected or restored

whenever possible. The proposed Addition is

within the Osage Plains Region, an area dominated by open rangeland and forested streams and known for its rich diversity of

prairie and forest wildlife. Much of the floodplain hardwood forests and native

prairies in the region have been converted to other uses including fescue pasture

and cropland. Existing tracts of floodplain hardwood forest continue to be threatened by conversion to these uses. Remaining tracts of prairie are threatened by

conversion to non-native grasses, forestation, and noxious weeds. Many of the

prairie streams and rivers in the region have been dammed and/or levees placed

along their banks to prevent flooding of the floodplain. Remaining rivers, such as

the Marais des Cygnes, with few of these impacts harbor a rich diversity of

mussels and migratory fish.

The southern edge of the Kansas City metropolitan area of 1.6 million people is

within 45 miles of the proposal area. Fragmentation of wildlife habitat is occurring rapidly as retirement homes and hobby farms are built throughout the

Floodplain hardwood

forest along Mine

Creek.
5

Chapter 1 / Purpose and Need for Action

region. River bottoms are increasingly under pressure for timber harvest and

construction of levees to prevent flooding and create “higher value” land.

Species of grassland and forest birds that require large tracts of native grassland

or mature floodplain forest are declining throughout their range. Many species of

migratory fish and mussels found in prairie rivers are also declining rapidly.

Recent research has shown that large blocks of grasslands and floodplain hardwood forest habitats, such as those located within the proposed Addition, may be

very important to reversing the downward trend. Large prairie rivers with

annual flood events and an unobstructed floodplain, as is found in the proposal

area, are also uncommon and biologically important.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for

conserving migratory species and appears to be the only entity available to

acquire these lands for permanent resource protection. Many other organizations

and agencies agree with the concept of protection but are not able to make the

long-term financial and management commitment necessary to effect protection.

The following paragraphs describe the habitat concerned in this Environmental

Assessment.

1.4.1 Wetlands

The majority of wetlands in the proposed Addition area would be located within

the forested floodplain. The most common type of wetlands are characterized by

many small depressions less than 5 acres in size and less than 2 feet deep. These

wetlands are often filled by local rain events. Large portions of the floodplain are

inundated by an average of 4 feet of water two to three times per year (Gleason

2000). Deeper oxbow wetlands up to 7 feet deep are also present and rarely go

dry.

In Missouri, as of 1990, it was estimated that 13 percent of natural, pre-settlement wetlands remained (Dahl 1990). Most of the 87 percent of wetlands that

were lost were located along forested streams and rivers.

Many floodplain wetlands have been leveed/ditched to prevent river flooding and

carry off local rains for agricultural production. Others have been either flooded

(upstream) or flooding has been eliminated (downstream) by reservoirs.

Today, there is a new understanding of the valuable role wetlands play in ecology.

Wetlands provide a host of direct benefits to humans including acting as natural

filters for pollution and reducing the extent of flooding. In addition to being key

habitat for migratory birds, wetlands also serve as nurseries for a variety of fish

and mussel species.

The wetlands of the restored Addition area would provide feeding and/or nesting

areas for local waterfowl such as the Wood Ducks, Hooded Merganser, Mallard,

and Canada Goose. Most waterfowl use would occur during spring and fall migration with as many as 25 different species migrating through the area. Wintering

populations of waterfowl would largely consist of mallard and Canada Geese.

Other wetland-dependent wildlife, such as Great Blue and Green Heron, egrets,

otter, young paddlefish, and flat floater mussels would also gain additional habitat.
6

Marais Des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

1.4.2 Floodplain Hardwood Forest

Stands of floodplain forest are largely comprised of pecan, pin oak, shellbark

hickory, green ash, and American Elm. These forests are extremely important for

the Cerulean Warbler, Red-shouldered Hawk, and broadhead skink, which are

dependent on large stands of mature floodplain forest

Flooding frequency and duration are extremely important in determining the

composition of floodplain forests. Reductions in flooding allow the invasion of

upland species while increased flooding kills mast species and allows the invasion

of more water-tolerant species such as silver maple, cottonwood, and willow.

Flooding in the proposed Addition area, based on observance of natural regeneration, still appears to favor the dominance of hardwoods.

1.4.3 Tallgrass Prairie

Native prairie has declined by 99.67 percent

in Missouri (Taney and Auckley 1987).

Grassland bird species have shown steeper,

more consistent, and geographically more

widespread declines than any other group of

North American birds (Knopf 1994). Fifty-five

grassland plants or animal species in the U.S.

are threatened or endangered (Samson and

Knopf 1994).

The need for tallgrass prairie habitat preservation and restoration has become more

critical each year as remaining native grasslands are lost and populations of many

grassland bird species continue to decline

throughout their range. Native tallgrass prairie habitats in Missouri can contain

200 to 300 species of plants. Many of our most endangered plant and animal

species reside on remaining prairie fragments. Remnant prairies within the

Addition area likely contain populations of the threatened Mead’s milkweed.

Missouri and Kansas are believed to be the only two remaining states that harbor

viable populations of this once widely distributed prairie plant.

1.4.4 Prairie River

Prairie rivers throughout the Midwest have lost many species of fish and mussels

due to changes in hydrology, siltation, and pollution. Few if any large prairie

rivers remain that have not suffered at least some adverse impacts. Remaining

rivers with fewer impacts, such as the mid reach of the Marais des Cygnes River,

which bisects the proposed Addition area, harbor a host of increasingly uncommon species including paddlefish and many species of mussels.

Several mussel beds on the adjacent national wildlife refuge each harbor over

10,000 mussels. A total of 30 different mussel species have thus far been documented to occur in the River and adjacent floodplain wetlands. The gravel beds

that support the mussels likewise are believed to be important natural spawning

sites for paddlefish and walleye (Dent, et al. 1997).

Tallgrass native

prairie near Amoret,

Missouri.
7

Chapter 1 / Purpose and Need for Action

1.4.5 Trust Species

1.4.5.1 Migratory Birds

The original floodplain hardwood forests and tallgrass prairies of western

Missouri were important habitats for countless migratory birds. However, the

State of Missouri has lost 99.67 percent of its original, pre-settlement prairies

and over 87 percent of its wetlands.

To varying degrees, grassland bird species have adapted to and co-existed with

agriculture for most of the past century. However, grassland bird populations are

steadily declining in Missouri and other Midwest states due to continued habitat

fragmentation and degradation.

The following migratory bird species are listed as Resource Conservation

Priorities by Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and will benefit from

the proposed project: Bald Eagle, Wood Thrush, Piping Plover, Least Tern,

Loggerhead Shrike, Grasshopper Sparrow, and Dickcissel. Other birds known to

use the area include Cerulean Warbler, Bell’s Vireo, Red-shouldered Hawk,

American Bittern, American Woodcock, Henslow’s Sparrow, Scissor-tailed

Flycatcher, and Short-eared Owl.

The landscape of the region has subtly changed from one dominated by native

prairie and forested streams to one dominated by cool season grass pastures

surrounded by forested fence rows and wooded draws. Many floodplain forests

have been cleared to provide cropland and pasture. The fragmentation of grassland and floodplain forest habitats is strongly correlated with declines in most

grassland bird populations as well as many forest birds throughout the Midwest.

1.4.5.2 Migratory Fish

Populations of paddlefish, walleye, and white bass, in addition to many other fish

species, annually migrate from Truman Reservoir and the Osage River to the

middle reach of the Marais des Cygnes River on both sides of the Kansas/Missouri

state line. This section of river is largely free of levees with a floodplain of mostly

natural vegetation and receives floods frequently enough to provide fish access to

valuable floodplain food resources and nursery habitat for young. River

gravel bars provide important spawning habitat for paddlefish and walleye

and more than 20 species of mussels.

1.4.5.3 Federally Listed Threatened/Endangered Species

Bald Eagle, Least Tern, Piping Plover, and Meads’s milkweed have been

observed on Marais des Cygnes NWR and Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Area

and would benefit by continued protection and restoration efforts.

Scale shell mussel, American burying beetle, western prairie fringed orchid,

and running buffalo clover may also occur in the area but have not been

recently confirmed. Populations of these species could possibly be restored

to the area.

American Bald Eagle
8

Marais Des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

1.5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as we know it today has evolved

slowly with changes in the country’s use of natural resources and

growing respect for the environment. Today the Service is the primary

federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing

fish and wildlife species and their habitats.

Specific responsibilities include managing the National Wildlife

Refuge System, enforcing federal wildlife laws, managing migratory

bird populations, restoring nationally significant fisheries, administering the

Endangered Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitats such as wetlands.

The Service’s mission is: “To work with others to conserve, protect and enhance

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

American people.”

1.6 The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest and most diverse

collection of lands set aside specifically for wildlife. The Refuge System began in

1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated 3-acre Pelican Island, a

pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as a national bird sanctuary.

The National Wildlife Refuge System mission is to administer a

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.

Today, over 530 national wildlife refuges have been established from the Arctic

Ocean to the South Pacific, from Maine to the Caribbean. Varying in size from

half-acre parcels to thousands of square miles, they encompass more than 92

million acres of the Nation’s best wildlife habitats. The vast majority of these

lands are in Alaska, with the remainder spread across the rest of the United

States and several U.S. territories.

Like Pelican Island, many early wildlife refuges were created for herons, egrets,

and other water birds. Other refuges were set aside for large mammals like elk

and bison. But by far the most have been created to protect migratory waterfowl.

This is a result of the United States’ responsibilities under international treaties

for migratory bird conservation and legislation such as the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act of 1929.

National wildlife refuges offer the public a wide variety of wildlife-dependent

recreational and educational opportunities. Many refuges have fishing and

hunting programs, visitor centers, hiking trails, and environmental education

programs. Nationwide, some 34 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe, and

photograph wildlife or participate in interpretive activities on national wildlife

refuges.
9

Chapter 1 / Purpose and Need for Action

1.7 Public Involvement

Involvement by local government officials, organizations, landowners and other

interested citizens is integral to planning for any new national wildlife refuge.

Proposals that involve land acquisition by a government agency can be controversial, though establishment of Marais des Cygnes NWR in Kansas received

minimal controversy.

Open communication with all parties is essential throughout the planning process.

Starting in April 2002 the Service began providing information about the proposed project through news releases, interviews, open house events, group

presentations, letters to landowners and one-on-one discussions.

1.7.1 Background

A Preliminary Project Proposal (PPP) for a refuge (or later addition to an

existing adjacent Refuge) within the study area was developed by Service biologists to brief the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about the resource

conservation opportunities of the area and to obtain permission to conduct a study

of the merits of the proposal. The proposal was approved by the Director on April

4, 1991. Later, an amendment was approved on January 22, 1992.

Early in 1999, the Team Leader of the Lower Missouri River (LMR) Ecosystem

proposed that the ecosystem team review the merits of expanding Marais des

Cygnes NWR into Missouri as indicated in a 1992 PPP. A letter indicating ecosystem team support and requesting consideration for the project was prepared by

the team and submitted to the Regional Director on August of 1999. Members of

the LMR Ecosystem Team and Region 3 Realty visited the Refuge and PPP area

in May of 2000. A slide presentation introducing the Refuge and PPP area to

other LMR Ecosystem Team members and members of the Ozark Plateau

Ecosystem Team was presented at Swan Lake NWR in February of 2001. Both

Ecosystem Teams unanimously agreed to support the Refuge expansion proposal.

A slide presentation introducing the Refuge and PPP area to the Great Lakes/Big

Rivers Regional Management Team in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was presented in

August 2001. A short while later the Regional Director indicated that a Decision

Document should be prepared.

1.7.8.1 Issues, Opportunities and Concerns

Some common concerns brought up at an April 18, 2002, Focus Group meeting and

a May 21, 2002, Open House meeting were: potential loss of taxes resulting from

lands being transferred from private to public ownership, potential impacts to

neighboring lands from public land uses, use of Eminent Domain to acquire land,

and the possibility of road closures. Also addressed in this EA are how the various

alternatives impact the Refuge management goals and what the consequences of

each alternative are related to such socioeconomic interests as recreational

opportunities, the local economy, and taxes. The issues of landowner rights,

Service land acquisition policies, revenue sharing, relocation benefits, cultural

resources, effects on current drainage patterns, water pumping, crop depredation,

Refuge administration impacts on public roads, cumulative impacts, and environmental justice will be discussed. These issues are addressed in detail in Chapter 4,

Section 4.2, “Environmental Consequences Related to the Socioeconomic Environment.”
10

Marais Des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

1.8 Public Comments

A focus group meeting was conducted on April 18, 2002, at the Refuge Office to

help identify local concerns and prepare for an upcoming open house. Twelve

people representing seven local organizations attended the meeting. Organizations represented were: Bates County, City of Butler, Bates County Farm Bureau,

Bates County Cattlemen’s Association, Kansas Dept. of Wildlife and Parks,

Missouri Dept. of Conservation, and Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources.

On May 21, 2002, an Open House was conducted at the Butler Senior Center in

Butler, Missouri. A total of 29 people attended the meeting, 15 of whom represented land ownerships (nine different ownerships) within the boundary of the

proposed Addition area.

In addition to these meetings, Refuge staff received several phone calls and visits

by concerned citizens.

Issues brought up by these discussions are identified in the above section and

addressed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, “Environmental Consequences Related to the

Socioeconomic Environment.”

All written and verbal comments received by the Service are summarized in

Appendix B.

1.9 Decisions

This Environmental Assessment is the first step in the Service’s formal decisionmaking process. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the

Regional Director, Great Lakes/Big Rivers Region, will consider the information

presented in this document to select one of the alternatives.

The Regional Director will determine whether the preferred alternative will or

will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment and

issue a Finding of No Significant Impact or a Decision of Significant Impact. A

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI ) means that the preferred alternative is

accepted and can be implemented in accordance with other laws and regulations.

If the Regional Director decides that there would be projected impacts, the

project would either be dropped or a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement would be published in the Federal Register. All proposals

to establish new refuges or expand the boundaries of existing refuges must also

be approved by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington D.C.

1.10 Legal Compliance

The Service planning process, land acquisition, and management are done in

accordance with authority delegated by Congress and as interpreted by Department of the Interior and agency regulations and guidelines. Land acquisition

authority includes the Endangered Species Act, Emergency Wetlands Resources

Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act, as amended. Land management authority,
11

Chapter 1 / Purpose and Need for Action

including comprehensive conservation planning, is directed primarily by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Other relevant Acts

and Executive Orders are listed in Appendix C.

1.10.1 Establishing Authority

Lands acquired by the Service for the proposed addition to Marais des Cygnes

NWR would be purchased under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of

1956 and the Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

12

Chapter 2 – Description of

Alternatives

This chapter describes the range of options (alternatives) to restore, enhance,

and protect existing floodplain hardwood forest, native prairie, wetlands, and

riverine areas within the proposed Addition Area of Marais des Cygnes National

Wildlife Refuge. How the study area boundary and alternatives were formulated, identification of the preferred alternative, and an explanation of why

some alternatives were eliminated from further study are also discussed.

2.1 Formulation of Study Area Boundary and

Alternatives

The boundaries of the study area were formulated by the identification of a

reach of the Marais des Cygnes River that is believed able to meet the above

habitat goals. The study area targets one of the last remaining reaches of the

Marais des Cygnes River floodplain that is not greatly impacted by drainage

ditches, levees, and loss of native vegetation. Some of the items reviewed were:

flooding characteristics, presence of floodplain hardwood and native prairie,

restoration potential, presence of cropland, levees, and drainage ditches, habitat

requirements of desired wildlife species, location of public roads, and comments

received from the public. It is Service policy to acquire the least interest in land

necessary to meet refuge goals.

Development of Alternatives was guided by the following goals:

■ Protect and increase the diversity and abundance of migratory bird and

waterfowl species dependent on floodplain hardwood and tallgrass prairie

habitats.

■ Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish,

mussels, and other aquatic life unique to a prairie river hydrology and

habitat, as well as wildlife and plant populations associated with floodplain

hardwood and tallgrass prairie.

■ Restore, enhance, and protect water quality and quantity that approaches

natural hydrologic functions.

■ Work in partnership with others, including private landowners, to restore or

enhance floodplain hardwood, tallgrass prairie, and other unique plant

communities.

■ Protect and restore federally listed and state-listed threatened and endangered species.

■ Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public,

emphasizing increased public understanding of floodplain hardwood forest

and tallgrass prairie ecosystems and the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System.
13

Chapter 2 / Description of Alternatives

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

The following alternatives were considered early in the planning process. These

alternatives were discussed by the planning team but were not considered to be

viable alternatives.

2.2.1 East Highway V Addition

Extend the boundary east of Highway V to include the downstream reach of the

River that is transected by the portion of the Bates County Drainage Ditch,

which was not dug deep enough to carry River flows except during flood events.

This reach includes 3 miles of drainage ditch and 6 miles of River. While this

reach of River does have wildlife values, flood events are impacted by the

drainage ditch and extensive levees. Much of the floodplain is in cropland and

little native vegetation remains. Restoration of this reach of the River would be

both controversial and expensive.

2.2.2 Mulberry Creek Addition

Extend the boundary north of Highway 52 along Mulberry Creek. This area

contains floodplain hardwood and fescue pasture. It is not impacted by levees or

drainage ditches and little cropland is present. While habitat values are significant, the floodplain is very narrow. Flooding from the Marais des Cygnes River

rarely backs into this area and Mulberry Creek does not have a large enough

watershed to routinely flood, thus wetland values are limited.

2.2.3 East Worland Addition

Extend the boundary south to include a large forested area east and south of

Worland. This area is a very rugged terrain created by turn-of-the-century

open-pit mining. Most of the area is covered by oak-hickory forest and mine

ponds. This type of habitat is often purchased throughout eastern Kansas and

western Missouri as wildlife habitat by both private and state interests. However, it does not lend itself well to meeting the above goals. It is also a habitat

that is not under great threat.

2.3 Explanation of Alternatives

2.3.1 Alternative A: No Action

Marais des Cygnes NWR operations would continue at the current level,

entirely in the State of Kansas. The 7,500 acres of current holdings could be

expanded by acquiring additional lands within the original approved acquisition

boundary encompassing 9,300 acres. Management efforts would be directed

toward achieving existing resource goals in Kansas.

2.3.2 Alternative B: Protect and Restore Habitat in the Marais des Cygnes

Floodplain in Missouri Through Land Acquisition

Purchase additional lands, fee title, only in the floodplain, in order to expand the

Refuge capability to protect, restore and preserve floodplain habitat associated

with the Marais des Cygnes River by extending the Refuge into the Marais des

Cygnes/West Osage River Basin of Missouri (Figure 3).
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

14

Figure 3: Alternative B, Proposed Addition to Marais des Cygnes NWR
15

Chapter 2 / Description of Alternatives

Figure 4: Alternatives C and D, Proposed Addition to Marais des Cygnes NWR
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

16

2.3.3 Alternative C: Protect and Restore Floodplain and Adjacent Upland Habitat

Along Missouri Reaches of the Marais des Cygnes River by Acquiring Additional

Lands (Preferred Alternative)

Purchase additional lands, fee title, in order to expand the Refuge capability to

protect, restore and preserve floodplain, wetland, and native prairie habitat on

lands adjacent to and nearby the Marais des Cygnes River in Marais des

Cygnes/West Osage Basin of Missouri (Figure 4).

The main difference between Alternative C and Alternative B is that Alternative B primarily targets the floodplain with restoration of wetlands and floodplain hardwoods as primary goals while Alternative C includes these goals as

well as the protection and restoration of native prairie on the uplands adjacent

to the floodplain.

2.3.4 Alternative D: Protect and Restore Additional Floodplain and Adjacent

Uplands through Long-term Easements and Private Land Programs

Expand the Refuge’s capability to protect and restore floodplain and upland

habitat on private lands entirely through easements and agreements with land

owners (Figure 4).
17

Chapter 2 / Description of Alternatives

Table 1: Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, C and D on USFWS Habitat, Wildlife, and Public Use Goals and Their Associated 

Management Priorities 

Land Management Priorities Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

Through Purchase of Land.

Alternative C 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Land Purchase

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Perpetual Easements and Private 

Land Programs

Goal: Protect and increase the diversity and abundance of migratory bird and waterfowl species dependent on floodplain hardwood and 

tallgrass prairie habitats.Goal: Conserve, manage and restore the diversity and viability of native fish, wildlife and plant populations associated with floodplain 

hardwood and tallgrass prairie.Goal: Restore, enhance and protect water quality and quantity that approaches natural hydrologic functions.Goal: Work in partnership with others, including private landowners, to restore or enhance floodplain hardwood, tallgrass prairie, and other unique plant communities.

Manage bottomland forests to provide mature stands of hardwoods.

On most large stands, mature timber likely to be harvested when large enough to provide lumber or firewood.

Mature timber left to provide habitat for species which require large and standing/fallen dead trees.

Mature timber left to provide habitat for species which require large and standing/fallen dead trees. Little forested land would occur on the uplands.

Could have similar effects as Alternative B and C, depending on availability of programs and landowner interest. Easements would need to be periodically checked for compliance, especially when land changes ownership.

Manage grasslands to provide a variety of cover heights.

Other than on CRP, grassland cover likely to be generally short, mostly benefitting bird species which require little cover for nesting and brood rearing.

Grassland cover short to rank with many stands having litter from previous years to provide cover for ground nesting birds. Little grassland cover would be located in the floodplain.

Grassland cover short to rank with many stands having litter from previous years to provide cover for ground nesting birds. Most grassland cover would be located in the uplands.

CRP program may provide rank grass cover. Much landowner involvement and probably monetary incentives would be necessary to convert fescue pastures to native grasses/forbs and create a variety of cover heights and density.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

18

Manage croplands to benefit wildlife and reduce soil erosion.

Crop fields likely to be disced in the fall. Use of terraces and grass waterways variable depending on landowner interest and budget.

Crop fields not disced until spring to provide food for wildlife. Use of terraces and grass waterways on all fields which require it. Most floodplain cropland planted to trees.

Crop fields left unworked until spring. Use of terraces and grass waterways on all fields which require it. Much cropland in upland planted to native grasses and floodplain to trees.

Much landowner involvement and possibly monetary incentives would be necessary to leave fields unworked through the winter and install soil conservation methods. WRP perpetual easement program available to restore wetlands.

Protect river-floodplain interaction.

Levees could be constructed to prevent the floodplain from flooding.

Levees would not be constructed to prevent the floodplain from flooding. This would help restore and preserve a more natural floodplain hydrology.

Same as Alternative B. WRP perpetual easement 

program available to restore wetlands. Program does not allow construction of levees. Landowner interest in program likely limited due to management restrictions. Protection of all of floodplain from levees unlikely. 

