Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

Kansas 

April 2013 

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 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment—Quivira national 

Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. Lakewood, Co: U.S. Department of the interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 264p. 

Summary ......................................................................................... Xi
 

Abbreviations ..................................................................................... XVii
 

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

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
 

1.2 Early History of Conservation ....................................................................3
 

1.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System..........................4
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................4
 

National Wildlife Refuge System .....................................................................4
 

The Public and the Refuge System ....................................................................5
 

1.4 National and Regional Mandates ................................................................5
 

1.5 Contributions to Regional and National Plans .....................................................5
 

Conserving the Future .............................................................................6
 

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan ................................................6
 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan ............................................................6
 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan ...........................................................6
 

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ............................................................. 6
 

Endangered Species Recovery Plans...................................................................7
 

Kansas State Wildlife Action Plan ....................................................................7
 

Climate Change .................................................................................7
 

1.6 Strategic Habitat Conservation ..................................................................8
 

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

1.8 The Planning Process ..........................................................................9
 

Coordination with the Public .......................................................................11
 

State Coordination ..............................................................................12
 

Tribal Coordination ..............................................................................12
 

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

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

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

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

2.2 Purpose ......................................................................................14
 

2.3 Special Values of the Refuge ...................................................................14
 

Rare, Diverse, and Quality Habitat ...................................................................16
 

Wildlife Species ................................................................................16
 

Species of Concern ..............................................................................16
 

Water Resources ...............................................................................16
 

Communities and People ..........................................................................16
 

Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................16
 

Cultural Resources ..............................................................................16
 

Facilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................16
 

Special Designations.............................................................................16
 

2.4 Vision........................................................................................17
 

Contents
 
2.5 Goals ........................................................................................17
 

Landscape Conservation Goal ......................................................................17
 

Native Ecological Community Conservation Goal.........................................................17
 

Visitor Services Goal .............................................................................17
 

Public Outreach Goal .............................................................................17
 

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

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal .................................................18
 

Administration Goal .............................................................................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—Alternatives........................................................................21
 

3.1 Development of Alternatives for the Refuge ......................................................21
 

3.2 Alternatives Considered but Dropped from Detailed Study .........................................23
 

3.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
 

3.4 Alternative A (Current Management—No Action) .................................................24
 

Landscape Conservation Actions ....................................................................24
 

Native Ecological Community Conservation Actions ......................................................25
 

Visitor Services Actions...........................................................................29
 

Public Outreach Actions...........................................................................30
 

Cultural Resources Actions ........................................................................30
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Actions ...............................................30
 

Administration Actions ...........................................................................31
 

3.5 Alternative B (Proposed Action) ................................................................32
 

Focal Species or Resources Actions ..................................................................32
 

Landscape Conservation Actions ....................................................................38
 

Native Ecological Community Conservation Actions ......................................................38
 

Visitor Services Actions...........................................................................40
 

Public Outreach Actions...........................................................................41
 

Cultural Resources Actions ........................................................................41
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Actions ...............................................41
 

Administration Actions ...........................................................................42
 

3.6 Alternative C .................................................................................42
 

Landscape Conservation Actions ....................................................................42
 

Native Ecological Community Conservation Actions ......................................................43
 

Visitor Services Actions...........................................................................45
 

Public Outreach Actions...........................................................................46
 

Cultural Resources Actions ........................................................................46
 

Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Actions ...............................................46
 

Administration Actions ...........................................................................46
 

3.7 Summary of Alternatives and Consequences .....................................................46
 

CHAPTER 4—Affected Environment ..............................................................69
 

4.1 Physical Environment..........................................................................69
 

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
 

Climate Change ................................................................................70
 

Air Quality ....................................................................................73
 

Geology and Physiography .........................................................................73
 

iV Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Water Resources ...............................................................................75
 

Soils.........................................................................................76
 

4.2 Biological Resources..........................................................................78
 

Plant Communities ..............................................................................79
 

Wildlife Communities ............................................................................88
 

4.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................94
 

Presettlement (European) History ....................................................................94
 

Historical Euro-Americans and Exploration .............................................................95
 

Settlement and Early Land Use Changes...............................................................95
 

4.4 Special Management Areas ....................................................................97
 

4.5 Visitor Services ...............................................................................97
 

Hunting ......................................................................................97
 

Fishing .......................................................................................98
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography ................................................................98
 

Environmental Education ..........................................................................98
 

Interpretation ..................................................................................99
 

Special Events .................................................................................99
 

Other Uses ...................................................................................100
 

Public Outreach................................................................................100
 

4.6 Partnerships.................................................................................100
 

4.7 Management Uses ...........................................................................101
 

Rest ........................................................................................102
 

Water Management ............................................................................102
 

Prescribed Fire ................................................................................102
 

Grazing......................................................................................103
 

Mechanical Treatments ..........................................................................103
 

Chemical Treatments............................................................................103
 

4.8 Socioeconomic Environment ..................................................................104
 

Population, Ethnicity, and Education .................................................................104
 

Regional Employment and Income ..................................................................105
 

The Public’s Use of the Refuge .....................................................................108
 

Visitor Satisfaction Levels ........................................................................110
 

Baseline Economic Activity .......................................................................109
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Employment............................................................109
 

Visitor Spending ...............................................................................109
 

4.9 Administration ...............................................................................110
 

Staff and Budget...............................................................................110
 

Facilities and Infrastructure .......................................................................110
 

CHAPTER 5—Environmental Consequences .....................................................113
 

5.1 Analysis Methods ............................................................................113
 

5.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives.............................................................114
 

Regulatory Effects..............................................................................114
 

Environmental Justice ...........................................................................114
 

Cultural Resources .............................................................................114
 

Geology and Soils ..............................................................................114
 

5.3 Land Conservation Effects.....................................................................115
 

Climate Change ...............................................................................115
 

Climate Change—Alternative A....................................................................115
 

Climate Change—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ......................................................116
 

Climate Change—Alternative C ....................................................................116
 

Land Protection—Alternative A ....................................................................117
 

Contents V 
Land Protection—Alternative B (Proposed Action).......................................................117
 

Land Protection—Alternative C ....................................................................118
 

5.4 Native Ecological Community Conservation Effects ..............................................118
 

Big Salt Marsh—Alternative A ....................................................................118
 

Big Salt Marsh—Alternative B (Proposed Action) .......................................................119
 

Big Salt Marsh—Alternative C ....................................................................119
 

Little Salt Marsh—Alternative A ...................................................................119
 

Little Salt Marsh—Alternative B (Proposed Action)......................................................119
 

Little Salt Marsh—Alternative C ...................................................................119
 

Riparian Corridor—Alternative A ...................................................................120
 

Riparian Corridor—Alternative B (Proposed Action)......................................................120
 

Riparian Corridor—Alternative C ...................................................................120
 

Created Wetlands—Alternative A ..................................................................120
 

Created Wetlands—Alternative B (Proposed Action).....................................................121
 

Created Wetlands—Alternative C ..................................................................122
 

Freshwater Springs—Alternative A .................................................................122
 

Freshwater Springs—Alternative B (Proposed Action)....................................................123
 

Freshwater Springs—Alternative C .................................................................123
 

Meadow—Alternative A .........................................................................123
 

Meadow—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...........................................................124
 

Meadow—Alternative C .........................................................................124
 

Woodland—Alternative A ........................................................................124
 

Woodland—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ..........................................................125
 

Woodland—Alternative C ........................................................................125
 

Sand Prairie Complex—Alternative A................................................................125
 

Sand Prairie Complex—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ..................................................126
 

Sand Prairie Complex—Alternative C................................................................127
 

Cropland—Alternative A .........................................................................127
 

Cropland—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...........................................................128
 

Cropland—Alternative C .........................................................................128
 

Migratory Birds—Alternative A ....................................................................128
 

Migratory Birds—Alternative B (Proposed Action).......................................................128
 

Migratory Birds—Alternative C ....................................................................128
 

Fish—Alternative A ............................................................................130
 

Fish—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...............................................................130
 

Fish—Alternative C.............................................................................130
 

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern—Alternative A ..................................131
 

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern—Alternative B (Proposed Action) .....................131
 

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern—Alternative C...................................131
 

Wildlife Native to the Region—Alternative A ..........................................................132
 

Wildlife Native to the Region—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ............................................132
 

Wildlife Native to the Region—Alternative C ..........................................................132
 

Wildlife Health—Alternative A ....................................................................132
 

Wildlife Health—Alternative B (Proposed Action) .......................................................132
 

Wildlife Health—Alternative C ....................................................................133
 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research—Alternative A.....................................................133
 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research—Alternative B (Proposed Action) .......................................133
 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research—Alternative C .....................................................133
 

5.5 Visitor Services Effects .......................................................................134
 

Hunting—Alternative A..........................................................................134
 

Hunting—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ............................................................134
 

Hunting—Alternative C..........................................................................135
 

Fishing—Alternative A ..........................................................................136
 

Fishing—Alternative B (Proposed Action) .............................................................136
 

Fishing—Alternative C ..........................................................................136
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography—Alternative A ...................................................137
 

Vi Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Wildlife Observation and Photography—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ......................................137
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography—Alternative C ...................................................137
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation—Alternative A ...............................................138
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ..................................138
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation—Alternative C ...............................................138
 

Other Uses—Alternative A .......................................................................138
 

Other Uses—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ..........................................................138
 

Other Uses—Alternative C .......................................................................138
 

5.6 Public Outreach Effects .......................................................................138
 

Alternative A .................................................................................139
 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) ....................................................................139
 

Alternative C..................................................................................139
 

5.7 Cultural Resources Effects ....................................................................139
 

Alternative A .................................................................................139
 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) ....................................................................139
 

Alternative C..................................................................................139
 

5.8 Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Effects .....................................139
 

Visitor and Employee Safety—Alternative A...........................................................139
 

Visitor and Employee Safety—Alternative B (Proposed Action) .............................................140
 

Visitor and Employee Safety—Alternative C...........................................................140
 

Resource Protection—Alternative A.................................................................140
 

Resource Protection—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...................................................140
 

Resource Protection—Alternative C.................................................................141
 

5.9 Administration Effects ........................................................................141
 

Staff and Budget—Alternative A ...................................................................141
 

Staff and Budget—Alternative B (Proposed Action)......................................................141
 

Staff and Budget—Alternative C ...................................................................141
 

Facilities and Infrastructure—Alternative A ...........................................................141
 

Facilities and Infrastructure—Alternative B (Proposed Action) ..............................................142
 

Facilities and Infrastructure—Alternative C ...........................................................142
 

5.10 Socioeconomic Effects ......................................................................142
 

Effects from the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act ..........................................................142
 

Effects of Refuge Staff Salary Spending within the Local Economy...........................................143
 

Effects of Refuge Purchases of Goods and Services within the Local Economy ..................................143
 

Effects of Visitor Expenditures .....................................................................144
 

Summary of Economic Effects for Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
 

Summary of Economic Effects for Alternative B.........................................................148
 

Summary of Economic Effects for Alternative C.........................................................149
 

5.11 Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................150
 

CHAPTER 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action ............................................151
 

6.1 Comprehensive Conservation Plan Focus .......................................................151
 

6.2 Landscape Conservation Goal .................................................................152
 

Landscape Conservation Objective 1: Land Ownership and Collaboration ......................................154
 

Landscape Conservation Objective 2: Habitat Fragmentation ...............................................155
 

Landscape Conservation objective 3: Environmental Health and Climate Change....................156
 

6.3 Native Ecological Community Conservation Goal ................................................157
 

Native Ecological Community Conservation Objective 1: Wetlands...........................................162


Native Ecological Community Conservation Objective 2: Grasslands..........................................170


Native Ecological Community Conservation Objective 3: Woodland ..........................................174
 

6.4 Visitor Services Goal .........................................................................177
 

Hunting Objective 1.............................................................................177
 

Contents Vii 
Hunting Objective 2.............................................................................177
 

Hunting Objective 3.............................................................................180
 

Fishing Objective 1 .............................................................................180
 

Fishing Objective 2 .............................................................................182
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective 1 ......................................................182
 

Wildlife Observation and Photography Objective 2 ......................................................183
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 1 ..................................................183
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 2 ..................................................184
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 3 ..................................................184
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 4 ..................................................185
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 5 ..................................................185
 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Objective 6 ..................................................185
 

Other Uses Objective............................................................................185
 

6.5 Public Outreach Goal .........................................................................186
 

Public Outreach Objective 1 .......................................................................186
 

Public Outreach Objective 2 .......................................................................187
 

Public Outreach Objective 3 .......................................................................187
 

6.6 Cultural Resources Goal ......................................................................188
 

Cultural Resources Objective ......................................................................188
 

6.7 Visitor and Employee Safety and Resource Protection Goal .......................................188
 

Visitor and Employee Safety Objective ...............................................................189
 

Resource Protection Objective .....................................................................189
 

6.8 Administration Goal ..........................................................................190
 

Staff and Budget Objective 1 ......................................................................190
 

Staff and Budget Objective 2 ......................................................................191
 

Facilities and Infrastructure Objective 1 ..............................................................191
 

Facilities and Infrastructure Objective 2 ..............................................................192
 

Facilities and Infrastructure Objective 3 ..............................................................192
 

Facilities and Infrastructure Objective 4 ..............................................................192
 

6.9 Stepdown Management Plans .................................................................193
 

GLOSSARy .....................................................................................195
 

BIBLIOGRAPHy .................................................................................255
 

APPENDIxES 

Appendix A 

Key Legislation and Policy ........................................................................201
 

Appendix B 

List of Preparers and Contributors ..................................................................205
 

Appendix C 

Public Involvement .............................................................................207
 

Appendix D 

Draft Compatibility Determinations ............................................................209
 

Appendix E 

Grassland Fragmentation Assessment ...............................................................225
 

Appendix F 

Species Lists..................................................................................231
 

Viii Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
FIGURES 

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

Figure 2. Basic strategic habitat conservation process ........................................................8
 

Figure 3. Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............9
 

Figure 4. Process steps for comprehensive conservation planning and associated environmental analysis................10
 

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

Figure 6. Habitat types, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ..............................................22
 

Figure 7. Land use and habitat outside the boundaries of Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ....................37
 

Figure 8. Playa Lakes Joint Venture region, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............................71
 

Figure 9. Refuge soil map, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ............................................77
 

Figure 10. Potential presettlement conditions, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.............................81
 

Figure 11. Vegetation cover types in 1954, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............................84
 

Figure 12. Vegetation cover types in 2008 (NVCS), Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .........................85
 

Figure 13. Public use facilities at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ......................................111
 

Figure 14. Cropland and tree coverage planning under alternative B (proposed action), Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 


Kansas. .........................................................................................129
 

Figure 15. Elevation at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas..............................................153
 

Figure 16. Native Ecological Community Conservation Objectives for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas, Illustrated in a 


Community Profile Schematic. ........................................................................161
 

Figure 17. Location of woodland groves at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas, in 2012 ........................176
 

Figure 18. Proposed waterfowl hunt area, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............................178
 

Figure 19. Proposed upland game hunt area, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .............................179
 

Figure 20. Proposed deer and turkey hunt area, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...........................181
 

Figure 21. Current grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas...............................227
 

Figure 22. Future grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............................228
 

Figure 23. Current nonhostile grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ......................229
 

TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .........11
 

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

Table 3. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas..........................33
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 


for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ..............................................................47
 

Table 5. Vegetation descriptions for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ....................................79
 

Table 6. Hydrogeomorphic relationship of historical distribution of vegetation communities or habitat types to geomorphic sur-


face, soils, and hydrological regime in the area of Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas..........................80
 

Table 7. Comparison of vegetation cover types between 1954 and 2011 on Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas.......86
 

Table 8. National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) associations, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ........87
 

Table 9. Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ..........88
 

Table 10. Observed woodland bird use at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ................................91
 

Contents iX 
Table 11. State and county population estimates in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. ..........105
 

Table 13. State income, unemployment, and poverty statistics and county statistics in the area around Quivira National Wildlife 


Table 14. Community income, unemployment and poverty statistics in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 


Table 18. Annual effects of Refuge Revenue Sharing Act payments under alternatives A, B and C on the area around Quivira 


Table 20. Breakdown of current purchases of goods and services in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 


Table 23. Annual effects of nonlocal visitor spending by alternative in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 


Table 29. Estimated greatest potential distribution of wetland habitat conditions (acres by unit and objective) for the proposed
 

Table 12. Community population estimates in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. ...............105
 

Refuge, Kansas ...................................................................................106
 

Kansas..........................................................................................106
 

Table 15. Employment by sector in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas........................106
 

Table 16. Total visitor expenditures, expressed in dollars per person per day, for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. .109
 

Table 17. Base staff budgeted in fiscal year 2012 and other staff stationed at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas....110
 

National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .....................................................................143
 

Table 19. Annual effects of salary spending in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ...............143
 

Kansas..........................................................................................144
 

Table 21. Annual effects of purchases of goods and services in the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. .144
 

Table 22. Estimated annual visitation activity at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas, by alternative. ..............146
 

Kansas. .........................................................................................147
 

Table 24. Economic effects of alternative A ..............................................................148
 

Table 25. Economic effects of alternative B ..............................................................148
 

Table 26. Change in economic effect from alternative A to alternative B ........................................149
 

Table 27. Economic effects of alternative C ..............................................................149
 

Table 28. Change in economic effect from alternative A to alternative C ........................................150
 

alternative for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ....................................................164
 

Table 30. Dominant nonwetland habitat types at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas..........................172
 

Table 31. Stepdown management plans for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas..............................193
 

X Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Kansas Sunflower 

r enreh Wcti© M

Summary
 

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 partnership with the Kansas 

Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, and the 

City of Wichita Department of Park and Recreation. 

This is a summary of the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment 

that we have prepared for Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge. The full document contains background 

information and our analyses for managing the 

refuge. 

The Refuge 

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. 
Xii Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

The Planning Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires us to develop a comprehensive conservation plan for each national wildlife 

refuge. The final plan for the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge is scheduled for completion in 2013 and 

will guide the management of the refuge for the next 

15 years. 

The planning process for a comprehensive conservation plan is a series of steps including environmental analysis. We encourage and value public 

involvement throughout the process. Our planning 

team compiled a list of issues to consider and analyzed management alternatives for the comprehensive conservation plan that would not only address 

these issues but also meet the purposes, vision, and 

goals of the refuge. 

There are three alternatives analyzed within the 

draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment for the refuge that are summarized under the “Alternatives” section of this 

summary. 

After the planning team prepares the final comprehensive conservation plan for publication, a notice 

of availability will be published in the Federal Register, and copies of the final comprehensive conservation plan or accompanying summary will be sent to 

those on our mailing list. 

There a

agement o

rie restora

coverage, i

Yet, some 

Issues 

Based on an analysis of comments collected from 

the public and our staff and on a review of the needs 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, we identified several key issues for Quivira National Wildlife 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 

water table would also likely affect grassland and 

meadow habitats. 

Tree Management 

re differences of opinion about tree mann Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. Praition, with a reduction in current tree 

s generally understood and supported. 

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 National Wildlife Refuge closes to hunting to avoid disturbing them 

and to prevent accidental shooting. 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, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism 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 National 

Wildlife 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 Code of Federal Regulations 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. 

Increasing Public Use and Wildlife 

Compatibility 

We are aware of potential benefits and harm to 

natural resource conservation brought on by an 
Summary Xiii 

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. 

The Future of 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. 

Vision 

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. 

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

S WFSU/sen JoyrraB
XiV Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 

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 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 keep the long-term integrity 

of infrastructure, habitats, and wildlife resources at 

the refuge and at the Great Plains Nature Center. 

White Pelicans 

S WSFU/nahuba LlehcaR
 

Summary XV 

Alternatives 

This section summarizes the three analyses 

within this draft comprehensive conservation plan 

and environmental assessment. 

effects on

though we 

ration is i

natural ec

long-term 

lowering m

accepted t

more resili

Alternative A (Current 

Management–No Action) 

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 of 1969. 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 (Proposed action) 

We would 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 would increase our attention and 

understanding of the connectedness of habitats and 

the effectiveness of our management. To achieve this 

alternative, relatively minor changes in our operations; inventory, monitoring programs, and research; 

staff; and infrastructure would likely be required. 

Alternative C 

To the extent possible, we would promote selfsustaining natural processes with less regard to the 

 focal species relative to alternative B, 

understand that complete ecological restompossible. Our key values for restoring 

ological processes include achieving the 

sustainability of native communities and 

aintenance costs. We find that it is widely 

hat native plant communities tend to be 

ent to climate change and other environmental stressors than nonnative and highly managed 

ecosystems. Native wildlife species, including our 

trust resources, are also able to adapt to such 

changes. Our efforts, such as prescribed fire, grazing, 

and invasive species control, would be focused on 

keeping native plant community composition and 

diversity, and we would presume that native wildlife 

would benefit from these activities. 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. 

Considerable time would be required up front for 

us to assess current ecological functions, find key elements that should be restored, and evaluate potential 

restoration options that could be conducted given 

biological, economic, social, political, and legal 

constraints. 

Our ability to restore surface and subsurface 

hydrology is the one factor most likely to influence 

restoration potential. First, to keep water rights to 

conserve natural resources, we would need some 

water control structures to remain on Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge to divert Rattlesnake 

Creek water. Second, we cannot alter, or fully mitigate for, some infrastructure and actions known to 

change hydrologic processes, such as county roads 

that bisect important flow paths on the refuge and 

water uses by others that deplete ground water in 

the watershed. While these are major constraints, 

opportunities would still exist to improve ecological 

functions. For example, we could alter water amounts 

and movements to mimic natural, seasonal patterns 

of flooding, and we could remove or change dikes and 

trails on the refuge to restore hydrologic connectivity 

and sheet flow in certain refuge areas. 

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. 

Administration 

Act 

AFy 

BSM 

CCP 

CFR 

cfs 

DOI 

EA 

EPA 

°F 

GIS 

GPLCC 

GPNC 

HGM 

Improvement 

Act 

IPM 

KDWPT 

LSM 

NEPA 

NWR 

NVCS 

NRCS 

Partners 

PIF 

PLJV 

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
 

geographic information system
 

Great Plains Landscape Conservation 


Cooperative
 

Great Plains Nature Center
 

hydrogeomorphic method
 

National Wildlife Refuge System 


Improvement Act of 1997
 

integrated pest management
 

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 

Partners in Flight 

Playa Lakes Joint Venture 

Abbreviations
 
XViii Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Region 6 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser­ Region 6 vice 

the refuge Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System 

RONS Refuge Operations Needs System 

RRS Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

T and E threatened and endangered 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS	 U.S. Geological Survey 

yCC Youth Conservation Corps 

A glossary of these and other terms follows chapter 6. 
Black-necked Stilt 

s serb Go© B

Chapter 1—Introduction
 

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

USFWS) manage the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge (Quivira Refuge or refuge), which consists of 

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

south-central 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 draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental 

assessment (EA). 

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. Chapter 1 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 draft plan: 

■■	 Chapter 2 describes the refuge and planning 

issues. 

■■	 Chapter 3 sets out the alternatives for management of the refuge. 

■■	 Chapter 4 describes the physical, biological, 

and social environment that the alternatives 

would affect. 

■■	 Chapter 5 explains the expected consequences of carrying out each alternative. 

■■	 Chapter 6 describes objectives and strategies for the proposed action, alternative B, 

which compose the draft CCP. 
2 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 draft 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. When completed, the 

CCP will serve as a working guide for management 

programs and activities 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. 
Chapter 1—Introduction 3 

1.1 Purpose and Need for the 

Plan 

The purpose of this draft CCP is to find 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; 

■■	 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 Early History of 

Conservation 

Wildlife conservation in North America is unique 

to the world. In recent years, it has come to be known 

as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (Geist et al. 2001). The wildlife conservation 

movement arose out of the conflict between market 

hunters and sport hunters in the mid-to-late 19th 

century. Market hunting increased in response to the 

growth in urban population fueled by the Industrial 

Revolution. Between 1820 and 1860, the percentage 

of Americans who lived in cities rose from 5 to 20 

percent; this four-fold increase is the greatest that 

has ever occurred in America (Reiss 1995). The 

demand for meat and hides—along with feathers for 

the millinery trade—led to exploitation of game animals by market hunters. Along with the increase in 

urban population came a new breed of hunter—one 

who hunted for the chase and the challenge it provided. These sport hunters valued live game animals, 

whereas market hunters valued dead animals they 

could bring to market. The growing legion of sport 

hunters started a national movement that encouraged Federal and State governments to regulate the 

take of wildlife. 

The keystone concept of the North American 

Model of Wildlife Conservation that allowed the Government to control the take of wildlife is the Public 

Trust Doctrine (Geist and Organ 2004). Though 

based on an 1842 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the 

case, Martin v. Waddell, it derives from Greek and 

Roman law and the Magna Carta. Simply stated, 

wildlife belongs to no one; it is held in trust for all by 

the Government. 

The early conservation movement in this country, 

championed by Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird 

Grinnell, and others, placed emphasis on stemming 

the decline of wildlife populations, and programs 

restricting take and protecting lands were put in 

place. During the 1920s, conservationists realized 

that more was needed, and a committee comprised of 

Aldo Leopold, A. Willis Robertson, and other leading 

conservationists of the time wrote the 1930 American 

Game Policy. This policy called for a restoration program for habitats and populations based on scientific 

research and supported with stable, equitable money. 

Within a decade, landmark legislation fulfilled many 

of the needs identified by this policy, including the 

Federal Duck Stamp Act to pay for land acquisition 

for national wildlife refuges. In addition, the Pittman–Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act shifted 

excise taxes imposed on firearms and ammunition to 

pay for wildlife restoration through cooperation 

between us and State fish and wildlife agencies. For 

States to use this money, they were required to pass 

laws that prevented the diversion of hunting license 

revenues to any purpose other than the administration of the State fish and wildlife agency. 

In recent decades, wildlife management has 

emphasized overall wildlife diversity, and The Refuge System has evolved accordingly. Today it provides refuge for most species found in the United 

States. 
4 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

1.3 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 

USFWS, 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 

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; 
ography, environerpretation, are 

blic uses; 

s to find compati­

 Refuge System, the 

ach unit of the Refuge 

 principles: 

 and wilderness 

e and district 

. 

tricts must be 


Chapter 1—Introduction 5

■■	 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; 

■■	 keep the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System; 

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

wildlife observation, phot

mental education, and int

legitimate and priority pu

■■	 allow our refuge manager

ble public uses; 

Besides the mission for the

wildlife and habitat vision for e

System supports the following

■■ Wildlife comes first. 

■■	 Ecosystems, biodiversity,

are vital concepts in refug

management. 

■■ Habitats must be healthy

■■	 Growth of refuges and dis

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. 

The Public and the Refuge System 

The Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage contributes 

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. 

1.4 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 

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

each national wildlife refuge. 

A detailed description of these and other laws and 

Executive orders that may affect a CCP, or our carrying out of a CCP, is in Appendix A–Key Legislation 

and Policy. Our policies for planning and for the dayto-day management of refuges are in the Refuge 

System Manual and the “Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual.” 

1.5 Contributions to National and Regional Plans 
6 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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, The 

National Wildlife Refuge System” (Refuge System 

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 looked to the recommendations in this 

document for guidance during CCP planning. 

Partners in Flight North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan 

The Partners in Flight (PIF) Program began in 

1990 to address the declining population levels of 

many migratory bird species. This program is challenged with managing human population growth 

while keeping functional natural ecosystems. PIF 

worked to find 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 PIF 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 Mixed-grass 

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 (USFWS 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. 

United States 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 
Chapter 1—Introduction 7 

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. 

Endangered Species Recovery 

Plans 

The USFWS is 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 Act 

is no longer necessary. 

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 

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. 

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, 

Windmill located in the Reno Unit of Quivira Refuge. 

Barry Jones/USFWS 
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 

1.6 Strategic Habitat 

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 

beyond applying an ecosystem approach to 

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 incorporates biological goals for 

focal species populations, makes strategic decisions 

about the work needed, and constantly reassesses 

(figure 2). 

Figure 2. Basic strategic habitat conservation 

process. 

1.7 Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives 

Strategic habitat conservation helps us to apply 

adaptive management across large landscapes. We 

used the framework of strategic habitat conservation 

to find 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 

8 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Chapter 1—Introduction 9 

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

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. 

1.8 Planning Process 

The Improvement Act requires that we develop a 

CCP for Quivira Refuge. The final plan for the QuiLong-billed Dowitc

vira Refuge should be completed in 2013 and will 

guide our refuge management for the next 15 years. 

We prepared this draft CCP and EA in compliance 

with the Improvement Act and part 602 (National 

Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the “Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described in 

this draft CCP and EA meet the needs of the Council 

on Environmental Quality regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

her 

S WSFU/nahuba LlehcaR
10 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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

(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 EA 

development (figure 4). 

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

Quivira Refuge and our 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 B– 

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 the draft CCP and 

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 

Silky Prairie Clover 

S WSFU/nahuba LlehcaR
2009 

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

Kansas. 

Date Event	 Outcome or purpose 

Toured the refuge, formed into an initial planning team, September 22–23, Preplanning meeting	 started the mailing list, and discussed the planning schedule 

and data needs. 

October 5, 2009 Work plan	 Completed the work plan. 

Planning team invitation letters 	 Service Regional Director invited tribal nations and the October 30, 2009 mailed	 KDWPT to be on the planning team. 

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

February 2010 Planning update The update described the planning process and announced 

upcoming public scoping meetings. 

Published the notice of intent to prepare a CCP in the Federal February 24, 2010 Notice of intent Register (volume 75, number 36, pages 8394–8395). 

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

March 8–10, 2010 Public scoping meetings Kansas. The public had an opportunity to learn about the 

CCP process and provide comments. 

Reviewed the refuge purposes, identified refuge qualities and CCP kickoff and vision and goals March 9–10, 2010	 issues, and developed a draft vision statement and goals for meeting the refuge. 

Hydrogeomorphic method analysis 	 Reviewed the progress and findings of the hydrogeomorphic March 22–23, 2011 project update	 analysis project. 

Alternatives development planning November 2–3, 2011	 Discussed management alternatives. meeting 

Environmental consequences and 	 Reviewed the environmental consequences for the alterna- March 13–14, 2012 choosing proposed action workshop	 tives, and to select a proposed action alternative. 

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

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

Team and other Service staff reviewed the draft CCP and EA 

November 2012 Draft plan internal review and provided comments to help clarify the analyses and provide consistency. 

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

Chapter 1—Introduction 11 

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, this draft CCP and 

EA to comply with the public involvement needs of 

NEPA. Table 1 lists the specific planning steps taken 

to date for this draft CCP and EA. 

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. 

See “Appendix C–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. 

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. 
12 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 (HGM) analysis project update session. The 

Osage Nation reviewed our 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 we received at scoping 

meetings and by correspondence to make a final list 

of issues to address in this draft CCP and EA. We 

developed alternatives that would best address 

issues. We also considered suggestions for changes to 

our current refuge management. 

Selecting an Alternative 

After the public has reviewed and commented on 

this draft CCP and EA, we will present this document along with a summary of substantive comments 

to our Regional Director for Region 6 of the Service. 

She will consider the environmental effects of each 

alternative along with the information we gathered 

from the public. 

Our Regional Director will select a preferred 

alternative for management of the refuge. She will 

either disclose her decision in a finding of no significant impact that we will include in the final CCP or 

she may request added analysis. If approved, the 

actions in the preferred alternative will become the 

final CCP. 

After we ready the final CCP for publication, a 

notice of availability will be published in the Federal 

Register, and we will mail copies of the final CCP or 

an accompanying summary to those on our mailing 

list. Subsequently, we will carry out the CCP with 

help from our partner agencies, organizations, and 

the public. 
e 

e 

h 

o 

h 

s 

f 

s 

, 

d 

­

0 

s 

e 

. 

m 

­

Chapter 2—The Refuge
 

Dan Severson/USFWS 

Whooping Crane 

The issues and a discussion of their effects on 

resources are summarized in this chapter. Our planning process seeks to resolve issues that have the 

greatest effect on refuge resources and programs, 

and it ranks these issues for further consideration 

over the life of the plan. 

This chapter also discusses the establishment of 

Quivira Refuge and how its development guides our 

planning. 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, 

and Management History 

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 recogniz

two unique, historic saltmarsh and salt flat areas, th

Big Salt Marsh (BSM) and the Little Salt Mars

(LSM). 

In 1958, the name of the refuge was changed t

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge after the Spanis

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

sand prairie ecosystem that contains a diversity o

grassland and wetland vegetation association

(Faber-Langedoen 2001) with a range of salinities

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

agricultural lands. 

After Quivira Refuge was established, acquisi

tions were made to bring the refuge area to 21,82

acres by 1969. In August 1991, two Hornbaker tract

totaling 116 acres southwest of the refuge wer

acquired from the Farmers Home Administration

Approximately 200 more acres were bought fro

Richardson in 1998 in the BSM area. These acquisi

tions enlarged the refuge to 22,135 acres (table 2). 
Table 2. Land acquisition history of the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Acres Acres 	 Acres in 

reserved acquired by Acres 	 agreement Acres bought	 from public other Federal donated	 easement or 

domain agency	 lease 

Total acres 

in refuge 

Total cost of 

land 

acquisition 

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

14 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Water Management History 

In 1957 the Service 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 below-average precipitation and heavy agricultural irrigation demands, insufficient water quantities are delivered to the refuge to exercise all habitat 

management options. Water leaving the refuge is not 

metered, largely because water rights are absent 

downstream where water enters the Arkansas River. 

2.2 Purpose 

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 National Wildlife 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 

2.3 Special Values of the 

Refuge 

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. 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 15
 

Figure 5. Water control structures, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
16 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 

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

hunting. All 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 co-manages the GPNC in Wichita, which 

complements and supports the purposes of the 

refuge. 

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. 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 17 

r enreh Wcti© M

Prickly Pear 

2.4 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. 

2.5 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. 
18 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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. 

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 keep facilities, strategically acquire 

and allocate staff, increase volunteer opportunities 

and partnerships, and effectively raise and use 

money to keep the long-term integrity of infrastructure, habitats, and wildlife resources at the refuge 

and at the GPNC. 

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 

water table would also likely affect grassland and 

meadow habitats. 

White-tailed Deer 

USFWS 
Chapter 2—The Refuge 19 

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. 

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—Alternatives


s serb Go© B

Lesser Yellowlegs 

This chapter describes the management alterna

tives considered for Quivira Refuge. Alternatives 

take different approaches toward sustaining native 

populations and the habitats on which they depend. 

They are designed to achieve the refuge’s purposes, 

vision, and goals; the mission of the Refuge System; 

and our overall mission. We developed alternatives to 

address the issues, concerns, and problems that we 

identified, with help from the public, during public 

scoping and throughout the development of this draft 

CCP. 

­

­

3.1 Development of 

Alternatives for the Refuge 

We assessed planning issues described in chapter 

2, existing biological conditions described in chapter 

4, and external relationships that affect the refuge. 

With this information, we formulated several alterna

tives, each, of which, broadly describes different 

approaches for meeting the long-term goals listed in 

chapter 2. We then evaluated how well each alterna

tive would achieve these goals. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, captures 

our current intent and activities at Quivira Refuge. 

Because it did not originate in this planning process, 

alternative A may not meet all the goals of this CCP. 

It does, however, provide a baseline for comparing 

the other alternatives. Alternative B looks at manag

ing for focal species and is our proposed-action alter

native. There is more detail on our proposed action in 

chapter 6. No-action and proposed-action alterna

tives are both required by NEPA. Alternative C 

would restore the refuge closer to presettlement 

conditions but would also likely limit future manage

ment capability. 

Table 4 in section 3.7 summarizes the actions that 

would be carried out under each alternative, as well 

as the potential consequence of those actions. 

Detailed information on consequences may also be 

found in chapter 5. 

To help us in comparing alternatives, we created 

a map that shows the location of general habitat 

types on the refuge (figure 6). 

­

­

­

­

­
22 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Figure 6. Habitat types, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
Chapter 3—Alt

3.2 Alternatives Considered 

but Dropped from Detailed 

Study 

We did not consider, and then drop, any alterna

tives from detailed study. Some management per

spectives, however, such as the spatial extent of 

suitable shrub and tree coverage, were carefully 

considered and addressed outside of alternative 

development elsewhere in this draft CCP and EA. 

3.3 Elements Common to All 

Alternatives 

Our three alternatives have some consistencies. 

The following key elements will be included in our 

management of Quivira Refuge regardless of the 

alternative selected: 

■■	 We will make sure that management of the 

refuge complies with all Federal laws and 

regulations that provide direction for man

aging units of the Refuge System. 

■■	 All wildfires will be managed in accordance 

with Federal Wildland Fire and Service pol

icy. The initial action on a human-caused 

wildlfire will be to suppress the fire at the 

lowest cost with the fewest negative conse

quences with respect to firefighter and pub

lic safety. Under alternative A, all wildfires 

would be managed with the intent to sup

press. Under alternatives B and C, a natu

rally occurring wildfire may be 

concurrently managed for one or more ref

uge objectives. Further, objectives can 

change as the fire spreads across the land

scape. Thus, under alternatives B and C, 

wildfire would be viewed as playing a more 

natural role in the environment. Prescribed 

fire may be used in all habitat types at any 

time of the year based on refuge objectives, 

and related to hazardous fuel reduction or 

habitat management. 

■■	 We will attempt to control invasive species 

through an integrated pest management 

(IPM) approach that uses biological, chemi

cal, cultural, and mechanical treatment 

methods. 

