Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge

Kansas

October 2013

Approved by

Noreen Walsh, Regional Director Date

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Prepared by

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge

1434 NE. 80th Street

Stafford, Kansas 67578

620 / 486 2393

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 / 236 8145

CITATION

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Comprehensive conservation plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 221 p.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge

Kansas

Submitted by

W. Mike Oldham, Project Leader Date

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge

Stafford, Kansas

Concurred with by

Will Meeks Date

Assistant Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lakewood, Colorado

Barbara Boyle Date

Refuge Supervisor (Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lakewood, Colorado

Contents

Summary ......................................................................................... XI

Abbreviations ..................................................................................... XVII

CHAPTER 1—Introduction .........................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System ..........................3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................3

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

People and the Refuge System .......................................................................4

1.3 National and Regional Mandates ................................................................4

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

Conserving the Future .............................................................................5

Partners in Flight .................................................................................5

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan ............................................................5

North American Waterfowl Management Plan ...........................................................5

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan .................................................................... 6

Recovery Plans for Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species .........................................6

Kansas State Wildlife Action Plan ....................................................................6

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change .............................................................7

1.5 Landscape-Scale Conservation ..................................................................7

Strategic Habitat Conservation ......................................................................7

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives .................................................................8

1.6 The Planning Process ..........................................................................8

Coordination with the Public ........................................................................9

State Coordination ..............................................................................11

Tribal Coordination ..............................................................................11

Results of Scoping ..............................................................................12

The Draft Plan ..................................................................................12

The Final Plan ..................................................................................12

CHAPTER 2—The Refuge .........................................................................13

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History .............................................13

Establishment ..................................................................................13

Acquisition History ..............................................................................14

Management History .............................................................................14

2.2 Purposes .....................................................................................14

2.3 Vision ........................................................................................16

2.4 Goals ........................................................................................16

Landscape Conservation Goal ......................................................................16

Native Ecological Community Conservation Goal .........................................................16

Visitor Services Goal .............................................................................16

Public Outreach Goal .............................................................................16

Cultural Resources Goal ..........................................................................17

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal .................................................17
VI Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Administration Goal .............................................................................17

2.5 Special Values ................................................................................17

Rare, Diverse, and Quality Habitat ...................................................................17

Wildlife Species ................................................................................17

Species of Concern ..............................................................................17

Water Resources ...............................................................................17

Communities and People ..........................................................................17

Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................17

Cultural Resources ..............................................................................18

Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................18

Special Designations .............................................................................18

2.6 Planning Issues ...............................................................................18

Water Quantity and Quality ........................................................................18

Tree Management ...............................................................................19

Whooping Crane Closures .........................................................................19

Prohibiting the Collection of Shed Antlers ..............................................................19

Deer and Turkey Hunting ..........................................................................19

Increasing Public Use and Wildlife Compatibility .........................................................19

CHAPTER 3—Refuge Resources and Description .................................................21

3.1 Physical Environment ..........................................................................21

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Land Features ..................................................................................25

Soils .........................................................................................25

Water Resources ...............................................................................26

Air Quality ....................................................................................29

3.2 Biological Resources ..........................................................................29

Plant Communities ..............................................................................31

Wildlife Communities ............................................................................40

Federally and State-Listed Species ...................................................................45

3.3 Management Tools ............................................................................46

Rest .........................................................................................46

Water Management .............................................................................47

Prescribed Fire .................................................................................47

Grazing .......................................................................................47

Mechanical Treatments ...........................................................................48

Chemical Treatments .............................................................................48

3.4 Human History and Cultural Resources ..........................................................48

Prehistoric Resources ............................................................................48

Prehistoric Occupation ............................................................................48

Protohistoric and Historic Native Americans ............................................................49

Historic Euro-Americans ..........................................................................49

History .......................................................................................50

3.5 Special Management Areas ....................................................................52

3.6 Visitor Services ...............................................................................52

Hunting ......................................................................................52

Fishing .......................................................................................53

Wildlife Observation and Photography ................................................................53

Environmental Education ..........................................................................53

Interpretation ..................................................................................54

Other Uses ....................................................................................55

Special Events .................................................................................55

Public Outreach .................................................................................55
Contents VII 

3.7 Partnerships ..................................................................................56

3.8 Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................56

Population, Ethnicity, and Education ..................................................................57

Regional Economic Setting ........................................................................58

Public Use of the Refuge ..........................................................................60

Visitor Levels ..................................................................................60

Economic Contributions of the Refuge ................................................................61

3.9 Operations ...................................................................................61

Funding and Staff ...............................................................................62

Facilities ......................................................................................62

CHAPTER 4—Management Direction .............................................................65

4.1 Management Focus ...........................................................................65

4.2 Overview of Goals and Objectives ..............................................................66

4.3 Landscape Conservation Goal ..................................................................66

Landscape Conservation Objective 1: Land Ownership and Collaboration .......................................68

Landscape Conservation Objective 2: Habitat Fragmentation ................................................70

Landscape Conservation Objective 3: Environmental Health and Climate Change .................................71

4.4 Native Ecological Community Conservation Goal .................................................72

Native Ecological Community Conservation Objective 1: Wetlands ............................................81

Native Ecological Community Conservation Objective 2: Grasslands ...........................................89

Native Ecological Community Conservation Objective 3: Woodlands ..........................................93

4.5 Visitor Services Goal ..........................................................................95

Hunting Objective 1 ..............................................................................97

Hunting Objective 2 ..............................................................................97

Fishing Objective 1 ..............................................................................98

Fishing Objective 2 .............................................................................100

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective 1 ......................................................100

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective 2 ......................................................101

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 1 ..................................................101

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 2 ..................................................102

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 3 ..................................................102

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 4 ..................................................102

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 5 ..................................................103

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 6 ..................................................103

Other Uses Objective ............................................................................103

4.6 Public Outreach Goal .........................................................................104

Public Outreach Objective 1 .......................................................................104

Public Outreach Objective 2 .......................................................................105

Public Outreach Objective 3 .......................................................................105

4.7 Cultural Resources Goal ......................................................................106

Cultural Resources Objective ......................................................................106

4.8 Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal .......................................106

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective ...............................................................106

Resource Protection Objective .....................................................................107

4.9 Administration Goal ..........................................................................108

Funding and Staff Objective 1 .....................................................................108

Funding and Staff Objective 2 .....................................................................108

Facilities Objective 1 ............................................................................109

Facilities Objective 2 ............................................................................110

Facilities Objective 3 ............................................................................110

Facilities Objective 4 ............................................................................110
VIII Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

4.10 Stepdown Management Plans ................................................................111

4.11 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................111

4.12 Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

GLOSSARY .....................................................................................113

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................213

APPENDIXES

Appendix A

Environmental Compliance ........................................................................119

Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations ......................................................................123

Appendix C

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ..........................................................139

Appendix D

Public Involvement .............................................................................147

Appendix E

Key Legislation and Policy ........................................................................175

Appendix F

List of Preparers and Contributors ..................................................................179

Appendix G

Species Lists ..................................................................................181

Appendix H

Grassland Fragmentation Assessment ...............................................................207

FIGURES

Figure 1. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge and Great Plains Nature Center, Kansas ..................................2

Figure 2. Basic strategic habitat conservation process ........................................................7

Figure 3. Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............8

Figure 4. Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis .................9

Figure 5. Water control structures, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. .....................................15

Figure 6. Playa Lakes Joint Venture region, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............................23

Figure 7. Refuge soil map, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ............................................27

Figure 8. Potential presettlement conditions, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ..............................33

Figure 9. Vegetation cover types in 1954, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ................................36

Figure 10. Vegetation cover types in 2008 (NVCS), Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .........................37

Figure 11. Public use facilities at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .......................................63

Figure 12. Elevation at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............................................67

Figure 13. Land use and habitat outside the boundaries of Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...................69

Figure 14. Native ecological community conservation objectives for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas, illustrated in a 

community profile schematic. ..........................................................................80

Figure 15. Cropland and tree coverage planning at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. .........................94

Figure 16. Location of woodland groves at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas, in 2012 .........................96

Figure 17. Proposed deer and turkey hunt area, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ............................99
Contents IX 

FIGURES (CONTINUED)

Figure 18. The adaptive resource management process .....................................................112

Figure 19. Current grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............................211

Figure 20. Future grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............................212

Figure 21. Current nonhostile grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ......................213

TABLES

Table 1. Summary of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .........10

Table 2. Land acquisition history of the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ..................................14

Table 3. Vegetation descriptions for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ....................................31

Table 4. Hydrogeomorphic relationship of historical distribution of vegetation communities or habitat types to geomorphic 

surface, soils, and hydrological regime in the area of Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .......................32

Table 5. Comparison of vegetation cover types between 1954 and 2011 on Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .......38

Table 6. National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) associations, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ........39

Table 7. Observed woodland bird use at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .................................42

Table 8. Threatened and endangered species and species of concern, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. . . . . . . . . . .46

Table 9. State and county population estimates in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. ............57

Table 10. Community population estimates in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. ................57

Table 11. State income, unemployment, and poverty statistics and county statistics in the area around Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge, Kansas ....................................................................................58

Table 12. Community income, unemployment and poverty statistics in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas ...........................................................................................58

Table 13. Employment by sector in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .........................59

Table 14. Total visitor expenditures, expressed in dollars per person per day, for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...62

Table 15. Base staff budgeted in fiscal year 2012 and other staff stationed at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .....62

Table 16. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .........................75

Table 17. Estimated greatest potential distribution of wetland habitat conditions (acres by unit and objective) for the proposed 

alternative for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .....................................................83

Table 18. Dominant nonwetland habitat types at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...........................92

Table 19. Stepdown management plans for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ..............................111

Summary

Kansas Sunflower

renreh Wcti© M

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, manage 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, which consists 

of 22,135 acres in Stafford, Rice, and Reno Counties 

in south-central Kansas. Our staff at the Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge also manages the Great 

Plains Nature Center in Wichita, Kansas, in partnership with the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks 

and Tourism and the City of Wichita Department of 

Park and Recreation.

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge is located in the 

Great Plains. Its purposes are to provide migration, 

nesting, resting, and feeding habitat for migratory 

birds and to develop, advance, manage, conserve, and 

protect fish and wildlife resources.

The refuge also provides opportunities for the 

public to enjoy compatible wildlife-dependent public 

use activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation.

This document contains the comprehensive conservation plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

The Refuge

We developed a vision for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge that describes the focus of refuge management, including what will be supported and 

improved in the future. This is the essence of what 

we want to accomplish at the refuge by the end of the 

life of this CCP in 15 years.

We also developed a set of goals for Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge to direct our work in 

achieving the vision and purposes of the refuge and 

to outline approaches for managing the refuge’s 

resources.
XII Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

This dickcissel nest was found in the Hornbaker Unit of Quivira Refuge. 

SWF/sen JoyrraB

Vision Statement

The vision for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge is 

as follows:

Near the confluence of the Rattlesnake 

Creek and Arkansas River in central 

Kansas, water remains the great driver of 

a diverse complex of saltmarsh and 

unique native sand prairie community 

that is Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. 

The combination of these productive habitats as well as the refuge’s midcontinent 

location continue to attract millions of 

birds needing to replenish essential 

reserves and to find protection in the 

mosaic of largely open grasses, sedges, 

rushes, and water. Through environmental education and outreach, we promote 

understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s dynamic landscapes. For visitors, 

each moment is unique—the smell of 

moist earth and salty air, the primitive 

call of a crane, the whispering bluestem, 

the cacophony of geese, the early steps of a 

snowy plover chick, or the discovery of a 

subtle pattern or design in nature. In a 

land of recurring extremes, ongoing collaboration between refuge professionals, 

partners, and the public sustains a 

healthy system. Through land stewards 

transcending refuge boundaries, the integrity of these ecosystems are conserved 

with awe, respect, and appreciation of the 

gifts it offers for all to receive.

Goals

Our goals for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

are based on the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, the refuge’s purposes, and 

the information we gathered during planning.

Landscape Conservation Goal

Actively protect, preserve, manage, and restore 

the functionality of the diverse ecosystems of the 

Rattlesnake Creek watershed.

Native Ecological Community 

Conservation Goal

Actively conserve and improve environmental 

conditions within refuge boundaries to promote sustainable, native ecological communities and support 

species of concern associated with this region of the 

Great Plains.

Visitor Services Goal

See that visitors enjoy quality, wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities.

Public Outreach Goal

Help visitors of all abilities understand, appreciate, and support our mission, the refuge’s unique 

habitats, and the refuge’s importance to migratory 

birds and other wildlife and plant species.

Cultural Resources Goal

Identify, value, and preserve the cultural 

resources and cultural history of the refuge and connect staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s 

past.
Summary XIII 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource 

Protection Goal

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities of the refuge and the Great Plains 

Nature Center.

Administration Goal

Provide and support facilities, strategically fill 

approved positions and allocate staff, increase volunteer opportunities and partnerships, and effectively 

raise and use money to maintain the long-term integrity of infrastructure, habitats, and wildlife 

resources at the refuge and at the Great Plains 

Nature Center.

Management Direction

The comprehensive conservation plan directs the 

management of the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

to meet the purposes of the refuge and to address 

issues.

The plan is intended to be a broad umbrella of 

general concepts and specific objectives for the refuge over the next 15 years. As the plan is implemented, we will develop stepdown plans with details 

for carrying out actions needed to achieve 

objectives.

White Pelicans

SWF/nahbua LlechRa

Concepts and Objectives for the 

Refuge

We will focus on restoring native communities and 

promoting the potential natural range of conditions 

on Quivira National Wildlife Refuge that help focal 

resources or focal species and their respective habitats and on increasing public use opportunities for 

hunting. We will increase our attention and understanding of the connectedness of habitats and the 

effectiveness of our management. To achieve this, we 

will make relatively minor changes to our current 

operations; inventory, monitoring programs, and 

research; staff; and infrastructure.

Abbreviations

Administration 

Act

AFY

BSM

CCP

CFR

cfs

DOI

EA

EPA

°F

FWS

GIS

GPLCC

GPNC

Improvement 

Act

KDWPT

LSM

NEPA

NWR

NVCS

NRCS

Partners

PLJV

the refuge

Refuge System

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

acre-feet per year

Big Salt Marsh

comprehensive conservation plan

Code of Federal Regulations

cubic feet per second

U.S. Department of the Interior

environmental assessment

Environmental Protection Agency

degrees Fahrenheit

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

geographic information system

Great Plains Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative

Great Plains Nature Center

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997

Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks 

and Tourism

Little Salt Marsh

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969

national wildlife refuge

National Vegetation Classification System

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Playa Lakes Joint Venture

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge

National Wildlife Refuge System
XVI Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Region 6 Mountain-Prairie Region 6 of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. United States

U.S.C. United States Code

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

A glossary of these and other terms follows chapter 4.
Chapter 1—Introduction

Black-necked Stilt

sserb Go© B

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or 

FWS) manage the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

(Quivira Refuge or refuge), which consists of 22,135 

acres in Stafford, Rice and Reno Counties in southcentral Kansas. Our staff at the Quivira Refuge manages the Great Plains Nature Center (GPNC) in 

partnership with the Kansas Department of Wildlife, 

Parks and Tourism (KDWPT), and the City of Wichita Department of Park and Recreation. To address 

the long-term management of the refuge and the 

GPNC, we have developed this comprehensive conservation plan (CCP).

This chapter introduces our process for development of the Quivira Refuge CCP. It describes our 

involvement as well as that of the public, our partners, the State of Kansas, and other interested parties and also describes conservation issues and plans 

that affect the refuge.

The chapters that follow contain information we 

used and the results of our analysis. These form the 

foundation of the plan:

Chapter 2 describes the refuge and planning 

issues.

Chapter 3 describes the physical, biological, and 

social environment of the refuge.

Chapter 4 describes objectives and strategies for 

all aspects of managing the refuge.

The refuge is part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System), and is located in southcentral Kansas (figure 1). The GPNC is a Service 

administrative site and an educational facility, but it 

is not a unit of the Refuge System.

We have developed this CCP to provide a foundation for the management and use of Quivira Refuge. 

The CCP specifies the necessary actions to achieve 

the vision and purposes of the refuge. Wildlife is the 

first priority in refuge management, and public use, 

including wildlife-dependent recreation, is allowed 

and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge. The CCP will serve as a 

working guide for management programs and activi-
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

ties throughout the refuge over the next 15 years. 

Although this document contains management direction for the refuge, greater detail will be provided in 

stepdown management plans as part of carrying out 

the final CCP.

Figure 1. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge and Great Plains Nature Center, Kansas.

1.1 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan

The purpose of this CCP is to define the role that 

Quivira Refuge will play in support of the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and to provide 

long-term guidance for managing programs and 

activities. The CCP will help us:

■ communicate with the public and our partners in carrying out the mission of the Refuge System;

■ establish a clear statement of direction for 

managing the refuge;

■ provide refuge neighbors, refuge visitors, 

and government officials an understanding 

of our management actions on, and around, 

the refuge;
Chapter 1—Introduction 3 

■ make sure that our management actions are 

consistent with the mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) (Public 

Law 105–57);

■ make sure that our management of the refuge is consistent with Federal, State, and 

county plans;

■ establish a basis for developing budget 

requests for refuge operation, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs.

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Refuge 

System

We are the principal Federal agency responsible 

for fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge 

System is one of our major programs.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, working with others, is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s fish and wildlife resources declined at an alarming rate, largely because of unrestricted market 

hunting. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting 

and angling groups joined together and generated 

political will for the first significant conservation 

measures taken by the Federal Government. These 

actions included the establishment of the Bureau of 

Fisheries in the 1870s and, in 1904, passage of the 

first Federal wildlife law, the Lacey Act, which prohibited interstate transportation of wildlife taken in 

violation of State laws. Beginning in 1903, President 

Theodore Roosevelt created more than 50 national 

wildlife refuges across the Nation.

Over the next three decades, the United States 

ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty with Great Britain, and Congress passed laws to protect migratory 

birds, establish new refuges, and to create a source of 

money for refuge land acquisition. In 1940, we, the 

FWS, were created within the U.S. Department of 

the Interior (DOI), and several existing Federal wildlife functions, including law enforcement, fish management, animal damage control, and wildlife refuge 

management, were placed in our charge, under one 

organization, for the first time.

Today, we enforce Federal wildlife laws, manage 

migratory bird populations, restore nationally significant fisheries, conserve and restore vital wildlife 

habitat, protect and recover endangered species, and 

help other governments with conservation efforts. In 

addition, we administer a Federal aid program that 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to the 

States for fish and wildlife restoration, boating 

access, hunter education, and related programs 

across the United States.

National Wildlife Refuge System

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

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

within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of 

Americans.

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the 

Nation’s first wildlife refuge for the protection of 

native nesting birds. This was the first time the Federal Government set aside land for wildlife. This 

small, but significant, designation was the beginning 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifically managed for wildlife, encompassing more 

than 150 million acres within more than 550 refuges 

and more than 3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there is at least one refuge in 
4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

every State including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The Improvement Act established a clear mission 

for the Refuge System. It states that we must manage each national wildlife refuge to:

■ fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;

■ fulfill the individual purposes of each 

refuge;

■ consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;

■ include the development of a CCP for each 

unit of the Refuge System and to fully 

involve the public in the preparation of these 

plans;

■ support the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge 

System;

■ recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses;

■ allow our refuge managers to identify compatible public uses;

Besides the mission for the Refuge System, the 

wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge 

System supports the following principles:

■ Wildlife comes first.

■ Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness 

are vital concepts in refuge and district 

management.

■ Habitats must be healthy.

■ Growth of refuges and districts must be 

strategic.

■ The Refuge System serves as a model for 

habitat management with broad participation from others.

Following passage of the Improvement Act, we 

began to carry out the direction of this new legislation including preparing CCPs for all national wildlife refuges. The Improvement Act says we will 

create CCPs with involvement from the public, and 

each refuge must have a completed CCP by 2012.

People and the Refuge System

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage adds to the 

quality of American lives and is an integral part of 

the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given Americans special opportunities 

to have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world.

Through birdwatching, fishing, hunting, photography, and more, wildlife recreation contributes millions of dollars to local economies. In particular, 

money generated from the taxing of sporting arms 

and ammunition and of fishing equipment, as authorized by the Pittman–Robertson and Dingell–Johnson Acts, respectively, has generated tens of millions 

of dollars. We distribute this money to the States to 

increase wildlife and fish populations, expand habitat, 

and to train hunters across the Nation. Our efforts to 

support national wildlife refuges also generate substantial economic help for communities that surround 

these refuges and wetland management districts.

Economists report that visitors to national wildlife refuges contribute more than $1.7 billion annually 

to local economies. They also enjoy the nature trails, 

auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and 

fishing opportunities found on refuges.

1.3 National and Regional 

Mandates

We manage national wildlife refuges to achieve 

the mission and goals of the Refuge System along 

with the designated purpose of each individual refuge as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, or other establishing documents. The key 

concepts and guidance for the Refuge System are in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966 (Administration Act), Title 50 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR), The “Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the Improvement Act.

The Improvement Act amends the Administration 

Act by providing (1) a unifying mission for the Refuge System; (2) a new process for determining compatible public uses on refuges; and (3) a need for each 

refuge to be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands and that the Secretary 

of the Department of the Interior will make sure that 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of refuge lands are kept. Each refuge must be 

managed to fulfill the Refuge System’s mission and 

the specific purposes for which the refuge was established. The Improvement Act requires us to check 
Chapter 1—Introduction 5 

the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in 

each national wildlife refuge.

Detailed descriptions of these and other laws and 

Executive orders that may affect a CCP or our carrying out of a CCP are in Appendix E—Key Legislation and Policy. Our policies for planning and the 

day-to-day management of refuges are in the Refuge 

System Manual and the “Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual.”

1.4 Refuge Contributions to 

National and Regional Plans

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge contributes to 

the conservation efforts outlined in the various State 

and national plans described here.

Conserving the Future

A 2011 report, “Conserving the Future, Wildlife 

Refuges & the Next Generation” (FWS 2011), is the 

culmination of a yearlong process by teams of our 

employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. The report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision statements for wildlife and 

habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP incorporates all three vision statements. Our planning team 

examined the recommendations in this document for 

guidance during CCP planning.

Partners in Flight

The Partners in Flight Program began in 1990 to 

address the declining population levels of many 

migratory bird species. Its challenge is to support 

functional natural ecosystems in the face of human 

population growth. Partners in Flight worked to 

identify priorities for landbird species and habitat 

types. Their activity has resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering the continental United States.

North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan

The North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan provides a contiguous framework for conserving 

and managing colonial-nesting waterbirds, including 

209 species of seabirds, coastal waterbirds (gulls, 

terns, and pelicans), wading birds (herons and ibises), 

and marshbirds (certain grebes and bitterns). Geographically, the plan covers 28 countries, from Canada to Panama, as well as islands and near-shore 

areas of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Gulf of 

Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. As with Partners in 

Flight and other migratory bird plans, the North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan has a goal to 

establish conservation action and to exchange information and expertise with other bird conservation 

initiatives. The plan also calls for establishment of 

“practical units for planning” for terrestrial habitats. 

Quivira Refuge is located within the Central Mixedgrass Prairie Bird Conservation Region in the Central Prairies Waterbird Conservation Planning 

Region.

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan

Written in 1986, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan envisioned a 15-year effort to 

achieve landscape conditions that could sustain 

waterfowl populations. Specific plan objectives are to 

increase and restore duck populations to the average 

levels of the 1970s—62 million breeding ducks and a 

fall flight of 100 million birds (FWS and Canadian 

Wildlife Service 1986). Recognizing the importance 

of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans and 

the need for international cooperation to help in the 

recovery of this shared resource, the United States 

and Canadian Governments developed a strategy to 

restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The innovative plan is international in scope and regional in its 

implementation. Its success depends on the strength 

of partnerships, called joint ventures, which involve 

Federal, State, Provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and 

individual citizens.

Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships that carry out science-based conservation 

through a wide array of community participation. 

Joint ventures develop implementation plans that 

focus on areas of concern identified in the plan. Quivira Refuge lies within the Playa Lakes Joint Venture. We have considered The North American 

Waterfowl Management plan and the supporting 

efforts of the Playa Lakes Joint Venture throughout 

the planning process, and these will be supported 

and promoted within the CCP.
6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

In 2000, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 

began through a partnership between Federal, State, 

and nongovernmental conservation agencies and 

researchers mainly to sustain the quantity and quality shorebird habitat at local-to-hemispheric scales 

(Brown et al. 2001). The plan is meant to complement 

other conservation plans already developed for 

waterfowl, colonial waterbirds, and landbirds. The 

plan involves eleven regional groups, and Quivira 

Refuge is part of the Central Plains–Playa Lakes 

Region. Nearly all the 37 shorebird species listed for 

the region use Quivira Refuge during migration. At 

least six of those species have been reported nesting 

on the refuge, mostly common in occurrence.

Recovery Plans for Federally 

Listed Threatened or Endangered 

Species

We are responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act that requires development and 

implementation of federally endangered species 

recovery plans. Quivira Refuge contributes to the 

whooping crane and interior least tern recovery 

plans. Management actions identified in the plans are 

intended to recover and conserve species and their 

ecosystems to levels where protection under the 

Endangered Species Act is no longer necessary.

Windmill located in the Reno Unit of Quivira Refuge.

SWF/sen JoyrraB

Kansas State Wildlife Action Plan

The Kansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan (Wasson et al. 2005) is a strategic, habitatbased plan that considers 315 species of greatest 

conservation need living within the State. Regions 

are identified and key habitats are ranked within the 

plan according to the degree of threat to their wellbeing . The plan lists species of concern for each key 

habitat along with issues of concern and strategies to 

address them. Issues of concern include existing data 

gaps, extensive changes in habitat structure over the 

past century, ongoing fragmentation and conversion 

of habitat, the spread of invasive species, and effects 

of natural resource management on habitat conditions. In addition, information is lacking for many 

species in need. Criteria used to rank the relative 

importance of species conservation strategies were 

derived from species status and considered whether 

or not species were regionally endemic or were subject to commercial harvest but were not eligible for 
Chapter 1—Introduction 7 

money from programs such as Federal aid. Quivira 

Refuge is part of the Central Mixed-grass Prairie 

Conservation Region where mixed and sand prairie 

are listed first and second in importance, respectively. We support the habitats and many associated 

species listed in The Kansas Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan.

Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change

The Service expects accelerating climate change 

to affect the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources in profound ways (Staudinger et al. 2012). 

While many species will continue to thrive, some may 

decline and some may go extinct. Others will survive 

in the wild only through direct and continuous human 

intervention. In 2010, we completed a strategic plan 

to address climate change for the next 50 years. This 

strategic plan uses three key strategies: adaptation, 

mitigation, and engagement. In addition, the plan 

acknowledges that no single organization or agency 

can address climate change. Partnerships are necessary across the Nation and around the world. This 

plan is an integral part of the DOI’s strategy for 

addressing climate change as expressed in Secretarial Order 3289 (September 14, 2009).

The Service will use the following guiding principles from the strategic plan to respond to climate 

change:

■ priority setting—continually evaluate priorities and approaches, make difficult choices, 

take calculated risks, and adapt to climate 

change

■ partnership—commit to a new spirit of 

coordination, collaboration, and interdependence with others

■ best science—reflect scientific excellence, 

professionalism, and integrity in all of our 

work

■ landscape conservation—emphasize the 

conservation of habitats within sustainable 

landscapes, applying our strategic habitat 

conservation framework

■ technical capacity—assemble and use stateof-the-art systems to meet the climate 

change challenge

■ global approach—lead national and international efforts to meet the climate change 

challenge

1.5 Landscape-Scale 

Conservation

In the face of escalating challenges such as land 

use conversion, invasive species, water scarcity, and 

refuge issues that have been amplified by accelerating climate change, we have broadened our vision 

from applying an ecosystem approach to conservation 

to looking at the interrelation of ecosystems across 

landscapes.

Figure 2. Basic strategic habitat conservation 

process.

Strategic Habitat Conservation

The National Ecological Assessment Team, a 

cooperative effort between us and the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), wrote a report outlining a unifying 

adaptive resource management approach for conservation (USGS 2006). It can be applied on a landscape 

scale and across the entire range of a focal species or 

across a suite, or guild, of species. This is strategic 

habitat conservation, a new way of thinking and 

doing business that uses biological goals for focal species populations, makes strategic decisions about 

needed work, and constantly reassesses (figure 2).
8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Figure 3. Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives

Strategic habitat conservation helps us to apply 

adaptive management across large landscapes. We 

used the framework of strategic habitat conservation 

to identify the first generation of landscape conservation cooperatives. These cooperatives are partnerships between us and Federal agencies, States, 

tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and universities. Designed to help planning and science, the cooperatives will help us conduct biological planning, 

conservation design and delivery, and monitoring 

programs and research.

Quivira Refuge lies within the Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GPLCC) (figure 3). 

The GPLCC has grasslands, playas, saline lakes, 

prairie rivers, streams and riparian corridors, savannas, shrublands and sand dune habitats in parts of 

Kansas, Nebraska, western Oklahoma and Texas, 

eastern Colorado and New Mexico, and southeast 

Wyoming.

The GPLCC has identified priority species, which 

include the burrowing owl, black-tailed prairie dog, 

American bison, American burying beetle, mountain 

plover, long-billed curlew, lesser prairie-chicken, 

grasshopper sparrow, Cassin’s sparrow, lark bunting, 

Harris’ sparrow, prairie falcon, northern pintail, 

sandhill crane, least sandpiper, western sandpiper, 

long-billed dowitcher, whooping crane, snowy plover, 

Wilson’s phalarope, interior least tern, piping plover, 

Bell’s vireo, Arkansas River shiner, Arkansas darter, 

Topeka shiner, Pallid and shovelnose sturgeon, paddlefish, blowout penstemon, and sand dune lizard. 

Many of these species have been reported on the refuge, such as burrowing owl, grasshopper sparrow, 

Cassin’s sparrow, lark bunting, Harris’s sparrow, 

prairie falcon, Bell’s vireo, Arkansas darter, and all 

the listed waterfowl, shorebirds, and cranes.

The GPLCC will serve as a convening body to 

bring all interested parties together to address existing and future issues related to climate change and 

landscape-scale conservation.

1.6 Planning Process

The Improvement Act requires that we develop a 

CCP for Quivira Refuge. This is the final plan, and it 
Chapter 1—Introduction 9 

will guide our refuge management for the next 15 

years.

We prepared this plan in compliance with the 

Improvement Act and part 602 (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Planning) of the “Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual.” The actions described herein meet 

the needs of the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Other requirements and guidance are contained in the Refuge 

System’s planning policy, issued in 2000. This policy 

established needs and guidance for refuge and district plans, including CCPs and stepdown management plans, to make sure that planning efforts follow 

the Improvement Act. The planning policy identifies 

several steps for CCP and environmental analysis 

development (figure 4).

We began in September 2009 by creating a planning team comprised primarily of our staff from the 

Quivira Refuge and our Mountain-Prairie Region 6 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 6) Division of Refuge Planning. Added teammembers 

included staff from some of our other divisions; staff 

from the KDWPT; and members of the Osage Nation. 

See Appendix F—List of Preparers, Consultation, 

and Coordination for a complete teammember list. 

During preplanning, we, the team, developed a mailing list and identified internal issues and qualities 

unique to the refuge. We then identified and 

reviewed the purposes of the refuge and current programs, compiled and analyzed relevant data.

Scoping for the public and our partners started 

with a notice of intent to prepare a draft CCP and 

environmental assessment (EA) that was published 

in the Federal Register on Wednesday, February 24, 

2010. We informed about the plan’s progress through 

news releases, the first planning update, and three 

public scoping meetings held between March 8 and 

10, 2010, in Stafford, Great Bend, and Wichita, Kansas, between 4 and 7 p.m. Throughout the planning 

process we encouraged comment on, and added input 

to, the draft CCP and EA to comply with the public 

involvement needs of NEPA. Table 1 lists the specific 

planning steps taken to date for the preparation of 

this final CCP.

Figure 4. Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis.

Coordination with the Public

The mailing list we use contains more than 270 

names and has private citizens; local, regional, and 

State government representatives and legislators; 

other Federal agencies; and interested organizations. 
10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Table 1. Summary of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas.

Date Event Outcome or purpose

September 22–23, 

2009 Preplanning meeting

Toured the refuge, formed into an initial planning team, 

started the mailing list, and discussed the planning schedule 

and data needs.

October 5, 2009 Work plan Completed the work plan.

October 30, 2009 Planning team invitation letters mailed Service Regional Director invited tribal nations and the 

KDWPT to be on the planning team.

February 2010 Planning update

Mailed the first planning update to those on our mailing list. 

The update described the planning process and announced 

upcoming public scoping meetings.

February 24, 2010 Notice of intent Published the notice of intent to prepare a CCP in the Federal 

Register (volume 75, number 36, pages 8394–8395).

March 8–10, 2010 Public scoping meetings

Held public meetings in Stafford, Great Bend, and Wichita, 

Kansas. The public had an opportunity to learn about the CCP 

process and provide comments.

March 9–10, 2010 CCP kickoff and vision and goals meeting

Reviewed the refuge purposes, identified refuge qualities and 

issues, and developed a draft vision statement and goals for 

the refuge.

March 22–23, 2011 Hydrogeomorphic method analysis 

project update

Reviewed the progress and findings of the hydrogeomorphic 

analysis project.

November 2–3, 2011 Alternatives development planning 

meeting Discussed management alternatives.

March 13–14, 2012 Environmental consequences and 

choosing proposed action workshop

Reviewed the environmental consequences for the alternatives, and to select a proposed action alternative.

May 1–2, 2012 Objectives and strategies work session Developed objectives and strategies for the proposed action 

alternative.

May–June 2012 Draft plan preparation Prepared the draft CCP and EA.

November 2012 Draft plan internal review

Team and other Service staff reviewed the draft CCP and EA 

and provided comments to help clarify the analyses and provide consistency.

January–March 2013 Draft plan preparation Completed the draft plan for public review.

April 2013 Draft plan public review The planning team completed the draft plan for distribution to 

the public for review.

April 2013 Planning update Mailed the second planning update to those on our mailing list. 

The update announced upcoming public scoping meetings.

April–May 2013 Public scoping meetings Public meetings were held in Great Bend, Stafford, and Wichita, Kansas.

June–September 2013 Public comments review The planning team reviewed the public comments and determined needed changed for the final CCP.

October 2013 Decision on preferred alternative The Regional Director selected the preferred alternatives and 

signed the finding of no significant impact. 

November 2013–

April 2014 Final Plan preparation The planning team finished revising and editing the final CCP for printing and distribution. 

See Appendix D—Public Involvement for more 

detail.

We mailed the first planning update using our 

mailing list, and we made updates available at the 

public scoping meetings. The update included information on the history of the refuge and on the CCP 

process. It included an invitation to attend the public 

scoping meetings and contained information on how 

to be placed on the CCP mailing list as well as on how 

to submit comments to us. Our planning team leader 

accepted emails at address: toni_griffin@fws.gov.

We held three public scoping meetings from 

March 8 to March 10, 2010. We used an open house 

format and set up stations tended by our staff to provide information and answer questions. Attendees 

were encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. We recorded verbal comments, and each person was given a comment form that could be used to 

submit added thoughts or questions in writing.
Chapter 1—Introduction 11 

Written comments were due March 31, 2010. We 

received more than 80 comments orally and in writing during the scoping process. We received letters 

from 3 organizations (National Wild Turkey Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, Great Bend Convention 

and Visitors Bureau) and from 12 individuals. Each 

member of our team reviewed the comments, and we 

considered them throughout the planning process.

Silky Prairie Clover

SWF/nahbua LlechRa

State Coordination

Our Regional Director for Region 6 of the Service 

sent a letter to KDWPT, inviting them to take part in 

our planning process. As a result, three of their representatives joined our planning team.

We mailed the first planning update to the offices 

of U.S. Representatives Lynn Jenkins, Jerry Moran, 

and Todd Tiahrt and U.S. Senators Sam Brownback 

and Pat Roberts for Kansas telling them of the planning process, inviting them to attend our public scoping meetings, and asking them to provide comments 

on issues to be addressed during the planning process. We also mailed planning updates to Kansas 

Governor M. Parkinson, to Kansas State senator 

Ruth Teichman, and to State representatives Mitch 

Holmes and Dennis Moore. We also invited these 

elected officials to attend our scoping meetings by 

phone.

Tribal Coordination

Our Regional Director for Region 6 sent a letter 

to tribes that have been identified as possibly having 

a cultural and historic connection to the Quivira Refuge area. The Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Kickapoo 

Tribe in Kansas, Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, 

Kiowa, Osage Nation of Oklahoma, Prairie Band of 

Potawatomi of Kansas, Seneca–Cayuga Tribe of 

Oklahoma, Shawnee, and Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma tribal councils all received this letter.

The Osage Nation tribal council responded to our 

letter, and they appointed Dr. Andrea Hunter, tribal 

historic preservation officer; James Munkres, archaeologist I; Rebecca Brave, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act assistant; and Bradley P. Stumph, natural resource specialist, to represent them on our planning team. These tribal 

representatives attended two planning meetings, our 

vision and goals workshop and our hydrogeomorphic 

method analysis project update session. The Osage 
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Nation reviewed the draft CCP and EA during internal review, and they provided comments.

Other tribal councils did not respond to the letter 

from our Regional Director, but we continued to 

invite their comments.

Results of Scoping

We used the comments, collected from scoping 

meetings and correspondence, in the development of 

a final list of issues that were addressed in the draft 

CCP and EA. We decided which alternatives could 

best address these issues. The planning process 

ensures that we resolve or give priority to issues 

with the greatest effect on the refuge resources and 

programs over the life of the final CCP. Chapter 2 

contains the issues we identified, along with a discussion of effects on resources. In addition, we considered suggested changes to current refuge 

management presented by the public and other 

groups.

The Draft Plan

Availability of the draft CCP and EA for Quivira 

Refuge was announced in the Federal Register on 

April 22, 2013, and comments on this document were 

collected through May 31, 2013. Three public meetings to discuss this plan were announced in a planning update released in April 2013. These meetings 

were held from April 29 to May 1, 2013 in the local 

communities of Great Bend, Stafford, and Wichita, 

Kansas. Meeting attendees were given the opportunity to submit comments. Comments were also collected online, by email, and by mail.

The public commented on the draft CCP and EA 

during a review period. We recorded all comments, 

oral and written. The planning team then reviewed 

them. Some modifications were made to this final 

CCP based on the public review. Appendix D has 

more detail about our involvement with the public, 

including responses to substantive public comments 

on the draft CCP and EA.

Long-billed Dowitcher

SWF/nahbua LlechRa

The Final Plan

Approved by the Regional Director, this final 

CCP directs the management of the Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge to meet the purposes of the refuge 

and to address issues.

The plan is intended to be a broad umbrella of 

general concepts and specific objectives for the refuge over the next 15 years. As the plan is implemented, we will develop stepdown plans with details 

for carrying out actions needed to achieve 

objectives.
Chapter 2—The Refuge

Whooping Crane

SFW/nosreve SanD

This chapter explains the establishment, management history, purpose and special values of Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge. Planning issues and a discussion of their effects on resources are also summarized here. Our planning process sought to resolve 

issues that have the greatest effect on refuge 

resources and programs, and it ranked these issues 

for further consideration over the life of the plan.

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, 

and Management History

The following section describes the establishment, 

acquisition, and management history of Quivira 

Refuge.

Establishment

In May 1955, the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission approved the establishment of, and the 

processing of purchase agreements for, the “Great 

Salt Marsh National Wildlife Refuge” to recognize 

two unique, historic saltmarsh and salt flat areas, the 

Big Salt Marsh (BSM) and the Little Salt Marsh 

(LSM).

In 1958, the name of the refuge was changed to 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge after the Spanish 

term for the area. Quivira Refuge has a mixed-grass 

sand prairie ecosystem that contains a diversity of 

grassland and wetland vegetation associations 

(Faber-Langedoen 2001) with a range of salinities, 

stream corridors, salt flats, sand dunes and hills, and 

agricultural lands.
14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Boiling Springs

SWF/sen JoyrraB

Acquisition History

After establishment, acquisitions were made to 

bring the refuge area to 21,820 acres by 1969. In 

August 1991, two Hornbaker tracts totaling 116 acres 

southwest of the refuge were acquired from the 

Farmers Home Administration. Approximately 200 

more acres were bought from Richardson in 1998 in 

the BSM area. These acquisitions enlarged the refuge to 22,135 acres (table 2) 

Management History

Water management has played a major role at the 

refuge. In 1957 we filed for a “senior” right to divert 

22,200 acre-feet of water from Rattlesnake Creek to 

refuge wetlands (Estep 2000, Striffler 2011). In 1982, 

we filed a Notice of Proof of completion of work for 

water right permit #7571. In 1996, the Kansas Division of Water Resources certified a permit for only 

14,632 acre-feet of water diversion from Rattlesnake 

Creek because we could not show that we had 

diverted 22,200 acre-feet during the period of proof. 

The current Kansas Water Right for the refuge is 

14,632 acre-feet per year not to exceed 300 cubic feet 

per second from Rattlesnake Creek. The actual quantity of water normally diverted from Rattlesnake 

Creek for refuge management is less than this water 

right, often because sufficient quantities are not 

available at the time water is desired to achieve refuge habitat goals and objectives. In years with belowaverage precipitation and heavy demands for 

agricultural irrigation, the refuge receives insufficient quantities to exercise all habitat management 

options. Water is not metered when it leaves the refuge mostly because water rights are absent downstream where it enters the Arkansas River.

Water control structures may be found in figure 5.

Table 2. Land acquisition history of the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Acres 

reserved 

from public 

domain

Acres 

acquired by 

other Federal 

agency

Acres 

donated Acres bought

Acres in 

agreement 

easement or 

lease 

Total acres 

in refuge

Total cost of 

land 

acquisition

0 116 199.2 21,820.1 0 22,135.3 $2,059,238

2.2 Purposes

Every unit of the Refuge System has one or more 

purposes for which it was established. They are the 

foundation on which to build all management programs, from biology and public use, to maintenance 

and facilities. No action that anyone takes may conflict with them. The purposes are found in the legislative acts or administrative orders under which lands 

are either transferred or acquired, or conservation 

easements are established, for a refuge unit. An individual unit may contain lands that have been 

acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisition 

authorities, which then gives the unit more than one 

purpose.

On May 3, 1955, Quivira Refuge was established 

under these authorities and for these purposes:

■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 

United States Code [U.S.C.] § 715d)

❏ for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for 

any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds

■ Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 

742f(a)4)

❏ or the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources

■ Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 

742f(b)1)

❏ for the benefit of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in performing its 

activities and services

The goals, objectives, and strategies identified in 

this CCP support these purposes
Chapter 2—The Refuge 15 

Figure 5. Water control structures, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.
16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

2.3 Vision

We developed a vision for Quivira Refuge that 

describes the focus of refuge management, including 

what will be different in the future. This is the 

essence of what we want to accomplish at the refuge 

by the end of the life of this CCP in 15 years. The 

vision for Quivira Refuge is as follows: 

Near the confluence of the Rattlesnake 

Creek and Arkansas River in central 

Kansas, water remains the great driver of 

a diverse complex of saltmarsh and 

unique native sand prairie community 

that is Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. 

The combination of these productive habitats as well as the refuge’s midcontinent 

location continue to attract millions of 

birds needing to replenish essential 

reserves and to find protection in the 

mosaic of largely open grasses, sedges, 

rushes, and water. Through environmental education and outreach, we promote 

understanding and appreciation of the 

refuge’s dynamic landscapes. For visitors, 

each moment is unique—the smell of 

moist earth and salty air, the primitive 

call of a crane, the whispering bluestem, 

the cacophony of geese, the early steps of a 

snowy plover chick, or the discovery of a 

subtle pattern or design in nature. In a 

land of recurring extremes, ongoing collaboration between refuge professionals, 

partners, and the public sustains a 

healthy system. Through land stewards 

transcending refuge boundaries, the integrity of these ecosystems are conserved 

with awe, respect, and appreciation of the 

gifts it offers for all to receive.

Prickly Pear

renreh Wcti© M

2.4 Goals

We also developed a set of goals for Quivira Refuge based on the Improvement Act, the refuge’s purposes, and the information we gathered, with help 

from the public, during planning. These goals will 

direct our work in achieving the vision and purposes 

of the refuge, and they outline approaches for managing the refuge’s resources.

Landscape Conservation Goal

Actively protect, preserve, manage, and restore 

the functionality of the diverse ecosystems of the 

Rattlesnake Creek watershed.

Native Ecological Community 

Conservation Goal

Actively conserve and improve environmental 

conditions within refuge boundaries to promote sustainable, native ecological communities and support 

species of concern associated with this region of the 

Great Plains.

Visitor Services Goal

See that visitors enjoy quality, wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities.

Public Outreach Goal

Help visitors of all abilities understand, appreciate, and support our mission, the refuge’s unique 

habitats, and the refuge’s importance to migratory 

birds and other wildlife and plant species.
Chapter 2—The Refuge 17 

Cultural Resources Goal

Name, value, and preserve the cultural resources 

and cultural history of the refuge and connect staff, 

visitors, and the community to the area’s past.

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection Goal

Provide for the safety, security, and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural resources, 

and facilities of the refuge and the GPNC.

Administration Goal

Provide and maintain facilities, strategically 

acquire and allocate staff, increase volunteer opportunities and partnerships, and effectively raise and 

use money to support the long-term integrity of 

infrastructure, habitats, and wildlife resources at the 

refuge and at the GPNC.

2.5 Special Values

The public helped us to name the special values of 

Quivira Refuge, which are the characteristics and 

features that make it special, valuable for wildlife, 

and worthy of national wildlife refuge status. Special 

values can range from unique biological features to 

something as simple as “a quiet place to see a variety 

of birds and enjoy nature.”

Naming the special values for Quivira Refuge, 

listed below, helps us to recognize its worth and to 

make sure that these values are preserved, protected, and enhanced through planning.

Rare, Diverse, and Quality Habitat

Quivira Refuge contains unique systems, including inland saltmarsh and native sand prairie. The 

saltmarsh and alkali flats support a diverse range of 

wildlife species that use the refuge for migration and 

nesting. The refuge contains quality grassland habitat that is complimented by a grassland buffer that 

surrounds the refuge and creates large blocks of contiguous habitat for grassland-dependent species, 

including prairie-chicken. The refuge has large areas 

of wetland habitat that supports many wildlife species and has the potential for moist soil 

management.

Wildlife Species

Quivira Refuge is located in a transition zone providing habitat for both eastern and western migratory bird species. Large numbers and concentrations 

of these birds occur on the refuge, and a variety of 

rail species are also present. The refuge also supports a diverse population of reptiles and amphibians, 

as well as a prairie dog town.

Species of Concern

The refuge provides critical habitat for the federally listed whooping crane and State-listed western 

snowy plover. Bald eagles winter and nest on the 

refuge, and federally listed interior least terns also 

nest here.

Water Resources

Quivira Refuge has senior water rights, approximately 14,000 acre-feet per year, and water management capability on the refuge is good because of a 

strong network of infrastructure that has water 

control structures and dikes.

Communities and People

Local, regional, and international communities 

support Quivira Refuge. It has a Friends group and 

boosts the economies of surrounding, rural communities. Less than 3 percent of Kansas’ lands are owned 

by the public, and the refuge makes up a large part of 

that. In addition, the refuge feels little urban 

encroachment.

Education and Visitor Services

Quivira Refuge offers many opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Forty percent 
18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

of the refuge, or approximately 9,000 acres, is open to 

hunting. All of the refuge is open to fishing and to 

foot traffic for wildlife observation and photography 

year round, except when temporary closures are necessary for events like eagle or tern nesting. Quivira 

Refuge also comanages the GPNC in Wichita, which 

complements and supports its purposes.

Cultural Resources

The area is rich in Native American history, as 

generations of people came here for both food and 

water. As such, the potential exists for cultural 

resources to be found on Quivira Refuge.

Facilities and Infrastructure

There is good access to, and within, Quivira Refuge. Directions to the refuge are well signed, and 

many sites within the refuge are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Special Designations

Quivira Refuge has many special designations 

including: Ramsar Site, as identified by Wetlands of 

International Importance; Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Network contributor; one of the 

Eight Wonders of Kansas; and Important Bird Area, 

as identified by the National Audubon Society. We 

have also designated the Santana Research Natural 

Area on the refuge.

White-tailed Deer

WSF

2.6 Planning Issues

Based on an analysis of comments collected from 

the public, input from our staff, and a review of the 

needs of the Improvement Act and NEPA, we identified several key issues for Quivira Refuge. These 

were used to create alternatives for future management and are summarized below.

Water Quantity and Quality

Agriculture dominates the area, oil production is 

common, and water rights have been overappropriated within the water management district. These 

water resource and land use trends relate to additional concerns of current and future characteristics 

of water quality. Future water availability and quality may not be assured, yet adequate water quantity 

and chemistry are critical factors of refuge saltmarsh 

and wetland communities. Substantial declines in the 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 19 

water table would also likely affect grassland and 

meadow habitats.

Tree Management

There are differences of opinion about tree management on Quivira Refuge. Prairie restoration, with 

a reduction in current tree coverage, is generally 

understood and supported. Yet, some would prefer 

that we keep tree coverage at a higher level for a 

variety of reasons.

Whooping Crane Closures

When whooping cranes, which are federally listed 

as endangered, are present, Quivira Refuge closes to 

hunting to avoid disturbing them and to prevent accidentally shooting them. Whooping crane arrivals and 

departures are unpredictable, which makes it difficult for hunters to plan ahead. Public lands for hunting in Kansas are also limited, which exacerbates 

their frustration. And yet, while disappointing hunters, whooping cranes do attract birders.

We at the refuge have received many requests to 

reconsider our refuge-wide closures. At the nearby 

Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area, KDWPT has successfully protected whooping cranes by using partial 

area closures. This may prove to be effective for us as 

well.

Prohibiting the Collection of Shed 

Antlers

Deer population density on Quivira Refuge is relatively high, and those who have an interest in shed 

antler collection do not support our decision to prohibit this activity on all refuges in Kansas. However, 

collecting or taking of any plant, wildlife or parts 

thereof from a national wildlife refuge without a permit is specifically prohibited under Title 50 CFR Part 

27.61.

Deer and Turkey Hunting

Deer and turkey hunting have never been 

approved as a public use activity or management 

strategy on Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, but 

there is interest in allowing these hunting activities 

in the future. Populations of these species continue to 

increase, and research suggests that effective population management may require a control of some 

sort both on and off refuge lands.

Eastern Racer

SWF/nahbua LlechRa

Increasing Public Use and Wildlife 

Compatibility

We are aware of potential benefits and harm to 

natural resource conservation brought on by an 

increasing interest in birding and ecotourism. 

Whooping cranes and rare birds quickly attract 

many birders and photographers when they appear 

on the refuge. According to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Compatibility Policy, these wildlifedependent recreational use activities are welcome as 

long as they are found not to interfere with, or 

detract from, the fulfillment of the Refuge System 

mission or the purposes of the refuge.

Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and 

Description

Pectoral Sandpiper

sserb Go© B

This chapter describes the environment found at 

Quivira Refuge that will be affected by the actions 

we choose to enact as a result of the planning process 

contained in this CCP. The environment has physical 

and biological parts and elements that have been created by humans, such as cultural resources, special 

management areas, visitor services, operations and 

socioeconomics.

3.1 Physical Environment

The following sections describe aspects of the 

physical environment of the refuge. Physical characteristics include climate, climate change, air quality, 

geography and physiography, water resources, and 

soils. Many regional descriptions of the physical environment have been completed and may be reviewed 

for more detail, such as a report on the Rattlesnake 

Creek Subbasin available through the Kansas 

Department of Agriculture (2006).

Climate

The refuge climate is dry sub humid, lying along 

the transition boundary between the rain shadow of 

the Rocky Mountains and the warm, moist air currents of the Gulf of Mexico. Regional weather patterns depend on the interaction of these two air 

masses (Sophocleous and Perkins 1992).

Refuge habitat conditions are influenced greatly 

by climate and management strategies, and prescriptions are adjusted based on seasonal and annual fluctuations in precipitation, temperature, and 

evaporation. Weather data have been recorded from 

a station in Hudson, Kansas, about 8 miles west of 
22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

the refuge, since at least 1941. Based on this historical data, the coldest month is January, with average 

low and high temperatures of 20 and 41 oF, respectively, and the warmest month is July, with average 

low and high temperatures of 68 and 95 oF, respectively. Annual precipitation varies between 13 and 41 

inches, with a long-term average of 24–25 inches. It 

rains an average of 74 days per year in Stafford 

County and 71 percent of the precipitation falls during the growing season, which averages 185 days 

between April and September. Mean snowfall is 20 

inches per year, yet substantial accumulations seldom 

occur. The average annual free-surface evaporation 

is about 64 inches (Sophocleous et al. 1997), with 

rates being highest during the summer months 

(Latta, 1950). 

Because of its location at a climatic boundary 

prone to multiple air masses, Kansas is also vulnerable to strong thunderstorms, especially in the spring 

months. Many of these storms become super cell 

thunderstorms. According to statistics from the 

National Climatic Data Center, Kansas has reported 

more tornadoes (for the period January 1, 1950 

through October 31, 2006) than any state except 

Texas, and it averages more than 50 tornadoes annually (NOAA, 2006). Prevailing winds are from the 

southeast during the summer months, May through 

September. Northeast winds are common throughout 

the winter months, October through April. Average 

wind velocities are moderately strong in all seasons 

and reach their greatest velocities during the spring. 

The mean, 0.02-mile (30-meter) wind speeds for Quivira Refuge range from 13.4 to 14.5 miles per hour 

(Kansas Corporation Commission 2008).

Climate Change

Climate change is the preeminent issue for conservation in the future. Over the next two decades, a 

warming of about 0.36 oF per decade is projected for 

the planet as a whole. Warming is expected to continue for centuries, even if greenhouse gas emissions 

are stabilized, because of the substantial time lags of 

climatic processes (Christensen et al. 2007).

Along with this projected warming, atmospheric 

moisture transport and convergence is projected to 

increase, resulting in a widespread increase in 

annual precipitation over most of the continent, 

except the south and southwestern part of the United 

States (Christensen et al. 2007). This increased precipitation is more likely to occur in winter and spring 

months, rather than in the summer (Christensen et 

al. 2007). It is also considered likely that extreme 

weather, such as heat waves and flooding, will 

become more frequent. Increases in annual precipitation may be partially offset by increases in evaporation. Moisture availability, rather than just 

precipitation, is an essential resource for plants and 

animals.

Such changes will influence many environmental 

factors that will affect our management of Quivira 

Refuge, such as the balance of water inflows and outflows, water runoff patterns, the rate and extent of 

erosion, aquifer recharge rates, water quality parameters, and species abundance and distributions. However, climate change predictions are generally 

applied at large spatial scales, and much uncertainty 

remains about the use of this information at local 

scales (Weins and Bachelet 2010). Thus, it is difficult 

to plan for specific management changes on the refuge based on our current understanding.

While finding specific management actions to 

address climate change are not possible at this time, 

a report on the potential effects of human-caused 

climate change was prepared for the Playa Lakes 

Joint Venture (PLJV) region with a focus on habitats 

(Matthews 2008) (figure 8). This report synthesized 

much of the relevant information available at the 

time, including works of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change and many peer-reviewed publications. The author notes that while global and regional 

shifts in climate are natural, adapting to recent 

changes is different because of landscape modifications like habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and 

water quality degradation. Species most vulnerable 

to climate change have restricted ranges, specialized 

habitat needs, and are largely migrants. Predicted 

potential climate change effects on habitat within the 

PLJV region cited in this report are summarized in 

the list below. It is important to note differences in 

climate change predictions at various scales of the 

PLJV region, such as overall, southwest, and northeast, though all scales are important considerations 

in the management of natural resources that occur on 

the refuge. The author also qualifies predictions with 

the understanding that local variations in weather 

patterns, like the amount and intensity of precipitation, are a continuing characteristic of the region.

Predicted Potential Effects of Climate Change at the 

Scale of the Playa Lakes Joint Venture Region

■ decreasing annual precipitation in contrast 

to the larger Great Plains region

■ increasing winter temperatures causing less 

snow, or frozen, precipitation and less ice 

cover and more rain, with precipitation falling later and melting earlier

■ decreasing water volume in wetlands in fall 

and winter leading to more shallow habitat
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 23 

Figure 6. Playa Lakes Joint Venture region, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

■ decreasing presence of flooded, or functioning, wetlands, especially more ephemeral 

and shallow types—which compose most of 

the wetlands in the PLJV region—or those 

that respond quickly to changes in precipitation and evaporation, like playas, warmwater sloughs, floodplain marshes, and wet 

meadows, resulting in decreased cooler, 

deeper water during warm periods, particularly in the summer and early fall

■ increasing rate of increase in summer 

temperatures

■ changing plant species productivity, abundance, and ranges across all habitat types 

and partly related to the differences in their 

tolerance levels or adaptation strategies to 

events like drought, flooding and fire

■ changing distribution of wetlands across the 

landscape

■ decreasing connectivity among wetlands by 

ground water or by periods of high precipitation and flooding

■ increasing likelihood of disease transmission because of higher concentrations of 

waterfowl in limited habitat areas, higher 

winter temperatures, and more

■ changing species composition, or abundance, 

of fish

■ changing water column turnover cycles for 

larger, deeper wetlands that leads to the 

reduced overall productivity of open-water 

habitat

■ decreasing sensitivity and increasing resiliency of sandhill wetlands, or those influenced by ground water—not playas, or 

wetlands dependent on precipitation and 

with no, or limited, connectivity to ground 

water—to temperature and precipitation 

extremes during the next one to two 

decades or longer with changes in erosion 

rates possibly causing sandhills to move

■ sustaining local populations of specialized 

arthropod species in saline wetlands may be 

affected by persistent dry conditions and 
24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

sustaining bird species with great dependence on saline wetlands could be negatively 

affected by more extreme flooding and drying events

■ increasing drought frequency

■ increasing abundance of fully flooded playas, 

or temporary, seasonal wetlands, in the 

spring

■ increasing abundance of fast runoff events

■ increasing sedimentation rates

■ decreasing food availability for birds with 

shifts in the quality and state of wetlands, 

such as moving from a water condition that 

is dominated by plants large enough to be 

seen by the human eye, which results in 

oxygen-rich water, to one that support a 

dense growth of algae that depletes oxygen

■ likely increasing generalist invasive exotic 

species

■ decreasing overall water quality

■ eastern shifting of the central United States 

and Canada migratory flyway

■ decreasing sensitivity to climate changes by 

larger catchments and watersheds with 

more permanent flowing water relative to 

smaller catchments and watersheds with 

less permanent flowing water

■ altering flow regimes for rivers and streams 

in the PLJV region, with lower flows occurring in later summer and early fall and 

higher flows occurring in the winter and 

spring and with low-order streams being 

more directly affected by winter and spring 

flooding events than the middle, and lower, 

reaches of rivers

■ emerging economic and political trends and 

resultant changes in land use patterns, such 

as agricultural strategies and practices, 

urbanization, and fire suppression, will 

decide natural resource effects

■ shifting distribution—moving north and 

east into the PLJV region—of nematodes, 

insects and other arthropod species that are 

native to North America but exotic to 

region

■ increasing grassland productivity with the 

increased rates of spring precipitation, 

while increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other complex feedback 

mechanisms may affect the duration of this 

trend

■ accentuating thermal effects on grassland 

habitats by insects, notably plant pollinators 

and herbivores will affect associated predator–prey relationships and influence species 

abundance and phenologies, like the timing 

of breeding, migration, and other life events

■ increasing fire on the landscape to help most 

grassland habitats, while creating uncertainty about what grassland types and conditions will follow burns over the long term

■ affecting prairie dog communities, but how 

is not known, with one study suggesting 

that prairie dog herbivory might support 

their resilience to climate change

Predicted Potential Effects of Climate Change on 

Areas within the PLJV Region:

■ An increasingly extreme annual precipitation gradient between the southwestern and 

northeastern parts of the PLJV region will 

develop—uncertainty makes drawing clear 

boundaries extremely difficult. It is likely 

that, by midcentury, areas farther north, 

perhaps to Nebraska, will be similar to the 

current thermal regime of the southern high 

plains.

■ For northern and eastern parts of the PLJV 

region, including the refuge area, there may 

be an increase in annual precipitation of less 

than 10 percent by 2100 and uncertainty 

about specific changes in hydrologic patterns, like timing. This precipitation trend 

is in contrast to that at a PLJV scale and 

more consistent with trends at a Great 

Plains scale.

■ For northern and eastern parts of the PLJV 

region, current trends suggest that ephemeral wetlands could shift to more permanent 

types. However, some models suggest that 

summers could become warmer in these 

areas and increase evaporation rates.

■ For the southwest area of the PLJV region, 

increasing drought frequency and severity 

could turn semiarid regions into deserts.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 25 

Collectively, the potential effects of climate 

change described above inform us on how environmental conditions may change in the future, as well 

as how the roles, and relative importance, of natural 

resources that occur on the refuge might change 

within the context of the PLJV region. Many strategies used in traditional refuge management may also 

be used to address challenges related to climate 

change, like the control of invasive species, the support of native communities, the control or reduction 

of habitat fragmentation, the manipulation of water 

levels, and the periodic assessment of conservation 

goals and objectives, but new strategies may also 

have to be developed.

Land Features

Quivira Refuge is located in the Great Bend Lowland, or Prairie, which is part of the Arkansas River 

Lowlands section of the larger Central Lowland 

physiographic province (Schoewe 1949). Following 

the large, northward bend of the Arkansas River in 

central Kansas, the Great Bend Lowland is an alluvial plain, with sediment originally deposited by 

flowing water that has local, gently rolling hills. Refuge lands range in elevation from about 1,700 to 1,800 

feet above sea level (Schoewe 1949) and are only 

slightly higher in elevation than the Arkansas River 

(Hathaway et al. 1978). Arbogast and Johnson (1998) 

refer to the Great Bend (Sand) Prairie as a “mosaic of 

sand sheets and dune fields,” with dune orientations 

that are mostly northwesterly and southwesterly. 

Surface materials are mostly easily erodible sands 

and gravels of Quaternary Dunes (Schoewe 1949, 

Zeller 1968) that are generally of Rocky Mountain 

origin deposited from laterally shifting channels of 

the ancestral Arkansas River (Fent 1950). The Rattlesnake Creek is a mostly perennial tributary that 

meanders northeasterly through the Great Bend 

Lowland and flows through Quivira Refuge about 15 

miles from its confluence with the Arkansas River.

Thin, unconsolidated, or undifferentiated, alluvium that is less than 20 feet thick and more-recent 

Eolian sand deposits are common in the area of the 

refuge (Arbogast 1995, Arbogast and Johnson 1998, 

Sophocleous 2003). The alluvial materials are poorly 

sorted sand, silt, and clay broadly described as silty 

sand, sandy loam, or loess, whereas, sands are well 

sorted. Poorly sorted materials are less porous, have 

poor drainage when compared to well-sorted materials, and are commonly associated with local depressions like wetlands. In contrast, well-sorted deposits 

are characteristic of higher sand dune sites and often 

occur in areas of ground water recharge or springs. 

Particle size of deposits also influence soil and water 

properties, which partly determine plant and wildlife 

communities. Dune sands generally are very fine-tofine-sized particles, and those of the beach ridge 

occurring along the east and southeast side of the 

BSM, which were derived from a Wisconsin-age lake, 

are fine-to-medium sized (Arbogast and Johnson 

1998, Heitmeyer et al. 2012). More detailed soil 

descriptions and their relationships with different 

communities on the refuge are provided in the soils 

section of this chapter.

A broad description of the geologic stratigraphy of 

the Quaternary alluvium in the area of the Quivira 

Refuge, in order from surface to bedrock, is as follows: (1) sand dunes; (2) relatively continuous nearsurface silt–clay bed from a loess deposit; (3) 

alternating sequences of sandy silt–clay, sand, and 

gravel lenses; (4) basal sand and gravel beds of fluvial 

origin; and (5) bedrock (Latta 1950, Macfarlane et al. 

1993, Fader and Stullken, 1978, Kansas Department 

of Agriculture 2006). The type, relative age, and position of parent material greatly influence soil formation, hydrology, and resulting plant communities. The 

Permian bedrock, many feet below the relatively 

more permeable surface materials, is up to 350 feet 

thick in the area of the refuge (Macfarlane et al. 1993, 

West et al. 2010). Fader and Stullken (1978) state that 

the Permian bedrock underlying the refuge is primarily associated with the Salt Plain Formation, 

although an area along the east boundary of the refuge is associated with the Harper Sandstone Formation. In other reports, these two Permian bedrock 

formations are collectively called the Harper Salt 

Plain Formation or “red beds.” Materials in these 

formations consist of reddish-brown sandstone, siltstone, shale, salt, gypsum, anhydrite, and limestone, 

which are a source of saline water that is characteristic of the refuge (Rubin et al. 2001, Kansas Geological Survey and Kansas State University 1997). At 

various depths between the surface and bedrock 

zones are clay lenses or layers that create separation 

between saltwater of the bedrock aquifer and fresh 

water of the higher alluvium aquifer of Cretaceous 

bedrock (Latta 1950, Sophocleous and Ma 1998, 

Sophocleous 2000, Rubin et al. 2001). More detailed 

descriptions of geology and hydrology of the area 

may be found in the Water Resources Inventory and 

Analysis Report (Striffler 2011) and hydrogeomorphic method analysis report (Heitmeyer et al. 2012) 

prepared for the refuge.

Soils

Soils are diverse (figure 7) and they differ with 

respect to texture, moisture and nutrient retention 

capacities and salinities. Such differences influence 
26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

plant and wildlife community distribution and composition. Refuge lands are comprised of the following 

soil subgroups: 37 percent Subirrigated; 22 percent 

Saline Subirrigated; 17 percent Sands, choppy and 

subirrigated; 14 percent Aquolls; 10 percent Sandy; 

and less than 1 percent each of Loamy Clay and Clay 

Upland (Soil Survey Staff 2010). Ecological site characteristics and State transition models are described 

by the National Vegetation Classification System 

(NRCS) for each soil subgroup (Soil Survey Staff 

2010), Heitmeyer et al. 2012).

Water Resources

Hydrology is one of the most important factors 

influencing ecosystem structure and function. Consequently, hydrology also is of primary importance in 

planning our refuge management activities. However, hydrology involves complex relationships that 

exist at multiple spatial scales that are difficult to 

characterize in a CCP and EA. Therefore, a review of 

the Water Resources Inventory and Analysis Report 

(Striffler 2011) and the hydrogeomorphic method 

analysis report prepared for the refuge, as well as 

models and reports that provide detailed descriptions 

of water resources in the Rattlesnake Creek basin, is 

recommended. For purposes of this CCP and EA, a 

more general description of water resources is provided below.

Regional Context

Refuge lands occur within the Rattlesnake Creek 

watershed, which is approximately 95 miles long and 

18 miles wide and encompasses parts of 10 counties 

(Basin Management Team 2010). Within the watershed, Quivira Refuge is located at lower elevations in 

the eastern part of the watershed and Big Bend 

Ground-Water Management District No. 5 (USGS 

2012b, Sophocleous and McAllister 1987, Rattlesnake 

Creek/Quivira Partnership 2000). Refuge resources 

and management are dependent on surface water 

from the Rattlesnake Creek, but surface and ground 

water interactions are common, most noticeably in 

the form of seeps, springs, and underflow.

Surface Water

The drainage area of the watershed is 1,047 

square miles, but the upstream area that actually 

contributes runoff to the area of the refuge is only 

519 square miles, as identified by the contributing 

drainage area for USGS Zenith gaging station 

#07142575 (USGS 2012d). Rattlesnake Creek flows 

are checked continuously at the Zenith station, a distance of about 2 aerial miles before entering the 

southwest boundary of the refuge.

Traditionally, total annual flows in the creek are 

positively correlated with annual precipitation 

amounts. However, data from the Zenith gauge show 

a declining trend in average annual streamflow during recent years that is related to an increased use of 

ground water for irrigation coupled with reduced 

precipitation (Striffler 2011). But of equal or greater, 

importance are the observed changes in the timing of 

within-year flows. In part because of land use activities upstream from the refuge, water often has been 

unavailable when needed during the growing season 

to manage plant communities or to provide habitat 

for wildlife.

Ground Water

The Rattlesnake Creek watershed overlies the 

Great Bend Aquifer, which is part of the High Plains 

Aquifer. In general, ground water flow at a regional 

scale is eastward (Hathaway et al. 1978), but local 

variation occurs (figure 5). Near the refuge, the 

depth to ground water is generally 1–4 feet (Sophocleous 2003, Hathaway et al. 1978). Ground water 

pumping is a primary water source for irrigated 

crops, including small grains such as wheat and some 

corn. In general, most farmland presently lies west of 

the rangeland and woodland tracts that are next to 

the refuge boundary.

Water Quality

Major factors affecting water quality in the Rattlesnake Creek Subbasin include complex interactions between aquifers and soil stratigraphy 

(Sophocleous and Ma 1998, Rubin et al. 2001), irrigation practices (Hathaway et al. 1978, Rubin et al. 

2001), and oil and gas activities (Rubin et al. 2001). 

While mineral composition varies within the watershed, northeastern Stafford County—of which the 

refuge area is a part—is referred to as a mineral 

intrusion area. Here, water in the aquifer has contact 

with salt-bearing Lower Permian bedrock, causing 

chemical reactions of dissolved solids and the natural 

occurrence of sodium chloride-type salts (Hathaway 

et al. 1978). As a result, saline and sodic soils and 

waters are produced, depending on soil drainage 

capacities and evaporation patterns (Hathaway et al. 

1978, Rattlesnake Creek/Quivira Partnership 2000). 

High rates of ground water pumping in the Rattlesnake Creek corridor may disrupt the natural discharges of saltwater because of decreased surface 

flows and increased saltwater entry into the freshwater aquifer (Rubin et al. 2001). Differences in the 

conductance of water occurs throughout the water-
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 27 

. 010f 2fay Stevrul S: SoiecruSo . sasna, Kegufee Rfildlil Waniotaa Nriviu, Qpal mioe sgufe. Re 7ruigF
28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

shed, with wide ranges possible in the area of the 

refuge (less than 750, 750–2,250, and up to greater 

than 2,250 micromhos) (Hathaway et al. 1978). More 

well test results of chemical quality data sampled at 

certain points in time in the Great Bend Prairie may 

be found in a report by Hathaway et al. (1978).