Protect and restore bottomland hardwood forests.

Floodplain fields would likely remain in crops or hay fields.

Most floodplain crop fields would be planted to pecan, pin oak, shellbark hickory and other hardwoods.

Same as Alternative B. WRP perpetual easement 

program available to restore forested wetlands. CRP program may be available to restore forest on some sites. Landowner interest in programs likely limited due to program restrictions. 

Table 1: Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, C and D on USFWS Habitat, Wildlife, and Public Use Goals and Their Associated 

Management Priorities (Continued)

Land Management Priorities Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

Through Purchase of Land.

Alternative C 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Land Purchase

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Perpetual Easements and Private 

Land Programs
19

Chapter 2 / Description of Alternatives

Protect and restore floodplain wetlands.

Existing wetlands likely to remain. Most wetlands managed to harvest waterfowl. Little restoration of wetland sites which cannot readily be dewatered to grow waterfowl food in the summer and then pumped in the fall for waterfowl hunting.

All historic wetlands would be restored if possible. Wetlands would vary greatly in size, depth, and seasonal availability of water. Many species would be benefitted including breeding waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, frogs, turtles, crayfish, etc. Wetland restoration would help restore the natural floodplain hydrology. Wetlands provide excellent spawning and nursery habitat for young fish.

Same as Alternative B. WRP perpetual easement 

program available to restore forested wetlands. Landowner interest in programs likely limited. Most wetlands managed to harvest waterfowl. Little restoration of wetland sites which cannot readily be dewatered to grow waterfowl food in the summer and then pumped in the fall for waterfowl hunting.

Protect and restore native prairie grasslands.

Most native prairie would remain as pasture. Protection of plant diversity variable depending on landowner interest and budget. Little restoration would occur except on CRP sites.

Existing native prairie would be carefully managed to protect diversity. Broadcast spraying of invading noxious weeds would be unlikely. Most upland fields would gradually be planted to a wide variety of native grasses and forbs.

Many opportunities available on uplands. Most crop fields would be planted to native grass and forbs. 

CRP program could restore some sites, depending on landowner interest, site eligibility, and availability of program funding. CRP sites restricted to crop fields with no grazing or haying allowed.

Table 1: Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, C and D on USFWS Habitat, Wildlife, and Public Use Goals and Their Associated 

Management Priorities (Continued)

Land Management Priorities Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

Through Purchase of Land.

Alternative C 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Land Purchase

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Perpetual Easements and Private 

Land Programs
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

20

Control invasive animals and plants such as Sericea lespedeza.

Control variable depending on landowner interest and budget.

Control a high priority with annual expenditures of man power and funds.

Similar to Alternative B. Greater efforts required to control noxious weeds as more species of noxious weeds occur on upland grasslands.

Control variable depending on landowner knowledge and availability of time and funding necessary for control methods. Similar goals and cooperation among adjacent landowners needed for effective control.

Goal: Protect and restore federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species.Increase the abundance of Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species and abundance and diversity of migratory birds.

Abundance and diversity would largely remain the same or slowly decrease over time as forest invades upland grassland pastures and bottomland forest is cleared.

Occurrence and abundance of species which require or use large stands of mature timber and forested wetlands would increase. Species include paddlefish, cerulean warbler, red shouldered hawk, bald eagle, piping plover, American bittern, wood duck, and hooded merganser.

Same values as alternative B. In addition, grassland species likely to increase with restoration and management of upland grasslands. Species include Mead=s milkweed, barn owl, and northern harrier.

CRP and WRP are the primary programs available. Increases possible depending on landowner knowledge and availability of time and funding necessary to implement land management techniques. Similar goals and cooperation among adjacent landowners needed for species requiring large blocks of habitat. 

Table 1: Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, C and D on USFWS Habitat, Wildlife, and Public Use Goals and Their Associated 

Management Priorities (Continued)

Land Management Priorities Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

Through Purchase of Land.

Alternative C 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Land Purchase

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Perpetual Easements and Private 

Land Programs
21

Chapter 2 / Description of Alternatives

Manage floodplain to benefit paddlefish and other fish, protect spawning and mussel beds, and improve river water quality.

Paddlefish spawning and mussel beds could be permanently damaged if levees were constructed near the river. Water quality would largely remain the same or slowly degrade over time.

Spawning for paddlefish, an interjurisdictional fish, and mussel beds would not be threatened by levees. Water quality would increase due to reductions in cropland and increase in forested cover which reduces transport of soil and chemicals. The increase in quality would largely be local.

Similar to Alternative B. More improvement in local water quality as uplands would largely be taken out of crops and put into grass. Pastures grazed less to provide more ground litter which would further reduce erosion.

CRP and WRP are the primary programs available. Increases in water quality possible depending on landowner interest and funding. Similar goals and cooperation among adjacent landowners needed to make a significant difference.

Goal: Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public, emphasizing increased public understanding of floodplain hardwood forest and 

tallgrass prairie ecosystems and the mission of the national wildlife Refuge System. Provide quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and other wildlife-dependent uses.

Quality outdoor opportunities would be limited to current landowners and their guests.

Quality outdoor opportunities would be available to the public. Possibility of limitations (drawings) for some activities to maintain hunting quality. Periodic flood events would occasionally limit some activities. Provides excellent spawning and nursery habitat for a number of sport fish (walleye, white bass, perhaps paddlefish), benefiting the Truman Lake fishery for sport anglers.

Similar to Alternative B but more opportunities available as uplands do not flood and additional habitats of grassland and ponds are available. Uplands also easier to access.

Quality outdoor opportunities would be limited to current landowners and their guests. Possibility exists for the Service to lease hunting and/or fishing rights, thus these programs may be possible.

Table 1: Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, C and D on USFWS Habitat, Wildlife, and Public Use Goals and Their Associated 

Management Priorities (Continued)

Land Management Priorities Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

Through Purchase of Land.

Alternative C 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Land Purchase

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Perpetual Easements and Private 

Land Programs
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

22

Provide for environmental education and research and protect and interpret archaeological and historic sites.

Opportunities variable depending on landowner interest. Identification, protection, and interpretation of archaeological and historical sites also variable depending on landowner interest and funding.

 Activities encouraged and 

opportunities generally available. Identification, protection, and interpretation of archaeological and historical sites a priority. 

Similar to Alternative B but more opportunities available as uplands do not flood and additional habitats of grassland and ponds are available. Uplands also easier to access and likely to contain most archaeological and historic sites.

Opportunities variable depending on landowner interest. Identification, protection, and interpretation of archaeological and historical sites variable depending on landowner interest and funding. 

Table 1: Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, C and D on USFWS Habitat, Wildlife, and Public Use Goals and Their Associated 

Management Priorities (Continued)

Land Management Priorities Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

Through Purchase of Land.

Alternative C 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Land Purchase

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative D 

Protect and Restore Floodplain 

and Adjacent Uplands Through 

Perpetual Easements and Private 

Land Programs
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment

23

Chapter 3 – The Affected

Environment

3.1 Introduction

The proposed Addition area is located in west-central Missouri in Bates County,

approximately 10 miles west of Butler, Missouri. The area contains 11,145 acres

between the Missouri state line and County Highway V. Marais des Cygnes

NWR (9,300-acre acquisition area) and Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Area (7,500

acres) are located immediately west of the Addition area.

The Addition area is located within the Osage

Cuestas subdivision of the Osage Plains

Physiographic region. The Osage Cuestas are

characterized by forested southwest-northeast trending limestone ridges with valleys

(Bare 1979) containing high quality tracts of

prairie scattered amid expanses of fescue

pasture. River and stream valleys in the

region are dominated by cropland and pasture

with scattered tracts of floodplain hardwood

forest.

The Marais des Cygnes River, which meanders through the study area, is a major

tributary of the Osage River which in turn is a

tributary of the Missouri River. Floodplains

within the mid reach of the River are generally 1.5 miles in width. Numerous

oxbow wetlands of various depth were historically found throughout much of the

floodplain. Many of the wetlands in the Addition area have been either fully or

partially drained. Original wetlands still exist throughout portions of the floodplain, however. The largest wetlands in the area are 20-30 acres in size.

Prior to 1911, the Missouri portion of the Marais des Cygnes River was 52 miles

in length. In 1911 the Bates County Drainage Ditch was constructed. The ditch

traverses the Marais des Cygnes River valley from just downstream of the

Addition area to its confluence with the Osage River, a distance of 23 miles. The

reach of river along the drainage ditch was previously 43 miles long. The drainage ditch shortened the River by 17 miles (Dent et al. 1998). This shortening,

along with significant channel downcutting and construction of levees, has

significantly reduced flooding of the floodplain along this reach of the River and

has facilitated the presence of a number of corporate farming operations. Today,

the Missouri portion of the Marais des Cygnes River is comprised of 15 miles of

the original river and 20 miles of drainage ditch (the first 3 miles of the drainage

ditch do not carry water except during high flows).

Historically, much of the uplands of the study area were dominated by tallgrass

prairie with savannah groves in areas less prone to fire. The floodplains of the

Mussels collected on

Marais des Cygnes

NWR
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

24

Marais des Cygnes River and larger tributaries were dominated by floodplain

hardwood forest with wet prairie on more moist and fire prone sites.

The Osage Cuestas region once supported large populations of free-roaming

bison, elk, waterfowl and prairie chickens. Forests of pin oak, pecan, Shumard

oak, and shellbark hickory provided winter cover and protection from prairie

fires for large ungulates as well as habitat for wolves and black bear.

Today, bison and elk herds, wolves and black bear are gone and little remains of

this vast prairie/forest complex. Remnant tallgrass prairies found on portions of

the study area are now grazed by cattle or hayed. Osage orange, persimmon,

and plum have established themselves along fencelines throughout the area.

Post oak and blackjack oak savannahs, located on some of the drier hilltops, have

largely become woodlands.

Despite these changes, many prairie and forest species still exist in the Addition

area. Large expanses of native tallgrass prairie in the Kansas Flint Hills, to the

west of the study area, and large expanses of oak-hickory forest in the Missouri

Ozarks, to the east of the study area, offer significant opportunities for natural

recolonization by prairie and forest species not currently found in the area.

3.2 Climatic/Geologic Features

3.2.1 Temperature

Bates County has a continental climate typical of the interior of a large land

mass in the middle latitudes. Such a climate is characterized by large daily and

annual variations in temperature. Winters are cold because of the frequent

southerly flows of air from the polar regions. Winter lasts only from December

through February. Warm summer temperatures last for about 6 months every

year, and the transition seasons, spring and fall, are fairly long. Temperature

data recorded at Mound City, Kansas, is characterized by a winter (January)

average daily temperature of 34.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and a summer (July)

average daily temperature of 77.4 degrees F (U.S. Department of Agriculture

1981).

3.2.2 Precipitation

Bates County is in the path of a fairly dependable current of moisture-laden air

from the Gulf of Mexico. Precipitation is heaviest late in spring and early in

summer. Much of it occurs as late-evening or nighttime thunderstorms. Although the total precipitation is generally adequate for any crop, its distribution

may cause problems in some years. Prolonged dry periods of several weeks

duration are common during the growing season. A surplus of precipitation

often produces muddy fields and a delay in planting and harvesting. Precipitation averages 38.53 inches per year, with the highest monthly amounts occurring

in spring and fall (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981).
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment

25

3.2.3 Growing Season

Elevations in the study area are approximately 800 feet above sea level. The

combination of elevation and latitude gives the area a fairly long growing season

that will exceed 200 days in most years (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981).

3.2.4 Geology

The topography of the region is characterized by southwest-northeast trending

limestone ridges with gently rolling valleys. The limestone ridges are largely

comprised of Pennsylvanian and Permian limestone and shale (Bare 1979). The

region has not been glaciated. Soils in the region were produced from the

weathering of limestone and shale.

3.2.5 Soils

Predominant upland soil types in the study area are the Kenoma-HartwellDeepwater Association. This soil association is generally suited for row crops

with appropriate conservation measures such as terraces and grassed waterways on sloping fields. Predominant floodplain soil types are the Osage-Verdigris Association. This association is suited for row crops though flooding is

generally a problem without significant landscape alterations including levees

and ditches (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995).

3.2.6 Minerals

Mineral resources are present in the proposal area. Limestone is quarried in

Bates County and is used as concrete aggregate and building stone, or is

crushed for use as agricultural lime, riprap, and road surfacing. No operating

pits are present in the proposal area.

Mineral production in Bates County has been primarily centered around coal

production. Coal deposits exist throughout the western portion of the county

and retrievable deposits are present throughout the proposal area. The coal

seam is within 30 to 40 feet of the surface and ranges from 24 to 38 inches thick.

Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company had a large active open pit mining

operation on their ownership adjacent to, and within the northwest corner, of

the proposal area. The company discontinued operation in 1989 when the

LaCygne Power Plant, the company’s main customer, terminated its purchase

agreement. The company no longer owns land within the Addition area. A small

open pit coal mine was recently in operation 1.5 miles south of the proposal area

but is no longer in operation. It is currently conducting reclamation activities.

Marketability of coal in the region is limited due to a number of factors, including coal quality, overburden depth-coal seam width ratio, and availability of local

markets.

In 1977, the 95th Congress passed legislation regulating the coal industry in its

operation of surface mines. Public Law 95-87, known as the “Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977” (Act), further regulates the industry by

designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations. Title V,

Section 522(e)(1) of the Act states in part: “...no surface mining operations...shall
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

26

be permitted -- on any lands within the boundaries of units of...the National

Wildlife Refuge System...”. The exclusion of Refuge System lands is subject to

valid existing rights (VER) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992).

3.2.7 River Hydrology

The Marais des Cygnes River is a sub-basin of the Osage River, which flows into

the Missouri River near Jefferson City, Missouri. The mainstem of the Marais

des Cygnes River is approximately 177 river miles in length from the KansasMissouri state line to its headwaters west and south of Topeka, Kansas. An

additional 35 miles of the River occur in

Missouri for a total length of 221 miles.

Upstream from the state line, it drains an

area of approximately 3,300 square miles

with an average discharge of 2,033 cfs or

1,473,000 acre-feet per year. Major tributaries of the River are Big Sugar Creek, Big

Bull Creek, Pottawatomie Creek, Dragoon

Creek, Hundred and Ten Mile Creek, Mine

Creek, and Mulberry Creek.

The natural flow of the River has been

significantly affected by construction of

several major impoundments by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers that include

Pomona Lake, Melvern Lake, and Hillsdale

Lake as well as La Cygne Lake, which was

constructed by Kansas City Power and

Light. These dams control 23 percent of the watershed (Dent et al. 1998).

Another factor affecting flows is retention of overbank flows in wildlife refuge

ponds at Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Management Area, operated by the State

of Kansas. Retention in these ponds amounts to 5,500 acre-feet annually. In

addition, the flows are affected by power developments and numerous small

diversions for stock ponds and irrigation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992)).

The effects the dams have had on river flows are difficult to determine. While

upstream dams have reduced flows, construction of upstream levees, drainage of

wetlands, and increased runoff from towns have increased flows. In general, it is

believed that flood events are more frequent, attain greater heights, and are of

shorter duration compared to events that occurred prior to settlement of the

area by Europeans.

A U.S. Geological Survey river gauge near Trading Post, Kansas, and approximately 7.5 miles upstream from the Addition area, has been recording river flow

information since 1929. Review of this information indicates that the dams have

had a much greater impact to river flows during drought events than during

flood events. While the River frequently ceased to flow for weeks at a time prior

to dam construction, no-flow events (< 5 cubic feet/second) now rarely occur and

are of much shorter duration (Gleason 2001).

Flood events generally occur every 8 out of 10 years for the years 1960-2000.

Average flood frequency at the gauge for this period is two to three times per

year. The greatest number of flood events per year was eight. The average

Marais des Cygnes

River
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment

27

depth of water above the riverbank was 4 feet with a high of 10 feet (Gleason

2001). Flooding is also caused by numerous highway and railroad causeways that

constrict the floodplain of the rivers and streams in the Marais des Cygnes

River basin.

Features of the major upstream reservoirs are as follows:

1. Pomona Reservoir – 1. Pomona Reservoir The 3,885-acre reservoir was completed in October 1963

for the purposes of flood control and recreation. The Reservoir is approximately

20 miles south of Topeka, near the towns of Vassar and Michigan Valley. The

Reservoir is formed by a compacted earthfill dam and has a total capacity of

498,500 acre-feet at elevation 1,025 feet msl. Normal spill elevation is 974 feet

msl. The Reservoir is supplied by the 322-square-mile watershed of Hundred

and Ten Mile Creek, a tributary of the Marais des Cygnes River.

2. Melvern Reservoir – 2. Melvern Reservoir The 6,877-acre reservoir was completed in July 1972 for

the purposes of flood control, irrigation and recreation. The Reservoir extends

approximately 12 miles westerly from the Town of Melvern to the Town of

Reading. The Reservoir is formed by a compacted earthfill dam and has a total

capacity of 920,600 acre-feet at elevation 1,073 feet msl. Normal spill elevation is

1,036 feet msl. The Reservoir is supplied by the 349-square-mile watershed of

the upper Marais des Cygnes River.

3. Hillsdale Reservoir – 3. Hillsdale Reservoir The 4,566-acre reservoir was completed in September

1981 for the purposes of flood control, water supply, water quality control, fish

and wildlife, and recreation. The Reservoir is 3 miles north and west of Hillsdale

near Highway I-35. The Reservoir is formed by a compacted earthfill dam and

has a total capacity of 315,600 acre-feet. Normal spill elevation is 917 feet msl.

The Reservoir is supplied by the 144-square-mile watershed of Big Bull Creek, a

tributary of the Marais des Cygnes River.

4. La Cygne Reservoir – La 4. La Cygne Reservoir Cygne Reservoir is the first large Kansas reservoir designed as a cooling pond for power generation. Kansas City Power and

Light Company and Kansas Gas and Electric constructed the fossil-fuel generating facility and reservoir to supply electricity for eastern Kansas and western

Missouri. The Reservoir covers an area of 2,420 acres and has a storage capacity

of 40,000 acre-feet. Its maximum depth is 40 feet and average depth is 15.4 feet.

Normal spill elevation is 840 feet msl. Through cooperative agreements, Kansas

Department of Wildlife and Parks and Linn County manage 2,000 acres of

wildlife land and a 1,000-acre county park surrounding the reservoir area. The

Reservoir is supplied by waters of Elm Creek and Sugar Creek, a tributary of

the Marais des Cygnes River.

The Bates County drainage ditch was completed in 1911. The ditch traverses the

Marais des Cygnes River valley from the east edge of the Addition area to its

confluence with the Osage River. Although the ditch is 23 miles in length, the

first 3 miles do not carry water except during high flows. This reach of the River

was 43 miles in length prior to construction of the 23-mile-long drainage ditch

that shortened the River by 17 miles (Dent et al. 1998).

The drainage ditch likely had an immediate and dramatic impact on local and

downstream hydrology. The removal of 17 miles of river greatly increased the

transport of water from the area and likely made nearby cropland much easier

to farm, while downstream farmland likely flooded much more frequently.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

28

Channel downcutting also occurred until bedrock was reached. One result of this

downcutting is significant bank erosion and downstream deposition of silt. Bank

erosion will continue until the 17 miles of river that were removed are once

again reclaimed (Dent et al. 1998).

The impacts of the drainage ditch on the Addition area are much less extreme.

The first 3 miles of the drainage ditch do not carry water except during high

flows because the presence of bedrock prevented excavation to the required

depth. Upstream headcutting likely occurred shortly after drainage ditch

construction but not to the same degree as the downcutting within the drainage

ditch. Current levels of bank erosion and changes in hydrology are probably

influenced much more by upstream factors than lingering effects of the drainage

ditch.

3.2.8 River Water Quality

Erosion and sedimentation from agricultural lands do cause water quality

problems in the Marais des Cygnes River, especially during periods of moderate

to high flows. During low flow periods in the summer and winter River clarity

increases dramatically. The quality of water in the River may perhaps best be

determined by a close study of the River’s mussel population. Currently, 23

species have been found living in the River at Marais des Cygnes NWR.

Acid mine drainage and high iron and sulphate levels occur in portions of Mulberry Creek, a tributary located within the Addition area. However, the stream

is not considered acidified. Mining ceased within the watershed in 1989 and, as a

result of this, water quality is expected to improve with time (Dent et al. 1997).

3.3 Description of Habitat

3.3.1 Wetlands

Wetlands are largely confined to the floodplain of the Marais des Cygnes River

and two of its larger tributaries, Mine Creek and Mulberry Creek. Shallow

wetlands are found throughout floodplain hardwood forest tracts. These wetlands are quickly recharged by local rain events. Oxbow wetlands are much

deeper and rarely go dry. Large open wetlands are generally created by manmade dikes for waterfowl hunting.

Wetlands within floodplain cropland can often be restored by plugging ditches or

the construction of a series of shallow dikes along the end of a field which has

been W-ditched. W-ditches occur where a field’s flat topography is made to

appear in cross-section as a W to provide high spots for crops and low spots for

water.

Approximately 370 acres of oxbow wetlands and wetlands managed for waterfowl hunting occur in the Addition area. (Figure 5 illustrates all cover types

found within the area of the proposed addition.)
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment

29

Figure 5: Cover Types of Proposed Area Superimposed Upon an Aerial Photograph
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

30

3.3.2 Floodplain and Upland Forests

Young floodplain forests are generally composed of sycamore, green ash, cottonwood, and silver maple while more mature stands include pecan, Shumard oak,

pin oak, shellbark hickory, and American elm.

Young upland forests are frequently composed of osage orange, honey locust,

and persimmon while more mature forests are often comprised of red oak, bur

oak, chinquapin oak, post oak, hackberry, and shagbark hickory.

Some of the upland forests are very open and have a

grass understory. A number of these open forests

may be restorable to oak savannah.

Pecan orchards are found throughout the region. A

number of local harvesters purchase nuts from

private landowners, process the nuts, and sell them in

the national marketplace.

Abandoned cropland in the bottoms rapidly reverts to

forest. While floodplain forest tracts are generally

small throughout the area, they are also frequent.

Seed sources abound and flood events bring in seed from upstream forests.

Rapidity of reforestation and species composition varies greatly depending on

distance to seed sources and kinds of trees closest to the site. Most abandoned

sites will appear as a young forest within 4 to 5 years.

Approximately 35 percent of the original floodplain hardwood forest acreage

still occurs within the floodplain of the Addition area. The area contains approximately 1,675 acres of upland forest and 1,840 acres floodplain forest. Forests

cover approximately 32 percent of the Addition area.