■■	 We will allow use of various strategies, such 

as methods that involve rest, water level 

control, prescribed grazing, burning, 

mechanical, chemical, and cultural-related 

activities, to appropriately accomplish ref

uge goals and alternatives. 

■■	 We will protect and manage all cultural 

resources. 

■■	 We will support our own research efforts 

and those of others to help achieve manage

ment objectives. 

■■	 As needed, we will observe for, and respond 

to, signs of wildlife diseases such as cholera, 

chronic wasting disease, avian influenza, 

and botulism. 

■■	 We will promote strong and diverse part

nerships to help meet the objectives and 

goals of the refuge. 

■■	 We will maintain current water rights 

throughout the refuge. 

■■	 Our approach to climate change adaptation 

in the next 15 years would be similar for all 

alternatives, however there are resulting 

differences in management capacity (con

straints) and ecosystem resiliency (adapt

ability) potential as reported throughout the 

document under various goals and topic 

headings. Many of our actions address key 

findings of climate change adaptations listed 

by Staudinger et al. (2012). At some level, all 

alternatives would promote sustainability of 

ecosystems, biodiversity of organisms, and 

wildlife-dependent ecosystem services. 

None of the alternatives would manage to 

stabilize natural conditions, instead, all 

manage system transitions and promote 

strategies that closer mimic or support nat

ural processes. All alternatives would 

reduce or alleviate environmental stressors 

or vulnerabilities, such as grassland frag

mentation and the effects of invasive spe

cies, which may be magnified with climate 

change. All alternatives would carry out an 

adaptive management process that involves 

the experimentation and modification of 

management actions and monitoring to 

increase success in achieving goals and 

objectives. For example, timing of manage

ment actions may require adjustments for 

success with changing climate conditions. 

Regardless of the alternative, there remains 

ernatives 23 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
uncertainty in the effects of climate change, 

such as how system variability and vulnera

bility will change and affect land use and 

environmental regulations at landscape 

scales that collectively influence refuge 

management planning. For example, we are 

uncertain of how water use and rights 

issues within the watershed and western 

Kansas aquifers will be affected with cli

mate change and what the consequences 

will be for refuge resources and manage

ment (for example, Rosenberg 2010, 

Schlager and Heikkila 2011). Over the time 

of this plan, knowledge will be gained of 

anticipated future changes that inform man

agement strategies and decisionmaking. 

3.4 Alternative A (Current 

Management–No Action) 

Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which 

represents the current management of Quivira Ref

uge. This alternative provides the baseline against 

which to compare the other alternatives. It also ful

fills a need of NEPA. Under alternative A, our man

agement 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 primar

ily 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. Pro

grams would follow the same direction, emphasis, 

and intensity as they do now. 

Landscape Conservation Actions 

This section includes actions for climate change 

and land protection under alternative A. 

Climate Change 

We would manage habitats to promote resilience 

through the conservation of native communities. 

Baseline checking of habitat conditions that might 

show the effects of climate change would continue. 

We would support an existing weather station, and 

monitoring of plant and wildlife community factors 

would occur as part of planning and to support cer

tain larger landscape efforts (for example, midwinter 

waterfowl survey). Management would reduce cur

rent environmental stressors, such as grassland frag

mentation and the spread of invasive species. 

Otherwise, our staff would continue to mostly rely on 

our partners such as the USGS, GPLCC, and the 

Service Climate Change Team, for climate changerelated information, research, monitoring programs, 

and modeling. 

We would attempt to reduce the carbon footprint 

of our existing facilities. We completed a major proj

ect to reduce the carbon footprint in June 2011 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act. During that project, we installed a ground 

source HVAC and photovoltaic system panels (28 

kilowatts) at the headquarters building. Activities in 

the near future would likely include modest improve

ments to facilities, including weather proofing and 

upgrading furnaces, doors, and windows. Our 

increased use of webinars and other virtual meeting 

devices would decrease that part of our carbon foot

print related to travel. 

Land Protection 

These actions involve a variety of issues and 

programs. 

Refuge Boundary 

We have already acquired all lands within the ref

uge boundary. No expansion of the current refuge 

boundary is planned. 

Private Lands Programs 

Our staff would continue to promote cooperative 

work between landowners, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (NRCS), KDWPT, and our other part

ners on various types of land protection and manage

ment easements or agreements throughout Kansas. 

24 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

Oil and Gas Activities 

We own most mineral rights within the fee-title 

boundary of Quivira Refuge. Mineral rights would be 

reclaimed, as allowed, when mineral rights are 

abandoned. 

Emerging Conservation Issues 

Our staff would continue to seek information and 

support communications about current and potential 

future conservation issues affecting the refuge, while 

periodically assessing the role of the refuge at differ

ent landscape scales. For example, Ecological Ser

vices has been given responsibility for leading

USFWS activities related to wind and energy devel

opment, including those potentially influencing the 

­

­

­
Chapter 3—Alternatives 25 

S WSFU/nahuba LlehcaR

Insects flourish in the habitat surrounding the Big Salt 

Marsh on Quivira Refuge. 

whooping crane, but we need to understand USFWS 

positions and related factors. 

Native Ecological Community 

Conservation Actions 

This section includes actions for a variety of habi

tats and activities under alternative A. 

­

Big Salt Marsh 

The hydrology of the BSM would be allowed to 

fluctuate with natural climate variations, and use of 

Rattlesnake Creek water would be limited. As a 

result, dynamic fluctuations in water quantity and 

quality would occur within, and among, years. In 

most years, surface water would be allowed to evapo

rate in late summer, and ground water discharge 

would 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 would have water during the spring, and 

then slowly begin drying in late spring and continue 

drying through the summer. 

This management would contribute to restoring 

characteristics of a natural saltmarsh, including 

higher salinities over time and habitat dominated by 

a mosaic of open salt flat and saltgrass that are 

attractive to many nesting shorebirds. Occasionally, 

water from Rattlesnake Creek would be diverted 

into the BSM partly to allow proper management of 

units 57 and 58 and some canal waters, and for flood 

control. Also, with a declining water table and other 

future uncertainties of water availability in the 

watershed because of circumstances largely outside 

of our control, it is possible that managing the hydrol

ogy of the BSM may become more reliant on Rattle

snake Creek water in the future. Therefore, while the 

intent of this alternative is to decrease use of Rattle

snake Creek water, the ability to periodically use this 

water source remains important. 

Prescriptive fire and grazing would be used to 

support and restore native vegetation communities. 

Herbicides would be used to remove invasive plants 

and prevent new infestations that often result with 

dynamic seasonal water level fluctuations. Chemical 

and mechanical treatments would be used to increase 

the extent of mudflat habitat primarily for use by 

foraging waterbirds in spring, summer, and fall. 

Existing roads, dikes, and water control structures 

would remain. 

­

­

­

Little Salt Marsh 

The LSM would continue to be used to serve the 

dual roles of providing waterbird habitat at strategic 

times within, and among, years as well as to store 

water from Rattlesnake Creek to facilitate manage

ment of other refuge wetlands. In general, the marsh 

would be drawn down in spring to provide mudflats 

and shallow water for spring migrants and to moder

ate the potential adverse effects of periodic high 

flows in April through June. The marsh would then 

be allowed to refill during summer so that water 

could be transported to other areas of the refuge, 

typically beginning in late August, to provide habitat 

for fall bird migration. Use of water from the LSM in 

the fall also helps achieve desired water levels in the 

marsh, which creates added habitat for fall waterbird 

migration. 

­

­

Riparian Corridor 

Rattlesnake Creek, Salt Creek, and Dead Horse 

Slough provide most of the riparian habitat on the 

refuge. We manage Rattlesnake Creek primarily for 

water transport, with recognition that ancillary ben

efits are provided to many native plants and wildlife 

­
26 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

species. Water is diverted out of Rattlesnake Creek 

in various locations under the current water right 

(figure 5). Our staff would continue to work with the 

Rattlesnake Creek Partnership and pursue other 

avenues to protect the annual water right of the refuge. Invasive saltcedar dominates exposed soils next 

to watercourses and limited chemical, fire, and mowing are used to control it. We also control other invasive species, and other management strategies are 

used to maintain habitat within the riparian corridor, 

such as with use of grazing and mechanical 

treatments. 

Created Wetlands 

We manage created wetlands as seasonally 

flooded, or moist-soil, wetlands with hydrologic 

regimes that vary in flooding depth, coverage, timing, and duration within, and among, years. These 

habitats would be at least partially flooded sometime 

between September and April most years and would 

be generally allowed to dry during the growing season to promote plant germination and growth. Periodic irrigation may be required to maintain growth 

and promote the availability of food and cover 

resources as conditions become dry over the growing 

season. Our staff would continue to use management 

tools such as grazing, prescribed fire, mechanical and 

chemical treatments and water manipulation to 

accomplish objectives, with a primary focus on foraging habitat for migratory birds and, to a lesser 

extent, nesting habitat. Our staff would aggressively 

control wetland invasive plants, such as Phragmites 

and saltcedar, to decrease spread. 

Boiling Springs 

Barry Jones/USFWS 

Freshwater Springs 

Freshwater springs are an essential resource on 

the refuge, and we would manage them to sustain 

current functions and values, including protecting 

current population of State-threatened Arkansas 

darters in an area south of the BSM. This area is traditionally known as Boiling Springs because ground 

water bubbles up to the surface as though it were 

hot. 

We would continue to use fencing to exclude grazing from the artesian well site and to remain extra 

careful in spot spraying chemicals to control invasive 

species in the area. We would allow fire as part of 

prescriptions applied at larger spatial scales while 

considering the needs of meadow and sand prairie 

habitat next to springs. 

At the Boiling Springs, an existing pipe and pump 

from an oil well that was removed before would 

remain. Our staff would continue to check water 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 27 

quality of the Boiling Springs, but further evaluation 

of current habitat and fish community relations is 

needed to help in making future decisions about the 

management of the springs. 

Meadow 

Characteristics of ground and surface water are 

main drivers of meadow community composition and 

structure that are influenced by climate, watershed 

land use, and habitat conditions at various scales. We 

apply limited direct, or intentional, management to 

influence the structural conditions and functions of 

many meadows on the Quivira Refuge. However, the 

Marsh Road Meadow is actively managed through 

haying and prescribed fire to provide habitat for 

rails, cranes, and bobolinks. 

Our staff would continue to improve the health 

and productivity of the Marsh Road Meadow by conducting actions to periodically reduce litter buildup 

to increase nutrient cycling and the temporal and 

spatial diversity of vegetation structure and composition. Most prescriptions involve fire, mechanical, and 

grazing treatments to decrease the invasion of woody 

vegetation, or to prevent the conversion of herbaceous meadow habitat to wooded habitat, and to manage a proper balance of vegetation structure and 

cover that supports the annual life needs of various 

species. Chemical may also be used to control invasive species such as Phragmites or saltcedar that 

cannot be controlled effectively using only other 

means. 

Woodland 

When evaluating alternatives, woodland habitat 

generally refers to shelterbelts and larger tree, or 

land claim, plantings, but excludes small clumps, or 

scattered, trees and shrubs in other habitats. Our 

staff would continue to reduce and control invasive 

woody vegetation, primarily in areas where trees are 

encroaching into open prairie and wetland habitat. 

Tree rows and groves of both native trees, like cottonwood, and nonnative trees that were planted or 

have invaded prairie and wet meadow communities 

would continue to be removed, and lands would be 

restored to the proper native community type. Our 

staff would continue to evaluate potential management trade-offs related to certain woodlands that 

provide essential benefits to select species, and may 

subsequently decide to conserve some limited woodland areas that do not jeopardize the grassland size 

needs of focal species. Similarly, planted tree rows 

on, or near, refuge boundaries that have a minimal 

effect on native prairie or wetlands would be a lower 

priority for removal. 

Sand Prairie Complex 

When evaluating alternatives, the sand prairie 

complex includes scattered woody vegetation and 

relatively small, temporal–seasonal wetlands without 

water control structures that are parts of a larger 

grassland area defined in figure 6. We would continue 

to manage the sand prairie complex to support native 

plant communities characteristic of the associated 

soil types, thereby keeping a high level of habitat 

diversity in terms of both structure and composition 

that would be closer to presettlement conditions, as 

described in chapter 4. Thus, with respect to woody 

vegetation, we would continue to promote small, scattered native shrub stands that are mostly plum at 

various seral stages. Overall, an open sand prairie 

community would be conserved through the periodic 

use of fire, grazing, mechanical, and chemical 

treatments. 

Cropland 

We would manage current cropland through cooperative farming agreements with local farmers to 

produce annual seed cover crops. However, as cooperators voluntarily withdraw from farming (current 

rate of approximately 40–80 acres annually), our staff 

would continue to convert these lands to reconstructed native communities comprised of native 

grasses and forbs proper for the associated soil type. 

Following initial seeding, we would actively manage 

reconstructed native communities with mechanical 

methods, fire, grazing, and herbicides to encourage 

the establishment and maintenance of native species. 

We expect that all cropland would be reconstructed 

to some level within the next 15 years, however, 

achieving conditions similar to those characteristic of 

native communities might take decades longer. 

Migratory Birds 

We would continue to focus on migratory birds 

and primarily on wetland management to provide 

migration, resting, and nesting habitat for a diversity 

of waterbirds, especially waterfowl, cranes, shorebirds, and rails. We would continue to manage upland 

habitats for the migratory and nesting needs of 

native wildlife communities characteristic of open 

sand prairie. However, as shown above, some limited 

woody habitat would be kept to help various wildlife 

species, including herons for their rookeries, bald 

eagles for their nesting and roosting, and some other 

species of conservation concern for their nesting and 

migration. Our staff would continue to conduct 

annual population counts, or landscape-level checking, of migratory birds, including the Christmas and 
28 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

midwinter waterfowl, shorebird, sandhill crane, 

whooping crane, bald eagle, and interior least tern 

bird surveys. We would continue with other measures to support migratory birds, including the 

implementation of seasonal or area closures to 

decrease disturbance to nesting bald eagles, interior 

least terns, and whooping cranes. 

Fish 

We would conserve native fish communities where 

possible, paying particular attention to the Arkansas 

darter, plains killifish, and other native fish of concern in areas of the BSM, riparian corridor, and 

freshwater springs. Carp are present throughout the 

Rattlesnake Creek basin, and control is an ongoing 

challenge. Our staff would continue to control carp 

and other undesirable fish, primarily through the 

periodic drying of wetlands. On rare occasions when 

drying is extremely difficult or impossible, but water 

levels are low, such as is common with the Kid’s Fishing Pond, a limited use of chemical is allowed. Fish 

stocking of the Kid’s Fishing Pond would continue for 

recreational and educational purposes. Our staff 

would avoid stocking, and introducing conditions 

favorable to, nonnative fish. 

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern 

We would continue to manage habitats in support 

of Federal and State threatened and endangered species, Federal candidate species, and State Species in 

Need of Conservation, especially those species with 

designated critical habitat on Quivira Refuge lands 

and those that most commonly depend on refuge 

resources. For several species, we provide favorable 

habitat without specifically focusing on those particular species, such as with mudflat–shallow water habitat used by migrating piping plovers that are rarely 

observed at Quivira Refuge during migration. 

Our staff would continue to support applicable 

threatened and endangered species recovery plans. 

Nesting interior least tern and western snowy plover 

use similar areas on the refuge and our management 

of habitats to support both species would continue. 

Similarly, we would continue to promote roosting and 

foraging habitat for whooping cranes. Monitoring 

programs for these species when they live on the refuge would continue, and activities would be controlled to protect quality conditions for these birds , 

such as reducing disturbance. As required, our staff 

would consult with our, and KDWPT’s, endangered 

species staff before conducting management actions 

that may affect listed species. Area closures would 

continue to be imposed to protect federally listed 

species using the refuge. 

In general, our practices conducted on Quivira 

Refuge result in habitat conditions that should be 

suitable for most of the State Species in Need of Conservation that occur in Stafford County, though several are not known to regularly use the area. In 

particular, we would continue to manage meadows 

around the BSM in a way that promotes use by black 

rail and bobolink, including our periodic use of prescribed fire and haying to manage the composition 

and structure of vegetation and promote nutrient 

cycling. Treatments would not occur in meadows during the main nesting period for these species without 

evaluation and by following existing policy. 

Wildlife Native to the Region 

We would conserve wildlife native to this region 

of the Great Plains by supporting native habitat communities, both resident and migratory. We would 

continue proper uses of fire, grazing, mechanical 

methods, rest, and invasive species control to provide 

more favorable habitat for native species, including 

some like the greater and lesser prairie-chicken and 

the long-billed curlew, that historically used the refuge or its vicinity more extensively in the past. 

Wildlife Health 

We would manage habitat for conditions that 

decrease adverse health conditions for wildlife. Monitoring for contaminant levels would occur periodically to make sure that conditions are within a 

normal range for the ecosystem, and we would regularly watch for signs of disease outbreaks. Our staff 

would continue working with those who are conducting formal surveillance monitoring programs for 

avian influenza and chronic wasting disease. We 

would cooperate with regional and national monitoring programs to respond to new wildlife disease 

threats. We would not, however, allow the trapping of 

nuisance animals. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research 

We would continue wildlife and habitat inventory, 

monitoring, and research efforts in the short term, 

but our staff would periodically evaluate and appropriately revise these efforts, while making sure that 

refuge goals and objectives are being addressed. We 

would gather, review, and synthesize information 

relevant to biology and management of refuge lands 

for use in planning and decisionmaking. This would 

include ongoing inventory of refuge biological 

resources, development of a vegetation cover map, 

and new protocols to improve the checking of water 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 29 

quantity and quality, nesting interior least terns, and 

vegetation conditions. Annual and periodic surveillance and survey types conducted in recent years 

include: shorebird, midwinter waterfowl, marshbird, 

midwinter eagle, spring and fall whooping crane, 

spring sandhill crane, interior least tern and snowy 

plover, refuge breeding bird, Christmas bird, deer, 

Monarch butterfly (tagging), Emerald ash borer, 

invasive plant species, and water quality. 

Cooperative research with other agencies and 

educational institutions would continue to expand 

knowledge of refuge biological resources and to 

inform refuge management. We would allow research 

activities that are compatible with refuge goals and 

objectives; involve good communication with our refuge staff; provide information related to refuge 

resources and management; and address a current or 

future conservation or societal issue, such as human 

and wildlife health. 

Visitor Services Actions 

Recreational uses help visitors focus on wildlife 

and other natural resources, and provide opportunities to become aware of resource issues, management 

plans, and how the refuge contributes to the Refuge 

System mission. 

We encourage national wildlife refuges to provide 

wildlife-dependent recreation where feasible and 

compatible with the purposes of refuges. This is 

defined as a compatible use of a Refuge System unit 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and interpretation. Other activities may be allowed to facilitate 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Hunting 

Hunting programs on the refuge would not 

change. No new areas, expansions of season, and no 

new species would be open to hunting. Only 

approved, nontoxic shot would be used or possessed 

while hunting upland gamebirds and migratory 

gamebirds on the refuge. We would limit the area 

open to migratory bird hunting to no more than 40 

percent of available habitat (code of law: 16 USC 

668dd(d)(1)(A)). These restrictions make sure that 

some habitat without direct disturbance from hunting is available to migrating waterfowl. No hunting 

would be allowed when whooping cranes are present 

on the refuge. We would make an accessible waterfowl hunting blind available by reservation. We would 

continue to prohibit commercial outfitting. 

Fishing 

We would generally allow fishing on all waters 

according to State-established seasons and regulations. Year-round use of the Kid’s Fishing Pond 

would be permitted with a one-fish limit for children 

age 14 and under and for adults with an eligible child 

who is also fishing, unless otherwise posted for management or safety reasons. 

We would not allow bait collecting or the use of 

live fish bait, except for night crawlers. 

We would not allow frogging and the hunting of 

turtles or other reptiles and amphibians. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Observation blinds, elevated viewing platforms, 

an up-to-date bird species list, and portable viewing 

and photography blinds all support wildlife observation and photography on the refuge. We would support seasonal closures to protect sensitive wildlife 

areas and reduce disturbance to fish and wildlife. We 

would expand by working directly with the “Wetlands and Wildlife Scenic Byway” committee to 

increase public awareness, and provide increased 

opportunities. Bicycling, horseback riding—on established roads only—and dog walking (under owner’s 

control) would be allowed. 

We would evaluate commercial photography 

requests, and requests from commercial led birding 

tours on a case-by-case basis and authorize through 

special use permits. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Quivira Refuge and the GPNC would continue to 

have interactive and static displays about area flora, 

fauna, ecology, and history. We would keep two areas 

of marked pedestrian trails at the refuge: Migrants 

Mile and the LSM and Headquarters area. 

We would provide curriculum-based programs for 

all school grade levels to help in meeting State educational standards. Onsite and offsite programs would 

continue at the GPNC that focus on “at risk” youth 

and other underserved audiences. Interpretive programs would be provided at Quivira Refuge and the 

GPNC on a variety of refuge management and wildlife-oriented subjects, both by request and as scheduled activities. 

Our staff would continue to promote use of the 

GPNC’s classrooms and Quivira Refuge’s environmental education classroom for appropriate school 

and other environmental education programs, as well 

as for public interpretive programs and workshops. 
30 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Other Uses 

All areas would remain open on the refuge unless 

otherwise closed for management or safety reasons, 

such as when terns or bald eagles are nesting. 

Allowable Uses 

Would include firewood cutting and dog training 

by individuals outside of the nesting season. 

Requested and Proposed Uses 

Other requested and proposed uses would be 

evaluated, with necessary approval, for appropriateness and compatibility with the purposes of the refuge in accordance with our policies, see appendix D. 

Prohibited Uses 

Uses that are specifically prohibited on the refuge 

include: amphibian, crayfish and reptile collecting; 

antler collecting; berry, fruit, roots, and mushroom 

harvesting; wildflower collecting; geocaching; commercial photography; boating; camping; recreational 

trapping; dog field trials; unauthorized vehicle use on 

roads and trails; off-road vehicle use; and commercial 

guiding for hunting. 

Public Outreach Actions 

We would provide onsite and offsite outreach programs to local civic and environmental organizations 

and emphasize refuge management issues, endangered species, and other pertinent subjects. Our staff 

would recruit, train, and use volunteers locally to 

help achieve management and public use goals. 

Our staff would continue to work with Friends of 

Quivira Refuge and Friends of the GPNC to promote 

public awareness and outreach of the Service and the 

refuge. We would contribute articles to the quarterly 

Friends newsletters to update readers on refuge and 

GPNC management and activities. 

We would hold special events several times annually to promote Quivira Refuge, the GPNC, and their 

respective missions, activities, and goals. We would 

continue to develop and staff our information booth at 

the Kansas State Fair. 

We would keep and update the Quivira Refuge 

Web site to reflect refuge operations, hunting information, events, and wildlife sightings. 

Cultural Resources Actions 

No known cultural sites exist on the refuge. Our 

regional archeologist recently inspected referenced 

areas of interest in the Santana Research Natural 

Area at least twice and found that these areas were 

not designated archeological or historic sites. We 

would protect found cultural resources in accordance 

with Federal and State laws, policies, and guidelines. 

Our staff consults with the regional archeologist during the planning phase of proposed projects to decide 

on the need for an archeological site clearance from 

the Kansas State Historic Preservation Office before 

substantial dirt or surface alteration. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection Actions 

This section includes actions for visitor and 

employee safety and resource protection under alternative A. 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Station safety plans would be kept current and 

provide emergency contacts, safe operating procedures, and up-to-date training for all employees. 

Annual review of the station safety plan would be 

conducted and the plan would be available to all 

employees, contractors, and visitors, on request. All 

public use facilities at the refuge and GPNC would be 

made safe and accessible to everyone. The refuge 

bridges, trails, roads, and parking lots would be kept 

to provide safe access and travel. The refuge would 

keep directional, regulatory, and safety signs along 

routes of travel. 

Emergency shelters would be provided at the refuge and GPNC for employees and visitors. 

Security cameras would be used to provide more 

security for the employees and visitors at the Quivira 

Refuge headquarters. 

The refuge would keep up-to-date Memorandum 

of Understandings for mutual aid and emergency 

response with Stafford, Reno, and Rice counties to 

provide added enforcement for emergencies, disasters, and public safety on and off refuge. The Serviceowned GPNC would continue to rely on law 

enforcement and fire protection provided by the City 

of Wichita Police Department and security provided 

by Protection One or a similar contracted alarm system company. Refuge and GPNC fire extinguishers 

and Automated External Defibrillators would continue to be inspected monthly, with annual professional inspections being conducted. Annual fire drills, 

annual tornado drills, quarterly safety meetings, and 

frequent safety briefings for the employees would be 

conducted. The refuge and GPNC would continue to 

keep all safety plans current. 
The Great Plains Nature Center draws an everincreasing visitation from the city of Wichita and 

beyond. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 31 

The refuge would watch for signs of diseases that 

could potentially influence the health and safety of 

visitors and employees such as West Nile virus and 

avian influenza. The refuge would follow the Region 

6 mosquito control plan and pandemic influenza plan. 

Quarterly water testing for coliforms, nitrates, 

nitrites and annual testing of lead and copper would 

continue to be conducted for drinking water at the 

headquarters and visitor center, the environmental 

education center, the residences, and bunkhouses. 

Job hazard analysis would be kept up to date for 

hazardous operations performed by employees and 

proper training provided. The refuge would continue 

to employ a designated collateral duty safety officer 

that would oversee the safety operations at the refuge and the GPNC. Annual safety inspections by the 

collateral duty safety officer and tri-annual inspections by the regional safety office would be conducted 

at the refuge and the GPNC. Public events and associated activities would continue to be conducted with 

safety as a high priority. 

Resource Protection 

The entire refuge would be open to foot travel, 

unless otherwise posted as closed for critical nesting 

habitat, presence of whooping cranes, or for any other 

reason. The refuge would keep the employment of 

two commissioned, dual-function officers that would 

provide approximately 25–49 percent of their time 

conducting law enforcement activities. The focus 

would be on compliance checks for hunters and 

anglers on and in proximity to the refuge, keeping 

regulatory signage, and enforcement of the refuge 

hunting closure on the entire refuge when whooping 

cranes are present on the refuge. 

Law enforcement would enforce the refuge-specific closures. Refuge officers would also check and 

enforce the compliance of special use permits and 

activities. Law enforcement and the refuge’s visitor 

services staff would work together to inform the 

media and the public of regulation changes. 

Administration Actions 

This section includes actions for staff and budget 

and facilities and infrastructure under alternative A. 

Staff and Budget 

Staff and budget actions include those at both Quivira Refuge and the GPNC. 

Quivira Refuge 

Our budget at the refuge is adequate to support 

current staff and facilities. A list of permanent and 

temporary staff, as well as recommended staff 

increases, can be found in section 4.9 Administration 

and in table 17. We also hire one-to-five seasonal biological aids and technicians and range technicians 

each year as our budget allows. We also use the 

Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) program, generally 

with three enrollees annually for 8 weeks. Quivira 

Refuge also provides office space for a regional refuge zone biologist and a Partners lands biologist. 

Great Plains Nature Center 

We would continue to support the GPNC through 

its partnership with the City of Wichita Department 

of Park and Recreation and the KDWPT. Our staff 

level at the GPNC would remain the same. 

Present Limitations and Future Potential 

Our capacity for active management at the refuge 

is constrained by limited staff and budgeting. Our 

current staff levels are insufficient to meet program 

mandates, which would result in limited management 

on some units. More staff would be needed to meet 

the minimum staff needs as identified in the Refuge 

Operating Needs System (RONS) database and in a 

separate law enforcement needs list. The top priority 

in RONS for Quivira Refuge is to add one permanent, 

full-time maintenance worker. The regional law 

enforcement staff plan identified adding one permanent full-time refuge officer. We would seek money 

through grants and initiatives to supplement staff 

and projects at the refuge. 

USFWS 
Facilities and Infrastructure 

We would keep facilities, infrastructure, vehicles, 

and other equipment in good working condition and 

use annual and deferred maintenance money to 

achieve our goals. We would not, however, allow the 

trapping of nuisance animals. 

We have 25 miles of canals, 24 miles of dikes and 

103 water control structures on the refuge that are 

used for water delivery and wetland management. 

We would continue to support more than 14 miles of 

roads and 33 parking lots for public use and 27 miles 

of roads for our management purposes. We would 

also keep more than 97 miles of barbwire fence and 

54 miles of electric fence for the grazing program. 

Our buildings on the refuge include an office, a 

visitor center, a maintenance shop, three storage 

buildings, one pole barn, an environmental education 

classroom, two residences, two bunkhouses and two 

vault toilets. 

The GPNC has a large visitor center building with 

classrooms, offices, and an auditorium; a separate 

storage garage; and a fenced compound. 

The RONS database identifies a deferred mainte

nance projects list, which is a potential source of 

more money. 

3.5 Alternative B (Proposed 

Action) 

We would focus on restoring native communities 

and promoting the potential natural range of condi

tions 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 would increase our attention and 

understanding of the connectedness of habitats and 

the effectiveness of our management. To achieve this 

alternative, relatively minor changes in our opera

tions; inventory, monitoring programs, and research; 

staff; and infrastructure would likely be required. 

32 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Focal Species or Resources 

­

­

­ ­

­

National wildlife refuges are managed for “wild

life first,” however, Quivira Refuge is isolated within 

a fragmented watershed with disrupted processes. It 

is too small to successfully meet the life cycle needs 

of all native wildlife that historically occurred on 

these refuge lands yearly. Therefore, we manage

habitat conditions to optimize productivity and sus-

­

tainability, 

which requires

dynamic fluctua

tions in hydrol

ogy and periodic 

disturbance. 

Our approach

ultimately helps 

a greater diver

­

­

sity of native wildlife over the long term, as habitat 

conditions are in a constant state of flux. 

To make sure that critical habitat resources are 

provided to as many species as possible, our planning 

team developed a list of priority management species 

termed “focal species or resources” that can be used 

as indicators of habitat quantity and quality over 

time (table 3). We developed this list using various 

regional and national conservation plans and species 

of concern lists, while applying refuge location and 

natural resources for context. We considered factors 

such as: (1) relevance to the refuge purposes and 

proper policies and mandates; (2) a species status as 

native or nonnative; (3) species population trends; (4) 

species range distribution in relation to refuge loca

tion; (5) species current and potential occurrence on 

refuge lands; (6) species tolerance of grassland frag

mentation, urbanization, and agricultural activities; 

and (7) the availability and condition of habitat out

side refuge boundaries (figure 7). 

We are now working on technical guidance for the 

implementation of a surrogate species approach for 

managing species. Surrogate species is a commonly 

used scientific term for system-based conservation 

planning that uses a species as an indicator of land

scape habitat and system conditions. Surrogate spe

cies are used for comprehensive conservation 

planning that supports multiple species and habitats 

within a defined landscape or geographic area. 

Different criteria are used to create focal species 

and surrogate species, and the two terms are not 

interchangeable. Therefore, definitions and criteria 

described in the 

Quivira Refuge

CCP and EA for 

focal species

were developed

independently of 

the surrogate

species approach. 

When the Ser

vice finishes the 

surrogate species 

approach, we will 

implement it as 

appropriate. 

Interior Least Tern 

­

­

­

­

S WFUS

Bald Eagle 

­

S WFUS
Table 3. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Recent Seasonal Abundance1 Management Priority by Habitat 

Association and Life Event2 

Species Common Name September December March to June to to Novem- to Febru- Migration Breeding Wintering May August ber ary 

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 

WWW 5 Canada Goose* c c c c WWW WWW GGG 

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 

WWW 11 Mallard* c c c c WWW WWW GGG 

WWW 12 Blue-winged Teal* c c c 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 

Refuge was part of historical range, but is not now. May use in future, 29 Lesser Prairie-Chicken 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 Misc. 

34 American White Pelican c c c o WWW 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 33 
Table 3. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Recent Seasonal Abundance1 Management Priority by Habitat 

Association and Life Event2 

Species Common Name September December March to June to to Novem- to Febru- Migration Breeding Wintering May August ber ary 

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 

Yellow-crowned 43 u u o W Night-Heron* 

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 

34 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Table 3. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Recent Seasonal Abundance1 Management Priority by Habitat 

Association and Life Event2 

Species Common Name September December March to June to to Novem- to Febru- Migration Breeding Wintering May August ber ary 

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 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 35 
Table 3. Focal species by life event and habitat at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Recent Seasonal Abundance1 Management Priority by Habitat 

Association and Life Event2 

Species Common Name September December March to June to to Novem- to Febru- Migration Breeding Wintering May August ber ary 

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 Misc. 

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. 

36 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 37 
 Figure 7. Land use and habitat outside the boundaries of Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
 

38 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Landscape Conservation Actions 

This section includes actions for climate change 

and land protection under alternative B. 

Climate Change 

Would be the same as under alternative A. 

Land Protection 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A. We would also increase work with adjacent 

private landowners through the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife (Partners) program in a newly established focus area that is comprised of Quivira Refuge 

and Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area. We would 

rank areas, when possible, based on providing quality 

habitat for focal resources with a secondary emphasis 

on restoring natural processes. However, conducting 

projects would depend on the level of interest and 

objectives of private landowners. 

Native Ecological Community 

Conservation Actions 

This section includes actions for a variety of habitats and activities under alternative B. 

Big Salt Marsh 

We would mimic a more natural hydroperiod that 

promotes the sustainability of native plant communities that meet the requisites of focal species. Hydrology, or the quantity, timing, and duration of flooding, 

would be largely determined by climate elements 

such as precipitation and temperature and by ground 

water discharge. Our intentional diversions of Rattlesnake Creek water into the BSM would be infrequent 

and used primarily to overcome the limitations of our 

existing water management infrastructure on the 

refuge. For example, we may periodically divert 

water through water control structures on the east 

side of the BSM through units 57 and 58 and along 

the east side of Wildlife Drive to Salt Creek because 

this is the only way to actively dewater units 57 and 

58 and some Rattlesnake Creek canal water and a 

way management handles flood flows in this area. 

Also, because we face a declining water table and 

other uncertainties about water availability in the 

watershed, it is possible that our management of the 

BSM may become more reliant on Rattlesnake Creek 

water in the future. Therefore, while this alternative 

would seek to decrease regular use of Rattlesnake 

Creek water in this area of the refuge, we would keep 

our ability to periodically use this water source. We 

would evaluate the need, and the ability, to change 

ditches and structures to improve natural hydrology 

as long as focal species and their associated habitats 

are not compromised. We would be able to use prescribed fire, chemicals, mechanical methods, and 

prescriptive grazing to restore native plant communities and provide for focal species. 

Dickcissel 

Aron Flanders/USFWS 

Little Salt Marsh 

Would be the same as under alternative A. 

Riparian Corridor 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, but we would place a greater emphasis on 

restoring the native plant communities and structure 

needed to support focal resources. 

Created Wetlands 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except drawdown, flooding, and rehabilitation 

treatments would more specifically consider the 

needs of focal species and their associated habitats. 

Our staff would evaluate opportunities and conduct 

actions, as our budget allows, to improve water management capabilities and efficiencies that would help 

us to promote seasonal wetland plant productivity 

and diversity. 

Freshwater Springs 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that we would evaluate the effects of 

removing or changing the artesian well pipe, humanaltered features, and current environmental conditions in the Boiling Springs area. If our evaluation 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 39 

shows that changes would likely be positive for the 

native plant community and threatened and endangered (T and E) fish habitat needs, then we would act 

to improve conditions. Grazing, fire, chemical, and 

mechanical treatments would be limited to the best 

methods for controlling invasive species while supporting native communities and the needs of focal 

resources. 

Meadow 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that we would place more emphasis on 

restoring hydrology and native plant communities 

that provide structure and foods that support focal 

resources. For example, we would seek to restore 

sheet flow and ground water movement in meadows 

as long as it doesn’t negatively affect other communities, such as created wetlands. We would use prescribed grazing and prescribed fire to restore or 

support the native plant community composition and 

structure required for focal resources. Initially, we 

would apply chemical and mechanical treatments 

more extensively to control woody invasive species, 

and then we would rely on prescribed fire, grazing, 

and mechanical treatments, such as haying, to support desirable plant communities. 

Woodland 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that we would place more emphasis on 

developing prescriptions that would increase benefits 

for focal resources. 

Sand Prairie Complex 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that management decisions would be 

based on creating habitat conditions that meet the 

life history needs of focal resources at a finer level. 

We would evaluate and possibly remove infrastructure that improves sheet flow but does not compromise other community types. We would place 

temporary fences to aid grazing in controlling undesirable vegetation and to create structure for focal 

species. 

Cropland 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, plus go-back areas, which are areas that were 

farmed before and that have been allowed to revegetate without human intervention, would be “interseeded” and managed more intensively using 

prescribed grazing, fire, and mechanical or chemical 

treatments to restore native plant community composition and structure. 

Migratory Birds 

Emphasis on obligate and endemic grassland and 

meadow species that are focal resources would be 

increased. 

Fish 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, plus we would evaluate creating and keeping 

suitable habitat for focal resources that are of conservation concern in proper areas, like sloughs and segments of the Rattlesnake Creek channel. Our staff 

would work with partners to conduct habitat management and restoration actions and, if appropriate, 

reintroduce species. We would conduct more intensive monitoring programs on habitats and focal species to quantify population health. 

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, plus we would carry out strategies in proper 

habitats that explicitly address the needs of species 

of concern, as well as State- and federally listed fish, 

amphibians, and reptiles. 

Wildlife Native to the Region 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, with the recognition that this alternative 

would add detailed structural habitat needs for focal 

species. 