Abnormally high nutrient levels in different 

states, such as nitrates found in oxygenated conditions, may have adverse ecosystem effects (Christensen 2001). Nitrate concentrations in the Great 

Bend Prairie aquifer are commonly affected by irrigation well density, subsurface clay lenses, and land 

use practices. Land managers who use grazing or 

who manage herbivores in areas of high nitrate concentrations, especially when using more intensive 

grazing in drought conditions, are often concerned 

about differential effects to forage plants. For example, cornstalks may hold more nitrates than some 

bluestem grasses, and the lower 6 inches of a plant 

may have the highest nitrate concentrations. Land 

managers adjust strategies to decrease, or prevent, 

potential adverse effects, such as toxicity and poisoning that can lead to cattle asphyxiation. Nitrate levels 

reported before in the Great Bend Prairie aquifer are 

relatively high, often greater than 0.000083454 

pound per gallon (10 milligrams per liter), compared 

to many other samples of uncontaminated ground 

water collected throughout the United States, which 

average less than or equal to 0.000025036 pound per 

gallon (3 milligrams per liter) (Townsend and Young 

1995). Based on 42 samples of ground water collected 

in Stafford County, Townsend and Young (1995) 

reported that nitrate nonpoint-source contamination 

was more evident in shallow wells typically used for 

domestic and stock, with a mean (range) depth of well 

equal to 60.04 (28.87–93.83) feet (18.3 [8.8–28.6] 

meters), compared to deep wells typically used for 

irrigation, with a mean (range) depth of well equal to 

83.99 (41.99–135.17) feet (25.6 [12.8–41.2] meters). 

Nitrate–N values had a mean (range) of 0.00005508 

(0.000010849–0.000095972) pound per gallon (6.6 

[1.3–11.5] milligrams per liter) for shallow wells and 

0.000032547 (0.000011684–0.000079281) pound per 

gallon (3.9 [1.4–9.5] milligrams per liter) for deep 

wells. There were no substantial differences in 

nitrate–N concentrations between sandy and loamy 

soils or flood versus center-pivot irrigation methods. 

A thicker clay layer above well screens was positively 

associated with lower nitrate concentrations in the 

study. Results of this research may be used in evaluating the potential effects of existing wells in a given 

area, or considered, when planning the addition or 

removal of wells on refuge lands.

Rattlesnake Creek flows into Little Salt Marsh on Quivira Refuge.

SWF/nahbua LlechRa
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 29 

Recent Trends in Water Quantity

Recent regional trends in water quantity that are

important in refuge planning include: (1) the 

encroachment of woody vegetation into open prairie, 

which likely has resulted in higher water use when 

compared to the natural plant communities that 

occurred before human settlement (Striffler 2011, 

Heitmeyer et al. 2012); and (2) declines in the ground 

water table and streamflows that are inadequate to 

meet refuge management needs (Sophocleous 1997, 

Rattlesnake Creek/Quivira Partnership 2000).

Water Rights and Management

Refuge hydrology is complex, largely because of 

dynamic precipitation and flow patterns, surface–

ground water interaction, and a highly altered landscape that uses extensive ground water pumping 

within the watershed. Overall, the main sources of 

surface water entering the refuge are precipitation, 

ground water discharge, and Rattlesnake Creek surface inflows. Primary surface outflows are evaporation, plant transpiration, ground water recharge, and 

surface drainage outflows. As discussed above, shortand long-term shifts in the water balance occur in 

response to precipitation patterns and land use 

activities within the watershed.

The refuge senior water right [Permit #7571] 

allows quantities of 14,632 acre-feet per year (AFY) 

and flows of 300 cubic feet per second (cfs). This 

water right seems adequate for current refuge management except that often the refuge does not receive 

water sufficient to meet our water right and water is 

not always available at a time when it is most critical 

for refuge management. The refuge waterflow system, or infrastructure, allows various levels of control in flooding, dewatering, and moving water among 

more than 30 water units (figure 5, Striffler 2011).

In high flow years, excess water may be transferred downstream or used to support desirable 

water depths in water units, such as impoundments 

or wetland areas. Sediment and water chemistry may 

be altered through the periodic flushing and draining 

of water through the refuge water conveyance system. Occasional dewatering of wetlands is desired to 

promote the nutrient cycling required for supporting 

the long-term productivity of wetland systems and 

for the management of plants with different germination and growth needs (Mitsch and Gosselink 2003). 

Water depths are often regulated to increase the 

availability of food resources or structural conditions 

for waterbirds that have different nutritional needs 

and adaptations used in acquiring resources.

Air Quality

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (EPA 2011a). In accordance 

with this need, the EPA has set standards for the 

following six pollutants to protect the health of 

humans and the environment: carbon monoxide, lead, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution, and sulfur 

dioxide. Other primary functions of EPA are to provide regulatory authority and technical help to State 

and local control agencies, as well as to conduct programs that research many different aspects of air 

science and technology (EPA 2011b). Of particular 

interest to natural resource managers is current 

EPA research linking air quality to ecosystem exposure (EPA 2011c), which may provide new insights 

about the relative importance of sustaining natural 

resources to improving air quality and interactions 

between air quality and ecosystem health.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment’s Bureau of Air is the agency that checks, regulates, and reports air quality in Kansas and sends 

data to the EPA’s Air Quality System. Cold winters, 

warm dry summers, and high winds cause ozone and 

particulate matter to be criteria pollutants of particular concern in Kansas, especially during events of 

blowing soil and surface inversions (Kansas Department of Health and Environment 2010). Because of 

the remoteness of Quivira Refuge, it is presumed 

that farming and burning activities that affect air 

quality are of most concern for the refuge. However, 

the refuge is mostly in Stafford County, where the 

population density is in the 6,000–9,000 category, and 

is not included in any Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment monitoring area or in any designated statistical area. Hutchinson, Great Bend, and 

Salina are cities close to the refuge that are listed as 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas, but the Kansas 

Department of Health and Environment only operates monitors in the Salina Micropolitan Statistical 

Area, which covers Ottawa and Saline Counties. 

Salina is downwind of Wichita and is a proposed 

ozone monitoring site for the next 5 years.

Thus, based on available information, air quality 

is not a current issue near the refuge, but it may be a 

consideration in the near future, depending on activities at a larger landscape scale.

3.2 Biological Resources

Evaluating refuge lands in the appropriate ecological context is needed for developing management 
30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

goals and objectives that will best meet the purposes 

of the refuge and optimize contributions to the conservation of biological resources at larger spatial 

scales. Among the factors that contribute to the 

diversity and abundance of refuge flora and fauna is 

the refuge’s central location within the mixed-grass 

transition zone where characteristically short western and tall eastern grasses meet, northern coolseason grasses and southern warm-season grasses 

converge, and many species range distributions overlap. Thus, depending on shifting short- and long-term 

environmental conditions, biological resources of the 

refuge are dynamic within, and among, years. In 

addition, wetland habitats that tend to be fewer and 

less reliable in this geographic region attract some 

species that rely on both wetland and grassland 

resources for life events. For example, dry shoreline 

and salt flat habitat provides nesting sites for waterbird species, such as interior least tern, western 

snowy plover, black-necked stilt, and American avocet. Also, the complex of upland and wetland habitats 

produces a high abundance and diversity of plants, 

invertebrates, and vertebrates and, therefore, is an 

attractive source of food for species associated with 

both communities. Collectively, these factors contribute to a diverse flora and fauna, because the distributions of many western and eastern wildlife and plant 

species overlap, such as with the presence of both the 

eastern and western meadowlark and kingbird.

Quivira Refuge supports a diversity of wetland 

types that each provide resources like invertebrates, 

plant foods, and cover in unique combinations that 

are important for meeting the life requisites of focal 

species. In addition, each wetland provides multiple 

plant communities simultaneously, such as tall emergent and wet meadow, and plant communities tend to 

change temporally in response to abiotic factors like 

bare mudflats in spring that can be colonized by 

annual emergent vegetation later in the same year.

Within created wetlands, the partial drawdown or 

flooding of a unit and brief periods of inundation during the spring has resulted in sparse vegetation 

interspersed with expanses of mudflats that provide 

suitable foraging habitat for spring and fall migrating shorebirds. If partial drawdown or flooding is 

prolonged through the summer, bare mudflats next to 

shallowly flooded habitats have provided shorebird 

nesting habitat. Conversely, if water is maintained on 

units for longer periods, perennial emergent vegetation tends to colonize sites. Local interspersion of 

emergent herbaceous wetland cover and open water 

is reported to benefit a high diversity of marshbirds, 

provided long-term wetland cycling is sustained 

(Weller and Spatcher 1965, Bolenbaugh et al. 2011), 

and wetland size is a reported influential factor of 

habitat use for some waterbirds (Brown and Dinsmore 1986). Depending on the type of perennial vegetation, suitable nesting and foraging habitat has 

been provided for grebes and bitterns (cattail or 

bulrush) or rails and phalaropes (sedge or rush). In 

addition, semipermanent units that support emergent vegetation interspersed with open water have 

offered suitable breeding habitat for amphibians and 

thermal cover for waterfowl during early winter.

In grasslands, differences in species niche selection allow cohabitation within the same community. 

Bird habitat selection differs largely based on behavioral interactions and needs of various life activities, 

such as for foraging, mating, nesting, brooding, or 

protection from weather or predators (Wiens 1973, 

Cody 1985a, Cody 1985b). In general, sand prairie 

grassland for this region has been described as being 

dominated by grasses with lesser amounts of forbs 

and woody vegetation (Küchler 1974, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service 2010). Ecological site 

descriptions report potential woody coverage of less 

than 5–15 percent on some soil associations and up to 

about 30–40 percent on others, with amounts changing largely dependent on management history. Some 

shrub cover exists as a natural part of the grassland 

community to provide valuable wildlife food and different types of cover for nesting, resting, escape, and 

thermal protection. During winter, a combination of 

grassland and shrub habitat contributes to bird use 

diversity and abundance, including focal species 

(Davis 2001). However, some woody vegetation has 

been managed to conserve native grassland communities because, for example, extensive tall, dense 

shrub cover is avoided by some breeding grassland 

birds (Cooper 2009) and has been associated with 

higher rates of predation (Klug et al. 2009, 2010).

All biological resources of the refuge are dynamic 

within, and among, years, depending on short- and 

long-term environmental conditions. Therefore, 

evaluating the potential contribution of refuge lands 

to wildlife is complex and requires consideration of 

short- and long-term community dynamics relative to 

the status and importance of species and communities at various spatial scales.

Populations of many species native to the area 

have declined because of habitat loss and degradation 

caused by factors such as land use changes, the 

spread of invasive species, habitat fragmentation, 

urbanization, and management actions that affect the 

quantity and quality of water resources. The importance of each of these factors depends on the scale 

considered. In this planning process, we examined 

several plans and documents at scales ranging from 

local to national that were relevant to the purposes 

and goals of Quivira Refuge. These included our lists 

of species of management and conservation concern 

(FWS 2008a) that consider various national and 

international bird conservation plans and other 

locally important status reports, or designations. 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 31 

The descriptions of plant and wildlife communities 

that follow are not comprehensive.

Plant Communities

This sections includes details on the various plant 

communities found on Quivira Refuge

Landscape Context: Status and Trends of 

Plant Communities

Saltmarsh and sand prairie are two distinct ecological communities of Quivira Refuge and the western Great Plains that are of importance at both the 

global and State scale (Kansas Natural Heritage 

Program, Kansas Biological Survey 2008). Based on 

the Natural Plant Communities of Kansas status list 

dated October 9, 2003, saltmarsh is globally ranked 

as an imperiled community because of its rarity or its 

vulnerability to extinction, but is now not able to be 

ranked at a State level because of the lack of, or conflicting, information. Sand prairie, on the other hand, 

is a secure community at a global level, but is State 

listed as imperiled because of its rarity and vulnerability to extirpation in Kansas.

More than 97 percent of lands in Kansas are in 

private ownership, and most are highly altered from 

conditions that occurred before European settlement. 

For example, an evaluation of land cover maps and 

remotely sensed data shows that current plant community alliances differed substantially from before 

settlement times—or before about 150 years ago, and 

more recent times of about 5 years ago (Peterson et 

al. 2004). Changes in land use from the historical 

period include 48 percent of lands cultivated in Kansas, and a dramatic reduction in the area of native 

short, and tall, grass communities. Recent changes in 

land use affected less than 20 percent of Kansas 

lands and included conversion of grassland to cropland—greater than 2,471,053 acres (1,000,000 hectares)—and woodland, as well as the conversion of 

cropland to grassland. The latter can be attributed to 

enrollments in the Conservation Reserve Program, 

rather than to the reconstruction, or restoration, of 

native grassland conditions that occurred historically 

(Heisler et al. 2003, Briggs et al. 2005).

Table 3. Vegetation descriptions for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Küchler’s

classification

General 

description

Major plants Other characteristic parts

Location (Kansas 

and landscape)

Saltmarsh

Dense to open stands 

of short-to-mediumtall grasses, few 

forbs

Dominants: saltgrass, seepweed

Local Codominants: 

spikerush, threesquare, prairie bulrush, prairie 

cordgrass, alkali sacaton

Wood bluegrass, western 

ragweed, prairie dogbane, 

white heath aster, woollyfruit sedge, Canada wildrye, 

foxtail barley, inland rush, 

plains bluegrass, tall or yellow knotweed, drooping bulrush, sea purslane

Alkaline, periodically

flooded depressions in 

central and north-central Kansas

Insects thrive in Quivira Refuge plant communities.

SWF/nahbua LlechRa

Presettlement Conditions

Küchler (1974) characterized potential natural 

vegetation for Kansas at a landscape scale. Based on 

that report, Quivira Refuge’s potential natural vegetation includes: saltmarsh (saltgrass–seepweed), 

floodplain vegetation (cottonwood–willow) and prairie 

cordgrass, and sand prairie (bluestem–sandreed). 

While historical surveys vary with respect to the 

presence of little, or no, woody vegetation, there 

seems to be agreement that woody vegetation was 

not a dominant feature, and trees were generally cottonwood and willow (Wilcox 1870, Gates 1937, 

Thompson 1871, unpublished refuge reports on file at 

Quivira Refuge headquarters, Stafford County, 

Kansas).

Küchler’s vegetation descriptions, relevant to refuge lands, are provided in table 3. More detail on 

ecological site potentials are provided by the soil 

survey staff (2010), which were used to describe 

potential presettlement conditions of refuge lands in 

figure 8 and table 4 (Heitmeyer et al. 2012).
32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Table 3. Vegetation descriptions for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Küchler’s General Major plants Other characteristic parts classification descriptionLocation (Kansas 

and landscape)

Floodplain 

vegetation

(western and 

central Kansas)

Savanna: tall, 

medium-tall, and low 

broadleaf deciduous 

scattered trees and 

shrubs with “impoverished” bluestem 

prairie understory

Freshwater marsh: 

dense stands of tallgrasses with forbs 

common but not 

prominent

Dominants: cottonwood, peachleaf willow, and, in eastern 

Kansas, black willow 

and American elm

Codominant in western Kansas: sandbar 

willow

Dominants: prairie 

cordgrass

Nearly 30 species and combined species found in eastern and western Kansas

***

Wood bluegrass, big bluestem, rice cutgrass, whitegrass, Michigan lily, Virginia 

bunchflower, switchgrass, 

cup plant or squarestem rosinweed, hardstem and softstem bulrush, Indiangrass, 

eastern gamagrass, broadleaf or common cattail

Floodplains and 

streambanks with permanent and intermittent flooding (note 

differences in eastern 

and western Kansas)

***

Shallow depressions of 

floodplains, periodically flooded or with 

high water table; common in eastern Kansas 

and in bluestem prairie

Sand prairie

Medium dense stands 

of grasses that are 

medium-tall to tall, 

forbs common

Dominants: big bluestem, little bluestem, 

sandreed, switchgrass

Sand bluestem, field sagewort, sand milkweed, sideoats grama, sandbur, sand 

lovegrass, umbrella plant, 

field snakecotton, flaxflowered gilia, prairie sunflower, 

golden aster, roundhead lespedeza, fourpoint evening 

primrose, sand paspalum, 

chickasaw plum, hardstem 

and softstem bulrush in wet 

spots, sand dropseed, and 

broadleaf or common cattail 

in wet spots

Sandy sites in southcentral Kansas

Source: Küchler 1974.

Table 4. Hydrogeomorphic relationship of historical distribution of vegetation communities or habitat types to 

geomorphic surface, soils, and hydrological regime in the area of Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Habitat type Geomorphic surface Major soil types Flood frequency*

Sandhills Dune sands Tivin OP

Sandy grassland 

(Beach ridge) Beach ridge Pratt–Tivoli OP

Saltmarsh Alluvial or lacustrine 

depressions 

Soil survey geographic database marsh SGD, ROB

Saltgrass Depression fringes Plevna SGD, ROB

Seasonal herbaceous Alluvium depressions Aquoll, Waldeck Seasonal surface

Riparian creek corridors Rattlesnake Creek corridor Varied, sand Continual creek flow

Subirrigated saline grassland Alluvium Abbyville, Natrisols SGD, OP

Subirrigated nonsaline grassland Alluvium Dillhut–Plevna, Hayes–Solweg, Dillwyn, Zenda GD, OP

Upland sandy grassland Dune sands Canadian, Carwille, Naron, 

Pratt, Tivin–Dillhut OP

Upland clay or loam Grassland Dune loess, loam Farnum, Tabler OP

* OP—mostly onsite precipitation; SGD—saline ground water discharge; GD—ground water discharge with low salinity; ROB—

Rattlesnake Creek overbank and backwater surface flows; Seasonal surface—mostly seasonal surface water runoff and minor creek 

overbank flooding, relatively fresh or slightly brackish water; Continual creek flow—sustained flows in Rattlesnake Creek.

Sources: relationships were found on land cover maps prepared for the Government Land Office survey notes taken in the late 

1800s, historical maps and photographs, current and historical U.S. Department of Agriculture soil maps (Dodge et al. 1978, NRCS 

2010), geomorphology maps, region-specific hydrology data (Fader and Stullken 1978, Sophocleous 1997, Jian 1998, Estep 2000, 

Striffler 2011), and various botanical accounts and literature (NRCS 2010, Ungar 1961).
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 33 

Figure 8. Potential presettlement conditions, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. Source: Heitmeyer et al. 2012.
34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Historical biological information on the saltmarshes of Quivira Refuge is extremely limited. 

There are a few aerial photos, drawn maps, and miscellaneous notes in published and gray literature. 

However, hydrologic inputs to the LSM historically 

occurred only from periodic overbank flooding of 

Rattlesnake Creek and from precipitation. It was not 

until the late 1920s–early 1930s that a ditch was constructed to divert Rattlesnake Creek flows directly 

into the LSM. Likely, this essential hydrologic 

change generated various short- and long-term 

transformations of the marsh ecosystem, such as 

water quantity and quality changes and the introduction or increased presence of carp. For example, at 

the time of refuge establishment, notes in Quivira 

Refuge’s master plan suggest that the estimated size 

of the LSM was about 640 acres and its greatest 

depth was 4 feet. However, a comparison of aerial 

photographs ranging from the 1920s to today shows 

that the historical size of the marsh was much 

smaller (Heitmeyer et al. 2012).

During the 1958–1960 growing seasons, an intensive ecological study of vegetation in, and around, the 

BSM was conducted by Ungar with emphasis on salt 

tolerance and its resulting effects on plant distribution (1961, 1964, and 1965). At the time, the marsh 

covered parts of 12 sections, and water depths rarely 

reached 2–3 feet, partly because of constructed 

ditches that had been dug to control drainage before 

the refuge’s establishment.

Seasonal fluctuations in water depth and quality 

in the BSM were because of characteristic sporadic 

rains and drying in July and August. The main 

source of salts in the BSM was found to be sodium 

chloride. Water and soil samples collected in 1959 and 

1960 found similar monthly changes in chloride ion 

concentration and total salinity, and variability 

occurred among sampling sites. The lowest salinities 

occurred in the adjacent prairie and the highest 

salinities occurred in the barren salt flats, with a 

general increase in salinity values as the marsh dried 

in July. In the water, the chloride ion concentration 

range was equal to 0.008–1.65 percent, and the total 

salinity range was equal to 0.02–2.96 percent. In the 

soil surface from 0–3.94 inches (0–10 centimeters), 

the chloride ion concentration range was equal to 

0.001–2.34 percent, and the total salinity range was 

equal to 0.003–2.96 percent. Salts were greater at 

the surface, from 0–3.94 inches (0–10 centimeters), 

than in the soil subsurface, from 23.62–27.56 inches 

(60–70 centimeters). Soil salinity had more of an 

effect on the distribution of rooted plants than water 

salinity, and extremes in salinities—where survival 

was equal to, or greater than, 1-percent salinity—

were most limiting to plant distribution, when compared to averages. Ungar’s research and other 

biological studies conducted since (Reinke 1981, Harris 1999) have identified many unique features of 

Quivira Refuge’s inland saltmarsh systems.

Fine-scale descriptions of lands where created 

wetlands now occur are limited, however, the following observations were noted from Quivira Refuge’s 

original master plan (FWS 1962):

■ In general, refuge infrastructure development was intended to increase the availability of water, such as coverage, depth, and 

duration, by converting temporally and seasonally flooded areas to more permanently 

flooded wetland types to help resources of 

concern at the time, which were primarily 

migratory waterfowl during migration.

Prairie cordgrass is an important component of 

meadows on Quivira Refuge providing relatively taller 

conditions for wildlife.

SWF/nahbua LlechRa
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 35 

■ Unit 7 was a low sump area of about 15 

acres fed from the LSM.

■ Drainage from unit 11 went northeast 

through a natural channel.

■ Units 14a and 14b occurred along an old 

creek channel, and dominant plants were 

alkali sacaton and saltgrass.

■ Unit 16 was a natural sump dominated by 

alkali sacaton and saltgrass flats.

■ Unit 21 was a natural low area in an old 

creek channel.

■ Units 22 and 23 were natural ponds and 

depended on surface runoff for water, and 

both had a good history of waterfowl use, 

including dabbling and diving ducks.

■ Unit 24, or Darrynane Lake, was an existing 16-acre impoundment on Rattlesnake 

Creek, part of an old hunting club property 

that had a washed concrete spillway.

■ Unit 25 was a natural, low saltgrass–sacaton area between sand knolls.

■ Unit 26 contained about 90 acres of good 

farmland.

■ Unit 28 was surrounded by tallgrass to the 

south and east.

■ Unit 34 was in a low area in a tallgrass 

pasture.

■ The plan for Unit 44 was to have it drain 

into scattered sump areas on the flats to the 

north.

■ Units 47 and 55 were saltgrass flats that 

characteristically flooded in spring and 

were used by 50,000 ducks in 3–4 inches of 

water.

■ Units 48 had 75 surface acres and unit 49 

had 100 surface acres.

■ Unit 50 was an old hunting club property.

■ Unit 57 was a natural lake called McCandless or East Lake.

■ Unit 60 had a history of heavy duck use in 

late winter, indicating that it had some deep 

water and remained ice free longer than 

other wetland habitats.

■ Unit 62 was covered by a dense stand of 

prairie cord grass.

■ Dead Horse Slough was an existing slough 

at the time.

■ The BSM was unit 72, and it was planned to 

be the storage unit for habitat area in the 

northwestern part of the refuge that was 

attractive to diving ducks like scaup, redhead, and canvasback.

Current Conditions

Since presettlement times and refuge establishment in 1955, more environmental changes have 

occurred on refuge lands (Heitmeyer et al. 2012). In 

1954, a reconnaissance map of the area was completed that described cover types, associated dominant plants, and miscellaneous notes of vegetation 

conditions for the purpose of assessing property values before acquisition of lands by the Federal Government. Our refuge staff recently recreated the 

hand-drawn map of 1954 in a geographic information 

system (GIS) (figure 9) and recoded cover types to 

use as a general baseline cover map to facilitate its 

comparison with a recent vegetation map of refuge 

lands made in 2011 (figure 10). While important shifts 

in plant communities mapped in 1954 and 2008 are 

evident (table 5), results should be viewed with caution partly because of differences in the purposes for 

which the two maps were developed; methodologies, 

such as observer bias, minimum mapping unit, equipment, and technology; and environmental conditions 

occurring at specific points in time, such as certain 

days, months, years during relatively wet and dry 

periods.

Some of the more notable differences include: (1) 

an increase in the occurrence of nonnative and invasive species in both grassland and wetland communities; (2) an increase in the coverage of shrubs and 

trees, especially in uplands and riparian zones; (3) the 

establishment and spread of Phragmites and cattail 

in wetlands; (4) the extensive development of artificial infrastructure; (5) an increase in the area of surface water; and (6) indications of a decline in 

shortgrass species. However, the 1954 appraisal and 

other refuge reports described much of the refuge 

land area as being overgrazed at the time of establishment, and this grazing regime likely favored 

shortgrass over tallgrass species, as reported by 

Aldous (1935) in central Kansas.
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Figure 9. Vegetation cover types in 1954, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 37 

Figure 10. Vegetation cover types in 2008 (NVCS), Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Table 5. Comparison of vegetation cover types between 1954 and 2011 on Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas.

Cover type Map* Descriptions (dominant plant species)

Grassland 

1954 

big and little bluestem, switchgrass, Indiangrass, sand lovegrass, buffalograss, blue grama, 

sideoats grama, three-awn, sand dropseed, wild barley, wild rye, bluestem wheatgrass, 

panic grass, saltgrass (G1 and G2 symbols on original map)

2011 big and little bluestem, switchgrass, Indiangrass, and less of other prairie grasses and forbs 

(sometimes lesser amounts of meadow species present) 

Sandhills 

1954 

Sandhills with carrying capacity of >5 acres of cow and calf for 6 months because of low vegetation density. Based on our soil survey geographic database soil map, this is most of the 

Tivin fine sand with 10––30% slope sites on Quivira Refuge. (G3 symbol on original map is 

comprised of the Sandhills and Saltgrass cover types) 

2011 unmapped areas, polygons with >50% Tivin fine sand with 10–30% slopes (figure 7)

Saltgrass 

1954 Saltgrass (G3 symbol on original map includes Sandhills and Saltgrass cover types) 

2011 Saltgrass

Salt flat, bare 

ground 

1954 bare soil, mostly with alkaline salts (white) on surface (Af symbol on original map) 

2011 bare ground areas, some with alkali and sparse cover of saltgrass 

Meadow 

1954 little bluestem, Indiangrass, three-square, sedges, rushes (H symbol on original map, “wild 

hay”) 

2011 Medium-short emergent plants, primarily prairie cordgrass, three-square, sedges, rushes 

(not tall bulrushes, sometimes lowland prairie grasses mixed in this cover type) 

Tall emergent 

1954 

three square bulrush, hardstem bulrush, nutgrass [Scirpus paludosus], sedges, rushes (M 

symbol on original map; for Marsh, fresh; in swales and depressions and next to wetland 

areas) 

2011 cattail, Phragmites, tall bulrushes (mostly softstem bulrush) 

Water 

1954 surface water (W symbol on original map) 

2011 surface water 

Trees 

1954 

mostly shelterbelt strips or groves near buildings and cultivated fields. One site with saltcedar on the delta where Rattlesnake Creek enters the LSM. Several groves of open, mixed 

oaks scattered in the “grazing type” (B, T symbols on original map) 

2011 black locust, tamarisk, cottonwood, Russian olive, Siberian elm, and some tall shrubs that 

were not plum 

Plum 

1954 not included in map description 

2011 sand plum with little coverage (<5%) of American plum and other shrubs 

Agriculture 

1954 farmed areas and few small sites that were primarily forbs (weeds) 

2011 farmed areas 

Prairie dog 

towns 

1954 not included in map description 

2011 active prairie dog towns 

*The 1954 map was adapted to improve visual clarity. The current map used 2008 aerial photos that were ground truthed in 2010 

and 2011 and was completed in 2011. Of note, descriptions of certain cover types are similar but not exactly the same for the 1954 

and current maps. For instance, current “tall emergent” plant types are taller than what occurred in the past.

A recent inventory of refuge vegetation was completed in 2011, and approximately 22,262 acres of 

refuge lands were mapped to plant association 

classes. The inventory excluded a small tract of refuge land that occurs a few miles west of the main 

refuge boundary, but includes at least parts of boundary road areas, which accounts for the seeming discrepancy in refuge acreage. Protocol largely followed 

National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) 

standards (Federal Geographic Data Committee 

2008) and other guidance. The minimum mapping 

unit of the aerial photos was 0.5 acre, but ground 

truthing only included plum stands 0.2 acre or 

greater. Ground truthing used 2008 aerial photographs and was conducted in 2010, which was relatively wet, and 2011, which was relatively dry. Thus, 

it is presumed that certain plant species were more 

conspicuous under wetter conditions and other species were more conspicuous under dry conditions. A 

plant key was used to classify different combinations 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 39 

of 20 herbaceous, 5 shrub, and 15 tree-dominant plant 

species into suitable categories, which resulted in the 

identification of 43 vegetation associations (table 6) 

(Farr and Laubhan 2011).

Based on this inventory and on estimates from 

summed GIS acreage data, Quivira Refuge is comprised of the following association types: 48.6 percent 

(10,819 acres) herbaceous wetland zones, 13.5 percent 

(3,005 acres) open water, 22.0 percent (4,898 acres) 

grassland, 6.6 percent (1,469 acres) shrubland, and 

3.9 percent (868 acres) riparian area and upland 

woodland categories combined. It is important to 

understand that this coverage estimation is scale 

dependent. For instance, shrub associations were 

only classified as such if stands were equal to, or 

greater than, 0.2 acre and shrub coverage was equal 

to, or greater than, 50 percent. This minimum mapping unit was chosen because it was reasonable for 

both mapping and for our management planning and 

implementation. Therefore, smaller shrub stands may 

exist that are mapped as grassland. Similarly, existing ephemeral or seasonal wetlands measuring less 

than 0.2 acre were classified as different herbaceous 

and woodland associations of which they were a part. 

The most abundant plants for each association type 

were: saltgrass, cattail, and three-square in wetlands; little bluestem, switchgrass, and Indiangrass 

in grasslands; plum and saltcedar—also considered a 

small tree—in shrubland; and locust, Russian olive, 

and cottonwood in forest or woodland.

Table 6. National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) associations, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas.

Vegetation associations Acres Hectares

Boxelder woodland 0.3 0.1

Agriculture vegetation 885.9 358.5

Tree-of-heaven forest 7.8 3.1

Big bluestem–helianthus herbaceous vegetation 551.2 223.1

Big bluestem–western Great Plains herbaceous vegetation 426.4 172.6

Sand bluestem herbaceous vegetation 62.5 25.3

Bare ground 18.9 7.6

Black-tailed prairie dog town grassland complex 18.9 7.6

Cheatgrass seminatural herbaceous vegetation 82.1 33.2

Northern catalpa forest 11.9 4.8

Hackberry woodland 0.6 0.3

Roughleaf dogwood shrubland 22.7 9.2

Inland saltgrass herbaceous vegetation 4926.1 1993.5

Russian olive woodland 29.2 11.8

Spikerush fascicularis herbaceous vegetation 329.3 133.3

Green ash forest 3.1 1.3

Kentucky coffeetree forest 16.2 6.6

Eastern redcedar seminatural forest 85.4 34.5

Osage orange woodland 5.6 2.3

Mullberry woodland 8 3.3

Switchgrass vegetation 431.8 174.8

Switchgrass–Indiangrass vegetation 1245 503.8

Common reed western North American temperate seminatural herbaceous vegetation 72.5 29.3

Plains cottonwood–black willow forest 389.5 157.6

Plum shrubland 1231.1 498.2

Fragrant sumac shrubland 28.1 11.4

Riverine sand flats–bar sparse vegetation 936.3 378.9

Black locust or honeylocust forest 253.8 102.7

Sandbar willow or mesic graminoids shrubland 57.1 23.1

Soapberry woodland 1.6 0.6
40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Table 6. National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) associations, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas.

Vegetation associations Acres Hectares

Little bluestem–sideoats grama western Great Plains herbaceous vegetation 2058.8 833.2

Common threesquare herbaceous vegetation 1107.6 448.2

Softstem bulrush semipermanently flooded herbaceous vegetation 167.9 68

Softstem bulrush–cattail herbaceous vegetation 366.9 148.5

Prairie cordgrass –spikerush and sedge herbaceous vegetation 1293.6 523.5

Saltcedar seminatural temporarily flooded shrubland 126.4 51.2

Cattail Great Plains herbaceous vegetation 1615 653.6

American elm woodland 1.9 0.8

Siberian elm woodland 50.6 20.5

Para grass herbaceous vegetation 2.8 1.1

The Boiling Springs has an artesian well and an 

associated freshwater habitat of small streams and 

pools that form a few acres. In the area of the artesian well, water cress is abundant as well as a source 

population of State-threatened Arkansas darters. All 

of our alternatives in this CCP and EA suggest the 

need to further evaluate potential future management to support the Arkansas darters. Besides 

mapped vegetation associations, other important factors to consider include the current existence of a 

pipe where water from the spring flows to the surface and increasing woody vegetation. The pump 

remains from an oil well that has been removed, and 

it is unknown if the removal of the pipe would result 

in more springs or if habitat suitability would 

increase for the Arkansas darter. Increasing woody 

vegetation in the area may also create changes in 

water quality or habitat use. A beaver downed one 

large tree in 2011, creating a dam in the area where 

Arkansas darters live. Casual observations suggest 

that larger pools in the area would encourage use by 

predator fish, such as the green sunfish, and that 

would likely adversely affect Arkansas darter 

populations.

Wildlife Communities

This sections includes details on the various wildlife communities found on Quivira Refuge

Status and Trends of Wildlife 

Communities

While national wildlife refuges are managed for 

wildlife first, a particular refuge cannot be managed 

for all associated wildlife every year. Habitat conditions constantly change over time generally favoring 

a broad diversity of wildlife species. Thus, planning 

that evaluates trade-offs in management effects on 

wildlife at various spatial and temporal scales may 

better sustain native communities.

As part of this process, various regional and 

national conservation plans and species of concern 

lists are considered collectively within the context of 

the refuge bird list and other relevant local conservation factors such as: (1) the refuge purposes and relevant policies and mandates; (2) a species native or 

nonnative status; (3) species population trends; (4) 

species range distribution in relation to refuge location; (5) species current and potential occurrence on 

refuge lands; (6) species tolerance of grassland fragmentation, urbanization, and agricultural activities; 

and (7) the availability and condition of habitat outside refuge boundaries. A detailed analysis of species 

tolerance of grassland fragmentation is presented in 

appendix H. Collectively, these considerations helped 

us to develop a list of priority management species 

we call focal species (table 3). 

Presettlement Conditions

Consideration of changes in wildlife since presettlement is important for understanding the full range 

of native habitat conditions and for evaluating current management potential. For instance, knowledge 

of native species life needs and behavior may be used 

to describe what the environment used to look like 

and how it functioned. Many native herbivores and 

predators that were an inherent part of the historical 

natural system no longer occur on refuge lands or in 

the region, and, consequently, their absence likely has 

altered fundamental ecosystem processes. For example, grazing or browsing by bison, pronghorn, elk, 

and prairie dogs in central Kansas used to variably 

influence many indigenous prairie plants and wildlife 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 41 

that have unique adaptations, and now their roles or 

functions are only partially replaced by domestic 

cattle, sheep, or goats.

Similarly, the use of prescribed fire and artificial 

manipulation of hydrology do not completely mimic 

the historical frequency, intensity and magnitude of 

historical fires and water movement on the landscape. Thus, complete restoration of historical processes and associated native plant and wildlife 

community will not be possible regardless of the 

alternative we select in this CCP and EA, however, 

the extent to which restoration will occur differs 

among the alternatives. In managing for wildlife, 

strategies may be used for various purposes, including compensating for one, or more, of the many longterm, or permanent, imbalances that have been 

created in the landscape.

Conditions of wildlife communities since refuge 

establishment have not been summarized, but have 

been recorded in the refuge master plan, annual narratives, and other files and documents. Of particular 

relevance to our alternatives, the deer count on the 

refuge at the time of establishment was less than 20, 

and turkey were not present. Also, the master plan 

showed our intention to manage habitat to encourage 

use by greater prairie-chickens, noting their former 

occurrence on refuge lands and their absence in the 

early 1950s. Because birds are a primary focus of the 

Refuge System and changes in communities have 

been many and complex, it is worth referring those 

interested in more details to a discussion by Johnsgard (2009) of the changes in bird communities and 

range distributions over the past three decades.

Current Conditions

The refuge is recognized nationally and internationally for its importance in wildlife conservation. 

Quivira Refuge is a Ramsar Wetland of International 

Importance, a Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network site, and a Globally Important Bird 

Area. The most current inventory of Quivira Refuge 

wildlife is provided in appendix G, but some highlights are described below.

Birds

More than 300 species of birds are thought to use 

Quivira Refuge. Some main attractions for visitors to 

the refuge are spring and fall bird migrations that 

include hundreds of thousands of geese and ducks, 

more than 30 species of shorebirds, many sandhill 

cranes, and the occurrence of rare species, such as 

the whooping crane, interior least tern, and snowy 

plover. Quivira Refuge wetlands provide migration 

and wintering habitat used by large populations of 

Canada geese, greater white-fronted geese, and, 

increasingly in recent years, snow geese. From 2009 

to 2010, more than 11,000 ducks, 300,000 Canada 

geese, 402,500 white-fronted geese, and 425,000 

snow geese were estimated to visit the refuge on 

independent, bimonthly survey dates. More than half 

of the fall surveys in 2009–2010 and 2008–2009 

showed use by more than 20,000 geese, and three of 

the fourteen 2009–2010 surveys each reported more 

than 30,000 sandhill cranes. From 2002 to 2006, an 

annual average of more than 30,000 shorebirds were 

counted on Quivira Refuge during biweekly migration surveys (Hands 2008). In 2010, biweekly data 

counted 55,491 shorebirds on the refuge during the 

migration periods surveyed. With Cheyenne Bottoms 

Wildlife Management Area only about 30 miles away 

from the refuge and with high local variation in 

weather patterns, many birds rely on both areas to 

acquire necessary life resources. It has been suggested that these areas, combined, often hold more 

than 90 percent of the world’s population of such species as stilt sandpipers and white-rumped 

sandpipers.

While many rare birds may be observed at Quivira Refuge, some receive much more attention than 

others. Whooping cranes are usually observed in 

small family groups during migration on Quivira 

Refuge. In recent years, the highest recorded season 

total for whooping cranes observed using areas on 

and near the refuge is 91 in the spring and 112 in the 

fall. Thus, the relative importance of the refuge to 

whooping cranes during migration is substantial, 

considering that the population in recent years has 

ranged from approximately 250 to possibly 300 during the winter of 2011–2012. Whooping cranes may 

stay on the refuge for up to 5 to 6 weeks in the fall, 

but spring migration stays are typically shorter and 

last from several days to weeks. Bald eagles are also 

a common wintering attraction, with a high of 204 

eagles reported on the Quivira Refuge during the 

Christmas Bird Count in 2010. Only recently has one 

bald eagle pair been reported nesting on the refuge, 

Harris’ sparrow, reported on Quivira Refuge, has been 

identified as a priority species by the Great Plains 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative.

WSF
42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

and they successfully fledged two young annually 

during 2010 and 2011. Quivira Refuge is one of the 

few sites in Kansas with nesting black-necked stilt, 

interior least tern, snowy plover, and various rail 

species. Production of interior least tern on Quivira 

Refuge fluctuates, but colonies of equal to, or greater 

than, 10 nesting pairs are common, and young raised 

to flight stage has been as high as 36 to 40 individuals. More information on threatened and endangered 

species and other species of concern may be found in 

the appendixes.

Quivira Refuge is primarily a migration refuge, 

but, as shown above, many birds use habitat for nesting as well. Of the birds reported nesting on Quivira 

Refuge, 23 species are considered Birds of Management Concern (FWS 2008a). Of these, 13 species are 

Birds of Conservation Concern in Region 6, and 11 

species are Birds of Conservation Concern in Bird 

Conservation Region 19, Central Mixed-grass Prairie (FWS, Mountain–Prairie Region 2008a). For a 

comparison, the total number of birds listed as Birds 

of Conservation Concern for Region 6 and Bird Conservation Region 19 include 43 and 16 breeding species, respectively. Based on available published 

information on how climate affects bird breeding in 

the region, most nesting activities begin in April and 

extend to August. But, bird use and timing of different breeding events vary within, and among, community types. Because management of wooded 

habitat is a current topic of interest in considering 

alternatives, it is important to note that many nesting bird species associated with wooded habitat on 

the refuge are generalists that have not exhibited 

population declines and may occur in more than one 

habitat type or have benefited from the expansion of 

urban and residential areas or constructed habitats 

like bridges, nest boxes, and farmland.

The presence of upland grassland passerines on 

Quivira Refuge is often overshadowed by the more 

easily identifiable and popular wetland-associated 

birds. However, many of these species are adversely 

affected by increasing woody vegetation, and refuge 

management has traditionally struggled with successfully reducing trees and shrubs to levels more 

characteristic of natural prairie. Some of the more 

common native passerines that characteristically 

breed on the refuge include: upland sandpiper, both 

eastern and western meadowlark, bobolink, dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow, field sparrow, lark sparrow, and brown-headed cowbird.

Many of the species associated with woodlands on 

refuge lands have benefited from human modifications to the landscape (table 7).

Table 7. Observed woodland bird use at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Bird species

Woodland units

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

wood duck X 1

wild turkey X X 2

great blue heron X 1

green heron X 1

yellow-crowned night-heron X 1

Mississippi kite X 1

bald eagle X 1

Cooper’s hawk X 1

red-tailed hawk X X 2

American kestrel X 1

mourning dove X 1

yellow-billed cuckoo X X X X X 5

eastern screech owl X X X X 4

great horned owl X X X X 4

barred owl X X X 3

chuck-will’s widow X 1

chimney swift X 1

red-headed woodpecker X 1

red-bellied woodpecker X X X X X 5

downy woodpecker X X X X X X X 7
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 43 

Table 7. Observed woodland bird use at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Bird species

Woodland units

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

hairy woodpecker X X X X X 5

northern flicker X X X X 4

eastern wood-pewee X X X X 4

great crested flycatcher X X X X X X X X X X 10

western kingbird X 1

eastern kingbird X 1

Bell’s vireo X 1

warbling vireo X X X X X X X X 8

red-eyed vireo X X X 3

blue jay X X X 3

American crow X 1

black-capped chickadee X X X 3

white-breasted nuthatch X X X X 4

Carolina wren X X X 3

house wren X X X X X X X X X 9

blue-gray gnatcatcher X X X X X X X 7

eastern bluebird X X X X X X 6

American robin X X X X X 5

gray catbird X 1

northern mockingbird X 1

brown thrasher X X X X X 5

yellow warbler X X X X X X 6

field sparrow X X 2

Northern cardinal X X X X X X X X X X 10

indigo bunting X X X X X 5

common grackle X 1

orchard oriole X X X 3

Baltimore oriole X X X X X X X 7

American goldfinch X X X 3

Total species 21 24 4 11 15 7 8 15 29 7 7 18 49

Egrets and Ibis 

SWSFU/nahuba LlehcaR
44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Mammals

There are many information gaps about mammal 

populations and habitat use on the refuge. However, 

casual observations, limited refuge studies, and available literature were used to develop a refuge species 

list—which may be found in appendix G—and to gain 

knowledge of refuge habitat–mammalian community 

relationships. For example, while small mammals are 

widely known as an important prey base for many 

birds characteristic of the prairie, certain species 

have unique associations with open, sandy environments, such as the plains pocket gopher, eastern 

mole, plains pocket mouse, and Ord’s kangaroo rat.

Prairie dogs are well-known associates of Great 

Plains grasslands, especially in shortgrass and 

mixed-grass prairie, and there are two prairie dog 

towns on Quivira Refuge (figure 11). The expansion 

of prairie dog towns on the refuge is limited by the 

high ground water table. Roads, canals, and other 

artificial infrastructure factors likely influence 

ground water conditions in certain areas of the refuge, thereby restricting the prairie dog colonies to an 

area that is likely smaller than what occurred 

historically.

There are various species associated with habitat 

in and around wetlands, such as beaver and muskrat. 

The least and short-tailed shrew are often found in 

mesic, or lowland, prairie here. With increasing coverage of woody vegetation, it is likely that the mammal community has shifted from what historically 

occurred in this area. The nine-banded armadillo is 

one obvious addition since refuge establishment, 

though the population seems to be low. The various 

potential effects to the sand prairie system resulting 

from mammalian community shifts are largely 

unknown, but it is presumed that supporting species 

characteristic of this unique environment would also 

promote important functions, such as soil disturbance, plant dispersal, burrow production as habitat 

for various wildlife, and food web interactions.

In the early to mid-1800s, deer in Kansas generally occurred along wooded parts of streams and in 

large, timbered areas in the eastern part of the State 

(Sexson et al. 1985a). Deer were considered extirpated in Kansas in 1904, and were still largely absent 

in 1933. By refuge establishment in the mid-1950s, it 

was estimated that there were easily less than 20 

deer in the area of the refuge. In other words, it was 

an extremely rare event, and exciting, to see a deer 

on refuge lands in the mid-1950s. Since refuge establishment, legal harvest of deer has not been permitted on the refuge. In 1960, it was noted that, “An 

occasional white-tailed deer was seen on the refuge 

area, deer observations were becoming more frequent, and that the manager saw three deer between 

January and April.” (from refuge narrative on file at 

the refuge). By 1971, deer sightings were described 

as common, and about 100 deer were estimated to be 

using the refuge area during the summer months, 

with a buck-to-doe ratio of 1:3. By 1980, deer were 

described as being “frequently seen throughout the 

refuge” (from refuge narratives on file at the refuge). 

Results of a statewide, 1984–1985, landowner deer 

survey showed deer populations were increasing 

throughout Kansas (Sexson et al. 1985b). Results of 

spotlight surveys conducted on Quivira Refuge 

between 1989 and 2005 found continued, substantial 

increases in the deer population (Althoff et al. 2006). 

While hunting was occurring on private lands next to 

the refuge, the numbers of deer counted during the 

prerifle season were not greater when compared to 

numbers counted during rifle season and after. No 

data were collected that could be used to definitively 

explain the results. Researchers noted evident 

browse lines in wooded areas and concurrent declines 

in the percentage of does with twins, which is commonly linked to poor herd health. Recent and ongoing 

distance sampling documents extremely high deer 

densities in areas of the refuge—19 groups per 

square kilometer, or 41 individual deer per 0.39 

square mile (1 square kilometer), (Blecha et al. 2011). 

However, preliminary results of a September 2011 

assessment found sampled deer—5 bucks and 5 does 

from ages 1.5 to 7.5 years—were healthy.

Although deer numbers on the refuge at the time 

of establishment were less than 20, relatively intense 

studies of white-tailed deer have occurred on the refuge in recent years because of their increasing population. Among many findings, some, in particular, are 

worth noting for planning purposes: (1) surveys show 

high, localized densities of both groups—19 groups 

per square kilometer—and individuals—41 deer per 

0.39 square mile (1 square kilometer), (2) doe survival 

rates are relatively high compared to bucks because 

of poaching and hunting; (3) deer prefer existing 

woodland canopy and canopy edge; (4) use of private 

land is substantially higher during fall and winter; (5) 

male deer use private land more than females during 

winter and summer; and (6) during winter, male deer 

are in closer proximity with other males, in comparison to female-to-male or female-to-female associations, (Blecha et al. 2011).

Observations and preliminary data from a deer 

health assessment conducted on Quivira Refuge in 

2011 suggest the population is now healthy. However, 

woodland canopy edge and food plots and fields 

where deer congregate could be key habitats for 

potential future chronic wasting disease transmission (Blecha et al. 2011). Method of spread is 

unknown. Frequent contact between younger males 

suggests that management actions targeting that age 

class might cause reductions in contact rates and 

lessen the chance of disease transmission. Because 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 45 

deer within the Quivira Refuge population extensively use private lands, researchers believe that 

management of deer would be most successful if conducted on both private and refuge lands.

Tiger Salamander

SWF/sen JoyrraB

Reptiles and Amphibians

Reptiles and amphibians, or herptile species, 

recently documented as occurring on Quivira Refuge 

include three toads, four frogs, one salamander, six 

turtles, two lizards, and 13 snakes; see appendix G. 

Other herptile species have reported distributions in 

the area, but have not been documented on Quivira 

Refuge. Of significance to us, many herptile species 

may spend their entire lives on refuge lands. Thus, 

our refuge management actions could substantially 

alter metapopulation dynamics —or the spatially 

separate populations—of these species.

Furthermore, changes in herptile communities 

may effectively show how our management affects 

them, depending on the objectives. For instance, 

amphibians are often used in research and monitoring programs as sensitive indicators of water quality. 

At the same time, observing herptiles is not always 

easy, because many species spend considerable time 

underground, or have active periods that vary seasonally or that occur at night.

Like many birds and mammals, several herptiles 

have associations with open prairie, loose sandy soils, 

and wet environments that are characteristic of Quivira Refuge, such as Great Plains and Woodhouse’s 

toads, yellow mud and spiny softshell turtles, lesser 

earless and prairie lizards, Graham’s crayfish snake, 

western plains garter, and eastern and western hognose snakes. The six-lined racerunner and ornate box 

turtle are particularly abundant in sand or open prairie, and the latter is commonly observed on the refuge. The western massasauga is only abundant in a 

few locations in Kansas, one, of which, is the refuge.

Fish

Management of fish communities on the refuge is 

largely constrained by the species that enter it via 

Rattlesnake Creek. Those who frequently fish the 

LSM report that carp and channel catfish are common. A published survey of Rattlesnake Creek fish 

that included areas on, and near, the refuge found 

that the upper parts of the stream with low chloride 

concentrations supported communities dominated by 

red shiners or common carp; and lower, more saline, 

parts of the stream supported communities dominated by plains killifish (Eberle et al. 1996). Fathead 

minnows and sand shiners were other common species found in samples.

Arkansas darters were documented in the area of 

the Boiling Springs. The presence of a healthy source 

population of Arkansas darters at the Boiling 

Springs area was confirmed through observations of 

many fish of different ages by local experts in 2011. 

Casual sampling of Quivira Refuge creek and spring 

habitat by local experts in 2011 also found river carpsucker, mosquito fish, black bullhead, green sunfish, 

bluegill, and one goldfish.

Other

There are 10 species of crayfish reported to occur 

in Kansas (Ghedotti 1998). The northern crayfish is 

distributed throughout Kansas and is the most commonly observed species in streams (Ghedotti 1998). A 

baseline survey of crayfish species is unknown for 

Quivira Refuge, but crayfish and their burrows are a 

common occurrence. Various birds, fish, reptiles, 

amphibians, and mammals, eat crayfish, and many of 

them also compete with crayfish for food. Crayfish 

have been reported as a potential food item of whooping cranes (Armbruster 1990) and various waterbirds (Huner 2000). Reptiles and amphibians use 

crayfish burrows as shelter (Collins et al. 2010).

Other wildlife, such as butterflies, are listed in 

appendix G. Past refuge inventories of other wildlife 

are incomplete or nonexistent, and efforts to expand 

inventories have occurred in recent years. However, 

much remains to be learned of these species and 

associations on Quivira Refuge.

Federally and State-Listed Species

Quivira Refuge habitats support Federal and 

State threatened and endangered species, Federal 

candidate species, and State Species in Need of Conservation, including those species with designated 

critical habitat on the refuge and those that most 

commonly depend on refuge resources (table 8).
46 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

State Species in Need of Conservation that occur 

in Stafford County include: black rail, black tern, 

bobolink, Chihuahuan raven, eastern and western 

hognose snake, ferruginous hawk, glossy snake, 

golden eagle, long-billed curlew, mountain plover, 

short-eared owl, southern bog lemming, and whippoorwill. In general, habitat conditions on Quivira 

Refuge should be suitable for most of these species, 

though several are not known to regularly use the 

area.

The KDWPT (2011) periodically updates descriptions and State distributions of species that are State 

listed or are of management concern. Information on 

status and occurrence of these species on the refuge 

are available in appendix G. Additional information is 

available on listed species and associated information 

for Stafford County (FWS 2012c, KDWPT 2011).

Table 8. Threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern, Stafford County, Kansas.

Species Federal status State status

Whooping crane* endangered (CH) endangered (CH)

Interior least 

tern* endangered endangered (CH)

Eskimo curlew endangered endangered

Piping plover threatened threatened (CH)

Arkansas darter 

*

Federal candidate species threatened (CH)

Lesser prairiechickenFederal candidate species

Sprague’s pipit Federal candidate species

Western snowy 

plover * threatened (CH)

Eastern spotted 

skunk threatened

Plains minnow threatened

* Those species that most commonly depend on refuge 

resources 

CH indicates species with designated critical habitat on Quivira Refuge lands.

3.3 Management Tools

We use prescribed treatments to manage habitat 

primarily to promote the long-term sustainability of 

native wildlife and their associated ecosystems.

Native prairie vegetation and wildlife of the Great 

Plains evolved with periodic ecological disturbances 

from herbivory in the form of grazing, fire, flooding, 

drought, wind, ice, and other natural forces. In other 

words, long-term ecosystem sustainability is dependent on periodic disturbance. Landscapes, increasingly, have not incurred their characteristic, 

historical disturbances largely because land uses 

have been altered and concerns of human safety have 

arisen as human populations have grown. For example, wildfires generally do not grow large and burn 

across millions of acres of prairie, huge herds of bison 

do not migrate across the plains, and streamflow 

peaks and lows are relatively less dynamic.

A primary purpose of management uses on refuges is to conduct strategies that produce effects 

similar to historical disturbances to support, or 

restore, ecosystems. Quivira Refuge uses various 

management strategies to accomplish goals and 

objectives that promote a diverse plant community 

dominated by native vegetation that supports many 

different migratory and resident wildlife species. 

Management uses carried out in recent years include 

combinations of rest; water management; prescribed 

grazing and fire; mechanical treatments such as 

mowing, haying, farming, or tree cutting; and chemical use for control of exotic or invasive species (FWS 

1994).

But, human-caused landscape changes and our 

management affect how uses are carried out. For 

example, some disturbance types are used more frequently than what occurred historically to control 

invasive plants or nonnative plants that have different tolerance thresholds than native species. Flooding is highly controlled on the refuge to regularly 

provide required resources for waterbirds and other 

wildlife, and wetlands have been created and altered. 

Brief overviews of primary refuge management uses 

are provided below.

Rest

For planning purposes, rest is a product of management decisions related to disturbance frequencies. 

In this case, we use this term to refer to the time 

when we choose not to graze, flood, drain, burn, or 

otherwise directly affect an area using an active form 

of management. It is important to recognize rest as a 

management use because community responses to 

prairie stressors, such as grazing, burning, and climate, are inherently variable in space and over time 

(Helzer 2010). Thus, management actions may produce changes in communities that last years, even 

during “rest,” while natural forces also continue to 

occur. As referenced throughout the document, 

allowing many years of rest from disturbance in 

Great Plains grasslands runs contrary to natural 

ecosystem processes and may lead to adverse habitat 

conditions, such as the invasion by woody species and 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 47 

an excessive accumulation of standing dead plant 

material that inhibits new plant growth.

Water Management

Water management on Quivira Refuge has been 

used to provide food and different types of habitat for 

waterbirds and other wetland-dependent wildlife 

throughout the year. Even before the refuge’s establishment, water was impounded by various duck 

clubs to promote the area’s use by waterfowl. Development of refuge infrastructure has occurred over 

decades, generally following the original refuge master plan.

Water management involves an extensive system 

of impoundments and dikes, canals, and associated 

control structures (figure 5). Maintaining water control infrastructure is essential for us to manage the 

refuge efficiently, and system operations, such as 

manipulating water levels, can be time-consuming 

and planning intensive.

Prescribed Fire

Historical prairie fires of the central Great Plains 

have been described as occurring about once every 

3–4 years in tallgrass areas and once every 5–8 years 

in mixed-grass prairie, and they ranged in size from 

less than 0.25 acre to millions of acres (Helzer 2010). 

Fire characteristics and its resulting effects are 

dependent on fuel, weather, and topographic conditions at the time and place of ignition, and, historically, there were few natural fuel breaks in the open 

prairie and no suppressions by humans. Fire influences environmental conditions, such as light, moisture, and nutrients, that affect plant competition and 

wildlife use and promotes biodiversity and health, 

such as through increased nutrient cycling, the 

reduction in the amount of residual and woody vegetation, and by decreasing the potential effects of certain insects and of certain diseases caused by 

moisture and nutrient stress.

Over the past century, aggressive wildland fire 

suppression and the lack of prescribed fire implementation in the prairie have resulted in unnaturally 

altered habitats. Fire exclusion and the substantial 

increase of agricultural land uses are two major factors that are undoubtedly responsible for the declining abundance of some wildlife species.

Prescribed fire is now used in all major habitat 

types on the refuge to achieve fire program objectives involving both hazardous fuel reduction and 

habitat management. Prescriptions require specific 

procedures that set priorities for human safety, and, 

therefore, particular environmental and fire-behavior 

parameters regulate when burning may, or may not, 

occur to accomplish habitat objectives. In recent 

years, prescribed fire has been conducted on about a 

third of the refuge each year. There are 15 predefined fire treatment units, several, of which, may 

be further subdivided into 2–4 smaller units, using 

natural and constructed features to decide boundaries, such as water units and roads. For individual 

prescribed burns, boundaries may also be adjusted 

based on changing conditions, such as moisture, vegetation, and adjacent treated areas, to meet our refuge management objectives and to maximize safety 

and efficiency considerations associated with the 

prescription.

Because most of the available fuel within the refuge is grass, fires consume the fuel and go out 

quickly. Overall, fuel load varies by soil type and disturbance history, often ranging from 2,500 to at least 

8,000 pounds per acre. Grass and forb responses vary 

because of the time of year, intensity, and duration of 

the fire, but they most often reestablish in place of 

woody vegetation. Other fuel types are present on 

the refuge, but they are seldom contiguous enough to 

be the primary carrier of fire. Between mid-October 

and mid-May, fuel in the form of dead grass and 

marsh vegetation is present in amounts that are 

greater than 2 tons per acre, or 4,000 pounds per 

acre. While fire generally results in little wildlife 

mortality, a large wildfire during drought conditions 

or occurring late in the growing season could reduce 

cover and forage availability for wildlife to the point 

that would increase mortality, especially if cover and 

forage are limited in the larger landscape, a situation 

that seldom occurs. All wildfires occurring on the 

refuge are now suppressed.

Grazing

Prescribed grazing on Quivira Refuge, usually 

involving cattle, consists of the clipping and removal 

of plant parts and soil disturbance caused by associated hoof action. As with other treatments, the main 

parts of grazing are timing and intensity. Its effects 

vary by timing in relation to climate influences on 

plants, the frequency and duration that plants are 

exposed to grazing, the number and type of livestock 

involved, environmental conditions, management history of the site, and infrastructure such as fence configuration and the distribution of water sources.

Specific plans are developed for each grazed area 

of the refuge, but they may change annually, or more 

frequently, depending on conditions. Traditionally, 

grazing occurs on the refuge between April and Sep-
48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

tember or October, but it may occur earlier to control 

cattail growth or cheatgrass. Maintenance grazing 

periods typically last 5–7 consecutive days. More 

intensive, restoration grazing may occur onsite, such 

as when controlling large, dense stands of cattail.

Mechanical Treatments

A variety of mechanical treatments are used on 

Quivira Refuge. 

Haying, Mowing, Tree cutting

These management uses are used to remove the 

buildup of residual vegetation in grasslands and wetlands or to manage the coverage of invasive woody 

vegetation. As with other mechanical activities, guidance and policy is appropriately followed to help avoid 

disturbing breeding birds. Timing and other considerations are made to encourage our desired plant 

species and habitat conditions and to discourage 

undesirable plant species.

Farming, such as Plowing, Disking, 

Planting, and Harvesting, and Restoration 

Activities

Many acres on the refuge were farmed before its 

establishment. Afterward, farming on poorer soils 

was retired, and those acres were replanted with 

native seed. In the 1960s, during the time of refuge 

development, there were about 2,500 acres under 

cultivation on the refuge to primarily provide supplemental grains and browse foods for migrating waterfowl. For decades, cropland management consisted of 

cooperative farmers conducting a winter wheat–

milo–fallow crop rotation using strips 50–1,000 feet 

wide. Traditionally, a quarter-to-one-third of the 

total crop shares have been either sold or left in the 

field as the refuge crop shares. Even in the 1980s, it 

was estimated that refuge grain fields provided less 

than 10 percent of foods needed to support waterfowl 

use and that surrounding lands were a much greater 

source of grain and browse foods for wildlife.

There are 885.24 acres of refuge lands dryland 

farmed through cooperative agreements with local 

farmers. Acreage of farmed land on the refuge has 

been gradually decreasing, partly because of the low 

productivity of crops. Also, since establishment, 

there has been a shift in the understanding and need 

of refuge crops to supplement wildlife food resources. 

As refuge lands are retired from farming, management starts activities, such as the treatment of noxious weeds and the seeding of desired plants, to 

encourage the restoration of native vegetation. 

Genetically modified crops have never been used on 

the refuge, but current policy allows for the future 

use of such crops to reestablish native plants.

Disking of Wetlands

Disking is sometimes used in dry wetlands to 

stimulate the germination and growth of desired 

plants during subsequent flooding, or to manage 

undesirable conditions, such as cattail growth.

Chemical Treatments

The application of chemicals is used to effectively 

manage undesirable plants, such as exotic, noxious 

weeds. Use of chemicals on the refuge follows 

required guidance and policy with an approved integrated pest management plan and with annual pesticide use proposals that provide specific guidance on 

the use of herbicides.

3.4 Human History and Cultural 

Resources

This section describes what is known about the 

human history and cultural resources of the refuge.

Prehistoric Resources

Available archaeological studies used certain 

methods to date artifacts that suggest native people 

first occupied the south-central Kansas region 10,000 

to 12,000 years before the present (Buller 1976). 

These people had a highly mobile lifestyle that 

depended largely on big game hunting. About 9,000 

years before the present, regional patterns of human 

use began to change in response to regional climate 

fluctuations and increasing populations of people. 

Archaeological evidence suggests that these changes 

included more localized, less mobile, population centers and a greater diversity of tools.

Prehistoric Occupation

Certain dating methods suggest that by about 

3,000 years before the present, larger campsites that 
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 49 

received repeated use occurred along floodplains of 

the Arkansas River and, presumably, Rattlesnake 

Creek. Inhabitants of the area collected wild plants, 

hunted large and small animals, and created chipped 

and ground tools. Human populations in south-central Kansas continued to increase and, by about 2,000 

years before the present, small villages were established, and there is evidence that early agriculture 

was present along some waterways.

Protohistoric and Historic Native 

Americans

When the Spanish explorer Don Francisco 

Vasquez de Coronado reached the region in 1541, several Native American groups were present in central 

Kansas, including the Pawnee, Wichita, Plains 

Apache, Kansa, Kiowa, and Osage (Grajeda 1976, 

Wedel 1942). Throughout recorded early history, 

native people were attracted to the Quivira Refuge 

region because of the presence of salt, camp sites on 

higher elevation sandhills and uplands, and abundant 

wildlife. Although many tribes moved in and out of 

the region, the influx of European settlers was prevalent by the mid-1800s and, by the late 1870s, most 

tribes had been relocated to Oklahoma.

A member of the Wichita Tribe posing for famed photographer Edward S. Curtis sometime around 1927.

ssergnof Cy orarbiL

Historic Euro-Americans

The Spanish word “Quivira” is a form of the 

Native American name “Kirikuru,” which is what 

local people called themselves when Coronado visited 

the region in search of the fabled Seven Cities of 

Cibola. After following the course of what is now the 

Arkansas River into the central Great Plains, the 

Coronado expedition spent several months encamped 

with the native peoples in a semipermanent village. 

The precise location of this village is not known, but 

it is believed to be northeast of the present-day Quivira Refuge. Thereafter, only a few trappers and 
50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

explorers visited the area until the mid-1800s (Dolin 

2010).

The first European definitively known to visit the 

Great Bend region of Kansas after Coronado was the 

French explorer Etienne de Bourgmont in 1724. 

Western explorers and fur trapping expeditions traveled through the Great Bend region in the mid- and 

late 1800s, and the Santa Fe Trail was established 

within 12 miles of the current refuge boundary (Cutler 1883, Blackmar 2002).

From May through July 1843, Captain Nathan 

Boone led an expedition of Army dragoons from Fort 

Gibson, Oklahoma. The route looped through southcentral Kansas, and mentioned several prominent 

landmarks, including Salt Creek, a large salt lake, 

and the Arkansas River. Boone’s journal provides a 

decent glimpse of the landscape from that period, 

including descriptions of the area both near, and 

within, present-day Quivira Refuge, including the 

following excerpts:

■ June 10th: “after travelling 5 miles S.W. 

came to the Arkansas river at a point where 

for miles up and down, not a tree was growing.” The crossing is believed to be near 

present-day Alden.

■ June 11th: “Their first 4 miles were through 

Sand hills or drifting sand and in one place, 

a lake near a mile long of salt water.” This is 

thought to be the BSM.

■ June 11th: “Near 200 elk seen within 10 

miles of camp and plenty of buffalo S.W. 

within 5 miles beyond a range of sand hills.” 

The location of this camp is estimated to be 

directly north of present-day Quivira Refuge along the Arkansas River.

■ June 22nd: “Started at 7 A.M. and marched 

15 miles S. 3o W. and en-camped on open 

prairie on the head of the Creek, supposed 

to be the creek [a branch of present-day 

Rattlesnake Creek] on which we encamped 

on the 4th of June. No timber in sight since 

we left the river. Saw some buffalo, and 

passed some of the largest buffalo roads 

bearing to the E.S.E. probably to the salt in 

that region.”

A drawing by Daniel A. Jenks depicts his party’s 

encampent on the Arkansas River in 1859 near presentday Great Bend, Kansas.

ssergnof Cy orarbiL

History

The General Land Survey was conducted in this 

region in 1871. The following year, surveyors for the 

Santa Fe Railroad explored and documented a wide 

swath across Kansas, describing every other section 

of land along their route. Detail can often be found in 

the journals, field notes, and maps from both surveys. 

Below are excerpts from the Railroad Survey:

■ April, 1872; section 33, T21S, R11W [For all 

but the S.E. 1/4, this is the BSM.] “embraces 

an area of some five Sec and has the appearance of a shallow lakebed—the top soil all 

being gone makes it about a foot lower than 

the adjacent land—Its surface to the subsoil 

is a light or whitish color and seems to be 

impregnated with alkali.”

■ Section 17, T22S, R11W [Entire section, 2 

miles west of what is now the Migrants Mile 

area] “All pure sand without any vegetation. 

All hills and hollows. Constantly drifting. 

Worthless.” It is important to note that, for 

the survey, land was being evaluated for 

farming, grazing, or other uses.

■ E 1/2, section 13, T22S, R11W [Just southeast of present-day Migrants Mile]. “Dog 

village over most of both quarters.”

■ E 1/2, section 1, T23, R11W [East half of the 

section on which the present-day headquarters is located] “Surface mostly covered 

with drifting sand. In some small basins, 

good grass is found.”

The first European settlement in Stafford County 

occurred in the 1860s, and, by 1876, a few people 

located near the BSM on Quivira Refuge (Cutler 

1883, Ogle and Company 1904, Steele 1953). A company was organized for the purpose of manufactur-
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 51 

ing salt, which was soon found to be unprofitable, and 

the homesteaders began using the marshes and adjacent grasslands for pasture, hayland, and cattle production (Sheridan 1956). The artesian wells, seeps, 

and springs near the BSM were relished by people in 

the area and believed to have health benefits. Early 

settler accounts from the region commonly speak of 

the abundance and desirability of wild haylands next 

to the BSM basin (Hay 1890). By the early 1900s, 

some upland areas at Quivira Refuge had been converted to small grain agriculture and some native 

prairies were modified with the introduction of nonnative species.

Besides agriculture expansion in the Quivira Refuge area, the saltmarshes were used for commercial 

and recreational waterfowl hunting after the turn of 

the 20th century. Private hunting clubs, including the 

Hutchinson Gun and Hunting Club, Stafford Gun 

Club, Ellinwood Club, Park Smith Club and the 

McGuire Club either owned or leased much of the 

marsh lands, and, in the late 1920s or early 1930s, 

they dug a permanent ditch to connect, and divert, 

water from Rattlesnake Creek to the LSM. Other 

wetland areas 

along Rattlesnake 

Creek were also 

partly impounded 

by hunting clubs 

with small dikes 

and ditches, such 

as the 16-acre 

Darrynane Lake 

(Unit 24) 

impoundment.

By the 1930s, 

many upland 

areas on, and 

next to, Quivira 

Refuge had been 

converted to 

cropland and pasture. By 1954, 

about 4,266 acres 

of what is now 

Quivira Refuge 

were in agricultural production (figure 9).

This barn is on George Spangerberger’s farmstead located in South Hutchison, Kansas.

ssergnof Cy orarbiL

George Spangerberger’s Privy

ssergnof Cy orarbiL
52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

3.5 Special Management Areas

We established the Santana Research Natural 

Area on Quivira Refuge in 1967 to preserve 347 acres 

of native bluestem prairie—classified as K–74, Bluestem Prairie—which includes 15 acres of a centuryold cottonwood timber claim. Research natural areas 

are intended to represent the full array of North 

American ecosystems with their biological communities, habitats, natural phenomena, and geological and 

hydrological formations. As with designated Wilderness Areas, natural processes are allowed to predominate without human intervention.

Under certain circumstances, deliberate manipulation may be used to support the unique features for 

which a research natural area was established. This 

is the case with Santana Research Natural Area, as 

the 1984 management plan for the area described a 

current and future need to control woody vegetation, 

specifically listing cottonwood, black willow, Russian 

olive, sand plum, dogwood, and skunkbush as potential invading species. Our activities to support the 

habitat and biological communities here include prescribed fire, grazing, mowing, and cutting woody 

plants to prevent their spread.

Activities such as hiking, birdwatching, hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, and photography are 

permissible, but not mandated, in research natural 

areas. These special areas also may be closed to all 

public use if such use is found to be incompatible with 

primary refuge purposes. The Santana Research 

Natural Area on Quivira Refuge is open to the public 

but is not within the hunting area, and no fishing 

opportunities are available. Because our intent is to 

not alter or disrupt the characteristic bluestem 

grasslands found here, no trails or facilities have 

been, or will be, established in the area.

3.6 Visitor Services

Visitors can enjoy a variety of wildlife-dependent 

activities, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. Most who come use the 14-mile auto 

tour route. Brochures containing area maps, public 

use regulations, bird species, and general information 

are available. Our refuge office is open Monday–Friday, 7:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m. The auto tour route and the 

rest of the refuge are open from 1 and one-half hours 

before dawn to 1 and one-half hours after dusk, 

except during hunting season when hunters are 

allowed a reasonable amount of time to access hunting areas before dawn and to leave after dusk.

No fees or registration are required for visiting 

the refuge. There are many access roads, and several 

county and township roads pass through the refuge. 

Therefore, attempts to estimate visitation present a 

challenge for our refuge staff. Visitors are asked to 

sign the guest register at the headquarters visitor 

center, but registration is not mandatory. Nonhunting use is estimated each year based on the guest 

register, head counts of education and interpretation 

groups, and estimates of visitors on the tour route 

during various seasons. Current annual visitation is 

estimated to be 65,000.

Visitors also make use of educational and interpretive activities in the classrooms and auditorium at 

the GPNC’s large visitor center building as well as on 

the adjacent grounds.

Traditional tribal uses are also allowed on the refuge with a special use permit.