3.3.3 Tallgrass Prairie and Other Grasslands

Much of the tallgrass prairie in the Addition area has been replaced by forest,

cropland, and fescue pasture. Remaining tracts are generally less than 40 acres

in size, are grazed or hayed, and vary in quality from poor to high. High quality

tracts contain 100 to 200 species of plants. Common prairie species are Indian

grass, big bluestem grass, gama grass, compass plant, pale purple coneflower,

and prairie blazing star. Examples of dry rock prairie, mesic prairie, and wet

prairie can all be found in the area.

Fescue pasture is the predominant cover type on the uplands. This non-native

grass is able to withstand tremendous grazing pressure and therefore was

widely planted to replace native grasslands that had become dominated by

annual weeds due to season-long grazing. Some fescue grasslands harbor a great

diversity of native prairie plants and can be returned to native prairie with

careful management. Other fescue stands must be farmed or sprayed if fescue is

not desired. The largest fescue stands occur in the northwestern portion of the

Addition area where they were planted after the area was mined and reclaimed.

Natural forest

regeneration in

abandaned floodplain

crop field.
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment

31

The area contains 430 acres of tallgrass prairie (estimate)

and 5,020 acres of fescue and other grasses. Grasslands

cover 49 percent of the Addition area.

3.3.4 Cropland

Crops commonly grown in the area include corn, milo,

soybeans, and winter wheat. Crops provide food and

cover for many species of wildlife but only during certain

times of the year.

Most cropland within the floodplain is not protected by

levees and is thus subject to river flooding. A number of

corporate farming operations are located immediately

downstream of the Addition area where the Bates

County Drainage Ditch and levees have reduced the

likelihood of flooding.

Approximately 1,740 acres of cropland occur in the

addition area, of which 230 acres occur on the uplands

and 1,510 occur in the bottoms. The percentage of croplands is 2 percent of the uplands, 29 percent of the

floodplain, and 16 percent of the Addition Area (see

Figure 6 and Figure 7).

3.3.5 Prairie River

An 8.8-mile reach of the Marais des Cygnes River and

the last 3.7 miles of Mine Creek and 3.5 miles of Mulberry

Creek travel through the Addition area. The River contains three rock riffles

with associated gravel bars, which are believed to be important for paddlefish

and walleye spawning (Dent et al. 1997) as well as mussel habitat. Approximately 1.5 miles (20 percent) of the 8.8-mile reach of the River contains exposed

rock substrate in and along the River. The area provides excellent spawning and

nursery habitat for a number of sport fish (walleye, white bass, perhaps paddlefish) that migrate out of Truman Lake and into the river to spawn. The young of

these fish are recruited to the Truman Lake fishery to maintain a quality fishery

for sport anglers.

One levee, 2.1 miles long, occurs along a portion of the south bank of the Marais

des Cygnes River within the Addition area. The bank opposite of this levee

exhibits significant erosion, probably in part due to the presence of the levee but

also because all streamside forest has been removed. Another levee is located

along the lower reach of Mine Creek and is 1.9 miles in length. This levee does

not prevent flooding from the Marais des Cygnes River, however. The land

behind the levee is in fescue pasture. Mulberry Creek also has one levee along it

that is 2.2 miles in length. The total area of floodplain behind levees is 444 acres,

8 percent of the floodplain.

Two dams, Bagnell (1931) and Truman (1979), are located downstream of the

Addition area. These reservoirs do not impact flooding of the area but nevertheless have significant impacts on aquatic species, especially mussels. A severe

drought, even if it occurs only once or twice a century, could easily reduce or

Figure 6: Floodplain Cover Types

Figure 7: Upland Cover Types
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

32

eliminate some populations in the upper watershed as there is no longer a means

for downstream populations, whose young disperse by attaching to fish, to

recolonize above the dams. However, upstream reservoirs have greatly lessened

the intensity, frequency, and duration of low water events (< 5 cfs) (Gleason

2001) and therefore have to some degree mitigated the negative effects of

downstream dams.

3.4 The Current Ecological Condition

3.4.1 Fish and Wildlife

3.4.1.1 Mammals

The proposed Addition area supports a variety of resident mammals including

white-tailed deer, opossum, raccoon, wood and cotton rat, gray, fox, and flying

squirrel, red and gray fox, coyote, otter, bobcat, and nine-banded armadillo. A

total of 41 mammal species are likely to occur in the addition area (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1998).

Reports of wild hogs and mountain lions occur occasionally. No populations are

believed established in the area. However, the Schell-Osage Wildlife Area, 30

miles southeast of the Addition area, enacted an eradication program in 2000 to

prevent a small population of wild hogs from becoming established in the area.

At the time of European settlement in the early 1800s the area was home to

herds of elk and bison. Bison skulls and bones are still commonly found along

river bars. See Appendix D for area mammals species list.

3.4.1.2 Birds

A Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Marais des Cygnes NWR lists the

presence of 317 species of birds including 31 waterfowl and 36 warbler species. A

total of 109 species of birds nest on the Refuge.

Wetlands are important stopover sites in the spring and fall for many migratory

birds. Puddle ducks, including Mallards, Wood Ducks, Gadwall and Blue-winged

Teal, and Canada Geese are frequently observed where wetlands are available.

Resident Canada Geese (giant) use open water wetlands for nesting. Canada

Geese and Mallards concentrate in large numbers on river riffles that remain

open throughout the winter. These sites provide hunting opportunities for

people and Bald Eagles.

In general, fall waterfowl populations at Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Area

average 30,000 with peaks of 60,000 (Karl Karrow, personal communication).

Waterfowl populations at August A. Busch Four Rivers Wildlife Area generally

average 75,000 with peaks of 100,000 (Josh Cussimanio, Personal communication). Most waterfowl use is by ducks, particularly mallards. Waterfowl migrate

back and forth between these two areas and can be expected to readily utilize

any wetlands that are restored in the Addition area. Marais des Cygnes Wildlife

Area is located 4 miles west of the Addition area and Four Rivers Wildlife Area

is located 20 miles southeast of the Addition area.
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment

33

A number of Great Blue Heron rookeries are located along the mid reach of the

Marais des Cygnes River. Nests are generally located in large sycamores. The

number of nests in a rookery are generally less than 100.

Greater Prairie Chickens are occasionally seen in the area. The nearest active

dancing grounds, or leks, occur 25 miles to the southwest of the Addition area

near Blue Mound, Kansas, and 30 miles to the southeast of the Addition area

near Nevada, Missouri. The leks are gathering sites where male Prairie Chickens display to attract females during the breeding season.

The following migratory bird species are listed as Resource Conservation

Priorities by Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and would benefit

from the proposed project: Bald Eagle, Wood Thrush, Piping Plover, Interior

Least Tern, Loggerhead Shrike, Grasshopper Sparrow, and Dickcissel.

The following additional bird species listed as Endangered by the State of

Missouri would also benefit from the project: Barn Owl, Northern Harrier, King

Rail, American Bittern, Snowy Egret, and possibly the Greater Prairie Chicken

(Missouri Department of Conservation websites).

Other birds also likely to benefit include Cerulean Warbler, Bell’s Vireo, Redshouldered Hawk, Henslow’s Sparrow, Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Short-eared

Owl, and Painted Bunting. See Appendix D for area bird species list.

3.4.1.3 Fish and Mussels

A total of 48 species of fish have been collected from

the Marais des Cygnes River and tributaries in

Missouri since 1986 (Dent et al. 1998). Walleye, white

bass, and paddlefish migrate to river gravel bars

located within the Addition area to spawn. The

spawning sites for paddlefish that occur within

Marais des Cygnes NWR and the Addition area may

be among the most important within the West Osage

River Basin (Dent et al. 1998). The paddlefish is

listed on a “Watch List” in Missouri.

Limited surveys conducted since 1998 at Marais des Cygnes NWR have documented a total of 30 species of mussels living within the Marais des Cygnes

River and adjacent floodplain wetlands. Based on recent discoveries of non-relict

shells and upstream discoveries, additional species will likely occur.

Non-relic shells of spectacle case mussel (Cumberlandia monodonta) indicate a

recently (estimates range from 25 years to 75 years) extirpated population on a

rocky reach of river within Marais des Cygnes NWR (Brian Obermeyer and Ed

Miller, personal communication). The possibility of undiscovered specimens or

populations within the River still exists. The species has been proposed for

federal listing and is on a “Watch List” in Missouri.

Flat floater mussels (Anodonta suborbiculata) are uncommon in both Kansas

and Missouri but are relatively common within the mid reach of the Marais des

Cygnes River. These mussels are largely confined to floodplain wetlands that

are periodically flooded by a nearby river. The species is listed as “endangered”

in Kansas.

Spectacle Case

Mussel
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

34

Rock pocketbook mussels (Arcidens

confragosus) are also uncommon in Kansas and

Missouri. A population was discovered in 2000 in

Pottawatomie Creek, an upstream tributary of

the Marais des Cygnes River in Kansas, by Dr.

Robert Angelo, Kansas Department of Health

and Environment. The species is listed as

“threatened” in Kansas and “rare” in Missouri.

Black sandshell (Ligumia recta) mussels have

not been observed live in Kansas since 1912. In

August 2002, a live Black sandshell mussel was

found in the Marais des Cygnes River on the

Refuge (Angelo 2003).

Winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) is another

federally listed endangered species that may occur on the Refuge. A shell

discovered on the Refuge in 2001 was confirmed by Dr. David Stansbery, Ohio

State University, to be Quadrula fragosa. Dr. Stansbery urged further exploration for this rare mussel.

Pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) is a federally listed endangered

species that was discovered live in the Sac River in Missouri in

2001 by Dr. Chris Barnhart, Southwest Missouri State University.

The Sac River is a tributary of the Osage River. No dams obstruct

movement of fish and mussels between the Marais des Cygnes

River and the Sac River.

Scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon) was federally listed as an

endangered species in 2001. An extant population of this species

was discovered downstream of Bagnall Dam in 2001 in the Osage

River. Historic records within the West Osage River Basin indicate the possibility that the species may occur within Marais des Cygnes NWR and the Addition

area (Brian Obermeyer, personal communication).

See Appendix D for a list of area fish and mussel species.

3.4.1.4 Reptiles and Amphibians

Approximately 58 species of snakes, lizards, frogs, salamanders, and turtles are

likely to occur in the Addition area (Marais des Cygnes NWR CCP) of which 16

are amphibians and 42 are reptiles. The northern crawfish frog and great plains

skink are two species that are likely in the Addition area and are uncommon in

Missouri. See Appendix D for area reptile and amphibian species list.

3.4.1.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

Ten federally listed threatened or endangered species may occur in the Addition

Area, four of which – Bald Eagle, Interior Least Tern, Piping Plover, and Mead’s

milkweed – have been observed within or near the Addition area. Pink mucket

mussel, winged mapleleaf mussel, scaleshell mussel, American burying beetle,

western prairie fringed orchid, and running buffalo clover historically occurred

in the area and may still occur or be restored to the area.

A population of Mead’s milkweed occurs at Marais des Cygnes NWR within a

short distance of the Addition area and likely occurs within existing prairie

areas in the Addition area.

Mussel bed on the

Marais des Cygnes

River (above) and

mussels (below).
Chapter 3 / Refuge Environment

35

Bald Eagles are common winter visitors along the Marais des

Cygnes River, especially where rock riffles keep water open

and attract large concentrations of geese and Mallards. Active

Bald Eagle nests occur 40 miles upstream (northwest) of the

Addition area at Hillsdale Reservoir, Kansas, and 30 miles

downstream (southeast) at Schell-Osage Wildlife Area, Missouri.

Thirteen species listed as endangered in Missouri may occur

within the Addition area, 10 of which have been observed

within or near the Addition area. Bald Eagle, Barn Owl,

Northern Harrier, King Rail, American Bittern, Snowy Egret, Interior Least

Tern, Greater Prairie Chicken, black tailed jackrabbit, and Mead’s milkweed

have been observed within or near the Addition area. American burying beetle,

western prairie fringed orchid, and running buffalo clover may occur in the area

but have not been recently observed (Missouri Department of Conservation

websites). See Appendix D for a listing of area federal and state-listed endangered species.

3.4.2 Biological Diversity

Biological diversity is the variety of life and its processes. This variety may

occur at the species, community, and ecosystem level. Bio-diversity supports the

stability and resilience of ecological systems that provide the “ecosystem

services” upon which we depend, such as soil building, erosion control, and

hydrologic cycles. The loss of this diversity threatens the function of ecosystems

everywhere (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001), including the State of Missouri.

The Addition area contains a tremendous variety of plants and animals for an

area of its size. Located within the transition zone of two biomes, tallgrass

prairie and the eastern deciduous forest, and between two high quality representatives of these biomes, the tallgrass prairie of the Flint Hills of Kansas and

the oak-hickory forest of the Ozarks of Missouri, the region has tremendous

potential, with management, to increase in diversity. The presence of the Marais

des Cygnes River and its associated floodplain further adds to the diversity of

the area.

A total of 317 species of birds, 41 mammals, 58 reptiles and amphibians (Marais

des Cygnes NWR CCP), 48 fish (Dent et al. 1998), and 30 mussels (Marais des

Cygnes NWR staff) occur in the area for a total of 494 different animal species.

This number includes a tremendous variety of aquatic, forest, and prairie species

all within a short distance of each other, such as Cerulean Warbler and Redshouldered Hawk in forests, Loggerhead Shrike and Scissor-tailed Flycatcher in

shrubland/savannah, Henslow’s Sparrow and Short-eared Owl in grasslands, flat

floater mussels and Green Herons in wetlands, and paddlefish and Hooded

Merganser along the River.

Plant community diversity is equally great with examples of prairie and woodland sites containing dry, mesic, and wet species associations. Some representative prairie species of each community association include prickly pear cacti on

dry sites, big bluestem on mesic sites, and cordgrass on wet sites. Some repreMead’s Milkweed
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

36

sentative woodland species of each community association include black jack oak

on dry sites, shagbark hickory on mesic sites, and pin oak on wet sites. American

lotus, an emergent, and Potamogeton spp., a submergent, are some representative aquatic species.

Many typically southern species occur at their northern limits in the region

including pecan, persimmon, and paw paw. Other species that are commonly

found farther north, such as bur oak, occur as a southern subspecies. The

southern subspecies of bur oak is readily recognized from the northern subspecies by its location in wet rather than dry sites and by the much larger nut size.

See Appendix D for area Missouri rare species list.

3.5 Archaeological and Cultural

Resources

The Addition area is located within a region identified

to contain archaeological sites dating to the Archaic

Period, circa 3500 B.C. Settlement patterns for both

Archaic and Ceramic periods were in sheltered lowlands along major and minor drainages. However,

seasonal upland camps have been identified dating to

the Archaic and Early Ceramic periods.

A prehistoric campsite assigned to the Early Ceramic Temporal Period (A.D. 1

to A.D. 1000) is located 1 mile west of the Addition area. The site covers approximately 7 acres and is located within the floodplain of the Marais des Cygnes

River. The potential for similar sites along the River is high (Marais des Cygnes

NWR CCP). Evidence of old homesteads and small family coal mines are also

present in the area.

An archaeological review, conducted for Pittsburgh and Midway Coal Mining

Company prior to excavation within the northwest portion of the Addition area,

identified two prehistoric archaeological sites. Both sites were believed to be of

temporary use as no middens (prehistoric dumps) were identified. Both sites

contained chipped stone fragments and tools such as scrapers (Schmits 1986).

Plant and mollusc fossils, mammoth teeth, and bison, elk, and camel bones are

occasionally discovered along the Marais des Cygnes River.

Artifacts found on

Refuge land.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

37

Chapter 4.0 – Environmental

Consequences

4.1 Environmental Consequences Related to

Natural Resource Concerns

4.1.1 Alternative A: No Action

Marais des Cygnes NWR operations would continue to operate at the current

level, entirely in the State of Kansas. The 7,500 acres of current holdings could

be expanded by acquiring additional lands within the original approved acquisition boundary encompassing 9,300 acres. Management efforts would be directed

toward achieving existing resource goals in Kansas.

The consequences of Alternative A are described for each of the following land

management priorities and project goals.

Protect and increase the diversity and abun- Protect and increase the diversity and abundance of migratory bird and waterfowl species

dependent on bottomland hardwood and

tallgrass prairie habitats. tallgrass prairie habitats.

Diversity of the proposed Addition area would

likely decrease over time as native prairies are

replaced by fescue, noxious weeds, and forest.

Bottomland forest would continue to decrease as

it is replaced with cropland or waterfowl hunting

marshes. Whether future conversion of bottomland forests will largely be to cropland, or to

hunting marshes, is difficult to determine. Many

variables including waterfowl populations, the

economy, weather patterns, and farm programs

greatly influence land use patterns in the area.

Croplands do provide food for migrating waterfowl, especially for geese. Most of

the year, however, croplands are of little value to wildlife. Waterfowl marshes in

the region are used by waterfowl and other wetland birds when they are

flooded. Waterfowl marshes are generally flooded from September through

February and drained in March. Sometimes they are allowed to grow native

marsh plants. Other times they are planted to crops. The values of waterfowl

marshes to wildlife diversity varies greatly depending on how the marshes are

managed.

While a few hunting marshes may add to the wildlife diversity of the area, many

such marshes, particularly if bottomland hardwood forest or wet prairie are

eliminated to create them, would decrease wildlife diversity.

Forest sites that are not converted to other uses may be logged as trees become

mature. Most grasslands would likely continue to be grazed season-long and

Fescue grassland

near Mulberry Creek.
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

38

thus not provide a variety of plant species and vegetation heights. The continued sparsity of old mature timber and variety of grassland cover heights would

likely prevent further increases in abundance and diversity of wildlife in the

area.

Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish, Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish,

mussels, and other aquatic life unique to a prairie river hydrology and

habitat, as well as wildlife and plant populations associated with floodplain

hardwood and tallgrass prairie. hardwood and tallgrass prairie.

In general, the diversity and abundance of native, non-migratory wildlife would

likely decrease over time for the same reasons as discussed in the above section

about migratory bird and waterfowl species. Quail populations would likely

continue to decline as upland brushland becomes forest and fescue continues to

dominate grasslands. Some species, such as turkey and white-tailed deer, would

likely remain at current levels or even increase over time as upland forest

habitat increases.

Fish and mussel abundance and diversity would decrease greatly if levees are

constructed along the River and bottomland forests are replaced with cropland.

Levees would prevent access by fish to the floodplain. The floodplain provides

an important aquatic food resource and floodplain wetlands provide nursery

habitat for many aquatic species including paddlefish.

Restore, enhance, and protect water quality and quantity that approaches

natural hydrologic functions. natural hydrologic functions.

If levees are constructed, river hydrology would change greatly. Floodplain

areas without levees would experience more severe flooding. The River would

also scour the riverbed much more vigorously, which would remove some mussel

beds and fish spawning beds and reduce the fine rock particles in others, resulting in degraded habitat.

If existing grassland and forest areas are converted to cropland, increased

sediment would be deposited into the River. This sediment would negatively

impact mussel beds and fish spawning beds.

Refuge staff will work with responsible parties within the existing laws and ??

to ensure that unreclaimed strip mines do not contribute to acidity runoff and

heavy metals contamination of the watershed.

Work in partnership with others, including private landowners, to restore

or enhance bottomland hardwood forest, tallgrass prairie, and other unique

plant communities. plant communities.

Little effort would be made by Refuge staff to deliberately contact private

landowners and encourage specific management practices. Landowners requesting assistance would be assisted, however.

Private lands biologists with the Fish and Wildlife Service and Missouri Department of Conservation as well as Natural Resource Conservation staff could

provide assistance and information about specific conservation programs. These

personnel have been providing assistance throughout the region for many years

and will likely do so in the future as well.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

39

Protect and restore federally listed and State-listed Threatened and Endan- Protect and restore federally listed and State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species. gered Species.

The number and abundance of endangered species would likely decrease over

time. Impacts would vary greatly depending on the species. Bald Eagles,

particularly wintering populations, would be less impacted while Mead’s milkweed, a prairie plant, would be greatly impacted. The kinds of impacts to habitat

that are likely to occur are the same as those discussed in the above section.

Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public, Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public,

emphasizing increased public understanding of floodplain hardwood forest

and tallgrass prairie ecosystems and the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Refuge System.

Service action would not result in improved recreational opportunities on Marais

des Cygnes NWR. Opportunities for wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting,

fishing and wildlife observation would be limited to those provided by private

landowners. Without the availability of environmental education programs, any

activities that do occur would be less effective in increasing public understanding

of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem.

4.1.2 Alternative B: Protect and Restore Habitat in the Marais

des Cygnes Floodplain in Missouri through Land Acquisition

Purchase additional lands, fee title, only in the floodplain, in order to expand the

Refuge capability to protect, restore and preserve floodplain habitat associated

with the Marais des Cygnes River by extending the Refuge into the Marais des

Cygnes/West Osage River Basin of Missouri.

The main difference between Alternative B and Alternative C (next section) is

that Alternative B primarily targets the floodplain with restoration of wetlands

and bottomland hardwoods as primary goals while Alternative C includes these

goals as well as the protection and restoration of native prairie on the uplands

adjacent to the floodplain.

The consequences of Alternative B are described for each of the following land

management priorities and project goals.

Protect and increase the diversity and abundance of migratory bird and

waterfowl species dependent on bottomland hardwood and tallgrass prairie

habitats. habitats.habitats.

Bottomland cropland and grassland sites would be planted to bottomland

hardwood forest or restored to wetland. Fescue grassland sites that were wet

prairie, according to the 1857 land survey, would be restored to wet prairie.

Most of the bottomland was not historically wet prairie, therefore wet prairie

restoration would be limited.

The forests of the bottomland would change from a fragmented landscape of

many small forests of mostly young trees to a landscape of large tracts of forest

with many mature trees. The forests would be interspersed with many shallow,

depressional wetlands and deeper oxbow wetlands.
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

40

Wetlands would not be routinely filled in the fall and drained in the spring, as most

duck marshes are, which would provide summer breeding habitat for many

species of marsh and shorebirds birds.

Species requiring expansive tracts of bottomland forest and mature trees will

increase, including Red-shouldered Hawk and Cerulean Warbler. Many other

species such as, broad-head skink, flat-floater mussel, Wood Duck, and Hooded

Merganser would also benefit.

Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish, Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish,

mussels, and other aquatic life unique to a prairie river hydrology and

habitat, as well as wildlife and plant populations associated with floodplain

hardwood and tallgrass prairie. hardwood and tallgrass prairie.

Resident forest and wetland species including Turkey, white-tailed deer, gray

fox, otter, flat floater mussel, and broad head skink would increase as forest and

wetland habitats become more available.