Wildlife Health 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, plus we would watch water quality and quantity more closely to detect changes that may 

adversely affect refuge resources and we would allow 

trapping—after a trapping plan has been approved— 

with a special use permit, if necessary, to help us 

control mammalian predators, such as skunks and 

raccoons, that negatively affect focal resources or 

that pose a disease risk. We would: allow the use of 

body gripping traps, commonly known as Conibear® 

traps, and live traps; continue to prohibit leg-hold 

traps; and set areas and seasons for trapping that 

avoid conflicts with whooping cranes and hunters and 

use methods that promote the safety of visitors and 

refuge staff. 
40 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, plus we would develop more monitoring protocols so that we can better help focal wildlife and 

habitat resources. We would advocate for research 

that informs or complements refuge management or 

landscape-level monitoring programs and studies. 

Visitor Services Actions 

This section includes actions for a variety of activities under alternative B. 

Hunting 

We would expand hunting on Quivira Refuge by 

increasing the area open to hunting and adjusting 

traditional hunting zone boundaries to protect endangered species. For all hunting seasons, the refuge 

manager would have the authority to close any area 

at any time to protect endangered species like the 

whooping crane. We would evaluate decisions and 

details related to the hunting program, including but 

not limited to changes in hunting season frameworks, 

on how they directly and indirectly affect wildlife 

populations and behaviors and on how they provide 

quality public hunting experiences 

Migratory and Upland Birds 

Hunting for migratory and upland birds would be 

the same as under alternative A, except that the 

hunting area would be modified to reduce conflict 

with traditional whooping crane use areas. We would 

only close specific units when whooping cranes are 

present in, or near or next to, those units. The recent 

movements and behavior of whooping cranes would 

be among multiple factors that we would consider 

when closing areas to hunting. The entire area open 

to waterfowl hunting would consist of no more than 

40 percent of the refuge, based on Quivira Refuge’s 

legislative authorities and as required by the Administration Act. Based on our past experience, this 

change would result in an increase in the number of 

days that the public could hunt waterfowl on the refuge. Upland bird hunting areas would not necessarily 

be the same areas as those for waterfowl hunting. 

Deer 

We would establish a new, limited archery hunting season for white-tailed deer. We would set herd 

health and population targets in consultation with 

KDWPT that would be used to define bag limits and 

areas open for hunting. We may also consider limited 

muzzleloader and shotgun seasons if we find that 

population targets would not be met with archeryonly hunting. We would also consider visitor safety in 

determining which areas would be open to hunting 

and which types of hunting would be offered. 

Upland Game (Turkey, Prairie-chicken, Furbearers) 

We would establish a new turkey hunting season 

and a furbearer hunting season. The area open for 

hunting would be established by our refuge management in consultation with KDWPT, and we would set 

bag limits based on refuge populations and wildlife 

health targets. Under this alternative, prairiechicken hunting would be allowed only if our refuge 

staff finds that refuge populations are deemed to be 

of sufficient health. 

Fishing 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that we would only stock fish in the 

Kid’s Fishing Pond or to reestablish native fish. 

Frogging for bullfrogs, only, would be allowed. All 

activities at Kid’s Fishing Pond would require adult 

supervision. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Would be the same as under alternative A. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that we would emphasize focal 

resources and how we manage for them in environmental education and interpretation programs. The 

environmental education and interpretation programs are continuously being enhanced, modified, or 

adapted to meet changes in methods and content at 

both Quivira and the GPNC. We would also allow and 

encourage virtual geocaching to increase the appreciation of our resources at Quivira Refuge. 

At the GPNC, we would continue to evaluate the 

exhibits and displays found in the Koch Habitat Hall 

and update them, as needed and as money becomes 

available. We would continue to evaluate the facility 

as it fits the needs of the partner agencies and make 

changes, as needed and as money becomes available. 

Other Uses 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that we would allow commercial photography and commercial tours for birding only, both 

with a special use permit. 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 41 

Public Outreach Actions 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, plus we would install a tower camera at the 

nesting bald eagle and BSM areas to help visitors 

understand and appreciate our resources on Quivira 

Refuge. We would set up a moveable camera to aid 

wildlife viewing on the refuge and the public would 

have a better idea of the wildlife to be seen when 

looking toward the BSM area. Camera-related activity would be noted on the Web, through social media 

and in public programs. 

Setting up a tower camera would also encourage 

more visitation to the refuge and our Web page. 

Cultural Resources Actions 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that we would also increase the interpretation of cultural resources by adding exhibits in 

the visitor center and in the environmental education 

center and we would install better signage throughout the refuge. We would also work with tribal partners to provide more correct and diverse 

interpretation products. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection Actions 

This section includes actions for visitor and 

employee safety and resource protection under alternative B. 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Would be the same as under alternative A. 

Resource Protection 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that our refuge hunting areas would be 

modified and we would establish new regulations on 

when and how to close areas when whooping cranes 

are present. 

This observation tower at the Little Salt Marsh is part of the extensive infrastructure maintained on Quivira Refuge. 

Barry Jones/USFWS 
42 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Administration Actions 

This section includes actions for staff and budget 

and facilities and infrastructure under alternative B. 

Staff and Budget 

Would be the same as under alternative A. 

Facilities and Infrastructure 

Our actions would be the same as under alterna

tive A, plus we would ask for another cold storage 

building and fire cache to fully carry out this alterna

tive. The bunkhouse in the center of the refuge would 

be replaced with a facility in a new location near our 

headquarters. Water quality at the bunkhouse is 

poor, and consolidating all residences would reduce 

the footprint of our administrative sites and provide 

a nicer living area. We would also issue special use 

permits to trap and remove beavers and other bur

rowing animals that threaten our infrastructure, 

including water control structures, roads, dikes, and 

canals (see above wildland health section, alternative 

B, for details). 

We would ask for more space at the GPNC for a 

larger classroom, a multipurpose room, and more 

offices. Money would mostly come from sources out

side the Government. We would also ask for another 

storage building and a larger equipment compound. 

­

­

­

­

3.6 Alternative C 

To the extent possible, we would promote selfsustaining natural processes with less regard to the 

effects on focal species relative to alternative B, 

though we understand that complete ecological resto

ration is impossible. Our key values for restoring 

natural ecological processes include achieving the 

long-term sustainability of native communities and 

lowering maintenance costs. We find that it is widely 

accepted that native plant communities tend to be 

more resilient to climate change and other environ

mental stressors than nonnative and highly managed 

ecosystems. Native wildlife species, including our 

trust resources, are also able to adapt to such 

changes. Our efforts, such as prescribed fire, grazing, 

and invasive species control, would be focused on sup

porting native plant community composition and 

diversity, and we would presume that native wildlife 

would benefit from these activities. 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. 

Considerable time would be required up front for 

us to assess current ecological functions, find key ele

ments that should be restored, and evaluate potential 

restoration options that could be conducted given 

biological, economic, social, political, and legal 

constraints. 

Our ability to restore surface and subsurface 

hydrology is the one factor most likely to influence 

restoration potential. First, to maintain water rights 

to conserve natural resources, we would need some 

water control structures to remain on Quivira Ref

uge to divert Rattlesnake Creek water. Second, we 

cannot alter, or fully mitigate for, some infrastruc

ture and actions known to change hydrologic pro

cesses, such as county roads that bisect important 

flow paths on the refuge and water uses by others 

that deplete ground water in the watershed. While 

these are major constraints, opportunities would still 

exist to improve ecological functions. For example, 

we could alter water amounts and movements to 

mimic natural, seasonal patterns of flooding, and we 

could remove or change dikes and trails on the refuge 

to restore hydrologic connectivity and sheet flow in 

certain refuge areas. 

We would carry out this alternative in stages over 

many years, and changes in our research and moni

toring programs, staff, operations, and infrastruc

ture 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. 

Landscape Conservation Actions 

This section includes actions for climate change 

and land protection under alternative C. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

Climate Change 

Our actions would be the same as under alterna

tive A, plus we might increase ecosystem resilience 

by restoring ecological processes on a greater part of 

the refuge. However, we may have less control over 

the area’s hydrology when we remove or change some 

infrastructure, which may influence the amount of 

available wetland habitat within, and among, years. 

­

Land Protection 

Our actions would be the same as under alterna

tive B, except that we would rank areas based on 

­
Chapter 3—Alternatives 43 

restoring ecosystem processes and place less empha

sis on providing resources for focal resources. 

­

Native Ecological Community 

Conservation Actions 

This section includes actions for a variety of habi

tats and activities under alternative C. 

­

Big Salt Marsh 

We would manage water the same as under alter

native B, except that we would focus more on the 

restoration and sustainability of native plant commu

nities than on focal resources. We would use fire and 

grazing prescriptions to restore native plant commu

nities and then on supporting native plant community 

composition and nutrient cycling. We would use patch 

burns, which involve the use of prescribed fire to 

make certain areas more attractive to grazing by 

cattle or bison and to create a diversity of habitat in 

the landscape, and we would evaluate the grazing by 

native ungulates, like bison, as a possible prescrip

tion. We may need to remove interior fences, and we 

would only use chemical and mechanical treatments 

during the plant restoration phase. 

We would manage infrastructure the same as 

under alternative B, except that we would evaluate 

our ability and need to change the infrastructure 

that we own, such as roads, dikes, ditches, and water 

control structures, for improving the sustainability of 

native communities and natural hydrology instead of 

for focal resources. For example, we would consider 

the modification or removal of the wildlife drive dike 

or road to Mandalay. 

­

­

­

­

Little Salt Marsh 

Our actions would be the same as under alterna

tive B, except that we would focus more on restoring 

processes for the long-term sustainability of native 

plant communities than on supporting annual habitat 

needs for focal resources. 

­

Riparian Corridor 

Our actions would be the same as under alterna

tive B, except that we would evaluate our infrastruc

ture for managing created wetlands, and we would 

change or remove features that we find to be nones

sential or obstructive to natural hydrologic flow 

paths. We would evaluate adding more diversion 

points as a strategy to mimic natural hydrologic pat

terns in sloughs and in Rattlesnake Creek. We would 

­

­

­

­

restore natural hydrology and processes in certain 

areas to support the sustainability of native commu

nities with the assumption that native wildlife would 

benefit from our efforts. 

­

Created Wetlands 

Our actions would mimic a more naturally func

tioning system that may require less active water 

management by refuge staff. Our current infrastruc

ture used to manage created wetlands would be 

evaluated, and features that are nonessential or that 

hinder natural hydrologic flow paths would be 

removed or modified to restore hydrology and to 

improve native plant communities. 

We would consider adding diversion points as a 

strategy to increase our flexibility in restoring 

hydrology. Most created wetlands would be restored 

to native habitat types based on an HGM analysis 

conducted for Quivira Refuge (Heitmeyer et al. 2012). 

­

­

Freshwater Springs 

Would be the same as under alternative B. 

Meadow 

Our actions would focus on restoring the natural 

processes and native vegetation characteristic of 

meadows in this region. We would base hydrology on 

ground water discharge, sheet flow, and precipita

tion. The infrastructure that we own, such as roads, 

dikes, ditches, and water control structures, would be 

evaluated, and features that are considered nones

sential would be removed to improve natural hydrol

ogy. Our restoration success would be affected, in 

part, by limitations in our ability to mitigate onsite 

and offsite hydrologic effects that are beyond our 

control, like the presence of county roads and 

changes in the water table. 

We would use fire and grazing prescriptions to 

restore native plant communities and then to support 

the processes, like nutrient cycling, necessary to sup

port native plant community composition. We would 

consider using patch burns and grazing by native 

ungulates, like bison, and we may remove interior 

fences. We would use chemical and mechanical treat

ments extensively up front to combat invasive spe

cies, but we would only use it later when prescribed 

fire and grazing are not effective. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

Woodland 

We would remove woodlands, such as larger shel

terbelts and planted tree groves (figure 6), and we 

would restore these areas to their proper habitat 

­
44 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

types as described in an HGM analysis for Quivira 

Refuge (Heitmeyer et al. 2012) and in chapter 4. 

Sand Prairie Complex 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative B, except that we would focus on restoring natural functions and native plant and wildlife 

communities. 

We would use fire and grazing prescriptions up 

front to restore native plant communities and then 

use prescriptions to support environmental conditions and native plant community composition. 

Because we would manage for natural processes, we 

would expect sand blowouts and active sand dunes to 

develop, which we would consider to be parts of this 

habitat type. Interior fences may be removed and 

patch burn grazing by native ungulates, like bison, 

may be used to support native communities. We 

would use chemical and mechanical treatments 

extensively during the plant restoration phase, but 

use these later only when fire and grazing are not 

effective. 

We would remove or alter, as in breach, infrastructure such as refuge roads and ditches when 

necessary to restore hydrology and to promote 

native plant communities. As a result, it is possible 

that prairie or upland vegetation might replace wetland vegetation. Initially we would use existing fencing to accomplish plant restoration, but, when 

restoration is complete, nonessential interior fencing 

would be removed. 

Cropland 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative B, except that we would devote more resources 

to restoration activities and restore cropland to 

native communities more quickly. 

Migratory Birds 

Actions would involve a variety of habitats. 

Wetland 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that some created wetland habitat 

would be removed and surface water would be 

reduced in the LSM during some years. This would 

reduce habitat for nesting and migrating waterbirds 

in most years. The amount of shallowly flooded shorebird habitat would fluctuate annually and, in most 

years, would be reduced. 

Herbaceous Upland 

Would be the same as under alternative B. 

Woodland 

We would remove woodland on the refuge because 

it is not a naturally occurring habitat type and would 

not have been present during the presettlement 

period. 

Fish 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative B, except that we would remove the Kid’s Fishing Pond by restoring it to its original habitat as 

much as possible. We would restore riparian habitat, 

including the hydrology of waterways on the refuge, 

which could increase native fish populations by 

improving streamflows in the Rattlesnake and Salt 

Creeks. In addition, we would consider reintroducing 

native fish into Dead Horse Slough. By restoring 

freshwater springs, we would expect to enhance the 

protection and sustainability of existing native fish 

populations. 

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative B, except that our prescriptions would be based 

more on restoring the processes necessary to promote native communities than on providing habitat 

for species. While we are uncertain about how habitat conditions will develop, it is possible that we 

would reduce habitat for interior least tern and western snowy plover nesting in some years and would 

reduce spring and fall migration habitat for whooping 

cranes. We would also consider introducing bison and 

other extirpated native species to the refuge. 

Wildlife Native to the Region 

Would be the same as under alternative B, except 

that we would use larger scale prescriptions to promote plant community characteristics. 

Wildlife Health 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, plus our staff would watch for a broader suite 

of environmental conditions that are related to diseases in this area of the Great Plains. We would conduct more wildlife health surveillance through 

proactive health checks, and we would manage refuge habitats to decrease adverse health issues. Our 

restoration of the cropland and removal of the woodland habitat types may reduce disease potential 

because these habitat types often harbor high concentrations of wildlife. In our evaluation of bison 
Chapter 3—Alternatives 45 

introduction, we would need to consider increased 

wildlife health issues, such as disease transmission 

among bison and other herbivores. 

Eastern Racer 

S WSFU/nahuba LlehcaR

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative B, except that we would monitor populations to 

decide if, when, and how hunting and trapping would 

be allowed on the refuge. Habitat-monitoring programs would increase as we conduct restoration to 

decide how we might use grazing, fire, and invasive 

species control. 

Visitor Services Actions 

This section includes actions for a variety of activities under alternative C. 

Hunting 

Hunting opportunities would be same as under 

alternative B, except that we would base all hunting 

seasons and bag limits on keeping refuge populations 

at proper sizes based on habitat conditions and wildlife health and not just in accordance with Statedetermined seasons. Sandhill crane, deer, turkey, and 

prairie-chicken hunting would be permitted if refuge 

populations allow it and if it is necessary to address 

health concerns, as decided on by our refuge staff. 

We would employ special regulations to address 

issues specifically related to the refuge deer herd. We 

would allow furbearer hunting with shotgun or 

archery only if refuge populations allow it or for 

health purposes. Our staff would continue to close 

the refuge to migratory bird hunting when whooping 

cranes are present to reduce the risk of killing them. 

For deer, furbearer, and upland game hunting, we 

would only close specific units if whooping cranes are 

present to prevent disturbing them. 

Fishing 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative B, but only if populations allow them or for 

health management purposes. We would also more 

aggressively control nonnative fish, reptiles, and 

amphibians. We would reduce fishing opportunities in 

Darrynane Lake, as we would likely remove the 

structures that provided deeper water habitat there. 

We would remove the Kid’s Fishing Pond. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Our actions would be the same as under alternative A, except that we would restrict entry during 

the nesting season to selected roads to reduce disturbance. We would also close the Wildlife Drive during 

the nesting season and, during the next 15 years, 

evaluate the need to remove the Wildlife Drive infrastructure because it may negatively affect the environment. Our tour route would be much more 

limited, when compared to the other alternatives, 

because our management units would be larger. If we 

reintroduce bison, viewing opportunities would 

become more limited because we would remove the 

hunter access road and, possibly, the Wildlife Drive 

and we may need to install taller boundary fences. 

Visitors would have to go around the outside boundary to observe wildlife. Our only open roads would be 

State, county, and township roads. 
46 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Would be the same as under alternative B, plus we 

would decrease, or remove, developments such as 

trails that facilitate the dispersal of invasive plants or 

that would otherwise negatively affect biological 

populations through disturbance or other actions. 

Other Uses 

Our actions would be the same as under alterna

tive A, except that we would decrease, or remove, 

developments such as trails that facilitate the dis

bursal of invasive plants or that would otherwise 

negatively affect biological populations through dis

turbance or other actions. 

During the nesting season, we would close the 

Wildlife Drive and entry would be restricted to 

selected roads to reduce disturbance and improve 

safety. 

­

­

­

Public Outreach Actions 

Would be the same as under alternative B. 

Cultural Resources Actions 

Would be the same as under alternative B. 

Visitor and Employee Safety and 

Resource Protection Actions 

This section includes actions for visitor and 

employee safety and resource protection under alter

native C. 

­

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Would be the same as under alternative A. 

Resource Protection 

Our actions would be the same as under alterna

tive A, except that we would only stop waterfowl and 

sandhill crane hunting when whooping cranes are 

­

present. We would leave all other areas open when 

whooping cranes are present unless a specific unit or 

area is closed for protection. We would increase 

efforts to enforce regulations related to closed areas 

because more areas would be closed when compared 

to alternatives A and B. 

Administration Actions 

This section includes actions for staff and budget 

and facilities and infrastructure under alternative C. 

Staff and Budget 

Our actions would be the same as under alterna

tive A, plus we would need two more permanent, fulltime biological staff to conduct increased biological 

inventorying and wildlife population and habitat 

checking. We would need more permanent staff to 

more aggressively control invasive species and to 

restore native plant communities. More positions 

would be needed to manage bison and horses if they 

are reintroduced to conduct health checks and other 

necessary activities. 

­

Facilities and Infrastructure 

We would set priorities for infrastructure that 

impedes natural hydrologic flows, and is not neces

sary, for removal or modification. We would restore 

lands affected by these changes to habitat types iden

tified in the HGM analysis for Quivira Refuge as best 

we can. We would remove many interior fences 

because grazing regimes would change to allow for a 

much more natural movement of herbivores. Trap

ping to remove nuisance animals would be the same 

as under alternative B. 

If we reintroduce native herbivores, taller bound

ary fences would be required and access on interior 

roads would be reduced because interior fences 

would be removed to allow for natural movement. We 

would require bison handling facilities. 

­

­

­

­

3.7 Summary of Alternatives 

and Consequences 

Table 4 summarizes the management actions and 

environmental consequences for alternatives A–C. 
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Landscape Conservation Goal. Actively protect, preserve, manage, and restore the functionality of the diverse 

ecosystems of the Rattlesnake Creek watershed. 

Climate Change—actions 

Conserve native communities. 

Rely on partners, Great Plains 

landscape conservation cooperatives, 

Service Climate Change Team for cli

mate change-related information, 

research and monitoring programs, 

and modeling. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, plus restore 

native plant communities and pro

cesses on a greater part of the refuge. 

Climate Change—environmental consequences 

Refuge-specific information would 

be used to improve management 

strategies or to evaluate changes. 

We may detect and consider shifts 

in some plant and wildlife species dis

tributions and conditions, but likely 

would not differentiate between vari

ous factors influencing community 

changes. 

Same as alternative A. Shift in management focus may 

result in more support of ecosystem 

resilience. 

We may not be in a position to 

resist, or prolong, community changes 

over time. 

Land Protection—actions 

Promote NRCS, KDWPT, and 

Partners work with landowners on 

various types of land protection and 

management easements and agree

ments throughout Kansas. 

Periodically assess roles of the ref

uge at different landscape scales. 

Communicate conservation issues.

 On abandonment of oil wells, 

reclaim mineral rights. 

Same as alternative A, plus would 

increase work with Partners pro

grams in newly established focus 

area. 

Rank areas based on providing 

quality habitat for focal species with a 

secondary emphasis on restoring pro

cesses. 

Same as alternative B, except 

would rank areas most beneficial to 

restoring processes, with a secondary 

emphasis on providing resources for 

focal species. 

Land Protection—environmental consequences 

A potential negative effect is the 

risk that we promote landscape pro

grams when, in some cases, land man

agement on private lands conflicts or 

adversely affects the achievement of 

our objectives. 

Knowledge of landscape changes 

would help us interpret changes 

observed or measured on the refuge, 

to keep or improve public interac

tions, to keep or improve relevancy in 

educational programs, and to promote 

management efficiency. 

Socially, the limitation and gradual 

elimination of oil wells would be a 

benefit because visitors do not want 

to see oil-related activities on the ref

uge. Reduced economic activity on the 

refuge may affect the local economy 

over time. 

Same as alternative A, plus collabo

rating on common concerns would 

improve effectiveness of management. 

Same as alternative B, except 

restoring ecological processes would 

improve ecosystem resiliency over 

other alternatives. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 47 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

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. 

Big Salt Marsh—actions 

Manage the BSM and adjacent salt 

flats largely depending on natural cli

mate and hydrology and minimal use 

of Rattlesnake Creek water, allowing 

dynamic fluctuations in water quan

tity and quality to occur within, and 

among, years. 

Manage under a more natural 

hydroperiod, while providing native 

plant communities that meet requi

sites of focal species. 

Restore the natural hydroperiod 

and native plant communities to the 

extent possible within certain con

straints. 

Water Management—Base hydrol

ogy on ground water discharge and 

minimal use of Rattlesnake Creek 

water. 

Water Management—Base hydrol

ogy on ground water discharge and 

minimal intentional diversion of Rat

tlesnake Creek water. 

Water Management—Same as 

alternative B, except focus more on 

restoring natural conditions and focus 

less on focal species. 

Fire—Base prescriptions on the 

restoration of native plant communi

ties. 

Fire—Base prescriptions on the 

restoration of native plant communi

ties and on providing for the needs of 

focal species. 

Fire—Base prescriptions on 

restoring native plant communities 

followed by prescriptions that are 

related to environmental conditions 

and keeping native plant community 

composition. Evaluate patch burn 

grazing. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—Use to decrease undesirable 

plant species and encourage more 

favorable conditions for native com

munities. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—Restore native plant commu

nities and provide for the needs of 

focal species. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—Restore native plant commu

nities. 

Grazing—Use to restore native 

vegetation. 

Grazing—Increase prescriptive 

grazing to promote restoration of 

native plant communities and provide 

for the needs of focal species. 

Grazing—Increase prescriptive 

grazing to restore native plant com

munities. After completing restora

tion, use grazing to keep native plant 

community composition. Evaluate 

reintroducing bison. 

Infrastructure—no change in cur

rent infrastructure. 

Infrastructure—Evaluate to 

improve natural hydrology as long it 

does not compromise focal species 

management. 

Infrastructure—Same as alterna

tive B, except focus more on restoring 

natural conditions and focus less on 

focal species. 

Big Salt Marsh—environmental consequences 

Dynamic fluctuations in water con

ditions would promote nutrient 

cycling and wetland productivity. 

Carp would be controlled to 

improve water quality and sunlight 

penetration through the water column 

and reduce competition with migra

tory birds for invertebrate resources. 

Natural salinity to the marsh 

would be restored over time and limit 

the growth of emergent cattail and 

Phragmites. 

Promoting natural marsh cycles 

would allow us to educate about 

inland saltmarsh systems. 

There would be improved natural 

hydrology to better help focal species. 

The periodic drying of the marsh 

would allow wind to naturally scour 

basins, which is an important process 

for increasing wetland productivity. 

There would be improved natural 

hydrology but there would be fewer 

benefits for focal species in some 

years. 

Would likely provide less water for 

hunting and waterfowl early in the 

season. 

48 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­ ­

­ ­

­

­ ­

­

­ ­

­

­

­ ­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Big Salt Marsh—environmental consequences (continued) 

Seasonal declines in water levels 

would increase shallow water–mud

flat habitat to help shorebirds during 

late-spring and summer migration, 

but water would not be available in 

some years for waterfowl migration in 

September and October. 

Burning would prevent woody veg

etation encroachment, recycle nutri

ents, prevent litter buildup, and 

support an early successional stage. 

Saltcedar—not affected by 

increased salinities—may increase as 

new seedlings establish when water 

levels decline in the summer. 

Little Salt Marsh—actions 

Manage primarily as a water stor

age wetland to convey water to all the 

other wetlands throughout the refuge 

except the BSM area. 

Use as storage, but allow fluctua

tions for productivity, restoring 

native plant communities, and habitat 

for T and E, migratory birds, and 

herptiles. 

Same as alternative B, except focus 

more on restoring natural conditions 

and focus less on focal species. 

Little Salt Marsh—environmental consequences 

Would hold water to flood created 

wetlands, though it would lose capac

ity through sedimentation. Could be 

the last source of water for wildlife in 

a drought. 

Would become fresher as salt is 

slowly diluted through managing as a 

flow-through marsh, not an overflow 

sump. 

Would be attractive to many 

migratory birds, primarily for roost

ing and some foraging if water levels 

are held low in the spring and fall. 

Carp infestation would recur 

because of its connection to the creek. 

Cattails would continue to domi

nate the shoreline as water levels are 

kept relatively stable during most of 

the year and salinities continue to 

decline. Phragmites and saltcedar 

would continue to expand without 

more herbicide control efforts. 

Would continue to be the most pop

ular fishing location and has an acces

sible fishing pier. Fishing would still 

be of low quality because carp domi

nate and Phragmites and cattail 

affect the accessibility of shorelines. 

Same as alternative A, except the 

benefits to focal species may increase 

slightly. 

Same as alternative B, except man

agement would encourage natural 

conditions to the extent possible. In 

the short term, this would result in 

less water available for fall flooding, 

but it is possible that less would be 

needed as created wetlands would 

also be altered. The highest periodic 

flooding would occur after rainfall 

events in the spring, followed by dry

ing in the summer and fall, while still 

providing roosting habitat for whoop

ing cranes in the early spring and fall. 

Nesting by least terns would not 

increase, but would be occasional 

depending on favorable habitat condi

tions. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 49 

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Riparian Corridor—actions 

Manage for water transport with 

ancillary benefits to wildlife 

Control invasive plant species with 

grazing, fire, mowing, tree cutting, 

chemicals, and rest. 

Protect current annual water 

rights. 

Same as alternative A, plus empha

size restoring native plant communi

ties and the structure needed to 

support focal species. 

Evaluate changing ditches and 

structures to improve natural drain

age, do not compromise created 

impoundments. 

Same as alternative B, except focus 

less on focal species. 

Evaluate more diversions and mod

ifications to current nonessential 

infrastructure to promote the sus

tainability of natural systems. 

Riparian Corridor—environmental consequences 

Would continue to transport nonna

tive, invasive species. 

Would provides ancillary help to 

wildlife. 

Would discourage cattle from con

gregating and causing damage by 

removing invasive trees. 

Same as Alterative A, except would 

place greater emphasis on restoring 

native plant communities. 

Same as Alterative B, except would 

remove or change features deemed to 

be nonessential or obstructive to 

mimic natural hydrologic patterns 

and support the long-term sustain

ability of native communities. Native 

wildlife, presumably, would benefit. 

Created Wetlands—actions 

Manage as seasonally flooded wet

lands with hydrologic regimes that 

vary in flooding depth, coverage, tim

ing, and duration within, and among, 

years. 

Aggressively control wetland inva

sive plants to prevent their establish

ment and spread. 

Use grazing, prescribed fire, 

mechanical and chemical treatments, 

and water manipulation to accomplish 

objectives for foraging migratory 

birds and some nesting. 

Same as alternative A, except use 

drawdown, flooding, and rehabilita

tion treatments for specific focal spe

cies. 

Find opportunities to improve 

water management capabilities and 

efficiencies. 

Seek modifications to promote the 

restoration of natural processes and 

native communities in certain areas. 

Alter infrastructure to restore 

sheet flow and natural hydrology, 

within constraints. 

Created Wetlands—environmental consequences 

Without active management, the 

extent and quality of seasonally 

flooded wetland resources would be 

substantially less in most years. 

High productivity would be sus

tained with the periodic drying and 

flooding. 

Would continue to successfully con

serve biological communities, but its 

extent would not be understood, 

which would be of highest concern. 

Could positively influence the pre

dictability and long-term success of 

implementation with a planning pro

cess that more efficiently informs 

management. 

Controlling hydrology within ref

uge boundaries may increase the 

long-term probability of sustaining 

native communities that occurred in 

presettlement times. 

Improved planning activities and 

more fully develop biological knowl

edge would likely increase the conser

vation of resources of highest concern. 

Would likely require more time to 

collect, synthesize, and assess infor

mation in the continual planning pro

cess. 

Having less control over hydrology 

within refuge boundaries would pose 

the greatest risk by increasing reli

ance on watershed conditions to 

achieve refuge purposes, goals, and 

objectives at a time when water quan

tity and quality are of greater con

cern. The availability and reliability 

of required resources for many spe

cies might be more dynamic within, 

and among, years. 

More temporally to seasonally 

flooded habitat could replace more 

permanently flooded habitat and 

cause species associated with those 

habitat types to shift accordingly. 

This change would likely favor many 

shorebird species over some diving 

waterfowl species. 

Time and costs for controlling inva

sive species could increase. 

50 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Freshwater Springs—actions 

Sustain in part to protect the cur

rent population of Arkansas darters. 

Evaluate habitat conditions in rela

tion to fish community conservation. 

Check water quality for adverse 

effects from increased public contact 

and evaluate for closure. 

Same as alternative A, except 

would restore hydrology and native 

plant communities and manage to 

sustain focal species. 

Same as alternative A, except 

would restore hydrology and native 

plant communities and manage to 

sustain T and E species habitat. 

Water Management—Keep exist

ing pipe and pump from removed oil 

well or pad. 

Water Management—Evaluate the 

potential effects of removing well rel

ative to native plant community and T 

and E habitat needs. Remove well if 

effects would be positive. 

Water Management—Same as 

alternative B. 

Grazing—Generally do not allow, 

however, it may occur periodically 

when managing adjacent community 

types. 

Grazing—Limit to situations when 

treatment is most effective in control

ling invasive species, stimulating 

plant growth, and creating structure 

necessary for focal species. 

Grazing—Use only if needed to 

keep native plant community or to 

alter vegetation structure to meet the 

life requisites of T and E species. 

Fire—Use only indirectly, as when 

prescriptions are based on the crite

ria for adjacent plant communities in 

the unit. 

Fire—Use when it is the best 

method for controlling invasive spe

cies, keeping native plant community 

structure, and creating structure for 

focal species. 

Fire—Use only if needed to keep 

native plant communities or to alter 

vegetation structure to meet the life 

requisites of T and E species. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—Use minimally. Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—Limit to when grazing and 

prescribed fire are not effective or are 

unsuccessful in controlling invasive 

species and creating structure 

required by focal species. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—Use only if fire and grazing 

are unsuccessful in meeting the life 

requisites of T and E species. 

Infrastructure—No change. Infrastructure—Depending on 

evaluation, may remove well to 

improve natural hydrology. Evaluate 

changing enhanced ponds near 

springs. 

Infrastructure—Same as alterna

tive B, except have ecological restora

tion in mind instead of the needs of 

focal species. 

Freshwater Springs—environmental consequences 

Fresh water would benefit some 

wildlife and fresh-to-saline conditions 

may encourage diversity. 

Exotic, invasive woody vegetation 

would increase and green sunfish and 

possibly other species would be sup

ported in larger ponds that are 

adverse to the Arkansas darter. 

Would reduce exotic, invasive 

trees, which may improve the avail

ability or quantity of water. 

Existing pipe would remain with 

unknown effects, full habitat poten

tial may not be realized. 

Habitat evaluation for fish commu

nity conservation would inform future 

management, but actions would be 

limited. 

Arkansas darter habitat conditions 

would be protected and enhanced. 

Same as alternative B, except 

emphasis would be on restoring natu

ral ecological conditions that may or 

may not help species other than the 

Arkansas darter. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 51 

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Freshwater Springs—environmental consequences (continued) 

Increased visitor use would 

increase threats to conservation. 

There would be no anticipated eco

nomic or social issues. 

Meadow—actions 

Restore and improve health and 

productivity. 

Decrease woody vegetation inva

sion to prevent conversion and man

age for a proper balance of vegetation 

structure and cover that helps various 

species. 

Periodically reduce litter buildup, 

improve nutrient cycling, and 

increase the diversity of vegetation 

structure and composition by using 

fire, mechanical, and grazing treat

ments. 

Influence hydrology by climate, 

ground water fluctuations like 

aboveground and belowground flood

ing, and wetland flooding and drying. 

Target certain meadow sites. 

Same as alternative A, except 

emphasize restoring hydrology and 

native plant communities and focus on 

focal species. 

Restore natural hydrology and 

plant communities, though changes in 

hydrology within the watershed may 

limit options. 

Water Management—Conduct, but 

with limited ability to control sheet 

flow. Manage water in created wet

lands and ground water discharge as 

indirect influences. 

Water Management—Same as 

alternative A, but emphasize restor

ing sheet flow and ground water 

movement in balance with other com

munities. 

Water Management—Restore 

hydrology to the extent possible, 

including removing or altering infra

structure that inhibit sheet flow and 

interrupt ground water flow paths. 

Grazing—Conduct in select areas. 

Prescription targets vary, but include 

the removal of litter, breakup of soil 

duff, stimulation of growth, and pro

motion of nutrient cycling. 

Grazing—Base prescription on a 

combination of restoring or keeping 

native plant community composition 

and on structure required for focal 

species. 

Grazing—Target prescriptions to 

restore native plant communities fol

lowed by supporting plant communi

ties by more closely emulating natural 

patterns. Evaluate the introduction of 

bison. 

Fire—Base prescription on restor

ing and keeping native plant commu

nities by removing litter, promoting 

nutrient cycling, and controlling inva

sive species. 

Fire—Base prescription on a com

bination of restoring or keeping 

native plant community composition 

and on structure required for focal 

species. 

Fire—Target prescriptions to 

restore native plant communities fol

lowed by supporting plant communi

ties by more closely emulating natural 

patterns. Evaluate patch burn graz

ing. 

Chemical and Mechanical 

Treatments—Use to control inva

sive woody species and excessive lit

ter accumulation. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—First use more extensively to 

control invasive species and then add 

other treatments to keep native plant 

community composition and structure 

required by focal species. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—First use intensively to com

bat invasive species and to restore 

native communities then limit to 

cases where fire and herbivory are 

not effective. 

Infrastructure—No change. Infrastructure—Find and carry 

out changes that would improve sheet 

flow and ground water discharge 

while not compromising other com

munity types. 

Infrastructure—Remove or alter 

infrastructure necessary to restore 

hydrology and promote native plant 

communities. Remove interior fences. 

52 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Meadow—environmental consequences 

Existing infrastructure manage

ment may cause changes and conver

sion to other community types. 

Reduced levels in the ground water 

table and changes in surface runoff 

may cause conversion to other com

munity types. Sheet flow restoration 

or the removal of past alterations 

would be minimal. 

Infrastructure would limit the full 

biological potential of meadows to 

support native communities. 

Same as alternative A, except 

expect an improvement in the support 

of focal species. 

May see improved awareness of the 

connectedness of different habitats 

and species relationships because this 

is a highly transitional habitat type. 

Restoration of natural processes 

and native vegetation would improve 

sheet flow and other characteristics 

necessary for increasing productivity. 

Effects on ground water levels 

might highly influence community 

changes. 

Woodland—actions 

Reduce invasive woody vegetation, 

especially in encroachment areas. 

Evaluate trade-offs with other 

areas to sustain native sand prairie 

communities and meet other conser

vation concerns, and rank activities 

accordingly. 

Same as alternative A, except 

emphasize prescriptions that would 

help focal species. 

Remove and restore area to habitat 

types identified in the HGM report. 

Woodland—environmental consequences 

Water table changes would likely 

have some effect on plant restoration 

following tree removal. Changes and 

consequences would be unknown and 

likely be influenced by watershed 

management. 

Biological—Would reduce the 

abundance and, possibly, the richness 

of wildlife here, which would increase 

those levels in open prairie habitat. 

Reducing Russian olive and saltce

dar would improve soil and water con

servation. 

Social—Would expect mixed reac

tions from different interest groups. 

Would be no foreseeable effect on 

waterfowl hunters. 

Remaining woodland would not 

help those species that draw visitors 

or promote their observation. 

Would increase the awareness of 

“wildlife first” and refuge roles and 

responsibilities. 

Same as alternative A, except 

would improve benefits to focal spe

cies. 