Hunting

Currently, about 8,062 of the refuge’s 22,135 acres 

are within the hunting area. Hunting is permitted for 

ducks, geese, quail, pheasant, squirrel, rabbit, snipe, 

and rail. Hunting is not allowed for deer, turkey, or 

cranes. Hunting season runs from September 1 to 

February 28, with specific seasons within this period 

coinciding with State seasons. An accessible hunting 

blind is available by reservation in Unit 30.

Hunting rules, such as licensing needs and daily 

possession limits, follow applicable Federal and State 

regulations. Refuge-specific regulations include:

■ Persons possessing, transporting, or carrying firearms on national wildlife refuge 

lands must comply with all provisions of 

State and local law. Persons may only use, 

or discharge, firearms in accordance with 

refuge regulations—50 CFR 27.42 and specific refuge regulations in 50 CFR Part 32. 

Discharge of a firearm is prohibited for any 

reason other than for the taking of game 

animals in legal hunting areas.

■ Hunting is not permitted outside of the public hunting areas or from across roads, 

trails, or parking areas.

■ Vehicle travel and parking is restricted to 

roads, pullouts, and parking areas.

■ Steel shot, bismuth, or other nontoxic shot is 

required in all gauges when hunting any 

game on the refuge. The possession of lead 

shot in the field is prohibited.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 53 

■ Trapping and baiting are prohibited.

■ Retrieving game from areas closed to hunting is prohibited.

■ The use of dogs for hunting and retrieving is 

encouraged. Dogs and other pets must be 

under their owners’ control. From March 1 

through August 31, all dogs and other pets 

must be leashed.

■ Portable devices or temporary blinds of natural vegetation are permitted, though we 

encourage preventing the spread of nonnative invasive vegetation. Permanent blinds 

or pits may not be constructed. All equipment and blinds must be removed daily.

Many lands next to, or near, the refuge boundary 

are leased for private hunting. Thus, hunting activities are quite prevalent in the area.

Hunting on the refuge will expand and change as 

a result of this CCP, see chapter 4 for details.

Fishing

Fishing is allowed on all refuge waters in accordance with State fishing regulations, however, access 

is generally restricted to the LSM, the Kids’ Fishing 

Pond, and a few points on Rattlesnake Creek. Accessible fishing piers are located at the north end of the 

LSM and at the Kids’ Fishing Pond. The Kids’ Fishing Pond is open for kids up to 14 years, although 

adults may fish there if they are accompanying a 

youth. Only one fish may be taken per person per day. 

Fish species listed in the State fishing regulations 

may be taken. All other wildlife species, including 

turtles, frogs, and snakes are protected and may not 

be disturbed or removed from the refuge. Fishing 

with trotlines and setlines is prohibited. The use of 

seines for taking bait is not permitted. Fishing from 

water control structures and bridges, and the use of 

live bait is prohibited.

Fishing is also allowed at Chisholm Creek Park 

near the GPNC, managed and maintained by the City 

of Wichita.

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

Quivira Refuge is a premiere birdwatching site in 

Kansas, and one of the top sites in North America. 

Birders travel to the refuge from across Kansas, as 

well as the United States, and many return to Quivira Refuge on a regular basis. Peak birder visitation 

usually coincides with the peak shorebird and waterfowl migration seasons in the spring and fall.

Besides birders, Quivira Refuge is popular with 

more general wildlife observers who visit to view 

deer, beaver, bald eagles, and the considerable 

amount of geese, ducks, and cranes that regularly 

visit during the same period.

The 40-plus miles of public roads within, or alongside, refuge boundaries include a 14-mile tour road 

that features a 4-mile Wildlife Drive through the 

BSM. There is an accessible observation tower, 

equipped with a spotting scope and seating, at the 

LSM, and a similar scope and seating are located at a 

viewpoint along the Wildlife Drive. Photo blinds, 

available on a first-come, first-served basis, are 

located at the LSM and on the Migrants Mile Trail. 

Horseback riding and bicycling on established roads, 

not hiking trails, are also allowed along with dogs 

that are under their owner’s control and that are 

leashed during the nesting season of April 1 to 

August 15. 

A large percentage of visiting birders and general 

wildlife enthusiasts are also photographers. Many 

professional and experienced photographers use the 

refuge on a regular basis.

Environmental Education

Whereas general school field trips formed most 

school visits in the past, educational programs have 

been increasingly focused on topics that help schools 

and other educational organizations by matching 

State curriculum-based standards. Several curricula 

have been developed and used for topics such as bird 

migration, prairie studies, animal communication, 

and shorebirds. New curricula are continually under 

development to offer a variety of subjects to a wider 

spectrum of grade levels.

Programs are presented either at the refuge or at 

schools. For onsite visits, Quivira opened a remodeled and modernized environmental education classroom in 2010 to better accommodate and focus on 

children’s education. The facility, designed to hold a 

class of up to 45 persons, has built-in audiovisual 

equipment and a large variety of classroom supplies. 

It serves as the refuge’s primary indoor class space, 

but also as a center for outdoor education activities 

associated with the nearby Migrants Mile Trail. As 

an alternate, or added, educational space, the headquarters’ conference room, is occasionally used. Virtual geocaching is also allowed to enhance 

environmental education on the refuge.
54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

The emphasis at the GPNC is on providing an 

opportunity for people of all ages to learn about the 

natural resources of the Great Plains, to develop an 

appreciation of the beauty and value of this region, 

and to become stewards of the natural resources. 

Environmental education, a learning process that 

increases knowledge and awareness about the environment and fosters attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and take 

responsible action, is one tool used with school 

groups to achieve our stated goals. On average, the 

GPNC’s staff conducts nearly 1,800 presentations and 

programs to school groups; community organizations, 

such as civic, church, and Scouting groups; organized 

recreation groups from places like city recreation 

centers and day camps for latchkey children; and 

casual visitors. Staff provides educational programs 

both on, and off, site; and programs are conducted 

year round. With a variety of wildlife available for 

their use under permit, staff is able to use live animals to help make connections with their audiences.

The Butterfly Blossoms Pathway native prairie wildflower interpretive trail at Quivira Refuge was made possible 

through a partnership with The Friends of Quivira.

renreh Wcti© M

Interpretation

We lack a current refuge visitor services plan and 

a primary interpretive theme to provide guidance for 

our refuge management and staff. However, interpretation has been a vital part of Quivira Refuge’s 

operations for many years. Primary themes have 

included birds and bird migration, refuge management, fire management, and endangered species. The 

primary method to present interpretive information 

to the public is via displays and signs, programs and 

workshops, brochures, and by Web and other social 

media. Interpretive displays are available at the 

headquarters. Topics in permanent displays include 

bird migration, saltmarshes, Quivira Refuge area 

history, endangered species, and refuge habitats. 

Other displays, either temporary or permanent, are 

added to augment knowledge about our refuge management, flora, and fauna. Displays are also present 

along the refuge tour road. Nine information kiosks 

are situated along the route, with maps and information about refuge habitats and hunting. The tour road 

also features eight different wayside exhibits featuring refuge wildlife and management activities. In 

addition, the Migrants Mile Trail, Quivira Refuge’s 

premier hiking trail, has many interpretive signs 

along its length featuring wildlife and wildlife 

habitat.

Our refuge staff presents interpretive programs 

and workshops whenever possible, either by request 

or by scheduling through area schools or community 

organizations; see the outreach section in this chapter for more details. These are topic-oriented talks, 

slide shows, or guided walks and auto tours.

Both our refuge-general brochure and our bird 

checklist were revised and reprinted in 2011. Brochures about other topics, such as whooping cranes, 

common wildlife, and grasses have also been devel-
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 55 

oped and printed. Our headquarters also has a rack 

featuring brochures of other nearby sites of interest, 

as well as other Service topics.

Quivira Refuge’s Web site, in the content management system as of 2012, has long been popular as a 

source of information. Quivira Refuge was one of the 

first sites in the content management system. The 

current Web site has become diverse and detailed, 

offering interpretive information about subjects such 

as birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and refuge habitats. Special features include separate pages 

dedicated to providing a variety of information about 

the endangered whooping crane, climate influences 

on refuge plants, and changes in the refuge environment throughout the year. Especially popular are the 

listings of recent bird observations and road conditions. During the most recently recorded period, 

March 2010 through February 2011, Quivira Refuge’s 

Web site had 38,185 total visitors and 983,667 total 

visitor hits. Also during this period, there was an 

average of 107 visitors to the Web site per day.

In 2011, Quivira Refuge also began using Facebook and Flickr to showcase refuge wildlife, wildlife 

management, and current happenings; see the outreach section in this chapter for more detail.

Other Uses

Quivira has more than 2 miles of supported hiking 

trails, including the mile-long Migrants Mile Trail, 

which is a popular destination. Other activities that 

have been found to be compatible with the priorities 

of the refuge include bicycling and horseback riding 

only on established roads and, depending on the time 

of the year, bringing dogs on leashes. A national and 

well-publicized bicycling route passes through the 

center of the refuge on NE. 140th Street.

Activities that are prohibited on the refuge 

because of conflicts with wildlife include camping, 

boating, picnicking, canoeing, fires, the use of allterrain vehicles, and the collecting of plant, animal, 

mineral, or any other natural materials.

See appendix B for more details. 

Special Events

Annual events, such as Kids’ Fishing Day in June, 

Monarch Mania in September, and Refuge Week Celebration in October, are held by refuge staff with the 

support of The Friends of Quivira. The Friends of 

Quivira and Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center are reciprocal partners and, as such, support each 

other’s special events as needed and as time 

permits.

Public Outreach

Our mission—that of the Refuge System and Quivira Refuge—is an important focus topic for the refuge’s environmental and interpretive programs and 

is also a priority for all outreach activities. It is a goal 

for all programs to include at least basic information 

on these missions. Programs that focus on refuge 

management are regularly given to area communities through civic organizations, churches, public 

libraries, and schools. Other than these programs, 

the primary outlets for outreach include the Kansas 

State Fair, refuge special events, and the Web and 

other social, or online, media.

Quivira Refuge is the lead partner in the operation of our booth at the annual Kansas State Fair in 

nearby Hutchinson, Kansas. The primary purpose of 

the booth is to teach others about our mission, to 

showcase Kansas refuges, and to educate about various wildlife-oriented topics and programs, our Ecological Services Division, Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife (Partners), and other operations. Our staff 

from Quivira Refuge and other offices in the State 

are on hand to help and educate fair visitors during 

the 10-day event.

Several special events are held annually, all in 

partnership with the Friends of Quivira. Some, such 

as Kids’ Fishing Day in June and Monarch Mania in 

September, each have their own recurring annual 

themes, such as fish for the fishing day and butterflies for the monarch day, and often involve a combination of activities, education, and, in some cases, 

refreshments for the participants. Others, such as the 

Great Migration Rally in May and the Refuge Week 

Celebration in October, feature topics and activities 

that vary each year.

Quivira Refuge’s Web site, updated several times 

a week, is also an important outlet for public information about the refuge’s mission and objectives. Regular features include new happenings around the 

refuge, such as improvements, construction, and 

management; road conditions; schedules for special 

events; and bird observations. The Web site also has 

hunting and fishing regulations and bird count tallies. 

Refuge staff also regularly reports similar information on its official Facebook site, which is updated 

several times a week. Unusual bird observations, 

whooping crane sightings, and road conditions are 

also posted on the Kansas Listserv, used by many 

birders statewide.
56 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

3.7 Partnerships

Quivira Refuge and the GPNC collaborate with 

educational, regulatory, and research institutions 

that support refuge goals and objectives. Our refuge 

has formal and informal partnerships with Fort Hays 

State University, Sterling College, Kansas State University, Emporia State University, Friends University, Wichita State University, and others to work on 

research and educational projects. These working 

relationships involve, among other things, offering 

summer classes for educators to obtain continuing 

education credits, offering board memberships for 

the GPNC, and offering students working opportunities through AmeriCorps or internships.

The refuge is part of the Rattlesnake Creek Partnership, which seeks to resolve water rights issues in 

Groundwater Management District 5. The refuge 

partners with the KDWPT on a variety of wildliferelated projects, including avian influenza surveillance, chronic wasting disease and deer health 

programs, fish stocking, breeding shorebird surveys, 

and educational and interpretive programs. Quivira 

Refuge is a member of the Wetlands and Wildlife 

National Scenic Byway’s planning committee, and 

Quivira staff regularly attends planning meetings 

about the Byway and the local Byway communities.

Partnerships with Ducks Unlimited over the 

years have resulted in many habitat improvement 

projects on the refuge, and these will continue.

Quivira Refuge staff partners with the Friends of 

Quivira to plan and present educational programs 

and annual events. The Friends of Quivira operate a 

nonprofit bookstore in the refuge visitor center.

The GPNC operates under a memorandum of 

agreement with the City of Wichita and the KDWPT. 

Together, they have partnerships with many corporate sponsors like The Coleman Company, Koch, and 

Spirit AeroSystems and with educational institutions 

like Wichita State University and Friends University. This partnership also often works informally 

with other universities and colleges to provide work 

experience for interns when available.

The GPNC is supported by the Friends of the 

Great Plains Nature Center, who operate a bookstore 

in the nature center, support educational programming at the nature center, and provide pay for six 

employees, including a full-time naturalist who presents environmental education programs in schools 

and locations throughout the Wichita metropolitan 

area. The Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center 

naturalist helps in educational programming for both 

the GPNC and Quivira Refuge.

The refuge and the GPNC are always open to 

establishing new partnerships where possible that 

help wildlife and habitat conservation. The refuge is 

looking to establish a partnership to control invasive 

species in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed, such as 

saltcedar, and a partnership with neighbors to prevent the continued encroachment of invasive woody 

species, such as eastern red cedar and Russian olive.

With the addition of a Partners biologist to the 

staff at Quivira Refuge and a new focus area that is 

comprised of Quivira Refuge and Cheyenne Bottoms, 

new partnerships should continue to be developed.

School kids from the local community learn about issues 

affecting the wildlife in their area at the Stafford County, 

Kansas, Conservation Day.

SWF/sen JoyrraB

3.8 Socioeconomic 

Environment

Quivira Refuge is open for the compatible, wildlife-dependent uses of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography. These recreational 

opportunities attract visitors and bring dollars to the 

community. Associated visitor activity, such as 

spending on food, gasoline, and overnight lodging in 

the area, provides local businesses with extra income 

and increases the local tax base. Our refuge management decisions about public uses, the expansion of 

services, and habitat improvement may either 

increase or decrease visitation to the refuge and 

affect visitor spending in the local economy.

As part of the development of this CCP, we hired 

a contractor to prepare a socioeconomic study for the 

Quivira Refuge (USGS 2012c). This study provides 

the basis for the sections that follow, including population and employment, public use of the refuge, and 

baseline economic activity.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 57 

For the purposes of an economic impact analysis, 

a region (and its economy) is typically defined as all 

counties within a 30–60 mile radius of the impact 

area. Only spending that takes place within this 

regional area is included as stimulating changes in 

economic activity. The size of the region influences 

both the amount of spending captured and the multiplier effects. Quivira Refuge is located in south-central Kansas. Most of the economic activity related to 

the refuge is located within the five-county area of 

Stafford, Rice, Reno, Barton and Pratt Counties, 

therefore, these counties compose the local economic 

region for this analysis. The Refuge is also a partner 

in the establishment and daily operations of the 

GPNC located 90 miles from the refuge. While the 

GPNC lies outside the local economic region, connections with refuge activities will be discussed.

Collectively, the 5-county area has a population of 

approximately 116,000 people and covers a total area 

of 4,431 square miles (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

Within the five-county area, the cities of Ellinwood, 

Great Bend, Hutchinson, Larned, Lyons, Pratt, Stafford, Sterling and St. John are economically significant to the refuge and, as such, are additional areas 

of focus for the regional economic setting. 

Population, Ethnicity, and 

Education

Table 9 lists population estimates and trends for 

the 5-county area and table 10 lists population estimates for the nine communities near the refuge. In 

2010, the counties accounted for approximately 4 percent of the State’s population (U.S. Census Bureau 

2010). While Kansas has experienced an increase in 

the number of residents since 2000, 4 of the counties 

have experienced a decline in residents, with only 

Pratt showing a slight, 0.1-percent increase (U. S. 

Census Bureau 2010a). Ellinwood, Larned, Sterling 

and St. John have experienced declining populations, 

with St. John showing the greatest decline, losing 

more than 20 percent of its population since 2000.

Though Kansas is expected to grow in population, 

population decline is expected to continue in all five 

of the counties surrounding the refuge (The University of Kansas Institute for Policy and Social 

Research 2012). Barton and Stafford are expected to 

show the greatest decline, losing more than 20 percent of their populations by 2040, while Pratt is 

expected to show the least decline, with an expected 

loss of 9 percent. The overall decline in population 

may be due to an aging population as well as to 

migration to more urban areas. This trend can be 

observed across many of the rural counties in Kansas 

(Wichita State University 2011).

Table 9. State and county population estimates in 

the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas.

Residents 

(2010)1

Persons 

per square 

mile (2010)1

Percent 

population 

change 

(2000–

2010)2

Kansas 2,853,118 34.9 6.8

Barton 27,674 30.9 –1.9

Pratt 9,656 13.1 0.1

Reno 64,511 51.4 –0.4

Rice 10,083 13.9 –6.3

Stafford 4,437 5.6 –7.4

Source: 1U. S. Census Bureau 2012b. 2U. S. Census Bureau 

2010a.

Table 10. Community population estimates in the 

area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas.

Residents 

(2010)1

Persons 

per 

square 

mile 

(2010)1

Percent 

population 

change 

(2000–2010)2

Ellinwood 2,131 1,966 –1.5

Great Bend 15,995 1,505 4.2

Hutchinson 42,080 1,994 3.2

Larned 4,054 1,745 –4.3

Lyons 3,739 1,736 0.2

Pratt 6,835 922 4.0

Stafford 1,159 1,233 7.8

Sterling 2,328 1,640 –11.9

St. John 1,036 575 –20.7

Source: 1U. S. Census Bureau 2012b. 2U. S. Census Bureau 

2010a.

While the percentage of the State population with 

at least a bachelor’s degree is higher than the 

national average (29.3 percent compared to 27.9 percent), each county within the 5-county area has lower 

than both the State and national averages (ranging 

from a low of 18.8 percent in Reno to a high of 22.7 

percent in Pratt). Each of the nine communities surrounding the refuge also fall below State and national 

averages, with Stafford and Lyons having the lowest 

(13.2 percent) (U. S. Census Bureau 2010a).
58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

In 2010, more than 87 percent of the population of 

Kansas self-identified as white, not of Hispanic or 

Latino origin (U. S. Census Bureau 2010a). This percent is lower than reported for each of the counties 

within the 5-county area (ranging from a low of 90.6 

percent in Barton County to a high of 96 percent in 

Pratt County). Relative to the other counties in the 

5-county area, Barton County had the largest percentage of the population who identified as Hispanic 

or Latino (13.3 percent) (U. S. Census Bureau 2012b) 

while Reno County had the highest percentage of the 

population who identified as African-American (4.1 

percent) (U. S. Census Bureau 2012b).

Regional Economic Setting

Table 11 shows the median household income, poverty, and unemployment rates for the 5-county area, 

while table 12 lists the same for communities near 

the refuge. The five counties and nine communities 

have median household incomes below both State and 

national levels. Of the counties, Barton had the highest median household income at $43,763 per year, 

while Stafford had the lowest at $39,375. Of the communities, Great Bend had the highest median household income at $42,293 per year, while Stafford had 

the lowest at $33,182 (U. S. Census Bureau 2010a).

In 2010, 12.4 percent of the Kansas population was 

living below the poverty line, compared to 13.8 percent nationally. Poverty rates within the 5-county 

area are similar to State and national averages, with 

Pratt having the lowest rate (10 percent) and Stafford having the highest (14 percent). The communities near the refuge show substantial variability, 

from 6.7 percent in Larned to nearly 20 percent in St. 

John (U. S. Census Bureau 2010a).

Table 13 shows the percent employment by sector 

within the 5-county area. The combined 5-county 

area had a total employment of more than 73,000 

individuals in 2011 (Bureau of Economic Analysis 

2012). Farm employment accounted for nearly 6 percent of the workforce. The highest percentage of total 

Table 11. State income, unemployment, and poverty statistics and county statistics in the area around Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Median 

household 

income (2010)

 Percentage of 

individuals below 

poverty (2010)

Percentage 

unemployed 

(2010)

Change in percent 

unemployed 

(2000–2010)

Kansas $49,424 12.4 4.1 1.3

Barton $43,763 12.2 3.6 0.1

Pratt $43,583 10.0 2.2 –0.8

Reno $41,431 13.1 3.0 0.1

Rice $43,164 13.7 4.2 0.6

Stafford $39,375 14.0 2.7 0.6

Source: U. S. Census Bureau 2010a.

Table 12. Community income, unemployment and poverty statistics in the area around Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Median household 

income (2010)

Percentage of 

individuals below 

poverty (2010)

Percentage 

unemployed (2010)

Change in percent 

unemployed 

(2000–2010)

Ellinwood $39,444 7.7 3.0 0.9

Great Bend $42,293 13.7 3.9 1.3

Hutchinson $38,880 15.7 3.2 –0.3

Larned $37,235 6.7 2.8 0.8

Lyons $41,552 15.7 3.7 1.5

Pratt $39,142 11.1 2.0 0.1

Stafford $33,182 15.2 2.5 0.5

Sterling $36,192 14.4 6.3 –2.1

St. John $37,589 19.0 3.4 2.2

Source: U. S. Census Bureau 2010a.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 59 

Table 13. Employment by sector in the area around 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Industry 2011 Percent 

of total 

Total employment 73,106 100

Wage and salary employment 54,353 74.3

Proprietors employment 18,753 25.7

 Farm proprietors employment 3,365 4.6

 Nonfarm proprietors 

 employment 15,388 21.0

Farm employment 4,330 5.9

Private (nonfarm) employment 57,278 78.3

 Forestry, fishing, and related

 activities 637 0.9

 Mining 5,907 8.1

 Utilities 124 0.2

 Construction 3,362 4.6

 Manufacturing 4,934 6.7

 Wholesale trade 2,300 3.1

 Retail trade 7,351 10.1

 Transportation and 

 warehousing 561 0.8

 Information 828 1.1

 Finance and insurance 3,354 4.6

 Real estate and rental and 

 leasing 1,628 2.2

 Professional, scientific, and 

 technical services 2,146 2.9

 Management of companies and

 enterprises 671 0.9

 Administrative and waste 

 management services 2,731 3.7

 Educational services 412 0.6

 Health care and social 

 assistance 8,406 11.5

 Arts, entertainment, and 

 recreation 867 1.2

 Accommodation and food 

 services 4,317 5.9

 Other services, except public 

 administration 3,483 4.8

Government and government 

enterprises 11,498 15.7

 Federal, civilian 397 0.5

 Military 502 0.7

 State and local 10,599 14.5

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2012.

employment was found in the government and government enterprise sector (15.7 percent of nonfarm 

employment). This sector includes both local and 

nonlocal government agencies. The second and third 

highest percentages of total employment were in 

health care and social assistance (11.5 percent) and 

retail trade (10.1 percent). Forestry, fishing, and 

related activities accounted for less than 1 percent of 

the total employment by sector.

Agricultural Sector

Kansas is a highly productive region in the United 

States for both crops and livestock. In 2011, Kansas 

had an agricultural output of more than $17 billion, 

with crop output contributing more than $6 billion, 

animal output contributing nearly $9 billion, and services and forestry contributing more than $2 billion. 

The top five commodities produced in the State were 

cattle and calves, corn, wheat, soybeans, and sorghum grain (Economic Research Service 2012).

As of the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the 

5-county area was home to more than 4,000 farms, 

with more than 2.7 million acres in agricultural production. This accounted for more than 6.26 percent of 

the total land in production in the State (U. S. 

Department of Agriculture 2007). In 2007 within the 

5-county area, Reno had the greatest number of 

farms and acreage in production (1,749 farms, and 

780,893 acres). Pratt had the fewest number of farms 

(538) and Rice had the smallest acreage in production 

(428,422) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007).

Recreation and Tourism

Angling, hunting, and wildlife viewing are popular recreational activities across Kansas and within 

the five-county area. According to the recent 2011 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and WildlifeAssociated Recreation, approximately 1.2 million 

residents and nonresidents took part in wildlifeassociated activities in Kansas (FWS 2012a). Of all 

participants, 46 percent identified as sportsmen and 

women, engaging in either hunting or fishing, and 69 

percent reported engaging in wildlife-watching 

activities. For the purpose of the National Survey, 

wildlife watching is broken down into away-fromhome activities taking place at least 1 mile from 

home and around-the-home activities taking place 

within 1 mile from home. All visitors to the refuge 

that engage in wildlife watching are considered 

away-from-home participants. The number of hunting 

days by both residents and nonresidents totaled 5.2 

million, with Kansas residents accounting for 78 percent of hunting days. The number of fishing days by 

residents and nonresidents totaled 4.1 million, with 

Kansas residents accounting for 98 percent of fishing 

days. In 2011, residents and nonresidents spent a 
60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

total of 1 million days watching wildlife away from 

home, with residents accounting for 77 percent of 

wildlife watching days. The in-state spending associated with these activities totaled $820 thousand in 

2011, with $293 thousand spent on trip-related 

expenditures, $197 thousand spent on equipment, and 

$330 thousand spent for other items (FWS 2012a).

The Wetlands & Wildlife National Scenic Byway 

connects Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area in Barton 

County to Quivira Refuge. Along this 77-mile stretch 

of road, visitors have the opportunity to view more 

than 300 bird species and visit the remains of the 

Santa Fe Trail, historic sites, museums, and natural 

sites. The byway also connects several cities. Claflin, 

Ellinwood, Great Bend, Hoisington, Hudson, St. 

John, and Stafford are all considered Byway Communities (Kansas Scenic Byways Program). 

From 2009–2010, a visitor survey was conducted 

by Fort Hays State University’s Kansas Wetlands 

Education Center. The survey found that day trips 

were the most popular trip length for visitors to the 

Wetlands & Wildlife National Scenic Byway, with 

trips 1–3 days in length being the second most popular. In general, day visitors spent under $100 within 

the local area, while visitors staying 1–3 days generally spent $100–$200. Most visitors to the area were 

Kansas residents. According to Barton County Counselor and Administrator, Richard Boeckman (personal interview, date unknown), several byway 

communities are collaborating to improve marketing 

and increase tourism in the area. He says the byway, 

refuge, and Cheyenne Bottoms are all considered 

important assets to the local economy.

Public Use of the Refuge

The USGS headed a National Wildlife Refuge 

Visitor Survey (USGS 2012a) at Quivira Refuge and 

several other refuges to tell us more about visitor 

use. Data in this report, outlined in the following sections, came from survey forms completed by visitors 

to Quivira Refuge during the selected sampling periods of fall 2010 and spring 2011.

According to the USGS (2012a), about half of visitors, or 47 percent, had only been to Quivira Refuge 

once in the 12-month survey period, while the other 

half, or 53 percent, had been there multiple times. 

These repeat visitors went to the refuge an average 

of 7 times during the 12-month period. Fifty nine 

percent of visitors used the refuge during only one 

season, 28 percent used it during multiple seasons, 

and 13 percent used it year round.

Most visitors, 64 percent, first learned about the 

refuge from friends or relatives, 21 percent from 

printed information, and 18 percent from highway 

signs. Key information sources used by visitors to 

find their way to the refuge included highway signs, 

by 54 percent; earlier knowledge, by 46 percent; and 

a road atlas or highway map, by 44 percent.

Twenty-five percent of visitors live in the local 

area, which is within 50 miles of the refuge, whereas 

75 percent are nonlocal visitors (USGS 2012a). For 79 

percent of local visitors and for 59 percent of nonlocal 

visitors, Quivira Refuge was the primary purpose, or 

sole destination, of their trip. Local visitors reported 

that they traveled an average of 32 miles to get to the 

refuge, while nonlocal visitors traveled an average of 

319 miles. About 60 percent of visitors travelling to 

Quivira Refuge were from Kansas.

Nearly all, or 99 percent of, visitors to Quivira 

Refuge said that they were citizens or permanent 

residents of the United States (USGS 2012a). Visitors were 62 percent male, with an average age of 57 

years, and 38 percent female, with an average age of 

59 years. On average, visitors reported they had 16 

years of formal education, college or technical school. 

The median level of income was $50,000–$74,999.

Visitors reported that they spent an average of 5 

hours at Quivira Refuge during 1 day there (USGS 

2012a). However, the most frequently reported length 

of visit during 1 day was 8 hours, as reported by 31 

percent of respondents. The key modes of transportation used by visitors to travel around the refuge were 

private vehicle, by 93 percent of respondents, and 

walking or hiking, by 11 percent. More than half of 

visitors, or 69 percent, said that they were part of a 

group on their visit to the refuge, often travelling 

with family and friends.

According to the USGS, visitors took part in a 

variety of refuge activities during the survey period 

(USGS 2012a). The top activities reported were birdwatching, by 77 percent of respondents; wildlife 

observation, by 70 percent; auto tour route or driving, by 53 percent; and photography, by 51 percent. 

The primary reasons mentioned for their most recent 

visit included birdwatching, by 52 percent of respondents; hunting, by 18 percent; photography, by 10 

percent; and wildlife observation, by 9 percent. The 

visitor center was used by 70 percent of visitors, 

mostly to ask information of staff or volunteers, by 91 

percent of this group; or to view the exhibits, by 82 

percent; or to use the facilities, by 75 percent.

Visitor Levels

Of those who visited Quivira Refuge and took 

part in the USGS’s National Wildlife Refuge Visitor 

Survey, overall satisfaction with the services, facilities, and recreational opportunities we provided were 

rated as follows (Sexton et al. 2012):
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 61 

■ Ninety-two percent were satisfied with the 

recreational activities and opportunities.

■ Ninety-one percent were satisfied with the 

information and education provided about 

the refuge and its resources.

■ Ninety-three percent were satisfied with 

the services provided by employees or 

volunteers.

■ Ninety-three percent were satisfied with 

the refuge’s job of conserving fish, wildlife 

and their habitats.

Satisfaction levels were divided into quadrants. 

All Quivira Refuge services and facilities fell into the 

Keep Up the Good Work quadrant (Sexton et al. 

2012). Refuge recreational opportunities fell into 

Keep Up the Good Work except for volunteer, kayak 

and canoe, bicycling, fishing, and hunting, which fell 

into the Look Closer quadrant. The average importance of fishing, hunting, bicycling, and volunteer 

opportunities in Look Closer may be higher among 

visitors who engaged in these activities during the 

past 12 months. However, there were either not 

enough people in the sample to evaluate such 

responses or it is unknown how many in the sample 

took part in an activity. Boating is not allowed on the 

refuge, which may explain the low importance rating 

for kayaking and canoeing. All transportationrelated features fell into Keep Up the Good Work.

Painted turtles are easily viewed at Quivira Refuge.

renreh Wcti© M

Economic Contributions of the 

Refuge

Quivira Refuge affects the local economy through 

the visitor spending it generates and the employment 

it supports. Combining the effects of our employment 

and visitor spending, the total economic activity generated in the 5-county study area is approximately 

$1.015 million in added value.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Employment

Refuge management activities directly related to 

refuge operations generate an estimated 20 jobs and 

$667,500 in labor income. It is estimated that salary 

spending by Quivira Refuge staff generates secondary effects of 5 jobs, $168,600 in labor income, and 

$301,700 in value added to the local economy.

Visitor Spending

A region, and its economy, is typically defined as 

all counties within 50 miles of a travel destination 

(Stynes 1998). Visitors that live within the local, 

50-mile area of a refuge typically have different 

spending patterns than those who travel from longer 

distances. Approximately 25 percent of visitors to 

Quivira Refuge said that they live within the local 

area. Nonlocal visitors, or 75 percent, stayed in the 

local area, on average, for 2 days. Table 14 shows local 

and nonlocal visitor expenditures reported on a perperson-per-day basis. Nonlocal visitors spent an 

average of $55 per person per day, and local visitors 

spent an average of $45.

3.9 Operations

This section describes funding, staff and facilities 

at Quivira Refuge.
62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Table 14. Total visitor expenditures, expressed in dollars per person per day, for Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge, Kansas.

Visitors Sample size Median Mean Standard 

deviation Minimum Maximum

Nonlocal 100 $42 $55 $57 $0 $313 

Local 30 $29 $45 $55 $0 $250 

Funding and Staff

Refuge staff is comprised of 11 permanent fulltime employees, 1 permanent part-time employee, 3 

temporary employees, and 2 regional employees that 

are not paid through the refuge (table 15). The current staff level remains well below the minimum 

prescribed in the June 2008 Final Report—Staffing 

Model for Field Stations (FWS 2008b), which recommends that eight more staff, including three maintenance workers, one biologist, two biological 

technicians, one refuge law enforcement officer, and 

one GPNC visitor services specialist be added.

Table 15. Base staff budgeted in fiscal year 2012 and 

other staff stationed at Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge, Kansas.

Staff group Position

Current staff

management

General Schedule–13 refuge manager

General Schedule–12 deputy refuge 

manager and collateral duty law enforcement officer (vacant)

General Schedule–9 wildlife refuge specialist and collateral duty law enforcement officer

General Schedule–11 zone fire management officer

General Schedule–7 supervisory range 

technician (vacant)

biology General Schedule–11 wildlife biologist

public use

General Schedule–12 park ranger—visitor services manager at the GPNC

General Schedule–9 park ranger for visitor services

administration

General Schedule–9 administrative officer 

General Schedule–5 office assistant, 0.5 

full-time equivalent

maintenance Two Wage Grade Schedule–8 maintenance workers

maintenance,

temporary 

or term

Two Wage Grade Schedule–6 tractor 

operators, career seasonal, 6 months

General Schedule–5 range technician for 

invasive species control, term position

Current staff stationed at, but not paid by, Quivira Refuge

biology Zone biologist

Partners biologist

Facilities

Facilities are used to support habitat and wildlife 

management programs and wildlife-dependent public 

uses for 65,000 annual visitors. The refuge has two 

full-time maintenance workers and two part-time 

tractor operators to support buildings, water conveyance structures, fences, and roads.

Facilities have been regularly updated over the 

years. The refuge headquarters was built in 1964 and 

a visitor center with a conference room was added in 

1992. In 2011, these facilities were remodeled, and 

space was developed for seven more offices. The shop 

was built in 1979 and has been kept in good condition. 

Two residences were built in 1964 to provide housing 

for refuge employees at the headquarters and shop 

area and have been kept in good condition.

Half of the original block building office built in 

1958 houses an environmental education classroom. 

The other half of the building is a bunkhouse that can 

house six seasonal employees or volunteers. The 

building is in poor condition and would be difficult to 

remodel or improve because of its construction.

We received a three-bedroom trailer as unused 

excess from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency in 2009 and placed it at the environmental 

education classroom site. It is in good condition. 

There are two cold storage buildings, one eight-bay 

building was built in 1991 and a four-bay equipment 

storage building was built in 2005. Two full-hookup 

trailer pads are also available at the environmental 

education classroom site for use by volunteers. A 

new, concrete, accessible, aboveground tornado shelter was placed there in 2010.

We own 7 acres of land at the GPNC and a 

23,000-square foot visitor center and office building 

that was built in 1995 and is in good condition. We 

will also own a garage and storage building on the 

site pending official transfer. Remaining land there is 

owned by the city of Wichita, including parking lots, 

Chisholm Creek Park, and associated trails.

Quivira Refuge’s public use facilities are shown in 

figure 11. More than 45 miles of public roads exist 

either within, or next to, the refuge’s boundaries. Of 

these, 16.8 miles are refuge owned. The refuge maintains 55 public parking lots, ranging from being graveled to grass surfaced.
Chapter 3—Refuge Resources and Description 63 

Figure 11. Public use facilities at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Refuge facilities include:

■ headquarters office and visitor center building, 6,720 square feet

■ maintenance shop, fire cache, and vehicle 

storage building, 9,200 square feet

■ two 176-square foot grain bins

■ eight-bay cold storage building, 6,750 square 

feet

■ four-bay equipment storage building, 3,600 

square feet

■ environmental education classroom and 

bunkhouse, 1,900 square feet

■ two 2002-square foot, three-bedroom 

houses for staff, with one stall, attached 

garage and one 400-square foot stall, 

detached garage for each

■ oil storage building with 3 associated 

1000-gallon, aboveground fuel tanks, 180 

square feet

■ pesticide storage building, 140 square feet

■ fencing storage shed, 576 square feet

■ two metal, 192-square foot pump houses for 

the domestic water supply

■ pole shed building, 2,160 square feet

■ storage building, 192 square feet

■ asphalt hiking trail, 0.65 mile; earthen hiking trail, 0.57 mile; and photo blind at 

Migrants Mile

■ earthen hiking trail at the LSM, 0.63 mile

■ accessible wooden observation tower on the 

LSM, 6,536 square feet

■ BSM overlook

■ two vault toilet restrooms

■ one photo blind at the LSM

■ one accessible hunting blind

■ nine information kiosks

■ self-guided gravel auto tour route, 14 miles

■ eight wayside interpretive exhibits

■ two fishing piers

■ fifty-five parking lots

■ refuge roads, 16.8 miles

■ canals, 25 miles

■ one hundred and three water control 

structures

■ nine entrance signs

The Kid’s Fishing Pond has one of two fishing piers on the refuge. 

WSF
Chapter 4—Management Direction

sserb Go© B

Wilson’s Phalaropes

This chapter describes how we intend to carry out 

the proposed action through the formulation of objectives and strategies that are designed to help us 

achieve our goals for Quivira Refuge.

4.1 Management Focus

As stated in the Improvement Act, the primary 

mission of our Refuge System is wildlife conservation. Multiple policies and guidance documents have 

been developed to accomplish this mission, including 

the policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health and the 2011 Conserving the 

Future document developed in collaboration with our 

stakeholders and the public. The Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health policy provides 

directives for supporting and restoring the biological 

integrity, diversity and health of the Refuge System, 

whereas Conserving the Future articulates the 

desired roles for refuges and provides recommendations for the next decade and beyond (FWS 2011) and 

states, “At the root of these challenges [that the Refuge System must address] is the increasing consumption of natural resources, which has caused loss, 

degradation and fragmentation of habitat around the 

world. Habitat loss is largely responsible for the current extinction event, in which the Earth may lose 

half of its species in the next 100 years.” 

Our focus and planning approach for Quivira Refuge is consistent with the visions and principles promoted in the Improvement Act; the policy on 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health; and the Conserving the Future document, 

including conserving native communities and species 

of concern and developing “quantifiable conservation 
66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

objectives” that “integrate the conservation needs of 

the larger landscape (including the communities they 

support).”

4.2 Overview of Goals and 

Objectives

The vision, proposed alternative, and goals for 

Quivira Refuge collectively focus objectives and associated management strategies on achieving sustainable, diverse, native communities that will conserve 

native species of concern at landscape and local 

scales. Achieving this vision represents the greatest 

contribution we at the refuge can make in addressing 

current and future threats to natural resources in 

the central Great Plains. Threats include increasing 

habitat fragmentation and decreasing landscape connectivity, adverse effects on water quantity and quality, and cumulative risks associated with changing 

climate and energy production. To alleviate these and 

to meet the purposes of the refuge requires us to 

consider multiple perspectives, including Refuge System policies and guidance, the current understanding 

of native community ecology, increasing human 

demands on natural resources, continued landscape 

change, and our need to collaborate with the public 

and our partners, on projects that span beyond refuge boundaries.

4.3 Landscape Conservation 

Goal

Actively protect, preserve, manage, and restore 

the functionality of the diverse ecosystems of the 

Rattlesnake Creek watershed.

Quivira Refuge’s contribution toward conserving 

natural resources in the central Great Plains must be 

considered within the context of the greater, surrounding landscape. Substantial loss and degradation 

of native environments have occurred there, which 

limits the amount, distribution, and quality of habitat 

available for native wildlife. Identifying primary 

needs of wildlife that are of conservation concern is 

essential for making decisions about the desired 

future condition of refuge lands, because we may 

have the potential to fulfill those needs. In addition, 

incorporating information on ecosystem function at 

the watershed scale is necessary because past and 

ongoing modifications near the refuge significantly 

affect our current, and future, capability to sustain 

the functions required to provide quality wildlife 

habitat. The watershed is the most appropriate scale 

at which to consider these factors because all flow of 

energy and materials in its environment are contained within its boundaries. This means that land 

use practices, such as conservation actions, at one 

site within a watershed can influence other sites 

within that same watershed.

In the case of Quivira Refuge, the Rattlesnake 

Creek watershed (subbasin) forms our most appropriate scale at which to consider landscape conservation planning. Refuge lands are at the lowest 

elevation of the subbasin, and the end of its primary 

surface water source, Rattlesnake Creek, is northeast of the BSM where it joins with Salt Creek on the 

refuge (figure 12). The subbasin mostly overlies the 

Great Bend Prairie Aquifer, which is a subregion of 

the High Plains Aquifer (Basin Management Team 

2011). Although the area of the subbasin is 1,232 

square miles, the area that actually contributes runoff to the refuge is only about 519 square miles and 

contributes drainage for USGS Zenith gaging station 

#07142575, which is located within a few miles of the 

creek’s entrance into the refuge (USGS 2012d). The 

long-term average annual precipitation since 1948 is 

24.33 inches, but it varies from about 15 to more than 

27 inches. The average annual free-surface evaporation is about 64 inches (Sophocleous et al. 1997), with 

rates being highest during the summer months 

(Latta, 1950).

The dominant land use in this watershed is agriculture, and crop irrigation occurs largely by pumping ground water from the aquifer, which can affect 

ground water levels on, and near, the refuge. In addition, there is a direct connection between ground 

water levels and Rattlesnake Creek flows. The quantity of ground water pumped is inversely related to 

the amount and timing of precipitation, but most 

pumping occurs from May through October when 

surface water from Rattlesnake Creek is needed for 

managing refuge habitats to support annual wildlife 

needs.

Water rights in Groundwater Management District Number 5, which encompasses the subbasin, are 

overappropriated, with 1,377 water rights authorizing the use of 266,726 AFY. Ground water use often 

exceeds recharge (Basin Management Team 2011). 

The 10-year rolling average of ground water use for 

the stream–corridor part of the subbasin has been 

around 30,000 AFY for the years 2009–2011, and 

basin-wide estimates that include the refuge and the 

larger mineral intrusion area exceeded 55,000 AFY 

(Basin Management Team 2012). Since 1974, streamflow at USGS Zenith gaging station #07142575 has 

averaged 44.36 cfs, and average streamflow for the 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 67 

Figure 12. Elevation at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.
68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

years 2000–2009 was 37.36 cfs (Basin Management 

Team 2011). These flows are below historical reports. 

A streamflow of 100 cfs was estimated in the area of 

the refuge at the time of establishment in the 1950s, 

and that was during a dry period (Heitmeyer et al. 

2012). Declines in the ground water table lead to 

reduced streamflows that are often insufficient to 

meet surface water demands. Water levels have continued to decline throughout most of the subbasin 

between 2001 and 2012 (Basin Management Team 

2012). Total water use for the subbasin reported for 

years 1989 through 2009 averaged 175,656 AFY, 

ranging from 119,204 AFY in 1997 to 216,347 AFY in 

2002 (Basin Management Team 2011).

The refuge has a senior water right [Permit # 

7571] allowing use of Rattlesnake Creek water quantities of 14,632 AFY and flows of 300 cfs. Since 1984, 

the minimum desirable streamflow criteria for USGS 

Zenith gaging station #07142575 have been: 15 cfs for 

the months of December through June, 5 cfs in July, 3 

cfs from August through October, and 10 cfs in 

November. There are periods of record where the 

minimum desirable streamflow was not met, but 

water use was not administered because it was difficult to figure out individual diversion effects on 

streamflow (Basin Management Team 2012).

Information on current environmental conditions 

at the subbasin scale was evaluated to identify factors that could limit the value of the refuge and adjacent lands for wildlife. In addition, land use practices 

occurring in the watershed were considered that 

have altered, or could alter, important processes, like 

hydrology, and that constrain our, and the public’s, 

ability to provide quality habitat in the entire subbasin. We used this evaluation to develop landscape 

objectives that address priority needs in the subbasin 

and to make decisions on which habitat types to provide on refuge lands. Relative to the rest of the subbasin, land use activities closer to the refuge have 

created an area that has more grassland and wetland 

habitat (figure 13). This offers potential benefits to 

native communities and species of concern.

Landscape Conservation 

Objective 1: Land Ownership and 

Collaboration

Throughout the life of the plan, collaborate with 

other programs and with natural resource agencies 

to promote land protection, restoration, and management in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed, emphasizing lands within 10 miles of the refuge boundary.

Strategies

■ Continue to include Partners staff in our 

regular refuge staff meetings.

■ Collaborate with Partners, NRCS, 

KDWPT, and other agencies to develop private lands programs that promote the sustainability of water resources, the control of 

invasive species, and the restoration of 

native plant communities in the Rattlesnake 

Creek watershed.

■ Collaborate with educational institutions, as 

well as with other agencies and organizations, to craft pertinent research and monitoring programs to identify best 

management practices that can be incorporated into private lands programs.

■ Collaborate with agencies responsible for 

regulating water use in the Rattlesnake 

Creek watershed to help identify and 

improve water use efficiencies.

Rationale

We considered expanding the refuge boundary 

and acquiring more fee-title lands to enhance landscape conservation. However, it would be difficult for 

us to obtain large tracts of land adjoining the refuge 

in fee title, and any acquired lands would require 

extensive restoration and maintenance. Agriculture 

and energy developments within the watershed have 

significantly altered surface and ground water 

dynamics, which has not only resulted in the loss and 

fragmentation of wetland and grassland habitats 

near the refuge, but has altered hydrologic functions 

that influence refuge wetlands and grasslands (Heitmeyer et al. 2012). Therefore, we decided that it 

would be better to collaborate with our partners to 

develop and conduct programs that address natural 

resource issues on private lands near the refuge.

Many agencies and organizations have programs 

that are available to landowners in the subbasin, 

including Partners, KDWPT, PLJV, NRCS, and the 

Rattlesnake Creek Partnership, among others. Such 

programs may provide better conservation in the 

Rattlesnake Creek watershed because current, and 

emerging, environmental threats, such as water deficiencies and invasive species, are pervasive and difficult, if not impossible, to address by only acquiring 

and restoring small tracts of land. Furthermore, new 

techniques, such as decision support systems and 

models, are being developed by several entities, like 

the landscape conservation cooperative, the Western 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 69 .sasna, Kegufee Rfildlil Waniotaa Nriviuf Qs oieradnuoe bhe tidstut oatbiad hne asd una. L3e 1ruigF
70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Governors Association, and KDWPT, which help target lands where implementation of program practices 

would generate the greatest benefits. Private lands 

programs are also cost effective because they are 

flexible and can be strategically deployed to address 

specific issues. They not only improve habitat for 

wildlife on lands around the refuge, but they help us 

to reduce the sources of invasive species, to protect 

senior water rights, and to do more on refuge lands.

This objective should complement, rather than 

override, the objectives of the Rattlesnake Creek 

Subbasin management plan, which identifies multiple, 

ranked areas for water conservation throughout the 

watershed. Many activities that occur more than 10 

miles from the refuge influence our water resources. 

We support water conservation-related activities 

throughout the subbasin that contribute to the 

improvement and sustainability of water resources.

Landscape Conservation 

Objective 2: Habitat Fragmentation

■ Reduce fragmentation of refuge grassland 

habitats within the next 15 years by strategically removing, at most, 850 acres of trees 

or tall shrubs, as shown in appendix H, to 

benefit grassland-dependent wildlife, particularly species that exhibit area sensitivity 

during essential life cycle events.

■ Initiate the restoration of about 866 acres of 

remaining refuge agricultural lands (figure 

6) during the next 15 years to suitable, 

native plant communities, based on ecological site descriptions, to help native grassland species, including those that are area 

sensitive during certain life cycle events.

Strategies

■ Remove specific tree species as follows 

(other strategies may be used if they are 

likely to increase success in achieving 

objectives):

❏ Eastern red cedar—cut, pile, and burn; 

prescribed fire to prevent invasion; 

mowing.

❏ Black locust, honey locust, elm, Russian 

olive, cottonwood, or trees that resprout—

cut and spray herbicides, or spray herbicides and cut, particularly black locust.

❏ Cottonwood and eastern red cedar—cut 

and pile cedar under cottonwood, follow 

with burning.

❏ Saltcedar—burn and apply herbicide to 

regrowth because cutting is difficult.

❏ Plum and sumac—conduct a combination 

of three treatments within two growing 

seasons to include burning or mowing as 

low as possible.

❏ Large cottonwood—chainsaw and follow 

up with herbicide.

■ Restore agricultural lands, including areas 

that are removed from production but not 

seeded to natives, and treed areas.

❏ Prepare a largely weed-free, smooth seedbed. Options include using herbicides or 

planting Glyphosate-ready crops or other 

agricultural crops, with the last year 

being a grain crop. As stated earlier, policy allows for the use of genetically modified crops, and that remains an option. 

However, the refuge has never permitted 

this use to date and does not plan to do so 

in the near future. It is a more commonly 

used strategy in the northern plains 

largely because of differences in agricultural trends.

❏ Use high-diversity seeding, at least 15–20 

species of forbs and grasses, that is suitable for the soil type and for other environmental conditions.

❏ Collect seed from the refuge or buy local 

ecotypes.

❏ Seed during normal-to-wet periods and 

avoid seeding during drought periods.

❏ Broadcast seed over snow, if possible.

❏ Buy a native grass harvester, such as a 

stripper, and harvest local seed.

Rationale

We studied refuge lands and the current surrounding landscape to identify the desired future 

vegetation types needed to sustain native habitats 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 71 

and associated focal species. A review of existing 

spatial data showed that land use beyond the refuge 

boundary is dominated by crop and livestock production. Our planning team found that the remaining 

grassland tracts near the refuge are often isolated 

from each other and surrounded by croplands and by 

woody vegetation in areas that are not conducive to 

farming, like sandhills, and in shelterbelts that are 

used between fields and in areas that are managed 

for game, especially white-tailed deer. In addition, 

managing for livestock often creates areas with 

short-stature grasses and few forbs that do not provide adequate structure for native wildlife at certain 

times during the year. For example, fields of hay and 

other crops may be used by species for breeding or 

other activities early in the growing season, but harvesting, or plowing between plantings, often occurs 

before primary nesting activities are complete. Given 

these considerations, our planning team found that 

native prairie habitats were underrepresented in the 

landscape surrounding the refuge to sustain habitat 

for wildlife on the refuge.

Woody encroachment into habitat that was open 

before, resulting in the eventual replacement of 

grassland, has been reported as one of the greatest 

threats to this ecosystem (Knapp et al. 2008). Woody 

encroachment into grasslands around the world not 

only threatens ecosystem integrity but, more specifically, threatens the presence, abundance, nesting 

success, and local composition of grassland-obligate 

birds (Bakker 2003, Chapman et al. 2004). Based on 

our observation, this trend appears to hold true for 

the remaining tracts of sand prairie in, at least, the 

northern section of the Rattlesnake Creek watershed 

and on lands surrounding the refuge. Therefore, 

reducing woody vegetation would help refuge lands 

to provide unique and essential grassland habitat 

conditions.

A twilight view from Old Township Road on Quivira 

Refuge.

SWF/sen JoyrraB

Landscape Conservation 

Objective 3: Environmental Health 

and Climate Change

■ Promote ecological resilience by restoring 

and maintaining native communities based 

on the following principles:

❏ Continue to collect climate information 

and to conduct baseline inventories of refuge water use and wetland water chemistry during the next 15 years to document 

changes in abiotic factors to assess 

changes in environmental conditions that 

will help us develop our approach.

❏■ Conduct inventories of refuge habitats, 

including composition and structure of 

vegetation, at periodic intervals not to 

exceed 5 years, to document vegetation 

conditions that can be used to assess 

changes because of our actions and 

because of natural variation.
72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

❏ Conduct informal surveillance of select 

wildlife species, such as waterfowl, shorebirds, and deer, during the next 15 years 

to detect disease outbreaks and monitor 

wildlife health.

Strategies

■ Continue collecting climate information 

from established weather stations on refuge 

lands.

■ Collaborate with our Region 6 Water 

Resources Division staff and with our partners to design and carry out:

❏ monitoring programs on Rattlesnake 

Creek flow parameters at designated 

points of diversion on the refuge;

❏ inventories of water chemistry on refuge 

lands.

■ Develop educational programs to help the 

public understand the threat of environmental contaminants.

■ Collaborate with our partners to collect relevant abiotic data and to periodically assess 

changes in environmental conditions that 

will help us adjust our activities.

■ Reclaim mineral rights on refuge lands, as 

legally allowed, when existing oil wells are 

not used or abandoned.

■ Continue to collaborate with our partners 

like KDWPT and academic organizations to 

conduct surveillance that increases the 

detection, prevention, and knowledge of disease outbreaks, including avian influenza 

and chronic wasting disease, and adjust refuge hunting programs if necessary.

Rationale

Land use practices in the Rattlesnake Creek 

watershed have not only resulted in the loss and 

fragmentation of native habitats, but they have also 

modified how remaining native habitats function. 

Agricultural and energy practices, as well as our 

past refuge management activities, have resulted in 

the introduction of nonnative plants and animals; an 

increased presence of chemicals, like fertilizers and 

pesticides; and altered disturbance regimes, such as 

the frequency, timing, and magnitude of fire, herbivory, and hydrology, that influence processes like 

nutrient cycling and sedimentation. The effects of 

these would likely be exacerbated by climate change, 

which is predicted to include higher temperatures 

and less frequent, but more intense, precipitation 

events at the refuge. Collectively, these factors can 

have significant effects on our ability to restore and 

support native plant communities and associated 

wildlife species.

Addressing these challenges will require us to 

develop flexible strategies that promote native species diversity, which has been reported to increase 

the resiliency of systems to climate change (Peterson 

et al. 1998). To accomplish this objective, we must use 

information about the current status of key abiotic 

factors that influence plant community composition 

and, ultimately, wildlife community composition in 

our management plans. We chose climate, water 

quality, and water quantity measures as primary 

abiotic factors to monitor because they influence the 

vegetation composition and structure of refuge habitats and are among the first to change in response to 

altered environmental conditions, regardless of what 

caused the change. For example, refuge lands are 

located at the lowest elevation in this agriculturedominated watershed, thus, the amount, timing, and 

quality of water entering the refuge is not only influenced by climate patterns but also by agricultural 

practices, like irrigation and pesticide use, and by 

energy practices, like drilling and the storing of 

resources onsite.

4.4 Native Ecological 

Community Conservation Goal

Actively conserve and, as appropriate, improve 

environmental conditions within refuge boundaries to promote sustainable native ecological 

communities and support species of concern 

associated with this region of the Great Plains.

We are required to provide the plant communities 

necessary for wildlife to complete their annual life 

cycle needs, like breeding and migration. Thus, we 

chose habitat-based objectives that provide the 

resources necessary to support a native wildlife community over objectives based on individual wildlife 

species because (1) the long-term, sustainable productivity of habitats is essential for wildlife regardless of the landscape scale we consider; (2) most of the 

management activities conducted by our refuge staff 

indirectly influences wildlife composition and popula-
Chapter 4—Management Direction 73 

tion by altering vegetation composition and structure; (3) decisions about our management activities 

must be made within the context of current habitat 

conditions relative to the life requisites of multiple 

species; and (4) assessing habitat composition and 

structure to gauge our progress in achieving the 

vision and goals of Quivira Refuge is more reliable 

and informative than assessing wildlife populations 

because their migrations can include great fluctuations in things like turnover rates and lengths of stay 

that would affect our study of them.

We need to integrate multiple factors, including 

landscape form and function, regional and local environmental stressors, and the public’s various perspectives, to make decisions about habitat types and 

management strategies. We used information from 

peer-reviewed outlets and refuge reports as the foundation on which to develop objectives that are supported by the best available science, that contain 

sufficient specificity to guide future management, 

and that could be studied to assess our progress and 

help us make decisions using an adaptive management framework (Adamcik et al. 2004). Before we 

held planning meetings, our refuge staff compiled 

and synthesized pertinent data—with the relevant 

literature referenced and cited throughout this document—to help guide our discussions and to make 

sure that our decisions were consistent with the 

facts. We also developed charts and tables to help us 

interpret data, and many of these are in this CCP.

Sometimes objectives can be misinterpreted when 

taken out of context. For example, seeing habitatbased objectives as static targets to achieve annually 

on the same tract of land is inconsistent with the 

more flexible reality of plant community ecology, and 

attempts to manage for static targets tend to alter 

important processes, like hydrology, that eventually 

lead to lower productivity. To resolve this potential 

problem, our refuge staff will apply the following to 

the set of biological objectives created to support this 

goal:

■ We will consider these objectives collectively as representing a continuum of spatial 

and structural conditions that are characteristic of that habitat type in the central 

Great Plains.

■ We will use these objectives as a reference 

to provide the full range of conditions necessary to support the wildlife community that 

is native to the refuge and the surrounding 

area.

■ We will optimize the area and distribution 

(structure) of various habitat conditions 

characterized by the objectives to help focal 

species within the constraints imposed by 

using management that ensures sustained 

productivity (processes, function) of the 

habitat.

The following describes the initial steps we took 

to collect and organize information in a manner that 

would be useful for developing habitat-based objectives, including assumptions and rationales used to 

make decisions during our planning meetings.

Delineation of Current Habitat Types

Our staff at Quivira Refuge completed a spatially 

explicit plant community inventory in 2011. Based on 

2008 aerial photography, communities were mapped 

to the alliance, or dominants, and finer associations, 

or subdominants, as defined by the NVCS using 

e-cognition software. The minimum mapping unit 

was 0.5 acre, but was adjusted to 0.2 acre during 

ground truthing of woody vegetation. More than 95 

percent of the e-cognition polygons were ground 

truthed for accuracy and modified if necessary (figure 10 and table 7). A total of 43 associations, ranging 

in area from 0.3 to 4,926 acres, were mapped. 

In addition, Quivira Refuge took part in a pilot 

project to map invasive species during 2011 (Edvarchuk and Ransom 2012). Approximately 10,160 acres, 

or 46 percent, of refuge lands were inventoried for 17 

priority invasive species using standardized protocols that provided 90 percent confidence in detecting 

infestations greater than 100 square feet. A total of 

3,573 individual infestations totaling 133 acres were 

mapped. These detailed maps were used to produce 

more map products using a GIS, as needed, to inform 

our planning activities. For example, plant associations provide valuable information for developing our 

strategies for specific areas, whereas broader community categories are more suitable when evaluating 

area needs of grassland-nesting birds.

Defining a Focal Wildlife Community

The refuge staff, with input from the core planning team, developed a list of focal species that we 

will use to help guide our development of habitatbased objectives. By providing the habitat types and 

conditions necessary to support focal species, we will 

also provide life requisites for other species and 

plants on the refuge and surrounding landscape. The 

concept of using select wildlife species to subdivide 

community resources along a continuum has been 

used to guide planning and management of both wetlands (Short 1989) and grasslands (VerCauteren and 

Gillihan 2004), as well as to describe habitat use patterns (Skinner 1975).
74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

We chose migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species known to use the refuge to serve 

as a starting point for developing the larger focal 

wildlife community because these species are a primary responsibility of the Refuge System and are 

central to the purpose of Quivira Refuge. The current refuge bird list contains more than 340 species 

and represents sightings recorded since refuge establishment. The list not only has native or endemic species characteristic of the region, but also species 

whose occurrences are considered rare or accidental 

and those that were introduced to the area following 

substantial habitat changes (Johnsgard 1978). The 

current list of threatened and endangered bird species known to occur on the refuge has species that 

are listed by both Federal and State governments. 

While refuge bird lists are not based on standardized 

surveys, this list is the best available information we 

have for some species occurrences on the refuge.

We further refined the refuge bird list to create a 

suite of focal species to help us quantify the range of 

structural and successional habitat conditions that 

we will need to provide for them. This approach helps 

us to prevent underestimating the wildlife values of 

the site, and it has been advocated by others. For 

example, breeding bird species documented in the 

Great Plains is approximately 320 (Johnsgard 2009), 

but developing suitable grassland restoration objectives for a local area may focus on as few as 32 bird 

species (Samson and Knopf 1994).

The following criteria were used to identify the 

focal community:

■ Include species that conform to the purpose 

of the refuge, including those listed as 

endangered, threatened, or of concern by 

various laws or conservation plans. We consulted various plans, including our species 

of conservation and management concern 

for the Mountain–Prairie Region, the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, and 

the Central Mixed-grass Prairie Bird Conservation Region, which is part of the North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative.

■ Include species that rely on unique or 

important refuge wetland habitats. Habitat 

uniqueness and importance on the refuge 

has been noted through its designation as a 

wetland of international importance by the 

Ramsar Convention and as a site of regional 

importance for shorebirds by the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.

■ Include species that have comparatively 

greater dependence on, or association with, 

unique characteristics of refuge habitats, 

such as native sand prairie. The incorporation of species that use these habitats provides a more representative description of 

native upland communities and promotes 

diversity at spatial scales beyond refuge 

boundaries.

■ Include species with core distributions that 

include refuge lands and have habitat needs 

that are not typically provided for on private lands in the vicinity. For example, species that require larger blocks of key habitat 

were given priority consideration relative to 

species that are considered habitat generalists or that have adapted to human modifications like urban encroachment and 

agriculture.

■ Include species that are indicators of ecosystem health, such as having an abundance 

of prey species, or changing salinity 

conditions.

We identified 127 focal bird species that have 

recently occurred on the refuge and are representative of native habitat types and species of concern 

(table 16). We chose many focal species, in part, 

because of the importance of refuge habitats to a 

diversity of wetland-dependent species during migration. We do not expect to benefit all focal species 

every year because many factors outside the boundaries and control of the refuge influence species 

occurrences and densities. For example, climate conditions are a primary driver of waterfowl, shorebird, 

and whooping crane migration chronology and residence times. Furthermore, we will not be able to 

conduct monitoring programs for all focal species. 

Instead, life cycle needs of these species will be used 

to guide our development of habitat-based objectives, 

which subsequently will be used to develop annual 

management planning and implementation activities 

and monitoring programs.

Species other than birds, such as the Arkansas 

darter and regal fritillary, are important parts of 

native communities, and they may be added to the 

focal species list in the future because resources and 

landscape conditions will continue to change and 

more information of species–habitat relationships 

will become available.

Life Requisites of Focal Species

For each focal species, the life cycle events occurring on Quivira Refuge, such as breeding or migration, were noted and a literature search was 

conducted to locate quantitative information that 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 75 

Table 16. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Species 

common name

Recent 

seasonal abundance1

Management priority by habitat 

association and life event2

March

to

May

June 

to

August

September

to

November

December 

to 

February

Migration Breeding Wintering

Ducks, geese, and swans

1 Greater white-fronted goose c r c c WWW WWW

2 Snow goose c r c c WWW WWW

3 Ross’s goose u u u WW WW

4 Cackling goose c r c c WWW WWW

5 Canada goose* c c c c WWW WWW 

GGG WWW

6 Trumpeter swan o o o W W

7 Tundra swan o o o W W

8 Wood duck* c c c o WWW

9 Gadwall* c u c o WWW WW GG

10 American wigeon* c u c o WWW

11 Mallard* c c c c WWW WWW 

GGG WWW

12 Blue-winged teal* c c c WWW WWW 

GGG

13 Cinnamon teal u r o r W

14 Northern shoveler* c u c u WWW WW GG WW

15 Northern pintail* c u c c WWW WW GG WWW

16 Green-winged teal* c o c u WWW

17 Canvasback* c o c u WWW WW

18 Redhead* c o c u WWW WW

19 Ring-necked duck c o c u WWW WW

20 Greater scaup o o o W W

21 Lesser scaup* c o c u WWW WW

22 Bufflehead u c c WWW WWW

23 Common goldeneye c c c WWW WWW

24 Hooded merganser* u r u u WW WW

25 Common merganser u r c WW WWW

26 Red-breasted merganser r o r W W

27 Ruddy duck* c u c u WWW WW

Grouse and quail

28 Greater prairie-chicken* r r r r G

29 Lesser prairie-chicken Refuge was part of historical range, but is not now. May use in future, 

especially considering climate change adaptation.

30 Northern bobwhite* u u u u GG SS

Loons and grebes

31 Pied-billed grebe* c c c o WWW WWW

32 Horned grebe u u o WW

33 Eared grebe* c o c r WWW

Pelicans and miscellaneous

34 American white pelican c c c o WWW
76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Table 16. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Recent Management priority by habitat 

seasonal abundance1 association and life event2

Species March June September December common name to to to to Migration Breeding Wintering

May August November February

Herons, egrets, and ibis

35 American bittern* u u u o WW WW

36 Least bittern* o u o W WW

37 Great blue heron* c c c u WWW

WWW 38 Great egret* c c c WWW (foraging)

WWW 39 Snowy egret* c c c WWW (foraging)

40 Little blue heron* u u o WW

41 Green heron* u u o WW

42 Black-crowned night-heron* c c c r WWW WWW

43 Yellow-crowned night-heron* u u o W

WWW 44 White-faced ibis* c c c r WWW (foraging)

Birds of prey

45 Mississippi kite* u u o TT TT

WWW 46 Bald eagle* u u u c WW TT TT TTT

WWW WWW 47 Northern harrier* c o c c W G GGG GGG

GGG 48 Swainson’s hawk* c c o SSS TTT TTT

49 Ferruginous hawk o r o G G

50 Rough-legged hawk u r u WW GG WW GGG

51 Prairie falcon r r o o W

Rails and cranes

52 Black rail* u u r WW WW

53 King rail* u u r r WW WW

54 Virginia rail* c c u o WWW WWW

55 Sora* c u c WWW WW

56 Sandhill crane c c o WWW W

57 Whooping crane o o r W

Shorebirds

58 Black-bellied plover u u u r WW

59 American golden-plover u o u WW

60 Western snowy plover* c c c WWW WWW

61 Semipalmated plover c u c WWW

62 Piping plover u o o W

63 Killdeer* c c c o WWW WWW

64 Black-necked stilt* c c u WWW WWW

65 American avocet* c c c WWW WWW

66 Spotted sandpiper* c u c WWW
Chapter 4—Management Direction 77 

Table 16. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Recent Management priority by habitat 

seasonal abundance1 association and life event2

Species March June September December common name to to to to Migration Breeding Wintering

May August November February

67 Solitary sandpiper u u o WW

68 Greater yellowlegs c c c o WWW

69 Willet u u u WW

70 Lesser yellowlegs c c c r WWW

71 Upland sandpiper* c o o WWW WW GG

72 Whimbrel o o o W

73 Long-billed curlew o o o W

74 Hudsonian godwit u r u WW

75 Marbled godwit u u u WW

76 Ruddy turnstone o o o W

77 Sanderling o o o W

78 Semipalmated sandpiper c c c WWW

79 Western sandpiper c c c WWW

80 Least sandpiper c c c WWW

81 White-rumped sandpiper c c u WWW

82 Baird’s sandpiper c c c WWW

83 Pectoral sandpiper u u u WW

84 Dunlin u o u r WW

85 Stilt sandpiper c c c WWW

86 Buff-breasted sandpiper o r u WW

87 Short-billed dowitcher u u o WW

88 Long-billed dowitcher c c c WWW

89 Wilson’s snipe u r u o WW

WWW 90 Wilson’s phalarope* c c c WWW GGG

91 Red-necked phalarope o r o W

Gulls and terns

92 Franklin’s gull c u c r WWW

93 Interior least tern* u u o WW

94 Black tern* c c u WWW

95 Forster’s tern* c c o WWW

Pigeons and doves

96 Yellow-billed cuckoo* o u r SS

Owls

97 Short-eared owl* r r o G

Woodpeckers

98 Red-headed woodpecker* c c c TTT

Flycatchers

99 Western kingbird* c c u SSS TTT

100 Eastern kingbird* c c u TTT

101 Scissor-tailed flycatcher* o o o S
78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Table 16. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Recent Management priority by habitat 

seasonal abundance1 association and life event2

Species March June September December common name to to to to Migration Breeding Wintering

May August November February

Shrikes and vireos

102 Loggerhead shrike* u u u u SS TT

103 Bell’s vireo* u u o SS

Larks

104 Horned lark* o o o o G G

Thrushes, pipits, waxwings, and miscellaneous

105 Sprague’s pipit r r G

Longspurs

106 Lapland longspur r o u GG

107 Chestnut-collared longspur r r G

Wood warblers

SS 

108 Yellow warbler* u u o (riparian SS TT

area)

WWW 109 Common yellowthroat* c c u o GGG GGG

Sparrows and towhees

110 Cassin’s sparrow r G S

111 Field sparrow* c u c u GGG GG GG

112 Vesper sparrow c r c GGG

113 Lark sparrow* c u o GGG GG

114 Savannah sparrow c c o GGG

115 Grasshopper sparrow* u u u GG GG

116 Le Conte’s sparrow o o r W G

117 Harris’s sparrow c r c c GGG SSS

Grosbeaks and buntings

118 Blue grosbeak* u u r SS

119 Dickcissel* c c r GGG

Blackbirds and allies

120 Bobolink* u u GG

121 Red-winged blackbird* c c c c WWW WWW

122 Eastern meadowlark* c c c c GGG GGG

123 Western meadowlark* u o u c G GGG

124 Yellow-headed blackbird* c c u r WWW WWW

125 Orchard oriole* c c o TTT

126 Baltimore oriole* c c o TTT

Finches

127 American goldfinch* c c c c GGG GGG GGG

* Reported nesting on the refuge.

1 Abundance is indicated as follows: c = common (certain to be seen in suitable habitat), u = uncommon (present, but not certain to be 

seen), o = occasional (seen a few times during season), r = rare (seen every 2–5 years). 

2 Habitat association is indicated as follows: G= grass or meadow, W= wetland–riparian area–flooded, S= shrubs, T= isolated trees–

small groves. Within a cell, the number of times a letter is repeated is proportional to abundance. For example, WWW= common and 

W= occasional or rare in wetland habitat during the indicated life event.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 79 

characterized suitable habitat conditions for as many 

focal species as possible. Sources of information 

largely included dissertations, scientific periodicals, 

published books and refuge files held onsite. The specific information we sought included:

■ chronology of use, including dates of spring 

migration, breeding, fall migration, and 

wintering activities on the refuge

■ spatial needs for breeding, including minimum area, perimeter-to-area ratios, area of 

50-percent occupancy, and distance from 

other required, or hostile, habitat types or 

conditions, such as nesting within a minimum distance to water or from a woodland 

edge

■ vegetation composition at breeding sites, 

including the percent of grass, forb, and 

shrub

■ vegetation structure at nest sites of breeding species, including litter depth, visual 

obstruction, and plant height

■ characteristics of waterbird foraging habitats, including preferred foraging depths, 

diet, and vegetation cover

Information on each of these factors was not available for all species. This is not a problem, however, 

because information on individual species was 

grouped into functional guilds, such as species that 

forage in water less than 2 inches, to identify important parameters that influence habitat suitability. We 

further organized this information into categories 

that were based on our capability. For example, foraging depths of waterbirds were grouped in minimal 

increments of greater or equal to 2 inches because 

our staff experience suggests that the existing water 

infrastructure, such as structure type and canals, 

would facilitate management at this level of specificity. We do not denote distinct community types for 

individual species, but we provide a broader perspective of multiple species benefits provided by a habitat 

type in different successional conditions (figure 14). 