Increases in habitat for resident wildlife in the area would likely increase

wildlife populations on adjacent private land, which currently provides limited

types of cover needed by wildlife such as nesting, brood, escape, feeding, and

winter cover. This alternative would provide excellent spawning and nursery

habitat for a number of sport fish (walleye, white bass and perhaps paddlefish)

that migrate out of Truman Lake and into the river to spawn. The young of these

fish are recruited to the Truman Lake fishery to maintain a quality fishery for

sport anglers.

Restore, enhance, and protect water quality and quantity that approaches

natural hydrologic functions. natural hydrologic functions. R natural hydrologic functions. eduction of cropland and restoration of forests

and wetlands would reduce local sediment loads into the Marais des Cygnes

River. The blocking of drainage ditches and W-ditches, in addition to restoring

wetlands, would also help to decrease sediment loads and slow run-off into

streams and the River. These measures, as well as the installation of rock and/or

concrete structures on small streams, could stop head-cutting of tributary

streams. All of these actions would result in a much more wet floodplain, which

would allow shallow marshes to hold water for longer periods of time and allow

bottomland hardwood forest species to out compete upland forest species

throughout more of the floodplain.

Removal of levees within the study area would make more floodplain habitat

available for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, lessen the scouring effect on river

mussel and spawning beds, and decrease the duration and heights of floods

immediately upstream of the levees.

Refuge staff will work with responsible parties within the existing laws and

regulations to ensure that unreclaimed strip mines do not contribute to acidity

runoff and heavy metals contamination of the watershed.

Work in partnership with others, including private landowners, to restore

or enhance bottomland hardwood, tallgrass prairie, and other unique plant

communities. communities.

Private landowners adjacent to and within an approved acquisition boundary

would be encouraged to conduct restoration of bottomland hardwood forest,

wetlands, and wet prairie. Efforts would especially concentrate on sites where

restoration would create large tracts of forest.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

41

Protect and restore federally listed and State-listed Threatened and Endan- Protect and restore federally listed and State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species. gered Species

Species that use wetlands and bottomland forest would benefit. Bald Eagles,

both breeding and migratory birds, would have an increased number of wetlands available for feeding, even in the summer, when most duck marshes are

dry. Large mature trees used for nesting and perching would be available near

most feeding sites.

Populations of Piping Plover and Least Tern migrate through the area in the

spring and fall. During dry periods, exposed areas along the River and adjacent

to wetlands could provide a limited amount of habitat.

Western prairie fringed orchid may occur in wet prairie sites. Wet prairie sites

that are currently hay meadows would likely be hayed less often and burned

more often. Lands adjacent to the sites that are not currently wet prairie but

were wet prairie historically would be restored. These restored lands would act

as a buffer where forest and noxious weed invasion could be controlled with less

impact to the native prairie.

The scale shell mussel may occur in mussel beds in the Marais des Cygnes River.

Management activities that reduce silt loads and improve habitat for fish species

used by the scale shell mussel for dispersal should help the species.

Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public, Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public,

emphasizing increased public understanding of floodplain hardwood forest

and tallgrass prairie ecosystems and the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Refuge System.

More wildlife-dependent recreation would be available to the public. Hunting

would be safer and more enjoyable for participants because the Refuge would

monitor participation and, if necessary, limit participation. Other activities

would be encouraged and programming would contribute to increasing visitors’

understanding of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem and the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System. Flooding may sometimes limit recreational activities.

4.1.3 Alternative C: Protect and Restore Floodplain and

Adjacent Upland Habitat along Missouri Reaches of the Marais

des Cygnes River by Acquiring Additional Lands (Preferred

Alternative)

Purchase additional lands, fee title, in order to expand the Refuge capability to

protect, restore and preserve bottomland, wetland, and native prairie habitat on

lands adjacent to and nearby the Marais des Cygnes River in Marais des

Cygnes/West Osage Basin of Missouri.

The main difference between Alternative C and Alternative B is that Alternative B primarily targets the floodplain with restoration of wetlands and bottomland hardwoods as primary goals while Alternative C includes these goals as

well as the protection and restoration of native prairie on the uplands adjacent

to the floodplain.
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

42

This alternative is preferred by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because it

provides the broadest and most permanent form of protection to natural resource values of the targeted reach of the Marais des Cygnes River in Missouri.

The consequences of Alternative C are described for each of the following land

management priorities and project goals. The consequences regarding the

floodplain were described in Alternative B and are the same for Alternative C,

therefore, only consequences regarding the uplands are discussed below.

Protect and increase the diversity and abundance of migratory bird and

waterfowl species dependent on bottomland hardwood and tallgrass prairie

habitats. habitats.habitats.

Fescue grasslands would be managed to lessen or remove fescue in favor of

native prairie species. Management efforts could include short-term farming,

early spring herbicide application, late spring burns, and intense spring-fall

grazing. The types of management actions taken would largely depend on the

plant and animal diversity present on the site.

Restored grasslands would likely be managed with a combination of grazing and

prescribed fire. Grazing would likely be rest-rotational, which would allow a

diversity of grassland heights and density and prevent individual species of

native plants from being eliminated from an area due to grazing pressure.

Haying would not be frequently employed.

Trees along fence rows and draws would be removed to reduce perches for avian

predators and grassland fragmentation. Large patches of upland forest would

not likely be removed but may be restored to savannah if species such as bur

oak and post oak are present.

The increase in native plant diversity, diversity of grassland heights and density,

and reduction of grassland fragmentation should greatly increase the abundance

and diversity of grassland birds.

Some of the migratory bird species likely to be benefitted are: Barn Owl, Shorteared Owl, Northern Harrier, Swainson’s Hawk, Loggerhead Shrike, Upland

Sandpiper, Bell’s Vireo, Henslow’s Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Dickcissel,

and Scissor-tailed Flycatcher.

Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish, Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish,

mussels, and other aquatic life unique to a prairie river hydrology and

habitat, as well as wildlife and plant populations associated with floodplain

hardwood and tallgrass prairie. hardwood and tallgrass prairie.

Black-tailed jack rabbit, Greater Prairie-chicken, and Northern Bobwhite would

benefit from grassland restoration efforts. All of these species are in serious

decline in the region. Many factors may be affecting population declines. However, the dominance of fescue grass, increased presence of trees and mature

upland forest, and fragmentation of grasslands are likely major factors affecting

these and other native grassland species.

Efforts to restore native prairie, reduce the presence of upland trees, and

eliminate grassland fragmentation should help native grassland species.

This alternative would provide excellent spawning and nursery habitat for a

number of sport fish (walleye, white bass and perhaps paddlefish) that migrate out
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

43

of Truman Lake and into the river to spawn. The young of these fish are recruited

to the Truman Lake fishery to maintain a quality fishery for sport anglers.

Restore, enhance, and protect water quality and quantity that approaches

natural hydrologic functions. natural hydrologic functions.

Grasslands would be managed to leave more litter on the ground, which would

lessen erosion. Crop fields would be planted to grass, which would further reduce

erosion. Additional improvement in water quality will be realized by converting

cropland to grass which will reduce fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide use in the

watershed of the Marais des Cygnes River. Refuge staff will work with responsible parties within the existing laws and regulations to ensure that unreclaimed

strip mines do not contribute to acidity runoff and heavy metals contamination of

the watershed.

Work in partnership with others, including private landowners, to restore

or enhance bottomland hardwood, tallgrass prairie, and other unique plant

communities. communities.

Private landowners adjacent to and within an approved acquisition boundary

would be encouraged to conduct restoration of native prairie. Efforts would

especially concentrate on sites where restoration would create large tracts of

grassland.

Protect and restore federally listed and State-listed Threatened and Endan- Protect and restore federally listed and State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species. gered Species.

Mead’s milkweed likely occurs on some of the native prairie sites. The greatest

threats to these populations are invasion by Sericea lespedeza, an aggressive

noxious weed, and subsequent control with broadcast application of herbicide.

Management efforts would strive to identify all Mead’s milkweed populations

and carefully spot-spray Sericea plants near the sites with an approved herbicide such as Garlon. Other threats to sites are herbicide drift from adjacent

pastures or crop fields and invasion by forest. All Mead’s milkweed sites would

be protected with large buffers of restored prairie.

American burying beetle and running buffalo clover likely occurred in the area

historically. No populations are known to exist in the area. Restoration of these

species would be periodically evaluated as prairie restoration efforts advance.

Several state-listed threatened and endangered species occur in the area and

would be benefitted by grassland restoration efforts. Many of these are migratory species identified in the previous section.

Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public, Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public,

emphasizing increased public understanding of floodplain hardwood forest

and tallgrass prairie ecosystems and the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Refuge System.

With less potential for flooding, Alternative C offers the greatest benefits for

wildlife-dependent recreation. More opportunities for recreational activities

would be available with restoration focused on grasslands and ponds. Access to

the Refuge would also be greater, which might result in more people visiting the

Refuge and greater public understanding of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem and

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

44

4.1.4 Alternative D: Protect and Restore Additional

Floodplain and Adjacent Uplands through Long-term

Easements and Private Land Programs

Expand the Refuge’s capability to protect and restore floodplain and upland

habitat on private lands entirely through easements and agreements with land

owners.

The consequences of Alternative D are described below for each of the following

land management priorities and project goals. However, a short discussion

regarding easements precedes these descriptions.

The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) and Conservation Reserve Program

(CRP) are two programs administered by the Natural Resource Conservation

Service (NRCS), U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, which benefit wildlife. Both WRP

and CRP sites exist in the study area

Wetland Reserve Program agreements are long-term easements that occur only

in the floodplain and result in areas being restored to wetland and planted to

wet prairie and bottomland forest. The program provides excellent habitat for

bottomland wildlife. However, a number of factors make the program unattractive to many landowners. Draw-down or discing of wetlands for waterfowl

management purposes requires written permission, which is sometimes difficult

or not possible to obtain. Harvest of pecans and firewood is prohibited. Future

construction of roads and buildings is prohibited. The purchase of these easements is little different than outright purchase of the land in that the cost of the

easements is often very close to the appraised value of the property and nearly

all property rights are owned by the government other than public access.

The CRP program involves short-term easements, generally 10 years in length,

which mostly occur on uplands. Most often, uplands are planted to native

grasses and forbs. The program has been a boon to grassland wildlife, especially

species requiring dense grassland cover. However, no grazing is allowed on CRP

sites and many are not burned, which results in serious invasion by trees on

some sites. In areas where CRP sites are prevalent, the landscape is more

diverse, however, grasslands are generally dominated by either very short grass

or very tall rank grass with little in between in regard to density or heights.

This limits the ability of the grassland landscape to increase wildlife diversity.

Other easement options could be developed by the Service to complement WRP

and CRP. While these options may be more attractive to some landowners, there

will always be landowners who don’t want to be encumbered by easements and

would simply prefer to sell their land.

While easements offer a tremendous opportunity to improve wildlife habitat

across broad landscapes, they are of much less value when targeting a specific

area where many tracts of land must be similarly managed to create landscape

goals such as reduction in habitat fragmentation. Also, most easements with

habitat goals do not provide access to the public.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

45

Protect and increase the diversity and abundance of migratory bird and

waterfowl species dependent on bottomland hardwood and tallgrass prairie

habitats. habitats.habitats.

Easements would increase wetland and grassland restoration throughout the

area and thus increase the abundance of migratory bird and waterfowl species.

Specific management practices – timing and application method of herbicides to

control weeds and trees or timing and frequency of burning – would vary

greatly depending on landowner interest and funding. These differences would

affect the diversity and abundance of wildlife on a given site. Ways to encourage

rest-rotational grazing to provide a diversity of grassland heights and density

would be the most difficult obstacle to overcome.

Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish, Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish,

mussels, and other aquatic life unique to a prairie river hydrology and

habitat, as well as wildlife and plant populations associated with floodplain

hardwood and tallgrass prairie. hardwood and tallgrass prairie.

The consequences to native wildlife would be much the same as those discussed

in the above section regarding migratory birds and waterfowl.

Restore, enhance, and protect water quality and quantity that approaches

natural hydrologic functions. natural hydrologic functions.

Water quality would likely improve but would be limited by the interest in

landowners to take cropland out of production, reduce grazing levels, and

restore wetlands, prairie, and bottomland forest.

Work in partnership with others, including private landowners, to restore

or enhance bottomland hardwood, tallgrass prairie, and other unique plant

communities. communities.

Vigorous effort would be made to encourage landowners to restore grassland

and bottomland hardwood forest, and available habitat restoration programs

would be thoroughly explained. However, only one-third of the landowners in

the proposed Addition area reside in Bates County. Nearly half of the landowners do not reside in Missouri. Because of the high number of absentee landowners, the ability or interest of landowners to more aggressively manage their land

to benefit wildlife will naturally be limited. In many cases a tenant makes most

of the land management decisions. Tenants who graze or farm generally have

little interest in taking cropland out of production, reducing grazing levels, or

spot spraying rather than broadcast spraying noxious weeds.

Protect and restore federally and state-listed threatened and endangered

species. species.species.

Many landowners are very uncomfortable about having endangered species on

their property and are unlikely to favor restoration or re-introductions on their

property for fear of government interference in their management of the land or

outright condemnation of their property.

Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public, Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public,

emphasizing increased public understanding of floodplain hardwood forest

and tallgrass prairie ecosystems and the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Refuge System.

With restoration focused on private land programs, opportunities for wildlifedependent recreation would be subject to landowners’ willingness to participate.
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

46

Under this alternative, the Refuge would not gain opportunities to increase public

understanding of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem and the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

4.2 Consequences of Alternatives Related to the

Socioeconomic Environment

This section examines the alternatives regarding their respective ability to

address the following social goals:

1) Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the

public.

2) Emphasize increased public understanding of bottomland hardwood

forest and tallgrass prairie ecosystems and the mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

This section also examines the potential effects on some key issues, including tax

revenue and the local economy, that may result from the acquisition, operation,

and maintenance of a national wildlife refuge in the study area.

Alternatives B and C require land acquisition and Alternatives B, C, and D

require the need for Refuge administration. For this reason, all of the alternatives are addressed together within this section. Alternative A, No Action

implies, with a few noted exceptions, that the local economy and taxes will follow

current trends.

4.2.1 Recreational Opportunities

Alternatives A and D do not require land acquisition. Under these alternatives

public use within the Addition area would likely be quite limited. Permission

from private landowners would be required to hunt, fish, and visit lands within

the area. Granting of permission would likely be highly variable depending on

the type of desired use, time of year, and the individual landowners’ tolerance of

public visitors.

Alternatives B and C require land acquisition. Under these alternatives much of

the land within the Addition area, following purchase by the Service, would

likely be available for wildlife-dependent recreation and interpretation. Alternative C, which includes both bottomland and upland areas, would provide more

opportunities than Alternative B, which only includes bottomlands, as there are

few roads into the bottoms, roads are generally poor, and the bottoms often flood

during the spring and fall, which is when most people wish to visit the area.

The opportunity for wildlife-dependent public recreational uses would increase

under alternatives B and C. The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 identifies six

priority uses as wildlife-dependent recreational activities: hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation.

These uses are encouraged on refuges when they are compatible with the

purposes of the refuge. All lands acquired for refuges are closed to all public

uses unless specifically opened. Prior to, or soon after lands are purchased of
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

47

sufficient size and location to allow public uses, appropriate management plans

and the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan will be amended to include the

Addition area. It is anticipated that all six priority uses will be allowed as soon as

a sufficient land base is acquired within the Addition area. Public recreational

uses are currently permitted on Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge in

Kansas.

4.2.2 Taxes

Alternative D proposes to expand the Refuge’s capability to protect and restore

floodplain and upland habitat on private lands through the Private Lands

Program, and would therefore have no impact on local taxes. Land acquisition

under Alternatives A, B and C would likely occur over 20 years or more. The

extent of fee ownership by the Service is difficult to predict as it depends on the

landowner’s desire to sell land and whether buildings are included. It is also

difficult to predict future tax assessments over such a long period. Any lands

acquired in fee/full title by the Service will no longer be on the local taxing

jurisdiction’s property tax rolls. However, Refuge Revenue Sharing, which is

further explained in Section 4.3.3, should provide tax revenues equal or greater

than current revenues.

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act authorizes payments based on the greatest

return to the county and is calculated under one of three formulas: 1) 75 cents

per acre; 2) 25 percent of the net revenue from sales of local Refuge products; or

3) three-quarters of 1 percent of the appraised value of the property. Appraised

value is evaluated on the type of land use at the time of purchase by the Service

and is re-evaluated every 5 years. If the land was being hayed or grazed at the

time of purchase it will always be re-evaluated as that land use, regardless of the

use the Service makes of the land.

Recent Revenue Sharing payments made to counties on Service lands at Big

Muddy National Wildlife Refuge near Columbia, Missouri, consistently presented payments greater than what was previously received when the land was

in private ownership, even on leveed crop fields (Tom Bell, Refuge Manager).

The conversion of existing agricultural lands to native wetlands and prairie will

require little or no new local government services. The tax burden for road

construction or repair may be reduced by the presence of a wildlife refuge and

could help eliminate any future tax shortfall.

4.2.3 The Local Economy

Alternatives A and D would likely have little or no impact on the local economy.

Under Alternative A, the Refuge would be authorized to purchase approximately 2,200 acres to the original boundary of 9,300 acres. Because the land

purchased would be minimal and would occur over time as people decided to sell

property, any change to the economy would be minimal. Alternative D focuses

on the Service’s Private Lands Program, with no impacts to the local economy

anticipated.

The local economy can experience some changes during the formation of a new

national wildlife refuge. Under Alternative B and Alternative C, the proposed

Addition would likely create increased spending in the area by visitors to the
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

48

Refuge, reduced agricultural production comparable to the Conservation Reserve

Program, and increased expenditures by the Service to build and maintain Refuge

facilities. In addition, the new Addition would likely require additional staff,

equipment, and facilities.

The Addition area would likely be developed over the course of 20 years or

more. During that time, funds would be needed for engineering and construction. Several hundred thousand dollars would be expended returning the lands

to wetlands, bottomland hardwood forest, and native prairie. This money would

be expended locally for items such as native grass seed, fuel, and contracts with

heavy equipment operators for wetland restorations.

National wildlife refuges are recognized by many wildlife recreationists, including hunters and bird watchers, as desirable destinations and many go out of

their way to visit refuges. Under Alternative A and Alternative B, such nonresident and regional visitors to the Addition area will contribute a positive level

of spending to the local economy. The communities of Amoret and Butler,

Missouri, would very likely see an increase in visitors seeking food and lodging

accommodations.

The Addition area is within 45 miles of the southern edge of the Kansas City

metropolitan area, which has a population of 1.6 million people. It is also within

10 miles of two major north-south U.S. highways, U.S. 69 located 4 miles to the

west and U.S. 71 located 10 miles to the east. U.S. 71 is a four-lane freeway and

U.S. 69 is scheduled to be a four-lane freeway by 2007. The proximity of both a

major metropolitan area and major highways could encourage extremely high

visitation levels. The amount of visitation to the area would likely need to be

controlled to prevent over-use. Control activities could be by many means,

including drawings for some hunts or limitations on access. The amount of

visitation desired and ways to control visitation would be discussed in public

meetings and outlined in appropriate management plans prior to any lands being

opened for public use.

Approximately 60-80 percent of visitors to Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife

Refuge in Kansas come from the Kansas City metropolitan area. Most visitors

come to hunt and fish, however, development of Refuge trails and wildlife

viewing areas is gradually encouraging many other kinds of visitors to come to

the Refuge.

Most hunting and fishing visitors to the Refuge come from Kansas, largely due

to the expense of out-of-state licenses. Most hunting and fishing visitors to the

Addition area, for similar reasons, are expected to come from Missouri. Interest

by the public in visiting the Addition area in Missouri is expected to be similar to

that at the Refuge in Kansas.

Bates County has many retirees and city commuters who desire easy access to a

major metropolitan area yet wish to live in a rural setting. The presence of the

Addition area under Alternative A or Alternative B would likely encourage

more movement of citizens into the county. Most new residents would likely live

in nearby communities.

In summary, the Addition proposed to Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife

Refuge under alternatives B and C would likely have a net positive effect on

county-level economic activity and could generate considerable social benefits.

No change in economic activity is expected with either Alternative A or Alterna-
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

49

tive D. The value of natural areas, such as wildlife refuges, to people and their

quality of life is difficult to measure in conventional economic terms. National

wildlife refuges enhance the regional, state and the nation’s stock of natural

assets and provide important, but less tangible, benefits to its citizens, including

clean water, natural beauty and abundant wildlife, fish and plants. Nevertheless,

the Service recognizes that potential changes in the local and regional economy

are important considerations.

4.3 Consequences of Alternatives Related to

Local Land Use Including Land Acquisition,

Cultural Resources, Refuge Management and

Administration

This section examines potential effects on landowners and local residents that

may result from the acquisition, operation and maintenance of a national wildlife

refuge in the study area. All of the alternatives, except the No Action Alternative, include the need for future refuge administration. For this reason, all of the

alternatives are addressed together within this section. More detail can be found

regarding management of purchased lands in Appendix A, the Interim Comprehensive Conservation Plan (ICCP). The ICCP provides general guidelines for

the future management and administration of the proposed Addition.

4.3.1 Landowner Rights Adjacent to Refuge Lands

If an Addition to the Refuge is established, the Service would have no more

authority over private land within or adjacent to the boundaries of the Refuge

than any other landowner. Landowners within a project boundary retain all of

the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private land ownership. The presence of refuge lands does not afford the Service any authority to impose restrictions on any private lands. Control of access, land use practices, water management practices, hunting, fishing, and any other general use is limited to those

lands in which the Service has purchased a real estate interest or rights.

Owning land adjacent to Service land does not change any regulations that

currently apply and does not impose any new regulations on private property.

Enforcement of regulations pertaining to pesticides, drainage, pollution, hunting, fishing, trapping, etc., on private land would continue to be enforced as they

were prior to establishment of an Addition to the Refuge. The Service also

abides by local regulations the same as any other landowner. In addition, land

managed by the Service will be posted in order to avoid trespass on private land

by Refuge visitors.

4.3.2 Service Land Acquisition Policies

Service policy is to buy land only from willing sellers. No land or rights to land

would be acquired without the willing participation of the individual or individuals owning land or rights to the land, including appropriate just-compensation for
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

50

those rights. The Service is required to make purchase offers based on fair

market value, which can be described as matching the price of comparable land

in the same area.

It is also Service policy to seek the least amount of land ownership necessary to

meet resource protection goals. Alternatives B and C would include primarily

land acquisition. Alternative D includes voluntary land protection, stewardship,

and other private conservation measures as options for landowners.

Condemnation of land is another frequent issue. The policy of the Fish and

Wildlife Service is to purchase lands from willing sellers only. Condemnation has

not been used to acquire any lands for the Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife

Refuge in Kansas, which has been purchasing lands for 10 years.