May affect hunters by affecting 

proposed deer and turkey hunting. 

Same as alternative A, except 

would be made similar to presettle

ment conditions consisting of few, iso

lated trees and no tree groves. Would 

favor native species associated with 

relatively small groves of native trees 

and shrubs, and the abundance. Rich

ness of species that now use nonnative 

shelterbelts would likely be reduced. 

May affect hunters by affecting 

proposed deer and turkey hunting. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 53 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Woodland—environmental consequences (continued) 

Economical—Costs would increase 

in the short term with reduction fol

lowed by habitat restoration. Subse

quent costs would decrease in part 

because of a reduction in invasive spe

cies and woody encroachment control. 

Costs related to water use and avail

ability would be decrease with the 

substantial reductions in tree cover, 

especially saltcedar along the ripar

ian corridor. 

Cultural and historic—Would bring 

communities closer to what occurred 

in presettlement times. 

Sand Prairie Complex—actions 

Control woody vegetation and con

serve the unfarmed areas by using 

fire, grazing, and mechanical and 

chemical treatments. 

Reduce occurrence and control 

encroachment of invasive woody spe

cies to what is believed to have 

occurred historically. 

Manage upland sand prairie to sup

port native communities, while keep

ing a high level of habitat diversity. 

Evaluate trade-offs and set priori

ties for of woody vegetation to sustain 

native communities, but also consider 

supporting other conservation con

cerns. 

Same as alternative A, except: 

reduce woody vegetation, to help focal 

species. 

Same as alternative A, except 

restore natural functions and native 

plant and wildlife communities. 

Water Management—None. Water Management—Same as 

alternative A. 

Water Management—Same as 

alternative A. 

Grazing—Prescriptions would Grazing—Same as alternative A, Grazing—Base prescriptions on 

vary by target such as cattail control, except focus on helping focal species. restoring and supporting native plant 

vegetation composition and structural communities, including the creation of 

diversity, and soil disturbance. sand blowouts and active sand dunes. 

Evaluate the use of bison. 

Fire—Target prescriptions to con

trol invasive species, stimulate 

growth, and remove litter. 

Fire—Same as alternative A, 

except focus on helping focal species. 

Fire—Base prescriptions to sup

port native plant communities. Con

sider patch burn grazing. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—Use as needed to control 

invasive species. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—Same as alternative A, 

except focus on helping focal species. 

Chemical and Mechanical Treatments—Use only when fire and her

bivory are ineffective. 

Infrastructure—No change. Infrastructure—Remove to 

improve sheet flow. Use temporary 

fences to control vegetation and cre

ate structure for focal species. 

Infrastructure—Remove or alter 

to restore hydrology and promote 

native plants. Fence for restoration, 

then remove what is not essential. 

54 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Sand Prairie Complex—environmental consequences 

Woodlands would threaten ecosys

tems and the presence, abundance, 

nesting success, and local composition 

of grassland birds through avoidance, 

lower species density or nest success, 

and increased predation and parasit

ism. 

Shrubs would affect grasslands 

like trees do. Native grasses may outcompete cheatgrass with the effects 

of cattle and trees removed and tall 

shrubs mowed. 

Might see wider range of habitat 

and wildlife use and more wildlife 

diversity and abundance, but focal 

species may not be adequately man

aged. Species of little concern would 

likely benefit more. 

Economical—Reducing trees and 

shrubs would decrease costs. 

Cultural and Historic—Would 

approach presettlement conditions. 

Same as alternative A, except spe

cies that are of conservation concern 

would benefit more. 

Treatments costs would be 

unknown but would differ from alter

native A. They would be less than 

under alternative C. 

More specific monitoring measures 

and subsequent feedback would mea

sure progress and help develop rec

ommendations. 

Would restore communities and 

functions better than alternative B. 

Social—Would expect mixed reac

tions from different interest groups if 

bison were introduced and areas were 

to be closed to the public for safety 

reasons. 

Economical—Costs would likely 

increase initially to change infra

structure and reduce invasive species. 

Monitoring programs would increase 

to evaluate the effects of infrastruc

ture changes. 

For bison, would consider adding 

boundary fences, removing most fenc

ing within the refuge, coordinating 

the burning program, screening for 

health and culling the herd, con

structing and maintaining a handling 

facility and water tanks, and moving 

bison safely and logistically. While 

there may be added costs, tourism 

may increase. 

Cropland—actions 

Manage current acreage with coop

erative farming agreements using 

annual seed cover crops. convert 

farmed lands to native communities 

as cooperators voluntarily withdraw. 

Gradually reseed to restore native 

community. Actively manage planted 

areas. Aggressively control invasive 

plants. 

Same as alternative A, except 

reseed and restore areas that were 

farmed before and that have been 

allowed to revegetate without human 

intervention to native communities. 

Same as alternative B, except 

restoring cropland to native commu

nities would occur quicker because 

more resources would be devoted and 

our cooperators would be informed. 

Cropland—environmental consequences 

Would harvest restored areas for 

seed. Would not affect food for 

regional and national waterfowl popu

lation goals. Presume that removal 

would improve conditions. 

High deer densities would be tied 

to winter wheat crops and waste 

grains. Visitors may be drawn to 

these areas, as many are near roads 

and would have lots of deer and 

waterfowl that would, however, also 

use the rest of the refuge. 

Farming would encourage annual 

invasive species establishment and 

spread because of equipment and dis

turbances to bare ground. 

Same as alternative A except more 

areas would be reseeded instead of 

being left to naturally go back to a 

native community. This would speed 

the recovery of cropped acreage, but 

would cost more in time and money 

than alternative A. 

There would be few negative or 

positive effects related to public use 

because these areas do not have the 

same types of wildlife use and public 

viewing opportunities as cropland. 

Would accelerate restoration and 

consume more time and money than 

alternatives A or B, resulting in 

faster restoration of native communi

ties. Effects would be the same as 

under alternative B, except benefits 

to wildlife would occur sooner. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 55 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Migratory Birds—actions 

Wetlands—Manage to provide 

migratory habitat and emphasize 

waterfowl, cranes, shorebirds, and 

rails, as well as nesting interior least 

tern and snowy plover and migratory 

whooping cranes. 

Wetlands—Same as alternative A. Wetlands—Same as alternative A. 

Herbaceous Uplands—Manage to Herbaceous Uplands—Emphasis Herbaceous Uplands—Same as 

provide migratory and nesting habi obligate grassland and meadow birds alternative B. 

tat and emphasize grassland and and focal species. 

meadow wildlife communities. 

Woodlands—Keep some to provide 

habitat for rookeries and for indirect 

benefits to neotropical migrants. 

Woodlands—Keep less than under 

alternative A. 

Woodlands—Remove. 

Migratory Birds—environmental consequences 

Would promote a wide diversity 

and abundance of migratory birds. 

Would reduce habitat for heron 

rookeries, raptor perching, some neo

tropical migrant resting and foraging, 

and other tree- and shrub-associated 

species use. Would increase the 

migration and nesting activities of 

endemic grassland birds. May 

decrease predation of eggs, young, 

and adult birds. 

Benefits would decrease for certain 

generalist species that have benefited 

from human modifications to the land

scape, but they may be supported by 

habitat conditions occurring beyond 

refuge boundaries. 

Would support species recovery 

plans and various regional and 

national bird conservation plans. 

Same as alternative A, except for 

an increase of potential benefits to 

endemic and obligate grassland spe

cies and waterbirds adapted to envi

ronments with fewer trees and 

shrubs. Would be reduced benefits for 

tree- and shrub-dependent species. 

Would likely decrease the overall 

abundance of migratory birds 

because of potential changes in 

hydrology, refuge infrastructure, and 

management. 

Wading bird rookeries would likely 

exist off of the refuge, and other treenesting species would decline on the 

refuge. Conditions removed here 

would continue to be commonly found, 

and increase, on both the regional and 

State levels. 

Provided water would be managed 

at the watershed level. Would support 

long-term ecosystem sustainability 

and productivity and would continue 

to provide long-term benefits to 

migratory birds. 

Fish—actions 

Control undesirable fish like carp 

primarily with periodic drying. Use 

chemicals rarely when drying is diffi

cult or impossible. 

Conserve native fish communities 

while supporting native habitats. 

Reduce invasive plants. 

Avoid stocking and introduction 

that favor nonnative fish over native 

fish, except for at the Kid’s Fishing 

Pond where stocking is for public use 

and education. 

Same as alternative A, except 

would evaluate creating and keeping 

suitable habitat in targeted areas to 

support native species. 

Would work with partners to carry 

out habitat management actions and 

to reintroduce species. 

Same as alternative B, except that 

the Kids’ Fishing Pond would be 

restored to its original habitat as 

much as possible. 

56 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 3—Alternatives 57 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Fish—environmental consequences 

Would improve water quality with 

the control of carp and other undesir

able fish. Species would continue to 

enter via Rattlesnake Creek inflows 

and through upstream migration via 

Salt Creek and Rattlesnake Creek. 

Would encourage a more natural 

range of high salinity and other water 

quality conditions in the BSM area to 

support native fish that tolerate high 

salinity. 

Would conserve the Boiling 

Springs freshwater habitat to support 

a source population of State-threat

ened Arkansas darters. 

Would avoid the stocking of nonna

tive fish to reduce the likelihood of 

introducing foreign or unwanted dis

eases and pathogens to resident 

aquatic species. 

Crayfish populations would con

tinue to predate on, and compete for, 

food and shelter with some wildlife 

species and provide food and shelter 

for others. 

Same as alternative A, except 

would improve the conservation of 

native fish populations by reintroduc

ing native fish and by evaluating, cre

ating, and keeping more suitable 

habitat in targeted areas both on and 

off the refuge through partnerships. 

Would further reduce the likeli

hood of introducing diseases and 

pathogens to existing refuge popula

tions of aquatic species by not allow

ing the use of live fish bait. 

Would allow frogging—bullfrogs 

only—which may introduce changes 

in fish populations and other associ

ated links in the ecosystem, though 

the level of take is not expected to 

have major effects. 

Same as alternative B, except that 

improvements in water quality and 

restored hydrology would be 

expected to help fish populations 

native to prairie streams. 

Sport and nonnative fish popula

tions would likely decline with the 

removal of Kid’s Fishing Pond 

because regular stocking would no 

longer occur. 

Conditions would vary in wet and 

dry years. The extent and duration of 

deep, permanent water on the refuge 

connected to Rattlesnake Creek 

would likely be reduced, thus 

adversely affecting nonnative or sport 

fish occurrence and survival. How

ever, some of the natural sloughs and 

ponds and riffle pools that have areas 

that are periodically isolated from the 

creek may function better to conserve 

native prairie fish populations. Also, 

there may be improved habitat for 

certain life cycle events of native fish 

in certain year or overall. 

Because of reduced water control, 

there may be occasional issues related 

to carp or other undesirable fish. 

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern—actions 

Keep existing designated critical 

habitat for T and E species. 

Maintain federally designated criti

cal habitat for whooping cranes. 

Maintain State-designated critical 

habitat for snowy plover, Arkansas 

Darter, and interior least tern, which 

is also federally listed. 

Support T and E species recovery 

implementation plan actions. 

Same as alternative A, except 

would develop prescriptions that 

explicitly address the habitat needs of 

species of concern as well as Stateand federally listed fish and herptiles. 

Same as alternative B, except pre

scriptions would be based more on 

keeping native communities and pro

cesses than on providing for the habi

tat needs of species. May provide 

reduced habitat for interior least tern, 

snowy plover, and whooping crane. 

Would evaluate the introduction of 

bison and other extirpated species. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern—environmental consequences 

Reduce woody vegetation would 

improve habitat conditions for all 

listed species except, possibly, the 

eastern spotted skunk. 

Predation of eggs, young, and 

adults may decrease. 

Same as alternative A, except a 

shift in management focus and more 

quantitative checking of management 

effects may increase potential bene

fits for species. 

Same as alternative A, except lim

ited control may make habitat avail

ability less dependable within, and 

among, years. Reintroduced species 

may benefit. 

Provided water would be managed 

at a watershed level and may support 

long-term ecosystem sustainability 

and productivity and species benefits. 

Would manage the BSM to more 

closely mimic presettlement times, 

benefiting some species over others. 

Traditional least tern nesting areas 

would likely flood less because water 

would not be kept artificially high in 

the spring, the basin would have more 

room to store rainfall, and artificial 

dikes and roads that impede waterflow would be removed. 

Wildlife Native to the Region—actions 

Support native habitat communi

ties. Manage habitat in ways that 

indirectly help species. 

Same as alternative A, except add 

a greater level of management for 

focal species. 

Same as alternative B, except 

increase scale. Base prescriptions 

more on processes and plant commu

nity characteristics. 

Wildlife Native to the Region—environmental consequences 

Species diversity would be sup

ported at regional, landscape, and 

national levels. 

Species associated with woody hab

itat would decrease within refuge 

boundaries, while native endemic spe

cies associated with open grassland 

would increase. 

Same as alternative A, except that 

benefits to endemic and obligate 

grassland species and wetland species 

adapted to environments with less 

coverage of trees and shrubs would 

increase. 

Same as alternative B, except the 

overall abundance would likely be 

mixed depending on species and con

ditions. Wildlife populations would 

likely experience more dynamic fluc

tuations within, and among, years. 

Long-term ecosystem sustainabil

ity and productivity would be maxi

mized and provide long-term benefits 

to wildlife. 

If patch burning occurs, it may 

benefit species diversity. 

Wildlife Health—actions 

Promote habitat conditions that 

decrease adverse health conditions. 

Watch for wildlife disease outbreaks regularly using formal or 

informal protocols and encourage 

testing for diseases or contaminants 

of potential concern. Support actions 

to address observed signals and 

symptoms and regional health trends. 

Same as alternative A, except 

emphasize water quality and quantity 

to detect changes that may adversely 

affect refuge resources. 

Allow trapping of nuisance animals 

with a special use permit. 

Same as alternative A, except 

watch a broader suite of environmental conditions related to diseases. 

Increase wildlife health surveil

lance including proactive health 

checks. 

Trapping of nuisance animals 

would be the same as alternative B. 

58 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Wildlife Health—environmental consequences 

Would keep contaminant levels 

within a normal range for the ecosys

tem. 

Changes in deer distribution may 

occur and contact rates should 

decline. The potential effects of 

chronic wasting disease may 

decrease. 

Same as alternative A, except 

emphasize water sampling to improve 

the early detection of potentially 

adverse conditions, and possibly pre

vent substantial wildlife die-offs. 

Would regularly sample water and, 

possibly, soil in and near streams and 

tributaries, ditches, and oil wells on 

the refuge to track trends in contami

nant levels. 

Changes in hunting regulations 

may improve wildlife health condi

tions, specifically for the current 

high-density deer population. 

Trapping could help control disease 

and nuisance animals, which would 

directly help wildlife. There would be 

a small economic benefit to trappers, 

who would most likely be locals. 

Same as alternative A, except a 

broader suite of environmental condi

tions would be watched, further 

improving wildlife health. 

A possible reduction in the control 

of water may result in a decrease in 

managing disease and health con

cerns. 

Management for ecosystem sus

tainability may increase resiliency, 

barring human-caused disasters such 

as an oil spill. 

If bison are introduced, wildlife 

health issues, such as disease trans

mission among bison and other herbi

vores, may increase. 

Trapping effects would be the same 

as alternative B. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research—actions 

Continue to evaluate current activ

ities and end or revise. 

Organize, review, and synthesize 

information relevant to biology and 

the management of the refuge and 

develop a vegetation cover map. 

Develop new protocols to improve 

monitoring programs for water qual

ity, nesting least terns, and vegeta

tion conditions in a manner that is 

practical and useful. 

Encourage informative research. 

Allow activities compatible with goals 

and objectives, involve good commu

nication with refuge staff, provide 

information related to refuge 

resources and management, and may 

address a current and potential 

future conservation or societal issue. 

Same as alternative A, except 

emphasize developing monitoring pro

tocols that would provide the informa

tion necessary to improve decisions. 

Base research on need or on coopera

tion in landscape-level monitoring 

programs and studies. 

Same as alternative B, except use 

better monitoring programs for habi

tat and populations before allowing 

uses like hunting. 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research—environmental consequences 

Would inform about factors within 

refuge boundaries, and provide indi

cations of how management may influ

ence conditions. 

Monitoring programs would involve 

relatively broad-scale measures and, 

perhaps, less intensive sampling. 

Would support management and 

resources of concern and support the 

interests of conservation programs 

and groups, educational institutions, 

and local economies. 

Same as alternative A, except that 

monitoring measures related to spe

cies–habitat needs would be more 

specific. Bell’s vireo or upland sand

piper would likely benefit as a result 

of this finer level of checking. 

More specific monitoring measures 

and subsequent feedback would be 

involved to measure progress and to 

help with recommendations. 

Same as alternative B, except those 

activities related to biological fac

tors would be more extensive. 

Activities would be needed to eval

uate the accomplishments of restora

tion activities before and after 

program implementation. 

Monitoring programs would be 

more costly. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 59 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Visitor Services Goal. See that visitors enjoy quality, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

Hunting—actions 

Migratory Birds—Permit for 

mourning dove, snipe, rail, and water

fowl in accordance with State seasons. 

Allow on no more area than what is 

approved now. Do not permit when 

whooping cranes are present. Make 

waterfowl hunting blind accessible by 

reservation 

Upland Game—Permit for pheas

ant, quail, rabbits, and squirrel in 

accordance with State seasons. 

Deer, Turkey, Sandhill Crane, 

Prairie-chicken, Furbearers—Do not 

permit. 

Migratory Birds—Same as alter

native A, except change hunt area to 

reduce conflict with whooping crane 

use areas. Close specific units when 

whooping cranes are present, similar 

to Cheyenne Bottoms. 

Upland Game—Change the hunt 

area to reduce conflict with whooping 

crane use. Do not tie upland game 

areas specifically to waterfowl hunt

ing areas. Close specific units if 

whooping cranes are present. 

Deer—Select an area open for 

hunting and set limits based on herd 

health and population targets. Estab

lish with help from the State. Close 

specific units if whooping cranes are 

present. 

Turkey—Select an area open for 

hunting. This would be established 

with help from the State. Close spe

cific units when whooping cranes are 

present. 

Sandhill Crane—Do not allow. 

Prairie-chicken—Allow if refuge 

population can support it or for health 

purposes, as decided by staff. Close 

specific units when whooping cranes 

are present. 

Furbearers—Allow only with shot

gun or archery if refuge population 

can support it or for health purposes. 

Migratory Birds—Same as alter

native A, except permit if refuge pop

ulations allow or for health purposes. 

Close when whooping cranes are 

present. 

Upland Game—Allow if refuge 

populations can support it or for 

health purposes. Close specific units 

when whooping cranes are present. 

Deer—Allow if refuge population 

can support it or for health purposes, 

as decided by staff. Employ special 

regulations. Close specific units when 

whooping cranes are present. 

Turkey—Allow if refuge population 

can support it or for health purposes, 

as decided by staff. Close specific 

units when whooping cranes are pres

ent. 

Sandhill Crane—Allow if refuge 

population can support it or for health 

purposes. Close when whooping 

cranes are present. 

Prairie-chicken—Allow if refuge 

population can support it or for health 

purposes, as decided by the State. 

Close specific units when whooping 

cranes are present. 

Furbearers—Allow only with shot

gun or archery, if refuge population 

can support it or for health purposes. 

Hunting—environmental consequences 

Deer—White-tailed deer should 

continue to increase until artificial 

controls, such as hunting, or natural 

controls, such as disease, change this 

trend. 

May exceed habitat carrying 

capacity threshold and deer health 

and habitat may decline. High deer 

populations may negatively affect 

native forbs and shrubs. 

Chronic wasting disease in deer 

may come closer to the refuge. 

Would offer spectacular deer view

ing. 

High deer populations could 

become a traffic safety concern. 

Increased poaching could affect 

law enforcement. 

Would not allow the retrieval of 

deer that were originally shot off the 

refuge. 

Migratory Birds—Changes in 

water management in response to 

hunting would provide higher-quality, 

moist-soil habitat that would attract 

more waterfowl. 

Deer—Would develop hunt plan to 

involve archery-only or youth

archery-and-muzzleloader-only sea

sons, with limited entry by draws for 

all hunt seasons. Would explore all 

possibilities for hunting deer and con

sider visitor safety. 

Would want to know if selected 

harvest strategies could result in 

reduced deer count, though such 

information may be hard to get. 

Would create more opportunities 

for hunting on public lands. 

Deer would become more wary and 

difficult to closely observe and photo

graph. 

Priority would be on the protection 

of resources. There would continue to 

be no migratory bird hunting when 

whooping cranes are present. 

All other hunting, including upland 

game hunting, would continue but 

would be closed in specific units when 

whooping cranes are present. There 

would be more upland bird hunting 

with little-to-no risk to whooping 

cranes. 

Migratory Birds—Waterfowl and 

other migratory bird hunting should 

decline with less consistent water 

conditions in the fall. 

Deer, Turkey, Prairie-chicken, 

Furbearers—Would be the same as 

under alternative B. 

Added costs would be the same as 

under alternative B. 

60 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Hunting—environmental consequences (continued) 

Whooping crane protection— 

Increased whooping crane use may 

limit hunting, leading to continued 

hunter frustration. 

Hunters and nonhunters may inter

act more because of an increase in 

hunting. 

Youth and muzzleloader hunting 

could increase the range of firearms 

used on the refuge and increase 

safety issues for hunters and nonhunters, while also allow for more 

opportunities for various hunters, 

more harvest, meeting the goal for 

increased youth hunting, and decreas

ing deer densities. 

The retrieval of deer that were 

originally shot off the refuge could be 

allowed. Requests for hunters to 

enter the refuge to retrieve deer may 

result in many calls during nonwork

ing hours, leading to hunter frustra

tion. Costs may increase when 

employees return to work to retrieve 

a deer. 

Turkey, Prairie-chicken, and Furbearers—Would promote the mission 

of the Refuge System and provide 

more opportunities without jeopar

dizing wildlife populations. 

Whooping crane protection—More 

law enforcement, signage and commu

nications would be required. The pop

ular salt flats and North Lake areas 

would be closed to hunting but a simi

larly sized area less prone to closure 

would be opened to negate effects. 

There would be more parking areas 

and roads for access and more costs 

related to changing hunt areas, sig

nage, parking lots, brochures and 

adding law enforcement. 

Whooping crane protection— 

Whooping crane use may shift with 

the unpredictability of conditions 

from year to year, which would also 

affect hunting. Would increase public 

awareness of cranes using kiosks, sig

nage, and public programs. 

Bison protection—If restored to 

Quivira, hunting opportunities may 

have to be altered to prevent bison– 

hunter interactions in the field. Ref

uge policy prevents the hunting of 

captive herds of ungulates on refuges, 

so a hunting season on bison would 

not be allowed. 

Fishing—actions 

Allow fishing on all waters accord

ing to State-established seasons and 

regulations. 

Allow yearlong use of the Kids’ 

Fishing Pond with a one-fish limit 

only to children age 14 and under and 

for adults with an eligible child fish

ing with them, unless otherwise 

posted for management or safety rea

sons. 

Do not allow frogging and the hunt

ing of turtle or other herptiles. 

Do not allow bait collecting and the 

use of live fish bait. Permit night 

crawlers. 

Do not allow crayfish fishing. 

Same as alternative A, except 

there would be no stocking outside of 

Kids’ Fishing Pond. 

Only allow the frogging of bull

frogs. 

Allow fish and herptiles if their 

populations support it or for health 

purposes. 

More aggressively control nonna

tive fish and herptiles. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 61 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Fishing—environmental consequences 

Would be low quality because of 

carp infestations. 

Would draw mostly local people 

who would return often. Those from 

outside the local area may come dur

ing the annual Kid’s Fishing Day. 

Many of the other waters on the 

refuge undergo periodic drying to 

manage wetlands for migratory birds, 

which reduces, or stops, the possibil

ity of establishing other fishing areas 

that could be kept except for possibly 

at Darrynane Lake. 

No live fish bait, except for night 

crawlers, would be permitted to avoid 

introducing exotic or invasive fish into 

the refuge. Enforcing no bait collect

ing would be difficult if crayfish fish

ing were allowed. 

Fishing activities would likely 

increase with the periodic removal of 

carp.

 More bait fish would be available 

because there would be no bait fish 

collecting. 

The harvesting of bullfrogs could 

be sustained. 

Economic and social activities 

would be the same as under alterna

tive A. 

Quality would improve with the 

control of carp and the restocking of 

native fish. 

Would require more monitoring 

programs for fish, reptile and amphib

ian populations for sustainability. 

More aggressive control on nonna

tive fish, reptiles, and amphibians 

would increase costs. 

Depending on the activity, permits 

may have to be issued for some fish

ing, such as for turtling, or for frog

ging. 

Costs related to stocking the Kid’s 

Fishing Pond would decrease. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography—actions 

Encourage wildlife observation and 

photography except in seasonally 

closed areas. 

Keep the auto tour route, the 

observation towers, scopes, and two 

photography blinds. 

Provide from sunrise to sunset 

daily at the GPNC. 

Horseback Riding—Allow only on 

public and county roads, not on hiking 

trails. 

Bicycling—Allow on existing 

roads. 

Dogs—Allow when under owners’ 

control. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, except 

restrict public entry to select roads 

during nesting season. 

Close Wildlife Drive during nest

ing season and evaluate the potential 

environmental effects of Wildlife 

Drive and human use of the area dur

ing the next 15 years. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography—environmental consequences 

Would be affected when closing 

areas seasonally to prevent distur

bance to bald eagles and tern nesting 

sites and for other, changing condi

tions like the presence of whooping 

crane roosting areas. 

Horseback riding may continue to 

spread invasive species on access 

roads. But use would be low and the 

effects negligible. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, except more 

closures would be carried out during 

the nesting season. 

If results of an evaluation support 

bison management, then there would 

be mixed effects. For instance, areas 

would be closed to the public for 

safety reasons, but the presence of 

bison might provide a new attraction. 

Environmental education and interpretation—actions 

Allow environmental education 

programs at both Quivira Refuge and 

the GPNC that provide curriculumbased programs for all school grade 

levels to help in meeting State educa

tional standards. 

Same as alternative A, except 

emphasize focal species. 

Enhance environmental education 

through improvements to facilities at 

both Quivira Refuge and the GPNC. 

Same as alternative B, except may 

alter or remove some roads to support 

ecological restoration. 

62 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Environmental Education and Interpretation—actions (continued) 

Allow onsite and offsite programs 

at the GPNC for underserved audi

ences like at-risk youth. 

Promote the use of both Quivira 

Refuge and GPNC facilities as out

door classrooms. 

Keep current or improved staff lev

els and partnerships at the GPNC. 

Provide interpretive programs on 

request and as scheduled activities at 

Quivira Refuge and the GPNC. 

Move the environmental education 

classroom to a site near headquar

ters. 

Encourage virtual geocaching. 

Emphasize the benefits of ecologi

cal restoration through environmen

tal education and interpretation 

programs. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation—environmental consequences 

Environmental education and 

interpretive programs would help 

meeting State educational standards 

and teach environmental ethics and 

awareness. 

Programs would help foster an 

interest in, and a sense of steward

ship of, public lands such as national 

wildlife refuges. 

A growing environmental educa

tion program would require more 

space at the GPNC, such as a larger 

classroom, multipurpose room and 

office space. 

Moving the environmental educa

tion classroom would consolidate 

facilities, improve the environmental 

education capabilities, and further the 

development of a comprehensive pro

gram. 

Virtual geocaching would increase 

the public’s appreciation of refuge 

resources. 

Same as alternative B, except: 

environmental education and inter

pretive programs may be affected if 

facilities are modified or removed. 

Would attempt to replace facilities 

and programs in new locations. There 

would be an opportunity to learn 

more about the benefits of healthy 

ecosystems, natural processes, and 

managing for sustainable systems. 

Other Uses—actions 

Allow all areas to remain open 

unless otherwise closed for manage

ment or safety reasons. Do not allow 

public to drive on closed roads and 

trails. 

Field trials and dog training— 

Allow for individuals, but not for com

mercial operators. Do not allow 

during nesting season. 

Firewood cutting—Allow in desig

nated areas and with an approved 

special use permit. 

Commercial tours (birding)— 

Allow with a special use permit. 

Amphibian, crayfish and reptile 

collecting; antler collecting; berry, 

fruit, roots, and mushroom harvesting; wildflower collecting; geocaching; 

commercial photography; boating; 

camping; recreational trapping; dog 

field trial; off-road vehicle use; and 

commercial guiding for hunting.— 

Do not allow. 

Same as alternative A, except allow 

commercial photography with a spe

cial use permit. 

Same as alternative B. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 63 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Other Uses—environmental consequences 

Restricted public vehicle access 

would decrease wildlife disturbance 

and limit road costs. 

Trained dogs that retrieve game, 

horseback riding, and bicycling would 

allow greater access and should pose 

little negative effect on wildlife or 

other public uses. Would be reevalu

ated if wildlife disturbances occur. 

Regulations and restrictions would 

continue to prevent wildlife distur

bance, the removal of wildlife food 

and parts of plants, and commercial 

activities. Would have little economic 

effect, as few would conduct or 

request these activities. 

Same as alternative A, except com

mercial photography would expand 

opportunities for photographers and 

enhance the public’s appreciation of 

wildlife. 

Same as alternative B. 

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. 

Public Outreach—actions 

Reach out to local civic and envi

ronmental organizations emphasizing 

management issues and philosophy, 

endangered species, and other sub

jects, both on and offsite. 

Work with Friends of Quivira and 

Friends of the GPNC to increase 

awareness and outreach. Contribute 

articles to the Friends newsletter. 

Hold events several times a year at 

the refuge and GPNC to promote mis

sion, activities, and goals. 

Keep and update the refuge Web 

site and social media to on operations, 

hunting, events, and wildlife sight

ings. 

Develop, support, and staff infor

mation booth at the Kansas State 

Fair. 

Recruit, train, and use local volun

teers to further goals at the refuge 

and GPNC. 

Same as alternative A, plus install 

tower camera at the bald eagle and 

BSM areas to provide more observa

tion opportunities of remote wildlife. 

Encourage refuge visitation and 

increased positive personal experi

ences with natural resources. 

Same as alternative B. 

Public Outreach—environmental consequences 

Would foster appreciation of wild

life and the outdoors and instill a 

sense of stewardship of lands like 

Quivira Refuge. 

Would encourage youth to study 

wildlife through the Junior Federal 

Duck Stamp program and to become 

engaged by displaying their artwork 

at many locations throughout the 

State during the year. 

Same as alternative A, except 

would also provide more observation 

of remote wildlife, encourage refuge 

visitation, and increase positive per

sonal experiences with natural 

resources. Tower camera viewers 

would not need to leave their homes 

to see the refuge, which might nega

tively affect initiatives like Get Out

side and Connect with Nature. These 

viewers may also become more inter

ested in seeing the action in person. 

Same as alternative B, but would 

emphasize awareness of the benefits 

of ecological restoration and healthy 

natural systems. 

64 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Public Outreach—environmental consequences (continued) 

Updated Web sites and social 

media would provide the most current 

information for visitors to the refuge. 

The tower camera should not nega

tively affect wildlife or habitat, 

though there would be short-term 

effects during installation. There 

would be more costs for installation 

and operation of the remote tower 

camera. Donations may be requested 

and used to offset costs. 

Outreach efforts would place more 

emphasis on teaching about focal spe

cies. 

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. 

Cultural Resources—actions 

Obtain permits and clearances 

before substantial dirt or surface 

alteration. 

Protect cultural resources in accor

dance with Federal and State laws, 

policies and guidelines. Consult 

regional archeologist during the plan

ning phase of proposed projects to 

decide on the need for an archeologi

cal site clearance from the Kansas 

State Historic Preservation Office. 

Same as alternative A, except 

increase the interpretation of cultural 

resources and, specifically, of Native 

American historic use of the refuge 

through exhibits and signage. 

Same as alternative B. 

Cultural Resources—environmental consequences 

Would protect resources according 

to existing rules and regulations. 

Would document and protect new 

cultural resources as discovered. 

Same as alternative A, except public knowledge of historic Native 

American use for gathering, hunting, 

and salt collecting would increase. 

Same as alternative B. 

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. 

Visitor and Employee Safety—actions 

Keep current Station Safety plans 

providing emergency contacts, proce

dures, and training for all employees. 

Keep public safety in mind when 

providing emergency shelters, acces

sibility, and when supporting trails 

and roads. 

Keep and update directional and 

safety signage along public roads. 

Follow infectious disease plan and 

policy. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

Visitor and Employee Safety—environmental consequences 

Would support visitor and 

employee safety. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, except visi

tor and employee dangers would be 

heightened if bison are introduced to 

the refuge. Would require employee 

training to work with, and around, 

bison and would incur more costs for 

employee training and safety needs. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 65 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Resource Protection—actions 

Protect critical nesting habitat and 

enforce hunting, fishing, and all other 

regulations in CFR and State laws. 

Do not allow hunting when whoop

ing cranes are present. 

Close areas that are actively being 

used by nesting T and E species. 

Same as alternative A, except alter 

hunting areas and establish new reg

ulations for closed areas when whoop

ing cranes are present. 

Same as alternative A, except 

restrict waterfowl and sandhill crane 

hunting when whooping cranes are 

present. 

Increase efforts to enforce regula

tions related to closed areas. 

Resource Protection—environmental consequences 

Law enforcement would adequately 

protect refuge resources. 

Same as alternative A, except more 

species would be permitted to be 

taken by, hunting, fishing and trap

ping. 

Increased visitor use would require 

more law enforcement to enforce com

pliance with regulations. The 

increased workload would require one 

full time refuge officer and two dualfunction officers to adequately enforce 

the increased use. 

Same as alternative B, plus sand

hill crane hunting would be permit

ted, which would require increased 

law enforcement. Because of the 

sandhill crane’s similarity in appear

ance to the whooping crane, increased 

staff time would be needed to more 

closely watch whooping crane loca

tions to prevent an accidental shoot

ing. Increased whooping crane 

education would be result from more 

signage, kiosk displays, and handouts. 

Administration Goal. Provide and support facilities, strategically acquire and allocate staff, increase volunteer oppor

tunities and partnerships, and effectively raise and use money to keep the long-term integrity of infrastructure, habi

tats, and wildlife resources at the refuge and Great Plains Nature Center. 

Staff and Budget—actions 

Support 11 permanent full-time 

employees, 1 permanent part-time 

employee, 3 temporary employees, 

and 2 regional employees that are not 

paid through the refuge. 

Find needed positions and projects 

in RONS database and in a separate 

law enforcement needs list. Top prior

ity in RONS is one full-time mainte

nance worker. Law Enforcement has 

identified one full-time refuge officer. 

Use YCC program. 

Seek money through grants and 

initiatives for staff and projects. 

Continue to provide office space for 

a zone biologist and a Partners biolo

gist. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A, except 

increase biological staff with two per

manent, full-time positions to expand 

inventory and monitoring efforts. 

Increase permanent, full-time staff 

by one to control invasive species 

because work would increase with the 

full restoration of native communities. 

Staff and Budget—environmental consequences 

Budget would be adequate to keep 

staff and facilities. 

Same as alternative A. More staff would make implemen

tation more successful. 

Facilities and Infrastructure—actions 

Keep more than 21 miles of canals, 

24 miles of dikes and more than 100 

water control structures. Keep 14 

miles of roads and 33 parking lots for 

public use and 27 miles of roads for 

management. Keep more than 97 

miles of barbwire and 54 miles of elec

tric fencing for grazing. 

Same as alternative A, except 

request another cold storage building 

and a fire cache. 

Request more space at the GPNC 

for a larger classroom, a multipurpose 

room, and for office space. Need 

another storage building and a larger 

equipment compound. 

Same as alternative B, except 

reduce trails, parking lots, roads, 

dikes, canals, water control struc

tures, and fences. 

Decrease or remove developments 

like trails that facilitate the spread of 

invasive species or otherwise nega

tively affect biological populations. 

66 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Table 4. Summary of the actions and consequences of the management alternatives for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Alternative A–no action Alternative B–proposed action Alternative C 

Facilities and Infrastructure—actions (continued) 

Keep refuge office, visitor center, 

maintenance shop, three storage 

buildings, one pole barn, environmen

tal education classroom, two resi

dences and two bunkhouses. Keep 

GPNC visitor center, classrooms, 

offices, auditorium and storage 

garage. 

Provide both interactive and static 

displays at both visitor centers. 

Keep two areas of pedestrian trails 

at the refuge. Keep trails and struc

tures, like bridges, signs, and board

walks. 

Use the GPNC’s classrooms and 

Quivira Refuge’s environmental edu

cation classroom for education and 

interpretive programs and for work

shops open to the public. 

Move environmental education 

classroom at Quivira Refuge to a loca

tion near headquarters, but keep a 

restroom in the current environmen

tal education area. 

Allow trapping only for wildlife and 

infrastructure purposes and with a 

special use permit. 

Remove unnecessary roads and use 

canals only to spread waterflow over 

the refuge in sheet flow to mimic nat

ural flooding and drying. 

Construct more spillways to spread 

sheet flow out of Rattlesnake Creek 

and across meadows and wetlands. 

If bison are reintroduced, fence 

large blocks of land to allow bison to 

move on their own and graze as much 

as possible in a natural setting. 

Trapping would be the same as 

alternative B. 

Facilities and Infrastructure—environmental consequences 

Extensive water management 

facilities would require annual main

tenance money and recurring struc

ture replacement. 