While our approach maximizes the use of existing 

information, there are limitations. First, most quantitative information on the habitat needs of many species is based on certain points during the breeding 

season and reflects conditions near nest sites or 

breeding territories during the growing season. By 

comparison, there is relatively little quantitative 

information on the habitat needs during the nonbreeding period, except for dietary information and 

waterbird foraging depths. Therefore, the quantitative information compiled to develop objectives is 

limited because, as focal species table 16 shows, Quivira Refuge is an important migration stopover for 

wetland-dependent migratory birds, and it also provides some wintering habitat. In cases where we 

lacked detailed information, our planning team used 

less common descriptive measures and anecdotal 

information provided by experts to categorize the 

habitat needs of some focal species.

Second, most information on habitat needs of species was obtained from research not conducted on the 

refuge. As such, the results of this research may not 

apply directly to the refuge because of differences in 

landscape context, like the land use practices surrounding the refuge; abiotic qualities, like soils and 

climate; and other factors. Our planning team 

reduced this concern by considering only information 

from sand prairie or sandhill ecosystems. However, 

information on many species were still absent, thus, 

information from other ecotypes was also included. 

In these cases, the habitat measures, like visual 

obstruction and plant height, were included only if 

they could be met in refuge habitats. We made this 

determination by comparing the metrics reported in 

the literature to the ecological site potential of the 

appropriate habitat on the refuge.

Given these limitations, we decided that using 

habitat-based objectives for a given native plant community to represent a continuum of conditions along 

a successional gradient for long-term sustainability is 

an appropriate interpretation of the data. From our 

perspective, this more aptly represents the dynamic 

nature of systems and ends any attempt to maintain 

static habitat conditions within, and among, years or 

to manage exclusively for a few, select species or species groups. At the same time, it provides sufficient 

guidance to make sure that different seral stages 

required by wildlife are provided on refuge lands, 

with the understanding that refuge-specific information is limited and that the applicability of data collected on other sites may not apply directly to the 

refuge. It also embraces the value of using quantitative information, which:

■ decreases the confusion associated with 

qualitative terms such as “tall” and “dense” 

and provides a unifying perspective of what 

management is attempting to achieve;

■ enables our staff to establish thresholds that 

clarify when a decision must be made about 

treatment and the type of treatment to 

apply;

■ provides a baseline on which to develop a 

monitoring plan that will provide refuge-
80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

.ictamehcle sfiory ptinummon a cd ietartsull, isasna, Kegufee Rfildlil Waniotaa Nriviur Qos fevitcbjen oiotavresnoy ctinummol cagiclooce evita. N4e 1ruigF
Chapter 4—Management Direction 81 

specific information useful for understanding treatment effects and species–habitat 

relationships, which ultimately can be used 

to refine management treatments.

An example of a wetland with interspersed tall, dense cover on Quivira Refuge.

WSF

Native Ecological Community 

Conservation Objective 1: 

Wetlands

Maintaining the integrity and persistence of all 

wetland types is important. Of principal importance 

is restoring and maintaining the suitable hydrological cycles characteristic of each wetland type to the 

extent possible, as described in the objective below, 

because hydrology is the single greatest driver of 

wetland functions, including nutrient cycling and 

sediment dynamics, as well as plant community 

dynamics (Mitsch and Gosselink 2003, Euliss et al. 

2004, Laubhan et al. 2012).

Criteria

A. Apply from mid-February through May—spring 

migration:

1. Reliably provide at least 70 percent of the 

2,931 estimated potential acres of early successional habitat—defined as bare mudflat 

or salt flat with less than 25 percent cover 

vegetation—flooded to depths less than 6 

inches to provide foraging habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as roosting 

habitat for cranes (table 17); tolerate 5 percent or less in exotic or invasive plant 

species.

2. Reliably provide at least 70 percent of the 

1,581 estimated potential acres of early midsuccessional habitat—defined as greater 

than 75 percent cover of annuals—moist 

soil—or wet meadow—sedges and rushes—

flooded to depths less than 15 inches for foraging waterfowl (table 17); tolerate 1 

percent or less in exotic or invasive plant 

species and 25 percent or less in perennial 

robust emergent vegetation, such as cattail.

3. Reliably provide at least 70 percent of the 

2,160 estimated potential acres of mid- to 

late-successional habitat, defined as less 

than 25 percent cover of emergent vegetation and greater than 20 percent aquatic 

vegetation, flooded to depths of 6–30 inches 

to provide foraging and roosting habitat for 

American white pelican and waterfowl 

(table 17); tolerate 5 percent or less in exotic 

or invasive plant species.

B. Apply from May through July—breeding season:

1. Reliably provide at least 70 percent of the 

1,740 estimated potential acres of early successional habitat, defined as bare mudflat 

and salt flats with less than 25 percent cover 

of all vegetation, next to moist or shallowly— equal to, or less than, 1 inch—

flooded areas to provide breeding habitat 

for western snowy plovers, interior least 
82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

terns, and resident focal species (table 17); 

tolerate 5 percent or less in exotic or invasive plant species.

2. about 400–500 acres, with a minimum block 

size of 50 acres, of mid- to late-successional 

habitat, defined as 30–60 percent interspersed, flooded emergent cover with a 

visual obstruction of 4–20 inches and a 

height greater than 20 inches to provide 

breeding and foraging habitat for pied-billed 

grebe, sora, Wilson’s phalarope, blackcrowned night-heron, and American bittern 

in most years (table 17); tolerate 5 percent 

or less in exotic or invasive species.

C. Apply from late July to November—fall 

migration:

1. Reliably provide at least 70 percent of the 

576 estimated potential acres of early successional habitat, defined as bare mudflat or 

salt flat with less than 25 percent cover vegetation, flooded to depths less than 6 inches 

to provide foraging habitat for shorebirds 

and waterfowl, as well as roosting habitat 

for cranes (table 17); tolerate 1 percent or 

less in exotic or invasive species.

2. Reliably provide at least 70 percent of the 

1,073 estimated potential acres of early midsuccessional habitat, defined as greater than 

75 percent cover of annuals—moist soil—or 

wet meadow—sedges or rushes—flooded to 

depths less than 15 inches for foraging 

waterfowl (table 17); tolerate 1 percent or 

less in exotic or invasive plant species and 

25 percent or less in perennial robust emergent vegetation, such as cattail.

3. Reliably provide at least 70 percent of the 

903 estimated potential acres of mid- to 

late-successional habitat, defined as less 

than 25 percent cover of emergent vegetation and greater than 20 percent aquatic 

vegetation, flooded to depths of 6–30 inches 

to provide foraging and roosting habitat for 

American white pelican and waterfowl 

(table 17); tolerate 5 percent or less in exotic 

or invasive plant species.

D. From November through February—winter—

reliably provide at least 70 percent of the 5,086 estimated potential acres, with a minimum block size of 

50 acres, of mid- to late-successional habitat, defined 

as less than 25 percent vegetation cover and greater 

than 20 percent aquatic vegetation, flooded to depths 

of 6–30 inches to provide foraging and roosting habitat for geese, diving ducks, swans, American white 

pelican, whooping and sandhill cranes, and bald 

eagles—foraging only (table 17); tolerate 5 percent or 

less in exotic or invasive plant species.

E. Support the current integrity of freshwater 

springs on the refuge, including quantity, as possible, 

and waterflow direction; native vegetation composition; and Arkansas darter protection.

For each part of this objective, the greatest potential area is based on current water control structure 

elevations; available information, like spatial analysis 

using a GIS, aerial imagery, light detection and ranging and vegetation data, and our staff experience and 

knowledge of management potential; and on management philosophy described herein. Even if environmental and management conditions are ideal, the 

greatest potential is not intended to be met in any 

given year because of the need to vary prescriptions 

to mimic natural wetland processes to sustain longterm wetland structure and function. This means 

that, for a given created wetland, we will not maintain static hydroperiods within, and among, years.

Damselflies on a wetland with submerged aquatic 

vegetation.

SWF/nahbua LlechRa

Wetlands Strategies

■ Store Rattlesnake Creek water in the LSM, 

in accordance with existing water rights, to:

❏ provide a source of water that can be used 

to manage vegetation and to provide 

flooded habitat in created wetlands;

❏ inundate mudflats and annual vegetation 

that will provide foraging habitat for 

waterbirds.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 83 

Table 17. Estimated greatest potential distribution of wetland habitat conditions (acres by unit and objective) 

for the proposed alternative for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Wetland Acres

Mid-February through May 

spring migration

May through 

July summer 

breeding

August–November fall 

migration

November–

February 

winter

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 D

Acres 

bare 

flats 

<25% 

vegetation, 

flood <6 

inches

Acres 

>75% 

annual or 

meadow, 

flood 

<15 

inches

Acres <25% 

emerging 

>20% submerged 

aquatic vegetation, 

flood 6–30 

inches

Acres of 

bare flats 

<25% 

cover

Acres 

of 30–

60% 

tall 

emerging, 

flood 

<10 

inches

Acres 

of bare 

flats 

<25% 

vegetation, 

flood <6 

inches,

Acres 

>75% 

annual or 

meadow, 

flood 

<15 

inches

Acres 

<25% 

emerging >20% 

submerged 

aquatic 

vegetation, 

flood 6–30 

inches,

Acres <25% 

emerging, 

flood 6–30 

inches

Little 

Salt 

Marsh

931 181.2 0 662.9 3.8 87.3 181.1 0 662.9 931

Unit 7 

(created) 62 15.8 40.5 5.6 15.8 0 15.8 40.5 5.6 62

Unit 10a 

(created) 19 12.9 12.9 6.3 0 6.3 0 12.9 0 19

Unit 10b 

(created) 14 0 0 10.3 0 0 3.9 0 10.3 14

Unit 10c 

(created) 7 6 6.1 0.8 6.1 0 0 6.1 0.8 7

Unit 11 

(created) 30 11.9 12 16.3 0 0 0 12 6.3 30

Unit 12b 

(created) 12 8.8 8.8 2.9 0 11.5 0 8.8 2.9 12

Unit 14a 

(created) 100 15.5 73.9 0 27.3 0 15.6 73.9 0 100

Unit 14b 

(created) 45 43.1 43.1 1.7 0 1.7 0 43.1 1.7 45

Unit 16 

(created) 14 0 5.8 8.5 0 14.2 0 5.8 8.5 14

Unit 20a 

(created) 69 60.3 60.4 8.5 0 8.5 0 60.4 8.5 69

Unit 20b 

(created) 66 0 62.2 3.7 0 3.7 0 62.2 3.7 0

Unit 21 

(created) 11 3.9 0 5.9 3.8 1.5 3.8 0 5.9 11

Unit 22 

(created) 12 0 0 12.1 0 12.1 0 0 12.1 12

Unit 23 

(created) 14 0 0 14.1 0 14.1 0 0 14.1 14

Unit 24 

(created) 54 0 0 54.1 0 54.1 0 0 54.1 54

Unit 25 

(created) 54 0.6 53.4 0 0 0 0 53.4 0 54

Unit 26 

(created) 69 69.1 69.1 0 0 0 0 69.1 0 69

Unit 28 

(created) 61 60.8 60.9 0 0 0 0 60.9 0 61
84 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Table 17. Estimated greatest potential distribution of wetland habitat conditions (acres by unit and objective) 

for the proposed alternative for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

May through November– Mid-February through May August–November fall July summer February spring migration migration breeding winter

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 D

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres <25% Acres >75% of 30– >75% <25% bare emerging of bare annu- 60% annu- emerg- flats >20% sub- Acres of flats Acres <25% al or tall al or ing >20% <25% merged bare flats <25% emerging, mead- emerg- mead- submerged vege- aquatic veg- <25% vege- flood 6–30 ow, ing, ow, aquatic tation, etation, cover tation, inches flood flood flood vegetation, flood <6 flood 6–30 flood <6 <15 <10 <15 flood 6–30 inches inches inches, Wetland Acres inches inches inches inches,

Unit 29 

(created) 27 23.7 23.7 3.6 0 0 0 23.7 3.6 27

Unit 30 

(created) 42 41.6 41.6 0 0 0 0 41.6 0 42

Unit 37 

(created) 50 0 0 49.8 0 49.8 0 0 49.8 50

Unit 40 

(created) 36 36.7 36.4 0 0 0 0 36.4 0 36

Unit 48 

(created) 55 54.4 54.4 0.8 0 0 0 54.4 0.8 55

Unit 49 

(created) 85 83.9 83.9 1.3 83.9 0 83.9 83.9 1.3 85

Unit 50 

(created) 91 90.5 90.6 0 0 0 0 90.6 0 91

Unit 57 

(created) 89 0 43.4 34.0 11.5 43.4 11.5 0 34 89

Unit 58 

(created) 116 67.5 0 48.9 0 48.9 0 0 0 116

Unit 61 

(created) 121 121.2 104.2 0 121.2 0 17.2 104.2 0 121

Unit 62 

(created) 38 35.7 35.8 1.7 0 0 1.7 35.8 1.7 38

Unit 63 

(created) 103 93 93 0 10 0 10.0 93 0 103

Unit 80

N. Lake 393 393.2 0 72.1 393.2 0 0 0 0 393

Marsh 

Road 494 267.6 226.2 226.2 267.6 0 0 0 0 0

Meadow

Wildlife 

Drive 801 723.2 0 107.3 697.1 0 25.1 0 0 801

(BSM)

Big Salt 

Marsh 1209 408.8 0 800.6 98.3 0 206.4 0 0 1209

Salt 

Springs 252 0 238.3 0 0 14.7 0 0 14.6 252

Total 5646 2930.9 1580.6 2160 1739.6 371.8 576 1072.7 903.2 5086

NOTE: Table does not include wetlands managed as part of the grassland habitat type.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 85 

■ Transport water from the LSM to:

❏ create mudflats and shallow water habitats, <16 inches, for foraging and roosting 

waterbirds;

❏ expose bare mudflat and salt flat habitat 

for nesting shorebirds;

❏ promote the germination and growth of 

vegetation in created wetlands.

■ Support infrastructure and replace water 

control structures as necessary. Develop 

structures for A2 and A3.

■ Use a combination of treatments, such as 

prescribed fire, chemical, grazing, and 

mechanical, to reduce and control invasive 

species and hazardous fuel.

■ Refine the measures used in objectives as 

new information becomes available, such as 

through monitoring programs or research.

■ When appropriate, use wildfires to help 

achieve land and resource management 

objectives.

■ Refine strategies as new or better information become available to improve success in 

accomplishing objectives.

■ Disk wetland soil surface when necessary 

and appropriate to benefit or encourage germination and growth of desirable 

vegetation. 

Northern shoveler in a wetland with midheight, sparse 

vegetation.

WSF

Wetlands Rationale

Located within the migration corridor of the central flyway, Quivira Refuge is an important stopover 

for a diversity of waterbirds. Thus, we consider providing migratory habitat to be most important; and a 

primary role of refuge wetlands is to provide plant 

foods rich in carbohydrates, like seeds, tubers, and 

browse, and animal foods high in protein, like invertebrates. During spring, these foods provide the 

energy necessary for birds to reach their breeding 

grounds and, for some species, accumulate reserves 

necessary for egg production. In the fall, these foods 

provide energy for birds traveling to wintering 

grounds and protein for feather molt. Diets vary 

among species, with shorebirds consuming predominantly invertebrates, waterfowl consuming a combination of plant foods and invertebrates, cranes 

consuming predominantly plant foods, and American 

white pelican consuming fish.

While providing migration habitat is our primary 

concern, refuge wetlands also support limited breeding habitat for several bird species and, in some 

years, provide early winter habitat, primarily for 

large-bodied waterbirds that forage in wetlands. 

Therefore, we want to provide suitable habitat for 

completing these life cycle events even though the 

area of habitat needed is much less than for migration 

habitat. Primary nesting species include the federally 

listed interior least tern, the State-threatened western snowy plover, pied-billed grebe, sora, Wilson’s 

phalarope, American bittern, and black-crowned 

night-heron.

Early winter habitat offers abundant, energy-rich 

foods and, for some waterfowl species, thermal cover 

in stands of tall emergent vegetation such as cattail 

and bulrush. As with the breeding season, the foods 

and cover required by these species are typically produced when we manage refuge wetlands for migration habitat. Therefore, the primary consideration for 

winter habitat is to make suitable sites available by 

flooding at suitable times and depths. In addition, 

wildlife values of a given wetland change within, and 

among, years, and attempts to manage for static conditions often leads to lower primary productivity that 

reduces wildlife benefits. Given these considerations, 

objectives were developed by considering refuge wetlands collectively rather than by developing objectives for each wetland unit.

The refuge also has a unique habitat in the freshwater springs, which supports a population of the 

State-threatened Arkansas darter. We want to maintain the integrity of these springs for them. Because 

little is known of the historical condition of this area, 

necessitating further study, the life history needs of 

the Arkansas darter will be used to guide our management efforts while we conduct more research. 
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Little Salt Marsh

Historically, hydrology of the marsh was determined by a combination of ground water levels and 

overbank flooding of Rattlesnake Creek. Water levels 

in the marsh fluctuated greatly and in some years no 

surface water was present. Similarly, water chemistry ranged from brackish to fresh depending on the 

amount of surface water inputs. However, before 

refuge establishment, Rattlesnake Creek was 

diverted directly into the marsh. Consequently, complete drying of marsh substrates is rare as some 

water enters the marsh annually and water chemistry likely has changed.

The ability to restore the hydrology of the LSM 

and reactivate the historic Rattlesnake Creek channel is not considered feasible because refuge water 

rights may be forfeited. In addition, extensive ground 

water depletion in the watershed, coupled with 

reduced flows in Rattlesnake Creek, has severely 

reduced the quantity and timing of water reaching 

the refuge that affects management capability. For 

example, in years of below average precipitation and 

extensive agricultural demands, insufficient water 

quantities are delivered to the refuge to exercise all 

habitat management options (Heitmeyer et al. 2012). 

Consequently, continuing to use the LSM as a storage reservoir is the best way for providing quality 

wildlife habitat on the refuge.

Although the hydrology of the LSM has been 

altered, management can still manipulate water levels within the marsh to promote important processes 

(for example, nutrient cycling) and simultaneously 

optimize habitat for a diversity of waterbirds. Partial 

drawdowns can be conducted to oxidize soils and 

facilitate plant decomposition on the marsh perimeter, which provide nutrients for invertebrates and 

create suitable conditions for plant germination and 

growth on islands and along the marsh perimeter 

(Fredrickson and Taylor 1982, Laubhan et al. 2012). 

In addition, partial drawdowns also create bare flats 

suitable for nesting shorebirds and concentrate prey 

for shorebirds (invertebrates), as well as bald eagles 

and American white pelicans (fish). Conversely, addition of water during storage phases of the cycle 

results in flooding of newly established vegetation 

and creates a range of water depths suitable for 

roosting and foraging by many waterbirds throughout the year, including shorebirds and cranes.

Big Salt Marsh

SWF/nahbua LlechRa

Big Salt Marsh

The historical hydrology of the BSM has been 

altered by activities both on, and off, the refuge. 

Development of the water transport infrastructure 

on the refuge has included canals that facilitate the 

movement of water from Rattlesnake Creek to the 

BSM, whereas ground water depletion in the watershed has likely reduced the quantity and timing of 

ground water discharge to the BSM. In combination, 

we presume that increased use of Rattlesnake Creek 

water and smaller amounts of ground water dis-
Chapter 4—Management Direction 87 

charge has resulted in lower salinities, which is supported by the increased occurrence of cattail and 

other species that germinate under low saline conditions. In addition, the increased input of Rattlesnake 

Creek water has altered the timing of flooding and 

reduced the frequency and extent of drying. Collectively, these changes have stimulated a change in 

vegetation community composition, including an 

increase in cattail and an accompanying decline in 

salt-tolerant emergent species such as alkali bulrush 

and alkali sacaton. We also presume that these 

changes have altered the composition of the invertebrate community.

Although vegetation communities with different 

salinity tolerances provide food and cover to focal 

wildlife species, emergent vegetation better adapted 

to less saline conditions can be managed in other 

areas of the refuge to provide food resources and 

robust structural cover, as in created wetlands and 

wet meadows. By contrast, the ability to provide an 

interspersion of barren salt flats with large expanses 

of saltgrass and scattered areas of salt-tolerant 

emergent plant species is unique to the BSM area 

because saline conditions limit the amount of vegetation cover on mud and alkali flats, which provides 

open areas near water that are suitable for nesting 

interior least terns and snowy plover, foraging and 

roosting habitat for cranes, and foraging habitat for 

migratory shorebirds. In addition, the deeper parts 

of the marsh provide flooded open water that provides foraging and roosting habitat for American 

white pelicans and diving ducks throughout the year.

Given these considerations, mimicking historical 

conditions to the extent possible and relying on 

ground water discharge as the primary hydrologic 

input represents our best way for managing the 

BSM. Dynamic fluctuations in water quantity and 

quality will occur within, and among, years. In most 

years, surface water will be allowed to evaporate in 

late summer and ground water discharge will slowly 

begin to provide surface water in late October, with 

the marsh becoming full by January. Areas that are 

typically shallow when the marsh is fully flooded will 

have water during the spring, and then slowly begin 

drying in late spring through the summer. Use of 

Rattlesnake Creek water will be diverted to keep 

water chemistry, as in salinity, within the range of 

conditions necessary to sustain native plant communities or to avoid infrastructure damage during substantial flooding events.

Big Salt Marsh Strategies

■ Support or improve appropriate salinity 

gradients through water management, 

including limiting relatively fresher water 

from Rattlesnake Creek.

■ Support or improve water control structures and associated infrastructure.

■ Use a combination of treatments, such as 

prescribed fire, chemical, grazing, and 

mechanical, to promote native plant communities and reduce invasive species and hazardous fuel.

■ Evaluate, then change or install water control structures to improve surface 

waterflows.

■ Evaluate, then change or remove roads, 

such as ditches and roads on the west side, 

Y road, Road to Mandalay, and Tern Pad 

Road, that significantly alter surface 

waterflows.

■ Evaluate the south end and, when oil wells 

become inactive, remove oil well roads and 

restore those areas.

■ Replace the Unit 80 structure with a larger 

structure to better export water from the 

BSM to Salt Creek and to improve water 

management capability to better prevent 

flooding of least tern and snowy plover 

nests.

■ When appropriate, use wildfires to help 

achieve land and resource management 

objectives. 

Created Wetlands

The primary purpose of managing created wetland units is to produce plant and animal foods for 

migratory birds during spring and fall migration that 

supplement foods provided in other wetland types, 

see objectives A2 and C2 above. Plant food production in these units usually exceeds the production in 

other wetland types on the refuge because the time 

and rate of drawdowns can be manipulated to stimulate the germination and growth of desirable annual 

vegetation, like barnyard grass and sprangletop, that 

produces abundant seed and structure for invertebrate production after reflooding in the fall and winter. Similarly, making these foods available to a 

greater diversity of birds is possible because we can 

control the time and depth of flooding (Fredrickson 

and Taylor 1982, Laubhan and Fredrickson 1997, 

Laubhan et al. 2012, Laubhan and Roelle 2001). Created wetland units that we manage to mimic seasonally flooded wetlands to produce foods also provide 
88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

many other benefits. For example, drawdowns to 

stimulate plant germination often can be timed to 

create mudflats, oxidize soils, and increase invertebrate availability during spring shorebird and crane 

migration. Following plant germination, units can be 

shallowly flooded to improve plant growth and seed 

production, and provide summer foraging habitat for 

breeding species.

Some created wetlands on Quivira Refuge can 

also be managed as temporary or semipermanent 

wetlands to supplement migration or breeding habitat and thermal cover for certain species.

Created Wetland

WSF

Created Wetlands Strategies

■ Manage hydroperiods for desired conditions. 

Gather and apply information on the germination and growth needs of plants and on 

the utilization criteria, such as chronology, 

foraging depths, and nesting needs, of the 

species that use these wetlands.

■ Keep water transfer infrastructure and 

associated water control structures 95-percent free of emergent vegetation.

■ Evaluate water control structure conditions 

and replace or change them as necessary. 

One such structure is on Dead Horse 

Slough.

■ Use a combination of treatments, such as 

prescribed fire, chemical, grazing, and 

mechanical, to reduce and control invasive 

species and hazardous fuel.

■ Inventory these units to refine the measures used in objectives. Correlate water 

level gauge readings with unit elevation 

gradients to help predict habitat potentials.

■ When appropriate, use wildfires to help 

achieve land and resource management 

objectives. 

Freshwater Springs

The freshwater springs are a source of permanent 

water that is unique to the refuge. The site has been 

modified by the installation of a pipe and the creation 

of more small pools to trap spring flows and by the 

installation of a pipe that created an artesian well. 

These pools support aquatic vegetation, and surrounding lands support a mixture of native and nonnative vegetation and scattered trees. Monitoring 

programs of wildlife use here have not been conducted, but the value of this habitat for waterbirds is 

likely limited because of the small size and depth of 

these pools and the presence of trees. However, the 

area does support an isolated population of Arkansas 

darter.

Freshwater Springs Strategies

■ Within 5 years, begin collaboration with 

experts and review current information to 

evaluate potential habitat improvements 

that support Arkansas darters, including 

the possible removal of existing infrastructure north of the springs.

■ Within the life of the CCP, develop a more 

detailed management plan specific to the 

freshwater springs area that incorporates 

the current knowledge of experts and current information.

Temporary and Seasonal Prairie Wetlands

There are many temporary and seasonal wetland 

basins interspersed throughout the upland community on the refuge. The exact locations of all basins 

are not known, but most are less than 0.5 acre. Local 

precipitation and ground water fluctuations determine their hydrology, and no water management 

capabilities exist for them. Consequently, plant communities there are dynamic and range from perennial sedges and rushes and annual emergent 

vegetation to obligate upland species. When flooded, 

we presume that these basins provide temporary 

foraging habitat for waterbirds, like waterfowl and 

ibis, and supplement foods in other wetland types. 

Other uses for these wetlands may also occur.

We manage these basins as part of their surrounding upland communities and typically use prescribed fire and grazing to alter vegetation 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 89 

community composition and structure. However, we 

will not intentionally drain or ditch these wetlands, 

and we will control their nonnative vegetation.

Seasonal Prairie Wetland

SWF/nahbua LlechRa

Temporary and Seasonal Prairie Wetlands 

Strategies

■ Determine and map the location of these 

basins.

■ Protect the integrity of basin morphology, 

such as their shape, structure and pattern.

■ Avoid mechanical disturbances that will 

drain these basins.

■ Time prescribed fires and grazing to avoid 

their peak periods of use by wildlife.

■ Control nonnative vegetation and hazardous 

fuel.

■ When appropriate, use wildfires to help 

achieve land and resource management 

objectives. 

Native Ecological Community 

Conservation Objective 2: 

Grasslands

The grasslands objective was written based on 

the considerations of different species–habitat relationships of focal species, known characteristics of 

the soil–plant associations on the refuge, the need for 

periodic management treatments, and limitations of 

management. Individually, objectives capture perceived differences in bird habitat types within the 

grassland community that also seem realistic for 

management implementation. It represents the 

potential range of natural environmental conditions 

of the grassland community needed to promote the 

long-term sustainability of the system. Quantifiable 

measures of vegetation composition, height, density, 

litter depth, and other factors are commonly 

reported attributes of breeding grassland bird habitat descriptions and were used to develop the objective (appendix H).

Available quantitative information of grassland 

bird cover and structural needs during the nonbreeding season is comparably less than that during breeding. Knowledge of birds outside of the breeding 
90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

season traditionally relates to diet, energetics, foraging behavior, and, more recently, large-scale movements between breeding and wintering grounds. 

Descriptions that quantify structure and composition 

of habitat preferred by nonbreeding grassland passerines are lacking. Yet, management of grassland 

determines the extent, distribution, and within stand 

attributes of different habitat conditions within the 

community. Limited information of nonbreeding bird 

habitat was used to determine shrub attributes in 

grassland and is discussed in more detail below. Otherwise, until more information becomes available, 

management presumes that accomplishment of the 

grasslands objective relevant to the breeding season 

will concurrently satisfy habitat needs during the 

nonbreeding season. For example, by managing for a 

range of successional stages during the breeding and 

growing season as defined in the objective below, 

then a similar range of conditions will be provided 

during the nonbreeding season. As well, the distribution of the different successional stages would be 

expected to shift, dependent on methods of dispersal 

and growth in relation to current plant composition 

(Ratajczak et al. 2011), the ecological site potential, 

environmental conditions under relatively wet and 

dry conditions, and disturbance history.

Some woody vegetation is acceptable within 

native grasslands, thus the planning team had to 

evaluate relevant available information to identify 

optimal habitat conditions and suitable management 

actions such as mowing or burning. Again, species–

habitat relationship information, such as percent 

shrub cover and proximity to other habitat types, 

facilitated this process.

Criteria

A. From January through March—nonbreeding—

provide a range from 5–30 percent of tall, about 3–10 

feet, native shrub interspersed within larger grassland blocks to support both focal grassland and 

shrub–grassland specialists.

B. Apply from April through August—breeding:

1. Provide at least 500 acres of estimated habitat that is predominantly native—short, 

bare to sparse—to help associated focal species, such as breeding killdeer, American 

avocet, interior least tern, western snowy 

plover, upland sandpiper, and ground-foraging passerines; composition less than 5 percent grass or fine-stemmed emergent, less 

than 5 percent forb, and no shrub; mean 

greatest height less than 6 inches; visual 

obstruction, or height density, less than 4 

inches; no litter depth; no overlap with similar habitat made available under wetland 

objective B1 above.

2. Provide at least 70 percent of the estimated 

4,163 acres of predominantly native—short–

mid, sparse–medium—grassland habitat, 

including at least 1 area on, or near, a prairie dog town on, or next to, refuge lands to 

support associated focal species, such as 

breeding burrowing owl, field sparrow, lark 

sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper, and western meadowlark; composition 

40–50 percent grass or fine-stemmed emergent, 10–20 percent forb, and 10–20 percent 

shrub; mean greatest height of 6–20 inches; 

visual obstruction, or height density, less 

than 4 inches; litter depth of 0.2–1.2 inches.

3. Provide at least 70 percent of the estimated 

2,053 acres of predominantly native—mid–

tall, medium—grassland habitat to support 

associated focal species, such as breeding 

western meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, 

bobolink, dickcissel, northern harrier, and 

blue-winged teal; composition 40–50 percent 

grass or fine-stemmed emergent, 10–20 percent forb, and less than 15 percent shrub; 

mean greatest height greater than 6 inches; 

visual obstruction, or height density, of 4–12 

inches; litter depth greater than 0.8 inch.

4. Provide at least 70 percent of the estimated 

2,756 acres of predominantly native—tall, 

medium-dense—grassland habitat to support associated focal species, such as breeding western meadowlark, grasshopper 

sparrow, bobolink, dickcissel, northern harrier, and blue-winged teal; composition 

40–50 percent grass or fine-stemmed emergent, 10–20 percent forb, and less than 15 

percent shrub; mean greatest height 

greater than 20 inches; visual obstruction, 

or height density, of 4–12 inches and greater 

than 12 inches; litter depth greater than 0.2 

inch; acres outside of those with at least 50 

percent plum or shrub coverage—1,278.58 

acres—which mostly occur in subirrigated 

soil types where tallgrasses characteristically dominate.

5. Provide more than 10 sparse stands of 

shrub—mostly plum—interspersed within 

larger grassland blocks and riparian corridors to support associated focal species, 

such as lark and field sparrows; shrub 

height about 3–10 feet; stand size about 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 91 

0.40–0.90 acre each; and within-stand shrub 

coverage of 7–11 percent.

6. Provide more than 10 dense stands of 

shrub—mostly plum—habitat interspersed 

within larger grassland blocks and riparian 

corridors to support shrub-dependent focal 

species, such as Bell’s vireo; shrub height 

about 3–10 feet; stand size about 0.75–1.5 

acre each; and within-stand shrub coverage 

of 25–35 percent.

C. From September through December—nonbreeding—provide the same as criterion A.

There are about 9,512 acres of native, grass-dominated vegetation associations outside of what is 

defined as wetland, based on GIS calculations of 

recent coverage (table 18). The acreage estimates 

used in the grassland criteria B.1–4 do not include 

other association types in the larger grassland landscape: about 82 acres of nonnative, invasive cheatgrass; 1,279 acres of plum or shrub-dominated (equal 

to, or greater than, 50 percent) habitat; about 870 

acres of recently or currently farmed lands; 1,008 

acres of trees; and 3,483 acres of herbaceous or emergent wetland association types, such as prairie cordgrass–three square (2,054), cattail–rush (1,096), 

water (176), spikerush (135), and Phragmites (23). 

Still, these other association types interspersed 

throughout the larger grassland blocks are managed 

as part of grassland. 

While the restoration of farmed lands, nonnative 

habitats, and many woody-dominated habitats to 

native grassland association types will be started 

over the next 15 years, the duration of this restoration phase is unknown and may take many years, 

depending on various factors such as climate. 

Because of this uncertainty, these other association 

types are not included in the acreages used in the 

grassland criteria B.1–4.

Kildeer in short, sparse upland habitat.

WSF

Little bluestem in intermediate grassland.

WSF

Switchgrass in tall, dense grassland.

WSF

Strategies

■ Use a wide range of disturbance types, levels, and frequencies to support or improve 

habitat, including prescribed grazing or fire, 

flooding and drying, and chemical and 

mechanical methods.

■ Use a combination of treatments such as 

prescribed fire, chemicals, grazing, and 

mechanical methods to reduce and control 

invasive species and hazardous fuel.

■ Promote the restoration and conservation of 

native understories and the reduction or 

elimination of cheatgrass-dominated understories when applying treatments for shrubrelated objectives.
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Table 18. Dominant nonwetland habitat types at 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Habitat type Dominant 

vegetation

Estimated 

acres

Native tallgrass

Switchgrass 1,720

Big bluestem 974

Sand bluestem 62

Total 2,756

Native midgrass Little bluestem 2,053

Native shortgrass

Saltgrass 4,362

Prairie dog town 19

Buffalograss 1

Total: 4,381

Natural bare–

sparse

Sand flats 322

Shrub Plum, sumac, 

dogwood 1,279

Nonnative upland 

grass Cheatgrass 82

Agricultural 

(farmed)

Agricultural 

(farmed) 885

Trees

Cottonwood 355

Locust 253

Saltcedar 125

Other 105

Red cedar 85

Willow 57

Russian olive 28

Total: 1,008

Wetland

Prairie cordgrass–three 

square

2,054

Cattail–rush 1,096

Water 176

Spikerush 135

Phragmites 23

Total: 3,483

Other

Roads 316

Bare ground 

(like oil pads) 12

Buildings, structures 6

Total: 327

Grand total outside wetland 16,581

■■ Evaluate the feasibility of managing sites 

when planning annual prescriptions. For 

example, some semipermanent shrub sites 

have long-term coverage of some shrub habitat where management can be difficult to 

impossible and other sites occur between 

drainages that can impede equipment 

access.

■ Conduct a monitoring program early on to 

meet our objectives for shrubs because we 

have limited knowledge and information on 

plum habitat.

■ When appropriate, use wildfires to help 

achieve land and resource management 

objectives. 

Rationale

Quivira Refuge is recognized for wetland and 

waterbird resources, but the refuge is also comprised 

of thousands of acres of upland, native sand prairie 

habitat that commonly support grassland obligates 

and species of concern, such as grasshopper sparrow 

and dickcissel. The decline of grassland bird populations are of serious conservation concern (Sauer et al. 

2008). In general, these declines are attributed to 

habitat loss and degradation caused by many factors, 

including land use changes, the spread of invasive 

species, habitat fragmentation, urbanization, and the 

management of water quantity and quality. The relative importance of each of these factors depends on 

the resources and scales considered. Quivira Refuge 

lands have the potential to contribute to grassland 

bird conservation, especially when considering that 

public lands compose less than 3 percent of Kansas 

and Quivira Refuge comprises a smaller percentage 

of those lands that are specifically managed for natural resource conservation.

Some woody vegetation is acceptable within 

native grasslands. Nonbreeding (fall, winter, spring) 

specialists of grassland and shrub–grassland in 

Texas, many of which also occur on Quivira Refuge, 

had their highest combined densities reported in 

shrub–grassland habitat with less than 30 percent 

interspersed woody vegetation generally less than 

3.28 yards tall by 24.71 acres (3 meters tall by 10 

hectares) compared to habitat with less than 10 percent woody interspersion or less than 50 percent 

woody interspersion (Igl and Ballard 1999). When 

evaluated separately, grassland specialists had their 

highest densities in the same habitat as when combined, but shrub–grassland specialists had their 

highest densities in woodland dominated by trees 

more than 3.28 yards tall and secondarily in brushland dominated by woody plants less than 3.28 yards 

tall and comprising more than 30 percent woody 

canopy coverage. If Quivira trends are similar to 

what was reported, then management will be supporting less optimal habitat for grassland–shrub 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 93 

specialists to support both grassland and shrub–

grassland specialists during the nonbreeding season. 

The same intent influenced the decision to provide at 

least 10 dense and sparse stands each—or between 

5–30 percent interspersed total shrub coverage—

during the breeding season. Also considered was the 

knowledge that much additional shrub coverage 

occurs in the landscape that is not defined as shrub 

habitat for refuge mapping and planning purposes 

because stands are less than 0.2 acre in size or have 

more than 50 percent shrub coverage (not a dominant 

plant type within stand).

There are about 9,512 acres of native grass-dominated vegetation associations outside of what is 

defined as “wetland” based on GIS calculations of 

recent coverage. Grassland communities are dynamic 

and cannot be held in static conditions, as illustrated 

in State transition diagrams of soil–vegetation associations and ecological site descriptions (Natural 

Resource Conservation Service 2010). For example, 

factors contributing to grassland dynamics include 

variation in climate effects, such as from changes in 

precipitation, temperature, and wind; landscape features, such as differences in soil, aspect, and slope 

position; plant–wildlife interactions, such as plant 

adaptations to herbivory and soil disturbance; and 

the timing of environmental changes or disturbances 

in relation to plant and wildlife life stages (Anderson 

2006, Helzer 2010). Thus, it is unrealistic to set an 

objective that attempts to maintain static conditions 

over time. Development of this objective considered 

these factors, the recent spatial location of various 

vegetation associations, and the understanding that 

areas of the refuge will be “rested” (no planned burning or grazing) each year. This explains the desirability to attain a minimum of 70 percent of the 

estimated potential acres of the associated grassland 

conditions described in the grassland criteria B. 1–4. 

While this proportion is somewhat arbitrary, it promotes the sustainability of ecosystem processes and 

the need for periodic disturbance as well as management’s ability to mimic natural stressors, such as 

when using fire and herbivory.

View from sandhills.

SWF/sen JoyrraB

Native Ecological Community 

Conservation Objective 3: 

Woodlands

At least 125 acres of woodlands largely located on 

the refuge perimeter and within 55 yards of the refuge’s main roads will remain (figure 15) during the 

next 15 years, see appendix H.

Strategies

■ Based on current conditions, maintain 

woodlands in areas identified in appendix H.

■ Keep select trees or small groves that are 

located in areas along roads or next to other 

nondesirable habitat on and off the refuge 

where removal would not provide substantial benefits to native wildlife, such as obligate grassland birds, and where their 

presence may benefit species of concern, 

such as Loggerhead shrike or bald eagle. 

Ultimately, this will be the refuge manager’s decision based on available information.

■ Conduct no substantial active management, 

such as regular stand thinning and fire suppression in most cases, specifically to benefit 
94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Figure 15. Cropland and tree coverage planning at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 95 

species largely associated with nonnative 

woodlands. Prioritize time and money 

resources for other species–habitat communities over woodland, especially shelterbelts 

and nonnative types.

■■ Manage woodlands to reduce seed or propagation sources or to maintain fence lines and 

other infrastructure, such as removing red 

cedar growth under canopy trees or Russian olive in the Artesian Grove.

■■ Do not allow encroachment of woodland into 

surrounding habitat.

■■ Allow limited native trees to remain onsite 

where they might have occurred naturally, 

such as up to a few willow or cottonwood 

trees near a spring.

Woodland

WSF

Shrubland

WSF

woodlands surrounding the refuge and other hostile 

habitat on and off refuge lands. And it may not be 

feasible given our limited staff and budgets.

Migratory birds that require woodlands to complete essential life history events, like nesting, historically were not common on the refuge. Thus, they 

generally were not selected as focal species during 

the planning process. However, isolated trees and 

small groves would benefit focal species, such as loggerhead shrike and Swainson’s hawk. Because woodland areas are attractive to wildlife enthusiasts, 

primarily bird watchers and photographers, a list of 

birds recorded using the woodlands not now planned 

for removal in the next 15 years was compiled from 

refuge files and recent observations to assess potential loss in birdwatching opportunities on the refuge 

(table 11). This list—which is presumed to be incomplete given that formal surveys have not been conducted—includes 49 species, indicating that 

birdwatchers will still have opportunities to view 

woodland-associated birds on refuge lands in easily 

accessible areas. It seems that bird species richness 

will be maintained.

4.5 Visitor Services Goal

Visitors enjoy quality wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities.

As part of the Service’s guiding principles, legitimate and appropriate wildlife-dependent uses of 

refuges include compatible activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation and education.

Rationale

Historically, nonwetland habitats comprising the 

refuge were dominated by native prairie interspersed with inclusions of shrubs (Heitmeyer et al. 

2012). However, changes in land use practices in the 

watershed, coupled with our past management direction, led to the encroachment of shrubs and native 

and nonnative trees. By 2008, thousands of acres of 

woody vegetation existed on refuge lands (figure 16). 

Years ago, our refuge staff decided that restoring 

native prairie communities represented the best use 

of refuge lands, given the extensive loss and fragmentation of this habitat in the watershed and the 

accompanying population declines of some species, 

particularly of grassland obligates that rely on it.

However, removing all trees during the next 15 

years may not be warranted given the location of 
96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Figure 16. Location of woodland groves at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas, in 2012.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 97 

Hunting Objective 1

Throughout the life of the plan, continue to allow 

compatible waterfowl, upland bird, and small game 

hunting opportunities within traditional boundaries 

(figures 11) that adequately protect whooping cranes 

and promote employee and public safety.

Strategies

■ Write a detailed hunt plan during the life of 

the CCP. Refuge-specific regulations may 

apply to any hunt program on the refuge.

❏ Consider an extended light goose season 

during the spring conservation order.

❏ Update the CFR to be consistent with the 

approved hunt plan.

■ Close the refuge to waterfowl and upland 

bird hunting as necessary to protect whooping cranes. The refuge manager has the 

authority to decide when to open and close 

the refuge to hunting.

■ Continue to provide and improve access to 

hunting information through kiosks, signs, 

interpretive displays, handout literature, 

and by other means, such as through social 

media and the refuge’s Web site.

■ Do not allow the hunting of certain species 

that are not common or are closely associated with potential impacts to species of 

concern, such as rail, woodcock, snipe, sandhill crane, and prairie-chicken. Because the 

occurrence of many of these species is limited, hunting opportunities will not be significantly reduced and educational 

opportunities related to the conservation of 

these species and associated communities 

could be promoted.

■ Continue to allow hunting of Northern bobwhite, pheasant, and dove within traditional 

hunt boundaries (on less than 40 percent of 

the refuge). Of note, bobwhite occurrence on 

the refuge regularly includes areas both 

inside and outside of hunt boundaries. Allow 

the hunting of small game according to refuge-specific regulations.

■ Close the refuge to the public between dusk 

and dawn, except for special events or activities that require a refuge permit or for 

unique circumstances permitted by the refuge manager.

■ Allow only nontoxic shot on the refuge.

■ Provide adequate law enforcement that supports staff and public safety and the protection of natural resources.

Rationale

The perspectives and opinions on public userelated issues vary widely. Therefore, an objective 

approach was applied to discuss and evaluate publicuse activities within the context of Service laws, policies, and guidance. Many of the concerns related to 

hunting activities involved decisions beyond the scope 

of this CCP. Therefore, a more detailed stepdown 

management plan is needed that considers: (1) reducing risks to threatened, endangered and protected 

species; (2) the safety of refuge staff and the public; 

(3) the logistics or the ability to implement actions 

that ensure compliance with laws and regulations; (4) 

potential conflicts among use activities; and (5) the 

requirement of refuge-specific regulations and permits, such as limits to hunting intensity, season, 

method, and area within approved boundaries and 

opportunities for youth or the military.

Among the major factors that are considered in 

decisionmaking, besides the balancing of multiple use 

activities and compatibility with wildlife, are observations of whooping crane behavior and habitat use 

that is unique or specific to the area of the refuge. 

Both consumptive and nonconsumptive users share 

concern for the protection of whooping cranes. Also, 

many hunters indicated a preference for the opportunity to hunt the North Lake area for a limited number of days, which is often due to refuge closures 

because whooping cranes are present, over hunting 

in alternative areas over more hunt days when there 

has traditionally been no to little observed use of the 

refuge by whooping cranes. As part of planning, we 

will continue to consider tradeoffs like these and 

other management decisions.

Hunting Objective 2

Throughout the life of the plan, broaden and 

increase safe and compatible hunting opportunities 

on the refuge, such as for deer, turkey, and furbearers, that will require refuge-specific permits (figure 

17).
98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Strategies

■ Use refuge-specific regulations to restrict 

aspects of trapping activities, such as the 

number, location, and types of traps used, 

and require the approval of a special use 

permit by the refuge manager.

■ Consult with the State of Kansas and 

experts, when writing a more-detailed hunt 

plan, on factors important in decisionmaking, such as limits based on deer health and 

population targets or thresholds.

■ Understand that the hunting of deer, turkey, 

and furbearers will not necessarily need to 

occur throughout the entire approved area, 

nor during every season or year.

Rationale

Before and during the planning of this CCP, the 

public requested consideration of opportunities for 

deer and turkey hunting. Deer population trends 

have increased substantially since refuge establishment, from less than 20 in the entire local population 

to a density of 41 individual deer per 0.39 square mile 

(1 square kilometer) based on recent distance sampling reported by Blecha et al. (2011). There are concerns about the combination of high-density 

populations and the rate of spread of Chronic Wasting Disease, which was reported in Stafford County 

in 2013. 

Some think hunting could help address deerrelated issues, while others feel that deer hunting 

would negatively impact deer viewing opportunities. 

While opinions on deer hunting on the refuge vary, 

there seems to be general agreement that unique 

hunt opportunities, such as for youth, are acceptable. 

All hunting possibilities—including exceptions to 

hunting closures when whooping cranes are present 

such as for the limited use of archery in hunting 

deer—will be explored in the development of a moredetailed hunt plan. Safety, compatibility with wildlife, logistics, and the potential tradeoffs of multiple 

use activities will be considered in the development of 

policy and guidance.

The wild turkey population varies annually on the 

refuge, but has generally increased since the establishment of the refuge. While turkey hunting will be 

allowed, refuge-specific regulations will limit opportunities. Compatibility with wildlife and potential 

conflicts with nonconsumptive uses, especially in the 

spring, will be considered.

Furbearer hunting will require refuge-specific 

regulations. Approval of a special use permit will be 

required to control aspects of hunting or trapping, 

and the desired reduction of furbearer impacts to 

refuge infrastructure and management implementation will be considered.

Fishing Objective 1

Throughout the life of the plan, allow fishing in 

refuge waters with minimal disturbance to other 

wildlife and the natural aquatic ecosystem.

Strategies

■ Allow fishing, in accordance with State and 

Federal regulations, year round on all 

waters on the refuge.

■ Provide and maintain accessible fishing 

docks for visitors with disabilities. 

■ Do not allow boats on any waters.

■ Do not stock Refuge waters (except Kids’ 

Fishing Pond, see objective 2), but instead 

manage wetlands and lakes for migratory 

birds, allow these to fluctuate through natural hydrologic cycles.

■ Do not allow bait collecting and live fish 

bait, except night crawlers, on any waters.

■ Provide educational materials and interpretive exhibits about native fish, the threat of 

introducing or spreading nonnative plants 

or wildlife and other things that could hurt 

the environment, like diseases harmful to 

humans or wildlife populations.

■ Plan and conduct unique fishing events for 

kids to encourage and support a new generation of anglers.

■ Do not allow frogging.

Rationale

Fishing is a tool to help the public connect with 

nature and to promote existing and future programs. 

Fishing and its promotion provides a type of compatible public use that is encouraged by initiatives such 

as the Department of the Interior’s “Youth and the 

Great Outdoors” and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Let’s Go Outside.” Boats and bait collecting 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 99 

Figure 17. Proposed deer and turkey hunt area, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.
100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

are not allowed because they increase the risk of 

exotic and invasive species introduction and spread.

Frogging will be prohibited on the refuge 

because, at various life phases (eggs, tadpoles, adult), 

frogs are an important diet item for many wildlife 

species. Also, frogging commonly occurs at night 

when the refuge is closed to the public. Therefore, 

frogging opportunities would be very limited. 

Because bait collecting is not allowed on the refuge, 

we would need regulations to control the frog species 

and sizes collected, among other considerations, and 

these would be difficult to enforce, especially when 

law enforcement on the refuge is limited.

Fishing Objective 2

Enhance fishing and fishing education opportunities for youth by maintaining the Kids’ Fishing Pond 

and annually stocking it with sport fish species.

Strategies

■ Allow fishing, in accordance with State and 

Federal regulations, for kids 14 and under 

(and adults accompanying such children). 

Adults will not be permitted to fish without 

children.

■ Maintain the existing accessible fishing 

dock.

■ Produce and install an interpretive panel 

about aquatic ecology with children-supplied artwork and text.

■ Produce and support an interpretive media 

that is coproduced, written, and continually 

revised by, and for, children to enhance 

their knowledge of fishing and fish 

resources.

Rationale

Similar to Objective 1, but in addition, maintaining a population of sport fish at the Kids’ Fishing 

Pond by stocking provides a location where fish populations are continually stable. It also provides a type 

of compatible public use that follows initiatives 

described in objective 1.

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography Objective 1

Throughout the life of the plan, increase awareness and access to wildlife observation and photography opportunities on the refuge and the Great Plains 

Nature Center. 

Strategies

■ Maintain and improve the 14-mile wildlife 

auto tour route, trails, other public roads, 

observation towers, spotting scopes, and 

photography blinds.

■ Keep and improve diverse and dynamic 

interpretive displays, social media, and 

handout literature that continually enhance 

and increase visitors’ awareness of and 

interest in exploring the refuge.

■ Loan equipment, like binoculars, scopes, 

and backpacks, through the Birding Initiative and through Connecting People With 

Nature.

■ Continue to provide opportunities at the 

GPNC for wildlife observation and photography during operating hours and from sunrise to sunset every day via City of Wichita 

Chisholm Creek Park.

■ Keep refuge open daily during daylight 

hours. 

■ Allow and encourage use throughout the 

entire refuge except in seasonally closed 

areas.

■ Promote awareness of opportunities 

through the Wetlands and Wildlife National 

Scenic Byway.

■ Collaborate with Friends groups and others 

to install a tower camera at the bald eagle 

and BSM areas to provide more observation 

opportunities of remote wildlife.

■ Allow horseback riding and bicycling on 

established roads, not on hiking trails.

■ Allow the walking of pets according to refuge regulations. Pets must be leashed and 

under their owners’ control at all times, 
Chapter 4—Management Direction 101 

unless for purposes approved by the refuge 

manager.

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography Objective 2

Over the next 10 years, promote and expand public use of woodland groves by birdwatchers, and 

photographers.

Strategies

■ Develop information in brochures, panels 

and social media that promote wildlife 

observation and photography in designated 

woodland areas around the refuge.

■ Enhance access to at least some woodland 

groves while considering management constraints and other priorities.

■ Promote awareness of opportunity through 

the Wetlands and Wildlife National Scenic 

Byway.

■ Encourage minimal use of the Artesian 

Grove through interpretive panels explaining the special nature of the site.

■ See that activities comply with refuge regulations and Service policy.

Rationale for Wildlife Observation and 

Photography Objectives 1 and 2

Use information provided to promote connections 

that nurture the appreciation and stewardship of 

natural resources. Promoting conservation partnerships with support groups (such as Friends groups 

and scenic byway) would increase awareness of 

observation and photography opportunities, and general respect for wildlife resources. Better access to 

refuge areas would make it easier for people to 

observe and photograph wildlife.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 1

Within 10 years, refuge staff will design and conduct 5–10 programs to enhance the advocacy and 

improve awareness of our mission and management; 

fish and wildlife resources; our refuge management 

activities; and the refuge’s natural, cultural, and historic resources.

Strategies

■ Develop an environmental education and 

interpretation plan.

■ Refuge staff will continue to coordinate 

with Friends of Quivira to create special 

events and educational programs. 

■ Provide environmental education programs 

at the refuge that teach curriculum-based 

programs for all school grade levels to help 

meet State educational standards.

■ Encourage the use of the refuge by educational organizations as an “outdoor 

classroom.”

■ Continue to promote national initiatives, 

such as Connecting People with Nature, 

America’s Great Outdoors, and Let’s Go 

Outside!

■ Continue to engage visitors to the refuge 

through loan programs for binoculars and 

other educational products.

■ Continue to provide interpretive programs 

at the refuge on a variety of refuge management and wildlife-oriented subjects, both by 

request and as scheduled activities, and 

increase programs as staff and time allow.

■ Interpret the cultural history of the refuge 

area, including tribal uses and early 

settlement.

■ Continue relevant and effective annual 

school events, such as those about the conservation of whooping cranes.

■ Continue networking and communicating 

with area educators as to availability of 

environmental education programs and 

opportunities both on and off the refuge.

■ Allow virtual geocaching.
102 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Visitors participate in the Monarch Mania event held at 

Quivira Refuge.

WSF

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 2

Within 5 years, refuge staff will increase interpretive media by 25 percent, thus reaching more 

public both onsite and offsite.

Strategies

■ Educate and inform individuals, schools, and 

other organizations through accessible programs, exhibits, signs, pamphlets, the 

Internet, and social media.

■ Continually evaluate interpretive media like 

brochures, signs, and displays for relevancy, 

effectiveness, and timeliness.

■ Use social media to increase contact and 

exposure to the refuge.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 3

Interagency staff at the GPNC will conduct an 

average of 1,700 onsite and offsite programs every 

year focusing on “at risk” youth and other underserved audiences.

Strategies

■ Evaluate needs and increase Service staff, 

as applicable, to support programming 

efforts.

■ Increase communication and networking 

efforts with Unified School District 259 

(Wichita) and area school administrators to 

advertise and market GPNC programs 

(such as school field trips and in-classroom 

presentations)

■ Coordinate educational programs with area 

educators to make sure that State Core 

standards are being met through programming efforts.

■ Increase the distribution of educational kits 

and discovery boxes to educators.

■ Continue to promote national initiatives, 

such as Connecting People with Nature, 

America’s Great Outdoors, and Let’s Go 

Outside!

■ Educate and inform individuals, schools, and 

other organizations through accessible programs, exhibits, signs, pamphlets, the 

Internet, and social media.

■ Continue to support the GPNC through its 

partnership with the City of Wichita 

Department of Park and Recreation and the 

KDWPT. 

■ Use funding opportunities from the Urban 

Presence Initiative to support educational 

programming at the GPNC.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 4

Within 5 years Refuge and GPNC staff will create 

a definition of environmental education and increase 

the level of professionalism of environmental education programs presented.

Strategies

Partner agency staff will attend capacity building 

training and environmental education workshops.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 103 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 5

Increase outreach and marketing efforts to 

increase participation by teachers and students in the 

Junior Federal Duck Stamp program by 10 percent 

within 5 years.

Strategies:

■ Hire a consultant to evaluate our program 

and suggest improvements to increase 

participation.

■ Display artwork throughout the year at various locations, at least 10 venues per year, 

including the Kansas State Fair, to further 

promote interest in wildlife and art.

■ Create educational and marketing products, 

such as calendars and guides, that will 

engage potential participants, including 

parents, teachers and students.

■ Educate and inform individuals, schools, and 

other organizations through accessible programs, exhibits, signs, pamphlets, the 

Internet, and social media.

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 6

Throughout the life of the plan maintain 2 miles of 

foot trails and increase interpretative signs on trails 

by 50 percent within 10 years.

Strategies

■ Evaluate Birdhouse Boulevard trail and 

interpretive components for potential 

improvements and updates.

■ Evaluate the Headquarters and Little Salt 

Marsh trails for interpretive signage needs 

and install signage as outlined.

■ Evaluate signage needs on the Migrants 

Mile Trail and replace and install as 

outlined.

■ Evaluate trail surfaces, boardwalks, directional signs, and bridges and improve as 

needed.

■ Develop and provide printed media such as 

trail maps and guides.

■ Consider incorporating a fitness program on 

refuge and GPNC trails through 

HealthyKansas.org

Rationale for Environmental Education 

and Interpretation Objectives 1–6 

It is important for all ages of the public to have an 

understanding of the refuge and GPNC missions, 

goals, and responsibilities. Both facilities are in the 

“backyard” of several local communities, providing a 

sense of pride can be nurtured and perpetuated by 

increased understanding through education and 

interpretation. In addition, all the local communities 

benefit economically from their proximity to the 

facilities and their popularity as destinations. As 

community members come to know more about the 

refuge and the GPNC, they will be better able to educate both other residents and visitors.

Other Uses Objective

Throughout the life of the plan, provide appropriate and compatible opportunities for wildlife-dependent and non–wildlife-dependent recreation that 

support the six priority public uses or contribute to 

the appreciation of the refuge. These opportunities 

will not be allowed to disturb wildlife and will not be 

allowed when areas are closed for safety reasons. 

Strategies

■ Allow dog training by individuals, not commercial vendors, as described in appendix B.

■ Allow commercial photography with a special use permit.

■ Allow commercial tours for birding only 

with a special use permit.

■ Allow firewood cutting in limited designated areas with a special use permit.
104 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

■ Do not allow the collection of berries, fruit, 

roots, and mushrooms.

■ Do not allow the collection of shed antlers 

and wildflowers.

■ Do not allow commercial guiding for 

hunting.

■ Do not allow boating or camping.

■ Do not allow unauthorized vehicle use on 

roads and trails.

■ Do not allow off-road vehicle use.

■ Do not allow the collection of reptiles and 

amphibians or crayfish.

■ Review requests for other non–wildlifedependent for compatibility and appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.

Rationale

The Improvement Act states that other uses can 

occur within the Refuge System, but they must support, or not conflict with, a priority public use. Furthermore, a use may not keep a national wildlife 

refuge from accomplishing its purposes or the mission of the Refuge System.

The refuge supports various forms of naturebased outdoor recreation that, while not strictly wildlife dependent, may support or facilitate 

wildlife-dependent recreation. These include activities such as equestrian use, bicycling, or hiking, 

which are compatible with the purposes of the refuge 

and contribute to the appreciation and enjoyment of 

it. These opportunities have been found to be appropriate at certain times of the year, and compatible 

with the goals and objectives set by the refuge. The 

opportunities will not be allowed to disturb wildlife 

during certain times of the year, and will not be 

allowed when areas are closed for safety reasons.

4.6 Public Outreach Goal

Visitors of all abilities understand, appreciate, 

and support the Service mission, as well as the 

refuge’s unique habitats and importance to 

migratory birds and other wildlife and plant 

species.

Following are objectives for a variety of public 

outreach activities.

Public Outreach Objective 1

Within 5 years, refuge and GPNC staff will design 

and conduct outreach programs to present to 10–20 

civic and environmental organizations annually in 

local communities within a 50-mile radius of each 

respective site.

Strategies

■ Develop speaker-led multimedia programs 

that emphasize refuge or GPNC features, 

facilities, management goals, and natural, 

cultural, and historic resources. Actively 

seek new civic organizations, clubs, educational groups, and other entities to which we 

can present programs.

■ Work with Friends of Quivira and Friends 

of the Great Plains Nature Center to promote public awareness of the refuge and its 

mission and provide opportunities for the 

public to learn more about the resources of 

the Great Plains. 

■ Emphasize the importance of Quivira and 

the GPNC to area communities because of 

the strong draw the sites have to visitors 

from outside the area. Present information 

about what makes each site special, such as 

unique features to the sites, great birdwatching opportunities, and rare species 

occurrences.

■ Work with the Friends of the Great Plains 

Nature Center to develop information about 

how Quivira Refuge and the GPNC function 

as “green” operations in the environment. 

Provide educational material about geothermal, solar, and other features at these sites 

through media such as displays, literature, 

and the Web.

■ Install a tower camera at the bald eagle and 

BSM areas to provide more observation 

opportunities of remote wildlife to heighten 

understanding and awareness of refuge 

resources, encourage refuge visitation, and 

increase positive personal experiences with 

natural resources.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 105 

The blue goose, representing the Refuge System, rides in 

the Octoberfest Parade held in Stafford, Kansas.

WSF

Public Outreach Objective 2

By working in partnership with respective 

Friends groups, foster appreciation and increase 

knowledge of the refuge and GPNC by holding at 

least 10 special events annually and through the 

Friends’ newsletters and Web sites.

■ Present theme-oriented special events 

throughout the year that emphasize either 

subjects, such as butterflies or birds, or 

activities, such as fishing.

■ Make sure that all special events are used to 

emphasize the purpose, mission, and wildlife of the refuge and the GPNC.

■ Contribute regular articles to Friends 

newsletters and Web sites about refuge and 

GPNC news, management actions, and other 

pertinent subjects. 

■ Recruit, train, and use volunteers from local 

communities to help us meet our management and public use goals at Quivira Refuge 

and the GPNC. Strive to help GPNC volunteers contribute at least 2,800 hours of service to the nature center. The Friends of the 

GPNC volunteer coordinator will work to 

increase and enhance the GPNC volunteer 

corps.

Public Outreach Objective 3

Within 5 years, contribute to knowledge and 

appreciation of the refuge, GPNC, and the Service 

through a minimum of 65,000 public visits to the 

respective sites; 8,000 visits to offsite stations such as 

the Kansas State Fair, and 40,000 visits to online 

media.

■ Increase and continually freshen Quivira 

Refuge Web content by offering fresh, informative, and pertinent content about refuge 

operations, bird and wildlife sightings, hunting, events, and more. The GPNC staff and 

webmaster continue to update existing 

pages and add more pages as needed for 

new events, projects, and programs.

■ Oversee the development, maintenance, and 

staff of our information booth at the annual 

Kansas State Fair for both Quivira Refuge 

and the GPNC and continue to update and 

change its theme. Make sure that information about our various operations, missions, 

and activities is regularly available, but also 

offer fun and educational, hands-on exhibits 

for the entire family.

■ Develop static, portable displays about refuge and GPNC wildlife, facilities, and management that can be used at fairs, 

conventions, and other events that last a day 

or more.

■ Install traffic counters at strategic locations 

to count visitor use.

■ Work with partners to survey visitor use.

Rationale for Public Outreach Objectives 1–3

Following the 2011 “Conserving the Future” 

visioning workshop, implementation teams were cre-
106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

ated to address a variety of issues, such as urban 

wildlife refuges, community partnerships, communication, interpretive and environmental education, 

volunteers, hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. 

These implementation teams were tasked with developing plans that outline goals, objectives, and strategies to meet issues identified at the visioning 

workshop. Once these plans are complete, Quivira 

Refuge staff will review and incorporate their recommendations to enhance public outreach as they apply 

to refuge and GPNC operations and visitor services 

opportunities. The plans will also form the basis for 

various stepdown plans, such as for Visitor Services, 

that will be created following the completion of this 

document. 

Public outreach furthers the mission of the refuge 

and the Refuge System for the protection of public 

trust resources by garnering support for wildlife and 

their wild places. Using the principle that appreciation begins and is nurtured through understanding, 

outreach builds and enhances a sense of stewardship 

in the public, which in turn allows the public to feel 

better connected to the natural world through the 

refuge and the GPNC.

4.7 Cultural Resources Goal

The cultural resources and cultural history of 

the refuge are identified, valued, and preserved 

and connect staff, visitors, and the community to 

the area’s past.

Following is the objective for cultural resources 

on Quivira Refuge.

Cultural Resources Objective

Protect and preserve cultural resources on the 

refuge through coordination with the Region 6 cultural resources branch, which helps our refuge staff 

in meeting the requirements of Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and other cultural resources-related legislation.

Strategies

■ Inform the Region 6 cultural resources staff 

of refuge projects early in project planning 

by using the Cultural Resources Review 

Form.

■ Develop exhibits and signs to enhance educational opportunities.

■ Encourage collaboration with interested 

tribes in developing relevant materials and 

correct interpretation.

Rationale

The refuge was once an important Native American gathering site for hunting and salt gathering. 

Different cultural values are acknowledged, 

respected, and celebrated by the Refuge System 

(FWS 2011). Cultural services are one of many ecosystem services, or benefits, that one can get from 

nature (FWS 2011).

4.8 Visitor and Employee 

Safety and Resource 

Protection Goal

Provide for the safety, security and protection of 

visitors, employees, natural and cultural 

resources and facilities of the refuge and Great 

Plains Nature Center.

Following are objectives for a variety of visitor 

and employee safety and resource protection 

activities.

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Objective

Ensure visitor safety and the safety of our 

employees at Quivira Refuge and the GPNC. Strive 

to keep the refuge 100-percent visitor accident free 

and keep employee accidents and injuries, as reportable to the Office of Workers Compensation Program, 

below the regional average of 6.2 hours of lost time a 

year over the life of the plan.

Strategies

■ Educate and inform visitors of their responsibilities when visiting national wildlife refuges and the ways they might mitigate 

potential dangers and hazards.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 107 

■ Use directional and informative signs, visitor information kiosks, updated Web pages, 

and posted warnings to help reduce preventable accidents and mishaps.

■ Close roads deemed unsafe for travel 

because of weather conditions or poor visibility, and post closings on our Web page 

promptly to alert visitors about our conditions before travelling, if possible.

■ Maintain up-to-date station safety plans 

that provide emergency contacts, procedures, and training for all employees.

■ Conduct an annual safety inspection of all 

facilities.

■ Provide emergency shelters, accessible 

facilities, and suitable trails and roads.

■ Review and follow infectious disease plans 

and policies and update as necessary every 

year.

■ Law enforcement officers help with protecting visitors and report serious incidents to 

the proper authorities, per our guidance 

found in regulation 054 FW 1.

■ Keep a collateral duty safety officer at Quivira Refuge.

■ Provide employees with suitable personal 

protective equipment.

■ Make sure that all required safety and operator training is completed before engaging 

in risky tasks or work situations. Make sure 

that other training, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR, and first aid, is 

available to employees as needed or 

requested.

■ Make sure that employees review job hazard analyses before engaging in at-risk 

tasks.

■ Practice sound risk management, “the state 

in which risks are acceptable.”

Rationale

Visiting a national wildlife refuge can be inherently dangerous. Snake bites, stinging and biting 

insects and their associated diseases, extreme hot 

and cold temperatures, wind, lightning, tornados, 

standing or turbulent water, uneven terrain, and 

steep edges can potentially turn a pleasant day out 

into a life-altering experience. Our role is to help 

identify these dangers, inform about them, and mitigate these dangers to the greatest extent possible.

Reducing the potential for accidents and injuries 

is cost efficient, provides better job satisfaction for 

employees, and is the right way to conduct business. 

We require written job hazard analyses before 

undertaking all at-risk tasks, such as operating an 

all-terrain vehicle or pounding fence posts. A library 

of job hazard analyses is available on the Region 6 

safety office Web site and at refuge headquarters.

Resource Protection Objective

Protect wildlife and other natural and cultural 

resources from damage, theft, or illegal taking to 

preserve resources for visitors to the refuge and to 

prevent their unnatural decline.

Strategies

■ Enforce hunting, fishing, and all other regulations in accordance with the CFR, State 

laws, and refuge regulations to protect designated critical habitat and wildlife.

■ Close areas to protect wildlife from human 

disturbance when necessary.

■ Enforce regulations and apply refuge closure strategies, as determined by the refuge manager, to protect whooping cranes 

and other resources of concern.

■ Use law enforcement and education to protect cultural resources in accordance with 

Federal, State, and tribal laws, policies and 

guidelines.

■ Keep at least two dual-function law enforcement officers or one dual-function and one 

full-time permanent law enforcement 

officer.

■ Provide ample and easy access to refuge 

regulations through various media such as 

printed leaflets, Web site and social media, 

and six information kiosks located throughout the refuge.
108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Rationale

To adequately staff refuges with sufficient officers 

to protect wildlife and habitat and to make refuges 

safe places for staff and visitors is a top priority for 

the Refuge System. Conserving the Future (FWS 

2011), Recommendation 16, charges us to: Conduct a 

new, independent analysis of refuge law enforcement 

to measure progress and to identify needed 

improvements.

4.9 Administration Goal

Provide and support facilities, strategically 

acquire and allocate staff, increase volunteer 

opportunities and partnerships, and effectively 

develop and use money to support the long-term 

integrity of infrastructure, habitats, and wildlife 

resources at the refuge and the Great Plains 

Nature Center.

Following are objectives for a variety of administration activities.

Funding and Staff Objective 1

Strive to keep funding level for 11 permanent fulltime and 1 permanent part-time staff positions; provide regional or zone office space as needed; and 

continue to seek money for vacant, seasonal, temporary, and youth positions.

Strategies

■ Continue to correctly document budget and 

staff needs through memos and reports.

■ Continue to hire one to five seasonal biological aids and technicians and continue to hire 

range technicians, as money allows, each 

year.

■ Provide office space at Quivira Refuge for a 

regional refuge zone biologist, a Partners 

private lands biologist, and for other program staff as needed.

■ Use the Youth Conservation Corps program 

to help accomplish refuge goals and 

objectives.

■ Raise money through grants and initiatives, 

such as AmeriCorps and Youth in the Great 

Outdoors, to supplement our staff and 

projects.

■ Keep permanent fire staff to include a fire 

management office, and refill a supervisory 

range technician.

The Great Plains Nature Center

WSF

Funding and Staff Objective 2

Plan to recruit and fill new positions that are identified in this CCP as being needed for accomplishing 

the goals and objectives to protect habitat, infrastructure, and wildlife resources at Quivira Refuge 

and the GPNC throughout the life of the plan.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 109 

Strategies

■ Identify needed positions and projects in the 

Refuge Operations Needs System database 

and update as requested. The top refuge 

priority identified in the database is one fulltime maintenance worker.

■ Coordinate with our regional law enforcement coordinator.

■ Continue to correctly document budget and 

staff needs through memos and reports.

■ Evaluate and add a new position at the 

GPNC to meet needs

■ Refine and increase participation in our refuge volunteer program.

Rationale

Conserving the Future (FWS 2011) states, “We 

must engage and prepare a diverse group of qualified 

and enthusiastic professionals that want to make the 

Service and the Refuge System their life’s work. We 

must be adaptive and flexible to recruit a workforce 

that reflects society...to ensure a workforce of the 

best and brightest minds...we must look for ways to 

transfer knowledge from senior staff. As part of this 

succession, we will value diversity of people and skills 

to create a culture of inclusivity.”