4.3.3 Revenue Sharing Payments

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act authorizes payments based on the greatest

return to the county and is calculated under one of three formulas:

1) 75 cents per acre;

2) 25 percent of the net revenue from sales of local refuge products; or

3) Three-quarters of 1 percent of the appraised value of the property.

Appraised value is evaluated on the type of land use at the time of

purchase by the Service and is re-evaluated every 5 years.

Funding for these payments comes from two sources: (1) net receipts from the

sale of products from National Wildlife Refuge System lands (oil and gas leases,

timber sales, grazing fees, etc.) and (2) annual Congressional appropriations.

The amount of a Revenue Sharing payment is directly tied to the appraised

market value of a property. In some cases, annual payments to local governments exceed what the local tax, based on assessed value, would have been if the

land was still in private ownership. In other cases, Revenue Sharing payments

and supplemental Congressional appropriations fall short of the local assessed

property tax revenue. Some members of Congress have recognized this fact and

have introduced various bills to remedy the situation. These bills have contained

provisions for full funding of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act. The proposed

source of funds would be federal offshore oil and gas lease revenues. However,

to date none of these bills have been passed into law.

4.3.4 Relocation Benefits Policies

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act

of 1970 (Uniform Act), as amended, provides for certain relocation benefits to

home owners, businesses, and farm operators who are displaced as a result of

Federal acquisition. The law provides for benefits to eligible owners and tenants

in the following areas:

■ Reimbursement of reasonable moving and related expenses;

■ Replacement housing payments under certain conditions;
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

51

■ Relocation assistance services to help locate replacement housing, farm, or

business properties, and;

■ Reimbursement of certain necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in

selling real property to the government.

4.3.5 Cultural Resources

Refuge establishment and subsequent land acquisition proposed under Alternative A, Alternative B and Alternative C generally will have no effect on archeological resources. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites of concern to

Indian tribes and other ethnic and cultural groups receive increased protection

to the extent the Service can obtain information about them. However, in some

cases buildings and other structures may not receive increased attention under

Service versus private ownership. The high cost of maintaining and preserving

some buildings may prohibit acquisition or future use of some building sites. In

general however, cultural resources receive increased protection from loss

because of the several Federal laws that apply to property owned and administered by the Federal government. Alternative D would not increase the potential for archeological resources to be lost or damaged, however there would be

no increased federal protection because lands would remain in private hands.

The Service might affect some cultural resources when it develops Refuge land

for wildlife habitat, administrative facilities or public use areas. The potential for

Refuge activities to affect prehistoric and historic resources, Native American

human remains and cultural objects, and traditional and sacred sites will be

determined early in project planning. The Refuge manager, with the assistance

of the Regional Historic Preservation Officer, will review all proposed projects

and conduct surveys prior to any construction activities, if such actions are

deemed necessary. The requirements of several cultural resources laws, executive orders, Federal regulations, policies and standards specified in the Fish and

Wildlife Service Manual 614 FW 1-5 apply in all cases.

Archeological investigations and collecting are performed only in the public

interest by qualified archeologists working under an Archaeological Resources

Protection Act or Antiquities Act permit issued by the Regional Director.

Refuge personnel take steps to prevent unauthorized collecting by the public,

contractors, and Refuge personnel. Violations are reported to the Regional

Historic Preservation Officer.

A number of historic family cemeteries likely occur in the Addition area. Access

to these cemeteries would not change with the purchase of lands surrounding

these cemeteries.

4.3.6 Effects on Current Drainage Patterns

The Service would not cause any artificial increase of natural water levels or

flows without ensuring that the impact would be limited to lands in which the

Service has acquired an appropriate real estate interest from a willing seller

such as fee title ownership, flowage easement, or cooperative agreement. Thus,

none of the alternatives would have negative impacts on drainage from neighboring lands. If Service activities inadvertently create a water-related problem
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

52

for any private landowner (flooding, soil saturation or deleterious increases in

water table height, etc.), the problem would be corrected at the Service’s

expense.

4.3.7 Water Pumping

No pumping or artificial filling of wetlands is planned. Refuge goals are to

restore the natural hydrology of the area. The presence of the Addition Area,

when fully restored , should lessen the severity of flooding and increase the

duration of flows off of the land during other times of the year. This is expected

because natural vegetation and wetlands should slow flood waters and keep soils

more moist, thus providing for a higher water table and making water available

for a longer period of time.

4.3.8 Crop Depredation

In general, crop depredation would not be expected to increase throughout most

of the area. In instances where small fields become surrounded by forest,

depredation from deer could increase. However, most bottomland fields are not

small and Refuge goals on uplands would be to plant areas into prairie grassland. Wetland development would not likely increase depredation by geese.

Goose populations in the area are not limited by the availability of water but by

the availability of crops. Only increases in cropland would cause appreciable

increases in the goose population. In addition, most restored wetlands would be

small and/or forested, which are not preferred by geese. Geese prefer large open

wetlands.

4.3.9 Invasive Species

We will strive to prevent the introduction of invasive plant species, detect and

control populations of invasive species, and foster the restoration of native

species and habitat conditions in invaded ecosystems. We will develop integrated invasive species control strategies that incorporate the most effective

combination of mechanical, biological and chemical controls while considering

environmental health. Invasive species management will be consistent with

“Fulfilling the Promise” recommendations and will be consistent with ecosystem

and National Wildlife Refuge System priorities.

4.3.10 Refuge Administration

Any acquired lands would become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

These lands would be administered by staff at Marais des Cygnes National

Wildlife Refuge. The administration office for the Refuge is located along State

Highway 52, 3 miles west of Amoret, Missouri, and the Addition area. As the

land base increases and the complexity of habitat management and administration increases, additional staff would likely be hired, and management facilities

would be constructed within the Addition area. Speaking very generally, a fully

staffed refuge of this size would have about seven staff members and an annual

operating budget of approximately $700,000. See Appendix A for more details

about potential future Refuge management activities.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

53

4.3.11 Impact on Public Roads

The Service does not close roads without approval from the appropriate managing authority, i.e. township, county, or state. Generally, closures are sought only

if a road is landlocked by Service property and is a dead end. The current road

system would remain the same unless access requires modification sometime in

the future. Coordination with state, county, and township officials and residents

would be required for any road closure.

4.3.12 Fence Maintenance and Cropland Loss

We would not expect any changes in fence maintenance for private property

owners. Fencing built by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would be maintained

at the Service’s expense.

During scoping for this refuge addition we heard from some people who are

concerned about the loss of cropland. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), we would expect cropland loss due to development pressure. Under

Alternative B, we would expect that floodplain cropland would be reduced as

forest is restored. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative C), both floodplain and upland cropland would be reduced as forest, wetland and prairie are

restored. Under Alternative D, there would be some cropland loss as natural

habitat is restored by individuals on private land.

4.4 Cumulative Impacts

The phrase “cumulative impacts” refers to the overall effect of the proposed

action or a series of similar actions in a landscape or regional setting. Restoring

natural wildlife habitat, as proposed in alternatives B, C, and D, is generally

considered to have positive environmental consequences. This project restores

and protects native prairies and bottomland forests, both of which have experienced dramatic losses, as well as their associated streams and riverience communities, thus benefiting the wildlife that depend on these habitats.

Complementary past conservation efforts include creation of the Refuge and the

State’s Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Area. Any time acres are added to conservation areas, it benefits species that are sensitive to edge habitat. The restoration

of lost or degraded wetlands in particular will have an overall positive impact on

the surrounding region and the human environment, including water quality for

downstream municipalities.

The southern edge of the Kansas City metropolitan area of 1.6 million people is

within 45 miles of the proposal area. Fragmentation of wildlife habitat is occurring rapidly as retirement homes and hobby farms are built throughout the

region. River bottoms are increasingly under pressure for timber harvest and

construction of levees to prevent flooding and create “higher value” land.

Without this project, it is likely that fragmentation will continue and habitat will

be lost, resulting in less wildlife. While the August A. Busch at Four Rivers

Conservation Area is growing, the Conservation Area is located 20 miles downstream of the Marais des Cygnes NWR and is not likely to contribute to wildlife

benefits in the immediate project areas. We are not aware of any future conservation project that would negate the need for this project.
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

54

4.5 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President

Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus federal attention 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.

In 1998, U.S. Census Bureau figures showed that 18 percent of the population of

Bates County lived below the poverty level. In 2000, the population of Bates

County was 16,653. A total of 445 people (3 percent) were reported as a racial

minority.

Few minority or low income people are likely to live in the Addition area, as the

area is sparsely populated due to flooding of nearly half of the area. However,

management activities on Refuge lands would be expected to increase the

quality of life of those people living in the area by providing better water quality

and increased recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing.

4.6 Summary of Issues and Consequences by

Alternative

The issues identified through public scoping and internal Service discussions and

how each alternative addresses or is impacted by each issue is shown in Table 2.
Chapter 4 / Environmental Consequences

55

Table 2: Summary of Issues and Consequences by Alternative 

Issue Alternative A: No 

Action

Alternative B:

Protect and Restore 

Floodplain Through 

Purchase of Land

Alternative C:

Protect and Restore 

Floodplain and 

Adjacent Uplands 

Through Land 

Purchase

(Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative D:

Protect and Restore 

Floodplain and 

Adjacent Uplands 

Through Perpetual 

Easements and 

Private Land Programs

Accomplishing 

habitat and wildlife 

management goals

Little or no benefit. Significant benefit Significant benefit Slight benefit

Recreational 

opportunities

Limited public 

opportunities

Expanded public 

opportunities

Expanded public 

opportunities

Limited public 

opportunities

Taxes No change Decrease balanced 

by Refuge Revenue 

Sharing

Same as Alternative 

B

No change

Local economy No change Benefit Benefit No change

Landowner rights No change No change No change No change

Service land 

acquisition

None Fee and easement 

acquisition plus 

voluntary 

agreements

Same as Alternative 

B

None

Refuge Revenue 

Sharing

None Likely to exceed 

current taxes

Likely to exceed 

current taxes

None

Relocation benefits None Available Available None

Cultural Resources No change Neutral to slight 

improvement in 

protection

Same as Alternative 

B

No change

Private drainage No change No change No change No change

Water pumping No change No change No change No change

Crop depredation No change Decreased goose 

depredation; 

possible static or 

slight increase in 

deer depredation

Same as Alternative 

B

No change

Cropland loss Loss due to 

development

Floodplain cropland 

reduced as forest 

and wetland 

restored

Cropland in upland 

and floodplain 

reduced as forest, 

wetland and prairie 

restored

Loss of cropland due 

to development and 

natural habitat 

restoration

Fence maintenance No change No change; Refugeinitiated fencing at 

Service expense

Same as Alternative 

B.

No change
Marais des Cygnes Environmental Assessment

56

Refuge 

administration

None Staff, salaries and 

operating funds 

phased in over time

Same as Alternative 

B

None

Public Roads No change No change without 

approval of entity 

controlling roads

Same as Alternative 

B

No change

Cumulative impacts No change Positive impact on 

the social and 

natural 

environment

Same as Alternative 

B

Same as Alternative 

B

Environmental 

Justice

No change Benefit Benefit No change

Cemetery access No change No change No change No change

Table 2: Summary of Issues and Consequences by Alternative (Continued)

Issue Alternative A: No 

Action

Alternative B:

Protect and Restore 

Floodplain Through 

Purchase of Land

Alternative C:

Protect and Restore 

Floodplain and 

Adjacent Uplands 

Through Land 

Purchase

(Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative D:

Protect and Restore 

Floodplain and 

Adjacent Uplands 

Through Perpetual 

Easements and 

Private Land Programs
Chapter 5 / List of Preparers

57

Chapter 5 – List of Preparers

Bruce Freske

Refuge Manager

Marais des Cygnes NWR, Pleasanton, Kansas

Environmental Assessment co-author

Jim Salyer

Wildlife Biologist

Missouri Ascertainment, Mountain Grove, Missouri.

Environmental Assessment co-author

Tom Larson

Chief, Conservation Planning

Region 3, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota

Jane Hodgins

Technical Writer/Editor, Conservation Planning

Region 3, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota
Marais des Cygnes NWR Draft Environmental Assessment

58

Chapter 6 – Consultation and

Coordination With the Public and

Others

Preparation of this EA included many contacts and discussions with local

residents, elected officials, State employees and others. Public involvement,

including review of the Draft EA, was key to a full evaluation of this project. A

description of public participation in the process can be found in Chapter 1, V.

Public Involvement, and Appendix B – Letters of Comment.

The entire EA is available on the Service Internet Web site: (http://

midwest.fws.gov/planning/maraisdescygnestop.htm).
Chapter 7 / Literature Cited / References / Personal Communication

59

Chapter 7 – Literature Cited /

References / Personal

Communications

Angelo, Robert, Phd., documented the observance with measurements and

photos.

Bare, Janet.1979. Wildflowers and Weeds of Kansas. Pages 4-5.

Cussiamano, Josh. Missouri Department of Conservation. August A. Busch at

Four Rivers Conservation Area. Personal Communication.

Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 21 pp.

Dent, etal. 1998. West Osage River Basin Inventory and Management Plan.

Missouri Department of Conservation - Fisheries Division., Clinton, MO.

Gleason. 2001. Unpublished compilation of U.S. Geological Survey Statistics at

the Trading Post and State Line Gauges on the Marais des Cygnes River.

Karrow, Karl. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Marais des Cygnes

Wildlife Area. Personal Communication.

Knopf, F. L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grasslands. Studies in Avian

Biology 15: 247-257.

Missouri Department of Conservation – Web sites:

http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/cgi-bin/heritage/

http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/nathis/endangered/endanger/guide.htm/

http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/nathiso/mofwis/

Miller, Ed. Kansas Wildlife and Parks. Southeast nongame biologist. Personal

Communication.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 1998. Upper Mississippi River

and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture - 1998 Implementation Plan.

Obermeyer, Brian. The Nature Conservancy - Kansas. Personal Communication

Samson, F.B. and F.L. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America.

BioScience 44: 418-421

Schmits, Larry. 1986. Cultural Resource Investigations at the Midway Mine,

Bates County Missouri. Volume 2. Page 123.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

60

Schmits, Larry. 1986. Cultural Resource Investigations at the Midway Mine,

Bates County Missouri. Volume 3. Page 141.

Taney, Thomas, and Auckley.1987. Public Prairies of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation.

The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Ecoregional Conservation in the Osage Plains/

Flint Hills Prairie. Pages 14, 38.

Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture. 1998 Implementation Plan – North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.1995. Soil Survey of Bates County, Missouri.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.1981. Soil Survey of Linn and Miami Counties,

Kansas.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Environmental Assessment for Proposed

Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge. Polk County, Minnesota.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment, Desoto National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation

Priorities – Region 3.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Marais

des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1992. Environmental Assessment for Marais des

Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge.
Appendices

61

Appendices

Appendix A – Com Appendix A prehensive Management Plan

Appendix B – L Appendix B etters of Comment and Other Correspondence

Appendix C – Appendix C Legal Compliance

Appendix D – Appendix D Lists of Species

Appendix E – Appendix E Interim Compatibility Determination

Appendix F – Appendix F Land Protection Plan

Appendix A / Concept Management Plan

63

Appendix A: Concept Management

Plan

Appendix A / Concept Management Plan

65

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 67

Goals ..................................................................................................................... 67

Refuge Management .......................................................................................... 68

 A. Floodplain Management........................................................................... 68

 B. Upland Management................................................................................. 68

 C. Water Management ................................................................................... 69

 D. Fire Management and Suppression ....................................................... 70

 E. Law Enforcement ..................................................................................... 70

 F. Refuge Administration ............................................................................. 70

 G. Public Use Opportunities and Management ......................................... 70

 1. Hunting and Trapping .......................................................................... 71

 2. Fishing ................................................................................................... 72

 3. Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................................. 72

 4. Interpretation ....................................................................................... 72

 5. Visitor Contact Station ........................................................................ 72

 6. Interpretive Waysides ......................................................................... 72

 7. Interpretive Trails ............................................................................... 73

 8. Environmental Education.................................................................... 73

 9. Wilderness Review .............................................................................. 73

 10. Refuge Regulations and Enforcement ............................................ 73

Appendix A / Concept Management Plan

67

Appendix A – Concept Management Plan

Introduction

The following Concept Management Plan (CMP) was developed as a general

guideline for how the proposed Addition to Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife

Refuge would be managed over the course of the next several years until a full

plan can be completed. The CMP does not present extensive detail about where

facilities would be located, the timing of restoration actions, hunting opportunities, etc. All of these details would be a part of a future Comprehensive Conservation Plan developed with public input and in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act and Service policies. However, this CMP does attempt to answer some basic questions that may be posed by area landowners

and others about future Refuge management. Please see the Environmental

Assessment for more details about the study area and existing land uses.

The proposed 11,145-acre Addition to Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife

Refuge could eventually protect and restore 5,255 acres of floodplain hardwood

forest and nearly 5,890 acres of tallgrass prairie habitat. These lands could

provide increased habitat for migratory birds found in floodplain hardwoods and

prairies, including nearly 30 species of warblers, as well as waterfowl. Upland

and big game would also benefit. The project would also increase and enhance

nursery habitat and water quality for local fisheries.

Goals

The goals of the proposed Addition to Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife

Refuge are as follows:

■ Protect and increase the diversity and abundance of migratory bird and

waterfowl species dependent on floodplain hardwood and tallgrass

prairie habitats.

■ Protect and restore federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species.

■ Conserve, manage, and restore the diversity and viability of native fish,

mussels, and other aquatic life unique to a prairie river hydrology and

habitat, as well as wildlife and plant populations associated with floodplain hardwood and tallgrass prairie.

■ Work in partnership with others, including private landowners, to

restore or enhance floodplain hardwood, tallgrass prairie, and other

unique plant communities.

■ Restore, enhance, and protect water quality and quantity that approaches natural hydrologic functions.

■ Provide for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the

public, emphasizing increased public understanding of floodplain hardwood forest and tallgrass prairie ecosystems and the mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

68

Refuge Management

Refuge management refers to all aspects of Refuge operations including habitat

restoration, equipment and personnel management, facility maintenance, and

visitor services.

A. Floodplain Management

Floodplain vegetation includes floodplain forest, cropland, managed and

unmanaged wetlands, shrubland, and grassland. Primary management objectives would be to restore the floodplain to floodplain forests and wetlands.

Hardwood trees including pecan, pin oak, bur oak, and shellbark hickory would

be planted as nuts or seedlings on sites that were historically forest as indicated

by the 1856 Land Survey. Small crop fields surrounded by forest would not be

planted but would be allowed to revegetate naturally. Wetland restoration

would vary depending on site characteristics and possible impacts to neighboring lands but would likely include plugging of ditches and construction of shallow

depressions. Removal or lowering of existing levees or construction of low level

dikes may also be desired on some sites. Use of grade control structures and

other stream bank stabilization practices will be evaluated as possible means to

reduce excessive bank erosion and sediment transport to the Marais des Cygnes

River and streams on the proposed expansion area.

Currently, floodplains are dominated by forest (35 percent), cropland (29 percent), and grassland (28 percent). Remaining areas include wet prairie and open

wetlands.

Croplands are generally planted to soybeans and corn. Most cropfields would

likely be planted to trees or restored to wetland. Croplands would be leased

until restoration efforts could be undertaken, a process that would be undertaken with much care and likely take many years. Generally leases are offered in

a priority order of: 1) previous landowner 2) current lessee 3) neighbors 4)

others. Restrictions on some aspects of farming such as kinds of herbicides

allowed for use and prohibition of fall tilling are likely but are compensated for

by lower rental rates.

Grasslands would also be leased in a similar manner as cropland. Restoration

efforts would differ from cropland. Only large sites heavily dominated by fescue

would require active forestation efforts. Other sites would be allowed to naturally convert to forest.

B. Upland Management

Uplands found within the proposed Addition area include grassland, shrubland,

cropland, and forest. Maintaining existing native prairie and restoring fescue

grassland to prairie will be a primary management focus. Habitat diversity will

also be addressed to ensure healthy populations of wildlife, especially the

declining species of grassland birds and animals. A mosaic of habitats comprised

mostly of restored native prairie grasslands with smaller scattered sites of

shrubland and woodlands will provide a diversity of wildlife with food, water,

and cover.
Appendix A / Concept Management Plan

69

Grasslands are generally restored by planting a mixture of native grass seeds

and forbs. This mixture may include species such as big and little blue stem,

switchgrass, side-oats gramma, Indian grass, black-eyed susans, cone flowers

and prairie clover. Burning, haying and grazing are all common methods used to

maintain a native prairie grassland. Prescribed fire is an especially useful tool to

stimulate native prairie grasses and reduce woody and undesirable vegetation.

Grazing, haying, and prescribed fire would be used to increase native vegetation

and decrease non native vegetation such as fescue. These tools would also be

used to provide a diversity of grass heights and density. This is generally done

by managing the duration and seasonal timing of these management activities.

Season-long grazing, annual spring burning, and annual haying of sites are

generally not undertaken. Rest-rotational grazing, burning during different

times of the year, and infrequent haying are often the norm.

Currently, uplands are dominated by fescue pasture (60 percent) and woodland

(28 percent). Remaining areas include native prairie and croplands. Some fescue

pastures are largely a monoculture while others contain a great diversity of

native plants. Diverse fescue pastures can often be managed to increase the

abundance and diversity of native plants. Woodlands vary from young dense

stands to very open stands with a grass understory. Prescribed fires can be used

to prevent brush sites from turning into forest sites and to maintain or create

open woodlands with a grass understory, often referred to as “savannah.”

Croplands are generally planted to soybeans, wheat, and milo. Most cropfields

would likely be planted to prairie. The conversion of cropland to prairie would

likely take a number of years. However, only a small portion of the uplands are

cropland so conversion would not be a major undertaking. Although most

Refuge uplands would be managed as grassland, some shrub and tree cover

would remain on the landscape.

C. Water Management

The natural hydrology and ecological dynamics of the study area have changed

throughout the last 100 years, largely to facilitate agricultural production.

Reservoirs, levees, and conversion of native prairie to forest and cool season

grasses have likely changed the frequency, intensity, and duration of flood

events. Despite theses changes, the floodplain still supports important and

uncommon natural communities.

The Service supports the goal of trying to restore the natural hydrology of the

area. Achieving this goal will require the efforts of many organizations and

individuals throughout the watershed, particularly in Kansas. However, Service

efforts within the much smaller Addition Area would nevertheless be important

by providing habitats that are rare or no longer present throughout the larger

watershed and by showcasing alternative land management methods.