Rehabilitation and replacement of 

structures would be more intensive 

dues to saltwater. Stainless steel 

would be used whenever possible as a 

result but at a higher cost. ABS plas

tic culverts would be used when pos

sible, to combat deterioration. 

The shop bay would be too short to 

allow some heavy equipment to be 

moved inside for maintenance and 

repair. 

Vehicle and equipment storage 

would be inadequate because there is 

not enough room for all vehicles to be 

kept inside and protected from packrats. Biological controls, like barn owl 

nest boxes, would be kept, but a few 

expensive vehicle and equipment 

repairs would be expected. 

Non-Quivira Refuge employees 

would sometimes be stationed at the 

refuge and need storage space for 

vehicles and equipment. 

Would support the GPNC building 

and storage garage with annual main

tenance money and with deferred 

maintenance money for large proj

ects. Settling cracks would require 

maintenance. 

Same as alternative A, except more 

money would be needed to buy more 

facilities and for their long-term 

maintenance. 

Trapping could help control nui

sance animals, which would directly 

help refuge operations in preserving 

infrastructure. There would be a 

small economic benefit to trappers, 

who would most likely be locals. 

Same as alternative B for buildings 

at Quivira Refuge and at the GPNC, 

but much of the other infrastructure 

would be reduced or removed to com

plete the ecological restoration. 

The initial cost may be higher, but 

it would result in long-term cost sav

ings by reducing the maintenance of 

structures. 

Trapping effects would be the same 

as alternative B. 

Chapter 3—Alternatives 67 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

Chapter 4—Affected Environment
 

Pectoral Sandpiper 

© Bob Gress 

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 cre

ated by humans, such as cultural resources, special 

management areas, visitor services, operations and 

socioeconomics. 

­

4.1 Physical Environment 

The following sections describe aspects of the 

physical environment of the refuge. Physical charac

teristics include climate, climate change, air quality, 

geography and physiography, water resources, and 

soils. Many regional descriptions of the physical envi

ronment 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 c

the transition b

the Rocky Mou

rents of the Gu

terns depend o

masses (Sophocl

Refuge habit

by climate and 

tions are adjust

tuations in 

limate is dry sub humid, lying along 

oundary between the rain shadow of 

ntains and the warm, moist air curlf of Mexico. Regional weather patn the interaction of these two air 

eous and Perkins 1992). 

at conditions are influenced greatly 

management strategies, and prescriped based on seasonal and annual flucprecipitation, temperature, and 

evaporation. Weather data have been recorded from 

a station in Hudson, Kansas, about 8 miles west of 

­

­
70 Draft CCP and EA—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 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 71 

Figure 8. Playa Lakes Joint Venture region, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

■■	 decreasing water volume in wetlands in fall 

and winter leading to more shallow habitat 

■■	 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 
72 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

■■	 sustaining local populations of specialized 

arthropod species in saline wetlands may be 

affected by persistent dry conditions and 

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 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 73 

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. 

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. 

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, particularly 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 the most relevant concerns 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. 

Geology and Physiography 

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 
74 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Rattlesnake Creek flows into Little Salt Marsh on Quivira Refuge. 

Rachel Laubhan/USFWS 

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 HGM report 

(Heitmeyer et al. 2012) prepared for the refuge. 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 75 

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 

run 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 HGM 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 

specific conductance of water occurs throughout the 

watershed, with wide ranges possible in the area of 

the refuge (<750, 750–2250, and up to >2250 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 con­
 

76 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

centrations, 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. 

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 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. 

Soils 

Soils are diverse (figure 9) and they differ with 

respect to texture, moisture and nutrient retention 

capacities and salinities. Such differences influence 

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 NRCS for each soil subgroup (Soil Survey Staff 

2010), Heitmeyer et al. 2012). 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 77 Figure 9. Refuge soil map, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. Source: Soil Survey Staff 2010. 
78 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

4.2 Biological Resources 

Evaluating refuge lands in the proper ecological 

context is needed for developing management 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 abun

dance of refuge flora and fauna is the refuge’s central 

location within the mixed-grass transition zone 

where characteristically short western and tall east

ern grasses meet, northern cool-season grasses and 

southern warm-season grasses converge, and many 

species range distributions overlap. Thus, depending 

on shifting short- and long-term environmental con

ditions, biological resources of the refuge are 

dynamic within, and among, years. In addition, wet

land 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 habi

tat provides nesting sites for waterbird species, such 

as interior least tern, western snowy plover, blacknecked stilt, and American avocet. Also, the complex 

of upland and wetland habitats produces a high abun

dance and diversity of plants, invertebrates, and ver

tebrates 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 over

lap, 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 emer

gent 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 dur

ing the spring has resulted in sparse vegetation 

interspersed with expanses of mudflats that provide 

suitable foraging habitat for spring and fall migrat

ing 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 vegeta

tion tends to colonize sites. Local interspersion of 

emergent herbaceous wetland cover and open water 

is reported to benefit a high diversity of marshbirds, 

provided lo

(Weller and

and wetlan

habitat use 

more 1986). 

etation, suit

been provid

bulrush) or 

­ addition, se

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

ng-term wetland cycling is sustained 

 Spatcher 1965, Bolenbaugh et al. 2011), 

d size is a reported influential factor of 

for some waterbirds (Brown and DinsDepending on the type of perennial vegable nesting and foraging habitat has 

ed for grebes and bitterns (cattail or 

rails and phalaropes (sedge or rush). In 

mipermanent units that support emergent vegetation interspersed with open water have 

provided 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. 

In general, populations of many species native to 

the area have declined because of habitat loss and 

degradation caused by many factors, including 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 considered multiple plans and documents at 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 79 

scales ranging from local to national that were relevant to the purposes and goals of Quivira Refuge, 

such as our lists of species of management and conservation concern (USFWS 2008a) that consider 

various national and international bird conservation 

plans. Other locally important status reports, or designations, are included in the text. Descriptions of 

plant and wildlife communities that follow are not 

comprehensive, but include information relevant to 

the discussion of trade-offs among refuge management alternatives. 

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). 

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 5. 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 10 and table 6 (Heitmeyer et al. 2012). 

Table 5. Vegetation descriptions for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. Source: Küchler 1974 

Küchler’s General Location (Kansas Major plants Other characteristic parts classification description and landscape) 

dense to open stands 

of short-to-medium- Saltmarsh tall grasses, few 

forbs 

Dominants: salt- wood bluegrass, western grass, seepweed ragweed, prairie dogbane, 


white heath aster, woolly- alkaline, periodically
 Local Codominants: fruit sedge, Canada wildrye, flooded depressions in spikerush, three- foxtail barley, inland rush, central and north-cen square, prairie bul plains bluegrass, tall or yel- tral Kansas rush, prairie low knotweed, drooping bul cordgrass, alkali sac- rush, sea purslane aton 

­ ­

­
Table 5. Vegetation descriptions for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. Source: Küchler 1974 

Küchler’s General Location (Kansas Major plants Other characteristic parts classification description and landscape) 

Floodplain 

vegetation 

(western and 

central Kan

sas) 

Savanna: tall, 

medium-tall, and low 

broadleaf deciduous 

scattered trees and 

shrubs with “impov

erished” bluestem 

prairie understory 

Freshwater marsh: 

dense stands of tallgrasses with forbs 

common but not 

prominent 

Dominants: cotton

wood, peachleaved 

willow, and, in east

ern Kansas, black 

willow and American 

elm 

Codominant in west

ern Kansas: sandbar 

willow 

Dominants: prairie 

cordgrass 

nearly 30 species and com

bined species found in east

ern and western Kansas 

*** 

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

bunchflower, switchgrass, 

cup plant or squarestem ros

inweed, hardstem and softs

tem bulrush, Indiangrass, 

eastern gamagrass, broadleaf or common cattail 

floodplains and streambanks with permanent 

and intermittent flood

ing (note differences in 

eastern and western 

Kansas) 

*** 

shallow depressions of 

floodplains, periodi

cally flooded or with 

high water table; com

mon 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, switch

grass 

sand bluestem, field sagewort, sand milkweed, sideo

ats grama, sandbur, sand 

lovegrass, umbrella plant, 

field snakecotton, flaxflow

ered gilia, prairie sunflower, 

golden aster, roundhead les

pedeza, 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 south

central Kansas 

Table 6. 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 USDA 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 botan

ical accounts and literature (NRCS 2010, Ungar 1961). 

80 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­ ­

­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 81 


Figure 10. Potential presettlement conditions, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. Source: (Heitmeyer et al. 

2012).. 
82 Draft CCP and EA—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 mis

cellaneous 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 con

structed 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 introduc

tion 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 inten

sive ecological study of vegetation in, and around, the 

BSM was conducted by Ungar with emphasis on salt 

tolerance and its resulting effects on plant distribu

tion (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 com

pared to averages. Ungar’s research and other 

biological studies conducted since (Reinke 1981, Har

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

ris 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 follow

ing observations were noted from Quivira Refuge’s 

original master plan (USFWS 1962): 

■■	 In general, refuge infrastructure develop

ment was intended to increase the availabil

ity of water, such as coverage, depth, and 

duration, by converting temporally and sea

sonally 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. 

S WSFU/nahuba LlehcaR
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 83 

■■ 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 exist

ing 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–saca

ton 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 McCand

less 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, red

head, 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 com

pleted that described cover types, associated domi

nant plants, and miscellaneous notes of vegetation 

conditions for the purpose of assessing property values before acquisition of lands by the Federal Gov

ernment. Our refuge staff recently recreated the 

hand-drawn map of 1954 in a geographic information 

system (GIS) (figure 11) 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 12). While important 

shifts in plant communities mapped in 1954 and 2008 

are evident (table 7), results should be viewed with 

caution partly because of differences in the purposes 

for which the two maps were developed; methodolo

gies, such as observer bias, minimum mapping unit, 

equipment, and technology; and environmental condi

tions 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 inva

sive species in both grassland and wetland communi

ties; (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 artifi

cial infrastructure; (5) an increase in the area of sur

face 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 estab

lishment, and this grazing regime likely favored 

shortgrass over tallgrass species, as reported by 

Aldous (1935) in central Kansas. 

­

­ ­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
84 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Figure 11. Vegetation cover types in 1954, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 85 


Figure 12. Vegetation cover types in 2008 (NVCS), Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
Table 7. 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 veg

etation 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 9) 

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 saltce

dar 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 com

pleted in 2011, and approximately 22,262 acres of 

refuge lands were mapped to plant association 

classes. The inventory excluded a small tract of ref

uge land that occurs a few miles west of the main 

refuge boundary, but includes at least parts of bound

ary road areas, which accounts for the seeming dis

crepancy 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 photo

graphs and was conducted in 2010, which was rela

tively wet, and 2011, which was relatively dry. Thus, 

it is presumed that certain plant species were more 

conspicuous under wetter conditions and other spe

cies were more conspicuous under dry conditions. A 

plant key was used to classify different combinations 

86 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 87 

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

species into the proper categories, which resulted in 

the identification of 43 vegetation associations (table 

8) (Farr and Laubhan 2011). 

Based on this inventory and on estimates from 

summed GIS acreage data, Quivira Refuge is com

prised 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 map

ping 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, exist

ing 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 wet

lands; 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 8. 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 
 

88 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Table 8. 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 purpose(s) 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 F. Collectively, these considerations helped 

us to develop a list of priority management species 

we call focal species (table 3). 

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern 

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 Quivira Refuge lands and those 

that most commonly depend on refuge resources 

(table 9). 

Table 9. Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern, Stafford County, Kansas. 

Species Federal status State status 

Whooping crane* endangered (CH) endangered (CH) 
Table 9. Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern, Stafford County, Kansas. 

Species Federal status State status 

Interior least 

tern* endangered endangered (CH) 

Eskimo curlew endangered endangered 

Piping plover threatened threatened (CH) 

Arkansas darter 

* 

Federal candi

date species threatened (CH) 

Lesser prairie- Federal candi

chicken date species 

Sprague’s pipit Federal candi

date 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 Qui

vira Refuge lands.
 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 89 

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 F. Additional information is 

available on listed species and associated information 

for Stafford County (USFWS 2012c, KDWPT 2011). 

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 

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 F, 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 

­

­

­

­
90 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 seen in small 

family groups, but in recent years up to 76 individual 

whooping cranes during the spring, and 112 during 

the fall, were reported using Quivira Refuge at one 

time. 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, 

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 

chapter 3 under alternative A and 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 (USFWS 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 (USFWS, 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. While the effects of 

management alternatives will be discussed more in 

chapter 5, 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 10). 

Harris’ sparrow, reported on Quivira Refuge, has been 

identified as a priority species by the Great Plains 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative. 

USFWS 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 91 

Table 10. Observed woodland bird use at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Bird species 1 2 3 4 5 

Woodland units 

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 

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 
92 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Table 10. Observed woodland bird use at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Bird species 1 2 3 4 5 

Woodland units 

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total 

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 

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 F—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 13). 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. 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 93 

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 

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. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reptiles and amphibians, or herptile species, 

recently documented as occurring on Quivira Refuge 

include one toad, four frogs, one salamander, six turtles, two lizards, and 13 snakes; see appendix F. 

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). Crayfish burrows are also used 

as shelter for reptiles and amphibians (Collins et al. 

2010). 

Other wildlife, such as butterflies, are listed in 

appendix F. 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. 
94 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

4.3 Cultural Resources 

This section describes what is known about the 

cultural resources of Quivira Refuge. 

Certain 

3,000 years 

received re

the Arkans

Creek. Inha

hunted larg

Presettlement (European) History 

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. 

dating methods suggest that by about 

before the present, larger campsites that 

peated use occurred along floodplains of 

as River and, presumably, Rattlesnake 

bitants of the area collected wild plants, 

e 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. 

When 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. 

Library of Congress 
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 95 

Historical Euro-Americans and 

Exploration 

The Spanish word “Quivira” is a form of the 

Native American name “Kirikuru,” which is what 

local people called themselves when the Spanish 

explorer Don Francisco Vasquez de Coronado visited 

the region in 1541 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 

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.” 

Settlement and Early Land Use 

Changes 

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 

A drawing by Daniel A. Jenks depicts his party’s 

encampent on the Arkansas River in 1859 near presentday Great Bend, Kansas. 

s sergnof Cy orarbiL
96 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 manufacturing 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 11). 

George Spangerberger’s Privy 

ssergnof Cy orarbiL

This barn is on George Spangerberger’s farmstead located in South Hutchison, Kansas. 

s	 sergnof Cy orarbiL
C

4.4 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 communi

ties, habitats, natural phenomena, and geological and 

hydrological formations. As with designated Wilder

ness Areas, natural processes are allowed to pre

dominate without human intervention. 

Under certain circumstances, deliberate manipu

lation may be used to keep 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 for refuge management to 

control the coverage of woody vegetation, specifically 

listing cottonwood, black willow, Russian olive, sand 

plum, dogwood, and skunkbush as potential invading 

species. Our activities to keep the habitat and biologi

cal 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. 

hours after dusk, excep

hunters are allowed a 

access hunting areas b

dusk. 

No fees or registra

the refuge. There are 

county and township r

Therefore, attempts to

challenge for our refu

sign the guest registe

hapter 4—Affected Environment 97 

­

­

­

­

­

4.5 Visitor Services 

Visitors to the refuge 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 gen

eral 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 

tions are listed b

■■	 Persons po

ing firearm

lands must

State and l

or discharg

refuge reg

cific refuge

Discharge 

­

t during hunting season when 

reasonable amount of time to 

efore dawn and to leave after 

tion are required for visiting 

many access roads, and several 

oads pass through the refuge. 

 estimate visitation present a 

ge staff. Visitors are asked to 

r 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 

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. The general hunting season runs from September 1 through February 28, with specific seasons 

within this period coinciding with the State seasons. 

An accessible hunting blind is available by reservation in Unit 30. 

General hunting regulations, such as licensing 

needs and daily possession limits, follow applicable 

Federal and State regulations. Special refuge regulaelow: 

ssessing, transporting, or carrys on national wildlife refuge 

 comply with all provisions of 

ocal law. Persons may only use, 

e, firearms in accordance with 

ulations—50 CFR 27.42 and spe­

 regulations in 50 CFR Part 32. 

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. 
98 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

■■	 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. 

■■	 Trapping and baiting are prohibited on the 

refuge. 

■■	 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 prevention of the potential 

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. 

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 along Rattlesnake Creek. 

Accessible public 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 14 years and 

younger, although adults may fish at the pond 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 

next to the GPNC and is 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, 
 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 99 

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. 

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. 

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 signage, 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 developed 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. 

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. 
 camping, 

 of ATVs, 

al, or any 

 and Qui

100 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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

boating, picnicking, canoeing, fires, the use

and the collecting of plant, animal, miner

other natural materials. 

See appendix D for more details. 

Public Outreach 

Our mission—that of the Refuge System ­

vira 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, 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 informa

tion about the refuge’s mission and objectives. Regu

lar 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 informa

tion 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. 

­

­

­

4.6 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 Uni

versity, Emporia State University, Friends Univer

sity, 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 opportuni

ties through AmeriCorps or internships. 

The refuge is part of the Rattlesnake Creek Part

nership, 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 surveil

lance, 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 regularly with the 

Friends of Quivira to plan and present educational 

programs and annual events. The Friends of Quivira 

run a nonprofit bookstore in the visitor center at the 

refuge. 

The GPNC operates under a Memorandum of 

Agreement with the City of Wichita and the 

KDWPT. Together, they have partnerships with 

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 101 

The Butterfly Blossoms Pathway native prairie wildflower interpretive trail at Quivira Refuge was made possible 

through a partnership with The Friends of Quivira. 

© Mitch Werner 

man Com

ith educa

niversity 

also often 

d colleges 

 they are 

many corporate sponsors, such as The Cole ­

pany, Koch, and Spirit AeroSystems, and w ­

tional institutions, such as Wichita State U

and Friends University. This partnership 

works informally with other universities an

to provide work experience for interns as

available. 

The GPNC is supported by the Friends of the 

Great Plains Nature Center, who run 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. 

4.7 Management Uses 

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 depen

dent on periodic disturbance. Landscapes, increas

ingly, 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 exam

ple, 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 ref

uges is to conduct strategies that produce effects 

similar to historical disturbances to keep, or restore, 

ecosystems. Quivira Refuge uses various manage

ment 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 (USFWS 1994). 

­

­

­

­

­
102 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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. 

While brief overviews of primary refuge management uses are provided below, related information is 

also incorporated into discussions under native community conservation sections under alternative A in 

chapters 3 and 5. 

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 

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. More details about water 

management may be found in wetland community 

sections under alternative A in chapters 3 and 5. 

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 dis­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 103 

turbance 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 September 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 of refuge lands were farmed before 

the refuge’s establishment. After establishment, 

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-toone-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 IPM 

plan and with annual Pesticide Use Proposals that 

provide specific guidance on the use of herbicides. 

4.8 Socioeconomic 

Environment 

Quivira Refuge is open for the compatible, wildlife-dependent uses of hunting, fishing, wildlife obser

vation, 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 supplemental 

income and increases the local tax base. Our refuge 

management decisions about public uses, the expan

sion of services, and habitat improvement may either 

increase or decrease visitation to the refuge and, 

thus, affect the amount of 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 popu

lation and employment, public use of the refuge, and 

baseline economic activity. 

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. T

both the amount of sp

plier effects. Quivira 

tral Kansas. Most of 

the refuge is located

Stafford, Rice, Ren

therefore, these coun

region for this analys

in the establishmen

GPNC located 90 mi

GPNC lies outside th

tions with refuge acti

The refuge was es

protect vital habitat 

central flyway. Thou

birds, Canada geese

birds pass through 

December. Quivira 

104 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

he size of the region influences 

ending captured and the multiRefuge is located in south-centhe economic activity related to 

 within the five-county area of 

o, Barton and Pratt Counties, 

ties compose the local economic 

is. The Refuge is also a partner 

t and daily operations of the 

les from the refuge. While the 

e local economic region, connecvities will be discussed. 

tablished in 1955 to provide and 

for migratory waterfowl in the 

sands of sandhill cranes, shore­

, ducks, and other migratory 

the refuge from September to 

Refuge’s 22,135 acres feature a 

unique combination of rare inland saltmarsh and 

sand prairie (USFWS 2012b). 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 fivecounty area, the cities of Ellinwood, Great Bend, 

Hutchinson, Larned, Lyons, Pratt, Stafford, Sterling 

and St. John have economic significance to the refuge, and as such, these communities are additional 

areas of focus for the regional economic setting. 

School kids from the local community learn about issues 

affecting the wildlife in their area at the Stafford County, 

Kansas, Conservation Day. 

S WFSU/sen JoyrraB

Population, Ethnicity, and 

Education 

Table 11 lists the population estimates and trends 

for the 5-county area and Table 12 lists the population estimates for the communities near the refuge. 

In 2010, the 5-county area accounted for approximately 4 percent of the State’s population (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). While the State of Kansas has 

experienced an increase in the number of residents 

since 2000, 4 of the counties in the 5-county area have 

experienced a decline in residents, with only Pratt 

County showing a slight, 0.1-percent increase in 

population (U. S. Census Bureau 2010a). Four of the 9 

communities surrounding the Refuge have experienced declining populations (Ellinwood, Larned, 

Sterling and St. John), with the city of St. John showing the greatest decline, losing more than 20 percent 

of its population since 2000 (table 12). 

Though Kansas is expected to have a growth in 

its population, the trend in 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 Counties are expected to show the greatest 
decline, losing more than 20 percent of their populations by 2040, while Pratt County is expected to 

show the least decline, with an expected loss of 9 

percent of its current population. The overall decline 

in population may be because of an aging population 

as well as migration to more urban areas. This is a 

trend that can be observed across many of the rural 

counties in Kansas (Wichita State University 2011). 

Table 11. State and county population estimates in 

the area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas. 

Persons Percent 

per population 

Residents square change 

(2010)1 mile 

(2010)1 

(2000– 

2010)2 

Kansas 2,853,118 34.9 6.8 

Barton County 27,674 30.9 –1.9 

Pratt County 9,656 13.1 0.1 

Reno County 64,511 51.4 –0.4 

Rice County 10,083 13.9 –6.3

 Stafford 

County 4,437 5.6 –7.4 

Source: 1(U. S. Census Bureau 2012b) 2(U. S. Census Bureau 

2010a). 

Table 12. Community population estimates in the 

area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas. 

Persons Percent 

Residents per population 

(2010)1 square 

mile 

(2010)1 

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: 1(U. S. Census Bureau 2012b) 2(U. S. Census Bureau 

2010a) 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 105 

While the percentage of the population of the 

State of Kansas with at least a Bachelor’s degree is 

higher than the national average (29.3 percent compared to 27.9 percent), this percent is lower than both 

the State and national averages for each of the counties within the 5-county area (ranging from a low of 

18.8 percent in Reno County to a high of 22.7 percent 

in Pratt County). Additionally, each of the nine communities surrounding the refuge fall below the State 

and national averages, with the cities of Stafford and 

Lyons having the lowest percent of the population to 

have earned at least a Bachelor’s degree (13.2 percent) (U. S. Census Bureau 2010a). 

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 self-identifying as white in Barton County to 

a high of 96 percent self-identifying as white in Pratt 

County). Relative to the other counties in the 

5-county area, Barton County had the largest percentage of individuals who identified as Hispanic or 

Latino (13.3 percent of the population) (U. S. Census 

Bureau 2012b) while Reno County had the highest 

percentage of individuals who identified as AfricanAmerican (4.1 percent of the population) (U. S. Census Bureau 2012b). 

Regional Employment and Income 

Table 13 shows the median household income, poverty, and unemployment rates for the 5-county area 

while table 14 lists the same statistics for the communities near the refuge. The five counties and nine 

communities near the Refuge have median household 

incomes below both the State of Kansas and the 

national levels. As of the 2010 Census, of the five 

counties, Barton County had the highest median 

household income at $43,763 per year, while Stafford 

County had the lowest at $39,375 per year. Of the 

nine communities, the city of Great Bend had the 

highest median household income at $42,293 per 

year, while the city of Stafford had the lowest at 

$33,182 per year (U. S. Census Bureau 2010a). 

In 2010, 12.4 percent of the population of Kansas 

was living below the poverty line, as compared to 

13.8 percent nationally. Poverty rates within the 

5-county area are similar to State and national averages, with Pratt County having the lowest rate (10 

percent) and Stafford County having the highest rate 

(14 percent). The communities surrounding the refuge show substantial variability in the percentage of 

the population below the poverty line. In 2010, 6.7 

percent of the population of Larned was below the 

poverty line while nearly 20 percent of the population 

of the city of St. John was below the poverty line (U. 

S. Census Bureau 2010a). 
Table 13. State income, unemployment, and poverty statistics and county statistics in the area around Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Median Percentage of Percentage Change in percent 

Household Individuals below Unemployed unemployed 

Income (2010) poverty (2010) (2010) (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 14. Community income, unemployment and poverty statistics in the area around Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Percentage of Change in percent Median Household Percentage Individuals below unemployed Income (2010) Unemployed (2010) poverty (2010) (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) 

Table 15 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 

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 percentage of total employment was 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. 

Table 15. Employment by sector in the area around 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Percent Industry 2011 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 

106 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Table 15. Employment by sector in the area around 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Percent Industry 2011 of Total 

 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) 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 107 

Agricultural Sector 

The State of 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, animals 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, which accounted for more than 88 percent of 

the total land in production in the State (U. S. 

Department of Agriculture 2007). In 2007, within the 

5-county area, Reno County had the greatest number 

of farms and acreage in production (1,749 farms, and 

780,893 acres). Pratt County had the fewest number 

of farms (538 farms) and Rice County had the smallest acreage in production (428,422 acres) (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 (USFWS 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 categorized into (1) away 

from home (activities taking place at least 1 mile 

from home) and (2) 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 residents of the State of 

Kansas 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 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 and $197 

thousand spent on equipment and $330 thousand 

spent for other items (USFWS 2012a). 

Connecting the Cheyenne Bottoms and Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge is the Wetlands & Wildlife 

National Scenic Byway. 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 connects several cities and counties within the 

State; 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 byway, with trips 1–3 days in length being 
108 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

the second most popular length of stay. In general, 

day visitors spent under $100 within the local area, 

while visitors staying 1–3 days generally spent $100– 

$200 in the local area. Most visitors to the area were 

residents of the State of Kansas. According to Barton 

County Counselor and Administrator, Richard 

Boeckman, several byway communities are collaborating to improve marketing and increase tourism in 

the area. The byway, refuge, and Cheyenne Bottoms 

are all considered important assets to the local economy (personal communication). 

The Public’s Use of the Refuge 

During 2010 and 2011, the USGS headed a 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey (USGS 

2012a), at Quivira Refuge, and at 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 period it surveyed, 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 that same 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, or 64 percent, first learned about 

the refuge from friends or relatives, 21 percent first 

learned about the refuge from printed information, 

and 18 percent first learned about it from signs on 

the highway. Key information sources used by visitors to find their way to this refuge include signs on 

highways, used by 54 percent of visitors; earlier 

knowledge, used by 46 percent of visitors; and a road 

atlas or highway map, used by 44 percent of visitors. 

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 actually 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 this refuge, 

often travelling with family and friends. 

According to the USGS, visitors took part in a 

variety of refuge activities during the period surveyed (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 for their most recent visit 

included birdwatching, as mentioned 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, as 

noted by 91 percent of these visitors; or to view the 

exhibits, by 82 percent; or to stop to use the facilities, 

by 75 percent. 

Visitor Satisfaction Levels 

Of those who visited Quivira Refuge and took 

part in the study, overall satisfaction with the services, facilities, and recreational opportunities we 

provided were as follows (Sexton et al. 2012): 

■■	 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. 

All refuge services and facilities fell into the Keep 

Up the Good Work quadrant of the study (Sexton et 

al. 2012). Some of the refuge recreational opportuni­
ties fell into the Keep Up the Good Work quadrant, 

except for volunteer, kayak and canoe, bicycling, fishing, and hunting opportunities, which fell into the 

Look Closer quadrant. The average importance of 

fishing, hunting, bicycling, and volunteer opportunities in the Look Closer quadrant may be higher 

among visitors who have taken part in these activities during the past 12 months. However, there were 

either not enough individuals in the sample to evaluate the responses of such participants, or it is not 

known how many visitors 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 transportation-related 

features fell into the Keep Up the Good Work 

quadrant. 

Baseline Economic Activity 

The 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 by the refuge in the 3-county study area is 

approximately $1.015 million in value added in the 

local economy. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Employment 

Quivira 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 in 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 16 shows 

summary statistics for local and nonlocal visitor 

expenditures, with 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 per person per day. 

Table 16. Total visitor expenditures, expressed in dollars per person per day, for Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge, Kansas. 

Standard Visitors Sample size Median Mean Minimum Maximum deviation 

Nonlocal 100 $42 $55 $57 $0 $313 

Local 30 $29 $45 $55 $0 $250 

Chapter 4—Affected Environment 109 

Painted turtles are easily viewed at Quivira Refuge. 

© Mitch Werner 
110 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

4.9 Administration 

Administration includes staff and budget and 

facilities and infrastructure. 

Staff and Budget 

Quivira Refuge staff is comprised of 11 perma

nent full-time employees, 1 permanent part-time 

employee, 3 temporary employees, and the two 

regional employees that are not paid through the ref

uge (table 17). The current staff level remains well 

below the minimum prescribed in the June 2008 

Final Report—Staffing Model for Field Stations 

(USFWS 2008b), which recommended that seven 

more staff, including three maintenance workers, one 

biologist and two biological technicians, one refuge 

law enforcement officer be added, along with one visi

tor services specialist for the GPNC. 

­

­

­

Table 17. 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 manage

ment 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 mainte

nance 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 posi

tion 

Table 17. Base staff budgeted in fiscal year 2012 and 

other staff stationed at Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge, Kansas. 

Staff group	 Position 

Current staff stationed at, but not paid by, Quivira Refuge 

Zone biologist biology Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologist 

Facilities and Infrastructure 

Facilities are used to support habitat and wildlife 

management programs and wildlife-dependent public 

uses that result in approximately 65,000 visitors 

annually at Quivira Refuge (figure 13). The refuge 

has two full-time maintenance workers and two parttime 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 and 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. 

The environmental education classroom was cre

ated out of the original block building office built in 

1958. One half of that building is an environmental 

education classroom and the other half is a bunk

house that is capable of housing six seasonal employ

ees and volunteers. It is in poor condition and difficult 

to remodel or improve because of its original 

construction. 

A three-bedroom trailer was received as unused 

excess from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency in 2009 and placed at the environmental edu

cation 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 educa

tion classroom site for use by volunteers, and a new, 

concrete, accessible, aboveground tornado shelter 

was placed there in 2010. 

We own seven 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. The remaining land at 

the GPNC is owned by the city of Wichita, including 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 4—Affected Environment 111
 

Figure 13. Public use facilities at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
112 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

parking lots, Chisholm Creek Park, and associated

trails. 

Quivira Refuge’s public use facilities are shown in

figure 13. 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 keeps

55 public parking lots, ranging from graveled to

grass surfaced. 

Refuge facilities, including public use facilities

and those used only by staff, include: 

■■ headquarters office and visitor center build

ing, 6,720 square feet 

■■ maintenance shop, fire cache, and vehicle 

storage building, 9,200 square feet 

■■ 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 

■■ two 176-square foot grain bins 

■■ 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 

­
Chapter 5—Environmental 

Consequences 

Snowy Plover 

s serb Go© B

This chapter provides an analysis of how our man

agement alternatives for Quivira Refuge might affect 

the environment. We assessed the environmental 

consequences of carrying out alternatives A, B, and 

C on the physical, biological, socioeconomic, and cul

tural resources of the refuge and the GPNC. 

Our management actions in each alternative serve 

as the means for achieving our vision and goals for 

the refuge in response to issues raised by our manag

ers and by the public and our partners. Because man

agement would differ for each alternative, the 

environmental and social effects resulting from the 

implementation of each would also likely differ. 

Table 4 in chapter 3, section 3.4, summarizes and 

compares the alternatives’ actions and the associated 

consequences that are described below. 

­

­

­

­

5.1 Analysis Methods 

We evaluated effects on several levels, including 

whether the effects would be adverse or beneficial 

and whether the effects would be direct, indirect, or 

cumulative with other independent actions. In addi

tion, we applied the duration of effects when estimat

ing environmental consequences. 

Direct effects are those where the effect on the 

resource would be immediate and the direct result of 

a specific action or activity. Examples of a direct 

effect include the effect of trail construction on veg

etation along the trail or the effect of hunting on 

wildlife. 

Indirect, or secondary, effects are those that are 

induced by implementation actions but that occur 

later in time or are farther removed from the place of 

action through a series of interconnected effects. 

Examples of indirect effects include those on down

­

­

­

­
stream water quality from an upstream surface dis

turbance or the effect that recreational use along a 

trail may have on nearby plant communities. 

A cumulative effect is defined as “the impact on 

the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, pres

ent, and future action regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Effects are often described in terms of their con

text, intensity, and duration. The duration of effects 

is either short term or long term. Short-term effects 

would persist for a period of 3–5 years and would 

consist primarily of temporary disturbance because 

of habitat restoration or facility construction and sub

sequent revegetation efforts. Long-term effects 

would last more than 5 years after project initiation 

and may outlast the 15-year lifespan of this CCP. 

Many long-term effects consist of long-term benefits 

to wildlife habitat resulting from our management 

actions. 

5.2 Effects Common to All 

Alternatives 

The following potential effects would be similar 

for each of the three alternatives: 

■■	 Carrying out our management direction, 

such as goals, objectives, and strategies, 

would follow the best management practices 

we established for the refuge. 

■■	 Our management activities and programs 

would avoid and reduce adverse effects on 

federally threatened and endangered spe

cies to the extent possible and practicable. 

■■	 Our refuge staff, contractors, researchers, 

and other consultants would acquire all 

applicable permits, such as those for future 

construction activities. 

The sections below describe other effects that we 

expect to be similar for each alternative. 

Regulatory Effects 

As described in chapter 1 of this CCP, we must 

follow Federal laws, administrative orders, and poli

cies in the development and implementation of the 

management actions and programs found in this 

document. Among these mandates are the Improve

ment Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean 

Water Act of 1977, and we must comply with Execu

tive Order 11990–Protection of Wetlands and Execu

tive Order 11988–Floodplain Management. The 

implementation of any of the alternatives described 

in this draft CCP and EA would not lead to a viola

tion of these or other mandates. See appendix A for 

more information. 

Environmental Justice 

To comply with Executive Order 12898–Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minor

ity Populations and Low Income Populations, none of 

our actions in this draft CCP and EA would dispro

portionately place any adverse environmental, eco

nomic, social, or health effects on minority or 

low-income populations. We are committed to ensur

ing that everyone has equal access to the Nation’s 

fish and wildlife resources, as well as equal access to 

information that would enable the public to meaning

fully take part in our activities and in the shaping of 

our policy. 

Cultural Resources 

All the alternatives would enhance cultural 

resources by protecting existing resources and 

extending protection to newly discovered resources. 

There have been limited cultural resource surveys 

performed on the refuge, so more surveys would be 

required before any new construction or excavation 

to fully satisfy the provisions of NEPA and other 

applicable acts and policies related to historic and 

archaeological resources. Before constructing trails 

or facilities, we would request a review by our 

Region 6 archaeologist and consultation with the 

Kansas State Historic Preservation Office to find any 

negative effects that might occur. 

Geology and Soils 

All alternatives would positively affect soil forma

tion processes on the refuge. Some disturbance to 

surface soils and topography would occur at locations 

selected for: (1) administrative, maintenance, and 

visitor facilities; (2) the removal and eradication of 

invasive plant species; and (3) the restoration of 

native habitat. 

­

­

­

­

114 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 115 

5.3 Land Conservation Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to land conservation. 

Climate Change 

The effects of climate change would extend 

beyond the boundaries of any single refuge and would 

therefore need large-scale, landscape-level solutions 

that extend beyond Quivira Refuge. Available infor

mation suggests that the restoration of soils, hydrol

ogy, and other ecosystem parts improves resilience. 

Our collective goal is to protect and improve resil

ience in ecological systems and communities so that, 

even as climate conditions change, the natural land

scape would continue to support its full range of 

native biodiversity and ecological processes. Building 

resilience includes supporting intact, interconnected 

landscapes, restoring fragmented or degraded habi

tats, and preserving and restoring ecological pro

cesses. Climate change considerations similar for all 

alternatives are noted in the beginning of chapter 3. 

Climate Change—Alternative A 

Under our current management, there has only 

been a general focus on the restoration of native plant 

communities and aspects of species–habitat relation

ships relative to other proposed alternatives, thus the 

level of ecosystem resilience achieved under this 

alternative may be less than under the other 

alternatives. 

Temperature and Precipitation 

Uncertainty 

Translating global and continental climate change 

models to regional scales, such as for Kansas or the 

refuge, are difficult. There are still major uncertain

ties at the regional level, especially related to precipi

tation (Christensen et al. 2007), although models are 

getting increasingly reliable. Some robust predictions 

suggest that warming is likely to be most pronounced 

in the winter, and snow season length and snow depth 

have a greater than 90-percent probability of 

decreasing. Expected increases in temperature 

range from 4–9 °F in western North America during 

this century (Christensen et al. 2007). 

Although temperature increases over the next 

several decades appear inevitable, the resulting 

effect on precipitation, moisture and wetland hydrol

ogy is highly uncertain. See the climate change sec

tion in chapter 4. Baseline checking of weather 

information at the refuge would continue to occur. 