Conserving the Future (FWS 2011), Recommendation 22, charges us to: within the next 10 years, 

make our workforce match the diversity in the civilian labor workforce and recruit and keep a workforce 

that reflects the ethnic, age, socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, and language diversity of contemporary America.

Facilities Objective 1

Within 5 years at the refuge and GPNC, review 

and update our refuge deferred maintenance projects 

list and document deficiencies, and submit a ranked 

project list for potential money every year.

Strategies

■ Support and enhance the water delivery 

infrastructure necessary to achieve our 

wetland goals and objectives for the refuge.

■ Maintain the roads and parking lots 

required to support public use opportunities 

consistent with our goals and objectives.

■ Maintain the fencing, wells, and other infrastructure necessary to operate a grazing 

program that helps us achieve our goals and 

objectives for the refuge.

■ Maintain existing buildings, including an 

office, visitor center, maintenance shop, 

three storage buildings, one pole barn, two 

residences, and two comfort stations.

■ Review displays, interactive, portable, and 

static, about area flora, fauna, ecology, and 

history at our visitor centers and update as 

resources allow.

■ Maintain and enhance the existing 2 miles 

of trails and accompanying structures, like 

bridges, boardwalks, interpretive signs, and 

kiosks, to provide quality visitor use 

experiences.

■ Explore creating more trails on the refuge 

to provide more opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.

■ Maintain infrastructure at the GPNC, 

including Koch Habitat Hall, Coleman Auditorium, offices, classrooms, and a storage 

garage, to support our multiagency partnership with the City of Wichita Park and Recreation Department and KDWPT.

Rationale

Visitor services infrastructure for both the refuge 

and GPNC need routine annual and long-term maintenance to keep them in good-to-excellent condition. 

Because of our salty environment at the refuge, our 

water control facilities and equipment deteriorate 

faster than those at refuges that protect freshwater 

marshes. Much of the refuge is also comprised of the 

sandy, Sand Prairie ecotype soils, which necessitates 

more constant maintenance to keep water control 

structures from washing out. Some old water control 

structures need to be replaced. Boundary fences and 

signs are in constant need of replacement because of 

severe weather events, environmental degradation 

and occasional vandalism.

The maintenance shop requires an addition and 

updating. The bunkhouse and environmental education classroom were created out of the old, original 

1957 block office building, which was abandoned 

because of poor domestic water quality. So, there is a 
110 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

need to again abandon this building and move operations to the current headquarters site to consolidate 

facilities and operations at one location with good 

quality water. An improved environmental education 

program could ensue near the headquarters with 

access to accessible trails, the observation tower, the 

visitor center, the Kid’s Fishing Pond and to quality 

wetlands and grasslands for interpretation.

Energy conservation modifications have recently 

been made at several facilities, but more improvements are needed.

Facilities Objective 2

At the GPNC, within 5 years, identify changes 

and additions to the facility that will improve our 

cooperative partnership and agency’s performances 

while enhancing the visitors’ experience.

Strategies

■ Work with partner staffs and develop a plan 

to expand the building, thus adding office 

space, classrooms, and a large public meeting space that has the possibility to accommodate traveling exhibits.

■ Encourage Friends of the GPNC to investigate strategies to pay for building a new 

addition to the facility and for improved and 

enhanced programming efforts.

■ Continue to work with corporate sponsors 

to provide up-to-date and state-of-the-art 

exhibits in the Koch Habitat Hall.

Rationale

Current exhibits are reaching the end of their 

expected lifespan and should be replaced and 

updated. The building will be insufficient for anticipated future needs.

Facilities Objective 3

Within 15 years, design and develop a new environmental education site near the headquarters area. 

Strategies

■ Include a capital improvement project in the 

Service asset and maintenance management 

system.

■ Develop a conceptual site plan and engineering design.

■ Demolish and rehabilitate old environmental education site.

■ Construct new environmental education 

site.

Rationale

Same as objective 2 and rationale for environmental education and interpretation objective 1. Centralized buildings improve visitor service, reduce staff 

travel, and improve water quality.

Facilities Objective 4

Within 15 years design and construct another cold 

storage building and fire cache on the refuge.

Strategies

■ Include a capital improvement project in the 

Service asset and maintenance management 

system.

■ Develop a conceptual site plan and engineering design.

■ Potentially demolish and rehabilitate old 

site.

■ Construct new cold storage building and fire 

cache.

Rationale

Additional storage space is needed to better protect vehicles and to support other refuge objectives.
Chapter 4—Management Direction 111 

Migrants Mile Trail

WSF

4.10 Stepdown Management 

Plans

This CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides 

general concepts and specific wildlife, habitat, visitor 

services, and partnership objectives over the next 15 

years. The purpose of stepdown management plans is 

to provide detail for our managers and employees so 

they may more effectively carry out the specific 

actions and strategies authorized by this CCP. Table 

19 lists the stepdown plans needed, their status, and 

their next revision dates.

4.11 Monitoring and Evaluation

We believe that the uncertainty surrounding habitat management can be dealt with most efficiently 

within the paradigm of adaptive resource manageTable 19. Stepdown management plans for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Plan Completed plan, year approved New or revised plan, completion year

Habitat management plan (annual) 2012 2013 revise annually

Habitat management plan — 2017

Inventory and monitoring plan — 2014

Integrated pest management plan 2012 2017

Fire management plan 2009 2014 validate annually

Visitor services plan 1986 2017

Law enforcement plan 2012 2017

Station safety plan 2012 2017

Water management plan (annual) 2012 2013 revise annually

Hunting plan — 2016

Trapping plan — 2016

GPNC operations plan 2012 2013 revise annually

Santana Research Natural Area plan 1984 revise as appropriate
112 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

ment (see figure 18) (Holling 1978, Kendall 2001, Lancia et al. 1996, Walters and Holling 1990). This 

approach provides a framework within which we can 

make objective decisions and reduce the uncertainty 

surrounding those decisions. The key components of 

an adaptive resource management plan follow:

■ clearly defined management goals and 

objectives

■ a set of management actions with associated 

uncertainty as to their outcome

■ predictions of various alternative responses 

to management strategies

■ monitoring or assessing select natural 

resource conditions of interest, largely 

directed by objectives

■ communicating and using new information 

to direct future decisionmaking

The adaptive management framework facilitates 

an iterative process, whereby our understanding of 

the effectiveness of strategies and the response and 

conditions of natural resources on the refuge is 

improved over time. Reducing the uncertainty of 

habitat management via adaptive resource management helps in the continual development of long-term 

habitat management plans.

Figure 18. The adaptive resource management process.

4.12 Plan Amendment and 

Revision

This CCP will be reviewed annually to decide if it 

needs revision. A revision will occur when significant 

information becomes available, such as a change in 

ecological conditions. The final CCP will be augmented by detailed stepdown management plans to 

address the completion of specific strategies in support of the CCP goals and objectives. Revisions to 

the CCP and the stepdown management plans will be 

subject to public review and NEPA compliance. At a 

minimum, this plan will be evaluated every 5 years 

and revised after 15 years.
Glossary

abiotic—Pertaining to nonliving things.

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas 

and activities for people of different abilities, 

especially those with physical impairments.

adaptive resource management—The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring 

programs to gain information and experience necessary to assess and change management activities; a process that uses feedback from research, 

monitoring programs, and evaluation of management actions to support or change objectives and 

strategies at all planning levels; a process in 

which policy decisions are carried out within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to 

test predictions and assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results helps managers 

decide whether current management should continue as is or whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions.

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

alternative—A reasonable way to solve an identified 

problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 

1500.2); one of several different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the Refuge System mission (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5).

amphibian—A class of cold-blooded vertebrates 

including frogs, toads or salamanders.

annual—A plant that flowers and dies within 1 year 

of germination.

baseline—A set of essential observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or a control.

biological control—The use of organisms or viruses 

to control invasive plants or other pests.

biological diversity, also biodiversity—The variety of 

life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among 

them, and the communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1.12B). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on 

indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological processes.

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; 

caused, produced by, or comprising living 

organisms.

canopy—A layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; mid-level or understory vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy 

closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate of the 

amount of overhead vegetative cover.

CCC—See Civilian Conservation Corps.

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan.

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations.

cfs—Cubic feet per second.

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)—Peacetime civilian 

“army” established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to perform conservation activities from 

1933–42. Activities included erosion control; firefighting; tree planting; habitat protection; stream 

improvement; and building of fire towers, roads, 

recreation facilities, and drainage systems.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—The codification of 

the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the executive departments 

and agencies of the Federal Government. Each 

volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar 

year.

compatibility determination—See compatible use.

compatible use—A wildlife-dependent recreational 

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

professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of 

the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes 

of the refuge (Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). 

A compatibility determination supports the choice 

of compatible uses and identified stipulations or 

limits necessary to make sure that there is 

compatibility.

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A document 

that describes the desired future conditions of the 

refuge and provides long-range guidance and 

management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute 

to the mission of the Refuge System, and to meet 

other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5).

concern—See issue.

conspecific—An individual belonging to the same 

species as another.

cool-season grasses—Grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant in 

the summer. These grasses will germinate at 

lower temperatures. Examples of cool-season 
114 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

grasses at the refuge are western wheatgrass, 

needle and thread, and green needlegrass.

coteau—A hilly upland including the divide between 

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

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present vegetation of an area.

cultural resources—The remains of sites, structures, 

or objects used by people in the past.

depredation—Destruction or consumption of eggs, 

broods, or individual wildlife because of a predatory animal; damage inflicted on agricultural 

crops or ornamental plants by wildlife.

drawdown—The act of manipulating water levels in 

an impoundment to allow for the natural, cyclical 

drying out of a wetland.

EA—See environmental assessment.

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated nonliving environment; a biological community, with its environment, functioning as a unit. 

For administrative purposes, the Service has 

designated 53 ecosystems covering the United 

States and its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries and 

their sizes and ecological complexity vary.

EIS—Environmental impact statement.

emergent—A plant rooted in shallow water and having most of the vegetative growth above water 

such as cattail and hardstem bulrush.

endangered species, Federal—A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a substantial part of its range.

endangered species, State—A plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular state within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations of 

these species are at critically low levels or their 

habitats have been degraded or depleted to a substantial degree.

endemic species—Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality.

environmental assessment (EA)—A concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly 

discusses the purpose and need for an action and 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of effects to decide whether 

to prepare an environmental impact statement or 

finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency.

extinction—The complete disappearance of a species 

from the earth; no longer existing.

extirpation—The extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specified area.

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area.

Federal trust resource—A trust is something managed by one entity for another who holds the ownership. The Service holds in trust many natural 

resources for the people of the United States of 

America as a result of Federal acts and treaties. 

Examples are species listed under the Endangered Species Act, migratory birds protected by 

international treaties, and native plant or wildlife 

species found on a national wildlife refuge.

Federal trust species—All species where the Federal 

Government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, 

migratory birds, anadromous fish, and certain 

marine mammals.

flora—All the plant species of an area.

FMP—fire management plan.

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season.

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the original habitat that are interspersed with a variety of 

other habitat types; the process of reducing the 

size and connectivity of habitat patches, making 

movement of individuals or genetic information 

between parcels difficult or impossible.

Friends group—Any formal organization whose mission is to support the goals and purposes of its 

associated refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge Association overall; Friends organizations 

and cooperative and interpretive associations.

General Schedule—Pay rate schedule for certain 

Federal positions. Sometimes “GS.”

geographic information system (GIS)—A computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial data; a set of computer hardware and software for analyzing and displaying spatially 

referenced features (such as points, lines and 

polygons) with nongeographic attributes such as 

species and age.

GIS—See geographic information system.

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable 

units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5).

grassland tract—A contiguous area of grassland 

without fragmentation.

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction; the place where an organism typically 

lives and grows.

habitat disturbance—Substantial alteration of habitat 

structure or composition; may be natural (for 
Glossary 115 

example, wildland fire) or human-caused events 

(for example, timber harvest and disking).

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—A land 

classification system based on the concept of distinct plant associations.

herbivory—The state or condition of feeding on 

plants or plant parts.

herptile—A reptile or an amphibian.

HMP—Habitat management plan.

HUA—Hydrologic unit area.

hydroperiod—The seasonal pattern of the water level 

of a wetland that is often used to characterize 

wetland types. Examples of seasonal patterns 

include flood frequency, duration, and depth.

impoundment—A body of water created by collection 

and confinement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another.

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997.

indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place.

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods of managing undesirable species such as invasive plants; 

education, prevention, physical or mechanical 

methods of control, biological control, responsible 

chemical use, and cultural methods.

introduced species—A species present in an area 

because of intentional or unintentional escape, 

release, dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as a result of human activity.

invasive plant, also noxious weed—A species that is 

nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration 

and whose introduction causes, or is likely to 

cause, economic or environmental harm or harm 

to human health.

inviolate sanctuary—A place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted.

IPM—See integrated pest management.

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision; for example, a Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, 

a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in 

uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition (Draft Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5).

Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism 

(KDWPT)—A State agency responsible for overseeing the conservation of game and nongame 

species in Kansas.

management alternative—See alternative.

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically 

from one region or climate to another for feeding 

or breeding.

migratory birds—Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and 

songbirds are all migratory birds.

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason 

for being.

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an environmental effect or to make an effect less severe.

mixed-grass prairie—A transition zone between the 

tallgrass prairie and the shortgrass prairie dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

approximately 2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich 

as the tallgrass prairie and moisture levels are 

less.

monitoring—The process of collecting information to 

track changes of selected parameters over time.

national wildlife refuge—A designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not 

include coordination areas; a complete listing of all 

units of the Refuge System is in the current 

“Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)—

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Department of the Interior for 

the conservation of fish and wildlife including species threatened with extinction, all lands, waters, 

and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, areas for the protection 

and conservation of fish and wildlife that are 

threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game 

ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all refuges in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System; defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes 

the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining appropriateness and 

compatibility; establish the responsibilities of the 

Secretary of the Department of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; 

requires a comprehensive conservation plan for 

each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended 

parts of the Refuge Recreation Act and National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966.

native species—A species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem.
116 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Neotropical migrant—A bird species that breeds 

north of the United States and Mexican border 

and winters primarily south of this border.

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

nest success—The percentage of nests that successfully hatch one or more eggs of the total number 

of nests started in an area.

NOA—Notice of availability.

nongovernmental organization—Any group that is not 

comprised of Federal, State, tribal, county, city, 

town, local, or other governmental entities.

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin (new to or not widely prevalent in the United 

States) and can directly or indirectly injure crops, 

other useful plants, livestock, poultry, other interests of agriculture, including irrigation, navigation, fish and wildlife resources, or public health. 

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 

93–639), a noxious weed (such as invasive plant) is 

one that causes disease or has adverse effects on 

humans or the human environment and, therefore, 

is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of 

the United States and to public health.

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

objective—An objective is a concise target statement 

of what will be achieved, how much will be 

achieved, when and where it will be achieved, and 

who is responsible for the work; derived from 

goals and provide the basis for determining management strategies. Objectives should be achievable and time specific and should be stated 

quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives 

cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be 

stated qualitatively (Draft Service Manual 602 

FW 1.5).

overwater species—Nesting species such as diving 

ducks and many colonial-nesting birds that build 

nests within dense stands of water-dependent 

plants, primarily cattail, or that build floating 

nests of vegetation that rest on the water.

OWLS—Outdoor wildlife learning site.

passerine—Pertaining to an order of birds, Passeriformes, that comprises more than half of all birds 

and that typically has feet adapted for perching.

patch—An area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental conditions.

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a 

lifespan of more than 2 years.

plant community—An assemblage of plant species 

unique in its composition; occurs in particular 

locations under particular influences; a reflection 

or integration of the environmental influences on 

the site such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar 

radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a 

general kind of climax plant community, such as 

ponderosa pine or bunchgrass.

prescribed fire—The skillful application of fire to 

natural fuels under conditions such as weather, 

fuel moisture, and soil moisture that allow confinement of the fire to a predetermined area and 

produces the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

to accomplish planned benefits to one or more 

objectives of habitat management, wildlife management, or hazard reduction.

priority public use—One of six uses authorized by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 to have priority if found to be compatible with a refuge’s purposes. This includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation.

proposed action—The alternative proposed to best 

achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge 

(contributes to the Refuge System mission, 

addresses the significant issues, and is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management).

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; American Indian tribes; and foreign 

nations. It may include anyone outside the core 

planning team. It includes those who may or may 

not have shown an interest in Service issues and 

those who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them.

public involvement—A process that offers affected 

and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to 

express their opinions on, Service actions and 

policies. In the process, these views are studied 

thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management.

purpose of the refuge—The purpose of a refuge is 

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

Executive order, agreement, public land order, 

donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing authorization or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

raptor—A carnivorous bird such as a hawk, a falcon, 

or a vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on meat 

taken by hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses).

Reclamation—Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior.

refuge operations needs system (RONS)—A national 

database that contains the operational needs of 

each refuge that need money. Projects included 
Glossary 117 

are those required to carry out approved plans 

and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge.

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge 

System.

refuge use—Any activity on a refuge, except administrative or law enforcement activity, carried out 

by or under the direction of an authorized Service 

employee.

resident species—A species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year; nonmigratory species.

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge lands.

restoration—Management emphasis designed to 

move ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, such as healthy upland habitats and 

aquatic systems.

riparian area or riparian zone—An area or habitat 

that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems including streams, lakes, wet areas, and 

adjacent plant communities and their associated 

soils that have free water at or near the surface; 

an area whose parts are directly or indirectly 

attributed to the influence of water; of or relating 

to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining and 

directly influenced by streams. For example, 

riparian vegetation includes all plant life growing 

on the land adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the stream.

RONS—See refuge operations needs system.

rough fish—A fish that is neither a sport fish nor an 

important food fish.

SAMMS—See Service Asset Maintenance Management System.

scoping—The process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process.

seasonally flooded—Surface water is present for 

extended periods in the growing season, but is 

absent by the end of the season in most years.

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers.

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

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS)—A national database that contains 

maintenance projects for each refuge that need 

money; projects include those required to keep 

existing equipment and buildings, correct safety 

deficiencies for the implementation of approved 

plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal 

mandates.

sheet flow—The overland flow of water, typically 

from precipitation to lower elevation areas.

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and 

shrubs planted around cropland or buildings to 

block or slow down the wind.

shorebird—Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds 

such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the seashore or mudflat areas.

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the character of space.

special status species—Plants or animals that have 

been identified through Federal law, State law, or 

agency policy as requiring special protection of 

monitoring programs. Examples include federally 

listed endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species; State-listed endangered, threatened, candidate, or monitor species; Service’s 

species of management concern; species identified 

by the Partners in Flight program as being of 

extreme or moderately high conservation 

concern.

special use permit—A permit for special authorization from the refuge manager required for any 

refuge service, facility, privilege, or product of the 

soil provided at refuge expense and not usually 

available to the public through authorizations in 

Title 50 CFR or other public regulations (Refuge 

Manual 5 RM 17.6).

species of concern—Those plant and animal species, 

while not falling under the definition of special 

status species, that are of management interest 

by virtue of being Federal trust species such as 

migratory birds, important game species, or significant keystone species; species that have documented or apparent populations declines, small or 

restricted populations, or dependence on 

restricted or vulnerable habitats.

stepdown management plan—A plan that provides 

the details necessary to carry out management 

strategies identified in the comprehensive conservation plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

strategy—A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 

FW 1.5).

submergent—A vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely 

beneath the water surface, except for flowering 

parts in some species.

surrogate species—A species used as an indicator of 

landscape habitat and system conditions. It represents multiple species and habitats within a 

defined landscape or geographic area.

threatened species, Federal—Species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that 

are likely to become endangered in the future 

throughout all, or a substantial part, of their 

range.

threatened species, State—A plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular state 

within the near future if factors contributing to 
118 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue.

travel corridor—A landscape feature that facilitates 

the biologically effective transport of animals 

between larger patches of habitat dedicated to 

conservation functions. Such corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffic including frequent 

foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the 

once in a lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. 

These are transition habitats and need not contain 

all the habitat elements required for long-term 

survival or reproduction of its migrants.

trust resource—See Federal trust resource.

trust species—See Federal trust species.

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, FWS)—The 

principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The Service manages the 

93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System 

comprised of more than 530 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production 

areas. It also operates 65 national fish hatcheries 

and 78 ecological service field stations, the agency 

enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores national significant 

fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat 

such as wetlands, administers the Endangered 

Species Act, and helps foreign governments with 

their conservation efforts. It also oversees the 

Federal aid program that distributes millions of 

dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting 

equipment to State wildlife agencies.

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

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

whose mission is to provide reliable scientific 

information to describe and understand the earth; 

decrease loss of life and property from natural 

disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our 

quality of life.

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey.

vision statement—A concise statement of the desired 

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily on the Refuge System mission, specific 

refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates 

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of a 

plant community; the height of vegetation that 

blocks the view of predators and conspecifics to a 

nest.

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—A method of visually quantifying vegetative structure and 

composition.

VOR—See visual obstruction reading.

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water including egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns.

Wage Grade Schedule—Pay rate schedule for certain 

Federal positions. Sometimes “WG.”

waterfowl—A category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans.

watershed—The region draining into a river, a river 

system, or a body of water.

wetland management district (WMD)—Land that the 

Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck 

Stamp money for restoration and management 

primarily as prairie wetland habitat critical to 

waterfowl and other wetland birds.

wildland fire—A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than prescribed 

fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 

FW 1.7).

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, or 

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these 

are the six priority public uses of the Refuge 

System.

woodland—Habitats dominated by trees.
Appendix A

Environmental Compliance

Environmental Action Statement

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record.

I have determined that the action of implementing 

the “Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge” is found not to have significant 

environmental effects, as determined by the attached 

“finding of no significant impact” and the environmental assessment as found with the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan.

Noreen Walsh Date

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado

Will Meeks Date

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado

Barbara Boyle Date

Refuge Supervisor, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, Colorado

W. Mike Oldham Date 

Refuge Manager 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Stafford, Kansas
120 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Finding of No Significant Impact

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

INTRODUCTION

This finding of no significant impact provides the 

basis for management decisions for the final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment for the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

The comprehensive conservation plan was prepared 

along with an environmental assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and 

relevant planning policies. We worked closely with 

the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. Other Federal, State and local agencies, tribal 

governments, nongovernmental organizations, and 

individuals contributed input to the plan.

ALTERNATIVES

Based on an analysis of comments collected from the 

public, input from our staff, and a review of the needs 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy 

Act, we identified several key issues for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. These were addressed in the 

alternatives for future management, which are summarized below.

Alternative A

Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which 

represents the current management of Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. This alternative provides the 

baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. It also fulfills a need of the National Environmental Policy Act. Under alternative A, our management activity would continue unchanged. We would 

not develop any new management, restoration, or 

education programs at the refuge. Current habitat 

and wildlife practices benefiting migratory species 

and other wildlife would not be expanded or changed. 

Habitat management would remain focused primarily 

on benefiting migratory birds. Our staff would keep 

monitoring, inventory, and research activities at current levels. Budget and staff levels would remain the 

same with little change in overall trends. Programs 

would follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they do now.

Alternative B

Alternative B places emphasis on restoring native communities and promoting the potential natural 

range of conditions on Quivira National Wildlife Refuge that help focal resources, or focal species and their 

respective habitats. Public use opportunities would 

continue to place importance on both consumptive 

and non-consumptive activities. Limited deer and 

turkey hunting opportunities would be offered for 

the first time, following the development of a more 

detailed hunt plan. We would increase our attention 

and understanding of the connectedness of habitats 

and the effectiveness of our management as it relates 

to habitat conditions and associations with wildlife. 

To achieve this alternative, relatively minor changes 

in our operations; inventory, monitoring programs, 

and research; staff; and infrastructure would likely 

be required.

Alternative C

Alternative C promotes self-sustaining natural 

processes with less regard to the effects on focal species relative to alternative B. Key values for restoring natural ecological processes include achieving the 

long-term sustainability of native communities and 

lowering maintenance costs. Native plant communities tend to be more resilient to climate change and 

other environmental stressors than nonnative and 

highly managed ecosystems. Native wildlife species, 

including our trust resources, are also characteristically able to adapt to such changes. Efforts such as 

prescribed fire, grazing, and invasive species control 

would be focused on maintaining native plant community composition and diversity. 

Relative to our other alternatives, habitat conditions 

would be allowed to fluctuate more with climatically 

driven wet and dry cycles. However, we would still 

need to mitigate the effects of past land uses on the 

refuge and in the watershed that have permanently 

altered some ecological processes. We would carry 

out this alternative in stages over many years, and 

changes in our research and monitoring programs, 

staff, operations, and infrastructure on the refuge 

would be required. Our success would be greatly influenced by our ability to develop new and expanded 

partnerships with stakeholders in the Rattlesnake 

Creek watershed.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH

The scoping period began on February 24, 2010, 

with the publication of a notice of intent in the Federal Register (FR75 (36): 8394–95). Before this, early 

in the preplanning phase, we outlined a process that 

would be inclusive of diverse stakeholder interests 

and would involve a range of activities for keeping the 

public informed and ensuring meaningful public input. 

Information was distributed through news releases, 

planning updates, and a series of public meetings. 
APPENDIX A—Environmental Compliance 121

During the initial scoping period, we received 80 

written comments, including letters from 3 nongovernmental organizations. 

Comments on the Draft Plan and EA

A notice of availability for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment was 

published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2013, 

(FR78 (77): 23778–80) announcing its availability, our 

intention to hold public meetings, and a request for 

comments. During the public review we held three 

public meetings, April 29–May 1, in Stafford, Wichita, 

and Great Bend, Kansas. Public participation in these 

meetings, and in the comprehensive conservation 

plan review process, was strong, with the meetings 

attended by more than 39 participants. In addition to 

oral comments recorded at the meetings, 60 emails 

and letters were received including letters from the 

Osage Nation, Federal and State agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. 

The majority of comments indicated support for 

landscape conservation and native ecological community goals and objectives, including actions related 

to habitat and wildlife. Comments related to visitor 

services and, specifically, to hunting, however, varied widely. The comment period closed May 31, 2013.

DECISION

Based on this assessment and comments received, 

I have selected the following preferred alternative:

■ a modified alternative B for refuge management

The preferred alternative was selected because 

it best meets the purposes for which the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge was established and is preferable to the “no-action” alternatives in light of physical, 

biological, economic, and social factors. The preferred 

alternative will achieve a reasonable balance among 

significant resource management issues, the refuge 

purposes, the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, our management policies, and the interests and 

perspectives of all stakeholders.

We have considered the environmental and relevant concerns presented by agencies, organizations, 

and individuals on the proposed action to develop and 

implement a comprehensive conservation plan for 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. The substantive 

issues and comments raised have been addressed in 

the final plan.

Alternative B was revised from the proposed action 

after our consideration of many comments received 

from agencies, tribes, other stakeholder organizations, 

and the public during the comment period. Revisions 

to the key management actions of alternative B for 

refuge management largely relate to hunting. The 

most significant revisions are listed below:

■ Migratory waterfowl and upland bird hunting 

boundaries were revised to the same actions as 

alternative A. Thus, hunting opportunities will be 

provided in the North Lake area when whooping 

cranes are not present.

■ In development of a more detailed hunt plan, consideration will be given to (1) the expansion of 

white goose hunting opportunities in the spring, 

and (2) allowing limited frogging opportunities only 

for bullfrogs and only during daylight hours when 

the refuge is open.

■ General hunting activities will be closed on the 

refuge when whooping cranes are present. In developing a more detailed hunt plan, consideration 

will be given to one or few exceptions if those 

controlled activities are determined to have no or 

insignificant adverse effects to species of concern.

■ Included among the nonhuntable species will be 

sandhill crane, rail, woodcock and snipe, and prairie chicken largely because (1) populations are low 

on the refuge, and (2) associations relate to the 

conservation of species of concern. For example, 

whooping cranes often occur with sandhill cranes 

on the refuge.

■ Clarification that hunting opportunities, notably 

those related to turkey and mammals, will be controlled by both State and Federal (refuge) regulations. Management will have the authority to 

limit many aspects of deer, turkey, and furbearer 

hunting, such as the location, timing, methods, and 

allowable take. Consideration will be given to species and habitat conservation goals and objectives, 

public and employee safety, logistics, and balancing 

multiple compatible use activities. The refuge will 

work with Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, 

and Tourism in developing appropriate options.

Management of the refuge will comply with all 

Federal laws and regulations that provide direction 

for managing units of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Various methods that involve rest, water 

level control, prescribed grazing, burning, mechanical, 

chemical, and cultural-related activities will be used 

to accomplish refuge goals and objectives

FINDING AND BASIS FOR DECISION

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning 

of Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Accordingly, the preparation of an environmental impact statement on the proposed action 

is not required.

The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects. The implementation of the preferred 

alternative will:
122 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

■ manage for wildlife as a priority, with emphasis on 

providing for the needs of focal species as defined 

in the document;

■ not adversely impact endangered or threatened 

species or their habitat;

■ increase the sustainability and resiliency of the 

refuge and improve our ability to adjust to the 

uncertainty of climate change;

■ continue to control invasive species, especially species not native to the region;

■ initiate the conversion of refuge cropland areas 

(an estimated 850–900 acres typed as farmed) to 

appropriate native community types;

■ reduce the amount of woody coverage (estimated 

to be up to 850 acres of trees) to increase the area 

of native sand prairie that supports many focal 

species, especially those that are area sensitive;

■ reduce opportunities for the introduction and spread 

of diseases and pathogens;

■ develop monitoring protocols to improve management decisionmaking, particularly related to the 

habitat relationships of focal species;

■ improve the coordination of the refuge with the 

Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

and other research groups to improve our understanding of the local impacts from climate change;

■ not adversely impact archaeological or historical 

resources;

■ increase interpretation of cultural resources, specifically of Native American historical use;

■ preserve refuge water rights and explore opportunities to improve water use efficiency and other 

water-related factors within our water rights to 

support focal species;

■ provide a balance between resource protection 

and providing wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities without negatively impacting natural 

resources;

■ improve both consumptive and nonconsumptive 

use opportunities;

■ enhance environmental education opportunities 

with improvements to facilities at Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge and the Great Plains Nature Center;

■ maintain staff at appropriate levels to accomplish 

goals and objectives;

■ not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or 

low-income populations;

■ maintain public and employee safety as a missioncritical factor;

■ expand resource protection appropriately with 

increased public use opportunities.

The State of Kansas has been notified and given the 

opportunity to review the comprehensive conservation plan and associated environmental assessment.

Noreen Walsh Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, Colorado
Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

B.1 Refuge Name

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

B.2 Date Established

May 3, 1955.

B.3 Establishing and 

Acquisition Authorities

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 

715d)

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 

742f(a)4)

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. § 

742f(b)1)

B.4 Refuge Purposes

The establishing and acquisition authorities set 

out the purposes for the refuge, as described below:

■ For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.

■ For the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources.

■ For the benefit of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in performing its 

activities and services.

B.5 National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission

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

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

B.6 Description of Uses

The following uses are evaluated for compatibility 

within the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge:

■ hunting

■ fishing

■ wildlife observation and photography, 

including bicycling, horseback riding, and 

commercial birding tours via special use 

permit

■ environmental education and interpretation

■ cooperative farming, haying, and grazing

■ commercial filming, audio recording, and 

still photography

■ research and monitoring

■ dog training

■ firewood cutting
124 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Hunting

State and Federal site-specific regulations will 

apply. Hunters may only possess and use approved, 

nontoxic shot loads and vehicle travel and parking 

will be restricted to public roads, pullouts, and 

posted parking areas. The refuge Web site and public 

use brochures will provide guidance on site and species regulations. The general State hunting regulations are available from the KDWPT.

We will increase regulatory hunting signs, such as 

“closed to hunting area” and “nontoxic shot 

required,” and interpretive materials, like an 

updated, and more comprehensive, refuge hunting 

leaflet or tearsheet, in an effort to reduce unintentional hunting violations on the refuge.

The hunting of migratory gamebirds, including 

three dove species, duck, and goose, will continue in 

designated areas of the refuge on approximately 

7,606 acres. Sandhill crane, snipe, woodcock, and rail 

hunting will be prohibited. The hunting of upland 

game, including pheasant and Northern bobwhite, 

will be allowed in designated areas of the refuge on 

approximately 9,289 acres of upland and wetland 

habitat. Hunting of prairie-chicken will be prohibited. Limited big-game hunting will be allowed by 

special use permit for white-tailed deer and turkey in 

designated sites within the approved 15,239-acre 

boundary. Small-game hunting will include rabbit 

and squirrel only, and will be allowed in the same 

designated areas as upland game hunting. Furbearer 

hunting and trapping by special use permit will be 

allowed on the same area as big-game hunting.

A universally acceptable hunting blind is located 

in Wetland Unit 30 and may be reserved through the 

refuge office.

Availability of Resources

Existing programs, such as current refuge directional signs and brochures, could be updated with 

available resources. Maintenance of access roads, 

parking, hunting and information kiosks, and public 

use signs, is closely tied to our Asset Maintenance 

Management System. The refuge’s base budget will 

pay for the update and printing of existing and new 

brochures.

More law enforcement staff time and resources 

will be required to manage substantial changes to 

the hunting program. Additions include (1) starting a 

deer and turkey hunting program; (2) changing hunt 

area boundaries, parking areas, signs, and hunt brochures; and (3) checking compliance with this new 

public use and managing whooping crane unit closures as necessary. Existing law enforcement staff is 

sufficient to manage the new programs.

Anticipated Effects of Use

The hunting program will continue to provide 

ample quality hunting opportunities without materially detracting from the mission of the Refuge System and the goals or establishing purposes of refuge 

lands. Public use brochures and the refuge Web site 

will be kept up to date and made readily available to 

hunters. Hunter success and satisfaction will be 

checked with random contacts with hunters in the 

field and at refuge headquarters.

Hunting is considered by many to be a legitimate, 

traditional, recreational use of renewable natural 

resources. The Administration Act, the Improvement 

Act, other laws, and our policy allow hunting on a 

national wildlife refuge when it is compatible with 

the purposes for which the refuge was established 

and acquired. National wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife populations through habitat 

preservation.

The word “refuge” includes the idea of providing a 

haven of safety for wildlife, and, as such, hunting 

might seem to be inconsistent with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. However, habitat that normally supports healthy wildlife populations produces 

harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. 

As practiced on Quivira Refuge, hunting does not 

pose a threat to the wildlife populations and, in some 

instances, is actually necessary for sound wildlife 

management.

By its nature, hunting creates a disturbance to 

wildlife and directly affects the individual animals 

being hunted. However, it is well recognized that this 

activity has given many people a deeper appreciation 

of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission.

Furthermore, despite the potential effects of 

hunting, a goal of the refuge is to provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation. The 

hunting program will be designed and watched 

closely for safety and quality. The hunting program 

will continue to periodically close the entire refuge to 

hunting for the protection of whooping cranes, as 

determined by the refuge manager. Sandhill crane 

hunting could lead to the misidentification of the two 

bird species during a hunt, so it is not allowed on the 

refuge. Yet, whooping cranes are actually at higher 

risk of being accidental shot during hunting season 

off the refuge when they go out to feed where sandhill crane hunting is allowed.

Although hunting directly affects the hunted species and may indirectly disturb other species, limits 

on harvest and access for recreational hunting will 

make sure that populations do not fall to unsustainable levels. Closed areas on the refuge provide sanctuary to migratory birds during the hunting season. 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 125 

In some cases, hunting can be used as a management 

tool to control elevated populations that are having a 

negative effect on wildlife habitat.

Added effects from hunting activity include conflicts with individuals participating in wildlife-dependent public uses such as wildlife observation and 

photography. This could decrease visitors’ satisfaction during the hunting season if all users are 

restricted to the same parts of the refuge.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

Determination

Recreational hunting is a compatible use on the 

Quivira Refuge in accordance with State, Federal 

and refuge-specific regulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility

Visitors participating in recreational hunting will 

follow our public use regulations, including site-specific regulations, and the State’s hunting 

regulations.

■ Hunters will continue to use approved nontoxic shot for migratory and upland gamebird hunting and turkey hunting on the 

lands we own.

■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and 

public roads and parking areas on the 

refuge.

■ Signs, brochures, and our Web site will be 

used to provide hunters information on 

where, and how, to hunt on the refuge to 

make sure that we have their compliance 

with public use regulations.

Justification

Hunting is identified as a priority public use in the 

Improvement Act of 1997 and will help meet Refuge 

System goals with only minimal conflicts. Recreational hunting can instill, in citizens of all ages, a 

greater appreciation for wildlife and its habitat. This 

appreciation may extend to the Refuge System and 

other conservation agencies.

In Conserving the Future, Recommendation 17 

states: “The Service will work closely with State fish 

and wildlife agencies to conduct a review of its current hunting and fishing opportunities, especially 

opportunities offered for youth and people with disabilities. Based on this review, the Service and states 

will work cooperatively to prepare a strategy for 

increasing quality hunting and fishing opportunities 

on national wildlife refuges.” (Refuge System 2011)

Based on the anticipated biological effects 

described above, we have found that recreational 

hunting on the refuge will not interfere with our 

habitat goals and objectives or purposes for which 

the refuge was established. Limiting access and 

checking the use could help limit any adverse effects.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2028

Fishing

Fishing is defined as wildlife-dependent recreation under the Improvement Act. As one of the six 

priority recreational activities noted therein, fishing 

provides a traditional recreational activity on the 

refuge with no definable adverse effects to biological 

resources.

Refuges may be opened to sportfishing only after 

a determination is made that the activity is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. In addition, the sportfishing program must be 

consistent with principles of sound fishery management and otherwise be in the public interest.

The CCP includes continued recreational fishing 

on the refuge in accordance with State, Federal, and 

refuge regulations. Frogging and the collection of 

crayfish and live bait will be prohibited.

Availability of Resources

The fishing program could be administered using 

current resources.

Anticipated Effects of Use

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance to wildlife and the trampling of vegetation 

along the bank of rivers and streams. Littering can 

also become a problem.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 
126 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

public comment period for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

Determination

Fishing is a compatible use on Quivira Refuge in 

accordance with State, Federal, and refuge 

regulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in recreational fishing 

will follow our public use regulations and 

State fishing regulations and limits.

■ No bait collecting and no live bait use except 

for night crawlers will be allowed.

■ Vehicles will be restricted to county and 

public roads and parking areas on the 

refuge.

■ The use of boats will be prohibited.

■ Fishing equipment and all other personal 

property must be removed at the end of 

each day.

■ Fish stocking to support fishing will only 

occur in the Kid’s Fishing Pond as 

necessary.

■ The collection of crayfish or frogs will be 

prohibited.

■ Fishing from on top of water control structures will be prohibited for safety reasons.

Justification

Fishing is listed as a priority public use in the 

Improvement Act. Based on the biological effects 

addressed above and in the environmental assessment, we have found that recreational fishing will not 

interfere with the habitat goals and objectives of the 

refuge or with the purposes for which the refuge was 

established.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2028

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

As two of the six priority recreational uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, wildlife observation and 

photography provide recreational activities on the 

refuge with no definable adverse effects to biological 

resources.

We will continue to provide wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities on the refuge and 

support them with observation towers and blinds, an 

up-to-date bird species list for the refuge, and portable viewing and photography blinds issued by special use permits. Such facilities and support will help 

bring people closer to wildlife. 

The auto tour and Wildlife Drive will provide 

year-round opportunities for wildlife viewing and 

photography via auto, foot, dog walking, bicycling, 

and horseback. Hazardous road conditions, such as 

the flooding of emergency spillways on the route may 

occasionally require closures for safety. The Wildlife 

Drive area may also occasionally close because of 

whooping crane use to avoid disturbance.

All roads and trails are open for foot traffic year 

round, from sunrise to sunset, unless short-term closures are enacted to prevent wildlife disturbance or 

maintenance. All refuge lands are open to foot traffic 

except for periodic closures during the nesting season and other closures for various reasons, such as 

wildlife protection, human safety, law enforcement, 

or maintenance. Two areas are routinely closed during nesting season on the salt flats for interior least 

tern nesting and in the South Big Salt Marsh unit 

around the bald eagle nest site. The observation 

tower road and photo blind on the LSM have been 

occasionally closed because of whooping crane use 

near the blind and tower. Other areas may be closed 

in the future depending on changes in wildlife use.

Facilities providing more opportunities for wildlife observation and photography include the LSM 

photo and observation blind and observation tower, 

the trail between the observation tower and the Kid’s 

Fishing Pond, and the Migrants Mile hiking trail and 

photo and observation blind. Spotting scopes are 

available at the LSM observation tower and on the 

Wildlife Drive. A binocular loan program is also 

available for checkout at refuge headquarters.

More observation opportunities will be available 

through the proposed tower-mounted, remote camera at the BSM and bald eagle nest site. The movable 

tower camera will be installed near the bald eagle 

nest. It will allow Internet viewing of the nesting 

activity and provide viewing of wildlife on the BSM 

year round.
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 127 

Commercial birding will be allowed with a special 

use permit obtained at the refuge headquarters.

Availability of Resources

The only money required for a new facility will go 

toward buying and installing an Internet-connected 

tower camera at the BSM. Money will be acquired 

from various sources, such as the Friends of Quivira, 

outside donations, local utilities, grants, and refuge 

sources. Other refuge money for visitor facilities are 

received as visitor facility enhancement projects 

through our Asset Maintenance Management System 

and through Visitor Facility Enhancement grants. 

Existing programs, such as current directional signs 

and brochures, can be updated with available 

resources.

More staff time will be required to manage the 

tower camera and for maintenance.

Anticipated Effects of the Use

Effects associated with the wildlife observation 

and photography uses of the refuge resources. These 

uses are ongoing, and potential disturbances are 

being managed with temporary closures without 

issue. Law enforcement is available to enforce closures, and the Internet and temporary signs at headquarters and closed areas announce closures.

Sanctuary will be provided for migrating waterfowl and other waterbirds during the waterfowl hunting season at Quivira Refuge.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

Determination

Wildlife observation and photography are compatible uses on Quivira Refuge.

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in wildlife observation and photography will follow all public 

use regulations.

■ Commercial photography will require a special use permit.

■ Seasonal closures to protect sensitive wildlife areas and reduce disturbance to fish and 

wildlife will be kept.

■ Non-Service vehicles will be restricted to 

county and public access roads on the 

refuge.

■ All-terrain vehicle or utility terrain vehicle 

use on the refuge will be compatible with 

State and county regulations on county 

roads. All-terrain vehicle or utility terrain 

vehicle use by the public is prohibited off 

public roads, unless allowed under a special 

use permit.

■ Viewing areas will be designed to decrease 

disturbance effects to wildlife and all refuge 

resources while providing a good opportunity to view wildlife in their natural environments. Visitors using the refuge’s 

permanent blinds or their own portable 

observation and photography blinds will be 

provided with information on their suitable 

use and on the etiquette of these structures 

to decrease disturbance to wildlife and their 

natural environments and to other refuge 

visitors.

■ Horseback riding and biking will be prohibited on hiking trails, off roads, or in closed 

areas.

■ Pets must be leashed and under owners’ 

control at all times, unless for purposes 

approved by the refuge manager.

Justification

Wildlife observation and photography are identified as priority public uses in the Improvement Act 

and will help meet Refuge System goals with only 

minimal conflict. Wildlife observation and photography can instill, in citizens of all ages, a greater appreciation for wildlife and its habitat. This appreciation 

may extend to the Refuge System and other conservation agencies.

Based on anticipated biological effects described 

above, we have found that wildlife observation and 

photography on the refuge will not interfere with our 

habitat goals and objectives or with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established. Limiting access 

and watching use closely could help limit any adverse 

effects.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2028
128 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

As two of the six priority recreational uses identified in the Improvement Act, environmental education and interpretive activities on the refuge and 

offsite programming and events at schools, fairs, and 

expo centers provide activities with no definable 

adverse effects to biological resources.

■ Interpretive panels and auto tour brochures 

provide information about habitat, wildlife, 

management actions, and activities. Interpretation is passive in nature, from selfguided opportunities to interpretive panels, 

brochures, Web sites, and tearsheets. We 

will continue to offer binocular and Let’s Go 

Outside! backpack loan programs at the refuge and at the GPNC. We will continue to 

use social media, and update it weekly, to 

increase contact with, and exposure to, the 

refuge.

■ We will continue to provide interpretive 

programs at Quivira Refuge and the GPNC 

on a variety of refuge management and 

wildlife-oriented subjects, both by request 

and as scheduled activities, and we will 

increase programs as staff and time allow.

■ We will continually evaluate our interpretive media, such as brochures, signs, and 

displays, for relevancy, effectiveness, and 

timeliness, and we will update them as 

needed, provided we have the money to do 

it.

This CCP proposes to continue environmental 

education and interpretation and add the following to 

improve these programs:

■ Replace the refuge environmental education 

classroom with a new one near the headquarters. The location already has several 

facilities nearby that will be used in conjunction with the classroom, including trails, 

an observation tower, a pavilion, restrooms, 

wetlands, sand prairie uplands, meadows 

and other habitats.

■ We will expand the opportunities for environmental education and interpretation to 

foster appreciation and understanding of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and the 

resources of Quivira Refuge. More interpretive panels will be developed for the refuge, 

and accessible observation sites will be 

developed on the refuge. The mammal, reptile and amphibian lists will be updated for 

the refuge, and a brochure will be 

developed.

■ We will interpret the cultural history of the 

Quivira Refuge area, including tribal uses, 

and early settlement.

■ Refuge staff will continue to take part in 

offsite special events and activities to bring 

the refuge message to many people, including at-risk youth. Participation in these 

events will occur as staff and time allow.

■ Environmental education programs will be 

provided to teach curriculum-based programs for all grade levels that meet State 

educational standards.

■ We will encourage the use of both Quivira 

Refuge and GPNC facilities by educational 

organizations as outdoor classrooms.

■ We will continue to support the GPNC 

through its partnership with the City of 

Wichita Department of Park and Recreation 

and the KDWPT. We will use educational 

kits and discovery boxes, and continue to 

promote current and future national initiatives, such as America’s Great Outdoors and 

Let’s Go Outside!

■ Participation by teachers and students in 

the Junior Federal Duck Stamp program 

will continue to increase through more outreach and marketing efforts. Artwork will 

be displayed throughout the year at various 

locations—at least 10 venues per year, 

including the Kansas State Fair—to further 

promote interest in wildlife and art. 

■ We will encourage virtual geocaching to 

enhance the appreciation of refuge 

resources.

Availability of Resources

Payment for environmental education and interpretation activities, directional signs, and brochures 

will come from annual operations and maintenance 

money. Other sources, such as grants, regional project proposals, challenge cost-share agreements, 

deferred maintenance and others will also be sought 

and used as they became available.
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 129 

Requests to pay for new facilities will be submitted as visitor facility enhancement projects through 

our Asset Maintenance Management System.

Anticipated Effects of the Use

The use of the refuge for onsite activities by 

groups of teachers and students for environmental 

education or interpretation may minimally affect the 

immediate and surrounding areas in the short term. 

Effects may include the trampling of vegetation and 

temporary disturbance to nearby wildlife species.

Refuge brochures, interpretive panels, and other 

educational materials will continue to be updated as 

needed to meet our needs. Features such as the auto 

tour route and accessible observation sites will continue to provide access to the refuge.

A new, relocated environmental education classroom will have a small effect on lands near the Kid’s 

Fishing Pond, but this will be offset by a reduction of 

the footprint area where the existing environmental 

education classroom is located. All facilities at the 

current location except for the public restrooms and 

area of the parking lot will be removed, including the 

bunkhouse and trailer pads, which will be relocated 

at the headquarters administrative site, and the area 

will be restored to upland habitat.

We will continue to promote a greater public 

understanding and appreciation of refuge resources, 

programs, and issues through interpretive, outreach, 

and environmental educational programs. Working 

with our Friends groups and other local groups, we 

will continue to provide environmental education and 

interpretation both on and off the lands we own. Presentations, both on and off our lands, will be provided 

to refuge visitors, school groups, and organizations, 

allowing us to reach a broader audience. Onsite presentations will be managed to decrease disturbance 

to wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources. Environmental education and interpretation activities taking 

place at the GPNC and offsite by GPNC staff will not 

affect wildlife or habitat in the urban setting.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

Determination

Environmental education and interpretation will 

be a compatible use on Quivira Refuge.

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility

■ Visitors participating in environmental education and interpretation programs will follow all of our regulations. Onsite activities 

will be held where minimal effect to wildlife 

and habitats will occur.

■ We will review new environmental education and interpretation activities to make 

sure that these activities meet program 

objectives and are compatible.

Justification

Environmental education and interpretation are 

identified as priority public uses in the Improvement 

Act and will help meet Refuge System goals with 

only minimal conflicts. Environmental education and 

interpretation will be used to encourage an understanding in citizens of all ages to act responsibly to 

protect wildlife and their habitats. These are tools 

used in building a land ethic, developing support of 

the refuge, and decreasing wildlife violations.

Environmental education is an important tool for 

the refuge to provide visitors with an awareness of 

its purposes, values, and specific issues such as wetland ecology, water quality, effects of nonnative species, and migratory bird management. This tool will 

also provide visitors and students a greater understanding of the mission of the Refuge System and its 

importance to the American people.

Based on anticipated biological effects described 

above, we have found that environmental education 

and interpretation on the refuge will not interfere 

with our habitat goals and objectives or with the purposes for which the refuge was established. Limiting 

access during certain times of the year and checking 

the uses will limit any adverse effects.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2028

Cooperative Farming, Haying, and 

Grazing

We will continue to use cooperative farming and 

prescriptive livestock grazing and haying as manage-
130 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

ment tools on the refuge. These tools will be used to 

meet habitat objectives, control vegetative litter, 

promote native plant production and diversity, control the spread of invasive plant species, and help 

convert disturbed grasslands back to native plant 

species.

The refuge uses cooperative farming and haying 

as tools to manage habitats, including the control of 

invasive plant species, grassland reconstruction and 

wet meadow management. We will enter into an 

agreement with a local landowner to (1) help restore 

cropland and poor quality habitat to quality native 

grassland or wetland habitat for wildlife or (2) cut 

grasslands to promote native seed harvest the following growing season and to rejuvenate vegetation 

growth. A farming cooperator will be issued a cooperative farming agreement or special use permit by 

the refuge manager and will be allowed to till seed, 

harvest small grain, control invasive plants, or harvest hay on the lands we own. The choice is reserved 

to use genetically modified crops only for the reconstruction of native prairie plants to create more 

weed-free seedbeds and has been approved through 

an environmental assessment. The agreement will 

generally be issued for a 1- to 4-year management 

prescription.

Cooperative farming of our lands is usually done 

on a share basis where we and the cooperator each 

receive a share of the crop. We will maintain our 

share as standing cover for wildlife forage or in 

exchange for more work from the cooperator, such as 

seed harvesting, invasive plant control, grass seeding, or for supplies such as herbicides and fence materials for habitat protection and improvement on the 

management unit. Any fees or cash received by us 

will be deposited into the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Account.

This CCP proposes to continue using cooperative 

farming and haying to manage habitats. Farming 

will gradually be phased out as those lands are 

planted back into native species. Furthermore, this 

CCP establishes goals and objectives for specific 

habitat types where cooperative farming and haying 

may be used. In addition, we have identified focal 

wildlife species, such as eastern meadowlark and 

dickcissel, and their habitat needs. This has resulted 

in objectives that will guide management to achieve 

the habitat needs of these species. 

The refuge uses prescriptive livestock grazing as 

a tool to manage a variety of uplands and wetlands. 

Grazing by livestock has been a preferred management tool because of the potential effects on habitat. 

Livestock grazing has been used in a variety of ways 

including high intensity and short duration, rest rotation, and complete rest. Grazing may occur throughout the year as management needs dictate. Where 

applicable, a rotation schedule using multiple grazing 

units is used to manage characteristics of grazing.

Fencing and controlling livestock is the responsibility of the cooperating rancher. We provide instruction and guidance in the special use permit for the 

placement of fences, water tanks, and livestock supplements to make sure that sensitive habitats and 

refuge assets are protected. A temporary electric 

fence is used where there is not an existing fence. 

Current forage conditions, habitat objectives, and 

available water will determine stocking rates in each 

grazing unit.

This CCP proposes to continue using prescriptive 

livestock grazing to meet habitat objectives. Furthermore, the CCP establishes goals and objectives 

for specific habitat types where prescriptive livestock 

grazing may be used. In addition, the Service has 

identified focal wildlife species and their habitat 

needs, which has resulted in objectives that will 

guide the prescriptive grazing program to achieve 

the habitat needs of these species while helping many 

others. The refuge will improve the monitoring and 

research programs to assess habitat responses to 

prescriptive livestock grazing. Different grazing 

rates and management strategies will be investigated to decide on the best methods for meeting habitat goals and objectives.

Availability of Resources

Existing resources will be sufficient to administer 

the farming, haying, and grazing programs at current levels. These programs will continue to be conducted through special use permits or cooperative 

farming agreements, which decrease the need for 

staff time and our assets to complete the work. A 

refuge biologist will be needed to plan and oversee 

monitoring and research programs to assess the 

effects and effectiveness of these management programs. One or two temporary biological technicians 

likely will be necessary to help with on-the-ground 

monitoring programs.

Rehabilitation of existing stock water wells and 

the drilling of more wells in strategic locations will 

increase the effectiveness of the grazing program by 

spreading out grazing use and reducing the effects 

caused by livestock watering in wetlands and canals 

and by cooperators hauling water to grazing cells on 

a daily basis.

Anticipated Effects of the Use

The cooperative farming and haying program and 

prescriptive livestock grazing program will be used 

to meet habitat goals and objectives identified in the 

CCP. These programs are intended to support and 

enhance habitat conditions for the benefit of a wide 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 131 

variety of migratory birds and other wildlife that use 

the refuge. Minimal negative effects are expected 

through the use of these tools. Control of invasive 

plant species through these programs would be a 

long-term benefit.

Some wildlife disturbance will occur during operation of noisy farming equipment and some animals 

may be temporarily displaced. Wildlife would receive 

the short-term benefit of standing crops or stubble 

for food and shelter and the long-term benefit of having cropland or other poor-quality habitat converted 

to native prairie plants. In addition, the restoration of 

cropland to grassland cover would prevent soil erosion, improve water quality, and reduce the need for 

chemical use.

Some trampling of areas by livestock may occur 

around watering areas, mineral licks or trees and 

wood lots. Cattle congregating under the shade of 

trees would increase invasive cheatgrass establishment. If fences are not kept up, it may be difficult to 

meet habitat objectives. It is anticipated that grazing 

will be in a mosaic pattern, with some areas being 

more intensively grazed than others in certain years. 

Grazing, like fire, is known to increase the nutrient 

cycling of nitrogen and phosphorous (Hauer and 

Spencer 1998, McEachern et al. 2000). Hoof action 

may improve conditions to allow native plant seeds to 

become established. However, cattle grazing would 

also increase the risk of invasive plants getting established. Grazing in the spring could have adverse 

effects on grassland bird nests because of trampling 

and the loss of vegetation. In addition, the presence of 

livestock would be disturbing to some wildlife species 

and some visitors. The long-term benefits of this 

habitat management tool should outweigh the shortterm negative effects.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the draft CCP and EA for 

Quivira Refuge.

Determination

Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing as habitat management tools are compatible uses on the 

Quivira Refuge.

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility

For consistency with management objectives, we 

will require general, and specific conditions, for each 

farming, haying, or grazing permit.

Only areas that have a prior crop history will be 

included in the farming and haying program. To 

decrease effects to nesting birds and other wildlife, 

the refuge manager will decide on, and incorporate, 

any needed timing constraints on the permitted 

activity into the cooperative farming agreement or 

special use permit. For example, haying will not permitted on our lands until after August 1 to avoid 

destroying bird nests on the management unit unless 

the refuge manager deems it necessary to hay earlier 

to control invasive plants or restore grasslands.

The cooperative farming agreement or special use 

permit will specify the type of crop to be planted. 

Farming permittees will be required to use our 

approved chemicals that are less detrimental to wildlife and the environment.

Control and confinement of livestock are the 

responsibility of the permittee, but we will decide 

where fences, water tanks, and livestock supplements 

will be placed within the management unit. Temporary electric fence will be used to keep livestock 

within grazing cells as well as to protect sensitive 

habitat areas and refuge assets such as water control 

structures or public use areas. Cooperators will be 

required to remove fences at the end of the permit.

Grazing fees will be based on the current-year 

USDA Statistics Board publication for Grazing Fee 

Rates for Cattle by Selected States and Regions, as 

provided annually by the regional office, or will be 

established by bid. Standard deductions for labor 

associated with the grazing permit will be included 

on the special use permit.

The refuge will carry out a vegetation monitoring 

program to assess if habitat needs of focal species are 

being met. A minimum of one temporary biological 

technician will be necessary to check and document 

these activities. A biologist will be necessary to plan 

and oversee the monitoring program and to assess 

the effects of these management programs.

Justification

Some habitat management needs to occur to support and enhance habitat for migratory birds and 

other wildlife. When effectively managed and 

checked, prescriptive farming and haying are options 

that can be used to improve wildlife cover and to 

restore disturbed habitats to desirable grassland 

cover. Prescriptive livestock grazing can rejuvenate 

native grasses and help control the spread of some 

invasive plant species. Each of these tools can be controlled, and the results will be watched closely, as 

with vegetation monitoring programs, so that adjustments can be made to meet habitat goals and 

objectives.

Using local cooperators to accomplish the work is 

a cost-effective method to accomplish the habitat 
132 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

objectives. The long-term benefits of habitat restoration and management far outweigh the short-term 

effects caused by cooperative farming, haying, and 

grazing.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2023

Commercial Filming, Audio 

Recording, and Still Photography

Commercial filming is the digital, or film, recording of a visual image or of a sound—and commercial 

still photography is the capture of a still image on 

film or in a digital format—by a person, business, or 

other entity for a market audience such as for a documentary, television, feature film, advertisement, or 

similar project. It does not include news coverage or 

visitor use.

Quivira Refuge provides tremendous opportunities for commercial filming and still photography of 

migratory birds and other wildlife. Each year, the 

refuge staff receives requests to conduct commercial 

filming or photography on our lands. Our staff will 

continue to evaluate each request on an individual 

basis, and, if the use is allowed, the requesting individual or group will be issued a special use permit. 

The permit will designate what areas may be 

accessed and what activities are, and are not, 

allowed, to decrease the possibility of damage to cultural or natural resources or to limit interference 

with other visitors.

Permittees will be able to access all areas of the 

refuge that are open to the public and must abide by 

all public use regulations. In rare cases, and through 

the special use permit process, we may allow access 

to areas closed to the public.

Availability of Resources

The commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography uses could be administered with current resources. Administrative costs for review of 

applications, issuance of special use permits, and 

staff time to conduct compliance checks may be offset 

by a fee system designated for the agencies within 

the DOI.

Anticipated Effects of Use

Wildlife filmmakers and photographers tend to 

create the greatest disturbance of all wildlife observers (Dobb 1998, Klein 1993, Morton 1995). While 

observers frequently stop to view wildlife, photographers are more likely to approach the animals (Klein 

1993). Even a slow approach by photographers tends 

to cause behavioral consequences with wildlife (Klein 

1993). Photographers often remain close to wildlife 

for extended periods of time in an attempt to habituate the subject to their presence (Dobb 1998). Furthermore, photographers with low-power lenses tend 

to get much closer to their subjects (Morton 1995). 

This usually results in increased disturbance to wildlife, as well as habitat, including the trampling of 

plants. Handling of animals and disturbing cultural 

artifacts or vegetation, such as cutting plants and 

removing flowers, is prohibited on our lands.

The issuance of special use permits with strict 

guidelines and close checking by our refuge staff for 

compliance could help decrease or avoid these effects. 

Permittees who do not follow the stipulations of their 

special use permits could have their permits revoked, 

and further applications for filming or photographing 

on refuge lands will be denied.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

Determination

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography are compatible uses on Quivira Refuge.

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility

Commercial filming or still photography must (1) 

show a means to extend public appreciation and 

understanding of wildlife or natural habitats; (2) 

enhance education, appreciation, and understanding 

of the Refuge System; or (3) facilitate the outreach 

and education goals of the refuge. Failure to show 

any of these criteria will result in a special use permit being denied.

All commercial filming will require a special use 

permit that will (1) identify conditions that protect 

the refuge’s values, purposes, resources, and public 

health and safety; and (2) prevent unreasonable disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment of the refuge. Such conditions may be, but are not limited to, 

specifying road conditions when access will not be 

allowed, establishing time limitations, and finding 

routes of access. These conditions will be identified to 

prevent excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage to 
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 133 

habitat or refuge infrastructure, or conflicts with 

other visitor services or management activities.

The special use permit will stipulate that imagery 

produced on refuge lands will be made available for 

use in environmental education and interpretation, 

outreach, internal documents, or other suitable uses. 

In addition, any commercial products must include 

credits to the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service.

Still photography requires a special use permit, 

with specific conditions as outlined above, if one or 

more of the following occur:

■ It takes place at locations where, or when, 

members of the public are not allowed.

■ It uses models, sets, or props that are not 

part of the location’s natural or cultural 

resources or administrative facilities.

■ We incur more administrative costs to check 

the activity.

■ We need to provide management and oversight to avoid the impairment of the 

resources and values of the site, limit 

resource damage, or to decrease health and 

safety risks to the visiting public.

■ The photographer intends to intentionally 

manipulate vegetation to create a shot, such 

as cutting vegetation to create a blind.

To decrease the effect on our lands and resources, 

our refuge staff will make sure that all commercial 

filmmakers and commercial still photographers, 

regardless of whether or not a special use permit is 

issued, comply with policies, rules, and regulations. 

Our staff will check and assess the activities of all 

filmmakers, audio recorders, and still 

photographers.

Justification

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography are economic uses that must contribute 

to the achievement of the refuge purposes, the mission of the Refuge System, or the mission of the 

FWS. Providing opportunities for these uses should 

result in increased public awareness of the refuge’s 

ecological importance as well as in advancing the 

public’s knowledge and support for the Refuge System and the Service. The stipulations outlined above 

and conditions imposed in the special use permits 

issued to commercial filmmakers, audio recorders, 

and still photographers will make sure that these 

wildlife-dependent activities occur with minimal 

adverse effects to resources or visitors.

Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date: 2023

Research and Monitoring

The Quivira Refuge receives an estimated 5 to 10 

requests each year to conduct scientific research or 

monitoring programs on our lands. Priority is given 

to studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of the refuge’s native plant, fish, and wildlife populations and 

their habitats. Applicants who are not employees of 

ours must submit a proposal that outlines the 

following:

■ objectives of the study

■ justification for the study

■ detailed method and schedule

■ potential effects on wildlife and habitat 

including short- and long-term disturbance, 

injury, or mortality

■ description of measures the researcher will 

take to reduce disturbances or effects

■ staff required and their qualifications and 

experience

■ status of necessary permits, such as scientific collection permits and endangered species permits

■ costs to the Service, including staff time 

requested, if any

■ anticipated progress reports and end products, such as reports or publications

Our refuge staff or others will review research 

proposals case by case and issue special use permits 

if approved. Criteria for evaluation will include, but 

will not be limited to, the following:

■ Research that would contribute to specific 

refuge management issues will be given 

higher priority over other requests.
134 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

■ Research that would conflict with other 

ongoing research, monitoring programs, or 

management programs will not be 

approved.

■ Research that would cause undue disturbance or would be intrusive will likely not 

be approved. The degree and type of disturbance will be carefully weighed when evaluating a research request.

■ Proposals will be evaluated to decide if any 

effort was made to decrease disturbance 

through study design, including adjusting 

the location, timing, number of permittees, 

study methods, and the number of study 

sites.

■ The length of the project will be considered, 

and agreed on, before approval.

■ Research proposals involving threatened 

and endangered species will require concurrence and Section 7 Endangered Species 

Act review before approval.

Availability of Resources

Current resources will be adequate to administer 

research and monitoring programs on a limited basis. 

A refuge biologist will be necessary to administer 

large and long-term projects, which generally 

require more indepth evaluation of applications, management of permits, and oversight of research projects. The biologist will identify research and 

monitoring needs and work with our other staff, universities, and scientists to develop studies that will 

help the refuge and address the goals and objectives 

in this CCP.

Anticipated Effects of Use

Some degree of disturbance is expected with all 

research activities because researchers may use our 

roads or enter areas that are closed to the public. In 

addition, some research may require the collection of 

samples or the handling of wildlife. However, 

research studies will be expected to minimally affect 

wildlife and habitats because special use permits will 

include conditions on their effects.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

Determination

Research and monitoring are compatible uses on 

Quivira Refuge.

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility

Extremely sensitive wildlife habitats and species 

will be sufficiently protected from disturbance by 

limiting research activities in these areas. All refuge 

rules and regulations will be followed unless otherwise exempted by our refuge management. Projects 

will be reviewed annually.

Our refuge staff will use the above criteria for 

evaluating and determining whether to approve a 

proposed study. If research methods were found to 

have potential effects on habitat or wildlife, it must 

be shown that the research is necessary for the conservation management of resources on the refuge. 

Measures to decrease potential effects will need to 

be developed and included as part of the study 

design; these measures will be conditions on the special use permit.

Our refuge staff will watch research activities for 

compliance with conditions of the special use permit. 

At any time, staff may accompany the researchers to 

look for potential effects. They may decide that 

research that was approved for special use permits 

before is terminated because of observed effects. Our 

refuge manager will also have the ability to cancel a 

special use permit if the researcher was out of compliance or for wildlife and habitat protection.

Justification

Potential effects of research activities on refuge 

resources will be decreased through restrictions 

included as part of the study design, and research 

activities will be checked by our refuge staff. Results 

of research projects will contribute to the understanding, enhancement, protection, preservation, and 

management of the refuge’s wildlife populations and 

their habitats.

Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date: 2023
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 135 

Dog Training

Dog training during the non-nesting season by 

noncommercial dog owners is an existing use at Quivira Refuge. The use of dogs for hunting is encouraged. Depending on future demand and conflicts, dog 

training on the refuge may require a special use 

permit.

Availability of Resources

Sufficient staff exists to issue the required permits, and oversee this periodic use. Facilities and 

staff are now available to provide access, support 

roads, parking lots, and secondary access roads.

Anticipated Effects of Use

There will be minimal disturbance to wildlife as a 

result of the activity, and effects will be temporary.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

Determination

Dog training is a compatible use on the Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility

■ Depending on future demand and conflicts, 

dog training on the refuge may require a 

special use permit.

■ Immediately before training activity, trainers must check in with refuge staff at the 

headquarters for permitted opportunities to 

decrease disturbances to wildlife and other 

public uses and to maximize trainer safety.

■ Training will be allowed when most bird 

breeding activities do not occur: September 

1–March 1.

■ Training will only be allowed in wetland 

areas along public use roads and where disturbance to wildlife can be decreased. For 

instance, we will encourage the use of wetland areas that do not provide foraging or 

resting habitat for waterbirds at that time.

■ Training will not be allowed in the Kids’ 

Fishing Pond area.

■ Training will use areas in a way that avoids 

or decreases unwanted, direct interactions 

with visitors, such as with those who are 

allergic or uncomfortable with dogs. Training will also use areas in a way that 

decreases potential conflict with visitor use 

activities that may be occurring in the area 

before training activities begin.

■ Only artificial props, such as canvas or plastic dummies, may be used in training.

Justification

This activity encourages people to get outside and 

promotes quality and responsible hunting and the 

appreciation of natural resources. There is little other 

public land available, particularly during the nonnesting season when hunting is allowed. Use of private land with water for training dogs is difficult to 

find, as most is either cropland or rangeland. Most 

adjacent land is private farm ground that is not available to the public for this activity. The use is proposed only for individuals doing noncommercial dog 

training. Commercial dog training will not be 

allowed because of the overwhelming demand and its 

potential for too many dogs, trainers and vehicles on 

the refuge. Dog training may occur with minimal, 

temporary disturbance, and no permanent effect to 

the refuge is anticipated. The use will not materially 

detract from the National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission or purposes of the refuge.

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2023

Firewood Cutting

Firewood cutting will be a new use at Quivira 

Refuge. Firewood cutting will be an economic use of 

the refuge’s natural resources. The use will facilitate 

and aid with habitat management and grassland restoration through the removal of undesirable invasive 

woody vegetation. The public will be permitted to cut 

and collect firewood on the refuge. The timber could 

either be removed as cut wood or as whole trees. The 

public will acquire a permit and a map with designated areas on the refuge to cut firewood. Unlimited 
136 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

permits will be available with a $25 annual fee. The 

public will be allowed to remove only trees that have 

been marked for removal, that had been chemically 

treated earlier by refuge staff, or that are dead timber. All cutting will be required to be at ground level. 

Access will be limited to areas along roads and trails 

to prevent habitat destruction and wildlife 

disturbance.

The use will potentially occur on all wooded 

upland and partially wooded upland acres of the refuge totaling approximately 15,000 acres. Specific 

areas will be chosen by the refuge manager to not 

interfere with habitat management or threatened 

and endangered species, and areas on the refuge will 

not be open to firewood cutting when threatened or 

endangered species are present. Affected wildlife 

could include deer, small mammals, raptors such as 

bald and golden eagles and various hawks, upland 

gamebirds, quail and pheasants, and other upland 

migratory birds. Migratory waterfowl using wetlands and marshes might also be affected.

Firewood cutting will be permitted from August 

1 to April 30 to prevent effects to migrating bird 

nesting seven days a week from sunrise to sunset. 

Areas will be designated by the refuge manager and 

subject to closure at any time. Firewood cutting will 

not be permitted during periods of fire danger reaching red flag warnings as issued by the National 

Weather Service.

The public will be required to obtain a special use 

permit. Power chainsaws, handsaws, or axes will be 

the only means permitted to cut trees and firewood. 

All permittees will be required to have spark arrestors on power chainsaws and have a shovel or fire 

extinguisher available to aid with extinguishing fire. 

The public will be permitted to pull trailers or vehicles on established roads, trails, and designated 

areas with refuge manager approval with exact locations stated on permit and map. All firewood and 

equipment will be removed daily.

The use will facilitate and aid habitat management and grassland restoration by removing undesirable invasive woody vegetation. Removal of invasive 

tree species would prevent further seed distribution, 

reduce fuel load, restore native prairie, clean up 

fallen and cut tree piles, and provide an economic 

benefit to the public. Most adjacent land is private 

farm ground that is not available to the public.

Availability of Resources

■ Resources involved in the administration 

and management of the use: minimal administrative costs for the issuance of permits 

and maps.

■ Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: none. 

■ Maintenance costs: held to a minimum. 

Expected costs include installing signs 

when necessary to inform the public on temporary closures.

■ Monitoring costs: held to a minimum. 

Expected costs include 1–2 hours per week 

by the refuge manager to monitor the woodcutting progress and potential wildlife disturbance. Monitoring will be done while 

conducting routine management monitoring. 