The Service proposes to eventually restore all of the natural wetlands within the

Addition Area boundaries. Restoration work that has the potential to impact

adjacent landowners will actively involve those landowners to prevent negative

impacts. Restorations may also occur on adjoining private land with the permission of landowners or through a cooperative effort. Restoration of floodplain

hydrology by removing, setting back, or breaching existing levees to increase

over bank flooding and resulting recharge of wetlands are among the options

that will be considered.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

70

D. Fire Management and Suppression

Fire has been a part of natural ecosystems since the origin of plant communities

on earth. Fire management is a useful tool for managers to stimulate native

prairie grasses and reduce woody and undesirable vegetation. Safety aspects of

using prescribed fire are uppermost on everyone’s minds. For this reason,

refuge staff are well trained and equipped to conduct prescribed fires. Fire

management plans specify who, when, why, where, and how prescribed fires will

be conducted. Smoke management and contingency plans are described in detail.

Every effort for the protection of life and property is made during planning and

fire activities.

Wildfires, which are unplanned fires caused by lightening strikes, railroads,

humans, etc. are put out as soon as they are discovered. Natural firebreaks such

as roads and streams are often used as fire breaks unless a house or other

structure prevents this use. A fire management plan would address wildfire

initial attack and response. Cooperative agreements coordinated with local and

volunteer fire departments are arranged as soon as possible.

E. Law Enforcement

Law Enforcement is a cooperative effort by several agencies. Some Service

employees are trained and commissioned to conduct law enforcement duties on

federal property and enforce certain federal laws. This enforcement activity is

primarily focused on the protection of Refuge fish and wildlife resources, and on

the protection of Refuge visitors and their possessions from disturbance or harm

by other visitors or themselves. Two or more Refuge staff generally have law

enforcement authority and work in close cooperation with state conservation

officers, and other local enforcement agencies.

F. Refuge Administration

The proposed Addition Area would be administered by the current staff at

Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge. As land purchases dictate, requests for additional staff would be made. The office site for the Refuge is

located 3 miles west of Amoret, Missouri, on the south side of State Highway 52

and contains visitor information as well as staff during the week. A maintenance

facility with land management equipment and tools is located adjacent to the

office.

G. Public Use Opportunities and Management

The following are potential recreational opportunities that may be available to

the public if the proposed Addition becomes a reality. Public use activities are

not described in detail and exact locations of facilities or access points are not

identified. Decisions about exact locations for facilities and programs will be

made with public input, and will be described in detail in the future Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Before any public use can be allowed on the proposed

Addition, the use must first be determined to be compatible with the Refuge’s

purposes. These use-specific compatibility determinations will be made as part

of subsequent Refuge management plans.
Appendix A / Concept Management Plan

71

National wildlife refuges are managed first and foremost for the conservation of

fish, wildlife, and plants. However, through careful planning and regulation,

refuges can also provide the public with a variety of diverse and rewarding

opportunities for wildlife dependent recreation. Wildlife-dependent recreation,

as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

(P.L. 105-57), includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. These are the priority public

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and of the proposed Addition Area.

Through participation in these activities, visitors to the Refuge will gain an

appreciation for healthy habitats and the fish and wildlife populations they

support.

1. Hunting and Trapping

A Refuge Hunt Plan would be prepared with input from the public and interested organizations, including the Missouri Department of Conservation.

Following completion of a Refuge Hunt Plan, it is expected that hunting for

small and big game would occur on much of the Addition Area. Hunter access

parking lots would be located at several convenient and safe locations. Some

restrictions would occur such as use of non-toxic shot for small game hunting.

Other restrictions may occur if deemed necessary such as drawing hunts,

limitations on use of rifles, “no shooting” zones near residences, etc.

Waterfowl hunting opportunities would likely be provided on much or all of the

Addition Area. The Refuge Hunt Plan would identify which areas of the Refuge

are open to migratory bird hunting. The progress of wetland restoration, hunter

access, bird numbers and habitat use will ultimately determine the areas open to

hunting.

A portion of the Addition Area may by closed to hunting and other public uses.

“Closed Areas” occur on portions of most national wildlife refuges to provide

waterfowl resting areas and undisturbed areas for public wildlife viewing and

environmental education. Some “Closed Areas” are only closed during a portion

of the year while others are closed all year. Some “Closed Areas” are only closed

to waterfowl hunting while others are closed to all public entry. The size of

“Closed Areas” varies tremendously depending on area goals and needs, adjacent land uses, and other characteristics of the area. “Closed Areas” encompassing 25 percent to 40 percent of a refuge are common, though some refuges are

totally closed to public use while others are completely open to public use.

Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge in Kansas has a “Closed Area” that

closes 25 percent of the Refuge to all public use.

The need, and if applicable, size and location of “Closed Areas” are discussed in

detail during the public planning process for the Refuge Hunt Plan. No necessities or possible locations for “Closed Areas” in the Addition Area have been

discussed or actively considered during or as a part of the planning process for

the Addition proposal.

Trapping is not considered a priority wildlife-dependent recreational activity

and would not likely be allowed in the Addition Area. However, occasional

problem situations, such as beavers flooding a road, may require the need for

trapping. In these instances, free Special Use Permits may be given out to

interested individuals.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

72

2. Fishing

Most sport fishing opportunities would occur in the Marais des Cygnes River,

which contains a popular fishery for paddlefish, walleye, and catfish (blue,

flathead, and channel). Crappie, white bass, and black bass are also present.

Numerous farm ponds, mine ponds, and river tributaries offer additional fishing

opportunities. The restored shallow wetlands within the Addition area would

probably not support large populations of game fish. A Refuge Sport Fishing

Plan would be prepared in conjunction with the Refuge Hunt Plan to identify

fishing opportunities, access, and management needs. We will invite the Missouri Department of Conservation fisheries management staff to assist in the

preparation of the Refuge Sport Fishing Plan.

3. Wildlife Observation & Photography

The Addition Area contains scenic vistas of a vast prairie/woodland landscape.

Wildlife inhabiting the area includes many interesting prairie and woodland

species such as Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Loggerhead Shrike, and Short-eared

Owl in the grasslands and Kentucky Warbler, Prothonotary Warbler, and Redshouldered Hawk in the forest. Waterfowl and wading birds, turkey and quail,

and nearly 30 species of warblers are also present as well as species more unique

to the Midwest such as woodrat, otter, bobcat, and armadillo. The combination of

diverse wildlife and landscape beauty creates excellent wildlife observation and

photography opportunities throughout the Addition Area.

Short hiking trails (with boardwalks as needed) and wildlife observation platforms and blinds could also be developed to immerse visitors into the tallgrass

prairie and floodplain hardwood forest landscapes.

Refuge staff would work with local communities and private conservation

groups to support or develop special public wildlife celebrations, like Earth Day,

National Wildlife Refuge week, or Warbler Migration Day celebrations. These

events would help build community awareness and pride in the Refuge and help

provide an additional draw of visitors to the area.

4. Interpretation

The major interpretive themes for Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge

and the proposed Addition Area include the concepts of: floodplain hardwood

forest and tallgrass prairie ecosystems; Refuge habitat restoration and management; and the Refuge’s place in the National Wildlife Refuge System. These

themes are the core messages of the Refuge’s interpretive program and will be

included in different forms of interpretive signs, leaflets, and exhibits.

5. Visitor Contact Station

A visitor contact station currently exists 3 miles west of the Addition Area (and

west of Amoret, Missouri) on the south side of Highway 52. This facility contains

information and exhibits about the Refuge and serves as an office for Refuge

staff. It will be the first stop for most first-time visitors. If land is purchased for

the Addition Area east of Amoret, along Highway 52, an information kiosk with

an orientation map, interpretive displays, and brochures could be constructed.

6. Interpretive Waysides

Interpretive signs could be provided at key wildlife observation areas and

hiking trails. These signs would reinforce the Refuge’s interpretive themes and

provide site-specific information that will help the visitor appreciate the

Refuge’s resources.
Appendix A / Concept Management Plan

73

7. Interpretive Trails

During a more thorough Refuge planning and site analysis, sites would be

identified for the development of interpretive loop trails. These trails could

include interpretive signs, or leaflets, keyed to landscape and wildlife features.

8. Environmental Education

Refuge staff would seek partnerships with local school districts and state and

local organizations to provide site-based learning about conservation and the

restoration of habitat for wildlife and people. Partnership projects could include

hosting teacher workshops and youth leader programs. Activities would be

coordinated closely with local schools to be sure any activities offered by the

Refuge would assist the teachers/students with meeting graduation standards

or required curriculum components.

9. Wilderness Review

Lands within the boundaries of the proposed Addition area have been reviewed

for wilderness suitability as part of the CMP process. No lands were found

suitable for designation as Wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The study area does not presently contain 5,000 contiguous roadless acres to

make it possible for any portion of it to be designated as Wilderness. The lands

of the Refuge have been substantially affected by humans, particularly through

agriculture.

10. Refuge Regulations and Enforcement

Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge and the proposed Addition is part

of a national system of more than 500 refuges, where the needs of wildlife come

first. However, some general public uses are allowed on many refuges. The

following regulations are typical of most National Wildlife Refuges and are

published in the Code of Federal Regulations:

■ Vehicles allowed only on designated roads.

■ Camping and open fires not allowed.

■ Some wildlife-sensitive areas may be annually or seasonally closed to

public entry and use.

■ Horseback riding on refuge trails is not allowed.

■ Possession or discharge of firearms is prohibited except during established hunting seasons in areas open to hunting.

■ Dogs and pets must be kept on leash (except while hunting).

■ Disturbing or collecting plants or animals is prohibited except under

special permit.

■ Searching for, or removal of objects of antiquity or historical importance

is not allowed except under permit.

Appendix B / Letters of Comment and Other Correspondence

75

Appendix B: Letters of Comment and

Other Correspondence

Appendix B / Letters of Comment and Other Correspondence

77

Appendix B – Letters of Comment and Other

Correspondence

Scoping

No formal comment letters were received. A total of five written comments

from three different individuals were received at the Open House. A total of six

phone calls and five visits were received at the Refuge Office at Marais des

Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge. The Focus Group Meeting, Open House, and

Office visits/phone calls reached a total of 47 different people. Comments from

these interactions are summarized below and were addressed in Chapter 4,

Sections II and III, or in Appendix A, Interim Comprehensive Conservation

Plan. In general, comments could be categorized as eight “Opposed”, 23 “Concerned or Uncommitted”, and 16 “In Favor or Unopposed” to the Proposed

Refuge Addition.

The following written and verbal comments, questions, and concerns represent

those received:

■ Will private property be condemned?

■ Don’t want farm land taken out of production as world already doesn’t

have enough food.

■ Will the public have access for hunting and fishing?

■ Don’t want land taken off of local tax rolls.

■ Concerned about wildlife depredation of crops, especially from geese.

■ Concerned about pumping of water from the river and effect on local

water supplies.

■ Concerned about increased flooding.Will private lands within the Refuge

boundary have restrictions placed on them?

■ Will public roads be closed?

■ Why is more land needed, especially the upland?

■ Will pastures continue to be grazed and hayed?

■ Will the cemeteries be maintained?

■ Don’t like the way land is currently being managed on the Refuge in

Kansas.

■ Will tourism increase in the area?

■ Presence of refuge will prevent future expansion of new roads.

■ Who decides if the refuge will be expanded?

■ Will the Service pay to help maintain fences adjacent to private property?

■ Addition would be good for Butler businesses.

■ Refuge presence would help prevent vandalism and trespass on nearby

private property.

■ Increase in area wildlife will improve hunting on nearby private property.

■ Area is best suited to wildlife and outdoor recreation.

■ Land values will increase which is good for area landowners.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

78

Review of Draft Environmental Assessment

The Draft Environmental Assessment was released for public review and

comment in March 2003. Copies of the document were provided to Department

of Natural Resources and Department of Conservation officials in Missouri and

Kansas, and copies were also distributed to people who had requested them. A

22-page summary of the Draft Environmental Assessment was distributed to

the project mailing list. A 30-day comment period followed release of the draft

document, and during this period it was available through a Service web page.

An open house was held at the Marais des Cygnes NWR Headquarters on

March 25, 2003, with 16 people attending.

The Service received written comments from individuals, the Missouri Department of Conservation, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, the

Wildlife Society, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Audubon Society, the

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and the Kansas Biological

Survey at the University of Kansas. We received 35 form letters supporting the

proposed Refuge addition, many of them with individual notes expressing

support and appreciation for habitat restoration and preservation. None of the

comments we received opposed the Refuge addition project.

Both the Missouri Department of Conservation and the Kansas Department of

Wildlife and Parks expressed support for the Refuge addition and the preferred

alternative. The Missouri Department of Conservation offered several editorial

revisions, and we incorporated these revisions in the final Environmental

Assessment. The representative of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and

Parks noted that “Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the existing refuge is the

synergistic effect of the NWR and the Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Area. The

combined effect of the two areas far exceeds the benefits that either agency or

area could provide alone.”

A representative of the Kansas Biological Survey expressed support for the

preferred alternative and offered many editorial comments. The revisions he

suggested have been incoporated in the final Environmental Assessment.

The following table lists the comments the Service received from members of

the public and representatives of agencies.
Appendix B / Letters of Comment and Other Correspondence

79

Table 1: Summary of Public and Agency Comment and Changes Made in Response to Comments

Source of Comment Issue Raised During Public Review of Draft 

EA

Proposed Changes to the 

Preferred Alternative in Final EA

USFWS Lower 

Missouri River 

Ecosystem

Supports proposed expansion of the Refuge 

into Bates County, Missouri.

Thank you for commenting.

35 individuals sent a 

form letter in 

support of 

expansion.

AI want to express my support for 

Alternative C of the Marais des Cygnes 

NWR Proposed Addition.@

Individual notes 

with the form letter

This is a wonderful opportunity to 

permanently protect these quality habitats 

and I hope their permanent protection can 

be accomplished much sooner than the 

projected 20 years. Maintaining and 

increasing biodiversity is so important to me 

that we are reconstructing prairie on about 

40 of our 48 acres.

Thank you for commenting.

I particularly support preserving prairies. Thank you for commenting.

I=m very pleased to hear about the MdCWR 

(sic) proposed addition and eagerly support 

Alternative C.

Thank you for commenting.

Please protect our wildlife! Thank you for commenting; we 

will continue to do our best to 

protect the nation=s natural 

resources.

We are working with our own small prairie 

restoration so certainly know how important 

this preservation is.

Thank you for commenting.

Presettlement prairie must be protected for 

us, for our children, for our grandchildren. It 

is part of our heritage. 

Thank you for commenting. The 

mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System reflects your 

concern for protecting the 

nation=s resources for the 

benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

We love the diversity of wildlife in the 

Refuge and encourage the expansion of this 

tract for them.

Thank you for commenting.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

80

Individual notes 

with the form letter

(continued)

Having grown up in the country I really 

enjoy outdoor activities and appreciate 

wildlife.

Thank you for commenting.

Along with the Fish & Wildlife Department 

(sic), I would like to support their efforts to 

preserve our natural resources.

Thank you for commenting.

The continuous feature is important for the 

most environmental benefit.

Thank you for commenting.

We need to preserve our prairie and 

continue to provide permanent habitat for 

our birds and plant life.

Thank you for commenting.

It doesn=t seem to me that what we are 

protecting here is a large enough area!

Wildlife always benefits from 

more habitat, but when adding 

land to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System we have to 

consider some basic constraints: 

what we can afford to buy, what 

we can afford to take care of, 

and the acceptance of the local 

community. The expansion area 

proposed reflects the acreage 

that we think accomplishes the 

purpose of the Refuge, meets 

the needs of wildlife, is 

something we can maintain, and 

does not create a hardship for 

the community.

The area to be protected is so small! It 

should be the minimum that we can protect/

should protect in this beautiful state of ours!

Thank you for commenting. 

Again, in proposing this 

expansion area we sought 

balance the needs of wildlife and 

the community. We think that 

this proposal is sufficient to 

address identified wildlife 

needs.

This land would be a wonderful gift to our 

great-grandchildren.

Thank you for commenting.

I would like to see the current Refuge 

extended into Missouri.

Thank you for commenting.

I have been to Marais des Cygnes in Linn 

Co. and hiked the trails. The people who 

helped me on the phone were very nice.

Thank you for commenting.

It is important to preserve this land now for 

our children to enjoy in the future.

Thank you for commenting.

Source of Comment Issue Raised During Public Review of Draft 

EA

Proposed Changes to the 

Preferred Alternative in Final EA
Appendix B / Letters of Comment and Other Correspondence

81

I=d love to visit this kind of area so close to 

KCMO.

Thank you for commenting.

With cities spreading out it is even more 

important to protect the natural habitats we 

have left.

Thank you for commenting. We 

agree that urban sprawl is a 

serious concern nationwide.

Missouri 

Department of 

Conservation

Page 17: Add to columns for Alternative B 

& C, row titled Protect River-Floodplain 

Interaction: ARestore floodplain hydrology.@

The text has been added as 

suggested.

Page 18: Add to columns for Alternative B & 

C, row titled Protect and Restore Floodplain 

Wetlands: ARestore floodplain hydrology.@

The text has been added as 

suggested.

Page 18: Add to column for Alternative B, 

row titled Protect and Restore Floodplain 

Wetlands: AWetlands provide excellent 

spawning and nursery areas for young fish.@

The text has been added as 

suggested.

Page 19: Under row titled Increase the 

Abundance of Federal and State Threatened 

and Endangered Species and Abundance 

and Diversity of Migratory Birds. In 

addition, page 20 under row titled Manage 

Floodplain to Benefit Paddlefish and Other 

Fish, Protect Spawning and Mussel Beds, 

and Improve River Water Quality: Would it 

be beneficial to mention the importance of 

paddlefish that are classified as an 

interjurisidictional fish species? Doing so 

would highlight importance of paddlefish 

and increase justification for the expansion=s 

purchase and restoration of river habitat for 

the species.

Paddlefish have been added to 

the list of species that might 

benefit from the proposed 

action.

Source of Comment Issue Raised During Public Review of Draft 

EA

Proposed Changes to the 

Preferred Alternative in Final EA
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

82

Missouri 

Department of 

Conservation

(continued)

Page 21: Add to columns for Alternatives B 

& C, row titled Provide Quality 

Opportunities for Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife 

Observation, and other Wildlife-dependent 

Uses: AProvides excellent spawning and 

nursery habitat for a number of sport fish 

(walleye, white bass, perhaps paddlefish) 

that migrate out of Truman Lake and into 

the river to spawn. The young of these fish 

are recruited to the Truman Lake fishery to 

maintain a quality fishery for sport anglers.@

This point is also relevant to the discussion 

on page 29, 3.3.5 Prairie River section.

Text has been added as 

suggested. 

Page 25, 3.2.7, River Hydrology, paragraph 

3: Consider adding a sentence 

acknowledging that flooding is also caused 

by numerous highway and railroad 

causeways that constrict the floodplain of 

the rivers and streams in the Marais des 

Cygnes River basin.

Text has been added as 

suggested.

Page 37, first full paragraph, third sentence: 

delete second Ae@ and note that in numerous 

places within the Draft EA the word turkey 

is capitalized and should not be (see second 

paragraph, same page).

These errors have been 

corrected.

Page 41, seventh paragraph add: AAdditional 

improvement in water quality will be 

realized by converting cropland to grass 

which will reduce fertilizer, herbicide, and 

pesticide use in the watershed of the Marais 

des Cygnes River.@ In addition, the EA 

should include strategies for improving 

water quality by reducing acidity and heavy 

metals and erosion from un-reclaimed strip 

mined lands in the proposed expansion area.

We have added the following 

text to alternatives B,C, and D 

in Chapter 4: Refuge staff will 

work with responsible parties 

within the existing laws and 

regulations to ensure that 

unreclaimed strip mines do not 

contribute to acidity runoff and 

heavy metals contamination of 

the watershed.

Source of Comment Issue Raised During Public Review of Draft 

EA

Proposed Changes to the 

Preferred Alternative in Final EA
Appendix B / Letters of Comment and Other Correspondence

83

Page 65, add the following goal: AProtect and 

increase diversity and abundance of fish, 

mussels, and other aquatic life unique to a 

prairie river hydrology and habitat.@ You 

may want to reference the new U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service=s draft strategic plan for 

Conserving America=s Fisheries.

The third goal in the list was 

revised to read: AConserve, 

manage, and restore the 

diversity and viability of native 

fish, mussels and other aquatic 

life unique to a prairie river 

hydrology and habitat as well as 

wildlife and plant populations 

associated with floodplain 

hardwood and tallgrass prairie.@

Page 66, A. Floodplain Management, add: 

AUse of grade control structures and other 

stream bank stabilization practices will be 

used to reduce excessive bank erosion and 

sediment transport to the Marais des 

Cygnes River and streams on the proposed 

expansion area.@

The second paragraph under 

Floodplain Management has 

been revised to read: AUse of 

grade control structures and 

other stream bank stabilization 

practices will be evaluated as 

possible means to reduce 

excessive bank erosion and 

sediment transport to the 

Marais des Cygnes River and 

streams on the proposed 

expansion area.@

Page 67, C. Water Management add: 

ARestoration of floodplain hydrology will be 

conducted by removing, setting back, or 

breaching existing levees and to increase 

over bank flooding to recharge wetlands.@

The last paragraph under Water 

Management has been revised 

to read: ARestoration of 

floodplain hydrology by 

removing, setting back, or 

breaching existing levees to 

increase over bank flooding and 

resulting recharge of wetlands.@

Page 70, 2. Fishing, last sentence: add 

reference that Missouri Department of 

Conservation fisheries management staff 

will be asked to assist in the preparation of 

the Refuge Sport fishing Plan.

The text has been included as 

suggested.

Source of Comment Issue Raised During Public Review of Draft 

EA

Proposed Changes to the 

Preferred Alternative in Final EA
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

84

Missouri 

Department of 

Conservation

(continued)

Page 85-98, Appendix D. compilation of 

Area Wildlife Species: The geographical 

extent of the list of species is unclear and 

needs to be defined. It is unclear whether 

the appendix refers to the proposed 

expansion area, all of Kansas and Missouri, 

or the Marais des Cygnes River basin. Some 

of the species listed in the appendices do not 

seem correct (smallmouth bass do not occur 

in Marais des Cygnes River or tributary 

streams, spotted gar are only native to 

southeast Missouri, lemmings and mountain 

lion are mentioned for mammals, and so on). 

The Department suggest that only species 

known to exist within the immediate area 

(Refuge in Kansas and Missouri) be listed 

and that the title of the appendix reflect that 

geographic area.

This point has been made in 

other comments; please see the 

response there.