Over the 15-year life of the plan, dramatic shifts are 

not expected, however, this baseline information may 

be useful for detecting trends across larger timeframes. The uncertainty about temperature and pre

cipitation changes would continue to exist. We at the 

refuge would rely on outside entities such as USGS to 

help us downscale climate change models to increase 

the predictability of temperature and precipitation 

changes and to apply these predictions to our 

management. 

Preservation of Water Rights 

Monitoring water usage would help us preserve 

existing water rights. Regular usage of our individ

ual water rights demonstrates beneficial use, and 

makes sure that the overall water amount will be 

available to us the future. The retention and use of 

these rights is important, especially if climate condi

tions cause a reduction of available runoff and there 

is greater demand for less water. 

Baseline Inventory and Monitoring 

Programs for Natural Resources 

Current management may detect and consider 

shifts in some plant and wildlife species distributions 

and conditions, but likely would not differentiate 

among the various factors influencing community 

changes. As a result, refuge-specific information 

used to improve our management strategies or to 

evaluate changes due specifically to climate factors 

over time is lacking. 

Baseline monitoring programs for habitat condi

tions, weather stations, ground water levels, and 

river gauges would provide some ability to detect 

long-term trends related to climate change. These 

trends could include changes in vegetation composi

tion, wetland water levels, some riverflows, and tem

perature. However, this information is likely to be 

limited in scope, site specific, and not easily related to 

regional or national climate change data and trends. 

Working with Others 

The effects of climate change are better seen, and 

the ability to address relative issues often seems 

more effective, at scales larger than the refuge. Thus 

we depend on our partners who work on a larger 

scale and who have resources allocated for climate 

change-related activities to help us. Our ability to 

proactively address climate change issues, given our 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
116 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

current engagement and our climate change-related 

partnerships with organizations like the GPLCC, is 

limited. Without greater participation by our staff, 

research, or conservation on the ground, is less likely 

to directly apply to refuge issues created by climate 

change. 

S WFSU/sen JoyrraB

Tiger Salamander 

Carbon Sequestration and Reducing the 

Carbon Footprint 

Carbon sequestration rates vary depending on 

plant species, soil type, region, climate, topography 

and management practices that can affect plant productivity. On a local scale, carbon sequestration is 

largely influenced by light conditions, water availability, soil water-holding capacity and its nutrient content. Local conditions could change the frequency 

and severity of natural disturbances such as wildfires 

and strong winds, which would increase the probability of carbon dioxide emissions and, hence, carbon 

loss from these systems. In general, the protection 

and restoration of grassland and wetlands under 

alternative A would benefit carbon sequestration on 

the refuge. The largest gains in carbon sequestration 

could occur if cropland is restored to grassland or 

drained wetlands are restored (Bangsund et al 2005). 

Some efforts toward reducing the footprint of 

facilities would occur. The reduction is likely to be 

modest and not well quantified. 

Staff Time and Management Costs 

Besides periodic reviews of information and measures already considered for refuge management, no 

more costs would be needed that are specifically 

associated with climate change monitoring programs 

and research. No major deviations would be made 

with our existing staff. By carrying out some green 

innovations, expenses for things like electricity; fuel, 

both gasoline and diesel; and propane may decrease. 

Climate Change—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that it would be more likely that our refuge 

management would be improved to address shifts in 

species distributions or other community changes 

involving species–habitat relationships largely 

because of the refined focus on the habitat needs of 

focal species. Also, alternative B would offer more 

inventorying and monitoring activities that would 

allow greater detection of community changes as 

related to focal species and refuge goals and objectives. A major difference between alternative B and 

C is the control of water management on different 

areas of the refuge. Under alternative B, there may 

be more management options to support different 

species and habitat types over time. 

Climate Change—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that a shift in management focus may result in 

more support for ecosystem resilience. However, 

there is some uncertainty in our ability to address 

shifts in species distribution and community changes 

partly because of unknowns about watershed management, how restoration activities might affect our 

management control and constraints, and what monitoring programs would be conducted to detect 

changes. This alternative, with relatively more constraints in water management, may be viewed as 

being more tolerant, or accepting, of a “new normal” 
 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 117 

if climate change leads to substantial community 

shifts. Management may not be in a position to resist, 

or prolong, community changes on areas of the refuge 

over time relative to the other alternatives. 

Land Protection—Alternative A 

The following affect land protection activities under 

alternative A. 

No Expansion of the Refuge Boundary 

Our management would not have the added 

responsibilities that come with owning more land, so 

positive effects would be expected. Also, private 

landowners would not have unnecessary concerns 

about our expansion activities. Positive and negative 

effects would likely be associated with our acceptance of private landowner interests and the management of lands surrounding the refuge. 

Promote Conservation on Private Lands 

There are various private land conservation programs specifically paid for, organized, and focused to 

work with landowners to improve the conservation of 

natural resources while supporting different private 

landowner interests. Our refuge management has a 

common interest in conserving natural resources and 

acknowledges that success at a landscape level or on 

larger scales cannot be achieved without the support 

of private land managers, as shown in State of the 

Birds reports. 

A potential negative effect is the risk that our refuge management would promote landscape programs 

when, in some cases, resulting land management on 

private lands may conflict with, or adversely affect, 

the achievement of refuge objectives. For example, 

private land initiatives that support the planting of 

tree rows for certain wildlife species conservation 

would contradict refuge goals and objectives for 

other species, especially if these activities were to 

occur next to large tracts of open habitat on the 

refuge. 

Stay Current with Landscape-scale 

Activities 

This would be beneficial for various reasons, such 

as having the necessary knowledge of landscape 

changes or developments to reevaluate the refuge’s 

role in the landscape; to help interpret changes 

observed, or measured, on the refuge; to keep, or 

improve, interactions with the public and our neighbors; to keep, or improve, the relevancy of land management in educational programs; and to promote 

efficiency. We would continue to work with the 

GPLCC and keep up with their priorities. 

Reduce Natural Resource Threats Related 

to Oil and Gas Activities 

Oil and gas activities on refuge lands create added 

threats to natural resources by changing surface 

lands, development of infrastructure with risk of oil 

or poor-quality water leaks and spills, laying underground pipelines in our saline environment, introducing and spreading invasive species, and possibly 

incurring mismanagement or violations. All of these 

threats have occurred on refuge lands many times, 

yet, fortunately, none have had well-documented, 

long-term negative effects. We are increasingly concerned about the age and integrity of oil pipelines 

and equipment, especially those that exist in the 

most saline environments. Most of the active oil wells 

are located in and around the BSM area that is used 

by many waterbirds, including endangered whooping 

cranes and interior least terns. These species are 

largely responsible for the refuge’s designation as an 

Important Bird Area and Ramsar wetland. In addition, we have concerns about how oil pumping noise 

interferes with the social behavior of birds and their 

ability to communicate, especially during the breeding season. For all of these reasons, we would seek to 

reclaim mineral rights, which would help resources. 

Limiting and gradually eliminating oil wells and 

their associated activities would be a benefit to our 

visitors who generally do not expect, and frequently 

question, oil-related activities on the refuge. Most oil 

wells have reached the end of their useful lives, especially over the past 4 years, as 6 wells have been 

pulled and plugged in that time. There would be 

reduced economic activity on the refuge, which may 

affect the local economy. 

Land Protection—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

but this alternative would embrace new opportunities 

that have emerged to increase protection, such as the 

creation of a new, Partners focus area surrounding 

the refuge and addressing the increasing threats of 

conservation on a landscape scale. Also, with the 

various interests related to conservation initiatives, 

there would be an increasing need to set priorities 
for, and work collaboratively on, common concerns to 

improve the effectiveness of our management. As 

such, benefits could increase. 

Land Protection—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B, 

except that this alternative would emphasize restor

ing ecological processes, and would rank those areas 

that would most benefit. A secondary emphasis would 

be placed on providing resources for focal resources. 

These activities would be expected to increase

benefits. 

5.4 Native Ecological 

Community Conservation 

Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to native ecological community

conservation. 

Big Salt Marsh—Alternative A 

Fluctuations in water level and water quality, 

such as salinity, would occur, and the use of Rattle

snake Creek water would be limited. Some view this 

management philosophy as positive, as long as long

term variability is kept within a “natural” range 

where levels are not toxic to wildlife. Managing 

dynamic fluctuations in water conditions promotes 

nutrient cycling and wetland productivity. By allow

ing periodic drying of the marsh, carp are controlled, 

which improves water quality and sunlight penetra

tion through the water column and reduces competi

tion for invertebrate resources used by migratory 

birds. Restricting Rattlesnake Creek water from 

entering the BSM in most years would help restore 

the natural salinity to the marsh over time, which 

would also limit growth of emergent cattail and 

Phragmites that are less tolerant of high salinities. 

Also, promoting natural marsh cycles would provide 

opportunities to educate the public about inland saltmarsh systems. 

Some may view this management philosophy as 

suboptimal at times in the marsh cycle when condi

118 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

tions are bad for viewing an abundance of birds and 

bird species in that area. In general, we would sup

port many birds, but there are times when we would 

support less, such as when the marsh is mostly dry. 

With seasonal declines in water levels in the late 

spring and summer, there is increasing interspersion 

of shallow water–mudflat habitat that helps shore

birds during migration. But, water may not be avail

able in some years for the waterfowl migration in 

September and October. However, in 2011, thousands 

of sandhill cranes used the dry marsh bed for roost

ing in October and November before the ground 

water flow started. 

Whooping crane use of the BSM during the fall 

migration may be affected because of a reduced area 

of water during that time, although in one of the dri

est years in recent history, 2011, whooping cranes 

still used the BSM area in November. With generally 

lower water levels and declining levels during the 

summer, interior least terns and western snowy plo

vers are expected to use the salt flats on the edges of 

the BSM more for nesting, than when the marsh is 

kept full. Nesting on wide open salt flats generally 

increases nesting success partly because of the diffi

culty of predators finding nests. But, these same 

nests are subject to loss because of occasional flood

ing because of large rainfall events during the nest

ing season. 

There would be no major changes to infrastruc

ture in the BSM except to support levees and water 

control structures in the saline environment and to 

support or improve natural ground water flow. Public 

access would continue to be allowed via the Wildlife 

Drive. 

The North Lake and Salt Flats areas, which are 

popular for hunting, were not flooded by the opening 

of the season in November 2010, 2011, and 2012 and 

these areas may not flood up until December in some 

years. With declining ground water levels, this may 

occur later and later over time, which would reduce 

hunting opportunities. 

We would continue with prescribed fire and graz

ing on the margins of the BSM, in the meadows and 

uplands surrounding the marsh. Burning will pre

vent woody vegetation encroachment, recycle nutri

ents, prevent litter buildup and keep conditions in, or 

shift them to, an early successional stage. Prescrip

tions for burning and grazing would be to restore the 

native plant community. 

Saltcedar will not be affected by increased salini

ties and may increase, with new seedling establish

ment annually, as water levels decline in the summer. 

Herbicides can control saltcedar if needed, and new 

establishments would need to be checked annually. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 119 

Big Salt Marsh—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Under this alternative, we would have more 

opportunities to improve natural hydrology, with a 

higher probability of helping focal resources. Periodic 

drying of the marsh would allow wind to naturally 

scour basins, an important process for improved pro

ductivity. Hunting opportunities would change under 

alternative B, refer to the hunting section of this 

chapter. 

Changes would include possibly altering the hunt

ing boundary, eliminating hunting in portions of the 

BSM area, and opening other areas in created 

wetlands. 

­

­

Big Salt Marsh—Alternative C 

Under this alternative, we would have opportuni

ties to improve natural hydrology, but there would, 

potentially, be fewer benefits to focal resources in 

some years. This alternative may improve system 

resiliency if more natural conditions were achieved, 

but much is unknown about future watershed man

agement and the availability of water. 

This alternative would likely provide less water 

and hunting for waterfowl early in the season, as 

natural hydrology would determine water levels. 

­

­

Little Salt Marsh—Alternative A 

Water management would continue and water 

control structures would be supported and replaced 

when needed. The LSM would continue to decline in 

storage capacity with sedimentation. There would be 

no waterfowl hunting. Public uses for wildlife obser

vation and photography would continue. 

The marsh is essential for holding water to flood 

all the created wetlands on the refuge, and, although 

it is losing capacity through sedimentation, it is still 

important and can be the last source of water for 

wildlife in a drought. Furthermore, the LSM is 

becoming fresher. Its salt is slowly being diluted 

because it is managed as a flow-through marsh and 

not as an overflow sump, as it was historically. 

The marsh is attractive to many migratory birds, 

primarily for roosting and for some foraging if water 

levels are held low in the spring and fall. Endangered 

whooping cranes often use the mudflat–shallow 

water zones when they are available. Interior least 

terns nested successfully on the Rattlesnake Creek 

delta in 2011, and, with lower water levels and the 

­

control of invasive species, terns may continue to use 

the marsh for nesting. 

The LSM is a popular wildlife viewing area with 

enhancements such as the observation tower, photo 

blind and adjacent hiking trail. 

Carp infestation is a recurring problem because it 

is connected to the creek. High carp populations are 

associated with high water turbidity, low wetland 

productivity, sedimentation, and an increasing cover

age of invasive Phragmites and cattail. Cattails 

would continue to dominate the shoreline of the 

marsh, as water levels are kept relatively stable dur

ing most of the year and salinities continue to decline. 

Phragmites and saltcedar will also continue to 

expand. 

It is the most popular fishing location and has an 

accessible fishing pier. Fishing would continue but 

would be a low quality public use, as carp continue to 

dominate the fishery and Phragmites and cattail 

affect the accessibility to shorelines. 

­

­

Little Salt Marsh—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be similar to alternative A, except 

that the benefits to focal resources may increase 

slightly. We would attempt to restore saltgrass habi

tat on the shoreline and islands following the active 

management of emergent vegetation. 

Deer, turkey and furbearer hunting would poten

tially occur in the uplands and meadows around the 

LSM, but would be subject to closure when whooping 

cranes use the marsh. 

­

­

Little Salt Marsh—Alternative C 

Effects would be similar to alternative B, except 

that this alternative would encourage natural condi

tions to the extent possible to promote long-term 

system resiliency at a time of uncertainty about cli

mate change. At least in the short term, this alterna

tive would make less water available for fall flooding, 

but it is possible that less would be needed as created 

wetlands would also be altered. The periods of high

est flooding would occur after rainfall events in the 

spring, followed by drying in the summer and fall, 

which would still provide roosting habitat for whoop

ing cranes in the early spring and fall. Nesting by 

interior least terns would not increase, but would be 

occasional if habitat conditions are favorable. 

­

­

­

­

­
Riparian Corridor—Alternative A 

The Riparian Corridor would continue to contain 

and transport nonnative, invasive species, such as 

Phragmites, saltcedar, Russian olive, and carp. We 

would continue to control these invasive species, 

including using chemical, mechanical, and prescribed 

fire treatments on saltcedar. 

Benefits to wildlife here are ancillary. Salt Creek 

provides saline habitat for plains killifish, a major 

source of food for interior least terns. In years when 

water levels are low and shoreline and beach habitat 

is available along the Rattlesnake Creek, interior 

least terns have been observed using the riparian 

corridor for breeding activities. We would allow some 

plums and shrubs of various sizes and structure 

within the riparian corridor because certain birds 

and wildlife, such as Bell’s vireo, prefer cover close to 

stream habitat. 

Our management in the next 15 years would 

reduce woody vegetation within the riparian corridor 

overall largely because presettlement vegetation of 

prairie streams was predominantly grassy with relatively frequent fires and grazing, and grassy riparian 

streams function differently from those with predominantly woody vegetation (Lyons et al. 2000). 

We would support processes of bank erosion that 

are within an acceptable range, but discourage excessive streambank damage resulting from long-term 

use by cattle. Cattle are not fenced out of riparian 

zones but are allowed to graze those areas along with 

the adjacent habitats. Removing invasive trees along 

the riparian corridor would discourage cattle from 

congregating in those areas and causing damage by 

resting under trees for shade. 

Riparian Corridor—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alterative A, 

except that we would emphasize restoring native 

plant communities and the structure needed to support focal resources. Some more isolated areas, such 

as Dead Horse Slough, might be considered for the 

reintroduction of fish species of concern. 

Riparian Corridor—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alterative B, 

except that we would evaluate current infrastructure 

related to the management of created wetlands and 

remove, or change, those features that are deemed to 

be nonessential or obstructions to natural hydrologic 

flow paths. We would also evaluate more diversion 

points as a strategy to better mimic natural hydrologic patterns in sloughs and in Rattlesnake Creek to 

restore natural hydrology and processes in certain 

areas to support the long-term sustainability of 

native communities. We presume that native wildlife 

would benefit from these actions. 

Created Wetlands—Alternative A 

There are many positive effects to managing the 

created wetlands as moist-soil producing, or seasonal, 

wetlands (Cross and Vohs 1988, Fredrickson and 

Taylor 1992, Laubhan and Fredrickson 1997, Laubhan and Roelle 2001, Laubhan et al. 2012). Among the 

primary advantages is the high productivity sustained with periodic drying and flooding of these 

systems (Mitsch and Gosselink 2003). Without 

actively managing these wetlands, it is likely that the 

extent and quality of seasonally flooded wetland 

resources would be substantially less in most years. 

Wildlife benefit from a high diversity of habitats here 

(for example, Skagen and Knopf 1993 and 1994, 

Hands 2008). Whooping cranes have been observed 

recently in some created wetlands where cattails 

have been removed and where newly flooded shallow 

habitat is created in the spring for example, official 

reports of whooping crane observations by refuge 

staff and the public submitted to Nebraska Ecological Services office). Western snowy plovers have 

recently begun to use some created wetlands after 

drawdowns in the spring for nesting and brood rearing (personal observation by refuge staff). It is evident that current refuge management has been and 

would continue to be successful in conserving biological communities at some level. 

The refuge is still comprised of many habitat 

types that have different plant compositions of various heights and densities, have moisture conditions 

that collectively attract many species, and support 

threatened and endangered wildlife. But, we do not 

know how well we have done to support resources of 

highest concern. This is partly because there have 

been few feedback mechanisms built into the planning process for the purposeful consideration of how 

we could manage biological factors differently to 

achieve greater success. Relevant knowledge of some 

environmental factors and interactions on Quivira 

Refuge, such as soils, invertebrates, and the changes 

in certain water quality characteristics, are lacking, 

and information on the status and management of 

inland, nontidal, brackish-to-saline wetland systems 

in the United States is insufficient. A planning pro­
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 121 

cess that more efficiently informs us could positively 

influence the predictability and long-term success of 

our implementation strategies. 

The social and economic effects of managing created wetlands could be great because of the growing 

interest in refuge resources by nonconsumptive users 

(personal observation by refuge staff), such as birders who are attracted to the large amount of shorebirds migrating through here in the spring and by 

waterfowl hunters who want quality habitat that 

attracts and holds birds in the area. Many of the created wetlands are in the hunting areas, and hunters 

start using those areas in September for the early 

teal season and continue to hunt through the end of 

January, the end of the regular duck and goose hunting seasons. Closing all refuge hunting areas when 

whooping cranes are present has created substantial 

conflict in recent years. 

See cultural resources effects under alternative C 

for more information. 

Created Wetlands—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Under this alternative: (1) we would more likely 

maximize support for focal resources; and (2) we 

would support and possibly improve the control of 

hydrology within refuge boundaries. This may 

increase the long-term probability of sustaining 

native communities that occurred presettlement, 

partly depending on watershed conditions. Because 

of management refinements and with more fully 

developed biological knowledge, we would more likely 

achieve greater success in conserving those 

resources of highest concern. For example, if we 

were to regularly integrate information on the detection of community thresholds, such as when salinities 

or nutrients exceed a normal range for an extended 

period of time, we may be more successful in managing for the long-term sustainability of focal resources 

and its associated cost. We would likely require more 

time collecting, synthesizing, and assessing information within a continual planning process. We may 

improve the conservation of many wetland-dependent 

resources of concern at State, regional, and national 

levels, such as whooping cranes, rails, northern pintails, and various shorebirds. 

Muskrat 

Rachel Laubhan/USFWS 
122 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Under alternative B, we would consider closing 

only hunting areas that are near those being used by 

whooping cranes. We also propose changing the locations of areas open to different hunting seasons in 

part to decrease conflicts. Birders and hunters both 

increasingly affect the economics of the area, as both 

out-of-state and local users spend money in the local 

economy because of Quivira Refuge’s resources. 

See cultural resources effects under alternative C 

for more information. 

Created Wetlands—Alternative C 

The greatest risk associated with this alternative 

is having less control over hydrology within refuge 

boundaries and relying increasingly on watershed 

conditions to achieve the refuge’s purposes, goals, 

and objectives at a time when water quantity and 

quality are of increasing concern. Proposed restoration evaluation would consider larger, landscape 

changes and the constraints of our refuge management. The full restoration of wetland systems after 

human modification is never assured, and the limitations of chosen performance criteria has created 

uncertainty when assessing the success of past wetland restorations (Matthews and Endress 2008, 

Moreno-Mateos et al. 2012). Success criteria used 

before to measure wetland restorations include: species population response, sediment or nutrient load 

reduction or stabilization, the creation of a more natural-looking environment, and plant community characteristics. These could also be considered potential 

effects to future restoration. 

With less water control, the availability and reliability of required resources for many species might 

be more dynamic within, and among, years. At the 

same time, a more careful evaluation of restoration 

possibilities may reveal a new biological potential for 

refuge lands—a shift in communities compared to 

what occurred presettlement or since. Still, environmental conditions may still be healthy, productive, 

and diverse. And these new conditions may, or may 

not, be more adaptable to the long-term trends associated with climate change (Erwin 2009). If less 

water were to be impounded and more temporally to 

seasonally flooded habitat replaces more permanently flooded habitat, then species associated with 

those habitat types would shift accordingly. For 

example, this change in conditions likely would favor 

many shorebird species and result in less use by some 

diving waterfowl species. 

Social and economic effects would primarily affect 

hunting opportunities and the number of hunters 

because there may be fewer wetlands that attract 

waterfowl. There would be fewer areas to hunt, especially if our future management involves bison. It is 

likely that waterfowl using the refuge might be 

reduced in areas without water management capabilities, especially early in the fall, assuming that 

most wetlands would be dry until late November. 

Most early fall wetland habitat would be confined to 

the LSM, which would remain closed to hunting. If 

wetland resources are more limited and hold fewer 

waterbirds, then we would expect that wildlife observation-related activities would decrease as well. This 

would have a negative effect on both the social interactions and the economics of the local area. 

Costs associated with the restoration and management of created wetlands under alternative C 

would be substantially increased in the short term, 

such as if infrastructure changes are required, and 

would likely decrease in the long term. But, much 

depends on the results of the evaluation of restoration 

potential. Time and costs associated with controlling 

invasive species, such as saltcedar, could possibly 

increase. 

Effects to cultural and historic resources within 

created wetlands are greater under this alternative 

because wetland developments would be reevaluated 

and would likely be removed, or breached, and the 

wetlands would be returned to their natural communities as much as is practical. Wetland developments 

affecting cultural and historic resources span 

decades and were largely the result of the original 

refuge master plan. And many waterfowl hunting 

clubs used the refuge before its establishment. Now, 

we would seek to alter our infrastructure to achieve 

a more natural state of environmental conditions. 

Freshwater Springs— 

Alternative A 

There is limited knowledge of the functions and 

wildlife values of the freshwater springs area. The 

springs are most recognized for supporting a Statethreatened Arkansas darter population, and they are 

a source of fresh water in an area of predominantly 

brackish to saline water. Fresh water can be important for wildlife not adapted to saline conditions. 

Also, the occurrence of environmental conditions 

ranging from fresh to saline may contribute to a 

greater diversity potential within that area of the 

refuge. However, recent questions exist about current conditions and management of springs. Exotic, 

invasive woody vegetation in the area has been 

increasing, and some relatively larger ponds in the 

area support green sunfish and possibly other predatory fish that may adversely affect Arkansas darter 

populations. There would be a reduction of woody 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 123 

vegetation in the area of the springs and water cress 

and other nonnative aquatic plants would be 

controlled. 

A beaver downed a tree in 2011, causing the 

enlargement of area surface water in the immediate 

vicinity of the spring. This may increase predator 

fish. There would be reduced coverage of exotic, invasive trees, such as Russian olive. This may improve 

the availability or quantity of water in the area of the 

springs. But, the existing pipe at the Boiling Springs 

would remain. Effects would be largely unknown, 

and, thus, the full habitat potential of the area may 

not be realized. Water quality would continue to be 

checked. We would evaluate the habitat to conserve 

fish communities, but our actions would be limited. 

Tourism groups have been curious about the Boiling Springs area, but we presume that their interest 

has mostly been about the potential availability of hot 

springs for their use. But, the Boiling Springs are not 

hot springs, and increased visitor use would increase 

threats to its conservation. The area is not closed to 

public use, but, if use were to increase dramatically, 

we would consider closing it. 

There are no known or anticipated economic or 

social effects attributed to the springs. 

Freshwater Springs—Alternative 

B (Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that our focus would shift to supporting native 

plant communities, largely through support of focal 

resources. Spring and Arkansas darter habitat conditions would be better protected and enhanced under 

this alternative. Management plans, implementation, 

and monitoring programs would be refined to more 

purposefully increase benefits to focal resources. If 

results of an evaluation suggest we remove the pipe 

or make a proper modification to the “enhanced 

ponds” in the area of the Boiling Springs, then we 

may improve the availability and sustainability of 

water and spring habitat conditions. Evaluations, 

however, may also encourage us to continue our current management. 

Freshwater Springs— 

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B, 

except that our focus would be on restoring natural 

ecological conditions. Results may, or may not, support focal resources besides spring and threatened 

and endangered species habitat, such as that of the 

Arkansas darter. 

Meadow—Alternative A 

While often considered part of upland or wetland 

habitats, meadow is a unique habitat type that occurs 

in a transitional zone between other upland and wetland communities. As such, changes in refuge surface 

and ground water hydrology likely have various 

effects on meadow, and many of these may not even 

be known. Obvious changes resulting from existing 

infrastructure, such as roads and dikes, and from the 

management of water mostly include shifts in vegetation composition or complete habitat conversions. For 

example, in areas where impoundments were built 

and managed to hold increased coverage and deeper 

water for longer periods, some meadow habitat has 

been replaced by cattail, Phragmites, or other tall, 

emergent vegetation that favors, or tolerates, those 

environmental conditions. At the same time, under 

these conditions, some upland prairie areas were converted to meadow or wetland communities. In certain areas, reduced levels in the ground water table 

and changes in surface runoff may have caused conversions from meadow to upland communities, such 

as tallgrass prairie. To more carefully consider habitat conversions that have occurred on the refuge, 

partly as a result of current management, past and 

present cover types were broadly compared on refuge lands (figures 11 and 12). 

At the refuge scale, meadow provides a wide 

range of habitat conditions that support diverse and 

abundant wildlife communities. For example, saltgrass generally provides habitat that is short in 

height with density that ranges from sparse to dense 

that, collectively, are used by many waterbirds for 

foraging, nesting, and protective cover. Other 

meadow habitat, such as that occupied by sedges, 

rushes, and prairie cordgrass, provides relatively 

taller habitat used by wildlife that require, or prefer, 

those conditions, such as black rail or bobolink. With 

dynamic hydrologic conditions, meadow habitat is 

characteristically productive, and essential for supporting bird, invertebrate, amphibian, reptile, and 

small mammal communities. As such, we would have 

many variable effects if we were to alter conditions to 

favor certain species over others. 

We have little control over many of the hydrologic 

conditions that drive changes in meadow, such as 

runoff from nearby private lands and reductions in 

ground water levels at the watershed scale. As a 

result, some future effects cannot be known. 
124 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

We would prevent the extensive coverage of dense 

litter over long periods of time, but would allow rest 

periods for the subsequent use of habitat by wildlife 

following individual, or combined, flooding and drying, grazing, burning, and mechanical treatments. It 

is likely that measures would not be as specifically 

tied to species needs as would be under alternative B. 

The restoration of sheet flow or other past alterations 

would be minimal to none, thus the effects of alternative A would include existing infrastructure that 

limits the full biological potential of meadow in supporting native communities. 

Meadow—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that the support of focal resources would be 

improved. Also, alternative B would likely form an 

improved awareness of the connectedness of different 

habitats and species relationships. This might be 

especially true with the meadow community because 

it is a highly transitional habitat type. 

Meadow—Alternative C 

A positive effect would be the restoration of natural processes and native vegetation characteristic of 

meadow in this region. For meadow, restoration of 

sheet flow and its effects on ground water levels 

might be especially influential to community changes. 

For example, if flooding depth, frequency, and duration are decreased among years in areas that are now 

open water or tall emergent, then these areas may be 

replaced by meadow. If flooding depth, frequency, 

and duration are increased among years, or ground 

water levels increase in areas that are now upland, 

especially in lower elevations, then these areas may 

be replaced by meadow. Of course, we would have 

little control over watershed management, which 

would greatly influence potential outcomes. 

Effects on the meadow community would need to 

be considered for bison reintroduction or for patch 

burn grazing. 

Woodland—Alternative A 

Most shelterbelts, tree groves, and riparian woodland on the refuge are not dominated by native trees 

and are the result of tree plantings as land claims and 

other projects that occurred decades ago. At the time 

those decisions were made, differences existed in the 

conditions of prairie and riparian communities, 

grassland bird trends, and threats to conservation. 

Therefore, to be more consistent with presettlement 

conditions, we would allow only a few, select tree 

groves to remain on the refuge as part of woodland. 

The abundance and, possibly, the richness of wildlife associated with woodland would be reduced from 

current levels. However, the abundance and, possibly, 

the richness of wildlife associated with open prairie 

habitat would increase over current levels. Allowing 

woodland to remain on the landscape would be based 

on an evaluation of variables and species–habitat 

trade-offs to sustain native sand prairie communities 

and to address other conservation concerns or 

threats. For example, we may allow the continued 

existence of woodland to support colonial nesting or 

species of conservation concern, especially if it occurs 

nears the refuge boundary where wooded areas 

occur on private land and if benefits to prairie species 

that prefer open habitat were found to be little to 

none if the trees were removed. 

We do not plan to cut trees in the Migrants Mile in 

the near future, other than to thin and clean the 

stand. Reduced woodland in the riparian corridor 

would generally involve saltcedar control. With 

increased access during drought conditions, the cutSoapweed Yucca 

S WFSU/sen JoyrraB
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 125 

ting of exotic, invasive species such as Russian olive 

and saltcedar in created wetlands and riparian corridor habitats would be a priority. Control of these 

species would also support improved soil and water 

conservation. Various types of woodland habitat are 

available and increasing at the regional and landscape scales outside refuge boundaries. See the sand 

prairie complex and wildlife sections in this chapter 

for more information about community effects. 

We would expect mixed reactions on the cutting 

of trees. For example, birdwatchers that are interested in spotting the most bird species in the shortest amount of time would be disappointed in the 

effects, while those most interested in the conservation of declining endemic grassland birds would be 

pleased, and hunters likely would have mixed opinions. There would be no effect to waterfowl hunters. 

Most who visited to the refuge in recent years, however, came to see lots of waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

sandhill cranes or to view the endangered whooping 

crane. Woodland does not help these species or the 

observation of these species. We would likely need to 

increase awareness of the “wildlife first” mission of 

the Refuge System, and of the roles and responsibilities of the refuge to conserve species and reduce 

threats on various spatial scales. 

Our costs would increase in the short term as 

woodland is reduced and proper habitat is restored. 

But, subsequent costs would decrease partly because 

of a reduction in resources spent to control woody 

encroachment and invasive species. Costs related to 

water use and availability would improve with substantial reductions in tree cover, especially saltcedar 

along the riparian corridor. 

The reduction of trees and shrubs would create 

communities that are closer to what occurred in presettlement times. To accomplish this, several tree 

claims and shelterbelts planted around historical 

residence areas would likely be removed. 

Woodland—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that we would emphasize developing prescriptions that would increase benefits for focal species. 

Woodland—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that we would allow few isolated trees and no 

tree groves on the refuge except for those more naturally occurring native species that are associated 

with riparian areas or springs to reach conditions 

that are more like those during presettlement times. 

Sand Prairie Complex— 

Alternative A 

Tree and shrub encroachment affects the remaining tracts of sand prairie within the Great Bend Lowlands and on lands surrounding the refuge. 

Therefore, successfully reducing woody vegetation 

would promote unique and essential habitat conditions at various scales and would create communities 

closer to those of presettlement times. 

Among the effects of woody vegetation spreading 

into prairie grassland, there are many important 

species–habitat relationships to consider, including 

those involving migratory birds. Declining trends of 

grassland bird populations are of serious conservation concern (Sauer et al. 2008), and it has been suggested that even large grassland tracts remaining in 

Kansas and Oklahoma that are largely part of an 

agricultural landscape may not support regional 

populations (With et al. 2008). While individual 

reports vary, research of woody vegetation in grassland generally finds negative effects on grassland 

birds (Bakker 2003; Coppedge et al. 2001, 2004; 

Chapman et al 2004; Grant et al. 2004, Coppedge et 

al. 2008). While there are several management and 

environmental conditions that influence woody plant 

dominance, such as plant adaptations and competition, fire and grazing regimes or prescriptions, and 

climate (Fuhlendorf 1999, Ratajczak et al. 2011), our 

refuge planning considers such factors in refining 

strategies to accomplish related objectives. 

Many endemic or obligate grassland birds avoid 

areas with, or near, trees; incur lower densities or the 

probability of occurrence and nest success where 

trees are present; and suffer increased predation and 

parasitism in treed areas. Factors related to bird use 

of habitat in the landscape are complex and birds’ 

responses to them are variable (Ribic et al. 2009). 

But, managing for larger tracts of open prairie seems 

a responsible action considering available information 

and the purpose of the refuge. In a recent literature 

review, it was shown that half of the 32 species of 

temperate, obligate grassland birds of North America have area sensitivity, “defined as a positive relationship between probability of occurrence of species 

or species density and [habitat or patch] area” (Ribic 

et al. 2009). Many birds included in this review occur 

on Quivira Refuge during the breeding season, such 

as northern harrier, upland sandpiper, grasshopper 
126 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

sparrow, dickcissel, bobolink, and eastern and western meadowlarks. At the same time, it is important 

to remember the connectivity among habitats on the 

refuge and in the landscape. For example, Coppedge 

et al. (2008) showed that distance to ponds, creeks, 

and roads had both positive and negative effects on 

grassland bird abundance, which varied among 

species. 

Other literature has shown the influence of trees 

in the landscape on waterbird annual life events and 

their use of habitat (Naugle et al. 1999). One study 

found substantial declines in duck nesting success 

when Russian olive trees were abundant at a landscape scale (Gazda et al. 2002). 

Increasing coverage of shrubs in grasslands has 

similar effects as described above with trees, but 

some reports are noted that specifically discuss the 

effects of shrub cover on grassland birds. In the Flint 

Hills of Kansas, daily nest survival of grassland 

songbirds decreased with increasing shrub cover 

partly attributed to higher rates of predation, and 

occurrence of successful nests was associated with 

tallgrass and forbs but reduced shrub cover (Klug et 

al. 2010). In mixed grassland, probability of occurrence of 11 of 15 breeding grassland birds decreased 

with increases in coverage of trees, tall shrub, or 

brush (Grant et al. 2004). Studies in Oklahoma are 

some of the only reports describing bird–plum habitat relationships that may be used to evaluate tradeoffs of shrub management and guide decisions 

(Dunkin and Guthery 2009). While there are several 

management and environmental conditions that influence woody plant dominance, such as plant adaptations and competition, fire and grazing regimes or 

prescriptions, and climate (Fuhlendorf 1999, Ratajczak et al. 2011), refuge planning considers such factors in refining strategies to accomplish related 

objectives. 

Besides the effects to migratory birds, other 

plants are affected by the increased woody vegetation. Cheatgrass thrives under scattered trees, tree 

rows and plum shrub habitat. Areas around, and 

under, almost all trees have a cheatgrass understory 

instead of native grasses, and cattle affect those 

areas by resting and congregating under trees for 

shade. Sand plum stands with a cheatgrass understory become largely impervious to fire because of 

the cool-season nature of cheatgrass. In the spring, 

hot prescribed fires burn around plum stands. Later, 

when the plum buds and leafs out, plum stands 

become even more resistant to fire. Native grasses 

appear to outcompete cheatgrass once the overstory 

and heavy cattle effects are taken away with the 

removal of trees or by mowing sand plum and other 

tall shrubs. 

The successful, long-term management of the 

sand prairie complex under alternative A would 

result in sustaining open, native sand prairie communities dominated by short-to-medium, and 

medium-to-tall, warm-season grasses and reduced 

woody and invasive plant species coverage. Under 

alternative A, we would focus on supporting diverse, 

native communities in a more general sense relative 

to alternative B, and there would be various tradeoffs related to plant and wildlife community composition and structure. Because we would not consider 

certain focal resources at a finer scale, a wider range 

of habitat conditions and use by wildlife might be 

acceptable. This may support a higher diversity and 

abundance of wildlife overall at the refuge scale, but 

the needs of focal resources of management concern 

(table 3) may not be entirely satisfied. At the same 

time, other species not now considered of highest conservation concern, such as deer, likely would benefit 

more from alternative A, when compared to alternative B. 

With a reduction of trees and shrubs, the abundance and, possibly, the richness of wildlife associated with those habitat types would be reduced, and 

the abundance and, possibly, the richness of wildlife 

associated with open prairie habitat would increase. 