Refuge Law Enforcement officer could 

spend three to four hours per week monitoring illegal activity or noncompliance with 

the special use permits. This activity will be 

done while conducting routine refuge law 

enforcement.

■ Offsetting revenues: an annual fee of $25 

will be assessed for a special use permit to 

cover administrative costs and maps.

Anticipated Effects of Use

■ Short-term effects: the use will support the 

refuge mission by restoring grassland 

acres, increasing the nesting habitat of 

migratory grassland species, reducing invasive tree species, reducing hazardous fuel, 

and reducing labor hours and equipment use 

for mechanical tree removal resulting in 

cost savings for the Service. Through the 

management of the activity, negative direct 

or indirect effects would be reduced. The 

disturbance activity would not be any 

greater than what would be conducted by 

refuge staff conducting the same activity. 

Short term activity may increase as the 

public learns about the availability of 

firewood.

■ Long-term effects: the use will be applied 

primarily in the short term, 3–10 years, 

until invasive tree populations have been 

eradicated or are at manageable levels. The 

duration and frequency of firewood cutting 

will be reduced over time and may be 

phased out completely. Long-term beneficial 

effects would include increasing the nesting 

habitat for migratory grassland species, 

controlling invasive tree species, and 

increasing native plant diversity.
Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 137 

■ Cumulative effects: the use will provide 

beneficial effects by increasing nesting habitat of migratory grassland species, eradicating invasive tree species, and increasing 

native plant diversity. The combustion of the 

wood will be required to allow for restoration of the native plant communities on the 

refuge. The activity of burning the wood 

can either be performed by the refuge or by 

the public. The benefit of allowing the public 

to cut and use the firewood will help reduce 

the amount of petroleum products required 

to heat their homes.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was presented 

for public review and comment as part of the 30-day 

public comment period for the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment for 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

Determination

Firewood cutting is a compatible use on Quivira 

Refuge.

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility

Refuge staff will mark trees or spray trees in designated areas before firewood cutting. The refuge 

manager will monitor the use and close areas during 

red flag fire danger, when threatened or endangered 

species are present, or when it would interfere with 

management activities such as grazing or prescribed 

fire. Woodcutting equipment will be limited to power 

chainsaws with spark arrestors, axes, and hand saws. 

Heavy equipment and tractors owned by the public 

will not be permitted to aid with firewood cutting. 

Monitoring the activity will be performed by refuge 

staff on a regular basis. Law enforcement staff will 

visit sites regularly during routine patrols to monitor 

that activities are conducted within special use permit guidelines and refuge regulations.

Justification

Firewood cutting will help us reach and meet the 

overall goal of managing habitat for migratory birds. 

It will aid refuge staff and provide a cost savings to 

the Government by reducing labor, equipment, and 

fuel costs to remove trees. It will help reduce hazardous fuel and fuel load to help prevent or manage wildfires. By managing locations, firewood cutting will 

not interfere with other wildlife-dependent uses. 

Temporary disturbance of the wooded areas may 

cause minimal disturbance to wildlife in the area but 

will be necessary to increase quality habitat for 

migratory birds and other refuge species. It will help 

promote diverse grass stands, may increase water 

reserves on the refuge through tree reduction, and 

provide enhanced nesting habitat for upland birds.

Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date: 2023

B.7 Signatures

Submitted by:

W. Mike Oldham, Project Leader Date

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge

Stafford, Kansas

Reviewed by:

Barbara Boyle, Refuge Supervisor Date

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lakewood, Colorado

Approved by:

Will Meeks, Assistant Regional Director Date

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

Lakewood, Colorado

Appendix C

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation
140 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 141 
142 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 143 
144 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas
Appendix C—Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 145 

Appendix D

Public Involvement

D.1 Public Involvement

We started public scoping for Quivira Refuge 

with a notice of intent published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2010. It announced our plan to 

prepare a CCP and EA for the refuge and to solicit 

suggestions and information on the range of issues to 

be considered in the planning process.

In February 2010 a planning update was sent to 

each individual, organization, and government representative on the CCP mailing list, see section D.2. 

This update provided information on the history of 

the Refuge System and on the CCP process along 

with an invitation to attend one of three listed open 

houses.

We informed local newspapers, radio, and television stations about our open houses. Flyers were also 

posted and announcements were made via email and 

at the meetings of local organizations.

Open houses were held from March 8 to March 10, 

2010, in the local communities of Great Bend, Stafford, and Wichita, Kansas. A PowerPoint presentation was given at each, and informational posters, 

maps, and handouts were made available to provide a 

history of the Refuge System, an orientation of the 

planning area, and an overview of the CCP and 

NEPA processes. We presented the refuge’s draft 

vision statement, and our staff was on hand to provide additional information. Turnout was moderate, 

5–15 people attended each meeting and were encouraged to ask questions and offer comments.

We accepted written comments through March 

26, 2010, and received more than 80 comments, orally 

and in writing, during the scoping process. Letters 

came from three organizations—the National Wild 

Turkey Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the 

Great Bend Convention and Visitors Bureau—and 

from 12 individuals. Comments identified biological, 

social, and economic concerns about our refuge management, and we used these in developing the draft 

CCP and EA.

Availability of the draft CCP for Quivira Refuge 

was announced in the Federal Register on April 22, 

2013, and comments on this document were collected 

through May 31, 2013. Three public meetings to discuss the draft CCP and EA were announced in a 

planning update released in April 2013. These meetings were held from April 29 to May 1, 2013, in Great 

Bend, Stafford, and Wichita, Kansas. Attendees were 

given the opportunity to submit comments. We also 

collected comments online, by email, and by mail.

Our planning team’s response to public comments 

on the draft CCP and EA are included in this 

appendix.

D.2 Public Mailing List

Following is the mailing list for the Quivira Refuge CCP.

Federal Officials

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Washington, DC

U.S. Senator Jerry Moran, Washington, DC

U.S. Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, Topeka, KS

U.S. Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, Washington, DC

U.S. Congressman Tim Huelskamp, Hutchinson, 

KS

U.S. Congressman Tim Huelskamp, Washington, 

DC

U.S. Congressman Kevin Yoder, Overland Park, 

KS

U.S. Congressman Kevin Yoder, Washington, 

DC

U.S. Congressman Mike Pompeo, Wichita, KS

U.S. Congressman Mike Pompeo, Washington, 

DC

Federal Agencies

FWS—Atlanta, GA, Anchorage, AK, Sacramento, CA, Arlington, VA, Shepherdstown, 

WV, Portland, OR, Hadley, MA, Albuquerque, 

NM, Washington, DC, Fort Snelling, MN

USGS—Fort Collins, CO

National Park Service—Denver, CO, Omaha, NE

NRCS—Saint John, KS
148 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Tribal Officials

Osage Nation Tribal Council, Pawhuska, OK

State Officials

Governor Sam Brownback, Topeka, KS

Representative Mitch Holmes, Saint John, KS

Representative Michael O’Neal, Hutchinson, KS

Representative Janice Pauls, Hutchinson, KS

Representative Joe Seiwert, Pretty Prairie, KS

Senator Terry Bruce, Hutchinson, KS

Senator Jay Emler, Lindsborg, KS

Senator Ruth Teichman, Stafford, KS

State Agencies

Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism—Great Bend, KS, Pratt, KS, Topeka, KS

Local Government

Big Bend Groundwater Management District 5—

Haviland, KS, Macksville, KS

City Manager, Sterling, KS

Clerk Bell Township, Rice County, Raymond, KS

Clerk Stafford County, Saint John, KS

Commissioner Reno County, District 2, Hutchinson, KS

Commissioner Rice County, District 2, Sterling, 

KS

Commissioner Stafford County, District 2, 

Macksville, KS

Commissioner Stafford County, District 3, Saint 

John, KS

Mayor, Great Bend, KS

Mayor, Hudson, KS

Mayor, Saint John, KS

Mayor, Stafford, KS

Treasurer Bell Township, Rice County, Raymond, KS

Trustee, Putnam Township, Stafford County, 

Ellinwood, KS

Local Businesses

Alden State Bank, Sterling, KS

ANR Pipeline Co., Alden, KS

Cole Body Shop, Great Bend, KS

Hoisington Main Street Inc., Hoisington, KS

Jayhawk Pipeline, McPherson, KS

White Eagle Resources Corporation, Louisville, 

KS

Organizations

American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA

Audubon Society, Washington, DC

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC

Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, TN

Friends of Great Plains Nature Center, Wichita, 

KS

Friends of Quivira—Hudson, KS, Larned, KS, 

Saint John, KS, Stafford, KS, Sterling, KS

Great Bend Convention and Visitors Bureau, 

Great Bend, KS

Izaak Walton League, Gaithersburg, MD

Kansas Herpetological Society, Wakarusa, KS

Kansas Ornithological Society, Prairie Village, 

KS

National Trappers Association, New Martinsville, WV

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC

Quail Unlimited, Wichita, KS

Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA

Sierra Club Southwind Group, Wichita, KS

Smokey Hills Audubon Society, Salina, KS

Stafford County Ducks Unlimited, Saint John, 

KS

The Nature Conservancy, Ellinwood, KS

The U.S. Humane Society, Washington, DC

The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC

Wichita Audubon Society, Wichita, KS

Universities and Schools

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Media

Great Bend Tribune, Great Bend, KS

Hays Daily News, Hays, KS

Saint John News, Saint John, KS

Wichita Eagle, Wichita, KS
Appendix D—Public Involvement 149 

Individuals

55 private individuals

D.3 Public Comments on the 

Draft Plan

The Draft CCP and EA for Quivira Refuge were 

presented for public review from April 22 to May 20, 

2013. Three public meeting were held from April 29 

to May 1 in Great Bend, Stafford, and Wichita, Kansas, and were attended by 39 people, total. The comment period was extended 11 days at the request of 

Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated, and closed May 31. 

A total of 60 comment letters were received during 

the period.

We reviewed all comments and found the following to be substantive. As defined by NEPA compliance guidelines, comments are considered 

substantive if they.

■ question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the document;

■ question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the environmental analysis;

■ present reasonable alternatives other than 

those presented in the environmental 

assessment;

■ cause changes or revisions in the proposal.

In compliance with the spirit of the Privacy Act of 

1974, it is our policy in Region 6 to not publish the 

names, addresses, or other personal information of 

individuals. Agencies, businesses, and organizations 

are excluded from this policy. Rather than print 

every letter from individuals and redact, or black out, 

all personal information, we have summarized the 

general nature of the comments received and 

responded to each substantive comment. Some of the 

comments do not meet the definition of “substantive,” 

as defined previously. Those are shown as “comment 

noted.” In some instances, we have opted to respond 

to specific nonsubstantive comments where the public 

displayed a strong interest.

We developed responses to comments after grouping them under the following topics.

■ measurable objectives

■ water resources

■ tree management

■ grazing

■ whooping cranes

■ bison

■ general hunting

■ waterfowl hunting

■ upland game hunting

■ deer hunting

■ turkey hunting

■ sandhill crane hunting

■ snow geese hunting

■ furbearer hunting

■ trapping

■ wildlife observation

■ antler collecting

■ boating

■ public outreach

■ Friends of Quivira

■ tourism

■ facilities

■ planning process

Measurable Objectives

Comment. The plan should identify positive results 

expected from habitat management activities 

(i.e., burning, grazing, and mowing). Conduct 

baseline assessments and measure effects of the 

final plan. The plan should include adaptive 

management to be able to learn from successes 

and failures over the coming years.

Response. As indicated early in the CCP and EA, the 

Service and Refuge System promote use of adaptive management. Guidance and policy associated 

with adaptive management is in place, and continues to be refined in recent years. Positive results 

expected from habitat management activities are 

captured in measurable objectives, such as those 

developed for native communities in chapter 6. 

The general effects of disturbance types used to 

manage communities are discussed in the CCP 

and EA in chapter 5. More specific details of management strategies and associated effects are 

outside of the scope of this plan and are typically 

included as part of a habitat management plan. In 

addition, an inventory and monitoring plan is 

developed after the approval of the CCP that 

describes protocols used to inform management 

and measure success in achieving objectives.
150 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Water Resources

Comment. I acknowledge importance of water in 

Kansas and urge the protection and continued 

use of existing water rights.

Response. Thank you for supporting the sustainability of water resources and water rights in Kansas. 

Water quantity and quality are critical to current 

and future generations.

Comment. With regard to water rights, I don’t believe 

the basin is over appropriated.

Response. We respect different perspectives and 

opinions and understand that some may be due to 

context. For clarification, we use the term “over 

appropriation” to mean that existing water use 

cannot be sustained with the continuation of longterm declines in water supplies. For more detail, 

several documents published by representatives 

outside of the Federal Government provide 

descriptions of local water history and declining 

trends in water levels that indicate uncertainty in 

the long-term sustainability of water resources in 

the basin. A few examples include published articles authored by a past manager of the Big Bend 

Groundwater Management District, or GMD5, 

(Falk 2006), a professor of law at the University of 

Kansas (Peck 2006), and a scientist at the University of Kansas-Kansas Geological Survey (Sophocleous 2012). The GMD5 manager explains, “In 

December 1998, the District (Big Bend or GMD5)

recommended to the Chief Engineer that the 

remainder of the District be closed to further 

appropriation. Further evaluations had revealed 

each of the remaining basins to be over-appropriated, based upon a comparison of the amount of 

groundwater development to the recharge value. 

As of December 1998, the whole District was 

closed to large-scale development.”

Tree Management

Comment. I support tree removal on the refuge.

Response. We appreciate the positive feedback.

Comment. I support some tree removal, but less than 

the current rate and amount.

Response. We believe that the rate and amount 

referred to in this comment has lessened. Few 

trees have been removed this past year. Previous 

years’ management was more aggressive partly 

due to the temporary availability of added 

resources to accomplish the work. Refuge stations 

are federally funded, and the amount can change 

annually. Thus, opportunities to make progress in 

achieving goals and objectives will vary from year 

to year.

Comment. I oppose tree removal on the refuge.

Response. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Much 

explanation of tree removal is included in the CCP 

and EA.

Comment. I support preservation of woodlots identified in Figure 17. Wooded areas provide habitat 

for many types of wildlife, and provide wildlife 

viewing opportunities for people.

Response. We promote public appreciation of natural 

resources and encourage the feedback.

Comment. Walnut trees were here when buffalo were, 

and should remain on the refuge.

Response. A purpose of the CCP and EA is to provide context to guide refuge management planning, not necessarily to address specific situations 

case by case. With respect to tree management, 

several factors are considered, as described in the 

CCP and EA and in appendix E. Whether or not a 

tree is native to the region and where it naturally 

would have occurred in the landscape are among 

those factors. Furthermore, details involved in 

decisionmaking are not always simple and 

straightforward. It is likely, for example, that a 

planted shelterbelt (linear landscape feature) of 

native trees fragmenting a large block of prairie 

and possibly serving as ‘a predator lane’ would be 

viewed differently than a naturally established 

small grove of native trees characteristic of a 

natural landscape setting.

Comment. Cottonwood is a native species of Kansas, 

and should remain on the refuge.

Response. Yes, we agree that cottonwood is a native 

species and should remain on the refuge. This 

does not mean that management should, or will, 

protect every cottonwood seedling, sapling, or 

tree. Natural processes such as fire historically 

limited the amount of native woody vegetation on 

the prairie landscape. Management will allow cottonwood to occur on the refuge as described in the 

proposed alternative and approved final plan.

Comment. Aerial spraying by the Service in prior 

years has killed the catalpa trees on the refuge 

and some on adjacent lands to the east.

Response. Current staff has also noticed the change 

in appearance of the trees in that grove—not completely dead, but certainly affected—and cannot 

provide an explanation. We are not aware of aerial 

spraying of the catalpa grove or any other area on 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 151 

the refuge by management in recent years. Several ice and hail storms, a destructive tornado, 

and drought are natural events that have affected 

many trees and wooded areas in recent years.

Grazing

Comment. I support the current lower cattle allowances which have improved habitat conditions on 

the refuge.

Response. We appreciate the observation of desired 

habitat conditions. The effects of drought in 

recent years combined with other land management activities often resulted in unintended or 

undesirable conditions. At the same time, more 

intensive treatments can have beneficial results in 

some cases. A recent example is the conversion of 

a large, monotypic stand of dense cattail to a 

meadow dominated by various sedges and rushes 

that now provides diverse structure for wildlife.

Whooping Cranes

Comment. Cranes like Quivira Refuge because it is 

one of the few places they are not disturbed.

Response. Yes, we presume that whooping cranes use 

Quivira Refuge and certain areas off the refuge in 

part because of limited disturbance. All alternatives in this document support visitor use activities that are compatible with wildlife.

Comment. Excited to have the opportunity to reliably 

see this species at a location other than wintering 

grounds in Texas.

Response. It is always great to hear about positive 

experiences with wildlife. We will continue to support the conservation of this species.

Comment. Where do the cranes roost on the refuge?

Response. The most common roosting areas on the 

refuge are in and around the Big and Little Salt 

Marshes.

Comment. How far do cranes feed from the marsh?

Response. They have been observed foraging in refuge marshes and have been reported using areas 

within many miles of the marshes or roosting 

sites. Known observations often occur within ten 

miles of the refuge.

Bison

Comment. I support reintroduction of bison on the 

refuge.

Response. We appreciate and share your general 

interest in bison and their associated effects. As 

indicated in the draft CCP and EA, the reintroduction of bison would require the consideration of 

many factors, including substantial increases to 

staff and budget. Our proposed action, alternative 

B, received much public support but does not 

include such increases in staff and budget. Furthermore, recent Federal budgets have not 

included increases that would encourage the initiation of a bison reintroduction program.

Comment. I oppose reintroduction of bison on the 

refuge.

Response. As indicated in the CCP and EA, we 

acknowledge the tradeoffs and complexities associated with the reintroduction of bison.

General Hunting

Comment. Wildlife conservation should be the paramount goal, with limited hunting on the refuge as 

appropriate to achieve ecological health. Hunting 

should be used as a management tool for wildlife 

heath based on scientific research. Recreation 

should not be the primary factor for allowing 

hunting on the refuge.

Response. Our priority, included in the mission of the 

Refuge System, is to conserve wildlife and their 

habitats. Legitimate and appropriate wildlifedependent uses of refuges, however, are in our 

guiding principles and include compatible hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and education. Therefore, we will continue to support both compatible consumptive and 

nonconsumptive uses on Quivira Refuge. The 

challenge will be to appropriately balance multiple 

use activities that are compatible with wildlife 

and habitat conservation as things change.

Comment. I oppose hunting in general, and all hunting at Quivira Refuge.

Response. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Comment. There should be less emphasis on hunting 

and more emphasis on wildlife viewing and environmental education.

Response. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
152 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Comment. Refuge hunting programs should be managed for the good of the public, not for adjacent 

landowners looking out for their investments.

Response. Thank you for sharing your opinion. 

National wildlife refuges are public lands managed with wildlife and their associated habitats as 

a priority for the benefit of current and future 

generations. We desire positive working relationships with all interested parties, both local and 

nonlocal, especially with those who could potentially influence the conservation of natural 

resources and when support is needed across multiple administrative boundaries.

Comment. I am concerned for wildlife viewing and 

photographer safety during hunting season since 

the entire refuge is open to wildlife viewing and 

photography.

Response. Public safety for visitors and management 

staff is a critical factor in refuge operations and 

will remain a primary consideration when we plan 

visitor use activities. Signs, information 

resources, and more-detailed stepdown management plans will continue to promote public safety. 

We also encourage people to be aware of the regulations associated with refuges and of what is 

going on around them in all public areas.

Comment. The State is losing hunting opportunities 

on private lands putting pressure on public 

lands to provide hunting opportunities.

Response. It is possible that this is true in certain 

cases and not in others. For instance, there are 

different opportunities available for wetland- and 

upland-associated hunting opportunities on private lands. Also, certain public lands might 

receive, or are thought to receive, more pressure 

than others, depending on their mission or purposes and their relative importance to natural 

resources and visitor use opportunities.

Comment. If hunting is permitted on the refuge, 

potential user conflicts between hunters and other 

refuge visitors need to be minimized.

Response. We agree that all visitor use activities 

need to be considered collectively and that potential conflicts should be reasonably limited to 

assure safety and wildlife compatibility.

Comment. Spotlighting and poaching is occurring on 

the refuge. There is a need for more law enforcement to address this issue.

Response. We agree that law enforcement is an 

important need and appreciate the information. It 

has been unfortunate that recent changes in law 

enforcement staff and hiring restrictions limited 

surveillance frequency this past year.

Comment. Has the Service received input from State 

game wardens on how to enforce the proposed 

programs?

Response. We have received input and will continue 

to work with State partners on hunt plans that 

consider law enforcement and other factors. Both 

State and Federal regulations apply to refuge 

hunting, and management staff periodically consult and work with State game wardens and other 

law enforcement officers. It may be relevant to 

note that refuge law enforcement officers have the 

same qualifications as those who serve outside of 

the Service.

Waterfowl Hunting and Whooping 

Cranes

Comments.

■ I support alternative A which maintains 

current situation of closing the refuge when 

whooping cranes are present and maintaining North Lake within hunt area and available for hunting when the refuge is open to 

hunting.

■ I support “No Hunting Window” October 

10–November 20 to protect whooping 

cranes.

■ Cranes are too important to allow hunting 

on the refuge when they are present. The 

risk of an accidental (or purposeful) shooting is too great.

■ I support alternative B which allows some 

hunting when whooping cranes are present.

■ Oppose closing North Lake area to waterfowl hunting.

■ Keep North Lake in the hunt area and 

selectively close any unit occupied by 

cranes on any day. For example, if whooping cranes are in the Big Salt Marsh the 

Little Salt Marsh could be open and vice 

versa.

■ Manage the refuge similar to Cheyenne 

Bottoms Wildlife Area. Close the areas 

being used by whooping cranes and leave 

the rest of the refuge open to hunting.

■ Allow hunting on the south end of the refuge to remain open when cranes present. 

Suggest Units 10 and 11 could remain open 

to hunting.

■ Do not close the refuge to hunting when 

whooping cranes are present. Hunting 

opportunities are limited in Kansas. Thousands of acres are available for Whooping 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 153 

Cranes. Sad to see waterfowl hunting disappear as whooping cranes stay on the refuge longer and longer.

Response. Verbal and written responses on the topic 

of whooping cranes and hunting boundaries and 

closures were numerous and varied. We appreciate the interest and the constructive feedback. It 

should be noted that both consumptive and nonconsumptive user responses support reducing the 

risk to whooping cranes. Also, many hunters said 

they preferred the opportunity to hunt the North 

Lake area for a limited number of days over hunting in areas outside of the North Lake area for 

more days where there has traditionally 

been little-to-no whooping cranes use.

In discussing these topics, we applied an objective 

approach by evaluating public use activities 

within the context of Service laws, policies, and 

guidance. Key considerations were the Refuge 

System mission and the refuge’s establishing legislation, or purposes. Such evaluation included, 

but was not limited to, (a) reducing risk to threatened and endangered species and species of concern; (b) safety; and (c) logistics, or the ability to 

carry out actions that facilitate compliance with 

laws and regulations. Among many factors, we 

discussed observations of whooping crane behavior and habitat use that are unique or specific to 

an area of the refuge. At times, a given crane individual or family has used more than one location 

daily on the refuge, such as the Big Salt Marsh, at 

the north end, and the Little Salt Marsh, at the 

south end. Also, based on personal staff and 

research experience, whooping cranes have been 

present but undetected by people as a result of 

vegetation cover or other obstructions. Issues 

were identified with the use of time frames, or 

“windows,” due to changing factors, such as 

increasing populations, migration trends or shifts, 

landscape conditions, and weather or climate patterns.

Additional details are provided in our responses 

under other hunting-related topics in this section. 

We will continue to evaluate how we balance public use opportunities and natural resource conservation as conditions change and new information 

becomes available.

Upland Hunting

Comment. When deer season is open will the refuge 

be closed to upland bird hunting?

Response. Details related to hunting will be 

addressed in a hunt plan developed following the 

approval of the final CCP. It is likely that refugespecific regulations will apply in order to accomplish natural resource objectives, balance public 

use opportunities, facilitate law enforcement, and 

ensure the safety of the public and refuge staff. It 

is possible that separate areas and times will be 

designated to allow for various consumptive and 

nonconsumptive activities.

Deer Hunting

Comment. Support deer hunting on the refuge. In a 

state with limited hunting opportunities, those 

without financial resources for private hunts are 

dependent on public lands for recreational 

hunting.

Response. Thank you for your comment.

Comment. Deer hunting should be based on herd 

management objectives and scientific data, not 

solely as a recreation opportunity.

Response. Yes, there are several reasons to allow 

deer hunting. The local population has continued 

to grow since refuge establishment, which is a 

long-term trend, and current densities are high 

relative to other areas of the state. Increases to 

these high deer densities may adversely affect the 

health of deer or other wildlife.

Comment. Suggest limited special hunts such as governor’s tag, youth hunt, wounded warriors, etc.

Response. The Service supports special hunt opportunities, and we will consider these when developing the more-detailed hunt plan.

Comment. Suggest limited deer hunting on refuge 

such as archery and shotgun only. Restrict highpowered cartridges to address safety concerns for 

neighboring landowners.

Response. We appreciate the feedback and can say 

that safety will be a high priority in the moredetailed hunt plan.

Comment. Suggest smaller hunt area same as the 

proposed area for waterfowl and upland game.

Response. The proposed deer hunt boundary delineates the area where deer hunting might be 

allowed in the future, but this does not mean that 

the entire area would be opened at any one time. 

Deer movement patterns change, and there are 

other factors to consider, such as other consumptive and nonconsumptive use activities. Refuge-
154 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

specific regulations will limit where, when, and 

how deer hunting will occur within the proposed 

(approved) boundary.

Comment. Proposed hunting boundary goes right to 

the border of the refuge creating safety issues for 

adjacent landowners, especially in the south end 

of the refuge where the boundary is narrow. Suggest hunting boundary be moved back to create a 

buffer area between refuge boundary and private 

properties for safety purposes.

Response. Public safety concerns and potential use 

conflicts exist in refuge areas near administrative 

boundaries, especially during hunting seasons, 

and boundary and safety concerns exist regardless of whether or not hunting occurs on, or adjacent to, private or public lands. Refuge-specific 

regulations will limit where, when, and how deer 

hunting will occur within the proposed (approved) 

boundary, and safety will remain a priority in the 

development of a more-detailed hunt plan. Law 

enforcement will support public safety and the 

protection of natural resources.

Comment. Oppose deer hunting on refuge. Deer herd 

is decreasing; fawn survival is currently low due 

to drought and disease.

Response. We respect your opinion. The CCP guides 

management direction for the next 15 years and 

considers both short- and long-term trends. The 

current long-term trend is that the local deer 

population is increasing. Management needs the 

ability to make appropriate annual adjustments to 

refuge-specific hunting regulations that are consistent with management goals and objectives.

Comment. I am concerned that deer hunting would 

lower the value of adjacent private property. 

Rates gained from leasing the hunting rights are 

a key consideration for landowners.

Response. We understand the concern. We do not 

know if, or how, deer hunting on the refuge will 

influence adjacent private property values. 

According to current staff, property values were 

not affected when other hunting opportunities 

were offered on the refuge.

Comment. The refuge provides wonderful deer viewing opportunities which may be negatively 

impacted by hunting on the refuge.

Response. We support both consumptive and nonconsumptive opportunities that are compatible with 

wildlife and our conservation goals and objectives. 

We acknowledge that potential conflicts exist 

when we support multiple visitor use opportunities and will consider them when refuge-specific 

hunting regulations are enacted to limit things 

like areas and seasons.

Comment. Opening deer season will jeopardize ecotourism, especially if rifles, shot guns, or muzzle 

loaders are allowed.

Response. We believe that, with appropriate management, ecotourism and hunting programs can coexist. Management can develop specific regulations 

that apply within the boundaries of Quivira Refuge that are different from other lands, such as 

State or private lands. We can limit how, where, 

and when hunting occurs. With the careful development of refuge-specific regulations, we can successfully provide compatible consumptive and 

nonconsumptive visitor use opportunities.

Comment. If population control is needed, work with 

private landowners to take more does off their 

land.

Response. We agree that this is a strategy to 

consider.

Comment. What did Kansas State and Sterling College deer research indicate? Are the deer destroying habitat?

Response. Highlights of the research findings are 

provided in chapter 4 of the draft CCP and EA.

Comment. Are there population targets for deer 

hunting?

Response. We do not have targets at the moment.

Turkey Hunting

Comment. Support turkey hunting on the refuge. 

Start with limited-basis special hunts such as 

youth only, wounded warrior, etc.

Response. Thank you for your supportive comment. 

Limited special hunts, such as for youth or 

wounded warriors, seem to be popular options. 

We will consider them as a starting point.

Comment. Restrict high-powered cartridges to 

address safety concerns for neighboring landowners. Limit to archery and shotgun only.

Response. We will consider this in the development of 

the hunt plan.

Comment. Suggest smaller hunt area for turkey; use 

same area as proposed for waterfowl and upland 

game.

Response. For clarification, the boundary map in the 

draft CCP and EA shows only where we might 
Appendix D—Public Involvement 155 

allow turkey hunting in the next 15 years. After 

approval of the turkey hunt boundary, management will have the authority to restrict hunting to 

any area(s) within that boundary. Sites do not 

have to remain the same year after year as long 

as they are within the approved boundary.

Comment. Proposed hunting boundary goes right to 

the border of the refuge, creating safety issues for 

adjacent landowners, especially in the south end 

of the refuge where the boundary is narrow. Suggest hunting boundary be moved back to create a 

buffer area between refuge boundary and private 

properties for safety purposes.

Response. Public safety concerns and potential use 

conflicts exist in refuge areas near administrative 

boundaries, especially during hunting seasons, 

and boundary and safety concerns exist regardless of whether or not hunting occurs on, or adjacent to, private or public lands. Refuge-specific 

regulations will limit where, when, and how turkey hunting will occur within the proposed 

(approved) boundary, and safety will remain a 

priority in the development of a more-detailed 

hunt plan. Law enforcement will support public 

safety and the protection of natural resources.

Comment. Oppose turkey hunting on the refuge. I am 

concerned whether the turkey population is large 

enough to support a hunt.

Response. We presume that the local turkey population fluctuates and will consider that in the development of the more-detailed hunt plan as well as 

when providing opportunities for nonconsumptive 

use associated with turkey and factors related to 

wildlife conservation.

Comment. Fall turkey hunting would be disruptive to 

wildlife viewing and photography opportunities 

on the refuge.

Response. Seasonal restrictions and possible conflicts 

among visitor use opportunities will be considered 

in development of the more-detailed hunt plan.

Comment. Opening turkey season will jeopardize 

ecotourism, especially if rifles, shot guns, or 

muzzle loaders are allowed.

Response. Potential conflicts among visitor use 

opportunities will be considered in the development of the more-detailed hunt plan.

Comment. Proposed turkey hunting conflicts with 

upland game hunting.

Response. Federal and refuge-specific regulations 

often apply to hunt programs that occur on refuge 

lands. When developing more-detailed hunt plans, 

we will consider the potential conflicts among 

hunt programs, among visitor use activities, and 

factors influencing wildlife conservation.

Sandhill Crane Hunting

Comments.

■ Support sandhill crane hunting on refuge.

■ Oppose sandhill crane hunting on refuge.

Response. Sandhill crane hunting will remain prohibited on the refuge in order to reduce the risk to 

the endangered whooping crane. One of the Service’s primary responsibilities is to protect endangered species, and Quivira Refuge provides 

designated critical habitat for whooping cranes. 

Conditions among areas of critical habitat in the 

State and flyway are not necessarily the same. At 

Quivira Refuge, sandhill and whooping cranes 

often occur together. Local habitat use by crane 

species and the detectability of cranes on the refuge are relevant factors for us to consider.

Snow Geese Hunting

Comment. I would like to see a spring hunt for snow 

geese.

Response. This will be considered in the development 

of the more-detailed hunt plan. If allowed, it may 

be limited by refuge-specific regulations.

Furbearer Hunting

Comment. Oppose furbearer hunting on the refuge.

Response. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Trapping

Comment. Oppose trapping on the refuge.

Response. We respect different opinions on public 

use activities. Refuge-specific regulations will 

restrict aspects of trapping activities, such as the 

number, location, and types of traps used, and will 

require the approval of a special use permit by the 

refuge manager. This approach should facilitate 

enforcement and alleviate safety concerns.
156 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Wildlife Observation

Comment. Wildlife watching increased 67 percent 

from 2001 to 2011. More emphasis is needed on 

nonconsumptive activities such as wildlife viewing and photography, interpretation, and environmental education.

Response. Quivira Refuge has, and will continue to 

promote, nonconsumptive use activities. As 

described in chapter 4, a recent visitor use survey 

conducted by the USGS indicated that most use 

on the refuge was nonconsumptive. Over 90 percent of respondents were satisfied with the recreational activities and opportunities and the services provided by employees or volunteers.

Comment. Support nonintrusive wildlife observation 

and citizen science on the refuge.

Response. We will continue to support both consumptive and nonconsumptive visitor use activities on 

the refuge. Management will also consider the 

potential conflicts of multiple use activities in 

decisionmaking in order to strike an appropriate 

balance that is compatible with wildlife conservation and associated refuge goals and objectives.

Public Outreach

Comment. Use Quivira Refuge Web site for more 

outreach.

Response. We agree that outreach via the Internet is 

important. Recently, the Service redesigned websites for a more unified system-wide appearance 

in part to facilitate use. Quivira Refuge was one 

of the first refuges to activate a Web site under 

this new design. Management provides regular 

updates to the site, such as recent sightings on the 

refuge and scheduled events, throughout the year. 

Links on the site lead not only to documents and 

maps, but also to social sites such as Facebook and 

Flickr, where additional information and photographs are updated several times weekly.

Antler Collecting

Comment. Would like to see antler collecting permitted on the refuge.

Response. The collecting or taking of any plant, wildlife, or parts thereof from a national wildlife refuge without a permit is specifically prohibited 

under Title 50 CFR Part 27.61. Prohibiting antler 

collecting is consistent with, and facilitates associated public communications and law enforcement 

activities on, other Kansas refuges.

Boating

Comment. I would like to be able to use non-motorized small boats (canoe, float tube) on the refuge 

in support of fishing activities.

Response. There are many reasons why nonmotorized boats are not permitted for use on the refuge. 

These include the potential for increased disturbance to wildlife, law enforcement and safety concerns, and environmental health hazards like the 

spread of zebra mussels, pathogens, and more. 

While we support many public use opportunities, 

wildlife and habitat conservation is the highest 

priority of the Refuge System mission.

Tourism

Comment. Nature-based tourism provides important 

economic benefit to the State of Kansas and local 

communities.

Response. Yes, we agree.

Comment. Kansas could enjoy tourism benefits if 

Whooping Cranes were protected and promoted.

Response. Refuge management supports whooping 

crane conservation and compatible use activities. 

Numerous visits to Quivira Refuge and Kansas by 

the public are associated with opportunities to 

view whooping cranes. News of the presence of 

whooping cranes in the area of the refuge spreads 

quickly via media, Internet, and phone.

Facilities

Comment. Please provide better information and 

signage to let people know biking and hiking on 

roads closed to vehicle traffic is allowed.

Response. Thank you for this feedback. We will continue to improve the communication of refuge use 

opportunities and regulations.
Appendix D—Public Involvement 157 

Comment. A restroom facility is needed at the north 

end of the refuge. Suggest it be located near the 

North Lake and Salt Flats areas.

Response. We will keep this in mind but will not 

make any commitments based on current maintenance needs, previously proposed infrastructure 

improvements, and budget or time constraints.

Comment. Why is the refuge open from dawn to 

dusk?

Response. The refuge is open to the public when law 

enforcement, safety, and conservation concerns 

can be met.

Comment. I would like to camp on the refuge.

Response. Recreational activities that are not wildlife dependent and not appropriate and compatible 

with the conservation of wildlife and their habitat 

do not support the mission and priorities of the 

Refuge System. Restricted camping may occur on 

refuges under certain circumstances, such as 

when access and location are not concerns, and 

usually requires an approved special use permit.

Comment. Is the ADA (Americans With Disability 

Act) blind in an area that might be closed to hunting when whooping cranes are on the refuge?

Response. Yes.

Friends of Quivira

Comment. I would like to see increased involvement 

by the Friends group.

Response. Thank you. Support for the Friends of 

Quivira group is much appreciated.

Planning Process and Public Notice

Comment. Little notice of the public meetings was 

provided.

Response. We followed NEPA guidelines in reaching 

out to the public to encourage their involvement. 

Our efforts are outlined in the beginning of this 

appendix and in chapter 1.

Comment. No Action is a bad term; should be “Continued Management.”

Response. Thank you for your comment.

Comment. Parts of each alternative might work. Is it 

an all or nothing approach?

Response. Based on comments we received on the 

draft CCP and EA, our planning team will review 

all of the actions proposed in all of the alternatives 

and pull actions from alternatives not selected to 

craft the management direction to be contained in 

the final CCP.

Comment. The plan was developed behind the scenes 

with no transparency or public involvement.

Response. We followed NEPA guidelines in reaching 

out to the public to encourage their involvement 

and to inform them on the progress of this plan. 

Our efforts are outlined in the beginning of this 

appendix and in chapter 1.

Comment. Chapter 4 should come before chapter 3 to 

make it easier to understand the alternatives.

Response. Thank you for your comment.

D.4 Comments from Tribes, 

Agencies and Organizations

We received formal comments from the following 

tribal, Federal, State, and local government agencies 

and organizations.

1. Osage Nation, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office

2. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and 

Tourism

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

4. Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated

Letters from these agencies and organizations are 

shown on the following pages. Beside each reproduced letter are our responses, numbered to correspond to specific comments in the letter.
158 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #1—Osage Nation, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, page 1 of 2

y 

n 

e

d i

no

eni

s m

atno

m ae

s c

h

n

t t

oi

n

ts

e

e

me

g

l

g

p

u

m

e s

o ie t

.

h

e

f t

l

vi

ab

l o

r

li

l

t

va

h a

l sli

 a

ti

e

e w

d w

om

n

c

e

r a

e

rg

 b

e a

e

f

t

f

t

a

W

e

t

s l

 .-1

 s

ih

nd

1

ta

1-1
Appendix D—Public Involvement 159 

RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #1—Osage Nation, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, page 2 of 2
160 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #2—Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, page 1 of 2 o 

-

-

-

e 

d 

t

f 

-

f 

b

-

n

h

e t

-t

e

f 

A 

-

e 

r

g 

o 

e 

s o

, 

g 

e

e

e 

s 

n

t

d 

n

s

un

h

e

e

n

p

n

m 

d 

n 

l b

r

a 

n t

r

ni

s o

i

 pu

s o

u

g 

o

, w

p

d E

e

) t

o h

li

u

y

h

o t

t

g

i

l

e 

s 

e h

d

p

s 

e

e i

d i

y h

a

v

t

, a

n

y

g 

y

d s

t

r

l

s

u

n

s

e

m 

o

e A

o

. W

a

n

s

i

i

e u

e t

a

y (

n

e

i

n

s

i

n

e

l

n

o

e

g

o

, a

e

c

v

i

y

i

s

i

n

c

u

v

s

a

n Q

a

i

i

o

t

ip w

e

t

r

n

i

e

n

r d

i

g

r

t

h

n

e d

r

u

t t

p

a

p

h

u

t

r d

P a

r

w

w a

e p

 M

m

m

g w

e

c

a

f t

a

s d

c

u

o

f

n

t

s

e

o

.

v

a

e

e S

u

o

e

h

C

t

r

f m

s

w

y s

e

it

p

p

) d

.

m

r

g

d

e

n

u

l

o

d

n

e

sh

s o

s o

h

g

e c

g t

u

o

n

, k

s

s

o

c

e

e

t

t A

i

o

e r

s n

l

n t

a

s

n

a

s

u

n

s

m

u

n

a

s o

r

r

n

e

u

h

n

i

d

f

)

, p

t

l

r

u

r

s

s

on

o

, c

r

s

i

e

s

i

e

o

d

e

e

n

e a

r

a

v

i

u

o

h f

o m

s

s

t C

y w

i

e

n

e

h

i

n

f

n o

t

e A

e

t

c

r

e

m

ei

t

c

o

o

d i

s

t

h r

l

o

i

v

i

a

n

a

f e

e

b

n t

g d

w

a

e

p

n w

t

n

a

i

t b

r

i

t

o

i

n

t

r

e e

e

n

r

a

l

l

i

r

t

a

i

d t

n

e b

r

t

d

n

o

g

l

p

a

a

e

i

v

b

o

e c

s

e

i

e R

i

i

e

a

u

h

t

l

g c

r w

e d

t (

) w

i

d n

o u

m

e

s o

h

n

n

u

l

o

n

i

n

r

r p

u

e p

c

n t

v

d

i

o

o

e

a

n o

m l

u

r

n

p

o

s

e

n

n

e

h

e o

i

a

r

i

o

b

c

o

h

p

t h

, m

s

n

i

t

t

s

i

r

e

n r

i

r

s

f t

ly d

c

e

a

rp

e

s

t

o p

t

u

d n

r

r

T s

i

l

e B

t

e

g c

i

e t

c

” I

e

h

t

e

g

t

a

m

n

on

r

v

y p

s

m

l r

e

n

o

P

r

t t

n

m

n

t o

l

-

s a

l

c

e

s d

h

i

e

u

e h

e

i

o

h b

f

o

y

p

.

u

e

W

p

s o

v

a

o

t

e

s t

a (

s c

r

t

n c

r

c

f

r t

a

s

s

l h

n

n

t

p

e I

p

e

a

i

c

a

i

g

i

r

-

e

D

h

e S

h

g o

t

o

n

r

e

o

s w

on

t

e

s

e

h

u

a

n

t

, r

a

, a

s a

e

o

r

w

a

p

d b

u

i

t

a

a

e

l

r

e

c

e

t

a

n

d t

o

t w

e c

n

g

t t

a

n

n

t K

d s

r

n

f

t

t

i

e a

a

o

f

a

i

n

e

r

r

o

d

m

u

s

u

n

r

n

t

a

p c

e p

y r

e c

i

n t

e a

t

o

e o

o

i

e

i

t

i

e

h

l

a

a

e

r

f

n

f n

t

e

e

i

v

t

d w

e

a

n

g c

r

t m

t

u

h

, i

r

d l

r

h

r

r

p

d i

e

m

a

t

a

t

e

e

n

l

o

om

n o

t

c u

k

a

i

r

n

h h

n

h

d

h

e a

s

e

f p

a

c r

p

u

a

s

u

n

e t

a

 c

t

l

e

r

a

s t

p

e

n

e t

b

u

w h

fi

i

n

g c

d

s (

e

o

d d

m

f R

d

n

n

s

o

e

i

o

n

s

p

o

u

g

i

e

r

u

i

o

d t

i

n w

i

l

i

c w

n o

e

u

e a

q

l

r

r

s

i

o

e m

b

y h

n (

r u

o

o

i

e

o

e

t

p

s

e h

i

e

s

i

v

t o

v

a

n

s f

t

e c

t

e

o

e

n

r

i

i

h L

t

p

s

s a

l t

m b

 w

r p

g p

i

v

o

t

t

t

x

y r

u

t

p

o

s

e

a

u

c

o

e

a

u

a

o

a

h

v

a

e

e

i

e

c

r

o

e

e

e

i

i

t

c

r

t

e

g n

r

e

p

. P

n

d w

A d

l

n

n

t

e

ia

r

s

u

r

t m

r c

p

e

o

a

n

d o

i

a

o

s o

t h

c

t

e

r

r

u

n

s t

t

c

f

h

c

f o

i

i

s f

. B

e

t

f w

p

t

j

n

i

e a

x

o

y c

n

i

r

e

n

s

a

a

a

b

o

o

n

i

s

x

f

y

h

i

r

a

e

u

t

e

h

e

e

u

i

p

t

. W

n

e p

e o

e N

e h

a

e B

d E

h

s

h

g c

r

u

e

i

t

t

e e

a

h

r

) t

s

l

p

n

o

r

v

r

o

r

r

e

r

n

o e

e

e o

o t

a

n o

e c

. Ke

r

e t

e c

e a

u

m

e a

e t

i

y p

e

e o

t s

g tg a

. P

e B

e

f

s

n

h

e

e

s

n

v

g

m

t

p

o

o

a

m

n

l

, p

c

a

a

n

e.

i

o

a

p

W

W

e

t

e w

e

p

c

p

P a

p

n

n

n

s

x

d t

e

r

d a

n

g

h

f

o

n

a

l

r

p

h

s

e

e s

s o

o

o

n e

n t

s a

e

e

l

u

r

fit t

r

a

l

o

r

e

.

tu

o

e

g

2

g c

c

p

p

f

. 

c

i

e

n

C

h

t

d

r

e p

g o

i

e

i

e

i

s t

s

t

 e

a

v

e

i

n

h

d

o s

r

n

t

e

i

t

s

nn

i

e

e

t

s i

-1

a

m

u

-

i

n

x

l

n

u

r

u

a

a

h

n

h

r

r

nd

c r

r

l

e

a

a

h

p

t

i

s

e

l

s

r

p

i

i

u

i

Ref

2

“tew

e

2

iCiailtitehphn

i

caluccrWawgm

2-1

2-2

2-3

2-4
Appendix D—Public Involvement 161 

RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #2—Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, page 2 of 2

2-5

2-6

2-7

o 

g 

-

g 

e 

e 

sk t

-

e 

e 

g 

t 

n

n

-

-

i

h 

y 

t 

, 

, 

g 

e 

-

e 

n

h

h

t 

n

y

g 

o

r 

e

n

t

s 

a

d 

n

h

d 

, 

s a

h

-

c

s

s

i

y 

d

f

c

o

h t

i

i

i

f t

r

d

e m

n

u

t

n

e

e

i

e

n t

s

r

a

e 

c u

c

ni

i

i

e 

l

n

e

 c

h

t

l

i

r p

p

w

e o

g h

u

o

t

u

t 

s

n

t

n

d

d

a

r

)

, w

r

r

t

d h

c u

a

o

n

y a

e m

d S

r

o

h

d

i

d

g t

i

o

l

p

t o

a

h a

g r

u

u

) t

l

d s

n

e r

e p

2

a

n

c

c

o

u

i

r

e

g

i

u

h

 (

e

t

e

l

c

i

h

r

n

b

c

s

c

. W

c

h

a

n

;

i

p

s t

d

r

e

e s

s

i

t b

e

es

l

us

v

n

e r

g h

e g

n r

c

b

.

i

s

o

d

o

. A

u

i

il

fn

o

b

e

i

p

n

u

s

h

u

c

u

l

e

r

g

m

p

o

n w

r

n

h

n

1

u

n

n

h

a

a

s

e l

u

o

s u

s s

e t

n

d

i

r

n

p t

l a

y

h

e (

, p

o i

l a

g t

g

e

a

r

g

s i

e t

d

i

g t

d

e

g u

s

e p

o

n

t

o

u

, c

e

s

t

i

p

n

d p

d

w

o

i

e r

h

h

b

u

l

g t

d o

r a

r

r

r

n

f m

f

n

s

e

i

e

t

i

a

n

o

p

n

e

s w

i

e

e

e

e

i

y t

p

h

y t

e

i

v

y u

) r

c

i

t

b

e F

n o

u

n

c

n

d

t

f

l

n

 s

t

s

t

a

r

v

t

t a

i

e

c

i

e

i

h

t

r

n

a

r

l

n a

n

n

n

f t

e

e a

c

t

i

s a

p

u

t a

ed

d t

l

e

c

e

n

f b

a

d

u

e

c

o

y

1

l

e

u

l

x

u

g r

u

h

u

f a

n d

i

l

, (

v

u

o h

t o

t

a

a

o

fl

t

u

g d

s

, g

p

t

e d

d

f F

is

e

n

h

a

m

g o

g

e

r h

f

t

i

i

s

e

o

i

i

n

n

c

r “

a

t

f s

t

y o

n

n

e

t

e a

c

d o

r

p

o

-

e

l

e

d t

e

n

n l

s

c

f a

e

r

a

o

o

o

s

h

d

n o

r

. A

e

e

e

c

p

i

o

t

e

p

r w

i

m

o

r

l o

s

a

r

f

n

t o

d r

d t

s r

c

c

t

t r

d f

. W

li

e

ro

n

r w

c a

i

r

s

e m

n w

e

r

g a

s c

d

n

a

e u

e

c u

e

o c

e

t

a

y

n

a

a

s

e

n

i

v

g

i

u

ly i

g

r

p

e

r

e

h

e

e

v

h

i

e

e c

i

, e

i

fi

 p

t

h

e s

r

T a

l

d

g m

s t

s o

d M

u

e a

f

m

r

s a

g w

s p

e

s

o

i

t

s

s

n

r

l

o

0 p

e

n

a

g

m

n

lb

r

o

e h

l

s

” w

e t

c

l

n

dli

e l

t

i

s

b

e

i

n

a

P

e c

g

o

it

i

n

u

e

w

i

h

h

o

u

n

e

n

e

v

h o

e

d d

e

t l

g

) c

u

 a

d a

p

t

n

t

u

a

i

o

n 4

n

W

t

l c

s

u

i

o

c

e

i

r

r

e

h

m

t

c

s a c

r w

i

s

l

a

g t

y a

t

a R

l b

, p

f h

r o

i

n

t p

. G

o

,

f

h l

D

t

r

u

i

o

i

g

c

e

e

a

p

n

t

r a

ed

3

u

s p

a

t

n

d

l

r

r

i

h

e

t g

l f

e o

t g

a

t

n

e w

e a

. T

o

le

ra

h

s w

y

e

n

a

i

h

e

r

i

s n

d (

i

v

n

y K

u

l h

, s

r

f r

l

e

c

e B w

e s

n i

a

a

i

e t

a

h

u

o h

d

r

s

d

r

t

p

r

b

e w

w

i

e

, p

t

a

h

g

. W

e

e r

g c

n o

n

r

e

t

a

y o

o

t w

; a

g

s

u

g

n

o

m

c

, w

i

h

e

l

b

r

d b

e

r

i

n l

e t

i

i

i

.

u

r

s

t

c

p

h

a

b

m

g

n

o

f

n

t

i

e

a t

e

t

r

) t

p

m

a i

a

u

f Q

l

r a

n

e a

t

r

o

s

o

n

e

n

n

d

c

t

c

x

o

a

l

u

e

a

i

l

n

v

e

e c

l

r

e

r l

d

e

r

i

a

et

e

e

3

u

m

e

o

u

, b

d

f

c

t

e

i

t

o

g

r

h

o

p

l

g

s o

u

o

s o

e

o

t

n F

i

n

i

a

t

r

t

o

f

p

e n

a

r

a

f

h

e s

t

i

s

o m

c c

es

. I

e n

, w

s

n o

h w

i

e

c

t p

) m

d (

y e

s f

, n

n a

l

h

e ae a

o

d

i

h

a

n

o

 e

e

e

r

p

n

e l

r

e

e

s t

t

d

 p

,

e

h

n

n

g

. T

i

u

f

s

e

u

s

n c

2

s b

d

ed

h

m

d p

, o

r w

e CFR

w e

r

s

l

o

i

o

c

o

d

h

i

q

t

i

t b

u

f

r

q

kk

p

e

i

i

e p

; (

g t

e

s

o

o

e

r

u

; a

n

a

n

u

o

e

aa

y

t

n f

i

i

r

r

e

t

s

t

n

e

p

n

e c

s r

h Lh L

r

a

t

a

g w

l e

o

l

e

n

a

t t

l

r

l

r

c

e

i

a

 a

, l

a

u

u

v

s r

, b

e

o

n

d h

s

o

a

a

a

e

i

o

v

i

i

t

n l

t

r

m

a

n

n

s

e

e

e

t

a

g a

n

t

i

u

i

r

s

r

A

dd

y

t

e l

r

d

i

s i

l

i

e

n

i

r

e a

n

e p

a

e

l

r

s m

u

tt

d a

p

e p

e

n

e

h

n

t

y M

e

rr

e

e

r

s

u

s

u

d

oo

f

d m

es

A

g

i

g

r i

g

e o

h

v

u

i

n

o

s

-3.

o t

. 

l

u

u

a

t g

s

e

a

p

t

i

u

4

n

r

h

s t

u

u

d

o t

l

f

c

t

n

i

t

p

f

c

l c

f

r

h

l

h

n

o

o

o

a

n

l

i

r

-

p

o

a

e

n

e

g

o

o

c

o

e

tp

i

h

e

c

i

i

tsie

2

NNbptbbsatc

2

oceridlcptaprohrb
162 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #2—Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism s e r n 

-

r 

-

-

e 

s

g 

d

o

s 

-t

u

o

n

d

h

h

e

p 

n

l 

n

c

n

l 

e 

s,

m 

s f

e a

i

g t

r

n

e

n t

l

i

t

o

c

l

i

a

t

a

i

e

e 

e 

o 

-

u

p

e 

e p

e

c

n

y o

h

e

s

th

g l

ei

n

s

n

e h

e 

e

o

d d

u

t

g s

d t

t

o

i

m

o 

h

l

o

g w

h

d i

n t

s w

t

, 

s

s

g

n

.

i

c

o

y r

o t

s w

e h

y

r

e

i

c

sk t

r

n

n

n

. W

d t

s

i

n

o

n

e

n

r

n

y s

n

s

t 

a

e p

i

r

h

fi

e

h 

u

o

d

a

s

o

s

e

i

t

t

i

u

o

r

t

 l

.

i

r

e

s

n

i

i

a

e

i

c

t

e S

e

n

w

t

t g

g

u

e d

n

s

n

s n

e t

p

d b

d

n

l c

s

e

m

a

g

h

r

g

d r

a

g

n

e

p

o

t a

i

r

u

r

r

h

n

o

o

g

u

l

n

m

m

e

i

u

o

p

u

p

n

h

s

p

o

l a

p

l c

f

u

g d

o

h t

r

u

s

o

r

i

i

t w

. O

i

c

f

n

n w

r

e

e

e

r

o

i

a

e

r t

d i

r

x

o

p

g l

f

h

p

e

w

s e

s

l

n

r h

m

. S

u

m

e

k f

e

u

d

e

t

o

s o

l

i

t

n

e

i

e

e

s

a

e c

c

g

e

r p

e r

e

h

i

y i

e r

u

. W

e

r

a

 s

n

n

ec r

e

d

d

e R

s p

h

o

t s

s w

i

n

g

r

n

e r

e

t pl

a

c

i

i

r

tn

a

r

r

u

f

h

a

i

h

’

r

i

i

u

w

t

n

u

d l

e

i

e

t

n

e

e

o

t

c

s

h

t

o

n

n a

f

g

o

e v

t

f

f t

i

i

n

a

s

s

r

b

n

p

n

n

n

 a

g o

r

l

t b

u

r s

l

e

f o

n

e

n t

e

e p

u

o

f t

n

o v

l

u

n

u

’ i

n

e o

u

o

e

o

b

u

s

o s

s a

m

o

o h

h

e r

h

a

o j

s o

ru

s

u

s,

o

t o

f

o

a

e

s

s

i

s f

e

l

. A

s o

h

n

x

t

n

i

r

e

s w

l u

e h

e

w e

m

r ci

u

a

e

d a

g n

s

t

g

e

s t

i

d h

n c

e

a

e

c

i

r

i

d t

r

i

y p

o

t

t t

n

. F

m

e

c

r m

e

t

e r

t

u

e

t

g o

i

l

i

n

o

e

n t

a

i

d n

i

l

P

a

v

i

l c

o

c

 a

l

l

d i

h

h

i

C

g g

i

n

f l

c a

d

i

u

n

e

i

t

s

n

a

p

i

n

t

a

e

o

l

r

n

n

e

i

o

t

h

i

c

u

p

p

t

d t

b

r t

r a

i

.

p

n p

u

n r

v

n

p

s o

t

ds,

s o

t m

c

fi

l C

r a s

e c

g o

e

l

o

i

e

d

e

e

o

o

u

s c

r

s

t

i

n

c

s o

d

f

r

t

e

r

n

n

l

e

i

o

a

d

i

g p

c

r

a

t

n

r b

-

a

o

s ai

s b

h

f

o

s a

g a

e

a

a

p

n

th

s a

s

e p

T f

n

f

n

e

v

i

e

i

e

y

p

h

r

n

r

e

i

e

o

r

e

P

n

f y

, o

a

e

i

.

t

e a

n o

i

h

a

r

p

e

d t

i

e d

f s

i

p

t

e fi

d

o

n t

g c

 m

e

h

d f

i

g

W

a

t

t

t

c

i

n

n

i

n

t

y

l

s

o

n

n

e

n

h

i

o

a

e o

l

u

io

u

n

i

r d

g c

c u

t

d o

e

u

u

. T

s o

p

d b

g o

h

e

s,

y d

r

s

n

d u

n a m

t

d t

i

p

u

r

l

n

l

a

o

i

l

i

o

e l

n

D

l

t

a

n

e

m h

e

k

u

i

r h

f t

t h

w

e

e

i

a

m

n d

o

i

t

n f

i

p

d p

l

v

t

u

w

c

i

h

n

o

o

r

e p

r

r

r

p

d

e

b

i

o

o

d s

e

f a

i

o

o

e

u

a

n

e

e

o

i

s

r

o

u

r

t o

ll

ec

u

w

d w

r t

k K

h

ob

s t

p

o

p

n

e p

i

o

o

g c

r

e f

f

o

s

n

a

n

h

, fl

t w

e h

a

n

o

d i

r

d p

t

t t

a

n

p

n

t

v

h

b

a a

e

i

r

e w

r

e

e

e

 s

, i

l

e

o

n

d

a

l

i

g

g ag o

a

f w

e

od c

n a

g

l

o

a

h

d f

u

e r

hs

b

e

d

g

n

e

n

s

n

r

m

r

n

T a

i

e

f s

o

t t

v

g c

i

s

ol

h

e r

i

n

e

i

r n

a

e

p

v

i

n

 c

r

s

i

a

u

e a

e m

e a

P

n a

n

t

n

e

p

o

e t

g

i

n

v

o

o

o

e

e a

i

u

d

r

d

y o

p

tt

np

W

t

u

h

i

e

o

l

n

i

F

. 

e

c

o

i

e o

a

l

. 

e

y b

r

u

l b

W

g a

i s

l c

t

W

r

o

n

m

n

e

n t

r

m

c

u

c

n

c

l c

, o

f e

i

6

v

D

s

5

h

b

l

m

e p

l

lc

ll

f

r

t

g

u

u

u

p

n

e

e

n

i

i

i

7.

o

-

n

e

o

n

i

i

-

a

n

a

-

h

u

uihshsce

2

ircwbiosh

2

dosbiwKmws

2

tf
Appendix D—Public Involvement 163 

RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #3—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 2 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 4 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 6 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 8 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 10 of 10

-

-

.

i

d 

a

e 

t

r

t 

r

e 

t

n

r 

d

o

l 

n

e

e 

o

i

o

i

d 

h

a

a

r

t a

h 

p

e

t

t

n

n f

r

h

t

u

p

i

p

r

n 

e 

h t

d p

bi

r

a

d b

r

o

f t

e

u

t

a

i

i

d t

l

l

c

s w

o

e

d s

p

i

lp g

s w

u

t

m

t

e

m

n

t o

o

l

p

g

a

o

r

n

u

a

n

n

m

s sh

s

n

s

o

n

n i

e i

o

t p

e a

l

w a

r a

s p

e

i

e

r

o h

o

i

h

v

o

c

a

f

s t

e

i

e sh

t

it

m

e

e

c

e

a

fi

m

g t

.

i

f

i

e

h

s

c

e

n

e a

e

e

n

a

v

t

g

e

n

e d

e

r

g

i

n O

d r

e

i

a

. M

e i

e

c

d t

n

v

u

i

h

n

P

l

l r

a

h

o

l

b

r t

o t

r

u

f

e

C

a

m

o

l

a

n

r

e

t p

i

u

l

u

t

p

m

o

i

f

o

st 5 y

a

i

a

t

l C

e a

m

m

e r

d m

o

v

s f

v

r

n

f

s sh

d i

h

s t

h

e

a

g

e

i

n

e

n

u

t c

a

r

i

t

e

e fi

m

l

o

f a

d

i

r

n

g

l

s

n t

g a t

i

h

o

t

e

i

a

e

s o

i

n

e

e a

e

c

e fi

h

g

d

o

h

a

fi

s

n t

f w

h

c

i

t

r

r t

d

w o

n

e t

c P

a

e

f

g

e

u

r

s

n

l

n t

i

i

o

u

a

n o

r

c

t m

e

n a

d

c

t

h

e c

e

i

t

n o

v

s s

e i

e

o

r

i

r

l

u

n

r y

oi

s

g

o

o

o

c

t

i

w

s

g

t

r

t

o

d i

n

f a

r

a

a

e

s

a

e

e

i

u

d a r

d w

o

o a

n

u f

h

i

v

v

v

r

g k

l r

s

r

n o

r

e

n

e t

t

d

l

e H

o

r

e

p

s

e a

s a

a

d a

a

d

r S

e

e

o

e

o

i

.

r

i

i

k y

t

t

e

s

t

s

n

t

. W

s

u

i

r

n

a

e

i

n

a

e r

tr

n

n

s

t

e

g

t

en

o

t

rc p

l

e

u

q

e i

d

s S

a

o

t

u

n

e

a

e a

e c

, a

n

i

f c

e c

a

e

p

w

i

t

r

m

x

em

h

W

h

a

e

a

r

c

n

g

T

e t

t

c

s

a

u

o

n

sh

e

i

W

n o

l

l e

ld b

 .

. 

b

n

t

r i

e

p

a

u

n

2

d

s u

-1

z

a

s

o

r

i

c

o

a

-

i

a

e

K

i

o

h

h

i

-3.

m

o

33

thrft

3

Fitlwm

3-1

3-2

3-3
164 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 1 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 3 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 5 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 7 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 9 of 10 e s 

-

. 

-

-

d 

e 

s 

y 

s

e 

e 

c

-

dl

d 

i

t

-p

e

d 

v

t 

-

c

e

-

d 

n

t

n

-

. 

d

i

r

e

e 

n

v

n 

i

-

i

a

s

, w

i

-

m

r 

i

s

e

e

v

o

l

c

n 

v

t

i

a

s

e a

i

y

i

o

n

i

t

f

e w

e

n

n

e

i

f

t

d 

t

c

y 

e

i

t

r

t

s w

s

i

t

e

c

e

e 

u

c

, i

o

e 

i

d

s

t

u

a

e w

t

e S

l e

r

n

e

c

a

a

s

a

t

d 

n

l

c

i

m

l

n

m

i

g

d 

r a

d i

, p

e

, b

c

b

n Q

u

a

a

l

e t

t

e

i

o

m

d

s

o

i

v

r

a

a

i

n

e v

p

v

n

u

e

u

e

. W

s

p

e

a

b

n

b

n

i

a

r

o

r

m

g

l

n

i

e h

e

m

b

i

t

o

a

s

i

t

d e

r

s

o

e a

t

sh

, a

p

n

u

n

f

m

n

o

e p

n d

m r

t

f

t

e

l

s o

q

t

g

i

o

e B

r

s

a

e

o

t

v

s

e

c

i

a

u

h

n

n

e p

a

a

n

e

r h

o

a

t

p

l C

t i

l

t

p

p

n

o

e s

b

a

d n

g a

i

o c

n

e

h

e

e

a

m

n

f t

s

p

, fi

u

o

e R

o

t

v

l o

i

a

o

t

n

n

t t

e

h

e a

c ri

o

p

o

i

s

m

, a

e

h

l

s

t

i

l s

i

i

.

a

o

i

t

n

n f

a

h

g

y h

i

c

e t

m

m

t

n

p

a

b

a

e

a

t o

f t

a

n

c

m

h

i

n

u

a

g

a

f i

. I

e p

i

s

e a

o

d t

i

i

r

t

o

n

a

h

g c

i

o

e b

e t

u

r m

r p

g t

l o

r

s

t

t

t

n c

o

v

d

n

e

i

n

n

s o

l

g

i

t

h

v

b

e

e

i

i

o

n r

e

t

r

.

o

c

i

e

i

a

i

a

t

a

e

p

t

i

o

g

f c

e p

f u

f t

n

r

e

g o

a

n

e

t m

e

n

h

h

t

l

n

e

e o

u

h

n

p

y h

r

o

es

h

e t

, i

j

f p

c

v

y p

e

d t

t t

m

p

i

t

p

n

n o

l

a

t

t

i

e

l

i

o

n

i

n

b

s d

u

o

t

c

d

h

e l

i

a

e. O

c

r

r

e a

m

d

g h

r

d t

y c

g

m

s

m

e

g

s g

e

r m

r a

l c

i

p

e t

s

g a

t

e E

e

e l

d

a

u

c

n

u

a

e

s a

n

r

u

e

p

v

d

o

f

d

t

i

n

o

r

i

l

i

i

u

n

n

a

s

s

i

b

e

i

e

s

l

u

l

n

t

p

y r

d s

t

h a

l

c

i

n

d b

s a

s m

a

r

e

e

h

n

e

d

n

l

o d

n

c

e m

x s

e i

v

s a

p

e

e

e

t

s

d

o

t

l

i

i

n

v

-

r

i

e

r

m

c

a

l

h

n

n

l

, i

e

d t

a

t

u

e

h

e t

e p

h

l

u

d a h

h c

e

n

 a

l m

n

e

e

p

i

i

t

i

f w

, i

o

y

e

n

o i

e b

e

t

d

i

p

i

e

m

a

c

h

c

i

t

i

v

t

h

t

d

v

i

t

m

i

s t

f m

, i

n a

e w

e

h h

g t

l s

s t

e u

o

, t

i

s

i

e

s

g w

e

n

p

t

i

i

a

v

t

s

i

e

s

t

l

v

o

i

c

i

g

a

n o

o

s i

t

o a

e N

r

l

s

f

e

t

a

t

v

i

f

s c

g

f

a

i

o

s w

v

c

n

o

 u

y

p

a

i

w

s a

n

i

r

l

. W

g

i

g a

d w

n

r

h

p

e

o

s a

r

i

i

t

i

t

d

is

e

t

n

n

u

t

c

e

g

t

s

t

i

c

n

a

n

r p

r

s

s a

f

e

p u

c

i

s a

i

h u

n

o b

c

g

i

i

p

e a

e w

o

e

. W

e

s c

v

o

n

v

e

t

o

e t

h

, a

e

r t

t

l

t

e a

f r

i

o

r s

e

o

o

a

p

v

o

r

e a

t

s i

c

g a

e o

i

e

i

r

i

o

li

t

g

s

t i

t

r

h

u

v

v

u

c

s

d e

n

c

s l

e u

s t

v

. W

d t

e

t

m

l i

n

o

d

r s

l

e

a

r

e

e

d f

t f

h

s

i

t c

i

i

n

s o

e

s n

e a

e h

e

e

e

h

r

r

v

i

p

d

o

i

e

h

t

 a

c

, p

c

o h

t

i

n

p

e u

e

g

a

r

r

at

e l

j

v

f t

c

t

i

b

h a

s

t

o

p

g

o

r s

tr o

o

t

s

o

e

p

e r

i

t a

r

n

n

n

t

t

e

g

e B a

e

u

m

v

d n

u a

n

u

n G

i

e a

u

s a

r

t

u

p

hc

o

s

r

n

c

t o

v

o

e

u

g

p

i

e

l

u

i

n

s

o

o

t

u

o

s t

s

f

p

g p

s

e u

n

h

i

s

a

u

f

t

u

i

c

i

i

u

t

fl

o

i

e

p

o

t

t

e

r

n

m

h s

s

e

. W

i

r t

r

e

s

e o

k y

t

o

r

e

p

o

o

n

a

h d

f

e d

i

o

u

c

h

i

o

n h

u

n

s

o

r s

a

e c

n

t

d

. T

t

e p

s o

s

t

a

t v

v

m

l r

o w

o d

o

a R

d u

e r

i

f o

t

p

v

g

i

a

n

c

h

l

g

a

 c

s p

n

g

n

h

r

n

a

d t

c

r

d

u

t o

u f

n

d

u

h

r u

s w

u

e

a

e

e v

p

n

o

it

l

v

i

e

i

f

u

s t

r

i

i

a

i

r

o

s

n

o

n

c

l

v

s

o

a

o

, a

s

a

r

p

i

u

s

o t

e

e

v

h

o

t

n

c

n e

o d

o

u

i

e

p

i

i

o

i

h

e

t

n

h

t

Y

e

r g

e

b

t

o

g f

a

n t

e o

, a

n

T

, i

s

d

a

o

a

, t

r

s

r

c

c

n

s

h

o

e l

e o

e t

v

t

i

i

u

m

e o

s

. T

s

e

d t

p

k y

n

n

n n

.