The species list is taken from the 

Marais des Cygnes NWR CCP 

(1998). The CCP sites the Kansa 

Natural Heritage Inventory 

(KNHI) as the source, and the 

coverage for these lists is Linn 

County, Kan.

The mussel list was compiled by 

Refuge staff and is based on 

findings of live specimens.

Page 110, IV. Land Protection Priorities: 

The Department agrees with priorities for 

acquisition of bottomland, upland grassland, 

and lastly cropland. We urge the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service to focus on immediate 

acquisition of the Marais des Cygnes River 

and streams frontage as a priority.

The river and floodplain areas 

are frontage a priority for 

Service land acquisition.

Karl K. Karrow

Conservation 

Program Specialist

Department of 

Wildlife & Parks 

State of Kansas

Mr. Karrow concurs with the EA=s findings, 

A...particularly that Alternative C (Protect 

and Restore Floodplain and Adjacent 

Upland Habitat along the Missouri Reaches 

of the Marais des Cygnes River by 

Acquiring Additional Lands) is the 

preferred and most effective course of 

action.@ Mr. Karrow further states that: 

APerhaps the most exciting aspect of the 

existing refuge is the synergistic effect of 

the NWR and Marais des Cygnes Wildlife 

Area. The combined effect of the two areas 

far exceeds the benefits that either agency 

or area could provide alone.@

Thank you for commenting. The 

mission of the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service is to work with 

others to conserve, protect and 

enhance fish, wildlife and plants 

and their habitats. We agree 

that this expansion has the 

potential to be an outstanding 

example of the effectiveness of 

joint conservation efforts.

Mark Sexson

President, Kansas 

Chapter of The 

Wildlife Society

KCTWS concurs with the Service=s proposal 

and that Alternative C ... is the preferred 

alternative for protecting habitat.

Thank you for commenting.

Source of Comment Issue Raised During Public Review of Draft 

EA

Proposed Changes to the 

Preferred Alternative in Final EA
Appendix B / Letters of Comment and Other Correspondence

85

Rob Manes

Wildlife 

Management 

Institute

WMI supports Alternative C. AI would also 

assert that it is important to maximize 

hunting, fishing and other wildlifeassociated recreational opportunities on 

both the new and existing refuge lands.@ A...I 

would also highlight the importance of 

emphasis on removing fescue and other coolseason exotic grasses and replacing them 

with native grass and forb mixes on all 

upland areas of the refuge.@

Thank you for commenting. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation, 

including the activities you 

reference, are priority public 

uses on national wildlife refuges. 

Decisions about exact locations 

for facilities and programs will 

be made with public input. We 

have revised the text of the EA 

and the draft interim CCP to 

include the Service=s interest in 

eliminating non-native plants 

and replacing them with native 

species.

Roger B. Willis, 

President

Sperry Galligar 

Audubon

Supports the proposed addition to Marais 

des Cygnes NWR in Bates Co., Missouri. 

Thank you for commenting.

Robert T. Angelo, 

Ph.D.

Kansas Dept. of 

Health and 

Environment

Supports Service=s pursuit of Alternative C. Thank you for commenting.

Mary Deuser

DeSoto, Kansas

Supports endeavor. Thank you for commenting.

Robert J. Mangile

Pittsburg, Kansas

Supports A...the purchase of some eleven 

thousand (11,000) acres of adjacent land on 

the Missouri side of the state line.@

Thank you for commenting.

Liz Mangile

Pittsburg, Kansas

A...I am very much in support of the Marais 

des Cygnes NWR receiving matching funds 

for the acquisition of the 11,000 acres of land 

on the Missouri side of the Kansas, Missouri 

line...Please consider this area and open it 

up for the public to use and enjoy.@

Thank you for commenting. As 

lands are acquired, we will 

consider the potential for 

wildlife-dependent recreation.

Source of Comment Issue Raised During Public Review of Draft 

EA

Proposed Changes to the 

Preferred Alternative in Final EA
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

86

Chris Pistole

Paola, Kansas

Supports expanding the Marais des Cygnes 

NWR. AI would also like to express my 

desire for greater accessibility to the refuge 

through more trails, trailheads, and places 

to put into the water, as well as more visitor 

amenities such as access to restrooms and 

water, and to have the headquarters open 

with access to maps and brochures, and a 

knowledgeable staff person such as a 

naturalist on duty.@

Thank you for commenting. The 

availability of wildlifedependent recreation on the 

Refuge will depend on how 

much contiguous land is 

acquired and where it is 

acquired. The availability of 

facilities like the ones you 

mention depend on how much 

funding the Refuge receives as 

well as the Service=s ability to 

acquire enough land for these 

activities.

Michael Brooks Fully supports the preferred alternative. 

AThe Marais des Cygnes NWR expansion is 

essential for the State of Missouri and the 

State of Kansas.@

Thank you for commenting.

Steve Ford

McCune, Kansas

Supports the 11,000-acre expansion of the 

Marais des Cygnes NWR near Pleasanton, 

Kansas.

Thank you for commenting.

Source of Comment Issue Raised During Public Review of Draft 

EA

Proposed Changes to the 

Preferred Alternative in Final EA
Appendix B / Letters of Comment and Other Correspondence

87

Tom Brandt

Overland, Kansas

Supports Alternative C. Thank you for commenting.

William H. Busby

Associate Scientist

Kansas Biological 

Survey

University of 

Kansas

supports Alternative B.

General comments:

1)Would like to see a table or appendix for 

looking up scientific names so there would 

not be ambiguity. Or, include the scientific 

name with the common name the first time 

the common name is used.

2)Hyphenate AGreater Prairie-chicken@

3)Inconsistent references, for example 

AInterior Least Tern and Least Tern; 

Bobwhite Quail and Northern Bobwhite

4)AAlso, be consistent in capitalization of 

common names and do not capitalize nonstandard names such as turkey and quail.

5)Check appendices for misspellings and 

other nomenclature problems. 

6)What are the vertebrate and mussel 

species lists in appendix D based on?

7)Identify whether species records are for 

MDCNWR or, as the heading >Area Wildlife 

Species= suggests, known from the general 

area.

8)Are all the bird species indicated as 

nesting known to nest, or are they 

considered probable nesters? (...when I see 

species like Cerulean Warbler listed as 

breeding and know how tough it is to 

confirm nesting for such species, I suspect 

nesting has not been confirmed but is rather 

that there is some evidence of it.@

9)AIf you are looking for further 

justifications for including upland tracts, I 

might play up potential benefits of prairie 

restoration for Henslow=s Sparrow.@

1) Scientific names of species 

referenced in the EA are listed 

in Appendix D.

2) The spelling of the Greater 

Prairie-chicken has been 

corrected.

3) The inconsistent references 

have been corrected.

4) The incorrect capitalization of 

non-standard names has been 

corrected.

5) We have corrected 

misspellings in the appendices.

6) The list is from the Marais des 

Cygnes NWR Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan, which was 

completed in 1998.

7) The bird list was compiled by 

local birders who frequent the 

MDC Wildlife Area, and it was 

later reviewed and revised by a 

professional ornithologist in 

Lawrence, Kansas. The 

coverage for the birding list is 

specific to the MDC Wildlife 

Area, which has habitat types 

similar to the Refuge. 

8) The cerulean warbler is a 

probable nester. Most species 

listed as “nesting” are, for the 

most part, based upon the 

observance of male birds 

defending territories during the 

nesting season.

9) We agree that the project 

would certainly benefit the 

Henslow=s Sparrow, and we 

make that point in section 4.1.3.

Minor text edits We appreciate your thorough 

review of the draft EA and we 

have made the edits you noted.

Source of Comment Issue Raised During Public Review of Draft 

EA

Proposed Changes to the 

Preferred Alternative in Final EA

Appendix C / Legal Compliance

89

Appendix C: Legal Compliance

Appendix C / Legal Compliance

91

Appendix C: Legal Compliance

The following laws and executive orders apply to planning, land acquisition and

management on national wildlife refuges:

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403): Section 10 of this Act requires

the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work in, on,

over, or under a navigable water of the United States.

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on

Federal land and provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken

or collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds

as a Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other

regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition

by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934) as amended: Requires that the Fish

and Wildlife Service and State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted whenever

water is to be impounded, diverted or modified under a Federal permit or

license. The Service and State agency recommend measures to prevent the loss

of biological resources, or to mitigate or compensate for the damage. The

project proponent must take biological resource values into account and adopt

justifiable protection measures to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A

1958 amendment added provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife

resources to the Nation and to require equal consideration and coordination of

wildlife conservation with other water resources development programs. It also

authorized the Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept

donations of lands and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the

opening of part of a refuge to waterfowl hunting.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935) as amended: Declares it a

national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national significance,

including those located on refuges. Provides procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935) as amended: This act requires revenue

sharing provisions to all fee-title ownerships that are administered solely or

primarily by the Secretary through the Service.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act

(1948): Provides that upon a determination by the Administrator of the General

Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

92

can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if the

land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a State agency for other

wildlife conservation purposes.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for acquisition and development of

refuges.

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when

such uses are compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient

funds are available to manage the uses.

Wilderness Act (1964) as amended: Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10

years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless

island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park

Systems and to recommend to the President the suitability of each such area or

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, with final

decisions made by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to

study and recommend suitable areas in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale

of surplus Federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other

sources for land acquisition under several authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966) as amended by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee.

(Refuge Administration Act): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and

authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a refuge provided such use is

compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was established. The

Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge

System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental

education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining

compatibility; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for

managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the

Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) as amended: Establishes as policy

that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the

nation’s prehistoric and historic resources.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Considered the

“Organic Act” of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act defines the

mission of the System, designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses and

calls for comprehensive refuge planning.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the

environmental impacts of any major Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment.
Appendix C / Legal Compliance

93

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act

(1970) as amended: This Act provides for uniform and equitable treatment of

persons who sell their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act

requires that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the

property.

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal agencies to carry out

programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to

physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal

government to ensure that anybody can participate in any program.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the preservation

of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404

permits) for major wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as amended (Public Law

95-87) (SMCRA): Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coalmined lands. Further regulates the coal industry by designating certain areas

as unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each Federal agency shall provide leadership and

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on

human safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the

floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: E.O. 11990 directs Federal agencies to (1) minimize

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the

natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs): In

compliance, the Service will send copies of the Environmental Assessment to

Iowa State Planning Agencies for review.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs agencies to consult

with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes

necessary to protect and preserve Native American religious cultural rights and

practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978): This act was passed to improve the

administration of fish and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws

including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the

Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of

the United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects

and appropriations to carry out a volunteer program.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) as amended: Protects materials

of archaeological interest from unauthorized removal or destruction and requires Federal managers to develop plans and schedules to locate archaeological

resources.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

94

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981) as amended: The purpose of the

Act is to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the

unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): The purpose of the Act is “To

promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the

serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential

habitat, and for other purposes.”

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

systems to control or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary

approach with the cooperation of other Federal and State agencies.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990): Requires

Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and

repatriate cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public

accommodations and services.

Federal Records Act of 1950.

Executive Order 13006 Use of Urban Historic Properties.

Executive Order 12898 (1994): Establishes environmental justice as a Federal

government priority and directs all Federal agencies to make environmental

justice part of their mission. Environmental justice calls for fair distribution of

environmental hazards.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National

Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also presents four principles to

guide management of the System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred

sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical

integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership

Enhancement Act (1998): Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote

volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefit of national

wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

National Trails System Act: Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior

and thus the Service to protect the historic and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail sites.
Appendix D / Lists of Species

95

Appendix D: Lists of Species

Appendix D / Lists of Species

97

Appendix D. Compilation of Area Wildlife

Species

MAMMALS

Common Name Scientific Name

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana

Elliot’s short-tailed shrew Blarina hylophaga

Least shrew Cryptotis parva

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus

Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus

Woodchuck Marmota monax

Franklin’s ground squirrel Spermophilus franklinii

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans

American beaver Castor canadensis

Fulvous harvest mouse Reithrodontomys fulvescens

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

Plains harvest mouse Reithrodontomys montanus

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Hispid cotton rat Sigimodon hispidus

Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana

Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster

Woodland vole Microtus pinetorum

Common muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius

Coyote Canis latrans

Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Common gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Common raccoon Procyon lotor

River otter Lutra canadensis

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

Least weasel Mustela nivalis

Mink Mustela vison

American badger Taxidea taxus

Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Mountain lion Felis concolor

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

98

AMPHIBIANS

Common Name Scientific Name

Smallmouth salamander Ambystoma texanum

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Mudpuppy Necturus maculoslis

Eastern newt Notophthalmus viridescens

American toad Bufo americanus

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousii

Blanchard’s cricket frog Acris crepitans

Spring peeper Hyla crucifer

Cope’s gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis

Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor

Western chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata

Great Plains narrowmouth toad Gastrophryne olivacea

Northern crawfish frog Rana areolata

Plains leopard frog Rana blairi

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala

REPTILES

Common Name Scientific Name

Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina

Western painted turtle Chrysemys picta

Common map turtle Graptemys geographica

Quachita map turtle Graptemys pseudogeographica

Three-toed box turtle Terrapene carolina

Ornate box turtle Terrapene ornata

Red-eared slider Pseudemys scripta

Midland smooth softshell Trionyx muticus

Western spiny softshell Trionyx spiniferus

Western slender glass lizard Ophisaurus atttenuatus

Eastern collared lizard Crotaphytus collaris

Eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus

Southern coal skink Eumeces anthracinus

Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus

Broadhead skink Eumeces laticeps

Great Plains skink Eumeces obsoletus

Ground skink Scincella lateralis

Prairie-lined racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus

Western worm snake Carprophis amoenus

Eastern yellowbelly racer Coluber constrictor

Prairie ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus

Great Plains rat snake Elaphe guttata

Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta

Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platirhinos

Prairie kingsnake Lampropeltis calligaster

Common kingsnake Lampropeltis getula

Milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum

Blotched water snake Nerodia erythrogaster

Diamondback water snake Nerodia rhombifer

Northern water snake Nerodia sipedon

Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus

Bullsnake Pituophis melanoleucus
Appendix D / Lists of Species

99

Graham’s crayfish snake Regina grahamii

Texas brown snake Storeria dekayi

Northern redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata

Flathead snake Tantilla gracilis

Western ribbon snake Thamnophis proximus

Red-Sided garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis

Lined snake Tropidoclonion lineatum

Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus

Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus

FISH

Common Name Scientific Name

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula

Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus

Longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella

Common carp Cyprinus carpio

Horneyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides

Ghost shiner Notropis buchanani

Rosyface shiner Notropis rusellus

Sand shiner Notropis stramineus

Suckermouth minnow Phenacosius mirabilis

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas

Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis

Redfin shiner Lythrurus umbratilis

Silver chub Macrhysopsis storeriana

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

White sucker Catostomus commerson i

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus

Black buffalo Ictiobus niger

Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Stonecat Noturus flavus

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus

Freckled madtom Noturus nocturnus

Slender madtom Noturus exilis

Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus

Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

100

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

White crappie Pomoxis annularis

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Greenside darter Etheostoma blennioides

Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum

Orangethroat darter Etheostoma spectabile

Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Logperch Percina caprodes

Slenderhead darter Percina phoxocephala

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens

MUSSELS

Common Name Scientific Name

Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina

Threeridge Amblema plicata

Flat floater Anodonta suborbiculata

Purple pimpleback Cyclonaias tuberculata

Asiatic clam Corbicula leana

Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata

Spike Elliptio dilatata

Wabash pigtoe Fusconaia flava

Yellow sandshell Lampsilis teres

White heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata

Fragile papershell Leptodea fragilis

Black sandshell Ligumia recta

Pondmussel Ligumia subrostrata

Washboard Megalonaias nervosa

Threehorn wartyback Obliquaria reflexa

Round pigtoe Pleurobema coccineum

Pink heelsplitter Potamilus alatus

Bluefer Potamilus purpuratus

Pink papershell Potamilus ohiensis

Giant floater Pyganodon grandis

Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra

Wartyback Quadrula nodulata

Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa

Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula

Lilliput Toxoplasma parvus

Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa

Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformes

Deertoe Truncilla truncata

Pondhorn Uniomerus tetralasmus

Paper pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis
Appendix D / Lists of Species

101

BIRD SPECIES

The following list includes 321 bird species that have been seen in the area of the Refuge, including 117

species that nest on the Refuge (*). Also included are 6 species listed Federally Endangered or Threatened and 14 species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive in Kansas.

SEASON CODES:

Sp= Spring (March - May)Su=Summer (June - August)F=Fall (September - November)W=Winter

(December - February)

SEASONAL ABUNDANCE CODES:

a = abundantm occurring in large numbers; c = common, certain to be seen in suitable habitat; u =

uncommon, present but not certain to be seen; o = occasional, seen only a few times during a season; r =

rare, seen at intervals of 2 - 5 years; x = vagrant, accidental, straggler or out of normal range

Sp Su F W

LOONS

Common Loon Gavia immer u ur

GREBES

Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus podiceps coco

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus u uo

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena x

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis oro

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentals r

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii

PELICANS

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos crcr

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis x

CORMORANTS and ANHINGA

Neotropic Cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus x

Double-crested Cormorant* Phalacrocorax auritus cucr

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga x x

HERONS and BITTERNS

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus uou

Least Bittern* Ixobrychus exilis oro

Great Blue Heron* Ardea herodias acao

Great Egret Ardea alba ucc

Snowy Egret Egretta thula ouu

Little Blue Heron* Egretta caerulea ucc

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis uoo

Green Heron* Butorides virescens ucu

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax uoo

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron* Nyctanassa violaceus uoo

IBISES and STORKS

White Ibis Eudocimus albus xxx

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi x x

Wood Stork Mycteria americana x

NEW WORLD VULTURES

Turkey Vulture* Cathartes aura cac

DUCKS, GEESE, and SWANS

Black-bellied Whistling-Duck x

Dendrocygna autumnalis

Fulvous Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna bicolor x

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons u uu

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens arau
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

102

Sp Su F W

Ross’ Goose Chen rossii rrrr

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis acaa

Brant Branta bernicla x

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator x

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus r rr

Wood Duck* Aix sponsa ccau

Gadwall Anas strepera aoau

American Wigeon Anas americana arau

American Black Duck Anas rubripes o ou

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos auac

Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors coar

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera rxx

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata cocr

Northern Pintail Anas acuta arau

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca arao

Canvasback Aythya valisineria u uo

Redhead Aythya americana u uo

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris a au

Greater Scaup Aythya marila u oo

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis c cu

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata r

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca r

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra r

Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis r

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola c cu

Common Goldeneye u u c

Bucephala clangula

Hooded Merganser* u o u o

Mergus merganser

Common Merganser u u o

Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser u u o

Mergus serrator

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis c co

HAWKS, KITES, and EAGLES

Osprey Pandion haliaetus o u

Mississippi Kite r x

Ictinia mississippiensis

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus o ou

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus crcu

Sharp-shinned Hawk u u u

Accipiterstriatus

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii u uu

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis r r

Red-shouldered Hawk* Buteo lineatus uuuu

Broad-winged Hawk* u r u

Buteo platypterus

Swainson’s Hawk* Buteo swainsoni oro

Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis aaaa

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis r x

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus o uc

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos r r
Appendix D / Lists of Species

103

Sp Su F W

FALCONS

American Kestrel* Falco spawverius cucc

Merlin Falco columbarius r rr

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus r rr

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus r r

PHEASANTS, GROUSE, TURKEY, and QUAILS

Ring-necked Pheasant* Phasianus colchicus xxxx

Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido xxxx

Wild Turkey* Meleagris gallopavo aaaa

Northern Bobwhite* Colinus virginianus aaaa

RAILS, GALLINULES, and COOTS

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis r r

King Rail* Rallus elegans ooo

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola rrr

Sora Porzana carolina cucu

Purple Gallinule Porphyrula martinica x

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus x

American Coot* Fulica americana a?au

CRANES

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis r

PLOVERS

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola u o

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica u o

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus r r

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus u u

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus o r

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus caau

AVOCETS

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana r r

SANDPIPERS and PHALAROPES

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca coc

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes cuc

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria uou

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus oro

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia cuo

Upland Sandpiper* Bartramia longicauda uuo

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus x

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica u r

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa o r

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres r

Sanderling Calidris alba o r

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla cuc

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri oou

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla cuc

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis uou

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii cou

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos cuc

Dunlin Calidris alpina o o

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus uuu

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis r r

Ruff Philomachus pugnax x

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus o o
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

104

Sp Su F W

Long-billed Dowitcher u r u

Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago urur

American Woodcock* Scolopax minor ooor

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor u u

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus r r

GULLS and TERNS

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla x

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan coar

Little Gull Larus minutus x

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia u u

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis cccu

Herring Gull Larus argentatus uruu

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus x

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia uou

Common Tern Sterna hirundo r r

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri uou

Least Tern Sterna antillarum r r

Black Tern Chlidonias niger uou

DOVES

Rock Dove* Columbia livia cccc

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica x

Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura aaau

CUCKOOS and ROADRUNNERS

Black-billed Cuckoo* u o u

Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Yellow-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus americanus ccc

Greater Roadrunner Geococcyx califorianus x

OWLS

Barn Owl* Tyto alba oouo

Eastern Screech-Owl* Otus asio cccc

Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus cccc

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca r

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia o o

Barred Owl* Strix varia cccc

Long-eared Owl Asio otus urru

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus r rr

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus r

GOATSUCKERS

Common Nighthawk* Chordeiles minor ccc

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii o o

Chuck-will’s-widow* u u c

Caprimulgus carolinensis

Whip-poor-will*Caprimulgus vociferus ccu

SWIFTS

Chimney Swift* Chaetura pelagica ccc

HUMMINGBIRDS

Magnificent Hummingbird Eugenes fulgens x

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* u c u

Archilochus colubris

KINGFISHERS

Belted Kingfisher* Ceryle alcyon uouo
Appendix D / Lists of Species

105

Sp Su F W

WOODPECKERS and ALLIES

Red-headed Woodpecker* cccc

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-bellied Woodpecker* Melanerpes carolinus cccc

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius uuuu

Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens cccc

Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus uuuu

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus cccc

Pileated Woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus uuuu

FLYCATCHERS

Olive-sided Flycatcher*Contopus cooperi oro

Eastern Wood-Pewee* Contopus virens ucc

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris r r

Acadian Flycatcher* Empidonax virescens ccu

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum o o

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii rrr

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus c u

Eastern Phoebe* Sayornis phoebe ccc

Great Crested Flycatcher* Myiarchus crinitus ccc

Western Kingbird* Tyrannus verticalis ccu

Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus ccu

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher* Tyrannus forficatus uuu

SHRIKES

Loggerhead Shrike* Lanius ludovicianus cccu

Northern Shrike Lauius excubitor x

VIREOS

White-eyed Vireo* Vireo griseus uuu

Bell’s Vireo* Vireo bellii uuo

Yellow-throated Vireo* Vireo flavifrons uuu

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius u o

Warbling Vireo* Vireo gilvus ccc

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus o o

Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus ccu

JAYS and CROWS

Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata ccac

Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus x

Clark’s Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana x x

American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos cccc

LARKS

Horned Lark* Eremophila alpestris uouc

SWALLOWS

Purple Martin* Progne subis ccc

Tree Swallow* Tachycineta bicolor cuc

Northern Rough-winged Swallow* c c c

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia oro

Cliff Swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota uuu

Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica ccc

CHICKADEES and TITMICE

Black-capped Chickadee* Poecile atricapillus cccc

Tufted Titmouse* Baeolophus bicolor cccc
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

106

Sp Su F W

NUTHATCHES

Red-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta canadensis r r

White-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis cccc

Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea x x

CREEPERS

Brown Creeper Certhia americana u uo

WRENS

Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus x

Carolina Wren*Thryothorus ludovicianus uuuo

Bewick’s Wren*Thryomanes bewickii oro

House Wren* Troglodytes aedon ccc

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes r

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis uoo

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris ooor

KINGLETS and GNATCATCHERS

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa u uo

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula u ur

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher*Polioptila caerulea ccc

THRUSHES

Eastern Bluebird* Sialia sialis cccu

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides x

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi r

Veery Catharus fuscescens o

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus o r

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus c u

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus o ur

Wood Thrush* Hylocichla mustelina uuo

American Robin* Turdus migratorius cccu

THRASHERS

Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis u u u r?