We would expect mixed reactions on the cutting of 

trees. For example, birdwatchers who are interested 

in spotting the most bird species in the shortest 

amount of time would be disappointed in the effects, 

while those most interested in the conservation of 

declining endemic grassland birds would be pleased, 

and hunters likely would have mixed opinions. 

Changes in the water table will likely have some 

effects on communities, such as shifts in species composition (Castelli et al. 2000, Henszey et al. 2004, 

Hammersmark et al. 2009), but both changes and 

consequences are unknown and likely would be 

largely influenced by watershed management. 

Sand Prairie Complex— 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that the habitat needs of focal resources would 

largely guide our management of plant community 

composition and structure on the refuge. Management prescriptions and priorities would be specific to 

accomplish the particular habitat needs of those species, such as providing stands of habitat of a certain 

size, shape, height, and density, within a specified 

distance to water or another habitat type. Species 

that are of conservation concern and have been a 

lesser priority of recent management would benefit, 

such as Bell’s vireo or upland sandpiper. 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 127 

Because focal resources collectively require a 

wide range and diversity of vegetation structure and 

composition, refuge habitat would support many, different wildlife with needs that are not specifically 

used in management decisionmaking. It is unknown 

if, and how, the costs of conducting management 

treatments would differ from alternative A, but these 

costs would be less than those associated with alternative C. On the other hand, more specific monitoring 

measures and subsequent feedback would be involved 

with alternatives B and C, when compared to A, to 

measure progress and to provide management 

recommendations. 

The time required for monitoring programs and 

management planning would increase slightly. 

Largely because of uncertainties related to future 

water availability and conditions, it is difficult to predict if alternatives B or C would create communities 

that are closer to what occurred in presettlement 

times. 

Sand Prairie Complex— 

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternatives A 

and B, except that, as a result of managing to restore 

natural functions and communities to the extent possible, community composition and structure would 

likely change more from alternative A than it would 

under alternative B. 

When considering bison to replace cattle grazing 

as a management tool, substantial effects to communities would be expected. However, changes may be 

caused more by the removal of fences and the use of 

fire to influence the distribution and intensity of 

grazing rather than because of differences between 

these herbivores (Towne et al. 2005). After 10 years 

of grazing in Kansas tallgrass prairie, plant communities grazed by bison and cattle were 85 percent 

similar based on a comparison of parts measured 

(Towne et al. 2005). Mixed reactions would be 

expected from different interest groups if bison were 

reintroduced and areas were closed to the public for 

safety reasons. 

In evaluating the use of bison, management would 

need to consider the following changes and associated 

costs: adding boundary fences that are proper for 

bison, removing most fencing within refuge boundaries, coordinating with the burning program, health 

screening and herd culling, constructing and keeping 

a handling facility, water tank needs, safety concerns, 

and the logistics related to moving bison. On the 

other hand, tourism may increase with opportunities 

to observe bison, which would help the economies of 

local communities. 

Our costs would likely increase in the short term 

to reduce invasive species coverage and for possible 

changes in infrastructure. More monitoring programs would be required to evaluate infrastructure 

before and after changes. 

We would focus on restoring natural functions and 

native communities to the extent possible to support 

certain cultural and historical aspects of natural 

communities that occurred in presettlement times. 

For instance, we would evaluate the application of 

grazing and fire in a way that more closely mimics 

what occurred then. 

Cropland—Alternative A 

The refuge would slowly reduce cropland acres 

and replant with proper native vegetation as cooperators voluntarily quit farming. 186 acres have been 

reseeded in the past 2 years. Slowly reducing the 

area of cropland and restoring native plant communities would continue at a rate of about 50 acres annually, depending on cooperator contracts and climate 

and resources available to buy native seeds. Once 

reseeded the areas would be aggressively managed 

with mowing, fire, grazing, “interseeding” and herbicides to improve stand establishment, pending climate conditions. After establishment, restored areas 

may be harvested for seed for other reseeding projects in the future. Food is not a limiting factor in the 

landscape, and reconstruction of annual cropland to 

native communities would not alter the ability to 

achieve regional and national waterfowl population 

goals. It is presumed that reconstruction would 

improve habitat conditions for native sand prairie 

communities. 

Cropland areas create artificially high deer densities, as deer are drawn to the winter wheat crops and 

waste grain in other crop types. Use of cropped fields 

by deer and waterfowl may get more attention from 

visitors, as they concentrate wildlife and many are 

near roads and the auto tour route but these same 

animals use other parts of the refuge. 

Farming as a management tool would remain an 

option for habitat restoration or to meet conservation 

goals (USFWS 2011), but farming solely to supply 

food crops for wildlife would be gradually reduced 

and eventually ended. 

The use of genetically modified crops to prepare 

seedbeds for the reestablishment of native plants is 

allowed. An EA was completed for this use in 2011. 

That method has never been used on the refuge, but 

would remain a future option. 
128 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

The slow rate of reseeding would be because of 

the high cost of native grass and forb seeds and associated restoration activities, such as seedbed preparation and invasive species control. The refuge uses a 

cooperator to harvest native grass seeds from the 

refuge for use in the reseeding program to reduce 

costs. We harvest seed in relatively normal to wet 

years with 75 percent going to the cooperator and 25 

percent going to the refuge. 

With farming, there is a risk of invasive species 

establishment and spread because of equipment and 

the disturbance of bare ground. 

Cropland—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects under alternative B would be the same, 

except that areas would also be reseeded instead of 

being left to naturally go back to a native community. 

This action would speed the recovery in those 

approximately 200 acres that were cropped before to 

a native community but would also cost much more in 

time and money than actions under alternative A. 

“Interseeding,” burning, mowing, grazing and herbicide treatments would be used for restoration. These 

areas do not have the same types of wildlife use and 

public viewing opportunities that cropland has, so 

this addition would have fewer negative or positive 

effects (figure 14). 

Cropland—Alternative C 

Effects under alternative C would be the same as 

under alternative B, except that restoration activities 

would be accelerated and would consume more time 

and money than actions under either alternative A or 

alternative B, and the result would be a faster restoration of native communities. Ultimately, effects 

would be the same as under alternative B. Wildlife 

would benefit sooner under this alternative. 

Migratory Birds—Alternative A 

Our wetland management promotes high use by 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds; see the 

BSM, created wetlands, and LSM sections in this 

chapter for more detail. A wide diversity and abundance of migratory birds would continue to benefit 

from habitat management. Habitat use on the refuge 

would likely be reduced for heron rookeries, raptor 

perching, some neotropical migrant resting and foraging, and other tree- and shrub-associated species 

use, while habitat use likely would be increased for 

endemic grassland bird migration and nesting activities. It is possible that, with reduced woody coverage, 

the predation of eggs, young, and adult birds would 

decrease. 

Certain generalist species that have benefited 

from human modifications to the landscape would 

have decreased benefits on refuge lands. However, it 

is expected that birds that see reduced benefits on 

refuge lands would be supported by current habitat 

conditions occurring in the landscape beyond refuge 

boundaries. Species recovery plans and various 

regional and national bird conservation plans would 

be supported. 

Migratory Birds—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that a shift in management focus would 

increase the potential benefits to endemic and obligate grassland species and waterbirds adapted to 

environments with less coverage of trees and shrubs. 

Tree- and shrub-dependent species would have 

reduced benefits. 

Migratory Birds—Alternative C 

Because most woodlands would be removed, wading bird rookeries would likely exist off refuge and 

other tree-nesting species would decline on refuge 

lands. However, a diversity of woodland and shrubland habitat occurs on surrounding lands outside 

refuge boundaries. These are conditions that are 

commonly found, and are increasing, at both a 

regional and State level. 

The overall abundance of migratory birds would 

likely decrease with potential changes in hydrology, 

refuge infrastructure, and management. For example, our current ability to hold and control water 

would be reduced, and, consequently, our ability to 

make desirable habitat conditions available to species 

at proper times would decrease. It is also expected 

that conditions for migratory birds would fluctuate in 

wet and dry periods; more “boom and bust” conditions would prevail. If water is properly managed at 

a watershed level, our management would support 

long-term ecosystem sustainability and productivity 

and, therefore, continue to provide long-term benefits 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 129
 

Figure 14. Cropland and tree coverage planning under alternative B (proposed action), Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge, Kansas. 
 

130 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

to migratory birds. But, we would no longer maximize wetland habitats every year. 

Fish—Alternative A 

Water quality would be improved as carp and 

other undesirable fish are reduced, mostly through 

the periodic drying of wetlands. These fish promote 

higher water turbidity, which lowers the productivity 

of plants that are beneficial to birds during migration 

and, in some cases, some native fish during the breeding season. 

To reduce the likelihood of introducing foreign or 

unwanted diseases and pathogens to resident aquatic 

species, we would avoid stocking nonnative fish 

except at the Kids’ Fishing Pond. Native fish populations would also benefit from our conserving desirable habitat. We would manage the BSM area to 

encourage a more natural range of high salinity and 

other water quality conditions, which we would 

expect to support plains killifish and other native fish 

populations that tolerate high salinity. We would continue to conserve the Boiling Springs freshwater 

habitat to support a healthy source population of 

State-threatened Arkansas darters. 

Fishing opportunities on the refuge have traditionally been on the north and east sides of the LSM, 

and this would continue. Fishing at the Kid’s Fishing 

Pond would remain unchanged. See the fishing section in this chapter for more detail. 

The biological effects of crayfish are complex 

partly because of their interactions with, and the 

similar roles of, fish in ecological systems, including 

predating on each other’s eggs or young, competing 

for food and shelter, and affecting community 

resources (Reynolds 2011). Both fish and crayfish 

would have significant effects on food web relationships that may negatively or positively influence 

migratory birds, depending on the balance of 

resources at a given point in time. The balance of 

resources would be constantly changing and, therefore, would be difficult to measure and track, especially when one considers that aquatic species would 

be frequently introduced to Quivira Refuge through 

Rattlesnake Creek and that many wetlands on the 

refuge would be managed to regularly flood and dry. 

Fish—Alternative B (Proposed 

Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

plus we would focus on species–habitat relationships 

to support a productive and healthy aquatic environment, including special focus on the Arkansas darter 

and plains killifish. As a result, we expect that native 

fish populations would improve. 

Native fish populations may benefit even more 

from management that is more acutely focused on 

specific species–habitat needs; from the potential 

reintroduction of native fish; and from the results of 

evaluations to create and keep more suitable habitat 

in targeted areas both on and off the refuge, which 

we would conduct with help from the public and our 

partners. By not allowing the use of live fish bait, we 

expect to further reduce the likelihood of introducing 

diseases and pathogens to aquatic species. By allowing the frogging of bullfrogs only, changes in fish 

populations and other associated links in the ecosystem, such as invertebrates and birds, are possible, 

though we do not expect that the level of take would 

have major effects. 

By periodically removing carp from the system, 

native fish populations would improve and fishing 

activities would likely increase. 

Fishing opportunities on the refuge have traditionally been located on the north and east sides of 

the LSM, and this would continue. 

Fish—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B, 

except that, by restoring hydrology and communities 

to the extent possible, we would expect an improvement in water quality, but limitations on this 

improvement are possible because of uncertainties in 

future watershed management and conditions. 

Improvements in water quality and restored hydrology would be expected to benefit fish populations 

native to prairie streams. Sport and nonnative fish 

populations would likely decline in many areas of the 

refuge. 

With removal of the Kid’s Fishing Pond, fish populations would decrease in that basin because regular 

stocking would no longer occur and the pond would 

have shallow water or be dry, depending on spring 

flows. Conditions for fish on the refuge, overall, would 

vary in wet and dry years. The extent and duration 

of deep, permanent water on the refuge from Rattlesnake Creek would likely be reduced, which would 

adversely affect nonnative, or sport, fish. However, 

some of the natural sloughs and ponds, and riffle pool 

sequences that leave areas periodically isolated from 

the creek may function better to conserve native 

prairie fish populations. Also, overall and in certain 

years, there may be improved habitat for certain life 

cycle events of native fish, such as for nesting or 

brooding. Where water control is reduced, there may 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 131 

be occasional issues related to carp or undesirable 

fish populations. In these cases, management might 

largely depend on dry periods to control populations 

and related effects, such as water turbidity, aquatic 

vegetation productivity and food chain viability. 

Most fishing opportunities on the refuge have traditionally been on the north and east sides of the 

LSM, and this would not change. Fishing at the Kid’s 

Fishing Pond, however, would no longer occur. 

Maintenance and stocking costs would decrease. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of 

Concern—Alternative A 

T and E species would remain a management priority, and we would continue to support recovery 

plans and the conservation of critical habitat. By 

reducing woody vegetation, we would expect to 

improve habitat conditions for all federally listed T 

and E species and all State-listed species except, possibly, for the eastern spotted skunk. However, there 

have been no known observations of this skunk species on the refuge in recent decades, and Stafford 

County is not reported as critical habitat for it. It is 

possible that, with reduced woody coverage, the predation of eggs, young, and adult T and E birds would 

decrease. 

Our water management would continue to support 

habitat conditions that are favorable for migrating 

shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as for migrating 

and roosting T and E species. Areas in, and around, 

the BSM and the LSM have received the most use by 

whooping cranes on the refuge in recent years. The 

BSM area is traditionally used by both interior least 

terns and snowy plover. In 2011, a drought year, several pairs of interior least terns successfully used 

shoreline and beach habitat where the Rattlesnake 

Creek enters the LSM. 

See the fish section in this chapter for more information on the Arkansas darter. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of 

Concern—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

plus, with a shift in management focus and more 

quantitative checking of management effects, potential benefits for T and E species may increase. We 

would measure and consider factors that properly 

describe vegetation conditions following treatments 

that influence species use to figure out our success in 

achieving our objectives. For example, we could 

evaluate our success in supporting the black rail, a 

State Species in Need of Conservation, by following 

water depth and coverage of certain plant species in 

the meadow habitat (Kane 2011). 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of 

Concern—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that our shift in management focus from species-specific habitat needs to native communities and 

processes would likely result in decreased benefits to 

certain T and E species in some years and increased 

benefits in other years. We expect to have limited 

control over some areas of the refuge, and, therefore, 

habitat availability would be less dependable within, 

and among, years. At the same time, increased benefits may result if we find that habitats would support 

the reintroduction of species, such as lesser or 

greater prairie-chicken. Provided that water is properly managed at a watershed level, and pending climate change effects, our management would support 

long-term ecosystem sustainability and productivity 

and, therefore, continue to provide long-term benefits 

to T and E species. 

Managing the BSM in a manner that more closely 

mimics what occurred during presettlement times 

would be expected to increase nesting habitat for 

western snowy plover and interior least tern. Less 

use of the BSM by whooping crane would be 

expected because there likely would be more years 

with little to no water at the time of migration. There 

would likely be less flooding of traditional least tern 

nesting areas because the basin would have more 

room to store rainfall, since water would not be kept 

artificially high in the spring, and artificial dikes and 

roads that impede waterflow would be removed. 

Wildlife Native to the Region— 

Alternative A 

Our management of habitat would support wildlife native to this region of the Great Plains. In doing 

so, other wildlife native to the larger Great Plains 

would also benefit, and species diversity would be 
132 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

supported at regional, landscape, and national scales. 

Species associated with woody habitat would be 

expected to decrease within refuge boundaries, while 

native endemic species associated with open grass

land would increase. However, a diversity of woody 

habitat conditions occurs on surrounding lands out

side refuge boundaries. These conditions are com

monly found, and are increasing, both regionally and 

across the State. Many of the species associated with 

woodlands on refuge lands have benefited from 

human modifications to the landscape such as the 

American robin and black-capped chickadee. It is 

likely that, with reduced woody coverage, the preda

tion of wildlife prey eggs, young, and adults would 

decrease on the refuge. 

For more information on species-specific examples 

and trade-offs, see chapters 3 and 4 and the

appendixes. 

­

­

­

­

Wildlife Native to the Region— 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that, with our shift in management focus, 

potential benefits to endemic and obligate grassland 

species and wetland species that are adapted to envi

ronments with less coverage of trees and shrubs 

would increase. 

­

Wildlife Native to the Region— 

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B, 

except that the overall abundance of different wildlife 

Coyote 

S WFSU/sen JoyrraB

would likely be mixed, depending on species and con

ditions. Wildlife populations would likely experience 

more dynamic fluctuations within, and among, years 

because of potential changes in hydrology, refuge 

infrastructure, and management. For example, our 

ability to hold and control water would be reduced, 

and, consequently, our ability to make desirable habi

tat conditions available to species at proper times 

would decrease. Provided water is properly managed 

at a watershed level, our management would support 

long-term ecosystem sustainability and productivity. 

Therefore, we would continue to provide long-term 

benefits to wildlife. If a patch burn strategy is car

ried out, we expect that there would be benefits to 

species diversity. 

­

­

­

Wildlife Health—Alternative A 

We would decrease adverse health conditions for 

wildlife. To the extent possible, and with the under

standing that influences exist outside of our control, 

we would keep contaminant levels within a normal 

range for the ecosystem. Our surveillance of disease 

outbreaks would continue, and we would collect 

specimens and send them to a lab for testing when 

appropriate. With reductions in woody vegetation, we 

would expect positive changes in deer distribution 

and that contact rates would decline. Considering the 

current high population of deer, this may reduce the 

potential effects of chronic wasting disease; see chap

ter 4 for more details. 

­

­

Wildlife Health—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

plus we would emphasize water sampling to improve 

the early detection of potentially adverse conditions 

for wildlife health and, possibly, prevent substantial 

wildlife die-offs. Regular water and, possibly, soil 

sampling in and near streams and tributaries, 

ditches, and oil wells on the refuge would track 

trends in contaminant levels. Changes in hunting 

regulations would be expected to improve wildlife 

health conditions, specifically for the high-density 

deer population. 

Trapping could help control disease and nuisance 

animals, which would benefit wildlife. There would be 

a small economic benefit for trappers. And we would 

expect most trappers to live in the local area. 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 133 

Wildlife Health—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

plus a broader suite of environmental conditions 

would be checked to further improve benefits to wild

life health. However, because there is the potential 

that we would have less control over water manage

ment, a decrease in our ability to manage disease and 

health concerns would be expected. At the same 

time, our management for ecosystem sustainability 

would be expected to increase resilience to adverse 

conditions, excluding human-caused disasters, such 

as an oil spill. Trapping effects would be the same as 

under alternative B. 

­

­

Inventory, Monitoring, and 

Research—Alternative A 

We conduct monitoring programs for surface 

waterflows, water levels, and water quality, but 

improved methods to collect this data are also being 

developed. We would evaluate the possibilities and 

constraints of observing ground water and soil fac

tors. Effects include our receiving better information 

about these factors within the refuge boundaries and, 

perhaps, being able to favorably influence

conditions. 

There would be a relatively general focus on sup

porting diverse, native communities. For example, 

because we would not focus on specific focal resource 

needs, as under alternative B, a potentially wider 

range of habitat conditions and wildlife use would be 

acceptable. At a minimum, we would need to evaluate 

for native and nonnative trends, the diversity of ref

uge communities, and for T and E species conditions 

and activities. It would be expected that required 

monitoring programs would involve relatively broadscale measures and perhaps less intensive sampling 

than under the other alternatives. 

We would continue to inform a variety of interest 

groups on our findings. Limitations would exist rela

tive to the types and extent of information that we 

would be able to collect or provide. 

Our objectives and protocols and our historical 

methods and outcomes would be reviewed for rele

vancy and cost. Information learned from our activi

ties would be properly used to gain more support for 

our refuge management and for resources of concern. 

We would continue to share information for varied 

interests, including local economies, educational insti

tutions, and conservation programs and groups. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

Inventory, Monitoring, and 

Research—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that monitoring measures related to species– 

habitat needs would be more specific. For example, 

our management focus and associated treatment pre

scriptions would need to evaluate species–habitat 

need factors such as providing stands of habitat of a 

certain size, shape, height, and density, within a 

specified distance to water and or to another habitat 

type. Species that are of conservation concern and 

have been a lesser priority of recent management, 

such as Bell’s vireo or upland sandpiper, would likely 

benefit as a result of this finer level of monitoring. 

Because focal species, collectively, require a wide 

range and diversity of vegetation structure and com

position, refuge habitat would continue to support 

many different wildlife species not considered focal 

species. It would be expected that more specific 

monitoring measures and subsequent feedback would 

be involved to measure our progress and to provide 

proper management recommendations. 

­

­

Inventory, Monitoring, and 

Research—Alternative C 

Activities related to soils and hydrology would be 

more extensive. 

Activities related to biological factors would also 

be more extensive. For example, there would be more 

habitat and wildlife population monitoring programs 

used to decide if hunting and trapping would be 

allowed for a certain time. It would be expected that 

activities both before and after inventory, monitoring 

programs and research would be needed to evaluate 

the accomplishments of restoration activities. 

Our management and monitoring programs would 

be more costly than they would be under the other 

alternatives. While the potential consequences to 

natural resources would be of primary concern, costs 

related to our management strategies and monitor

ing programs must be factored into decisionmaking, 

especially considering the uncertainties and con

straints associated with Federal money and the var

ied interests of conservation groups. 

­

­

­
134 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

5.5 Visitor Services Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to visitor services. 

Hunting—Alternative A 

The following affect hunting activities under 

alternative A. 

Effects Associated with an Unnaturally 

High and Increasing Population of Deer 

White-tailed deer would likely increase until artificial controls, such as hunting, or natural controls, 

such as disease, change this trend. In the meantime, 

we presumed that there would be a growing risk of 

exceeding habitat carrying capacity and experiencing a decline in deer health and habitat conditions. 

The threat of chronic wasting disease would be of 

concern, as incidences occur closer to the refuge each 

year and because some local areas are managed to 

increase deer populations for the economic benefits of 

recreational hunting. 

With an increasing deer population public viewing 

opportunities would be maintained or increased 

because deer that are not afraid of humans are easier 

to observe from vehicles. The refuge has many trophy bucks that one can view and photograph easily. 

But, the presence of many deer within, and near, the 

refuge could also create traffic safety issues. Having 

many trophy deer would also encourage poaching, 

which would be a law enforcement issue. Also, if disease did become an issue, public viewing of unhealthy 

deer would be expected to have mostly negative 

effects. 

Because the refuge would continue to be closed to 

deer hunting, it would also remain closed to the 

retrieval of deer that are shot off the refuge. Some 

hunters have concerns that it is a waste of game to 

not be able to retrieve deer. Retrieving deer is not 

allowed, according to the CFR, primarily because 

much hunting occurs next to the refuge because it is 

closed and because there have been frequent and 

repeated requests in the past to retrieve big game 

animals that have crossed into the refuge after having been shot. Hunting blinds also exist extremely 

close to the refuge boundary in many areas. 

While browse lines are evident, we have limited 

knowledge on the effects of deer on native vegetation 

and habitat conditions. Native forbs and, possibly, 

shrubs may be negatively affected by high deer 

populations. 

Effects Associated with Whooping Crane 

Protection 

Whooping cranes have spent more time on the 

refuge over the past few years in the fall, and, with 

climate change, they may spend even more time here 

in the future. This trend may improve the observation of this endangered species, but it may also limit 

the time that the refuge is open and available for 

hunting. All areas of the refuge are closed to hunting 

when whooping cranes are present, even in cases 

where only one bird is using a small area of the LSM 

for a month and never going near the upland hunting 

areas where hunters are only pursuing upland 

gamebirds. 

Whooping cranes tend to be predictable in their 

daily movements once they arrive on the refuge, and 

they have traditional use areas on and off the refuge. 

Whooping cranes may actually be at higher risk 

when they fly off the refuge daily in the early morning and over hunters looking for sandhill cranes, than 

when they are on the refuge where sandhill crane 

hunting is not allowed. No whooping cranes have ever 

been known to have been shot by hunters on the 

refuge. 

We suspect that many hunters would continue to 

be frustrated with our closures, particularly those 

related to whooping cranes. 

Hunting—Alternative B (Proposed 

Action) 

White-tailed deer hunting would be allowed on 

most of the refuge. The hunt plan would be fully 

developed after this CCP is completed, but would 

likely initially involve an archery-only or a youtharchery-muzzleloader-only season, with limited entry 

by draws for all hunt seasons. All possibilities for 

hunting deer would be explored, and safety for visitors would also be considered. Based on consultations 

with State experts, information used to justify a 

desired target population is limited partly because 

the potential range carrying capacity of the area is 

unknown and likely to be constantly changing 

because of factors such as land management at multiple scales. Initially, we would want to understand if 

selected harvest strategies would successfully result 

in a reduced deer population. Also, deer hunting on 

the refuge would create many more opportunities for 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 135 

public hunting in a state of which less than 3 percent 

is publicly owned. 

The viewing opportunities of trophy deer and 

deer with little-to-no fear of humans would likely 

decline, as deer would become more wary and difficult to observe and photograph closely. 

There would be more potential interaction 

between hunters and nonhunters because more areas 

would be open for hunting, there would be longer 

hunting seasons, and there would be more chances 

for wildlife observers to see hunters in the field. 

Youth and muzzleloader hunting could increase the 

range of firearms used on the refuge and would 

increase the chances for safety issues with hunters 

and nonhunters. Youth and muzzleloader seasons 

would allow for more harvest, more opportunities for 

various hunters, and more opportunities to decrease 

deer densities to healthy levels. They would also 

allow us to meet goals for increased youth hunting. 

It is unknown how refuge deer hunting would 

affect the number of hunting blinds immediately surrounding the refuge boundary, but it is possible that 

there would be increased requests from hunters to 

enter the refuge to retrieve deer, resulting in many 

calls after hours and on weekends when there may be 

no employees working. This may lead to frustration 

that the refuge doesn’t provide 24-hour access to 

employees and to more costs for calling employees in 

to work whenever a hunter needs to retrieve a deer. 

Turkey hunting would be allowed. Prairie-chicken 

hunting would be allowed if the refuge population 

increased and warranted hunting or harvesting for 

health purposes. Furbearer hunting would also be 

allowed, but weapons would be restricted to archery 

or firearms because of safety concerns. Many deer 

hunters also hunt furbearers. This offers more hunting opportunities for such popular furbearers as raccoons and bobcat when populations support it and 

according to State regulations. 

We would only close areas of the refuge to waterfowl hunting when whooping cranes are in, or near, 

hunting units. Upland game hunting would not be 

closed when whooping cranes are present, unless we 

find that hunter presence would disturb whooping 

cranes. Under all hunting scenarios with any species 

and unit, the refuge would close specific units to 

hunting and other public uses if whooping cranes are 

using that area. Sandhill crane hunting would remain 

closed at all times on the refuge. We would need to 

spend more time on law enforcement, signage, and 

communicating specific closure areas. Reducing 

hunting threats to whooping cranes would be accomplished through increased public awareness of cranes 

via kiosks, brochures, signs, and public programs. 

Waterfowl hunting areas would be realigned. The 

area of salt flats and North Lake would be closed to 

hunting because that is near one of the primary 

whooping crane use areas. In turn, we would open a 

similar-sized area of created wetlands in the middle 

of the refuge to waterfowl hunting that whooping 

cranes have not used in the past. This would result in 

closing one of the most popular waterfowl hunting 

areas, but it would also lessen the chances that an 

area would be closed because of the presence of 

whooping cranes and would provide more protection 

for them. 

With changes in water management, those areas 

that we propose closing to waterfowl hunting would 

generally be dry in most years during the first month 

of waterfowl season because they would be allowed to 

fluctuate more naturally with hydrology of the BSM. 

The created wetlands would be a more reliable 

source of flooded habitat in most years, would remain 

open the entire season in most years, and, with active 

management, would provide higher-quality, moistsoil habitat that would attract more waterfowl. More 

parking areas and roads would need to be opened to 

provide access to these created wetlands. 

There would be added costs for changing the hunt 

areas, signage, parking lots, brochures and more law 

enforcement. More costs would also occur if specific 

hunt areas have to be signed open and closed, but 

there would less likely be closures after the hunting 

area is redrawn. 

Hunting—Alternative C 

With respect to hunting, protection of resources 

would be the overriding principle. Hunting for migratory birds would remain the same as under alternative A, except that we would add sandhill crane 

hunting. The entire refuge would continue to be 

closed to migratory bird hunting when whooping 

cranes are present to give the greatest protection to 

the endangered species when they are using designated critical habitat at Quivira Refuge. Because 

sandhill crane hunting would be allowed, our refuge 

staff would increase awareness of cranes through 

kiosks, signage, and public programs. All other hunting, including upland game hunting, would continue 

and would only be closed in specific units if whooping 

cranes are present in those units, because of potential disturbance, not because of risk of shooting, as 

we presume that deer, turkey, quail and pheasant 

hunters would not shoot at waterfowl or cranes. This 

would allow more upland bird hunting with little-tono risk to whooping cranes. Deer, turkey, prairiechicken, and furbearer hunting would be opened and 

managed as under alternative B. 

Added costs because of larger hunting areas, signage, law enforcement, more species and seasons, 

more permits and activities to administer, and wild­
136 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

life observation changes would be same as under 

alternative B. 

Hunting would follow ecological restoration. 

Waterfowl and other migratory bird hunting would 

be expected to decrease, as we may not control water 

in some of the created wetlands and natural hydrology flows there would produce changing, less-consistent water conditions in the fall. Deer and turkey 

populations would be expected to decline because 

there would be fewer trees, less shrub habitat, and no 

cropland habitat on the refuge. Upland bird populations would be expected to decrease or remain the 

same as more prairie habitat is restored and fewer 

trees and shrubs exist and cropland is restored to 

native communities. Prairie-chickens would be 

expected to increase because more quality prairie 

would be available on the refuge. 

Whooping crane use may increase with the 

increase in open meadow and prairie habitat without 

trees, croplands, and, possibly, with reduced artificial 

infrastructure to break up the landscape. Whooping 

crane use would likely vary because some wet years 

would produce widespread shallow sheet flow across 

meadows and the possible removal, or notching, of 

internal roads and canals might create water habitat 

that is less deep. The LSM, now a popular and consistent crane roosting area, would likely have less water 

during the fall in most years. Therefore, whooping 

cranes may use other areas, such as wide-open meadows, more often during migration. 

If bison are restored to Quivira Refuge, hunting 

opportunities may have to be altered to prevent their 

interacting with hunters in the field. Refuge policy 

does not allow for the hunting of captive herds of 

ungulates on refuges. This includes bison. 

Fishing—Alternative A 

Fishing on all waters, according to State-established seasons and regulations, would continue to 

provide recreation opportunities that are compatible 

with our refuge management. Accessible fishing 

piers are already in place on the LSM and Kid’s Fishing Pond, which are the two most popular fishing 

locations on the refuge. Fishing on most of the refuge 

would be of low quality because of carp infestations 

that reduce the productivity of invertebrates and creates high turbidity. Most who come to the refuge to 

fish are local, and they return often. There is little 

here to draw visitors from outside the local area here 

to fish, except during the annual Kid’s Fishing Day, 

when from 70 to 100 people take part. Still, most 

come from within an hour’s drive for this event. 

Many other locations hold a Kid’s Fishing Day event 

on that same day because it is a State free-fishing 

day designed to encourage youth to fish. 

Our refuge staff would continue to stock the Kid’s 

Fishing Pond, either by purchasing local fish or by 

donations of fish from the State hatchery. The stocking of other waters has not occurred in the recent 

past but would be considered appropriate and possible under this alternative if the KDWPT is interested and has fish available. Many of the other waters 

on the refuge undergo periodic drying because we 

manage them for migratory birds. This would reduce, 

or end, the possibility of establishing other fishing 

areas that could be kept except, possibly, at Darrynane Lake. 

Fishing for crayfish would not be allowed. This 

would be consistent with our decision to not allow the 

collection of minnow or bait. Enforcing the bait collecting restriction, however, would be difficult if crayfish fishing were allowed. 

Prohibiting the use of live bait on the refuge 

would support the prevention of invasive species, 

pathogen, or disease introduction or spread. 

Fishing—Alternative B (Proposed 

Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that we would only allow fish stocking at the 

Kid’s Fishing Pond. 

No fish bait collecting would make more food fish 

available for wildlife. This is the preferred food 

source for nesting interior least terns that would be 

expected to continue nesting on the LSM. 

Frogging for bullfrogs, only, would be allowed 

because it is considered fishing in Kansas and bullfrogs are plentiful on the refuge and a harvest could 

reasonably be sustained. Frogging regulations would 

be the same as fishing regulations for Kid’s Fishing 

Pond. 

Fishing—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B, 

except that we would conduct more monitoring programs on fish, reptile and amphibian populations to 

make sure that these remain sustainable. Our staff 

would also conduct more aggressive control on nonnative fish, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic nuisance 

organisms to restore and keep the ecological integrity of the system. 

Drawdowns to control carp would be used as 

needed, as would the chemical control use of rote­
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 137 

none. Costs to manage the fishery would increase 

with a biologist and technicians conducting biological 

surveys and creel surveys, with more management 

activities, and with the use of chemicals. Our staff 

would reintroduce native fish into the system after 

carp and other invasive species have been 

controlled. 

Depending on the activity, permits may have to be 

issued for some fishing, such as for turtling, or frogging. The quality of fishing would improve because of 

carp control and subsequent restocking, but costs 

would be much higher. The Kid’s Fishing pond would 

be removed. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography—Alternative A 

We would allow and encourage wildlife observation and photography throughout the entire refuge 

except in seasonally closed areas, which are used by 

nesting bald eagles, and tern nesting salt flats. Other 

areas may have to be closed because of changing conditions, such as when whooping crane roost areas are 

close to roads, the area around the photography blind 

on the LSM, and the Wildlife Drive. 

Horseback riding could spread invasive species on 

access roads that are closed to public vehicles, but 

use would be low and not be expected to have an 

effect 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that more closures would be carried out during the nesting season. Public entry would be 

restricted to a few selected roads. We would close the 

Wildlife Drive during nesting season every year to 

reduce potential disturbances to western snowy plovers, interior least terns, killdeer, and other birds. 

We would evaluate the potential environmental 

effects that the Wildlife Drive has on hydrology and 

The Kid’s Fishing Pond is a popular spot during the annual Kid’s Fishing Day. 

USFWS 
for more 

ducation 

e GPNC 

ore visi

ding and 

 the ref

. 

138 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

consider removing it and human use of area during 

next 15 years. 

If evaluation supports bison reintroduction, then 

this would have mixed effects. Areas would be closed 

to the public for safety reasons, but the presence of 

bison might become an attraction. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation—Alternative A 

Increased and improved environmental education 

programs at both Quivira Refuge and the GPNC 

would engage the public and help connect more visitors to nature thereby aiding in understanding and 

appreciating the natural resources found on the refuge, in Kansas, and across the Great Plains. 

Updating displays in the Koch Habitat Hall 

(GPNC) would increase visitation to the facility 

because the citizens of Wichita and visitors around 

the State would be interested in seeing the new 

exhibits. 

Through the GPNC, our partnership with the 

City of Wichita Department of Park and Recreation 

and the KDWPT would continue. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Environmental education programs would be 

enhanced through improvements to facilities at both 

Quivira and the GPNC. There would also be an 

increase in appreciation of refuge resources for those 

who engage in virtual geocaching. 

Moving the environmental education classroom 

building at the refuge to a site near the headquarters 

would improve our ability to provide environmental 

education programs and would further the development of a comprehensive program. See the facilities 

and infrastructure section in this chapter 

detail. 

Increased and improved environmental e

programs at both Quivira Refuge and th

would engage the public and help connect m ­

tors to nature thereby aiding in understan

appreciating the natural resources found on ­

uge, in Kansas, and across the Great Plains

Updating displays in the Koch Habitat Hall 

(GPNC) would increase visitation to the facility 

because the citizens of Wichita and visitors around 

the State would be interested in seeing the new 

exhibits. 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B, 

plus all aspects of public use, including facilities, 

roads, access, and permitted activities would be scrutinized. Because some roads and facilities may be 

targeted for elimination, the scope and logistics of 

both environmental education and interpretation programs may be limited. We would emphasize focal 

resources and how we manage for them in these 

programs. 

Other Uses—Alternative A 

There would be little effect from these activities 

because few people engage in them, and few people 

request prohibited activities. 

Other Uses—Alternative B 

(proposed action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that commercial photography would expand 

opportunities for photographers and enhance the 

public’s appreciation of wildlife. 

Other Uses—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B. 

5.6 Public Outreach Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to public outreach. 
Alternative A 

Major goals would be to foster an appreciation of 

wildlife and the outdoors, as well as to instill a sense 

of stewardship of lands like Quivira Refuge among 

the public. Continuing to work with Friends of Quivira would promote public awareness and outreach of 

the refuge. 

Oversee the development, maintenance, and staff 

of our information booth at the annual Kansas State 

Fair to promote both Quivira Refuge and the GPNC. 

Recruit, train, and use volunteers from local communities to help with management and public use 

goals at Quivira Refuge and the GPNC. The GPNC 

has an active volunteer program and large population 

to draw from in the Wichita area. About 2,800 hours 

of volunteer time is donated annually, with much of 

the time spent in outreach and education. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

plus public understanding and awareness of refuge 

resources would be heightened through the installa

tion of a tower camera at the bald eagle and BSM 

areas. One negative aspect of this change would be 

that viewers would not have to leave their homes to 

see the refuge, which conflicts with our various ini

tiatives, such as Let’s Go Outside, and Connecting 

People with Nature. But this method may also inter

est people in the refuge and encourage them to come 

out and see it in person. 