. 

i

o u

-

p

t

n

n

h n

p

a R

i

u

g

c

r

e

h w

e

n

-1

2

u

e

n

t

r

tt

t

o

c

s o

n

o

a

i

m

a

e

-

p

f

d

a

i

d m

o

r u

t

o

r

l

e

f

o

c

n Q

o

i

m

a

O

i

o n

l

i

i

u

n

o v

Cm

e

n a r

ww

i

i

h

o

4

aa

4

ttallenoatep

tPprootvsattttp

4-1

4-2
Appendix D—Public Involvement 165 

RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #3—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 2 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 4 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 6 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 8 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 10 of 10

-

-

t 

, 

b

e 

p

e 

-f

e 

g 

o 

f i

g 

d 

e

-

s

n 

r 

-

o 

a

e

c

-

s 

o

l

v

o

i

f h

- n

r 

e 

a

g 

r 

e t

h

h

e

e r

ni

n t

y i

n

l

n

o

p

i

n

s 

r

e

u

o

e

u

o

t 

a

n

i

d h

p

r u

o

t

c

s

i

e o

a

p

e w

u

h

n

l

o

o

a

u

t w

r

o

t

o

g

c

f o

n t

d

i

g

i

o

i

n

o

s

t c

i

n

v

y 

t

e 

h

h

n

r

l

p

a

t

o

o

a

o

i

n

t

i

i

f

r

p

t

e

t t

t

e

u

o

s

a

n y

g

n

n

h

h

a

c

g o

s w

a s

n A

g e

e o

n

n

, i

i

i

v

o

o

a

b

e w

e o

h

n

n

r d

e

e c

h

e e

s s

e i

l S

e t

n

n

f w

e w

y w

l v

o

n

o

t

a

a

n

l r

e m

n

o

o

r

h

c

t

i

a

i

h

e

n w

i

e

t

f

h

l

d a

h a

n t

t

a

f t

n o

t h

a

t

it

h

f

n

s o

b

s

a

l c

e

e

n

h

e t

r

c

t

u

v

l

e

r

l

l

r

l

d t

i

u

c

r a

t

i

r

u

u

n

e

n

e

c

s

r

g

o

e

r i

i

g

, i

a

d r

t

r i

u

o

g

l b

s o

e f

s

b t

o

s

u

n

o

p

n

h

i

a

r

e

y i

e w

e a

s

u

l

u

i

s

o h

e

n

p

i

e

u

. D

h

g

. F

u

n

i

a

r

g w

f

o

t

r

, s

s

e

l

e h

a

o

n

o

o

m d

c

e r

o c

e

e t

ut

i

r

l

n

t

g

e

t

a

a

c

s

u

r

n

m

o

s o

u

n a

, w

e t

d s

t

n

t

v

o

o

i

g

oi

p c

e

i

t i

f

o

n

g

e

.

a

e

i

r

y o

, c

o

s

f

i

r

f m

e s

r E

r

e B o

h

y t

u

e

n

i

t

, t

f

t d

u

d h

t

t

t

e

f

v

g c

o

n

a

v

o u

e p

e

a

t u

a

e C

s o

u

. I

o

u d

n

h

n

e

m

a R

v

i

v

r

ti

i

t

d f

g a

o

h

u

o

2

t

i

n

al

u

e

a

r

a

a

i

v

m

r

l

o

e r

t

h

u

e p

t

e

r

r

n o

r

a

r

d t

10

e

e r

k

e

n

n

p

i

d n

h

r

o p

o

o

s y

n

i

n

t

e t

i

h

o

2

v

s

r

i

t

o h

r

l

i

f

c

l

o c

f

r

t

o

a

t

r t

c

u

g

e b

n

f

d i

–

n

e

, t

, a

i

e

b

o

e

u

o

t

e

c

o

y t

. T

a

e t

g C

s a

e t

u

s l

t e

1

t

t

o w

o

i

n

l

y i

or

e a

n

r

s

h

n

l

e

-

n

g

a

u

b

1

s w

r

a

e

n

t

s

e

g

e a

s f

t a

s

5

n

e m

i

rg c

r

n

p

i

l

0

t w

n

e a

e

n

o

r

e c

o

e

d b

e

r a

3

i

t

u

i

i

i

r n

a

i

o

i

c

n Q

d 2

n

e a

e p

r

l

f

h

a

. A

t

1

h

h

d t

t

,

t i

n

t

t

n

s

o

r

o

s

s o

a

. P

il

a

, a

e

h

i

n

i

n t

a

e j

f t

e

h a

f t

c

bi

A

e r

2

e

i

g

s

g c

e

r

e 2

, o

s

v

e

a

n

o

e

.

h

r

d b

r

i

o

n

n

t a

t

a

t

h

p

c

e

h

o

s o

d E

n

e h

c

a

d t

n

b

g c

l c

g

u

h

i

s

e

g a

n

d o

o

t o

l

e

g

o

u

d t

n

o d

l

h

a

i

u

, s

n

n

e W

g cn

n

f t

i

f t

r n

i

s

t

s o

nc

e w

p

l

v

, s

s

s

l

a

h

c

s

e

f

o

e m

e

e

e a

i

l

e

i

h

a

o

o

t a

p

e

o

e

n

u

l

e

s sh

s

s

s

p

e r

p

n

s o

r

a

n

n

e

t

a

o

w

l h

l

e

a

s

f t

o

d

e

s

P a

e

i

o

m

i

i

t o

e p

i

s

d w

h

l

h

r

r

t

p

e c

e

n

o

d

r

a

t

o

e p

r

c

e

i

e

h

a

y r

e

l

n

h

r

e

h

 d

s

h

e

r

, w

p

a

e

r

r

e

r

u

a

n b

n

i

n o

s

t

e

e

t o

h

f w

o

e a

v

n t

n w

m

g

g

n

p

C

t

e

, a

s

c

e

a

r

r

. T

s a

n a p

e

e

i

ss p

s

t

a

e a

e

h

t C

d a

d s

n o

i

n

d s

s

t w

o h

o

a

a

i

s

r r

e

eg

R

r

ee

n

o

m

e

l

. T

a

y a

s o

r

, r

e

f

s d

r

o

g c

e

e b

e i

e t

a

s

o

v

u

d p

r

W

o

u

nnn

n

p

-3.

s

i

. 

i

i

c

e

n

n

e

at

r

i

a

o

a

o

a

e

a

a

v

m

t

p

4

t

s

a

y

p

a

h

r

r

g

t

e

r

a

g c

a

n

l

rr

p

i

i

c

n

p

i

l

u

l

t

4

igpdccucw

-

a

n

-

tiwochtdaaa

4

vdPi5msp

4-3

4-4
166 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 1 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 3 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 5 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 7 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 9 of 10 g ng e e 

-

n 

l 

i

d 

s 

e 

w

t

t a 

e 

o 

-

-

-

r

d

e

n

o

e

u

a

o 

t

g

h

k t

u

e

.

e 

r

e

s

s i

r

n

h

l

o

s a 

e 

i

t

o

e 

r

a

-r

i

u

l

o

e t

a

p

u

e 

d b

v

a

 a

m

. T

o p

f

tr

h

a

a

u

. T

i

n

g

e

s n

o

e

v

v

e

o

n

t

n p

e

o

t

i

e 

i

e 

o

i

e r

a

s

e

p

t

r

e

d 

r

u

t

o

a

. T

n

i

r

e f

e d

l

h

d c

s h

e w

r

l

a

v

i

r n

e t

A

c

e

. A

t r

f n

n

y

h

oi

e ic

s

g

n

e w

p

n

a

s

v

d o

a

e

t

o

u

n

h

e

o

ret

l c

si

e a

t

u

s a

e

n

d E

o

r i

x

r

s h

i

n

it

f

a

i

v

c

l

t f

s

h

n t

l

o

o

l

u

r

n

t y

c

. T

r

i

n

n

o

d

e

e ot

n

i

r

o

c

c

u

e

a

s

a

n

s w

n

i

e

l

s

v

e a

i

p

h

n

c

e a

e

s f

s e

h

n

h

r

e

y o

s

h a

m c

s

p

n t

s o

e

n

o c

e

l

c

s a

a

t

r

 ed

p

, t

a

r

s i

c

r

n a

l w

l

o

i

r

a

e

r

ve B d

e

c

o

h

e

o

u

n

a

a

s d

e p

e

a

P a

e w

i

i

c

r

g c

.

i

i

a

t

ni

d

u

d t

a

s

n

, w

. O

g

e

o u

l

u

c s

d

o

s

i

p

n r

u

t

e

C

i

i

e

t

r

t

 f

m n

o

e

r

a

a

t

n

e

t C

s

n

o

s

d

e

e

n

o

h e

a

t

v

fe b

s

- g

m

r a

d t

a

es

i

g

e

y i

e

l

y b

u

o

t

l

r m

n

n

o

r

i

e r

n

c

b

n

a

a

a

g c

e

f

i

i

r

u

i

o

e

t

e

i

r

t

o

u

t

t

n

s

u

r

l

o

a

g c

c

g l

l

e o

i

m

u

h

t

. A

i

o

d

n

a

r

c

d w

a

d h

a

t

f w

e

a

s q

m

n

n

m

p

n

n s

f l

o

h a

n

e p

i

i

u

d f

s o

l

r

t b

n

l

l

i

u

e v

r

t a

b

o

u

s o

d d

e c

o

t

o

r

r

t

i

e

o

i

n

i

o

r

c

t

o

i

x

t

u

e e

g

h fl

e

e o

e

k

, m

n

e d

r

s

a

d w

s

n a

n

t

t

t

r

o

n

a

c

h

n

h

t

p

e

e

l

e

o s

o

o t

n

e

e

s

e

u

i

a

p

e

v

e

u

i

o

o

t

c

e

c

u

r

d w

t

e r

d b

a

g

l

e

o

t

c

m

c

i

i

m

c

p

e

a

h

e t

i

.

x

e

n t

o

n

t

h

, h

i

fl

s

v

s c

d w

n

e

e a

v

s a

n

n

u

u

d

 o

a

n c

l

n h

s

h

e

sk t

e w

d i

n d

t n

e s

i

l

n

a

he t

ta

f w

l

n

e

t

p

s

u

n

n

r

io

i

o

s

h

.

a

v

n

c

c

t c

u

e

s i

a

t

ti

e

e

i

o

m

s a

f t

e

m

g

r

a

i

o

e

e

s

d o

o

n

a

h a

t

d i

o

t

s o

m

n

e

i

l

m

h

d r

t

a

r

c l

o i

n

l

e c

d w

s

c

s c

t

n

e

ai

s a

l

a

u

a

f

i

u

s r

c

e p

o

g

s b

u

i

h

u

o

e

s

o

y n

c

n

t

f

o

s s

l h

c

i

nd

s

o

op

a

r p

e t

o

d t

l

v

fi

e

d t

e c

b

t

o

u

r

c

i

i

a

h

e

e

e

o

e

n

n

h

e

s s

n

h

s

l

a

u

u

s a

n

e c

r

a

t c

n a

oi

r

l o

o

a

o t

d

t

o a

f

 p

l

i

f

c

r

o

e

l

n

d

o

l

e h

e

 p

e p

a

n t

a

n

s

r

a

a

.

t

o

r

, a

r

,

i

r

g

t

e

fi

f p

h

s

o

r

p

e

i

t

t

ed

i

r c

e t

c

g

d c

r t

p

o

d

i

o c

, i

i

s

r

r

u

e t

a

n

t

l

e

e

n

u

e

e

e

e

u

g r

e

s

a

e

t

i

g

e a

n i

e

u

t t

nd

l r

d

e a

o

r

h

v

c

n

a

p

t

s

s

o

f

q

s

e

u

n

t

e

o

d

s

a

e

i

a

o

r

y

e

w

e

e

o

i

r

o r

o

u

RW

n

r

es

Y

i

a

F

o

r

e

T

W

d

oi

gfccdtrtrpnatuipqtorlrtr

i

t

. 

s

n

■■■■■

5

n

e

-

o

4

cm

4-5
Appendix D—Public Involvement 167 

RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #3—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 2 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 4 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 6 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 8 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 10 of 10

h 

d 

-f

-

c

n

i

l

s 

o

n 

f 

y a

c

w 

u

n

d 

n 

e

d 

n o

e

, s

a

l 

 s

d 

i

p

e

d f

l

d i

a

t

n

e

e s

l

e

f a

v

n

s

d 

i

e p

e

e

e a

oi

n

r

a

o

v

a

pr

u

e

n

i

t

o

t

o

v

t

ol

s

c

i

t

r

l

t o

t

o

e

r

n

f n

d T

c

a

e

e

n a

a

ic r

e

r

n

d

l

p

d

h

l

i

a

v

v

e

b

s

u

u

l

u

p

-

e

t

o

n

u

n

e f

u

g

e

o

n o

r

i

. T

e a

n

s i

r

e d

. P

.

o

s

s

g

i

t

e

o

P

n

e

h

e

a

 r

h

l r

r

n

s t

d r

n

d i

a

o

c

C

t

y B

e c

i

u

e

f t

o

n

l

o

d

es

a

r

i

. M

t

c

P

s a

t

r

n

o

l C

t

 p

r

a

l

n

e

s a

i

l b

. E

t o

C

l

c

s a

h

a

u

t

o

i

o

d

l

t

e

a

 t

r

c

n

a

t

p

o

s

n

r

r

o

o

a

r

a

i

p

ei

r

t

e

t

u

c

A w

dow

f n

e p

g

o

c

i

s A

 f

t p

. n

m

f a C

o

y s

i

e o

es

r

f a fi

e g

t d

l

l o

h

o

h

e M

n

o

m

n

i

a

i

e

o

e o

d E

pet

l

c

o t

t

t

n

e

h

i

c

c

p

d p

e p

e

t

 s

i

a

r

n

h t

m

n

g

r t

e

v

i

o

e

 of

a

r

t

p

r

l

a

t

d t

c

v

o

t

e

c

a

e

p

c

i

r r

s a

t

o

i

e

P a

tn

a

e

d

 a

u

t w

g

s l

d S

 d

p

C

e

t

e s

r

m

a

n

e b

n

a

n

a

p

n

a

d

t

n i

t

l

d S

o

h

e

t C

m

n

e

en

n

et

f

a

s u

l

t

ee

p

l a

e r

r

e

f y

d t

e a

i

e

e

m

e a

n

n p

d m

em

s

l o

h

i

a

lo

n n

r

w

s

r

e

c

g

o

e

p

a

s

r

e

a

n

v

n

v

r

c

d b

g

y

o

r

o

o

g t

o

e

a

u

a

r

a

e

d

n

o

e

e d

r

h

m

o

o

l

e

d

d

u

n

s b

p

s t

i

r

h

p

s

f

v

e

n

o

a

e

w

e c

 d

p

e

p

u

e

n

e

FEwm

c

t

o

r

p

f t

h

ahareSislaaot

■■
168 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 1 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 3 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 5 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 7 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 9 of 10 l s 

l

s 

y 

e

l

i

n

s 

e w

n

l

o

a

a

i

c

r

t

h a

fi

p a 

g c

p

o

g

c

i

e

l

u

c

u

c

e

f

n

x

e

v

e

i

, s

p

e e

e

a R

p

st

oo

n

n s

e d

r

h

m

u

ivi

n we

u

n w

o

r i

r s

d h

ee

e

e

g d

h

, Q

e

t

h

d

ti

n

, w

s w

i sn

n

m

it

e

oi

o

r

n

g

t

e

u

c

l c

e

i

u

ti

, p

d a

l

n h

fe

v

i

it

e w

de

f r

e

c

l

s

g a

l

y i

, w

o

o

r

s o

.

r

n

p

e

a

t

a

o

n

r

h

e

n

l

r

i

e

c

r

e p

t

o

r

 p

n

ve

, c

u

f a

h

w

l

d a

tn

f t

l h

aic

 h

l

e o

n

u

o

al

t o

. H

o a

e

s

p

d

p

t

r

d u

d u

le

a

d t

i

n

a

e

o s

e

e

s p

s

t

t

e

i

e

d t

a

s

m

A

r

n

det

o

e

-

i

l

e p

t

g

e

. 

a

r

l

o

-

e c

is

6

e l

r

e

h

e

4

bartdm

4-6
Appendix D—Public Involvement 169 

RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #3—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 2 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 4 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 6 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 8 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 10 of 10

d 

d 

-

) 

t 

-

e

-

e 

-

-

e 

e 

r

1

e 

g

-

f

s

p

n

i

r

s

s a 

-

n

na

h

d 

r

t

n

d

g

o

e

u

o

t 

n

o

. 

: (

s a

-

n t

f 

e

, 

a

u

m sh

es

r

 I

a

u

P 

y 

-

h

y

a

u

, 

c

f

p

r

o

c

e

e o

v

o

l

e

a

y

e

r 

, a

h 

.

g

n

C

. D

m 

f

o

r

e

e

r

s

h

ro

h

e

g 

t

n

t

n

, a

t

fi

o

e

t

e

a

k

a

n

e

s

a

te

r

v

s

e

n

i

i

l

d i

c

nd

d

o

i

p

e f. T

i

 b

n

m

r

e

f

e

e

r

e r

, I

g

 pu

r

n

n

e B

ti

m m

l C

n

i

n

u

n w

n

s w

e r

a

a

e c

 a

e

n

i

u

a

v

o

h

n

t

s

t

 u

m

r

i

a

a

n

m

i

l

h

e

e

r t

c

h

r

a

d

f

t

s

i

r b

v

o

y b

i

l

g t

e d

i

h

a

t

i

a

t

e

c

e

f

t

l

l

r

t u

n

a

s

o

e i

d t

 o

h

n

m

e s

e c

a

c

a

a

r

d

 t

ac

a

v

n

l

k

i

t

i

o

s

t p

e p

s m

e fi

n p

n

g w

i

ed

y t

t

l b

s f

x p

. 

n

r

a

a

c

h

o i

o

n

e

n

l

a

l

r

 e

p

 u

n

m

i

n

n

s

s

c

i

P

t

m

a

a

i

h

o

r

 a

) f

s i

m

fit

t t

f K

r

h

e

n t

, l

p

h

u

e

r a

n

u

d bC

e s

o

w

l

t s

e B

g a “

t

h

...

...f

e

e

e

t

i

o

n

a

c

e

r

e

n

s i

l

e

l

i

m

v

s t

e

s t

e i

v

a

f

m

s i

l

e a

i

e

o

p

o

n

i

o

f t

i

t

t

t

s i

n w

s

t

n

o

e

p

l C

e

a

n o

i

p

e

v

 w

m

v

p

e a

. A

e

r

o

i

p

o

t o

e

s

d t

t

t

s

e

n

ce

m

a

a

h

h

i

h

u

y t

 on

r

e p

 f

i

g

e

t

d

a

l

d

t

t

n

)

d i

r d

r u

o

m

m

t

m

n

a

e

v

u

i

a

, t

f

d

h

fi

n

r

o

f t

i

r

n

s t

i

a

f

n

e

n

o

e

a

i

d

t

e

t p

b

s

l

te

u

e b

u

d d

, t

n

u

i

o

t

y c

l

n

a

m

o

l

t s

y c

e s

s

f h

e

s

e

s

r

 t

ra

d e

s a

m

n

a

t

 a

n

o a

a

d

h

n o

s o

n a

n

s f

n m

e

s

n

a

e

s d

i

t

u

e fi

r

d

ci

p

a

e

e

p

r

t

n

s

h

o

e

e

r

e

e

t

o

n sh

h

a

o

on

m

on

m

o

i

u

e r

s

h

e

t

o

r

n

d

s t

t

e

es

e

n

o

t

a

y A

c

e

e t

s t

e

c

s

l

f

, a

h o

i

l

 u

r

s

h

o

u

on

c

on

o

i

r

e

f t

w

e p

i

g

a

c i

e

t

t

t s

e

n

e

u

, t

l

n h

a

s

i

l

n (

r

e

q

n

e

s

v

u

i

t

a

r

a

q

b

 a

e

o

s

w

r

m

i

v

r u

u

r c

w b

s

e

e

e m

l o

t

e

n

, i

t

v

d

l

t

o

e

a

r

e

o

a

e

r

i

s

c

g a

d p

t b

a

o i

” I

d

c

 n n

i

u

m

b

o

h

p

r

l

t

 r

n

h

s w

v

n

. T

e a

d

c

w

w

o

e a

e

n a

a

nd

t m

l t

nd

t

o

e d

u

s f

o

l c

r

t

i

e

p

.

s

e

i

p

s

i

c

s

c

o

t

c

o

p

e

t

e

e

t

a

p

m

s

h

fi

i

e p

r

o

n f

e

h

t

a

d i

e c

r

t w

 a

i

t

l

r

i

r

i

c

 a

e

i

l d

d s

r

p

a

t

i

n

n t

l

j

u

fl

t

p

e

e

e

d a

p

e

v

v

u

c

on

t l

v

n

t

o

n

o

. I

on

b

n

u

f o

h

t

it

c

h

n

p

t

e

e

h

e

e

s

e

n

.

e

e

e r

c

a

e a

e f

e

e r

on

e b

n

s

e

c

r

o

a

d

g a

o

A

r i

i

r

e

i

d o

s a

2

s

p

t

l a

t

t

n

l

r

-

r t

, t

i

a

a

g

e t

e a

h

d E

va

l

e

d i

...

e

, a s

l

g h

r

s

, c

s

i

u

o

e

n

n o

 s

va

i

o

o

t b

s

s t

e p

i

c f

o

c

v

r

n

e 4

n

a

h

s

) p

i

h

u f

e

u

t

e

u

h

-

h

t

f t

t

n

t

o

o

u

e B w

ce A (

r

o

a

s a

e u

i

q

n

c

n o

p

. T

on

 p

n

i

r

e

fi

2

t h

r

i

s

e

p

i

o

e

t

m

e

e

e

t

d

t

n

e

d

i

c

g t

t

e

l

n

o

e p

es

a

r

s o

r

h

d

o

c

a

h

y n

u

m

s

o

k y

n

r

n

P a

s

d

i

-

e

d o

e p

y

a

 n

n

s

s t

a

c

d (

m

. A

r

o

on

i

u

o

on

s

e

e

n

t r

p

l s

s a

a

r

t

e

o

e

e

 t

t

n

r

p

s a

r

a

e

h

s

, s

eg

nd

c h

m

y n

vv

a

s g

h

s

o

d

e

C

 c

ii

 c

f t

n

o

s

e

a

i

t

; a

e

ed

a

-

c

s

s

d

a

i

e

e

t

t

e

n

a

i

g

s

g

n

s

n

d m

. B

e

s

a

c

e

w

r

h

r

o

o

aa

n

f

l r

l

 a

e

l

a

e

t

a

n

o

a

f t

l

, h

r p

e

e

n

g

ff

e

h

e c

i

nn

e

g

s t

n

a

n o

b

B

c

t

t o

na

a

n

n m

on

t C

e m

i

n

e

i

d

r r

l b

i

o

l

m

T

n

i

r

es

r

a

l

r

a

n m

u

i

e

rr

l

e

i

f

d

e

ol

d

u

u

t

t

r

e

a

u

h

s n

r

f p

a

e

l

n

. 

t

l

l

e

l

d i

nn

d

f

y a

c

e c

n

d f

7.

o

a

tt

8

g i

t

-

va

f

t

o

M

r

g c

t

e

v

i

h

i

e

aa

ll

g

n o

i

i

n

-

n

u

h

u

d

i

e

w e

a

p

4

otip

i

iotdwaawwim

n

aim

a

4

w

n

iahthiadmdlno

4-7

4-8
170 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 1 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 3 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 5 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 7 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 9 of 10 l 

-

-

s

e 

-

l

i

e h

m

i

d 

i

l

e 

d 

r w

d d

o

g

e

h

, p

u

t 

t

g

l

d t

-

o

e

-

d 

-

s 

n t

f

-

f

c

t 

a

n

n

c c

n

) 

l 

b

-

i

e

g 

i

-

n o

e

e

n

u

l

i

e

i

s

. A

n

e 

e

d 

a

e R

a

1

d

e r

e

r

t

f a

u

, a

s o

c

, 

a

u

h

p

d 

i

m

s

n

e 

l

a

w

u

l

t

ni

, (

o

g

r

l 

e

e

f 

e

t

l

t

u

e

b

o

l

a

r

a

v

t p

e

y

o

f

g o

e

h

a

g

n

s

i

r

t t

l 

g

u

i

d

e

h

v

l

a

n

d 

g

i

n 

a

g r

i

a

e s

o

s a

e

l b

o

t

d p

-

i

p

i

e

t

r

u

n

t o

a

s

r

l

t

r

s

r

c

e

ti

o

d p

y

e

n

e

f

i

p

n

e

i

e

d a

a

m l

n t

e t

r

p

d t

d r

e s

 r

c

r d

l c

w

g r

n o

t

e

o

. A

p

r

e

r

. A

e

n

r

n

e

p

d

o

h

.

r

c r

v

p

, a

s a

o

h

e

s

t

n

o

n

i

s

p

e m

i

t

t

r

l

a

fi

m

e

l

o

t

t

h t

s

e

i

e

g

l

t

o

o

i

t

e

a

e r

i

l f

c

e

l

e

i

n

a

f t

g w

c

y

s w

e

m

u

o

h

h

l

f m

g o

i

c

n

a

s

d

u

e

c

e

n a

o

c

e a

a

u

t

b

i

l

i

n

e S

e I

g

e

f

w

d

i

r k

i

d

u

r

p

e

t l

e

) c

m

n t

p

h

a

h p

n c

m

t

m

t

o

n

e o

i

u

r

a

g b

3

t a

t

n o

n

p

e

d

u

p

r

n

o

o

f t

u

s

s

o

h

e

i

a

n

c

n

i

-

h a

-

o

f

i

c u

o

t

a

t

r

g

o

n t

e

g

f r

h l

n

o

k o

g

r

p

u

i

d (

i

mo

a

s o

f f

, s

, n

et

c

n

u

t

e

r

i

e p

t o

e

a

m

t

n

a

y r

e e

n

f

n

ti

v

e

e

o

r

l

t

g

i

p

e

a

s n

a

w

d w

, o

l

y o

 c

t c

e

t

n

a

b

d i

a Rr

; a

e w

r

i

p

l

c

h

f R

ol

o

e

e

c

p

n

e

u

i

fi

t

i

l

s

e

a

n

e p

u

a

o

i

p

m

h

i

lg b

r

, h

t

o

v

m

u

r t

r

d

t

e

n

r

o

g

u

f

e

d w

e a

e

n

n

e

l

c

g

a

m

n

e

e

r t

s

m

d

f

c

i

v

t o

i

u

o

e h

c

t

g o

g p

i

u

v

t w

a

nc

i

i

, e

c

c

e nr

o

, s

a

d c

p

s

o

u

n

u

it

e f

c

n

n

e

i

e r

w

e

t

d

o

x

k

d

o

c

n

i

a

l

s f

h

p

e s

k

e t

n

x

e

e s

i

s

o

f c

l

c

c

a

d o

f

fi

r

n

t a

d p

e

o

e

n

v

i

i

o

e c

u

l

e

r

l

n

a

n

i

j

t

i

f Q

p

, b

t

t

l

m

l

n

e

e

e

n

h

t

d

, t

ss

b

o

r e

u

e

g

l

i

o

d u

a

t

e r

i

o

b

a

h

c

v

u

v

e

e

o

y a

e

s o

c

d

d

h

a

t

y t

i

h

u

y h

n

, s

t

o

l

e

n

y c

n c

u

s o

g t

m

y a

n o

. Ke

i

t

r

d

e

d

l

o

s t

o

r

a

o

n

o

l

e

n

l

i

m

o

s

n

n

o

e s

r h

i

l i

w

e

l

o

e

i

n t

e d

s

a

e

u

e c

i

i

 m

e

c

u

. F

n t

s b

e w

o

e

t b

l

s

i

l

s

s

s

e

n

d r

a

d a

r

r

e

t

i

r

e

s

v

r

c

s

o

h

i

d o

i

h

e

l

n e

e

h

e

, p

n

i

e c

o

e l

s

s o

o

r a

a

v

e

, w

p

n

e h

s o

u

h a

n

r

n m

e

, w

d

n t

p

d

r

c

l

k

e

h

e

i

e w

e

ei

e

l

n t

e

l

e

c

c

i

e

c

u

o

n

r

s i

o t

is

s m

s

es

d

n

p

f t

c

h

i

i

i

t

b

r r

i

e

u

d i

u

s i

r

e c

o s

d

o

e

sk t

a

i

r

h

p

a

n

e p

n

h i

i

r

t b

h

c

e

ld n

m

d a

i

l

d

o

n

, s

u

e

e a

c

p

o

p

m

a

e

. W

h

d

i

h

u

i

s

p

d

n s

s t

e

t

t

s r

e c

g sh

t o

i

u

d t

l

ll

i

i

t

h

r

e a

l

o

i

s

c

n

o

u

s w

h

c

i

t e

) c

r a

r a

u

. F

o

t

r

h t

 a

a

c

d n

n

e s

e t

l g

e

e

n

h a

i

r

, w

d g

im m

d t

g r

i

a

r

r

i

n

2

es

l

i

t

s

o

t

l

r

h

t

a

s

h

t

e o

u

g o

r

s

t

d

i

; (

, w

i

r

pn

e

m

n

s t

c

s w

n

a

u

s w

i

a

a

r

g.

e

p

s a

e

o

n

s

g

m

r

u

a r

s

e

e

o

o

n

n

n

n

u

w

h

p

r f

s

n

i

o

t pl

n

i

a

m

u

i

n

e

c

i

, a

i

o

e

c

n

CisphittsoCstc

g

e

e p

n

o

i

s

, a

t

c

i

i

. W

o

e

o

s

t

n

e c

t

u

s

u

c

l

■

t

n

s

s

t

i

p

■

s

b

n

n

f

e

f

e

d

e

t

u

e

y

c

p

o

A

e

c

u

m

ui

bhA

h

e

u

Sp

i

es

rcctrsatrh
Appendix D—Public Involvement 171 

RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #3—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 2 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 4 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 6 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 8 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 10 of 10

e 

-

-

r 

n 

d 

-

s 

t

f 

d 

, 

f

-

r

l

n

a

i

r

e

e

-i

n

r 

-

d

e

s 

o

e

e

o r

-

f

d

v

a

r

d 

n

h

u

e

g o

o

n

s c

v

e

e

i

i

e

a

e m

n

v

e

o

s

i

w

s 

v

n

o

s t

g

e r

t

t

o

s

e 

t

b

e

i

n

c

e

 a

d 

0 p

it

r

e

a

d 

r

t

e a

r v

es

l u

p

d o

n

n 4

o

h

a

o

o

l

d

e w

v

y c

g

e

u

. B

a

o

s b

t

n

p

u

n

g

p

e t

u

l

t

c

a

.

l

o

u

m

v

o

e a

l

, a

e h

c

u

u

a

e m

s

o

s

f

a

p

s

v

ll

e

e

n

h o

o

e w

a

g

c

h a

r

i

h

v

e

s

n

f

p

 t

r

a

n

e

s f

s

o

c

m

c

u

c u

t

p

h

e p

r

h

s

i

t

s t

y i

e

”

e

i

.

u

t i

i

c

f

e r

d i

l

u

ed

p

n t

h

u

e a

i

e

e r

s

g

l

u

b

h

o

h

d h

c

r

s t

a R

g p

e

o

l

r

e

n

r

n

p

i

, s

n

m

t

r

d s

l

u

a

u

a

u

r t

r

a

o

, t

i

i

o

i

a

o

l y

c

w

i

u

a

e

h

f

l

d

s

r

h

e

v

r

r p

d

t c

b

s l

o

e

d

c

a

y w

e

a

t

u

n

e

c

n

l

o

i

e

d

u

i

g v

g

e

s

l

i

p

fi

i

t

u

u

m

n a

a

e

p

c

i

n t

n b

s w

n

n c

e

o

e

h

e

es

c

d

l r

c

m

i

u

r w

a

o

r

e

n

h

 r

h

e

i

x

nd

n

o

e

t

p

i

p

t

, Q

a

g

o

n s

k

s t

l

d c

h o

a

c

d s

c

t

t

r

e

. U

g

a

e r

t b

i

e e

o

s

 l

ii

n

a

e

e b

m

i

e s

it

r

x

n

 a

n

a

u

o

t

t

s

r e

i

e

a

n

i

t

es

t

i

s w

e

c

a

g

n

h i

v

u

g

h

e

n

p

g

h

e

r

u

u

h

. A

r

n

a

f

s w

c

t

d t

t

p

e

u

i

r

e

f

u

o

i

a

s

g t

e a

. F

m

t

o

i

p s

. T

t

l

n

e h

e

e s

h

s a

r

e m

e

a

e

s

n

a

i

l

, n

r

’

o

m

in

, w

e

l

h

i

nd

i

e

o

f w

u

r

d

m

i

e r

t

e

c

u

e

e

f t

e r

c

ou

s c

t

g

r

e c

l

i

f

e

c

p

e

fl

i

e

l

w l

lb

n

a

e

r

c a

u

g

g

v

h

r

t

u

u

i

n

a

y

e c

h

r

a

r

l b

g o

c r

t

o

fi

l

f

f

e o

o d

r

r

n t

f t

e b

h

e p

m

u

m

n

l

o

a

u

d

n i

l

i

l p

r

d

i

n

e

e

u

i

l

n

l

t

o

p

u

t

n

y a

c

d

t

 s

i

fi

e

s

l c

p

e

.

a

e r

u

e o

i

m

d w

s

e

i

t o

s

i

n

e r

c

e

a

t

p

y

n

a

c

 o

n

h

h

t

n

h

m

a

r

u

y t

l u

r

l

n

e

a

u

e

d w

a

t

e “

g

o

g f

e

 t

a

o

f

u

p

t p

ti

a

i

c

u

n

n s

n a h

nd

r

e

e fi

f t

, t

e h

r m

n

i

n

r

s o

t s

n

t b

t o

n

i

r

d g

n

n

i

r

s

n

s a

i

y i

h

a

o

r

e

n

c

e i

i

i

n

e

-

e

t

oi

h

d

u

a

a

t

h

e

a

e

e

nn

n

e

t

d

e

to

h

l

ou

m

n

t

t

c

p

i

gg

e

g

u

n

n t

e

u

e

u

e

c

0 p

l

n

h

c

r

p

i

sumTu

i

o

stptahobIrhcaapoa6ucw

■■
172 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 1 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 3 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 5 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 7 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 9 of 10 4-9 f 

-

e

h 

t 

i

-

.

c

e 

-

r 

r

on

r 

g 

e 

-

-

e 

-

f 

i

e

a

i

a

. 

d

t

e

f

-

i

o

v

p

e

-

e 

, 

n o

i

 c

a

a 

e

g 

s

o

s

p

a

en

e 

f 

r

e

s

e

v

r

n

a

d

g

n

d s

r

e

h

o

n o

t

i

e r

n

-

f G

g

n o

s

f t

a

e 

r

e

r

h

i

y

r

r

e

a

e

i

o

c

o e

i

s

e d

a

e

p

u

g

s

a

w

n

r

o

n i

h

c

i

 P

u

h

i

s

f

v

n

o

o

r

e

u

r

n

i

d

o

a

t

c

.

 W

t f

t

t t

i

.

i

t c

d

n

pr

e

t

a

s o

p

t

a

y o

f

. T

a

u

e

g u

e

c

n

i

g

. T

i

u

s

t

-

e

s c

s

a

y r

f Q

c

b

d e

a

a

n

h

, p

t

e

e

h a

e m

5

l

x

i

a

n

r

u

u

s

i

a

r o

r

t

e

n

e

e

t

o

e

g p

b

g l

i

3

r

nd

s t

s

s s

 r

t

c

e

n

e e

u

i

r

e R

i

d

n

n

h

v

f

1

v

e

o

i

r

a

a

t o

r

u

t

a

,

en

s a

l

s o

s

r h

s

n

o

e

n

a

n

n

h

r

nd

h

o

n

2

n

p

i

s

n

o

n

i

a

f t

c

a

o

o

c

l

g w

t t

h g

d a

o

s m

n

d t

t

e r

ly f

e 2

i

e

l

d

m

n

e c

e

d a

 u

i

t

p

e

n

o

t

k

e

g

l

n

e r

p

e

s

c

f

n

n

y o

o

h

e

m

r

f c

c

o

e w

m

e i

i

u

ou

z

f a

i

i

t

.

h

 b

t

i

y d

e

u

r

e p

l

e

r

n

o

v

a

a

s

a

x

e

s a

e

f f

h

o

n t

o

h

f t

t

p

o h

i

c

va

r

o

e

h

e

g

r

i

r

d

v

, a

t c

v

e

. T

t

p

g o

e e

t p

n t

g

d

g t

s o

s o

t

s

y g

s o

p

s

s

l

a

d

g

i

r

o

s

s

u

o

a

r

i

al

r

n

u

u

i

g

n

h

n

u

h

e

e s

a

t

o

v

n

u

n

f

o

o

s i

a

n

d t

t

e

 g

a

f

l

 p

n

i

t

e r

f

d b

h

s

c

e d

a

a

o

e

i

i

e

d

c

i

e

o

e

g u

d

i

t

, w

t m

g

o

h i

c

f t

e h

d

r

t

e

e s

r l

e

v

n

e

t c

s

r

o

s w

 r

n h

i

n

u

p

a

i

a

s t

n

n

h

i

u

a o

h

r

o

t a

i

o

h

e

ond

d

t

s u

n

 a

g l

e

r

n

c

l

b

s

e

a

e

,

n

p

i

p

d

o

i

s

c

g

e

i

n

c

n t

a

l

h

n

r

b

a

a

l

P p

n

ly e

r

i

i

m

r t

i

r

nd

n t

i

m

r

e

t

e h

n

n

c fl

l a

e i

ou

e t

a

e

o

o

e

l

e

a

, i

r

p

d i

l

r

t

i

e

y

i

a

d

t

d

e

r

g

t

n o

C

d o

. A

. P

t p

e i

g c

, w

vi

s

e

s

i

o

r

e

a

o

t

s

e

f

o l

u

t

s a

o

h

e a

t

i

r

s

i

s

n

t

n

f

n a

y

 b

r

d h

o

e

i

r

i

n

m

f

r s

i

0 a p

zi

P m

e C

ets

a

t a

m

e d

c

i

e

s

e

a

i

r

u

e

h

o

a

n

a

o

s t

h

o d

r

e

o

e t

nd

m

1

e t

r

e p

o

t

c

e

d m

t

h

a

n

e

i

e c

a

e

g

o

l

u

n

 s

i

0

a

C

m

s e

t

c

a

n

a

s a

e r

t

n t

d l

i

d f

t

s

e

r

o

e

s t

li

o

r

p

e s

i

r

e

b

y

i

a

h

u

 on

i

x

l

h

s a

u

h

t

c

a

d o

e l

g

n

r

y 2

e C

r

r

s

a

s p

t c

n

o

e

r

 or

of

a

e

g

e

g

,

h

n

d o

ett

s

n

d h

o

r

g c

t

d r

n t

o

n f

d t

a

i

. W

s

 e

v

y

i

i

p

t ao

o

n t

a

l

n

e a

c

a

f p

n

e h

t

e de d

o

e

n

l

e

a

n

x

a

t i

s o

n

r

, a

a

u

n t

d i

o

o

r

u

o a

a

l

n s

s e

, a

e

n

h

 e

n

h

W

n

f

o e

e

t o

a

e

s a

-

b

d

s

g

ii

a

t P

e r

d

 t

o

y

i

t

i

e

i

d

m ae

n

k

e

u

rr

s a

a

e

e o

i

n t

. 

i

n

t

l

a

n

g

s

l

e t

i

n

k

s t

v

v

v

o

f

e b

t

c

ii

e

t

t

b

v

e

u

u

n

i

aa

u

o

c

i

o

s

i

9

a

e

a

e c

e

a

e

v

f

g c

r

m

n

r

l

r

g

o

n

a

l

i

d

-

r

a

e

o

o

n F

t

y

t

i

e

e

e

oh

n

a

r

a

4

cPm

l b

t

Rp

e

u

i

sphlGbd

i

rtrtcHcctIitpSt
Appendix D—Public Involvement 173 

RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #—Name of organization, page 1 of 2 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #3—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 2 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 4 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 6 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 8 of 10 RESPONSE Comment number LETTER #4—Audubon of Kansas, Incorporated page 10 of 10

Appendix E

Key Legislation and Policy

This appendix briefly describes the guidance for 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies and key legislation that guide the management of 

the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge.

E.1 National Wildlife Refuge 

System

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

the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans.

(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997)

Goals

A. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats, including species 

that are endangered or threatened with 

becoming endangered.

B. Develop and maintain a network of habitats 

for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life 

history needs of these species across their 

ranges.

C. Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes 

that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing protection efforts.

D. Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

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

education and interpretation).

E. Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness 

of fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats.

Guiding Principles

There are four guiding principles for management 

and general public use of the Refuge System established by Executive Order 12996 (1996):

■ Public Use—The Refuge System provides 

important opportunities for compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation.

■ Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper 

without quality habitat and without fish and 

wildlife, traditional uses of refuges cannot 

be sustained. The Refuge System will continue to conserve and enhance the quality 

and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat 

within refuges.

■ Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and 

women were the first partners who insisted 

on protecting valuable wildlife habitat 

within wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other Federal agencies, State 

agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, 

and the general public can make significant 

contributions to the growth and management of the Refuge System.

■ Public Involvement—The public should be 

given a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and 
176 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

management of our national wildlife 

refuges.

E.2 Legal and Policy Guidance

Management actions on national wildlife refuges 

are circumscribed by many mandates including laws 

and Executive orders.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to figure out proper policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and 

services.

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.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

(1974)—Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

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.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Requires federally owned, leased, or financed buildings and facilities 

to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Clean Water Act (1977)—Requires consultation 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Dingell–Johnson Act (1950)—Authorized the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to provide 

financial help for State fish restoration and management plans and projects. Financed by excise taxes 

paid by manufacturers of rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. Known as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish 

Restoration Act.

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

Executive Order No. 7168 (1935)—Establishes 

Arrowwood Migratory Waterfowl Refuge “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and 

other wild life...to effectuate further the purposes of 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act....”

Executive Order 11988 (1977)—Requires Federal 

agencies to provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, decrease the effect of 

floods on human safety, and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by the floodplains.

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 Refuge System.

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996)—

Directs Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of American 

Indian sacred sites by American Indian religious 

practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sacred sites, and where proper, keep 

the confidentiality of sacred sites.

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Requires the 

use of integrated management systems to control or 

contain undesirable plant species and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal and State agencies.

Federal Records Act (1950)—Requires the preservation of evidence of the Government’s organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other 

information.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allows 

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

agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, 

or gifts of areas approved by the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act

(1934)—Authorizes the opening of part of a refuge to 

waterfowl hunting.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designates the 

protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility; and enables the setting of seasons and other 
Appendix E—Key Legislation and Policy 177 

regulations, including the closing of areas, Federal or 

non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation 

of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate this 

Act with other planning requirements, and prepare 

proper documents to facilitate better environmental 

decisionmaking. [From the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR 1500]

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 Administration Act

(1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior to allow any use of a refuge, provided 

such use is compatible with the major purposes for 

which the refuge was established.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997—Sets the mission and administrative policy 

for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; mandates comprehensive conservation planning 

for all units of the Refuge System.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990)—Requires Federal agencies and museums 

to inventory, find ownership of, and repatriate cultural items under their control or possession.

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 money is available to manage the uses.

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility and physical accessibility for all facilities 

and programs paid for by the Federal Government to 

make sure that any person can take part in any 

program.

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899)—Section 10 of this 

Act requires the authorization of U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers before any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States.

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act (1998)—Encourages the use of volunteers to help 

in the management of refuges within the Refuge System; facilitates partnerships between the Refuge 

System and non-Federal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and 

public participation in the conservation of the 

resources; and encourages donations and other 

contributions.

Appendix F

List of Preparers and Contributors

This CCP is the result of extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of our planning 

team, listed below.

Team member Position Work unit

Mike Artmann Wildlife biologist FWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO

Lorrie Beck Park ranger FWS, GPNC, Wichita, KS

Barbara Boyle Refuge supervisor FWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO

Rebecca Brave Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act assistant

Osage Nation, Historic Preservation 

Office, Pawhuska, OK

Mark Ely GIS specialist FWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO

Kimberly Farr Biological technician FWS, Quivira Refuge

Toni Griffin Refuge planner FWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO

Karl Grover Field supervisor KDWPT, Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife 

Area, Great Bend, KS

Andrea A. Hunter Tribal historic preservation officer Osage Nation, Historic Preservation 

Office, Pawhuska, OK

Barry Jones Park ranger FWS, Quivira Refuge

Steve Karel Former deputy refuge manager FWS, Quivira Refuge

Joe Kocher Maintenance worker FWS, Quivira Refuge

Christine LaRue Administrative officer FWS, Quivira Refuge

Murray Laubhan Zone biologist FWS, Quivira Refuge

Rachel Laubhan Wildlife biologist FWS, Quivira Refuge

Dave McCauley Range technician FWS, Quivira Refuge

Mike Mitchener Wildlife section chief KDWPT, Pratt Operations Office, 

Pratt, KS

James Munkres Archeologist I Osage Nation, Historic Preservation 

Office, Pawhuska, OK

Mike Oldham Project leader FWS, Quivira Refuge

Mike Rader Wildlife education coordinator KDWPT, Pratt Operations Office, 

Pratt, KS

Andy Schaal Range technician FWS, Quivira Refuge

Dan Severson Former project leader FWS, Quivira Refuge

Brad Stumph Natural resource specialist

Osage Nation, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, 

Pawhuska, OK

Bill Waln Fire management specialist FWS, Quivira Refuge

Brent Waters Maintenance worker FWS, Quivira Refuge

Mitch Werner Writer–editor FWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO
180 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Many organizations, agencies, and individuals provided help with the preparation of this CCP. We acknowledge the efforts of the following individuals and groups. The diversity, talent, and knowledge contributed 

dramatically improved the vision and completeness of this document.

U.S. Geological Survey, Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (socioeconomic impact studies)

Matt Hogan (Assistant Regional Director, Refuge System, FWS, Region 6)

Sheri Fetherman (chief, Division of Education and Visitor Services, FWS, Region 6)

Mickey Heitmeyer (wetlands ecologist, contractor)

Wayne King (biologist, Refuge System, FWS, Region 6)

David Lucas (chief, Division of Refuge Planning, FWS, Region 6)

Meg Van Ness (regional archaeologist, FWS, Region 6)
Appendix G

Species Lists

What follows are the common and scientific names of animals and plants found on Quivira Refuge.

G.1 List of Bird Species

These are the bird species found on Quivira Refuge.

Common name Scientific name

Spring 

March–

May

Summer 

June–

August

Fall 

September–

November

Winter 

December–

February

Ducks, geese, and swans

Black-bellied whistlingduck Dendrocygna autumnalis accidental

Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor accidental

Greater white-fronted 

goose Anser albifrons common rare common common

Snow goose Chen caerulescens common rare common common

Ross’s goose Chen rossii uncommon uncommon uncommon

Brant Branta bernicla accidental

Cackling goose Branta hutchinsii common rare common common

Canada goose* Branta canadensis common common common common

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator occasional occasional occasional

Tundra swan Cyngnus columbianus occasional occasional occasional

Wood duck* Aix sponsa common common common occasional

Gadwall* Anas strepera common uncommon common occasional

Eurasian wigeon Anas penelope accidental

American wigeon* Anas americana common uncommon common occasional

American black duck Anas rubripes rare rare rare rare

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos common common common common

Mottled duck Anas fulvigula rare rare rare

Blue-winged teal* Anas discors common common common

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera uncommon rare occasional rare

Northern shoveler* Anas clypeata common uncommon common uncommon

Northern pintail* Anas acuta common uncommon common common

Green-winged teal* Anas crecca common occasional common uncommon

Canvasback* Aythya valisineria common occasional common uncommon

Redhead* Aythya americana common occasional common uncommon

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris common occasional common uncommon

Greater scaup Aythya marila occasional occasional occasional

Lesser scaup* Aythya affinis common occasional common uncommon

Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata accidental

White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca accidental
182 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Scientific name

Spring 

March–

May

Summer 

June–

August

Fall 

September–

November

Winter 

December–

February

Black scoter Melanitta americana accidental

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis rare rare rare

Bufflehead Buecephala albeola uncommon common common

Common goldeneye Buecephala clangula common common common

Barrow’s goldeneye Buecphala ialandica accidental

Hooded merganser* Laphodytes cucullatus uncommon rare uncommon uncommon

Common merganser Mergus merganser uncommon rare common

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator rare occasional rare

Ruddy duck* Oxyura jamaicenis common uncommon common uncommon

Grouse and quail

Ring-necked pheasant* Phasianus colchicus common common common common

Greater prairie-chicken* Tympanuchus cupido rare rare rare rare

Wild turkey* Melagris gallopavo common common common common

Northern bobwhite* Colinis virginianus uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Loons and grebes

Common loon Gavia immer occasional rare occasional rare

Pied-billed grebe* Podilymbus podiceps common common common occasional

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus uncommon uncommon occasional

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena accidental

Eared grebe* Podiceps negricollis common occasional common rare

Western grebe Aechmophorus accidentalis occasional rare occasional rare

Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii accidental

Pelicans and miscellaneous

American flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber accidental

Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus occasional occasional rare

Double-crested cormorant* Phalacrocorax auritus common common common occasional

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos common common common occasional

Brown pelican Pelecanus accidentalis accidental

Herons, egrets, and ibis

American bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus uncommon uncommon uncommon occasional

Least bittern* Ixobrychus exilis occasional uncommon occasional

Great blue heron* Ardea herodias common common common uncommon

Great egret* Ardea alba common common common

Snowy egret* Egretta thula common common common

Little blue heron* Egretta caerulea uncommon uncommon occasional

Tricolored heron* Egretta tricolor rare rare

Reddish egret Egretta rufescens accidental

Cattle egret* Bubulcus ibis common common common

Green heron* Butorides virescens uncommon uncommon occasional

Black-crowned nightheron* Nycticorax nycticorax common common common rare

Yellow-crowned nightheron* Nyctanassa violacea uncommon uncommon occasional

White ibis Eudocimus albus rare rare
Appendix G—Species Lists 183 

Common name Scientific name

Spring 

March–

May

Summer 

June–

August

Fall 

September–

November

Winter 

December–

February

Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus rare rare rare

White-faced ibis* Plegadis chihi common common common rare

Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja accidental

Wood stork Mycteria americana accidental

Birds of prey

Turkey vulture* Cathartes aura uncommon uncommon uncommon

Osprey Pandion haliaetus occasional rare occasional

Mississippi kite* Ictinia mississippinesis uncommon uncommon occasional

Bald eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephlus uncommon uncommon uncommon common

Northern harrier* Circus cyaneus common occasional common common

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus uncommon occasional uncommon

Cooper’s hawk* Accipiter cooperii uncommon occasional uncommon uncommon

Northern goshawk Acceipiter gentilis rare rare

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus rare

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus rare

Swainson’s hawk* Buteo swainsoni common common occasional

Red-tailed hawk* Buteo jamaicensis common common common common

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis occasional rare occasional

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus uncommon rare uncommon

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos occasional occasional occasional

American kestrel* Falco sparverius common uncommon common uncommon

Merlin Falco columbarius occasional rare uncommon uncommon

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus occasional occasional occasional occasional

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus rare rare occasional occasional

Rails and cranes

Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis accidental

Black rail* Laterallus jamailaris uncommon uncommon rare

King rail* Rallus elegans uncommon uncommon rare rare

Virginia rail* Rallus limicola common common uncommon occasional

Sora* Prozana carolina common uncommon common

Common moorhen* Gallinula chloropus uncommon uncommon occasional

American coot* Fulica americana common common common uncommon

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis common common occasional

Common crane Grus grus accidental

Whooping crane Grus americana occasional occasional rare

Shorebirds

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola uncommon uncommon uncommon rare

American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica uncommon occasional uncommon

Snowy plover* Charadrius alexandrines common common common

Wilson’s plover Charadrius wilsonia accidental

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus common uncommon common

Piping plover Charadrius melodus uncommon occasional occasional

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferis common common common occasional
184 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Scientific name

Spring 

March–

May

Summer 

June–

August

Fall 

September–

November

Winter 

December–

February

Mountain plover Charadrios montanus rare rare

Black-necked stilt* Himantopus mexicanus common common uncommon

American avocet* Recurvirostra americana common common common

Spotted sandpiper* Actitis macularius common uncommon common

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria uncommon uncommon occasional

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca common common common occasional

Willet Tringa semipalmata uncommon uncommon uncommon

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes common common common rare

Upland sandpiper* Bartramia longicauda common occasional occasional

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus occasional occasional occasional

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus occasional occasional occasional

Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica uncommon rare uncommon

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa uncommon uncommon uncommon

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres occasional occasional occasional

Red knot Calidris canutus rare rare rare

Sanderling Calidris alba occasional occasional occasional

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla common common common

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri common common common

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla common common common

White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis common common uncommon

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii common common common

Red-necked stint Calidris ruficollis accidental

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melantos uncommon uncommon uncommon

Dunlin Calidris alpina uncommon occasional uncommon rare

Curlew sandpiper Calidris ferruginea accidental

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus common common common

Buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis occasional rare uncommon

Ruff Philmachus pugnax rare rare

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus uncommon uncommon occasional

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus common common common

Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata uncommon rare uncommon occasional

American woodcock Scolopax minor rare rare

Wilson’s phalarope* Phalaropus tricolor common common common

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus occasional rare occasional

Red phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius rare rare

Gulls and terns

Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla accidental

Sabine’s gull Xema sabini rare rare rare

Bonaparte’s gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia occasional rare occasional occasional

Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla rare occasional rare

Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan common uncommon common rare

Black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus accidental

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis common uncommon common uncommon
Appendix G—Species Lists 185 

Common name Scientific name

Spring 

March–

May

Summer 

June–

August

Fall 

September–

November

Winter 

December–

February

California gull Larus californicus accidental

Herring gull Larus argentatus occasional occasional occasional

Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus accidental

Least tern* Sternula antullarum uncommon uncommon occasional

Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica accidental

Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia rare rare rare

Black tern* Childonias niger common common uncommon

Common tern Sterna hirundo occasional occasional occasional

Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea accidental

Forster’s tern* Sterna forsteri common common occasional

Parasitic jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus rare rare

Pigeons and doves

Rock pigeon* Columba livia rare rare rare rare

Eurasian collared-dove* Streptopelia decaocto occasional occasional occasional occasional

White-winged dove Zneaida asiatica accidental

Mourning dove* Zenaida macroura common common common occasional

Yellow-billed cuckoo* Coccyzus americanus occasional uncommon rare

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythopthalmus rare rare

Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus rare rare rare rare

Owls

Barn owl* Tyto alba occasional occasional occasional occasional

Eastern screech-owl* Megascops asio uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Great horned owl* Bubo virginianus common common common common

Snowy owl Bubo scandiacus rare rare

Burrowing owl* Athene cunicularia rare rare rare

Barred owl Strix varia occasional occasional occasional occasional

Long-eared owl* Asio otus rare rare rare rare

Short-eared owl* Asio flammeus rare rare occasional

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus accidental

Nightjars and miscellaneous

Common nighthawk* Chordeiles minor uncommon common uncommon

Common poor-will Phalaenoptilus nuttallii rare rare

Chuck-will’s-widow* Caprimulgus carolinensis occasional occasional

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus accidental

Chimney swift* Chaetura pelagica uncommon uncommon uncommon

Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris occasional occasional occasional

Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon uncommon uncommon uncommon occasional

Woodpeckers

Red-headed woodpecker* Melnerpes erythrocephalus common common common

Red-bellied woodpecker* Melanerpes carolines uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius rare rare rare

Downy woodpecker* Picoides pubescens uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon
186 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Scientific name

Spring 

March–

May

Summer 

June–

August

Fall 

September–

November

Winter 

December–

February

Hairy woodpecker* Picoides villosus uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Northern flicker* Colaptes auratus common common common common

Flycatchers

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi occasional occasional

Eastern wood-pewee* Contopus virens uncommon uncommon occasional

Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailli occasional occasional

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus uncommon uncommon

Eastern phoebe* Sayornis phoebe uncommon uncommon uncommon occasional

Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya occasional occasional

Great crested flycatcher* Myiarchus crinitus uncommon uncommon occasional

Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans accidental

Western kingbird* Tyrannus verticalis common common uncommon

Eastern kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus common common uncommon

Scissor-tailed flycatcher* Tyrannus forficatus occasional occasional occasional

Shrikes and vireos

Loggerhead shrike* Lanius iudovicianus uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor rare occasional occasional

Bell’s vireo* Vireo bellii uncommon uncommon occasional

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons accidental

Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius accidental

Warbling vireo* Vireo gilvus uncommon uncommon uncommon

Philadelphia vireo Vireo philadelphicus accidental

Red-eyed vireo* Vireo olivacus occasional occasional rare

Corvids

Blue jay* Cyanocitta cristata common common uncommon occasional

Western scrub jay Aphelocoma californica accidental

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia rare rare rare rare

American crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos common occasional common occasional

Larks

Horned lark* Eremophila aloestris occasional occasional occasional occasional

Swallows

Purple martin* Progne subis occasional occasional

Tree swallow* Tachycineta bicolor common common uncommon

Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina accidental

Northern rough-winged 

swallow* Stelgidopteryx serripennis uncommon occasional occasional

Bank swallow* Riparia riparia common common uncommon

Cliff swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota common common common

Barn swallow* Hirundo rustica common common common

Parids, wrens, and miscellaneous

Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis accidental

Black-capped chickadee* Poecile atricapillius occasional occasional occasional occasional

Tufted titmouse Bacolopus bicolor rare occasional occasional
Appendix G—Species Lists 187 

Common name Scientific name

Spring 

March–

May

Summer 

June–

August

Fall 

September–

November

Winter 

December–

February

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis rare rare rare

White-breasted nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Brown creeper Certhia americana rare occasional occasional

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus occasional occasional

Carolina wren* Thryothorus ludovicianus occasional occasional occasional occasional

Bewick’s wren* Thryomanes biwickii rare rare

House wren* Troglodytes aedon common common uncommon

Winter wren Troglodytes hiemalis rare occasional occasional

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis occasional occasional occasional

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris uncommon uncommon uncommon

Blue-gray gnatcatcher* Polioptila caerulea uncommon uncommon occasional

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa uncommon uncommon uncommon

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula uncommon uncommon occasional

Thrushes, pipits, waxwings, and miscellaneous

Eastern bluebird* Sialia sialis common common common uncommon

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides rare rare rare

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi rare rare rare

Veery Catharus fuscescens accidental

Gray-cheeked thrush Catharus minimus accidental

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus occasional occasional

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus accidental

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina rare

American robin* Turdus migratorius common common common uncommon

Gray catbird* Dumetella carolinensis common common occasional

Northern mockingbird* Mimus polyglottos occasional occasional occasional occasional

Brown thrasher* Toxostoma rufum common common occasional rare

European starling* Sturnus vulgaris common common common common

American pipit Anthus rubescens uncommon uncommon

Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii rare rare

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus accidental

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum occasional occasional occasional occasional

Longspurs

McCown’s longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii accidental

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus rare occasional uncommon

Smith’s longspur Calcarius pictus accidental

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcurius ornatus rare rare

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis accidental

Wood warblers

Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera accidental

Tennessee warbler Oreothlypis peregrina occasional

Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata uncommon uncommon

Nashville warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla occasional occasional

Northern parula Parula pitiayumi accidental
188 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Scientific name

Spring 

March–

May

Summer 

June–

August

Fall 

September–

November

Winter 

December–

February

Yellow warbler* Dendroica petechia uncommon uncommon occasional

Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica accidental

Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia accidental

Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens accidental

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata common common uncommon

Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens rare rare

Blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca accidental

Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum occasional

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata rare

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea accidental

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia rare rare

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla occasional occasional

Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea accidental

Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorum accidental

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla accidental

Northern waterthrush Parkesia novboracensis occasional

Mourning warbler Oporornis philadelphia accidental

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei accidental

Common yellowthroat* Geothypis trichas common common uncommon occasional

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla occasional occasional

Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis accidental

Painted redstart Myioborus pictus accidental

Yellow-breasted chat* Icteria virens occasional rare rare

Sparrows and towhees

Spotted towhee Piplio maculatus common common rare

Eastern towhee Pipilo erythophthalmus accidental

Cassin’s sparrow Peucaea cassinii rare

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea uncommon common common

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina common rare common

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida common common

Field sparrow* Spizella pusilla common uncommon common uncommon

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus common rare common

Lark sparrow* Chondestes grammacus common uncommon occasional

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocrys occasional rare occasional

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis common common occasional

Grasshopper sparrow* Ammodramus savannarum uncommon uncommon uncommon

Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii accidental

Le Conte’s sparrow Ammodramus leconteii occasional occasional rare

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow

Ammodramus nelsoni occasional occasional

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca uncommon uncommon uncommon

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia common common common
Appendix G—Species Lists 189 

 

Spring Summer Fall Winter 

Common name Scientific name March– June– September– December–

May August November February

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii uncommon uncommon rare

Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana uncommon uncommon uncommon

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis uncommon uncommon occasional

Harris’s sparrow Zonotrichia querula common rare common common

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys uncommon uncommon occasional

Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla accidental

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis common common common

Summer tanager Piranga ruba rare

Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea accidental

Grosbeaks and buntings

Northern cardinal* Cardinalis cardinalis uncommon uncommon uncommon uncommon

Pyrrhuloxia Cardinalis sinuatus accidental

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus occasional

Black-headed grosbeak* Pheucticus melanocephalis occasional rare

Blue grosbeak* Passerina caerulea uncommon uncommon rare

Lazuli bunting Passerina ameona rare

Indigo bunting* Passerina cyanea uncommon occasional rare

Painted bunting Passerina ciris accidental

Dickcissel* Spiza americana common common rare

Blackbirds and allies

Bobolink* Dolichonyx oryzivorus uncommon uncommon

Red-winged blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus common common common common

Eastern meadowlark* Sturnella magna common common common common

Western meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta uncommon occasional uncommon common

Yellow-headed blackbird* Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus common common uncommon rare

Rusty blackbird Euphgus carolinus accidental

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus occasional occasional occasional occasional

Common grackle* Quiscalus quiscula common occasional common occasional

Great-tailed grackle* Quiscalus mexicannus uncommon uncommon uncommon rare

Brown-headed cowbird* Molothrus oryzivorus common common uncommon uncommon

Orchard oriole* Icterus spurius common common occasional

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii accidental

Baltimore oriole* Icterus galbula common common occasional

Finches

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus occasional rare occasional

House finch* Carpodacus mexicanus occasional occasional occasional occasional

Common redpoll Acanthis flammea accidental

Pine siskin Spinus pinus occasional occasional occasional

American goldfinch* Spinus tristis common common common common

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes verpertines accidental

House sparrow* Passer domesticus occasional occasional occasional occasional

* Reported nesting on refuge. NOTE: Abundance is indicated as follows: common (certain to be seen in suitable habitat), uncommon (present, but not certain to be seen), occasional (seen a few times during season), rare (seen every 2–5 years).
190 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

G.2 List of Fish Species

These are the fish species found on Quivira Refuge.

Common name Scientific name

Bass, largemouth Micropterus salmoides

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Bullhead, black Ictalurus melas

Bullhead, yellow Ictalurus natalis

Carp Cyrinus carpio

Carpsucker, river Carpiodes carpio

Catfish, channel Ictalurus punctatus

Catfish, flathead Pylodictis olivaris

Crappie, black Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Crappie, white Pomoxis annularis

Darter, Arkansas Etheostoma cragini

Goldfish Carassius auratus

Killifish, plains Fundulus kansae

Minnow, fathead Pimephales promelas

Minnow, plains Hybognathus placitus

Minnow, suckermouth Phenacobius mirabilis

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis

Shiner, red Notropis lutrensis

Shiner, sand Notropis stramineus

Sunfish, green Lepomis cyanellus

Sunfish, orangespotted Lepomis humilis

G.3 List of Mammal Species

These are the mammal species found on Quivira Refuge.

Common name Scientific name

Armadillo, nine-banded Dasypus novemcinctus

Badger, American Taxidea taxus

Beaver, American Castor canadensis

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Cottontail, eastern Sylvilagus floridanus

Coyote Canis latrans

Deer, mule Odocoileus hemionus

Deer, white-tailed Odocoileus virginianus

Fox, red Vulpes vulpes

Gopher, plains pocket Geomys bursarius

Ground squirrel, Franklin’s Spermophilus franklinii
Appendix G—Species Lists 191 

Common name Scientific name

Ground squirrel, thirteen-lined Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Jackrabbit, black-tailed Lepus californicus

Mink Mustela vison

Mole, eastern Scalopus aquaticus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Porcupine Erthizon dorsatum

Prairie dog, black-tailed Cynomys ludovicianus

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Rat, hispid cotton Sigmodon hispidus

Rat, Ord’s kangaroo Dipodomys ordii

Skunk, eastern spotted (not known on refuge in recent 

decades) Spilogale putorius

Skunk, striped Mephitis mephitis

Squirrel, eastern fox Sciurus niger

Wood rat, eastern Neotoma floridana

G.4 List of Amphibian and Reptile Species

These are the amphibian and reptile species found on Quivira Refuge.

Common name Scientific name

Bullfrog Rana catesbiana

Frog, Blanchard’s cricket Acris blanchardi

Frog, plains leopard Rana blairi

Frog, western chorus Pseudacris maculata

Kingsnake, prairie Lampropeltis calligaster

Lizard, prairie (fence) Sceloporus undulatus

Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus

Racer Coluber constrictor

Racerunner, six-lined Aspidoscelis sexlineata

Salamander, tiger Ambystoma tigrinum

Slider, red-eared Trachemys scripta

Snake, brown Storeria dekayi

Snake, common garter Thamnophis sirtalis

Snake, glossy Arizona elegans

Snake, gopher (bull) Pituophis catenifer

Snake, Graham’s crayfish Regina grahamii

Snake, plains garter Thamnophis radix

Snake, western hognose Heterodon nasicus

Snake, western ribbon Thamnophis proximus

Toad, Great Plains Bufo cognatus

Toad, plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons
192 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Scientific name

Toad, Woodhouse’s Bufo woodhousei

Turtle, ornate box Terrapene ornata

Turtle, painted Chrysemys picta

Turtle, snapping Chelydra serpentina

Turtle, spiny softshell Apalone spinifera

Turtle, yellow mud Kinosternon flavescens

Water snake, diamondback Nerodia rhombifer

Water snake, northern Nerodia sipedon

G.5 List of Odonate Species

These are the odonate species found on Quivira Refuge.

Common name Family Scientific name

Amberwing, eastern Libellulidae Perithemis tenera

Bluet, familiar Coenagrionidae Enallagma civile

Clubtail, jade Gomphidae Arigomphus submedianus

Clubtail, plains Gomphidae Gomphus externus

Darner, blue-eyed Aeschnidae Rhionaeschna multicolor

Darner, common blue Aeschnidae Anax junius

Dasher, blue Libellulidae Pachydiplax longipennis

Forktail, black-fronted Coenagrionidae Ischnura denticollis

Forktail, citrine Coenagrionidae Ischnura hastata

Forktail, desert Coenagrionidae Ischnura barberi

Forktail, eastern Coenagrionidae Ischnura verticalis

Forktail, fragile Coenagrionidae Ischnura posita

Glider, spot-wing Libellulidae Pantala hymenaea

Glider, wandering Libellulidae Pantala flavescens

Meadowhawk, band-wing Libellulidae Sympetrum semicinctum

Meadowhawk, blue-faced Libellulidae Sympetrum ambiguum

Meadowhawk, ruby Libellulidae Sympetrum rubicundulum

Meadowhawk, variegated Libellulidae Sympetrum corruptum

Pennant, halloween Libellulidae Celithemis eponina

Pondhawk, Eastern Libellulidae Erythemis simplicicollis

Rubyspot, American Calopterygidae Hetaerina americana

Saddlebags, black Libellulidae Tramea lacerata

Saddlebags, red Libellulidae Tramea onusta

Skimmer, twelve-spotted Libellulidae Libellula pulchella

Skimmer, widow Libellulidae Libellula luctuosa

Spreadwing Lestidae Lestes rectangularis

Spreadwing, southern Lestidae Lestes australis

Whitetail, common Libellulidae Libellula lydia
Appendix G—Species Lists 193 

G.6 List of Butterfly Species

These are the butterfly species found on Quivira Refuge.

Common name Scientific name

Admiral, red Vanessa atalanta

Azure, summer Celastrina ladon

Blue, eastern tailed Everes comyntas

Blue, marine Leptotes marina

Blue, reakirt’s Hemiargus isola

Blue, western pygmy Brephidium exile

Buckeye Junonia coenia

Checkerspot, gorgone Chlosyne gorgone

Cloak, mourning Nymphalis antiopa

Cloudywing, southern Thorybes bathyllus

Comma, eastern Polygonia comma

Copper, bronze Lycaena hyllus

Copper, gray Lycaena dione

Crescent, painted Phycoides picta

Crescent, pearl Phyciodes tharos

Crescent, phaon Phyciodes phaon

Duskywing, afranius Erynnis afranius

Duskywing, funereal Erynnis funeralis

Duskywing, Horace’s Erynnis horatius

Duskywing, juvenals Erynnis juvenalis

Duskywing, wild indigo Erynnis baptisiae

Emperor, hackberry Asterocampa celtis

Emperor, tawny Asterocampa clyton

Fritillary, great spangled Speyeria cybele

Fritillary, gulf Agraulis vanillae

Fritillary, regal Speyeria idalia

Fritillary, variegated Euptoieta claudia

Hairstreak, coral Satyrium titus

Hairstreak, gray Strymon melinus

Hairstreak, juniper Callophrys gryneus gryneus

Lady, American Vanessa virginiensis

Lady, painted Vanessa cardui

Leafwing, goatweed Anaea andrea

Monarch Danaus plexippus

Orange, sleepy Euremia nicippe

Queen Danaus gilippus

Question mark Polygonia interrogationis

Sachem Atalopedes campestris

Scallopwing, Hayhurst’s Staphylus hayhurstii

Skipper, common checkered Pyrgus communis

Skipper, Delaware Anatrytone logan
194 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Scientific name

Skipper, eastern dun Euphyes vestris

Skipper, fiery Hylephila phyleus

Skipper, nysa roadside Amblyscirtes nysa

Skipper, silver-spotted Epargyreus clarus

Snout, common Libytheana carinenta

Sootywing, common Pholisora catullus

Sulphur, clouded Colias philodice

Sulphur, cloudless Phoebis sennae

Sulphur, dainty Nathalis iole

Sulphur, orange Colias eurytheme

Swallowtail, black Papilio polyxenes

Swallowtail, eastern tiger Papilio glaucus

Swallowtail, pipevine Battus philenor

Viceroy Limenitis archippus

White, cabbage Pieris rapae

White, checkered Pontia protodice

Wood nymph, common Cercyonis pegala

Yellow, little Eurema lisa

G.7 List of Plant Species

These are the plant species found on Quivira Refuge.