Northern Mockingbird* Mimus polyglottos uuuu

Brown Thrasher* Toxostoma rufum ccu

STARLINGS

European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris aaaa

PIPITS

American Pipit Anthus rubescens u u

Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii x x

WAXWINGS

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum uouu

WARBLERS

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus rrr

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera o o

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina c u

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata c r? c r?

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla c c

Northern Parula* Parula americana ccu

Yellow Warbler* Dendroica petechia uuu

Chestnut-sided WarblerDendroica pensylvanica u u

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia o r

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina r

Black-throated Blue Warbler r r

Dendroica caerulescens
Appendix D / Lists of Species

107

Sp Su F W

Yellow-rumped WarblerDendroica coronata c uo

Black-throated Green Warbler u u

Dendroica virens

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca o r

Yellow-throated Warbler* r r

Dendroica dominica

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus r

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor r

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum o o

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea r r

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata u o

Cerulean Warbler* Dendroica cerulea uuo

Black-and-white Warbler* Mniotilta varia uru

American Redstart* Setophaga ruticilla uru

Prothonotary Warbler* Protonotaria citrea ccc

Worm-eating Warbler r r

Helmitheros vermivorus

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus o o

Northern Waterthrush u o

Seiurus noveboracensis

Louisiana Waterthrush* Seiurus motacilla uor

Kentucky Warbler* Oporomis formosus uuu

Connecticut Warbler Oporomis agilis r

Mourning Warbler Oporomis philadelphia u o

Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas cccr

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina r r

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla o u

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis o o

Yellow-breasted Chat* Icteria virens uoo

TANAGERS

Summer Tanager* Piranga rubra ccc

Scarlet Tanager* Piranga olivacea ooo

SPARROWS and TOWHEES

Eastern Towhee* Pipilo erythrophthalmus uour

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea c ca

Chipping Sparrow* Spizella passerina uru

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida u o

Field Sparrow* Spizella pusilla cccu

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus u u

Lark Sparrow* Chondestes grammacus uuu

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis c ur

Grasshopper Sparrow* o u o

Ammodramus savannarum

Baird’s Sparrow Ammodramus vairdii x x

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii rrr

Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii u u

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow x x

Ammodramus nelsoni

Fox Sparrow Passerelia iliaca u uo

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia c cu

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii u ur

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana c cu
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

108

Sp Su F W

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis c cu

Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula c cu

White-crowned Sparrow c c u

Zonotrichia leucophrys

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis c ca

McCown’s Longspur Calcarius mccownii r

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus o o

Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus r r

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus o o

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis r

GROSBEAKS and BUNTINGS

Northern Cardinal* Cardinalis cardinalis cccc

Rose-breasted Grosbeak* c o u

Pheucticus ludovicianus

Black-headed Grosbeak x

Pheucticus melanocephalus

Blue Grosbeak* Guiraca caerulea uuu

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena x

Indigo Bunting* Passerina cyanea ccc

Painted Bunting* Passerina ciris uuu

Dickcissel* Spiza americana ccc

BLACKBIRDS and ORIOLES

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus r

Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus ccca

Eastern Meadowlark* Stumella magnacccc

Western Meadowlark Stumella neglecta uuuu

Yellow-headed Blackbird o

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus o o

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus o o

Common Grackle* Quiscalus quiscula cccc

Great-tailed Grackle* Quiscalus mexicanus ouo

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater cccu

Orchard Oriole* Icterus spurius cuu

Baltimore Oriole* Icterus galbula cuu

FINCHES

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus r oo

House Finch* Carpodacus mexicanus x x

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra x

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea x

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus o ou

American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis cccu

OLD WORLD SPARROW

House Sparrow* Passer domesticus aaaa

368 321 287 175 278 132
Appendix D / Lists of Species

109

Federally Listed Species That May Occur in the Study Area

Regional Presence

Species Species Confirmed

Common Name Scientific Name Yes No

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X

alascensis

Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum X

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus X

Scale shell mussel Leptodea leptodon X

Pink mucket Lampsilis abrupta X

Winged mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa X

American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus X

Mead’s milkweed Asclepias meadii X

Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara X

Running buffalo clover Trifolium stoloniferum X

Species Listed in Missouri as Endangered that May Occur in Study Area

Barn Owl Tyto alba X

Regional Presence

Species Species Confirmed

Common Name Scientific Name Yes No

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X

alascensis

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus X

King Rail Rallus elegans X

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus X

Snowy Egret Egretta thula thula X

Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum X

Greater Prairie Chicken Tympanuchus cupido X

Black-tailed jack rabbit Lepus californicus X

American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus X

Mead’s milkweed Asclepias meadii X

Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara X

Running buffalo clover Trifolium stoloniferum X
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

110

Regional Presence

Species Species Confirmed

Common Name Scientific Name Yes No

Other Missouri or Nationally Rare Species That May Occur in the Study

Area

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni X

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus X

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus X

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii X

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus X

Sora Rail Porzana carolina X

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea X

Black-crowned Night Heron Nyciticorax nycitdcorax X

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis exilis X

Great Egret Ardea alba X

Pied-billede Grebe Podilymbus podiceps X

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda X

Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii X

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii X

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica X

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea X

Painted Bunting Passerina ciris ciris X

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula X

Plains harvest mouse Reithrodontomys montanus X

Crawfish frog Rana areolata X

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum X

Great Plains skink Eumeces obsoletus X

Regal fritillary Speyeria idalia X

Prairie mole cricket Gryllotalpa majo X
Appendix E / Interim Compatibility Determination

111

Appendix E: Interim Compatibility

Determination

Appendix E / Interim Compatibility Determination

113

Appendix E: Interim Compatibility Determination

I. ST I. STI. STATION NAME: TION NAME Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge

II. DA II. DAII. DATE ESTABLISHED: ABLISHED 1992

III. EST III. ESTIII. ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY: ABLISHING AUTHORITY The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16

U.S.C. 742a-742j) and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of November 10,

1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901-3931)

IV. PURPOSE FOR WHICH ESTABLISHED: ABLISHED The primary purpose for the

Refuge under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 is “... for the development,

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife

resources ...” and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be

subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of

servitude ...”

The primary purpose for the Refuge under the Emergency Wetlands Resources

Act of 1986 is “... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to

maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions...”

V. DESCRIPTION OF USE: W . DESCRIPTION OF USE ildlife-dependent recreational activities

currently are limited within the 11,145 acre study area. Existing agricultural

uses include growing row crops and grazing livestock. The tilled and grazed land

does not provide for concentrated use by wildlife. Wildlife observation, photography, environmental interpretation and hunting opportunities are available and

occur on Marais des Cygnes NWR (9,300 acre acquisition area) and Marais des

Cygnes Wildlife Area (7,500 acres), located immediately west of the addition

area. Fishing opportunities exist in the area. The county and township roads

provide access for local bird watchers. Annual visitation for the existing Refuge

is estimated at 10,000 people for an average of about 27 visitors/day. The spring

and fall are the busiest times of the year and mid summer is the slowest.

The same wildlife-dependent uses are being considered for lands acquired for

the Refuge. Hunting will be conducted within the framework of applicable state

and Federal regulations. Control of deer numbers through hunting will help

minimize crop damage from increased wildlife numbers.

Existing wildlife-dependent uses will be continued and promoted to help realize

the Refuge goal of increasing opportunities for outdoor recreation and education. All Refuge lands, except those sensitive communities identified as requiring exclusion of use, will be open to recreational uses year-round. Hunting and

fishing would occur within state-established seasons. Wildlife recreational use

will help promote understanding, appreciation and support for wetland and

prairie restoration and other conservation efforts.
Marias des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

114

VI. ESTIMATE DEMAND FOR PRE-EXISTING WILDLIFE-DEPEN- TE DEMAND FOR PRE-EXISTING WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT RECREATIONAL USE PLUS OTHER WILDLIFE-DEPEN- TIONAL USE PLUS OTHER WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT RECREATIONAL USES CONSIDERED IF LANDS BECOME

REFUGE DOMAIN: Demand for the existing wildlife-dependent recreational REFUGE DOMAIN

uses described above should increase significantly if subject lands are acquired

for a refuge. The availability and increased accessibility of refuge lands is likely

to be attractive to local users as well as those in the Kansas City area. Waterfowl and deer hunting opportunities and demand should increase as wetlands

and grasslands are restored. There also should be a significant increase in the

number of non-consumptive users for such activities as wildlife photography and

wildlife viewing. Preserving and restoring a more pristine prairie/wetland

environment will directly and indirectly improve conditions and demand for

wildlife and related outdoor activity.

The completed project could attract 20,000 to 30,000 day visitors per year (based

on current and projected visitation rates on the existing refuge area). Increased

demands would result through local community organizations desiring additional

tourism revenues. Partnerships between the Service and these organizations

could be established to develop and promote compatible recreational opportunities.

VII. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED USE/EXISTING USE ON

REFUGE PURPOSE: REFUGE PURPOSE

The continuation of existing wildlife-dependent recreational use is consistent

with fish and wildlife management principals in that it recognizes, in the case of

hunting, the concepts of harvestable surplus and carrying capacity. White-tailed 

deer and Canada goose numbers can increase to levels causing increased cropland damage without the control provided by hunting. The potential of floral and

faunal degradation reduces biodiversity and negatively impacts other wildlife

using the same habitat, including threatened and endangered species. The

refuge goal to maintain diversity and increase abundance of waterfowl and other

migratory bird species could be impaired without an active hunting program to

manage big game and predator populations.

VIII. STIPULATIONS THAT WOULD MAKE PROPOSED USE/EXISTING USE COMPATIBLE WITH REFUGE PURPOSE: TIBLE WITH REFUGE PURPOSE

■ All hunting activities will be in conformance with applicable state and

Federal regulations.

■ Sensitive or rare plant communities may be excluded from consideration

of public recreational use on limited acreage if that use would severely

damage or extirpate the natural community type.

■ Wildlife-dependent uses will be subject to modification if on-site monitoring uncovers unanticipated negative impacts to natural communities,

wildlife species or their habitats.

IX. JUSTIFICATION: Recreation, including hunting and fishing, wildlife TION

observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation has

minimal impact on refuge resources and is a positive result of proper wetland,

bottomland forest, and prairie restoration. These proposed wildlife-dependent

recreational opportunities would generate increased public support for the

Service’s biological and land acquisition programs. People, when able to experi-
Appendix E / Interim Compatibility Determination

115

ence the outdoors, become more understanding and appreciative of habitat

protection and restoration needs.

X. FUNDING OR STAFFING CONSTRAINTS TO IMPLEMENTATION: The Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge is administered by staff TION

located at the existing refuge northeast of Pleasanton, Kansas. The expansion

would be administered by this staff as well. Additions to the existing Refuge

would occur gradually on a willing seller basis only, allowing incorporation of any

additional costs in the normal refuge budgeting process.

Available from the Service? Yes No

Discussion: The need for increased refuge administrative funding is dependent

on the pace of land acquisition and development. The initial costs to support

wildlife-dependent uses should be low as wildlife habitats are slowly restored

over time.

If no, is it available from Service partners? Yes No

Discussion: Partner matching grants and cooperatively funded projects and

programs would be an integral part of implementation.

XI. DETERMINATION IF USE IS OR IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH

THE PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH THE REFUGE WAS OR WILL BE

ESTABLISHED:

IS IS NOT IS

XII. WILL THE USE BE ALLOWED AFTER ACQUISITION: YES

NO

Discussion: See Sections V, VII & VIII.

Determined By (Project Leader):

________________________________________________________________

Bruce Freske Date

Reviewed By (Refuge Supervisor):

________________________________________________________________

Name Date

Concurred By (Chief, NWRS):

________________________________________________________________

Name Date

Appendix F / Land Protection Plan

117

Appendix F: Land Protection Plan

Appendix F / Land Protection Plan

119

Appendix F: Land Protection Plan

Land Protection Plan

Proposed Addition to Marais des Cygnes

National Wildlife Refuge

Options for Fish and Wildlife Habitats

This Land Protection Plan presents habitat protection and restoration options

available to the Service and landowners on public and private lands within the

proposed refuge expansion boundary. A map of relative protection priorities for

areas within the proposed refuge is included (Figure 1) (Figure 1). (Figure 1)

I. Options for Land Protection

Land protection options vary from written agreements on land management to

outright purchase of the land. Land may be acquired in fee title by several

methods including exchange, purchase or donation. Conservation or nondevelopment easements can also be purchased by the Service or donated by a

landowner. Each parcel of land has unique resource values and circumstances

that determine the desired level of protection.

Much of the public discussion and/or concern over a new refuge proposal centers

on full acquisition of lands (fee title). However, land purchase is only one of many

options for developing a wildlife refuge. Various options for habitat protection

and restoration could be used in concert with fee title acquisition to achieve

refuge goals.

Fee Simple Purchase: Fee Simple Purchase: The Service could purchase land from willing sellers

within the proposed refuge boundary. If separate mineral rights were held, we

would seek to acquire those as well. The land would be appraised at market

value and a written offer presented to a landowner. Full rights and title to

purchased property would be vested with the United States as part of the

National Wildlife Refuge System. Land acquisition funds are limited and allocated on a nationwide basis. Each Service Region must compete for appropriations from Congress under the Land and Water Conservation Fund and for

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (Duck Stamp) allotments. Annual land

acquisition funding cannot be assured for each refuge requesting it.

Conservation Easements: Conservation Easements: Con Conservation Easements: servation easements are a popular method for

land protection used by private individuals, land trusts and governments.

Conservation easements involve the acquisition of specific land rights for the

purpose of achieving defined habitat objectives. Easements can either prohibit

or encourage certain practices. For example, wetland easements usually involve

the right to drain, burn and fill a wetland. Grassland easements usually cover

the right to place timing restrictions on hay mowing to benefit wildlife. Easements become part of the title to the property and are usually permanent. If a

landowner sells the property, the easement continues as part of the title.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

120

Figure 1: Tracts in the Proposed Expansion Area Identified by

Tract Number and Priority for Acquisition
Appendix F / Land Protection Plan

121

II. Options for Habitat Restoration

Partners for Fish and Wildlife: ildlife:ildlife: This program is administered by the U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and offers technical and

financial assistance to private landowners to voluntarily restore wetlands,

native grasslands and other fish and wildlife habitats. The Service, along with a

wide variety of partners, provides assistance and cost-sharing to complete work

if the landowner agrees to maintain the area for a period of 10 years or more.

Partners who contribute time and funds for these efforts include local conservation organizations, universities, businesses, school groups, other government

agencies and private individuals.

Wetlands Reserve Program: etlands Reserve Program: etlands Reserve Program: The Wetlands Reserve program is administered

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation

Service. The program focuses on providing financial incentives to landowners in

exchange for wetland restoration or enhancements. Three options are available:

permanent easements, 30-year easements, and restoration cost-share agreements for a minimum 10-year duration. The landowner retains title to the land

and may lease it for hunting and fishing. Additional activities, such as haying,

grazing or timber cutting, may be permitted if the uses are fully consistent with

protection and enhancement of the wetland.

Technical Assistance: echnical Assistance: echnical Assistance: Several programs exist for people who want to improve

wildlife habitat on their land. Financial assistance for habitat improvements is

often available on a cost-sharing basis.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: ildlife Habitat Incentives Program: P ildlife Habitat Incentives Program: articipants work with the Natural

Resource Conservation Service to prepare a wildlife habitat development plan

in consultation with the local conservation district. The plan describes the

landowner’s goals for habitat improvement and sets a schedule for implementation. Cost-share agreements under this program generally last from 5 to 10

years.

Cooperative Agreements: Cooperative Agreements The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can offer free

technical assistance to neighboring property owners through a cooperative

agreement. The Service can agree to develop wildlife or land management plans,

or do wildlife surveys on private lands and provide detailed information to the

landowners. These cooperative agreements are formal, written documents, and

usually place no legally binding restrictions on the land. No money is involved

and either party may cancel the agreement with adequate notice to the other

party. A cooperative agreement would not affect the tax status of the land. 

Private Conservation Efforts: Private Conservation Efforts: In Private Conservation Efforts: recent years, conservation organizations

have been effective in promoting wildlife habitat improvement on private lands.

Collectively, these local, regional or national organizations are a great source of

financial and technical assistance for the private landowner who wishes to

improve lands for wildlife. Some of the more popular organizations include The

Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, Fish and Wildlife Foundation,

Izaak Walton League, Audubon, Trust for Public Lands, Ducks Unlimited, and

Pheasants Forever.

In addition, local hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations often are

willing to assist private landowners with wildlife habitat improvement projects.
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

122

Many of these organizations have substantial financial and technical resources

and are often a dedicated source of energy for wildlife habitat improvement on

both private and public lands.

III. Recommended Land Protection Levels

The draft Environmental Assessment recommends Alternative C (11,145 acres),

which includes preservation of the core stream area and its associated bottomland forest and riparian wetlands as well as adjacent upland areas. The goal for

the bottomland areas would be to gradually acquire fee or easements on the

lands over time. Any fee or easement purchases would be from willing sellers

only. If a landowner is not interested in a fee title sale, the Service would consider other options such as conservation easements or assistance with private

conservation measures if these were of interest to the landowner.

The approach for the adjacent upland areas (Priority 2 and 3) area would be to

acquire fee or permanent easements on most lands within the boundary over

time. During the interim, a combination of easements, fee title or private conservation measures would be pursued based on each landowner’s interest.

The surrounding Watershed Conservation (Priority 3) approach would include

fee acquisition, but also a larger role for voluntary conservation measures and

easement programs. Focus would be placed on the retirement of highly erodible

lands where possible and encouraging conservation practices. The Service would

seek to engage landowners in private conservation measures through existing

programs and technical assistance. However, fee title purchase, based on funding availability, would still be possible for landowners interested only in that

option.

IV. Land Protection Priorities:

Land protection priorities are listed in Table 1. The bottomland area is the

Service’s highest priority (Priority 1) for purchase and restoration with future

available funding. The adjacent upland areas where there is existing upland

forest or prairie would be the second highest priority for fee purchase and

conservation easements (Priority 2). The upland parcels that are currently

cropped would be the last priority for available land acquisition funds (Priority

3). Some of the tract ownerships extend outside the proposed Refuge boundaries, which accounts for the acreage totaling more than the 11,145 acre expansion.
Appendix F / Land Protection Plan

123

Table 1: List of Tracts, Acreage, and Protection Priority within the

Proposed Expansion Area

TRACT # TRACT # ACRES PRIORITY

1 146.5 Higher

01a 86.4 Medium

01b 42.9 Higher

03 256.9 Higher

04 349.5 Higher

05 45.0 Higher

06 134.9 Higher

06a 28.5 Higher

07 67.4 Higher

08 21.3 Higher

08a 70.1 Higher

09 40.1 Medium

09a 32.4 Higher

10 10.9 Higher

11 53.8 Lower

13 91.0 Lower

14 140.5 Lower

15 3.9 Higher

15a 80.7 Higher

15b 37.9 Higher

16 43.2 Higher

17 38.9 Higher

17a 267.5 Higher

17b 147.3 Lower

17c 81.6 Higher

18 157.6 Higher

19 41.5 Higher

21 293.8 Lower

21a 46.8 Higher

21b 277.0 Higher

21c 26.8 Higher

21d 94.1 Higher

22/30 201.8 Higher

23 42.2 Lower

24 114.9 Lower

24a 25.7 Higher

25 39.0 Lower

26 125.1 Higher

27 20.5 Higher

27a 68.1 Higher

27b 143.9 Higher

27c 148.1 Higher

28 785.7 Higher

28a 590.7 Medium

28b 91.7 Medium

29 39.9 Higher

31 36.9 Higher

32 22.3 Higher

33 14.4 Lower

34 12.2 Higher
Marais des Cygnes NWR Environmental Assessment

124

TRACT # TRACT # ACRES PRIORITY

34a 39.3 Lower

34d 477.9 Medium

34e 39.3 Medium

34f 111.3 Higher

34g 435.1 Lower

34h 52.7 Lower

35 10.8 Lower

37 43.0 Higher

38 88.9 Higher

38a 20.6 Higher

38b 20.0 Higher

40 78.8 Lower

41 25.5 Lower

42 81.1 Lower

42c 38.4 Lower

43 77.4 Lower

44 41.2 Medium

44a 37.0 Higher

46 14.6 Higher

48 116.5 Higher

50 560.8 Lower

50a 135.8 Lower

52 191.3 Higher

52a 103.4 Higher

52b 250.9 Higher

52c 234.3 Higher

53 130.2 Higher

54 97.8 Higher

56 84.1 Higher

57 102.1 Higher

57a 270.3 Higher

59 293.6 Higher

60 188.4 Higher

61 934.6 Higher

62 184.7 Medium

63 20.4 Medium

64 64.8 Higher

64a 14.8 Higher

65 18.5 Higher

66 11.0 Higher

67 46.1 Higher

totals: 11567.1 91