Common name Family Scientific name

Wild petunia Acanthaceae Ruellia humilis

Boxelder Aceraceae Acer negundo

Silver maple Aceraceae Acer saccharinum

Soapweed yucca Agavaceae Yucca glauca

Sea purslane Aizoaceae Sesuvium verrucosum

Northern water plantain Alismataceae Alisma triviale

Grassleaf arrowhead Alismataceae Sagittaria graminea var. graminea

Broadleaf arrowhead Alismataceae Sagittaria latifolia

Sandhill amaranth Amaranthaceae Amaranthus arenicola

Careless weed Amaranthaceae Amaranthus palmeri

Tall waterhemp Amaranthaceae Amaranthus tuberculatus

Snake-cotton Amaranthaceae Froelichia floridana

Slender snake-cotton Amaranthaceae Froelichia gracilis

Fragrant sumac Anacardiaceae Rhus aromatica

Smooth sumac Anacardiaceae Rhus glabra

Poison ivy Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron rydbergii

Cut-leaf water parsnip Apiaceae Berula erecta

Common water hemlock Apiaceae Cicuta maculata
Appendix G—Species Lists 195 

Common name Family Scientific name

Floating marsh pennywort Apiaceae Hydrocotyle ranunculoides

Red River scaleseed Apiaceae Spermolepis inermis

Indian hemp Apocynaceae Apocynum cannabinum

Blunt-leaved milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias amplexicaulis

Sand milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias arenaria

Swamp milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias incarnata ssp. incarnata

Showy milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias speciosa

Slimleaf milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias stenophylla

Butterfly milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias tuberosa ssp. interior

Whorled milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias verticillata

Green antelopehorn Asclepiadaceae Asclepias viridis

Common yarrow Asteraceae Achillea millefolium

Western ragweed Asteraceae Ambrosia psilostachya

Giant ragweed Asteraceae Ambrosia trifida

Common sagewort Asteraceae Artemisia campestris

Cudweed sagewort Asteraceae Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. ludoviciana

Baccharis Asteraceae Baccharis neglecta

Willow baccharis Asteraceae Baccharis salicina

Spanish needles Asteraceae Bidens bipinnata

Star boltonia Asteraceae Boltonia asteroides

Tall thistle Asteraceae Cirsium altissimum

Wavyleaf thistle Asteraceae Cirsium undulatum

Bull thistle Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare

Horseweed Asteraceae Conyza canadensis

Plains coreopsis Asteraceae Coreopsis tinctoria

Hooker’s scratchdaisy Asteraceae Croptilon hookerianum var. validum

Eclipta Asteraceae Eclipta prostrata

Philadelphia fleabane Asteraceae Erigeron philadelphicus

Daisy fleabane Asteraceae Erigeron strigosus

Boneset Asteraceae Eupatorium perfoliatum

Alkali yellowtops Asteraceae Flaveria campestris

Indian blanket Asteraceae Gaillardia pulchella

Curly-cup gumweed Asteraceae Grindelia ciliata

Gumweed Asteraceae Grindelia squarrosa

Annual sunflower Asteraceae Helianthus annuus

Maximilian sunflower Asteraceae Helianthus maximiliani

Prairie sunflower Asteraceae Helianthus petiolaris

Jerusalem artichoke Asteraceae Helianthus tuberosus

Goldenaster Asteraceae Heterotheca latifolia

Camphorweed Asteraceae Heterotheca subaxillaris ssp. latifolia

Carolina woolywhite Asteraceae Hymenopappus scabiosaeus

Marshelder Asteraceae Iva annua

Prickly lettuce Asteraceae Lactuca serriola

Lanceleaf blazing star Asteraceae Liatris lancifolia

Dotted blazing star Asteraceae Liatris punctata
196 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Family Scientific name

Prairie blazing star Asteraceae Liatris pycnostachya

Scaly blazing star Asteraceae Liatris squarrosa var. glabrata

Marsh fleabane Asteraceae Pluchea odorata

Rabbit-tobacco Asteraceae Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium

Tuberous desert-chicory Asteraceae Pyrrhopappus grandiflorus

Prairie coneflower Asteraceae Ratibida columnifera

Viscid tansyaster Asteraceae Rayjacksonia annua

Canada goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago altissima spp. altissima

Canada goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago canadensis

Missouri goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago missouriensis

Downy goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago petiolaris

Sow thistle Asteraceae Sonchus asper

White heath aster Asteraceae Symphyotrichum ericoides var. ericoides

White panicled aster Asteraceae Symphyotrichum lanceolatum ssp. lanceolatum

Calico aster Asteraceae Symphyotrichum lateriflorum

Annual saltmarsh aster Asteraceae Symphyotrichum subulatum var. ligulatum

Red-seed dandelion Asteraceae Taraxacum erythrospermum

Common dandelion Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale

Green threads Asteraceae Thelesperma megapotamicum

Common salsify Asteraceae Tragopogon dubius

Western ironweed Asteraceae Vernonia baldwinii

Prairie ironweed Asteraceae Vernonia fasciculata

Cocklebur Asteraceae Xanthium strumarium

Trumpet creeper Bignoniaceae Campsis radicans

Southern catalpa Bignoniaceae Catalpa bignonioides

Northern catalpa Bignoniaceae Catalpa speciosa

Little catseye Boraginaceae Cryptantha minima

Bindweed heliotrope Boraginaceae Euploca convolvulacea

Salt heliotrope Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum var. curassavicum

Seaside heliotrope Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum var. obovatum

Stickseed Boraginaceae Lappula occidentalis

Fringed puccoon Boraginaceae Lithospermum incisum

Spring forget-me-not Boraginaceae Myosotis verna

Shepherd’s purse Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris

Whitetop Brassicaceae Lepidium draba

Western tansymustard Brassicaceae Descurainia pinnata spp. brachycarpa

Common pepperweed Brassicaceae Lepidium densiflorum

Peppergrass Brassicaceae Lepidium virginicum

Water-cress Brassicaceae Nasturtium officinale

Winged rockcress Brassicaceae Planodes virginica

Prickly-pear Cactaceae Opuntia humifusa

Plains prickly-pear Cactaceae Opuntia phaecantha

Waterstarwort Callitrichaceae Callitriche heterophylla

Cardinal flower Campanulaceae Lobelia cardinalis

Great blue lobelia Campanulaceae Lobelia siphilitica
Appendix G—Species Lists 197 

Common name Family Scientific name

Holzinger’s Venus’ looking-glass Campanulaceae Triodanis holzingeri

Narrowleaf rombopod Capparaceae Cleomella angustifolia

Rocky Mountain beeplant Capparaceae Peritoma serrulata

James’ clammyweed Capparaceae Polanisia jamesii

American elder Caprifoliaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis

Coralberry Caprifoliaceae Symphoricarpos orbiculatus

Thymeleaf sandwort Caryophyllaceae Arenaria serpyllifolia

Mouse-ear chickweed Caryophyllaceae Cerastium brachypodum

Nailwort Caryophyllaceae Paronychia jamesii

Sleepy catchfly Caryophyllaceae Silene antirrhina

Silverscale Chenopodiaceae Atriplex argentea

Saline saltbush Chenopodiaceae Atriplex dioica

Halberd-leaved orache Chenopodiaceae Atriplex patula

Lamb’s quarters Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album

Mexican tea Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium ambrosioides

Oakleaf goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium glaucum

Narrowleaf goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium leptophyllum

Desert goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium pratericola

Red goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium rubrum

Maple-leaf goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium simplex

Winged pigweed Chenopodiaceae Cycloloma atriplicifolium

Kochia, fireweed Chenopodiaceae Kochia scoparia

Red saltwort Chenopodiaceae Salicornia rubra

Russian thistle Chenopodiaceae Salsola tragus

Western seepweed Chenopodiaceae Suaeda calceoliformis

Poison suckleya Chenopodiaceae Suckleya suckleyana

Common Saint John’s wort Clusiaceae Hypericum perforatum

Dayflower Commelinaceae Commelina erecta

Bracted spiderwort Commelinaceae Tradescantia bracteata

Prairie spiderwort Commelinaceae Tradescantia occidentalis

Field bindweed Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis

Prostrate evolvulus Convolvulaceae Evolvulus nuttallianus

Bush morning-glory Convolvulaceae Ipomoea leptophylla

Pickering’s dawnflower Convolvulaceae Stylisma pickeringii var. pattersonii

Roughleaf dogwood Cornaceae Cornus drummondii

Buffalo-gourd Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita foetidissima

Eastern redcedar Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana

Cusp dodder Cuscutaceae Cuscuta cuspidata

Rope dodder Cuscutaceae Cuscuta glomerata

Field dodder Cuscutaceae Cuscuta pentagona

Cosmopolitan bulrush Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus maritimus ssp. paludosus

Sturdy bulrush Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus robustus

Southern sedge Cyperaceae Carex austrina

Shortbeak sedge Cyperaceae Carex brevior

Buxbaum sedge Cyperaceae Carex buxbaumii
198 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Family Scientific name

Emory’s sedge Cyperaceae Carex emoryi

Fescue sedge Cyperaceae Carex festucacea

Smooth-cone sedge Cyperaceae Carex laeviconica

Smoothsheath sedge Cyperaceae Carex laevivaginata

Wooly-fruit sedge Cyperaceae Carex lasiocarpa

Mead’s sedge Cyperaceae Carex meadii

Troublesome sedge Cyperaceae Carex molesta

Wooly sedge Cyperaceae Carex pellita

Clustered field sedge Cyperaceae Carex praegracilis

Awlfruit sedge Cyperaceae Carex stipata var. stipata

Tuckerman’s sedge Cyperaceae Carex tuckermanii

Fox sedge Cyperaceae Carex vulpinoidea

Taperleaf flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus acuminatus

Poorland flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus compressus

Globe flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus echinatus

Yellow nutsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus esculentus

Great Plains flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus lupulinus

Sand flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus schweinitzii

Lean flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus setigerus

Awned flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus squarrosus

Flat-stem spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis compressa

Bald spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis erythropoda

Pale spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis macrostachya

Sand spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis montevidensis

Common spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis palustris

Beaked spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis rostellata

Hairy fimbry Cyperaceae Fimbristylis puberula var. interior

Hairy fimbry Cyperaceae Fimbristylis puberula var. puberula

Hardstem bulrush Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus

Common threesquare Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus pungens

Common threesquare Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus pungens var. longispicatus

Softstem bulrush Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 

Pale bulrush Cyperaceae Scirpus pallidus

Hanging bulrush Cyperaceae Scirpus pendulus

Persimmon Ebenaceae Diospyros virigiana

Russian olive Elaeagnaceae Elaeagnus angustifolia

Smooth horsetail Equisetaceae Equisetum laevigatum

Geyer’s sandmat Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia geyeri

Rip-seed sandmat Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia glyptosperma

Sand spurge Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia missurica

Sand croton Euphorbiaceae Croton glandulosus var. septentrionalis

Texas croton Euphorbiaceae Croton texensis

Heartleaf sandmat Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia cordifolia

David’s spurge Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia davidii

Toothed spurge Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia dentata
Appendix G—Species Lists 199 

Common name Family Scientific name

Snow-on-the-mountain Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia marginata

Eyebane Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia nutans

Roughpod spurge Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia spathulata

Leadplant Fabaceae Amorpha canescens

False indigo Fabaceae Amorpha fruticosa

Platte milkvetch Fabaceae Astragalus plattensis

Blue wild indigo Fabaceae Baptisia australis var. minor

Partridge pea Fabaceae Chamaecrista fasciculata

Purple prairie-clover Fabaceae Dalea purpurea var. purpurea

Hairy prairie-clover Fabaceae Dalea villosa var. villosa

Illinois bundleflower Fabaceae Desmanthus illinoensis

Prairie bundleflower Fabaceae Desmanthus leptolobus

Sessileleaf ticktrefoil Fabaceae Desmodium sessilifolium

Honeylocust Fabaceae Gleditsia triacanthos

Wild licorice Fabaceae Glycyrrhiza lepidota

Kentucky coffeetree Fabaceae Gymnocladus dioicus

Round-head lespedeza Fabaceae Lespedeza capitata

American birdsfoot trefoil Fabaceae Acmispon americanus var. americanus

Alfalfa Fabaceae Medicago sativa

White sweetclover Fabaceae Melilotus albus

Yellow sweetclover Fabaceae Melilotus officinalis

Sensitive briar Fabaceae Mimosa microphylla

Catclaw sensitive-briar Fabaceae Mimosa nuttallii

Palmleaf Indian breadroot Fabaceae Pediomelum digitatum

Dune scurfpea Fabaceae Psoralidium lanceolatum

Black locust Fabaceae Robinia pseudoacacia

Stick-seed fuzzybean Fabaceae Strophostyles leiosperma

Goat’s-rue Fabaceae Tephrosia virginiana

Hairy vetch Fabaceae Vicia villosa ssp. villosa

Bur oak Fagaceae Quercus macrocarpa

Smallflower fumewort Fumariaceae Corydalis micrantha

Prairie gentian Gentianaceae Eustoma exaltatum ssp. russellianum

Carolina geranium Geraniaceae Geranium carolinianum

Golden currant Grossulariaceae Ribes aureum var. villosum

American watermilfoil Haloragaceae Myriophyllum sibiricum

Common waternymph Hydrocharitaceae Najas guadalupensis

Blue-eyed grass Iridaceae Sisyrinchium montanum

Black walnut Juglandaceae Juglans nigra

Tapertip rush Juncaceae Juncus acuminatus

Baltic rush Juncaceae Juncus balticus

Tuftedstem rush Juncaceae Juncus brachyphyllus

Leathery rush Juncaceae Juncus coriaceus

Dudley rush Juncaceae Juncus dudleyi

Inland rush Juncaceae Juncus interior

Grassleaf rush Juncaceae Juncus marginatus
200 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Family Scientific name

Lopsided rush Juncaceae Juncus secundus

Field rush Juncaceae Juncus tenuis

Torrey rush Juncaceae Juncus torreyi

False pennyroyal Lamiaceae Hedeoma hispida

Henbit Lamiaceae Lamium amplexicaule

American bugleweed Lamiaceae Lycopus americanus

Wild bergamot Lamiaceae Monarda punctata ssp. occidentalis

Catnip Lamiaceae Nepeta cataria

Blue sage Lamiaceae Salvia azurea

Lanceleaf blue sage Lamiaceae Salvia reflexa

Blue skullcap Lamiaceae Scutellaria lateriflora

American germander Lamiaceae Teucrium canadense var. canadense

Lesser duckweed Lemnaceae Lemna aequinoctialis

Common duckweed Lemnaceae Lemna minor

Minute duckweed Lemnaceae Lemna perpusilla

Turion duckweed Lemnaceae Lemna turionifera

Wild onion Liliaceae Allium canadense

Wild asparagus Liliaceae Asparagus officinalis

False lily-of-the-valley Liliaceae Maianthemum stellatum

Wild flax Linaceae Linum rigidum

Purple ammannia Lythraceae Ammannia coccinea

Grand redstem Lythraceae Ammannia robusta

California loosestrife Lythraceae Lythrum californicum

Velvetleaf mallow Malvaceae Abutilon theophrasti

Plains poppymallow Malvaceae Callirhoe alcaeoides

Purple poppymallow Malvaceae Callirhoe involucrata

Common mallow Malvaceae Malva neglecta

Hairy waterclover Marsileaceae Marsilea vestita

Moonseed Menispermaceae Menispermum canadense

Carpetweed Molluginaceae Mollugo verticillata

Osage-orange Moraceae Maclura pomifera

White mulberry Moraceae Morus alba

American lotus Nelumbonaceae Nelumbo lutea

Smooth four-o’clock Nyctaginaceae Mirabilis glabra

Four-o’clock Nyctaginaceae Mirabilis linearis

Heart-leaved four-o’clock Nyctaginaceae Mirabilis nyctaginea

Green ash Oleaceae Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Yellow sundrops Onagraceae Oenothera serrulata

Velvetweed Onagraceae Oenothera curtiflora

Bushy seedbox Onagraceae Ludwigia alternifolia

Common evening primrose Onagraceae Oenothera biennis

Hooker’s evening primrose Onagraceae Oenothera elata ssp. hirsutissima

Largeflower evening primrose Onagraceae Oenothera grandis

Cut-leaf evening primrose Onagraceae Oenothera laciniata

Four-point evening primrose Onagraceae Oenothera rhombipetala
Appendix G—Species Lists 201 

Common name Family Scientific name

Hairy evening primrose Onagraceae Oenothera villosa ssp. villosa

Great Plains ladies-tresses Orchidaceae Spiranthes magnicamporum

Slender yellow woodsorrel Oxalidaceae Oxalis dillenii

Yellow woodsorrel Oxalidaceae Oxalis stricta

Prickly-poppy Papaveraceae Argemone polyanthemos

Devil’s claw Pedaliaceae Proboscidea louisianica

Pokeweed Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca americana var. americana

Austrian pine Pinaceae Pinus nigra

Longleaf plantain Plantaginaceae Plantago elongata

Wooly plantain Plantaginaceae Plantago patagonica

Dwarf plantain Plantaginaceae Plantago pusilla

Virginia plantain Plantaginaceae Plantago virginica

Goatgrass Poaceae Aegilops cylindrica

Redtop bent Poaceae Agrostis gigantea

Winter bentgrass Poaceae Agrostis hyemalis

Creeping bentgrass Poaceae Agrostis stolonifera

Carolina foxtail Poaceae Alopecurus carolinianus

Big bluestem Poaceae Andropogon gerardii

Sand bluestem Poaceae Andropogon hallii

Broomsedge Poaceae Andropogon virginicus

Forked three-awn Poaceae Aristida basiramea

Longspike three-awn Poaceae Aristida longespica

Prairie three-awn Poaceae Aristida oligantha

Red three-awn Poaceae Aristida purpurea var. longiseta

Caucasian bluestem Poaceae Bothriochloa bladhii

King Ranch bluestem Poaceae Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica

Silver bluestem Poaceae Bothriochloa saccharoides

Sideoats grama Poaceae Bouteloua curtipendula

Blue grama Poaceae Bouteloua gracilis

Rescue grass Poaceae Bromus catharticus

Smooth brome Poaceae Bromus inermis

Japanese brome Poaceae Bromus japonicus

Cheatgrass Poaceae Bromus tectorum

Buffalograss Poaceae Buchloe dactyloides

Bluejoint reedgrass Poaceae Calamagrostis canadensis

Narrowspike reedgrass Poaceae Calamagrostis stricta

Prairie sandreed Poaceae Calamovilfa gigantea

Sandbur Poaceae Cenchrus longispinus

Coastal sandbur Poaceae Cenchrus spinifex

Windmill grass Poaceae Chloris verticillata

Rigid oanic grass Poaceae Coleataenia longifolia ssp. rigidula

Bermudagrass Poaceae Cynodon dactylon

Orchardgrass Poaceae Dactylis glomerata

Tapered rosette grass Poaceae Dichanthelium acuminatum var. acuminatum

Western panic grass Poaceae Dichanthelium acuminatum ssp. fasciculatum
202 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Family Scientific name

Scribner panicum Poaceae Dichanthelium oligosanthes

Carolina crabgrass Poaceae Digitaria cognata

Slender crabgrass Poaceae Digitaria filiformis

Hairy crabgrass Poaceae Digitaria sanguinalis

Inland saltgrass Poaceae Distichlis spicata var. stricta

Barnyard grass, millet Poaceae Echinochloa crus-galli var. crus-galli

Rough barnyard grass Poaceae Echinochloa muricata var. microstachya

Goosegrass Poaceae Eleusine indica

Canada wild rye Poaceae Elymus canadensis

Quackgrass Poaceae Elymus repens

Virginia wild rye Poaceae Elymus virginicus

Stinkgrass Poaceae Eragrostis cilianensis

Weeping lovegrass Poaceae Eragrostis curvula

Tufted lovegrass Poaceae Eragrostis pectinacea

Red lovegrass Poaceae Eragrostis secundiflora ssp. oxylepis

Purple lovegrass Poaceae Eragrostis spectabilis

Sand lovegrass Poaceae Eragrostis trichodes

Prairie cupgrass Poaceae Eriochloa contracta

Tall fescue Poaceae Schedonorus pratensis

Foxtail barley Poaceae Hordeum jubatum

Little barley Poaceae Hordeum pusillum

Rice cutgrass Poaceae Leersia oryzoides

Sprangletop Poaceae Leptochloa fusca

Alkali muhly Poaceae Muhlenbergia asperifolia

Nodding muhly Poaceae Muhlenbergia bushii

Tumblegrass Poaceae Muhlenbergia paniculata

Wirestem muhly Poaceae Muhlenbergia racemosa

Witchgrass Poaceae Panicum capillare

Fall panicum Poaceae Panicum dichotomiflorum

Switchgrass Poaceae Panicum virgatum

Western wheatgrass Poaceae Pascopyrum smithii

Sand paspalum Poaceae Paspalum setaceum var. stramineum

Yellow bristlegrass Poaceae Pennisetum glaucum

Timothy Poaceae Phleum pratense

Common reed Poaceae Phragmites australis

Texas bluegrass Poaceae Poa arachnifera

Plains bluegrass Poaceae Poa arida

Canada bluegrass Poaceae Poa compressa

Kentucky bluegrass Poaceae Poa pratensis

Rabbit’s-foot grass Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis

Tall fescue Poaceae Schedonorus arundinaceus

Little bluestem Poaceae Schizachyrium scoparium

Cultivated rye Poaceae Secale cereale

Marsh foxtail Poaceae Setaria parviflora

Green foxtail Poaceae Setaria viridis
Appendix G—Species Lists 203 

Common name Family Scientific name

Indiangrass Poaceae Sorghastrum nutans

Johnsongrass Poaceae Sorghum halepense

Alkali cordgrass Poaceae Spartina gracilis

Prairie cordgrass Poaceae Spartina pectinata

Prairie wedgegrass Poaceae Sphenopholis obtusata

Alkali sacaton Poaceae Sporobolus airoides

Composite dropseed Poaceae Sporobolus compositus var. compositus

Sand dropseed Poaceae Sporobolus cryptandrus

Puffsheath dropseed Poaceae Sporobolus neglectus

Texas dropseed Poaceae Sporobolus texanus

Intermediate wheatgrass Poaceae Thinopyrum intermedium

Purpletop Poaceae Tridens flavus

Longspike tridens Poaceae Tridens strictus

Purple sandgrass Poaceae Triplasis purpurea var. purpurea

Eastern gamagrass Poaceae Tripsacum dactyloides

Wheat Poaceae Triticum aestivum

Sixweeks fescue Poaceae Vulpia octoflora

Annual eriogonum Polygonaceae Eriogonum annuum

Climbing false buckwheat Polygonaceae Fallopia scandens

Water knotweed Polygonaceae Persicaria amphibia

Pink smartweed Polygonaceae Persicaria bicornis

Marshpepper knotweed Polygonaceae Persicaria hydropiper

Swamp smartweed Polygonaceae Persicaria hydropiperoides

Curlytop knotweed Polygonaceae Persicaria lapathifolia

Spotted ladysthumb Polygonaceae Persicaria maculosa

Pennsylvania smartweed Polygonaceae Persicaria pensylvanica

Prostrate knotweed Polygonaceae Polygonum aviculare

Bushy knotweed Polygonaceae Polygonum ramosissimum ssp. prolificum

Yellow-flowered knotweed Polygonaceae Polygonum ramosissimum ssp. ramosissimum

Pleatleaf knotweed Polygonaceae Polygonum tenue

Curly dock Polygonaceae Rumex crispus

Dock Polygonaceae Rumex fueginus

Narrowleaf dock Polygonaceae Rumex stenophyllus

Blue mudplantain Pontederiaceae Heteranthera limosa

Prairie fameflower Portulacaceae Phemeranthus rugospermus

Common purslane Portulacaceae Portulaca oleracea

Kiss-me-quick Portulacaceae Portulaca pilosa

Long-leaf pondweed Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton nodosus

Pondweed Potamogetonaceae Stuckenia pectina

Western rock-jasmine Primulaceae Androsace occidentalis

Carolina anemone Ranunculaceae Anemone caroliniana

Prairie larkspur Ranunculaceae Delphinium carolinianum ssp. penardii

Tiny mousetail Ranunculaceae Myosurus minimus

Celeryleaf buttercup Ranunculaceae Ranunculus sceleratus var. sceleratus

New Jersey tea Rhamnaceae Ceanothus herbaceus
204 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Common name Family Scientific name

Agrimony Rosaceae Agrimonia parviflora

White avens Rosaceae Geum canadense

American plum Rosaceae Prunus americana

Sand plum Rosaceae Prunus angustifolia

Peach Rosaceae Prunus persica

Chokecherry Rosaceae Prunus virginiana

Pear Rosaceae Pyrus communis

Prairie rose Rosaceae Rosa arkansana

Multiflora rose Rosaceae Rosa multiflora

Buttonbush Rubiaceae Cephalanthus occidentalis

Bedstraw Rubiaceae Galium aparine

Spiral ditchgrass Ruppiaceae Ruppia cirrhosa

Plains cottonwood Salicaceae Populus deltoides ssp. monilifera

Peachleaf willow Salicaceae Salix amygdaloides

Sandbar willow Salicaceae Salix interior

Black willow Salicaceae Salix nigra

Western soapberry Sapindaceae Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii

Slenderleaf false-foxglove Scrophulariaceae Agalinis tenuifolia

Roundleaf monkeyflower Scrophulariaceae Mimulus glabratus var. jamesii

Texas toadflax Scrophulariaceae Nuttallanthus texanus

Common mullein Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thaspus

Purslane speedwell Scrophulariaceae Veronica peregrina

Tree-of-heaven Simaroubaceae Ailanthus altissima

Bristly greenbrier Smilacaceae Smilax tamnoides

Jimsonweed Solanaceae Datura stramonium

Sacred datura Solanaceae Datura wrightii

Groundcherry Solanaceae Physalis hispida

Long-leaf groundcherry Solanaceae Physalis longifolia var. longifolia

Longleaf groundcherry Solanaceae Physalis longifolia var. subglabrata

Virginia groundcherry Solanaceae Physalis virginiana var. virginiana

Horsenettle Solanaceae Solanum carolinense

Deadly nightshade Solanaceae Solanum interius

Black nightshade Solanaceae Solanum nigrum

Buffalo-bur Solanaceae Solanum rostratum

Saltcedar Tamaricaceae Tamarix ramosissima

Narrow-leaf cattail Typhaceae Typha angustifolia

Southern cattail Typhaceae Typha domingensis

Broadleaf cattail Typhaceae Typha latifolia

Hackberry Ulmaceae Celtis occidentalis

Dwarf hackberry Ulmaceae Celtis tenuifolia

American elm Ulmaceae Ulmus americana

Chinese elm Ulmaceae Ulmus parvifolia

Siberian elm Ulmaceae Ulmus pumila

Slippery elm Ulmaceae Ulmus rubra

False nettle Urticaceae Boehmeria cylindrica
Appendix G—Species Lists 205 

Common name Family Scientific name

Pennsylvania pellitory Urticaceae Parietaria pensylvanica

Dakota vervain Verbenaceae Glandularia bipinnatifida var. bipinnatifida

Fog-fruit Verbenaceae Phyla lanceolata

Prostrate vervain Verbenaceae Verbena bracteata

Blue vervain Verbenaceae Verbena hastata

Hoary vervain Verbenaceae Verbena stricta

Field pansy Violaceae Viola bicolor

Common blue violet Violaceae Viola sororia

Virginia creeper Vitaceae Parthenocissus quinquefolia

Riverbank grape Vitaceae Vitis riparia

Horned pondweed Zannichelliaceae Zannichellia palustris

Puncture-vine Zygophyllaceae Tribulus terrestris

Appendix H

Grassland Fragmentation Assessment

To determine the optimal distribution and area of 

grasslands on Quivira Refuge, a quantitative analysis 

comparing the benefits of current and future grassland areas and distribution was conducted on refuge 

and private lands within 2 miles of the refuge boundary using GIS. The analysis was based on the spatial 

needs of area-sensitive grassland birds reported in 

literature and on the refuge’s digital NVCS map. 

Species considered in the analysis are known to 

occur on the refuge and included upland sandpiper, 

grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, western meadowlark, and dickcissel (Helzer and Jelinski 1999). It is 

assumed that meeting the area needs of these species 

also would result in sufficient area to support other 

grassland-dependent birds. Further, similar landscape factors such as connectedness (tree cover), road 

density, and isolation, have been shown to affect certain wetland birds as well (Whited et al. 2000). 

To assess current benefits, three separate maps 

were created from the 2008 NVCS data: (1) a coverage of suitable breeding habitats that included all 

NVCS associations dominated by upland and facultative upland grasses, including areas that now support 

plum that could be removed by management; (2) neutral habitats that do not provide suitable habitat but 

are not avoided, which included areas dominated by 

saltgrass and sedge meadows; and (3) hostile habitats 

that species avoid, which included trees, roads, croplands, buildings, wetlands greater than 437.45 yards 

(400 meters) wide, and tall dense plum stands that 

are expected to persist on the refuge. 

Roads and trees were buffered by 54.68 yards (50 

meters) to account for edge effects (nest parasitism 

and predation) that negatively affect breeding success (Johnson and Temple 1990, Winter et al. 2000, 

Herkert et al. 2003). The 54.68-yard (50-meter) buffer may actually be conservative as edge and patch 

effects vary temporally, spatially, and among species 

(Bakker et al. 2002; Winter et al. 2006a, 2006b) and 

some research suggest greater buffer distances (Bollinger and Gavin 2004). 

The maps of suitable and neutral habitats were 

combined and intersected with the hostile habitat 

map to determine the area and perimeter-to-area 

ratio of individual grassland tracts (patches, for 

example). These metrics were compared to those 

reported for area-sensitive species to determine the 

suitability of individual patches.

To determine potential future benefits, the same 

analysis was conducted except that the planning 

team identified hostile habitats that could be realistically restored to increase the area of suitable grassland habitat. Treed areas and cropland were the only 

habitats that met this criterion. County roads and 

existing buildings could not be removed because of 

legal and budget constraints, respectively. Wetlands 

greater than 437.45 yards (400 meters) wide and tall 

dense plum stands could not be removed because 

they provide important habitats for other species. 

A 54.68-yard (50-meter) buffer was placed around 

those features that could not be removed or restored, 

and all trees and agricultural fields that did not occur 

within the buffer area were removed from the map of 

hostile habitats. Trees within the buffer were kept 

because removal would not increase the area of 

grassland habitat. 

In addition, treed areas on the perimeter of the 

refuge were evaluated relative to adjacent habitats 

on private lands. Treed areas on the refuge that 

extended onto private land were kept because 

removal would not substantially increase area of 

grassland tracts; all other perimeter woody vegetation was removed. A map of historical vegetation that 

was developed based on ecological site descriptions 

and historical botanical information (Heitmeyer et al. 

2012) was used to assign new habitat types to treed 

areas and croplands that were slated for removal. 

These habitat types were then reclassified as either 

suitable or neutral before the analysis.

The results of the current habitat analysis show 

the refuge has 41 patches of suitable or neutral habitat that encompass 9,770 acres (44 percent) of grassland. Of these, 11 patches are of sufficient size and 

have suitable perimeter-to-area ratios necessary to 

support the area-sensitive species based on measures 

used in the analysis. However, the composition of 

most suitable patches are dominated (less than 50 

percent) by neutral habitat, suggesting that suitable 

breeding habitat may be limited within these 

patches. For example, some patches considered to be 

of suitable size were dominated by saltgrass, which 

does not provide the plant height or litter depth necessary for nesting species in the analysis.

In comparison, the analysis of potential future 

habitats shows appropriate management could dramatically improve grassland habitats for area-sensi-
208 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

tive grassland species and, therefore, other 

grassland-dependent birds. Restoration of designated treed areas (about 850 acres) and agricultural 

fields (about 866 acres) to historical habitat types 

would result in 12 grassland patches, 9 of which 

would be more than 500 acres and 6 more than 1,000 

acres with lower perimeter-to-area ratios (less edge) 

that exceed the needs for the species considered in 

the analysis. Furthermore, 5 of the 6 patches that are 

greater than 1,000 acres would have more than 50 

percent of the habitat area suitable for breeding 

grassland birds.

H.1 Current Conditions: 54.68-

Yard Analysis

Black areas in figure 19 are hostile to grassland 

birds, as defined by: area within 54.68 yards (50 

meters) of all tress, agricultural fields, primary 

roads, wetlands greater than 437.45 yards (400 

meters) across, and plum stands not expected to 

change because of various management constraints. 

Total acres are 9,770, or about 44 percent of the 

refuge.

Current suitable habitat for grassland birds 

includes: grasslands, including meadows and sandhills, and plum. Total acres are 5,633, or about 25 

percent of the refuge.

Current nonsuitable habitat for grassland birds 

includes tall emergents, saltgrass, water, salt flats 

and bare areas, secondary roads, and prairie dog 

towns. Total acres are 6,739, or about 30 percent of 

the refuge.

H.2 Future Conditions: 54.68-

Yard Analysis

Black areas in figure 20 are hostile to grassland 

birds, as defined by: area within 54.68 yards (50 

meters) around remaining trees, primary roads, wetlands greater than 437.45 yards (400 meters) across, 

and plum stands not expected to change because of 

various management constraints. Total acres are 

4,138, or about 18.6 percent of the refuge.

Future, suitable, habitat for grassland birds by 

removing trees and restoring agricultural fields 

totals 9,780 acres, or about 40 percent of the refuge.

Current nonsuitable habitat for grassland birds 

includes: tall emergents, saltgrass, water salt flats 

and bare areas, secondary roads, and prairie dog 

towns. Total acres are 8,222, or about 37 percent of 

the refuge.

H.3 Current Conditions: 54.68-

Yard Analysis of Patches 

Greater Than 1 Acre

Current patches of nonhostile habitats were created by dissolving features labeled as suitable or 

nonsuitable. Forty one patches greater than one acre 

are shown on figure 21. Perimeter-to-area ratios 

were computed for each patch. White space is area 

hostile to grassland birds.

H.4 Future Conditions: 54.68-

Yard Analysis of Patches 

Greater Than 1 Acre

Future patches of nonhostile habitats were created by dissolving features labeled as suitable or 

nonsuitable. Patches were expanded from current 

conditions by restoring agricultural fields and removing most, but not all, trees. The result is twelve 

patches greater than one acre. Perimeter-to-area 

ratios were computed for each patch. White space is 

remaining area hostile to grassland birds.

H.5 Summary

If we choose to remove 850 acres of trees and 

restore 886 acres of agricultural fields to native habitats at Quivira Refuge over the next 15 years, the 

resulting gain in suitable grassland bird habitat 

would be approximately 4,163 acres—3,845 acres of 

grassland and 318 acres of plum. We propose to leave 

125 acres of trees in 13 patches ranging in size from 

less than 1 acre to 21 acres.

Even after restoration activities, approximately 

19 percent of the refuge would remain hostile to 

grassland birds primarily because of the BSM, the 

LSM, and the presence of primary roads, which 

would not change.
209 

Figure 19. Current grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Appendix H—Grassland Fragmentation Assessment 
210 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Figure 20. Future grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.
Appendix H—Grassland Fragmentation Assessment 211 

Figure 21. Current nonhostile grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.

Bibliography

Adamcik, R.S.; Bellantoni, E.S.; Delong, D.C., Jr.; 

Schomaker, J.H.; Hamilton, D.B.; Laubhan, M.K.; 

Schroeder, R.L. 2004. Writing refuge management goals and objectives: a handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 34 p.

Aldous, A.E. 1935. Management of Kansas permanent pastures. Agricultural Experiment Station 

Bulletin 272, Kansas State College of Agriculture 

and Applied Science, Manhattan, KS. 43 p.

Althoff, D.; Gibson, P. ; Meggers, G. ; Hilley, D.; Sellers, J. 2006. White-tailed deer spotlight survey 

trends on Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

1989–2005. In: Proceedings of the North American Prairie Conference; [name of conference; date 

of conference; place of conference unknown]. 

[Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 

20:297–306.

Anderson, R.C. 2006. Evolution and origin of the 

central grassland of North America: climate, fire, 

and mammalian grazers. Journal of the Torrey 

Botanical Society 133(4):626-647.

Arbogast, A.F. 1995. Paleoenvironments and desertification on the Great Bend Sand Prairie in Kansas [Ph.D. dissertation]. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas. 385 p.

Arbogast, A.E.; Johnson, W.C. 1998. Late-Quaternary landscape response to environmental change 

in south-central Kansas. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88(1):126–145.

Armbruster, M.J. 1990. Characterization of habitat 

used by whooping crane during migration. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 90(4). 

16 p.

Bakker, K.K. 2003. The effect of woody vegetation 

on grassland nesting birds: an annotated bibliography. In: Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science; [name of conference; date of 

conference; place of conference unknown]. [Place 

of publication: publisher unknown]. 82:119–141.

Bakker, K.K.; Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F. 2002. 

Incorporating landscape attributes into models 

for migratory grassland bird conservation. Conservation Biology 16(6):1638–1646.

Bangsund, D.A.; Leistritz, F.L.; de Silva, L.L.; 

Steadman, E.N.; Harju, J.A. 2005. Terrestrial 

carbon sequestration potential in southwest North 

Dakota. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. 

<http://www.undeerc.org/PCOR/newsandpubs

/pdf/TerrestrialCarbonSequestration.pdf> 

[accessed date unknown].

Basin Management Team. 2010. Rattlesnake Creek 

2009 field analysis summary. Topeka, KS: Kansas 

Department of Agriculture, Division of Water 

Resources. 32 p.

———. 2011. Rattlesnake Creek 2010 field summary. 

Kansas. [Place of publication unknown]: Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources. 

32 p.

———. 2012. Rattlesnake Creek Partnership, draft 

third four-year review of management program 

2009–2012. Topeka, KS: Kansas Department of 

Agriculture, Division of Water Resources. 50 p.

Blackmar, F.W. 2002. Quivira. Transcribed from: 

Vol. II, Kansas: a cyclopedia of state history, 

embracing events, institutions, industries, counties, cities, towns, and prominent persons; 1912. 

Chicago, IL: Standard Publishing Company. 

[Pages unknown].

Blecha, K.; Conard, J.; Wisely, S. 2011. Deer density, 

movement patterns, and group dynamics on Quivira National Wildlife Refuge: assessing potential 

for chronic wasting disease transmission. In: 

Final U.S. Fish and Wildlife Report. Manhattan, 

KS: Kansas State University; and Sterling, KS: 

Sterling College. 197 p.

Bolenbaugh, J.R.; Krementz, D.G.; Lehnen, S.E. 

2011. Secretive marsh bird species co-occurrences 

and habitat associations across the Midwest, 

USA. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 

2(1):49–60.

Bollinger, E.K.; Gavin, T.A. 2004. Responses of nesting bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) to habitat 

edges. Auk 121(3):767–776.

Briggs, J.R.; Knapp, A. K.; Blair, J.M.; Heisler, J.L.; 

Hoch, G.A.; Lett, M.S.; McCarron, J.K. 2005. An 

ecosystem in transition: causes and consequences 

of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. 

BioScience 55(3):243–254.

Brown, M.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1986. Implications of 

marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 

50:392–397.

Brown, S.; Hickey, C.; Harrington, B.; Gill, R. (editors). 2001. The U.S. shorebird conservation plan, 

2nd edition. Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for 

Conservation Sciences. [Pages unknown].
214 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Buller, G. 1976. Indian chapter. In: Broken hoops and 

plains people – a catalogue of ethnic resources in 

the humanities: Nebraska and surrounding area. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Nebraska Curriculum Development Center. [Pages unknown].

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012. Local area personal income. Table CA25N NAICS (2001-2010), 

total employment by industry. [Internet]. 

[Revised date unknown]. <http://www.bea.gov

/regional/reis/> accessed October 22, 2012.

Burns and McDonnell. 1999. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge water resources study additional 

investigations. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Place of publication: publisher 

unknown]. [Pages unknown].

Carver, E.; Caudill, J. 2007. Banking on nature 2006: 

the economic benefits to local communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Economics. [Pages unknown].

Castelli, R.M.; Chambers, J.C.; Tausch, R.J. 2000. 

Soil–plant relations along a soil–water gradient in 

Great Basin riparian meadows. Wetlands 

20(2):251–266.

Chapman, R.N.; Engle, D.M.; Masters, R.E.; Leslie, 

D.M., Jr. 2004. Tree invasion constrains the influence of herbaceous structure in grassland bird 

habitats. Ecoscience 11(1):55–63.

Christensen, V.G. 2001. Characterization of surface 

water quality based on real-time monitoring and 

regression analysis, Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge, south-central Kansas, December 1998 

through June 2001. In: Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4248. Lawrence, KS: U.S. Geological Survey. 28 p.

Christensen, J.H.; Hewitson, B.; Busuioc, A.; Chen, 

A.; Gao, X.; Held, I.; Jones, R.; Kolli, R.K. ; Kwon, 

W. T. ; Laprise, R.; Magaña Rueda, V.; Mearns, L.; 

Menéndez, C.G.; Räisänen, J.; Rinke, A.; Sarr, A.; 

Whetton, P. 2007: Regional climate projections. 

In: Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z; 

Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, 

H.L.; editors. Climate change 2007: the physical 

science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, 

UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. 

[Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://www

.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc

_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the

_physical_science_basis.htm> [accessed date 

unknown].

Cody, R.L., editor. 1985a. Habitat selection in birds. 

New York: Academic Press. [Pages unknown].

———. 1985b. Habitat selection in grassland and 

open-country birds. Physiological Ecology Service 

p. 191–226.

Collins, J.T.; Collins, S.L.; Taggart. T.W. 2010. 

Amphibians, reptiles, and turtles of Kansas. [City 

of publication unknown], UT: Eagle Mountain 

Publishing. XVI + 312 p.

Cooper, B.S. 2009. Sand plum relationships with 

avian abundance in Oklahoma [master’s thesis]. 

Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University. 65 p.

Coppedge, B.R.; Engle, D.M.; Masters, R.E.; Gregory, M.S. 2001. Avian response to landscape 

change in fragmented southern Great Plains 

grasslands. Ecological Applications 11(1):47–59.

———. 2004. Predicting juniper encroachment and 

CRP effects on avian community dynamics in 

southern mixed-grass prairie, USA. Biological 

Conservation 115:431–441.

Coppedge, B.R.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Harrell, W.C.; 

Engle, D.M. 2008. Avian community response to 

vegetation and structural features in grasslands 

managed with fire and grazing. Biological Conservation 141:1196–1203.

Cross, D.; Vohs, P., editors. 1988. Waterfowl management handbook. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Cutler, W.G. 1883. History of the State of Kansas. 

Chicago, IL: A.T. Andreas. [Pages unknown].

Davis, C. 2001. Abundance and habitat associations 

of birds wintering in the Platte River Valley, 

Nebraska. Great Plains Research 11:233–248.

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the 

lens. Audubon January–February. [Pages 

unknown].

Dodge, D.A.; Hoffman, B.R.; Horsch, M.L. 1978. 

Soils survey of Stafford County, Kansas. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service. [Pages unknown].

(DOI) U. S. Department of the Interior. 2012. Safetynet. [Internet]. Revised September 25, 2012. 

<www.doi.gov/safetynet/#scorecard> [accessed 

date unknown].

Dolin, E.J. 2010. Fur, fortune, and empire: the epic 

history of the fur trade in America. New York: W. 

W. Norton & Company Inc. 464 p.

Dunkin, S.W.; Guthery, F.S. 2010. Bird nesting in 

Chickasaw plum related to age of plum in Oklahoma. American Midland Naturalist 

164(1):151–156.

Eberle, M.E.; Welker, T.L.; Welker, T.L. 1996. Survey of fishes from Rattlesnake Creek in central 

Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of 

Science. 99(1/2):29–38.

Economic Research Service. 2012. State fact sheets: 

Kansas. [Internet]. <http://www.ers.usda.gov

/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx

?StateFIPS=20&StateName=Kansas> accessed 

December 20, 2012.

Edvarchuk, K.A.; Ransom, C. 2012. Inventory of 

invasive non-native plant on Quivira National 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 215 

Wildlife Refuge [unpublished draft: weed science 

research project report no. CR1101A 2011]. [On 

file at location unknown]. [City of publication 

unknown], UT: Utah State University, Plants, 

Soils, and Climate Department for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 34 p. 

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency. 2011a. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 

part 50). [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html> accessed 

December 23, 2011.

———. 2011b. Science and technology. [Internet]. 

[Revised date unknown]. <http://www.epa.gov

/gateway/science/air.html> accessed December 23, 

2011.

———. 2011c. [Title unknown]. [Internet]. Revised 

September 13, 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/amad

/EcoExposure/index.html> accessed December 

23, 2011.

Erwin, K.L. 2009. Wetlands and global climate 

change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetlands Ecology and Management 

17:71–84.

Estep, M.A. 2000. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

water conservation plan. Lakewood, CO: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. [Pages unknown].

Euliss, N.H.,Jr.; LaBaugh, J.W.; Fredrickson, L.H.; 

Mushet, D.M.; Laubhan, M.K; Swanson, G.A.; 

Winter, T.C.; Rosenberry, D.O.; Nelson, R.D. 2004. 

The wetland continuum: a conceptual framework 

for interpreting biological studies. Wetlands 

24:448–458.

Faber-Langedoen,D., editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: classification in an ecological 

context. Arlington, VA: Association for Biodiversity Information. [Internet]. [Revised date 

unknown]. <www.natureserve.org/library

/kansassubset.pdf> [accessed date unknown].

Fader, S.W.; Stullken, L.E. 1978. Geohydrology of 

the Great Bend prairie, south-central Kansas. 

Irrigation Series No. 4. Lawrence, KS: Kansas 

Geological Survey. [Pages unknown].

Falk, S. 2006. Does institutional groundwater management work? Lessons learned from Groundwater Management District #5. Kansas Journal of 

Law and Public Policy 15(3):557-566.

Farr, K.; Laubhan, R. 2011. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge vegetation mapping project [unpublished report]. On file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, [location unknown]. [Pages unknown].

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2008. National 

vegetation classification standard. [Internet]. 

[Revised date unknown]. <http://biology.usgs.gov

/npsveg/vncs.html> [accessed date unknown].

Fent, O.S. 1950. Pleistocene drainage history of central Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy 

of Science 53(1):81–90.

Fredrickson, L.H.; Taylor, T.S. 1982. Management of 

seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife. 

Resource Publication 148. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 36 p.

Fuhlendorf, S.D. 1999. Ecological considerations for 

woody plant management. Rangelands 

21(1):12–15.

(FWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1953. Memorandum no. 46 procedure, Great Salt Marsh 

National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown].

———. 1962. Master plan for physical and biological 

development of Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. 

Stafford, KS: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. [Pages 

unknown].

———. 1994. An assessment of alternatives for management of upland habitats at the Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge. Environmental assessment. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 

[Pages unknown].

———. 1999. Fulfilling the Promise. Arlington, VA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 94p.

———. 2008a. Birds of conservation concern 2008. 

Arlington, VA: U. S. Department of Interior, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management. 85 p.

———. 2008b. Staffing model for field stations—final 

report [unpublished report]. On file at Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge, Stafford, Kansas. 22 p.

———. 2011. Conserving the future: wildlife refuges 

& the next generation. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 93 p.

———. 2012a. 2011 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. [Internet]. 

[Revised date unknown]. <http://digitalmedia.fws

.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/858> 

[accessed date unknown].

———. 2012b. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. 

[Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://www

.fws.gov/refuge/quivira/> accessed December 15, 

2012.

———. 2012c. Species by county report, Stafford, 

KS. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesBy

CountyReport.action?fips=20185> accessed January 5, 2012.

———. 2012d. Species profile for Arkansas Darter. 

[Internet]. Revised July 23, 2012. <http://ecos.fws

.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile

.action?spcode=E06H> [accessed date unknown].

Gates, F.C. 1937. Grasses in Kansas. In: Report of 

the Kansas State Board of Agriculture for the 

Quarter Ending December, 1936. Topeka, KS: 

Kansas State Printing Plant. [Pages unknown].
216 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Gazda, R.J.; Meidinger, R.R.; Ball, I.J.; Connelly, 

J.W. 2002. Relationships between Russian olive 

and duck nest success in southeastern Idaho. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2):337–344.

GEI Consultants, Inc.; Burns and McDonnell. 1998. 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge water resource 

study. Document No. 97–806–4. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown].

Geist, V.; Mahoney, S.P.; Organ, J.F. 2001. Why hunting has defined the North American model of 

wildlife conservation. In: Transactions of the 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

conference; March 20, 2001; Washington, DC. 

Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute 

66:175–85.

Geist, V.; Organ, J.F. 2004. The public trust foundation of the North American model of wildlife conservation. Northeast Wildlife 58:49–56.

Ghedotti, M.J. 1998. An annotated list of the crayfishes of Kansas with first records of Orconectes 

macrus and Procambarus acutus in Kansas. 

Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 

101 (1–2):54–57.

Grajeda, R. 1976. Chicano chapter. In: Broken hoops 

and plains people—a catalogue of ethnic resources 

in the humanities: Nebraska and surrounding 

area. [Place of publication unknown]: Nebraska 

Curriculum Development Center. [Pages 

unknown].

Grant, T.A.; Madden, E.; Berkey, G.B. 2004. Tree 

and shrub invasion in northern mixed-grass prairie: implications for breeding grassland birds. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:807–818.

Grover, P.B.; Knopf, F.L. 1982. Habitat requirements 

and breeding success of Charadriiform birds nesting at Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma. Journal of Field Ornithology 

53(2):139–148.

Hammersmark, C.T.; Rains, M.C.; Wickland, A.C.; 

Mount, J.F. 2009. Vegetation and water-table relationships in a hydrologically restored riparian 

meadow. Wetlands 29(3):785–797.

Hands, H.M. 2008. Shorebird (Charadriiformes) 

migration at selected sites throughout Kansas 

during 2002–2006. Transactions of the Kansas 

Academy of Science 111(1/2):61–78.

Harris, M.R. 1999. Diatom survey of Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge [master’s thesis]. Fort 

Hays, KS: Fort Hays State University. 42 p.

Hathaway, L.R.; Galle, O.K.; Waugh, T.C.; Dickey, 

H.P. 1978. Chemical quality of irrigation waters in 

Ford County and the Great Bend prairie of Kansas. Chemical Quality Series 7. Lawrence, KS: 

Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas. 

48 p.

Hauer, F.R.; Spencer, C.N. 1998. Phosphorus and 

nitrogen dynamics in streams associated with 

wildfire—a study of immediate and long-term 

effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

8:183–98.

Hay, R. 1890, A geological reconnaissance in southwestern Kansas [type of map unknown]. U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 57. 1–49.

Heisler, J.L.; Briggs, J.M.; Knapp, A.K. 2003. Longterm patterns of shrub expansion in a C4-dominated grassland: fire frequency and the dynamics 

of shrub cover and abundance. American Journal 

of Botany 90(3):423–428.

Heitmeyer, M.E.; Laubhan, R.A.; Artmann, M.J. 

2012. Hydrogeomorphic evaluation of ecosystem 

restoration and management options for Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge. Greenbrier Wetland 

Services Report 12–04. Bloomfield, MO: Blue 

Heron Conservation Design and Printing, LLC. 

Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 6, Denver, CO.

Helzer, C.J. 2010. The ecology and management of 

prairies in the central United States. Iowa City, 

IA University of Iowa Press. 225 p.

Helzer, C.J.; Jelinski, D.E. 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to 

grassland breeding birds. Ecological Applications 

9(4):1448–1458.

Henszey, R.J.; Pfeiffer, K.; Keough, J.R. 2004. Linking surface- and ground-water levels to riparian 

grassland species along the Platte River in central 

Nebraska, USA. Wetlands 24(3):665–687.

Herkert, J.R.; Reinking, D.L.; Wiedenfeld, D.A.; 

Winter, M.; Zimmerman, J.L.; Jensen, W. E.; 

Finck, E.J.; Koford, R.R.; Wolfe, D.H.; Sherrod, 

S.K.; Jenkins, M.A.; Faaborg, J.; Robinson, S.K. 

2003. Effects of prairie fragmentation on the nest 

success of breeding birds in the midcontinental 

United States. Conservation Biology 

17(2):587–594.

Holling, C. S.; editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental 

assessment and management. [Place of publication: publisher unknown]. 377 p.

Homer, C.H., Fry, J.A., Barnes, C.A. 2012. The 

national land cover database, U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet 2012–3020. 4 p.

Huner, J.V. 2000. Macroscope: crawfish and water 

birds. American Scientist 88(4):301–303.

Igl, L.D.; Ballard, B.M. 1999. Habitat associations of 

migrating and overwintering grassland birds in 

southern Texas. Condor 101:771–782.

Jian, X. 1998. Simulation of canal and control-pond 

operation at the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

south-central Kansas. U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Resources Investigations Report 97–4289.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1978. The ornithogeography of the 

Great Plains states. Prairie Naturalist 

10(4):97–112.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 217 

———. 2009. Birds of the Great Plains (revised edition). [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://

digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscibirdsgreatplains/> 

accessed July 17, 2012.

Johnson, R.G.; Temple, S.A. 1990. Nest predation 

and brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie birds. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):106–111.

Kane, S.A. 2011. Breeding habitat structure and use 

by Kansas-occurring black rail [master’s thesis]. 

Fort Hays, KS: Fort Hays State University. 56 p.

Kansas Corporation Commission. 2008. 30 meter 

average windspeed map. [Internet]. [Revised date 

unknown]. <http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/energy

/wind_maps.htm> [accessed date unknown].

Kansas Department of Agriculture. 2000. Rattlesnake Creek partnership management proposal. 

[Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://www

.ksda.gov/includes/document_center/subbasin

/Rattlesnake/RSC_Management.pdf> [accessed 

date unknown].

Kansas Department of Agriculture. 2006. Report on 

the Rattlesnake Creek subbasin. [Internet]. 

[Revised date unknown]. <http://www.ksda.gov

/subbasin/content/201> [accessed date unknown].

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. 

2010. Kansas water quality and assessment strategy, 2011–2015. [Internet]. [Revised date 

unknown]. <http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/index

.html> accessed December 23, 2011. 47 p.

(KDWPT) Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks 

and Tourism. 2011. Species of concern. [Internet]. 

Revised November 14, 2011. <http://kdwpt.state

.ks.us/news/Services/Threatened-and

-Endangered-Species/Threatened-and

-Endangered-Species/County-Lists/Stafford

-County> accessed January 5, 2012.

Kansas Geological Survey and Kansas State University 1997 Final report for the computer model in 

the Rattlesnake Creek basin. [Internet]. [Revised 

date unknown]. <http://www.ksda.gov/dwr

/content/367> [accessed date unknown].

Kansas Natural Heritage Program, Kansas Biological Survey. 2008. [Title or description of text 

unknown]. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. 

<http://www.ksnhi.ku.edu/data/html/avail.gtm> 

accessed January 11, 2012.

Kansas Scenic Byways Program, Wetlands and 

Wildlife National Scenic Byway. [Internet]. 

[Revised date unknown]. <http://www

.kansaswetlandsandwildlifescenicbyway.com

/index.php> accessed December 15, 2012.

Kendall, W.L. 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In: Shenk, Tanya M.; Franklin, 

Alan B.; editors. Modeling in natural resource 

management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

147–170.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to 

human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31–9.

Klug. P.; Jackrel, S.L.; With, K.A. 2010. Linking 

snake habitat use to nest predation risk in grassland birds: the dangers of shrub cover. Oecologia 

162:803–813.

Klug, P.; Wolfenbarger, L.; McCarty, J.P. 2009. The 

nest predator community of grassland birds 

responds to agroecosystem habitat at multiple 

scales. Ecography 32:973–982.

Knapp, A.K.; McCarron, J.K.; Silletti, A.M.; Hoch, 

G.A.; Heisler, J.L.; Lett, M.S.; Blair, J.M.; Briggs, 

J.M.; Smith, M.D. 2008. Ecological Consequences 

of the replacement of native grassland by Juniperus virginiana and other woody plants. In: Van 

Auken, O.W.; editor. Western North American 

Juniperus communities: a dynamic vegetation 

type. [Place of publication unknown]: Springer. 

156–169.

Knopf, F.L. 1986. Changing landscapes and the cosmopolitanism of eastern Colorado avifauna. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:132–142.

Küchler, A.W. 1974. A new vegetation map of Kansas. Ecology 55(3):586–604.

Lancia, R.A.; Braun, C.E.; Collopy, M.W.; [and others]. 1996. ARM! for the future: adaptive resource 

management in the wildlife profession. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 24(3):436–42.

Latta, B.F. 1950. Geology and ground-water 

resources of Barton and Stafford Counties, Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin No. 88. 

[Pages unknown].

Laubhan, M.K.; Fredrickson, L.H. 1997. Wetlands of 

the Great Plains: habitat characteristics and vertebrate aggregations. Ecological Studies 

125:20–48.

Laubhan, M.K.; Roelle, J.E. 2001. Managing wetlands for waterbirds. In: Rader, R.B.; Batzer, D.P.; 

Wissinger, S.; editors. Biomonitoring and management of North American freshwater wetlands. 

New York: John Wiley and Sons, New York. 

387–411.

Laubhan, M.K.; King, S.L.; Fredrickson, L.H. 2012. 

Managing inland wetlands for wildlife. In: Silvy, 

N.J.; editor. The wildlife techniques manual, volume 2. 7th edition. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. 95–132.

Laughland, A.; Caudill, J. 1997. Banking on nature: 

the economic benefits to local communities of 

national wildlife refuge visitation. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 118 p.

Lyons. J.; Trimble, S.W.; Paine, L.K. 2000. Grass versus trees: managing riparian areas to benefit 

streams of central North America. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 

36(4):919–930.
218 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Ma, Z.; Cai, Y; Li, B.; Chen, J. 2010. Managing wetland habitats for waterbirds: an international 

perspective. Wetlands 30:15–27.

Matthews, J.H. 2008. Anthropogenic climate change 

in the Playa Lakes Joint Venture region; understanding impacts, discerning trends, and developing responses. Corvallis, OR: World Wildlife 

Fund. 40 p. Prepared for the Playa Lakes Joint 

Venture.

Matthews, W.J.; Endress, A.G. 2008. Performance 

criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. 

Environmental Management 41:130–141.

Macfarlane, P.A.; Combes, J.; Turbek, S., Kirshen, D. 

1993. Shallow subsurface bedrock geology and 

hydrostratigraphy of southwestern Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Open-File Report 93–1a. 

[Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://www

.kgs.ku.edu/Hydro/Publications/1993

/OFR93_1a/> [accessed date unknown].

McEachern P.; Prepas, E.E.; Gibson, J.J.; Dinsmore, 

P. 2000. The forest fire induced impacts on phosphorus, nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations 

in boreal sub-arctic lakes of northern Alberta. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(Supplement 2):73–81.

Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. 2003. Wetlands. 2nd edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 722 p.

Moreno-Mateos, D.; Power, M.E.; Comín, F.A.; Yockteng, R. 2012. Structural and functional loss in 

restored wetland ecosystems. Public Library of 

Science Biology 10(1):1–8.

Morton, J. M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. In: Whitman, 

W.R.; Strange, T.; Widjeskog, L.; Whittemore, R.; 

Kehoe, P.; Roberts, L.; editors. Waterfowl habitat 

restoration, enhancement and management in the 

Atlantic flyway. 3rd edition. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section; Delaware Division of 

Fish and Wildlife. F59–F86.

Murkin, H.R.; Murkin, E.J.; Ball, J.P. 1997. Avian 

habitat selection and prairie wetland dynamics: a 

10-year experiment. Ecological Applications 

7(4):1144–1159.

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F; Nusser, S.M. 1999. 

Effects of woody vegetation on wetland birds. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 113(3):487–492.

(NOAA) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. National climatic data center. 

[Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://www

.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html> accessed October 

25, 2006.

(NRCS) Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

2010. Ecological site information system, ecological site description. Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. 

<http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/about.aspx> 

[accessed date unknown].

Ogle, G.A., and Company. 1904. Standard atlas of 

Stafford County, Kansas including a plat book of 

the villages, cities, and townships of the county. 

Chicago, IL: Geo. A. Ogle and Company Publishers and Engravers. [Pages unknown].

Olson, D.; Lindall, S. 1999. IMPLAN professional 

software, analysis and data guide. [Place of publication unknown]: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 

[Pages unknown].

Peck, J.C. 2006. Groundwater management in Kansas: a brief history and assessment. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 15(3):441-465.

Peterson, G.; Allen, C. R.; Holling, C. S. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1(1):6-18.

Peterson, D. L.; Egbert, S. L.; Price, K.P.; Martinko, 

E.A. 2004. Identifying historical and recent landcover changes in Kansas using post-classification 

change detection techniques. Transactions of the 

Kansas Academy of Science 107:105-118.

Poole, A., editor. 2005. The birds of North America 

online. Cornell laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, 

NY. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://

bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/> [accessed date 

unknown].

Ratajczak, Z.; Nippert, J.B.; Harman, J.C.; Ocheltree, T.W. 2011. Positive feedbacks amplify rates 

of woody encroachment in mesic tallgrass prairie. 

Ecosphere 2(11):121. 1–14.

Rattlesnake Creek/Quivira Partnership. 2000. Rattlesnake Creek management program proposal. 

Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of 

Water Resources. [Internet]. [Revised date 

unknown]. <http://www.ksda.gov/subbasin

/cid/749> [accessed date unknown].

Reinke, D.C. 1981. Enteromorpha, a marine alga in 

Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of 

Science 84(4):228–230.

Reiss, S.A. 1995. Sport in industrial America, 1850–

1920. The American history series. Wheeling, IL: 

Harlan Davidson, Inc. 178 p.

Reynolds, J.D. 2011. A review of ecological interactions between crayfish and fish, indigenous and 

introduced. Knowledge and Management of 

Aquatic Ecosystems 401(10). 21 p.

Ribic, C.A.; Guzy, M.J.; Sample, D.W. 2009. Grassland bird use of remnant prairie and Conservation 

Reserve Program fields in an agricultural landscape in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 

161(1):110–122.

Rosenberg, N.J. 2010. Climate change, agriculture, 

water resources: what do we tell those that need 

to know? Climate Change 100:113-117.

Rubin, H.; Young, D.P.; Buddemeier, R.W. 2001. 

Sources, transport, and management of salt con-
BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 

tamination in the ground water of south-central 

Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey, Open-File 

Report 2000–60. Version 2.0.

Samson, F.; Knopf, F.L. 1994. Prairie conservation in 

North America. BioScience 44(6):418–421.

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J. 2008. The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, results, and 

analysis 1966–2007. Version 5.15.2008. Laurel, 

MD: USGS Patuxant Wildlife Research Center.

[Pages unknown].

Sauer, J.R.; Link, W.A. 2011. Analysis of the North 

American Breeding Bird Survey using hierarchical models. Auk 128(1):87–98.

Schlager, E.; Heikkila, T. 2011. Left high and dry? 

Climate change, common-pool resource theory, 

and the adaptability of western water compacts. 

Public Administration Review May/June 461-470.

Schoewe, W.H. 1949. The geography of Kansas: part 

II. Physical geography. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 52(3):261–333.

Sexson, K.; Hlavachick, B.; van Zwoll, W. 1985. Kansas deer—resource on the rebound. Kansas Wildlife 42:9–24.

Sexson, K.; Montei, D.; Hlavachick, B. 1985. Landowner deer survey winter 1984–1985. Statewide 

Wildlife Surveys Federal Aid Project FW–9–P–3. 

50 p.

Sexton, N.R.; Dietsch, A.M.; Don Carlos, A.W.; 

Koontz, L.; Solomon, A.N.; Miller, H.M. 2012. 

National Wildlife Refuge System visitor survey 

2010/2011: individual refuge results for Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Geological Survey. 25 p. plus appendixes.

Sheridan, R. 1956. Economic development in south 

central Kansas. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, School of Business. In: Ungar, I.A. 1961. An 

ecological study of the vegetation of the Big Salt 

Marsh, Stafford County, Kansas [Ph.D. dissertation]. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. 212 p.

Short, H.L. 1989. A wildlife habitat model for predicting effects of human activities on nesting 

birds. In: Sharitz, R.R.; Gibbons, J.W.; editors. 

Freshwater wetlands and wildlife. CONF–

8603101, Symposium Series No. 61 (NTIS No. 

DE90–005–384). Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy. 957–973.

Skagen, S.K.; Knopf, F.L. 1993. Towards conservation of midcontinental shorebird migrations. Conservation Biology 7(3):533–541.

———. 1994. Migrating shorebirds and habitat 

dynamics at a prairie wetland complex. Wilson 

Bulletin 106(1):91–105.

Skinner, R.M. 1975. Grassland use patterns and prairie bird populations in Missouri. In: Wali, M.K.; 

editor. Prairie: a multiple view. Grand Forks, ND: 

University of North Dakota Press. 171–180.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2010. Soil survey geographic (SSURGO) 

database for Stafford, Reno, and Rice Counties, 

Kansas. [Internet]. Revised April 12, 2011. 

<http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov> accessed 

March 1, 2010.

Sophocleous, M. 2012. The evolution of groundwater 

management paradigms in Kansas and possible 

new steps towards water sustainability. Journal of 

Hydrology 414-415:550-559.

Sophocleous, M.A. 1997. Water budget and stream 

routing study for the Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Kansas Geological 

Survey. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 2000. Quantification and regionalization of 

groundwater recharge in south-central Kansas: 

integrating field characterization, statistical 

analysis, and GIS. The Compass, University of 

Kansas, Special Issue 75(2–3):101–115.

———. 2003. Groundwater recharge and water budgets of the Kansas high plains and related aquifers. Geological Survey, Kansas Water Resources 

Institute Report No. KWRI02–02. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas. Kansas 166 p.

Sophocleous, M.; McAllister, J.A. 1987. Basinwide 

water-balance modeling with emphasis on spatial 

distribution of ground water recharge. Water 

Resources Bulletin 23(6):997–1010.

Sophocleous, M.A.; Ma, T.S. 1998. A decision support 

model to assess saltwater vulnerability in the 

Great Bend prairie aquifer of Kansas. Ground 

Water 36(3):476–483.

Sophocleous, M.A.; Perkins, S.P. 1992. Stream-aquifer and mineral intrusion modeling of the lower 

Rattlesnake Creek with emphasis on the Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. Final report. 

Kansas Geological Survey, Open-File Report 

92–6, 204 p.

Sophocleous, M.A.; Koelliker, J.K.; Govindaraju, 

R.S.; Birdie, T.; Ramireddygari, S.R.; Perkins, 

S.P. 1997. A computer model for water management in the Rattlesnake Creek Basin, Kansas. 

Final report to Division of Water Resources, Kansas Department of Agriculture. +225 p.

Staudinger, M.D.; Grimm, N.B.; Amanda Staudt, A.; 

Carter, S.L.; Chapin, F.S., III; Kareiva, P.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Stein, B.A. 2012. Impacts of climate 

change on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services: technical input to the 2013 national 

climate assessment. Cooperative report to the 

2013 national climate assessment. [Internet]. 

<http://assessment.globalchange.gov> [accessed 

date unknown]. 296 p.
220 Comprehensive Conservation Plan—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas

Steele, F.A. 1953. History of Stafford County. [Place 

of publication: publisher unknown]. [Pages 

unknown].

Stynes, D. 1998. Guidelines for measuring visitor 

spending. [Place of publication unknown]: Michigan State University, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Resources. [Pages unknown].

Striffler, P.S. 2011. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

water resource inventory and assessment [unpublished draft report]. On file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Water Resources, 

Lakewood, CO. [Pages unknown].

Thompson, R.A. 1871. Original survey data located 

at the state auditor’s office, Topeka, KS. In: 

Ungar, I.A. 1961. An ecological study of the vegetation of the Big Salt Marsh, Stafford County, 

Kansas [Ph.D. dissertation]. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. 212 p.

Towne, E.G.; Hartnett, D.C.; Cochran, R.C. 2005. 

Vegetation trends in tallgrass prairie from bison 

and cattle grazing. Ecological Applications 

15(5):1550–1559.

Townsend, M.A.; Young, D.P. 1995. Factors affecting 

nitrate concentrations in ground water in Stafford 

County, Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey, Current Research in Earth Sciences, Bulletin 238, 

part 1. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. 

<http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Current/1995/Townsend

/index.html> [accessed date unknown].

Ungar, I.A. 1961. An ecological study of the vegetation of the Big Salt Marsh, Stafford County, Kansas [Ph.D. dissertation]. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas. 212 p.

———. 1964. A phytosociological analysis of the Big 

Salt Marsh, Stafford County, Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 

67(1):50–64.

———. 1965. An ecological study of the vegetation of 

the Big Salt Marsh, Stafford County, Kansas. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 46: 1–98.

U. S. Census Bureau. 2010a. American fact finder: 

selected economic characteristics. [Internet]. 

[Revised date unknown]. <http://factfinder2

.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults

.xhtml?ref=top&refresh=t> [accessed date 

unknown].

———. 2012b. State & County QuickFacts. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://quickfacts

.census.gov/qfd/index.html> accessed December 1, 

2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. State and 

county profiles: Kansas. Washington, D.C.: 

National Agriculture Statistics Service. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://www

.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online

_Highlights/County_Profiles/Kansas/index.asp> 

accessed December 21, 2012.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Canadian Wildlife 

Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan—a strategy for cooperation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior; 

Gatineau, QC Canada: Environment Canada. 26 p.

(USGS) U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Strategic 

habitat conservation. [Internet]. [Revised date 

unknown]. <http://training.fws.gov/CSP

/Resources/SHC/shc_finalrpt.pdf> [accessed date 

unknown].

———. 2012a. National Wildlife Refuge visitor survey results: 2010/2011: U.S. Geological Data 

Series 685. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/685/> [accessed date 

unknown].

———. 2012b. Rattlesnake Creek subbasin, hydrologic unit code 11030009. [Internet]. Revised February 1, 2012. <http://water.usgs.gov/lookup

/getwatershed?11030009> [accessed date 

unknown].

———. 2012c. Regional economic impacts of current 

and proposed management alternatives for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. [Place of publication unknown]: United States Geological Survey. 

17 p.

———. 2012d. Zenith gage station water data. 

[Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://

waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site

_no=07142575&agency_cd=USGS> accessed 

December 20, 2012.

The University of Kansas Institute for Policy and 

Social Research. 2012. Population projections for 

Kansas, by county 2010-2040, selected years. 

[Internet]. <http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah

/population/2pop17.pdf> accessed December 21, 

2012.

VerCauteren, T.; Gillihan, S.W. 2004. Integrating 

bird conservation into range management. [City of 

publication unknown], CO: Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory. [Pages unknown].

Walters, C.J.; Holling, C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71(6):2060–68.

Wasson, T., Yasui, L.; Brunson, K.; Amend, S.; 

Ebert, V. 2005. A future for Kansas wildlife, Kansas’ comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Dynamic Solutions, Inc., in cooperation with Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism. 170 p.

Wedel, W.R. 1942. Prehistory and environment in 

the central Great Plains. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 50(1):1–18.

Weller, M.W.; Spatcher, C.S. 1965. Role of habitat in 

the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. 

Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment 

Station Special Report 43. Ames, IA: Iowa State 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 221 

University of Science and Technology. [Pages 

unknown].

West, R.R.; Miller, K.B.; Watney, W.L. 2010. The 

Permian system in Kansas. Kansas Geological 

Survey Bulletin 257. [Internet]. [Revised date 

unknown]. <http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications

/Bulletins/257/index.html> [accessed date 

unknown].

Whited, D.; Galatowitsch; Tester, J.R.; Schik, K.; 

Lehtinen, R.; Husveth, J. 2000. The importance of 

local and regional factors in predicting effective 

conservation planning strategies for wetland bird 

communities in agricultural and urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 49:49–65.

Wichita State University. 2011. Kansas county population forecast; summary and moethodology. 

[Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. <http://www

.cedbr.org/content/2012/kspopulationforecast.pdf> 

accessed December 21, 2012.

Wiens, J.A. 1973. Patterns and process in grassland 

bird communities. Ecological Monographs 

43:237–270.

Wiens, J.A.; Bachelet, D. 2010. Matching the multiple 

scales of conservation with the multiple scales of 

climate change. Conservation Biology 

24(1):51–62.

Wilcox, I.B. 1870. Original survey data location at 

the state auditor’s office, Topeka, KS. . In: Ungar, 

I.A. 1961. An ecological study of the vegetation of 

the Big Salt Marsh, Stafford County, Kansas 

[Ph.D. dissertation]. Lawrence, KS: University of 

Kansas. 212 p.

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Faaborg, J. 2000. Evidence for edge effects on multiple levels in tallgrass prairie. Condor 102(2):256–266.

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Shaffer, J.A. 2006a. Does 

body size affect a bird’s sensitivity to patch size 

and landscape structure? Condor 108:808–816.

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Shaffer, J.A.; Donovan, 

T.M.; Svedarsky, W.D. 2006b. Patch size and landscape effects on density and nesting success of 

grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 

70(1):158–172.

With, K.A.; King, A.W.; Jensen, W.E. 2008. Remaining large grasslands may not be sufficient to prevent grassland bird declines. Biological 

Conservation 141:3152–3167.

Zedler, J.B.; Kercher, S. 2005. Wetland resources: 

status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 

30:39–74.

Zeller, D.E., editor. 1968. The strategraphic succession in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 189. [Revised date unknown]. <http://www.

kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/189/index.

html> accessed June 20, 2012.