The mounted, moveable camera would not be 

expected to negatively affect wildlife or the habitat 

around it, though there would be short-term effects 

during installation. There would be more costs for its 

installation and operation. Donations may be 

requested to offset costs. 

­

­

­

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B. 

5.7 Cultural Resources Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to archeological and historic sites. 

Alternative A 

Properly obtaining permits and clearances before 

beginning work would reduce the effects from substantial dirt or surface alteration on the refuge. 

Consultation with our regional archeologist during the planning phase of proposed projects to decide 

on the need for an archeological site clearance from 

the Kansas State Historic Preservation Office would 

help make sure that any cultural resources found 

would be adequately protected. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

plus increased interpretation of cultural resources 

through exhibits in the visitor center, interpretive 

signage on tour roads and pullouts, and more, would 

increase the knowledge and awareness of Native 

American use of the site before the establishment of 

the refuge. 

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B. 

5.8 Visitor and Employee 

Safety and Resource 

Protection Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to visitor and employee safety and 

resource protection. 

Visitor and Employee Safety— 

Alternative A 

By making safety a high priority, refuge and 

GPNC employees, visitors, and contractors would 

enjoy a safe working and visiting environment. The 

refuge and GPNC would continue to make improve

ments to the safety program to meet the needs of a 

changing world, thus ensuring everyone’s safety to 

the best of our ability. 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 139 

­
140 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Egrets and Ibis 

Rachel Laubhan/USFWS 

Visitor and Employee Safety— 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A. 

Visitor and Employee Safety— 

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A 

unless bison are reintroduced, at which time dangers 

would be heightened. We would train staff to work 

with, and around, bison. Job hazard analyses would 

need to be written to increase awareness and knowledge of bison. As a result, there would be more costs 

for employee training and safety needs. 

Resource Protection— 

Alternative A 

Because refuge law enforcement officers would 

enforce hunting, fishing, and all other regulations in 

accordance with CFRs, State laws, and refuge-specific regulations, the resources of the refuge would be 

protected as much as possible. The cultural resources 

of the refuge would also be protected as cultural 

clearance would be approved before restoration projects or other habitat disturbances would be conducted. Habitat and wildlife would be protected 

because refuge law enforcement officers would check 

and enforce unlawful oil and gas operations on and off 

the refuge. Endangered and threatened species 

would continue to be protected because managers 

and law enforcement officers would make management decisions that protect species or their critical 

nesting habitats. 

Resource Protection—Alternative 

B (Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

except that many more species would be permitted to 

be taken by trapping, fishing, and hunting on the refuge, including deer, turkey, prairie-chicken, bullfrogs, and furbearers. With each added species there 

would be many changes to the amount of regulations 

that require enforcement, and there would be a dramatic increase in visitor use, which, in turn, would 

require more law enforcement. 

The hunting areas on the refuge would be modified, and species-specific hunting boundaries would 

be needed to allow big game, upland game, and 

waterfowl to be hunted at the same time as other 

uses. The refuge would only close areas where 

whooping cranes are present, which would require 

the added enforcement of temporary closures and 

signing. The increased workload because of multiple 

uses, the increased visitor use, and the new boundary 

distribution would require us to hire more law 

enforcement staff. One full-time refuge officer and 

two dual-function officers would be needed for adequate enforcement. 
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 141 

During the initial stages of carrying out alternative B, law enforcement officers would have to work 

many weekends and more overtime. Without more 

law enforcement, T and E species and resource protection could be harmed. With more law enforcement, 

refuge resources and infrastructure would be better 

protected and there could be an economic gain to the 

community with the new employment opportunities. 

Resource Protection— 

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B, 

except that the refuge would allow the hunting of 

sandhill crane when whooping cranes are not pres

ent. Because sandhill cranes look like whooping 

cranes, we would need to add staff time to more 

closely watch whooping crane locations to prevent an 

accidental shooting. There would be increased efforts 

to educate about whooping cranes through more sig

nage, kiosk displays, and handout information. 

Waterfowl and sandhill crane hunting would not 

occur when whooping cranes are present, therefore 

staff time would also be required to close and enforce 

regulations on the closed areas. 

The refuge may reintroduce a large bison herd 

that would increase the need for enforcement to pre

vent accidental or illegal take. Unlike cattle grazing, 

a bison herd would be present throughout the year, 

increasing the potential for hunter and bison interac

tion and injury. This safety concern would require 

staff and law enforcement to closely watch visitor use 

to prevent safety issues. Boundary fences would be 

required to be patrolled on regular basis to prevent 

bison from escaping the refuge and providing dam

age or injury to our adjacent landowners and to the 

public. 

­

­

­

­

­

5.9 Administration Effects 

This section discusses the effects of alternatives 

pertaining to administration activities. 

Under o

maintenan

which woul

the in-grou

too short t

use to be 

The cost of 

Vehicle 

Staff and Budget—Alternative A 

Money would be adequate to keep our permanent 

staff and facilities. Current refuge programs such as 

habitat management, visitor services, fire, and maintenance would proceed with little change, increases 

or enhancement. 

A list of permanent and temporary staff, as well 

as recommended staff increases, can be found in Section 4.9 Administration and in table 17. 

Quivira Refuge would continue to provide office 

space for a regional refuge zone biologist and a Partners private lands biologist. The refuge would also 

continue to use the YCC program, and Youth in the 

Great Outdoors to hire youth for conducting natural 

resource projects. We would continue to raise money 

through grants and initiatives to supplement staff 

and to pay for projects. 

Staff and Budget—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 

Would allow us to fully carry out and achieve the 

stated goals and objectives for alternative B. 

Staff and Budget—Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative A, 

plus, to carry out more monitoring programs for 

populations and habitats, two permanent, full-time 

biological positions would be needed. And one added 

permanent, full-time employee would be needed to 

work specifically on controlling invasive species to 

accomplish full ecological restoration. 

Facilities and Infrastructure— 

Alternative A 

ur current deferred maintenance list, the 

ce shop is scheduled for rehabilitation, 

d include more space and would remove 

nd hydraulic vehicle hoist. The shop bay is 

o allow some of the heavy equipment we 

moved inside for maintenance and repair. 

the rehab is projected at $490,000. 

and equipment storage would be inadequate, as all vehicles must be kept inside and protected from packrats that can quickly move into 

vehicles parked outside to chew electrical wires and 

build nests. Biological controls, such as barn owl nest 

boxes, have been erected around all facilities to control these small mammals, but expensive repairs are 

still occasionally needed for vehicles and equipment 

that cannot be kept inside.. 
native A, 

low vehi

More employees that are not specific to Quivira 

Refuge have been stationed at the refuge, including a 

zone biologist and a private lands biologist. For them, 

we would need more vehicle and equipment storage. 

It is possible that other program employees would be 

stationed at Quivira Refuge because of its central 

location, so more storage area would be needed. 

Adding onto the GPNC would allow staff of the 

partner agencies to conduct more meetings and present increased educational programs onsite. The addition would include increased office space for 

expanding staff needs. Adding another storage facility at the GPNC would extend the life of agency 

equipment (such as vehicles, boats and trailers) and 

keep it from being vandalized. 

Facilities and Infrastructure— 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Effects would be the same as under alter

plus another cold storage building would al ­

cles and equipment to be better protected. Moving 

the environmental education classroom and bunkhouse from their current location to the headquarters 

administrative site would centralize buildings, 

improve visitor service, reduce staff travel, and 

improve water quality for these facilities. 

Trapping could help control nuisance animals, 

which would benefit our refuge operations in preserving infrastructure. There would be a small economic benefit for trappers. And we would expect 

most trappers to live in the local area. 

More space at the GPNC would accommodate an 

expanded and enhanced environmental education 

program. With additional space, we could serve more 

school programs, and allow our programming efforts 

to increase and improve. We would be able to entertain the idea of hosting traveling exhibits that would 

increase visitation to the facility. 

Facilities and Infrastructure— 

Alternative C 

Effects would be the same as under alternative B 

for buildings at Quivira Refuge and the GPNC, but 

much of the other infrastructure at the refuge would 

be reduced or removed to complete the ecological 

restoration and visitor services would be adversely 

affected. 

We would evaluate, and likely reduce, trails, park

ing lots, roads, dikes, canals, water control struc

tures, and fences at Quivira Refuge. Larger blocks of 

land would be fenced, if bison were to be reintro

duced, to allow them to move on their own and graze 

as much as possible in a natural setting. Unnecessary 

roads would be removed and canals would only be 

used to spread waterflow over the refuge in sheet 

flow to mimic natural flooding and drying. More spill

ways would be constructed to spread sheet flow out 

of Rattlesnake Creek and across meadows and 

wetlands. 

­

­

­

­

5.10 Socioeconomic Effects 

What follows is an analysis of the economic effects 

associated with each alternative. 

142 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Effects from the Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Act 

The Service makes revenue sharing payments to 

the counties for the land that is under administration. 

Under provisions of the refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

(RRS), local counties receive an annual payment for 

lands that have been bought by full fee-title acquisition by the Service. Payments are based on the 

greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75 percent of the fair 

market value. The exact amount of the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, 

which in recent years have tended to be substantially 

less than the amount required to fully fund the 

authorized level of payments. In fiscal year 2011, 

RRS payments were appropriated at only 21.6 percent of the approved value. The three counties that 

contain the refuge each received a payment; Stafford 

County received $69,600, Rice County received 

$2,580, and Reno County received $2,115. Table 18 

shows the effects of the $74,295 received by the local 

area in RRS payments. The RRS payments generate 

an estimated total effect of $22,200 in labor income 

and $30,200 in value added to the local 5-county area. 
Table 18. Annual effects of Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act payments under alternatives A, B and C on the 

area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full and part $thousand $thousand 

time jobs 2012 2012 

Direct 

effects 0 $17.7 $22.5 

Secondary 

effects 0 $4.4 $7.6 

Total 

effect 0 $22.2 $30.2 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 143 

Effects of Refuge Staff Salary 

Spending within the Local 

Economy 

Quivira Refuge employees reside and spend their 

salaries on daily living expenses in the local area, 

thereby generating effects within the local economy. 

Household consumption expenditures consist of payments by individuals or households to industries for 

goods and services used for personal consumption. 

The IMPLAN modeling system contains household 

income consumption spending profiles that account 

for average household spending patterns by income 

level. These profiles also capture average annual savings and allow for leakage of household spending to 

outside the region. The IMPLAN household spending 

pattern for households earning $50–75 thousand dollars per year was used to reflect the average salary 

of full-time permanent employees at the refuge. 

The current approved refuge staff consists of 17 

employees: 12 permanent staff, 3 temporary staff, 

and the two regional staff; the salary associated with 

the vacant positions has not been included in the 

analysis (table 17). The two regional staff positions 

are not paid for by the refuge, but they are stationed 

at the refuge and, as such, their salary has been 

included in this analysis. Refuge staff is anticipated 

to remain the same under alternative B and to 

increase to 22 employees under alternative C with 

the addition of two wildlife biologists, a range technician in the invasive program, and two bison work 

staff. 

Refuge staff estimate that current annual salaries 

total approximately $819,000 with an additional 

$81,050 to cover the staff funded at the regional level, 

for a total of $900,050, under alternative A. Staff 

needs would remain the same under alternative B 

and increase to $1.275 million under alternative C. 

The economic effects associated with spending of 

salaries in the local 5-county area by refuge employees are summarized in table 19. These effects only 

include the secondary effects of nonrefuge jobs created as refuge employees spend their salaries in the 

local five-county area. For alternative A, it is estimated that salary spending by Quivira Refuge staff 

would generate secondary effects of 5 jobs, $168,600 

in labor income, and $301,700 in value added in the 

local economy. For alternative B, the effect of salary 

spending would remain the same as alternative A, as 

additional staff are not required. For alternative C, 

salary spending would generate secondary effects of 

7 jobs, $238,900 in labor income, and $427,400 in 

value added. 

Table 19. Annual effects of salary spending in the 

area around Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full and part $thousand $thousand 

time jobs 2012 2012 

Alternatives A and B 

Direct 

effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Secondary 

effects 5 $168.6 $301.7 

Total 

effect 5 $168.6 $301.7 

Alternative C 

Direct 

effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Secondary 

effects 7 $238.9 $427.4 

Total 

effect 7 $238.9 $427.4 

Effects of Refuge Purchases of 

Goods and Services within the 

Local Economy 

A wide variety of supplies and services are 

bought for refuge operations and maintenance activities. Refuge purchases made in the local five-county 

area contribute to the local economic effects associated with the Quivira Refuge. The refuge now 

spends an average of $270,000 per year on nonsalary 

expenditures. Major local expenditures include: sup­
plies related to habitat and grounds improvements, 

supplies related to the maintenance and repair of 

structures, and office supplies and utilities. Table 20 

provides a breakdown of current nonsalary expendi

tures by expenditure category. To figure out the local 

economic effects of nonsalary expenditures, only 

expenditures made within the local five-county area 

are included in the analysis. 

Table 20. Breakdown of Current Purchases of Goods 

and Services in the area around Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Average Percent 

annual percent spent in Expense category of nonsalary local fiveexpenditures county area 

Equipment mainte

nance and repair 10 85 

Vehicle maintenance 

and repair 6 85 

Habitat and grounds 

improvements and 

treatments (not 48 90 

including acquired 

lands restoration) 

Travel 7 10 

Construction of new 

structures 1 75 

Maintenance and 

repair of structures 12 75 

All other expenses 

(such as overhead, 

office supplies and 16 80 

utilities) 

Average annual nonsalary expenditures are antic

ipated to be $272,972 for alternative A, the same for 

alternative B, and $397,973 for alternative C. Table 

21 shows the economic effects associated with nonsal

ary related expenditures in local communities near 

the refuge. For alternative A, nonsalary related pur

chases would generate an estimated total economic 

effect of 5 jobs, $183,300 in labor income, and 

$199,900 in value added. The same effect would be 

generated under alternative B. For alternative C, 

nonsalary related purchases would generate an esti

mated total economic effect of 7 jobs, $267,200 in 

labor income, and $291,400 in value added. 

Table 21. Annual effects of purchases of goods and 

services in the area around Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full- and $thousand $thousand 

part-time jobs 2012 2012 

Alternatives A and B 

Direct 

effects 4 $150.9 $143.1 

Secondary 

effects 1 $32.4 $56.8 

Total 

effect 5 $183.3 $199.9 

Alternative C 

Direct 

effects 6 $220.0 $208.6 

Secondary 

effects 1 $47.2 $82.8 

Total 

effect 7 $267.2 $291.4 

144 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

Effects of Visitor Expenditures 

Spending associated with recreational visits to 

national wildlife refuges generates significant eco

nomic activity. The Service report Banking on 

Nature: The Economic Benefits of National Wildlife 

Refuge Visitation to Local Communities, estimated 

the effect of national wildlife refuges on their local 

economies (Carver and Caudill, 2007). According to 

the report, more than 34.8 million visits were made 

to national wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2006 that 

generated $1.7 billion of sales in regional economies. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by national wildlife visitors generated 

nearly 27,000 jobs and more than $542.8 million in 

employment income (Carver and Caudill, 2007). 

Approximately 82 percent of total expenditures were 

from nonconsumptive activities, 12 percent from fish

ing, and 6 percent from hunting (Carver and Caudill, 

2007). 

This section focuses on the local economic effects 

associated with Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 

visitation. Quivira Refuge offers a wide variety of 

recreation opportunities including wildlife observa

tion and photography, interpretation, environmental 

­

­

­
Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 145 

education, hunting, and fishing. Now, only waterfowl 

and upland bird hunting are allowed on the refuge, 

and opportunities would increase with deer, turkey, 

and furbearer hunting under alternatives B and C. 

With its key location in the middle of the central fly

way, the refuge attracts hundreds of migratory birds 

each year and as a result, draws bird watchers and 

photographers from across the county. Wildlife

observation is the primary visitor activity that

occurs on the refuge. 

Annual visitation estimates for the refuge are 

based on several refuge statistic sources including 

visitors entering the visitor center and office and the 

general observation of refuge staff. Annual visitation 

estimates are on a per-visit basis. Table 22 summa

rizes estimated visitation by type of visitor activity 

for alternatives A, B, and C. Under alternative B, the 

primary focus is the restoration of native communi

ties that help focal resources, or focal species, and 

their respective habitats. This restoration is

expected to enhance migratory bird and upland

game hunting opportunities. Additionally, under

alternative B, the public would have the opportunity 

to engage in big game, turkey, and furbearer hunting 

on the refuge. Conservation is also the primary focus 

of alternative C, with an emphasis on promoting the 

sustainability of native communities, including the 

introduction of bison onto the range, and lowering 

maintenance costs. Habitat would be allowed to fluc

tuate more under dry and wet cycles and water

amounts and movement would be altered to mimic 

­

­

­

­

natural patterns. These conservation actions are 

expected to decrease migratory bird hunting and 

fishing opportunities and enhance upland game hunt

ing opportunities. As with alternative B, a small 

amount of big game hunting would be allowed on the 

refuge. 

Spending associated with recreational visits gen

erates significant economic activity in the five-county 

area. A visitor usually buys a wide range of goods 

and services while visiting an area. Major expendi

ture categories include lodging, restaurants, supplies, 

groceries, and recreational equipment rental. To fig

ure out the local economic effects of visitor spending, 

only spending by persons living outside of the local 

five-county area are included in the analysis. The 

rationale for excluding local visitor spending is two

fold. First, money flowing into the local five-county 

area from visitors living outside the local area (here

after referred to as nonlocal visitors) is considered 

new money injected into the local economy. Second, if 

residents of the local five-county area visit the refuge 

more or less because of the management changes, 

they will correspondingly change the spending of 

their money elsewhere in the local area, resulting in 

no net change to the local economy. These are stan

dard assumptions made in most regional economic 

analyses at the local level. Refuge staff figured out 

the percentage of nonlocal refuge visitors. Table 22 

shows the estimated percent of nonlocal refuge visits 

and visitor days under each alternative. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

The Great Plains Nature Center in Wichita, Kansas, looks out onto the wildlife habitats of Chisholm Creek Park. 

S WFUS
Table 22. Estimated annual visitation activity at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas, by alternative. 

Total number of Number of Average hours Number of nonlocal 

visits nonlocal visits spent on refuge visitor days* 

Alternative A 

Fishing 1,000 100 4 50 

Big game hunting 0 0 8 0 

Waterfowl and migra

tory bird hunting 1,225 460 6 345 

Upland game hunting 500 250 6 188 

Nonconsumptive uses 12,000 10,200 4 5,100 

Total Visitation 14,725 11,010 5,683 

Alternative B 

Fishing 1,000 100 4 50 

Big game hunting 5 4 8 4 

Waterfowl and migra

tory bird hunting 1,286 483 6 362 

Upland game hunting 525 263 6 197 

Nonconsumptive uses 12,000 10,200 4 5,100 

Total Visitation 14,816 11,050 5,713 

Alternative C 

Fishing 1,050 105 4 53 

Big game hunting 5 4 8 4 

Waterfowl and migra

tory bird hunting 1,286 483 6 362 

Upland game hunting 525 263 6 197 

Nonconsumptive uses 12,000 10,200 4 5,100 

Total Visitation 14,866 11,055 5,716 

* One visitor day = 8 hours. 

146 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

Besides the Quivira Refuge, refuge staff also 

manage and maintain the Great Plains Nature Cen

ter (GPNC), located outside of Wichita, Kansas. Visi

tors to the GPNC have the opportunity to tour the 

education center, observe wildlife in the park, fish in 

two ponds located at the center or attend one of the 

educational programs. In 2011, 145,700 visitors came 

through the center. Visitors were generally local resi

dents and averaged approximately 30 minutes at the 

GPNC. These visits occurred in Sedgwick County, 

outside of the five-county project area, and thus the 

effect of these visits is not included in this report. 

To estimate visitor expenditures, we use average 

daily visitor spending profiles from the Banking on 

Nature report (Carver and Caudill, 2007) that were 

derived from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

(USFWS, 2008). The National Survey reports trip 

related spending of State residents and nonresidents 

for wildlife-associated recreational activities. For 

each recreation activity, spending is reported in the 

categories of lodging, food and drink, transportation, 

and other expenses. Carver and Caudill (2007) calcu

­

­

­

­

lated the average per-person-per-visitor day expen

ditures by recreation activity for each region of the 

Service. We used the spending profiles for nonresi

dents for Region 6—which includes Kansas, and 

updated the 2006 spending profiles to 2012 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. 

Average daily spending profiles for nonresident visi

tors to Region 6 for fishing ($128.53 per day), water

fowl and other migratory bird hunting ($77.59 per 

day), upland game hunting ($179.99 per day), and big 

game hunting ($218.44 per day) were used to esti

mate nonlocal visitor spending for refuge fishing and 

hunting related activities. The average daily nonresi

dent spending profile for nonconsumptive wildlife 

recreation (observing, feeding, or photographing fish 

and wildlife) was used for nonconsumptive wildlife 

viewing activities ($161.16 per day). 

Visitor spending profiles are estimated on an 

average per day (8 hours) basis. Because some visi

tors only spend short amounts of time visiting a ref

uge, counting each refuge visit as a full visitor day 

would overestimate the economic effect of Quivira 

Refuge visitation. In order to properly account for 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
the amount of spending, the annual number of nonlo

cal refuge visits were converted to visitor days. Ref

uge staff estimate that nonlocal anglers spend 

approximately 4 hours (1/2 a visitor day) on the ref

uge, while waterfowl and upland game hunters spend 

approximately 6 hours (3/4 a visitor day). Nonlocal 

visitors that view wildlife on nature trails or take 

part in other wildlife observation activities typically 

spend 4 hours (1/2 a visitor day). Table 11 shows the 

number of nonlocal visitor days by recreation activity 

for each alternative. Total spending by nonlocal ref

uge visitors was determined by multiplying the aver

age nonlocal visitor daily spending by the number of 

nonlocal visitor days at the refuge. 

Table 23 summarizes the total economic effects, in 

thousands of dollars, associated with current nonlocal 

visitation by alternative. Under alternative A, nonlo

cal Quivira Refuge visitors would spend nearly 

$888,878 in the local economy annually. This spend

ing would directly account for an estimated 8 jobs, 

$205,800 in labor income, and $339,200 in value 

added in the local economy. The secondary or multi

plier effects would generate an additional 2 jobs, 

$87,600 in labor income, and $144,600 in value added. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by nonlocal visitors for alternative A would 

generate total economic effects of 10 jobs, $293,400 in 

labor income, and $483,800 in value added. 

Table 23. Annual effects of nonlocal visitor spending 

by alternative in the area around Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full- and $thousand $thousand 

part-time jobs 2012 2012 

Alternative A 

Direct 

effects 8 $205.8 $339.2 

Secondary 

effects 2 $87.6 $144.6 

Total 

effect 10 $293.4 $483.8 

Alternative B 

Direct 

effects 8 $206.7 $340.7 

Secondary 

effects 2 $87.9 $145.2 

Total 

effect 10 $294.6 $485.8 

Alternative C 

Direct 

effects 8 $206.8 $340.8 

Table 23. Annual effects of nonlocal visitor spending 

by alternative in the area around Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full- and $thousand $thousand 

part-time jobs 2012 2012 

Secondary 2 $87.9 $145.2 effects 

Total 

effect 10 $294.7 $486.0 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 147 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

As shown in table 22, Quivira Refuge nonlocal 

visitation for all activities is anticipated to increase 

by 31 visitor days under alternative B as compared to 

alternative A. Under alternative B, nonlocal Quivira 

Refuge visitors would spend $892,778 in the local 

area annually. Accounting for both the direct and 

secondary effects, spending by nonlocal visitors for 

alternative B would generate an estimated total eco

nomic effect of 10 jobs, $294,600 in labor income, and 

$485,800 in value added. 

Quivira Refuge nonlocal visitation across all 

activities is anticipated to increase by 33 visitor days 

under alternative C as compared to alternative A 

(table 22). Under alternative C, nonlocal refuge visi

tors would spend $893,099 in the local area annually. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by nonlocal visitors for alternative C would 

generate an estimated total economic effect of 10 

jobs, $294,700 in labor income, and $486,000 in value 

added. 

­

­

Summary of Economic Effects for 

Alternative A 

Table 24 summarizes the direct and total eco

nomic effects in the five-county area of refuge man

agement activities for alternative A. Under 

alternative A, Quivira Refuge management activities 

directly related to refuge operations generate an 

estimated 12 jobs, $374,400 in labor income, and 

$504,800 in value added in the local economy. Includ

ing direct, indirect, and induced effects, refuge 

activities generate a total economic effect of 20 jobs, 

$667,500 in labor income, and $1.015 million in value 

added. In 2009, total labor income in the five-county 

area was estimated at $2.572 billion and total 

employment was estimated at 66,660 jobs (IMPLAN 

2009 data). Thus, total economic effects associated 

with Quivira Refuge operations under alternative A 

represent 0.026 percent of total income and 0.030 per

cent of total employment in the overall five-county 

­

­

­

­
area economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the communities near 

the refuge where most of the refuge-related expenditures and public use-related economic activity occurs. 

Table 24. Economic effects of alternative A. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full- and part­ $thousand $thousand 

time jobs 2012 2012 

Refuge Administration* 

Direct 

effects 4 $168.7 $165.6 

Total 

effects 10 $374.1 $531.7 

Public use activities 

Direct 

effects 8 $205.8 $339.2 

Total 

effects 10 $293.4 $483.8 

Aggregate effects 

Direct 

effects 12 $374.4 $504.8 

Total 

effects 20 $667.5 $1,015.5 

* Refuge administration effects include effects associated 

with RRS payments made to counties, staff salary expendi

tures made in the local five-county area, and refuge nonsalary 

expenditures made in the local five-county area. 

Summary of Economic Effects for 

Alternative B 

Table 25 summarizes the direct and total economic effects in the 5-county area of refuge management activities for alternative B. Under alternative 

B, Quivira Refuge management activities directly 

related to refuge operations would generate an estimated 12 jobs, $375,400 in labor income, and $506,300 

in value added in the local economy. Including direct, 

indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities 

would generate a total economic effect of 20 jobs, 

$668,700 in labor income, and $1.018 million in value 

added. 

Table 25. Economic effects of alternative B. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full- and part- $thousand $thousand 

time jobs 2012 2012 

Refuge Administration* 

Direct 

effects 4 $168.7 $165.6 

Total 

effects 10 $374.1 $531.7 

Public use activities 

Direct 

effects 8 $206.7 $340.7 

Total 

effects 10 $294.6 $485.8 

148 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Wheat harvesting in Kansas around 1900. Agriculture has long been important to the economy near Quivira Refuge. 

Library of Congress 

­
Table 25. Economic effects of alternative B. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full- and part- $thousand $thousand 

time jobs 2012 2012 

Aggregate effects 

Direct 

effects 12 $375.4 $506.3 

Total 

effects 20 $668.7 $1,017.5 

* Refuge administration effects include effects associated with 

RRS payments made to counties, staff salary expenditures 

made in the local five-county area, and refuge nonsalary 

expenditures made in the local five-county area. 

Table 26 summarizes the change in economic 

effects associated with Quivira Refuge operations 

under alternative B as compared to alternative A. 

Because of small expected increases in refuge visitation and administration, alternative B would generate $1,300 more in labor income, and $2,000 more in 

value added as compared to alternative A. 

Table 26. Change in economic effect from 

alternative A to alternative B. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full- and $thousand $thousand 

part-time jobs 2012 2012 

Refuge Administration* 

Direct 

effects no change no change no change 

Total 

effects no change no change no change 

Public use activities 

Direct 

effects no change (+) $0.9 (+) $1.5 

Total 

effects no change (+) $1.3 (+) $2.0 

Aggregate effects 

Direct 

effects no change (+) $0.9 (+) $1.5 

Total 

effects no change (+) $1.3 (+) $2.0 

* Refuge administration effects include effects associated 

with RRS payments made to counties, staff salary expendi

tures made in the local five-county area, and refuge nonsalary 

expenditures made in the local five-county area. 

Summary of Economic Effects for 

Alternative C 

Table 27 summarizes the direct and total economic effects in the five-county area of refuge management activities for alternative C. Under 

alternative C, Quivira Refuge management activities 

directly related to refuge operations would generate 

an estimated 14 jobs, $444,600 in labor income, and 

$571,900 in value added in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge 

activities would generate a total economic effect of 24 

jobs, $823,000 in labor income, and $1.235 million in 

value added. 

Table 27. Economic effect of alternative C. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full- and $thousand $thousand 

part-time jobs 2012 2012 

Refuge Administration* 

Direct 

effects 6 $237.8 $231.2 

Total 

effects 14 $528.3 $748.9 

Public use activities 

Direct 

effects 8 $206.8 $340.8 

Total 

effects 10 $294.7 $486.0 

Aggregate effects 

Direct 

effects 14 $444.6 $571.9 

Total 

effects 24 $823.0 $1,234.9 

* Refuge administration effects include effects associated 

with RRS payments made to counties, staff salary expendi

tures made in the local five-county area, and refuge nonsalary 

expenditures made in the local five-county area. 

Chapter 5—Environmental Consequences 149 

Table 28 summarizes the change in economic 

effects associated with Quivira Refuge operations 

under alternative C as compared to alternative A. 

Because of increases in refuge visitation and administration, alternative C would generate 4 more jobs, 

$155,600 more in labor income, and $219,400 more in 

value added as compared to alternative A. 

­

­
Table 28. Change in economic effect from 

alternative A to alternative C. 

Employment Labor Value 

number of income in added in 

full and part $thousand $thousand 

time jobs 2012 2012 

Refuge Administration* 

Direct 

effects (+) 2 (+) $69.1 (+) $65.5 

Total 

effects (+) 4 (+) $154.2 (+) $217.2 

Public use activities 

Direct 

effects no change (+) $1.0 (+) $1.6 

Total 

effects no change (+) $1.4 (+) $2.2 

Aggregate effects 

Direct 

effects (+) 2 (+) $70.1 (+) $67.1 

Total 

effects (+) 4 (+) $155.6 (+) $219.4 

* Refuge administration effects include effects associated 

with RRS payments made to counties, staff salary expendi

tures made in the local five-county area, and refuge nonsalary 

expenditures made in the local five-county area. 

5.11 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts include the incremental 

effects of the actions for an alternative when added to 

past, present, and future actions. Cumulative impacts 

can be the result of effects that appear minor when 

150 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

looked at individually, but that can become substan

tial when accumulated over time. The Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations that carry out 

NEPA require mitigation measures when the envi

ronmental analysis process detects possible signifi

cant effects on habitat, wildlife, or the human 

environment, including cumulative impacts. 

None of the activities proposed for this CCP 

would be expected to produce substantial levels of 

cumulative environmental impacts that would 

require mitigation measures. Nevertheless, the final 

CCP would contain the following measures to pre

clude significant environmental effects from 

occurring: 

■■	 Federally listed species would be protected 

from intended or unintended effects by hav

ing the activities that cause those effects 

banned where these species occur. 

■■	 All proposed activities would be regulated 

to lessen their effects on wildlife, fish, and 

plant species, especially during sensitive 

reproductive cycles. 

■■	 Monitoring protocols would be established 

to decide on goal achievement levels and to 

find effects to resources that had been 

unforeseen as well as to help apply adaptive 

resource management to make sure that 

wildlife and habitat resources and the 

human environment are preserved. 

■■	 We could revise and amend this CCP after 5 

years of implementation to apply adaptive 

resource management to correct unforeseen 

effects that occurred during the first years 

of the plan. 

­

­

­

­

­

­
Chapter 6—Implementation of the 

Proposed Action 

Wilson’s Phalaropes 

s serb Go© B

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. 

6.1 Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 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 keeping 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 (Refuge System 

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, 
long-term average annual 

24.33 inches, but it varies fr

27 inches. The average ann

tion is about 64 inches (Sop

rates being highest duri

(Latta, 1950). 

The dominant land use 

culture, and crop irrigation

ing ground water from the

ground water levels on, and

tion, there is a direct con

water levels and Rattlesna

tity of ground water pump

the amount and timing o

pumping occurs from Ma

surface water from Rattles

managing refuge habitats t

needs. 

Water rights in Groun

trict Number 5, which enco

overappropriated, with 1,3

ing the use of 266,726 AF

152 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

including conserving native communities and species 

of concern and developing “quantifiable conservation 

objectives” that “integrate the conservation needs of 

the larger landscape (including the communities they 

support).” 

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. 

6.2 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 15). 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 

precipitation since 1948 is 

om about 15 to more than 

ual free-surface evaporahocleous et al. 1997), with 

ng the summer months 

in this watershed is agri­

 occurs largely by pump­

 aquifer, which can affect 

 near, the refuge. In addinection between ground 

ke Creek flows. The quaned is inversely related to 

f precipitation, but most 

y through October when 

nake Creek is needed for 

o support annual wildlife 

dwater Management Dismpasses the subbasin, are 

77 water rights authorizY. 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 cubic feet per second (cfs), and average streamflow for the 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 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 153
 

Figure 15. Elevation at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
154 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 name 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 7). 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 find pertinent research and monitoring programs to name 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 find 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, Playa Lakes Joint Venture, 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 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 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 155 

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. 

We mean this objective to 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 conservationrelated 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 F, 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 proper, 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 proper 

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, like a stripper, and harvest local seed. 

Rationale 

We looked at refuge lands and the current surrounding landscape to find the desired future vegetation types needed to sustain native habitats 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. 
156 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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. 

Landscape Conservation 

Objective 3: Environmental Health 

and Climate Change 

■■	 Promote ecological resilience by restoring 

and maintaining native communities (see 

native community objectives below) 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. 

❏■ Conduct informal surveillance of select 

wildlife species, such as waterfowl, shorebirds, and deer, during the next 15 years 

A twilight view from Old Township Road on Quivira 

Refuge 

S WFSU/sen JoyrraB
ers to collect relriodically assess 

onditions that 

ities. 

refuge lands, as 

ing oil wells are 

h our partners 

 organizations to 

creases the 

nowledge of disvian influenza 

e, and adjust refcessary. 

Rattlesnake Creek 

ted in the loss and 

Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 157 

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 partn

evant abiotic data and to pe

changes in environmental c

will help us adjust our activ

■■	 Reclaim mineral rights on 

legally allowed, when exist

not used or abandoned. 

■■	 Continue to collaborate wit

like KDWPT and academic

conduct surveillance that in

detection, prevention, and k

ease outbreaks, including a

and chronic wasting diseas

uge hunting programs if ne

Rationale 

Land use practices in the 

watershed have not only resul

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 would 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. 

6.3 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. 

The primary purpose of the Refuge System is to 

conserve wildlife, which requires us 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 population 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 found that the following 

would be consistently applied 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 groundtruthed 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 proper 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). 

We chose migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species known to use the refuge to serve 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 159 

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 find a 

suite of focal species to help us quantify the range of 

structural and successional habitat conditions that 

we would 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 find 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 3). 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 

characterized suitable habitat conditions for as many 

focal species as possible. Sources of information 
160 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 find 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 16). 

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 3 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 

proper habitat on the refuge. 

Given these limitations, we find using habitatbased objectives for a given native plant community 

to represent a continuum of conditions along a successional gradient for long-term sustainability to be a 

proper interpretation of the data. From our perspective, this more aptly represents the dynamic nature 

of systems and ends any attempt to keep 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 

name 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 would provide refugespecific information useful for understanding treatment effects and species–habitat 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 161 Figure 16. Native Ecological Community Conservation Objectives for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas, Illustrated in a Community Profi le Schematic. 
162 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

relationships, which ultimately can be used 

to refine management treatments. 

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 proper 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 minimum, 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 29); tolerance 

level of exotic or invasive plant species is 

equal to, or less than, 5 percent. 

2. Reliably provide, at minimum, 70 percent of 

the 1,581 estimated potential acres of early 

mid-successional 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 29); tolerance level of exotic or invasive plant species is equal to or less than 1 percent and 

perennial robust emergent vegetation, such 

as cattail, is equal to, or less than, 25 

percent. 

3. Reliably provide, at minimum, 70 percent of 

the 2,160 estimated potential acres of midto 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 29); tolerance level of exotic or invasive plant species is equal to, or less than, 5 

percent. 

B. Apply from May through July—breeding season: 

1. Reliably provide a minimum of 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 

terns, and resident focal species (table 29); 

An example of a wetland with interspersed tall, dense cover on Quivira Refuge. 

USFWS 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 163 

tolerance level of exotic or invasive plant 

species is equal to, or less than, 5 percent. 

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 29); tolerance level of 

exotic or invasive species is equal to, or less 

than, 5 percent. 

C. Apply from late July to November—fall 

migration: 

1. Reliably provide, at minimum, 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 29); tolerance level 

of exotic or invasive species is equal to, or 

less than, 1 percent. 

2. Reliably provide, at minimum, 70 percent of 

the 1,073 estimated potential acres of early 

mid-successional 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 29); tolerance level of 

exotic or invasive plant species is equal to, 

or less than, 1 percent and perennial robust 

emergent vegetation, such as cattail, is 

equal to, or less than, 25 percent; 

3. Reliably provide, at minimum, 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 29); tolerance level of exotic or invasive plant species is equal to, or less than, 5 

percent. 

D. From November through February—winter— 

reliably provide, at minimum, 70 percent of the 5,086 

estimated potential acres, with a minimum block size 

D

ve

amselflies on a wetland with submerged aquatic 

getation. 

S WSFU/nahuba Llehca

R

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 29); tolerance level of 

exotic or invasive plant species is equal to, or less 

than, 5 percent. 

E. Support the current integrity of freshwater 

springs on the refuge, including quantity, to the 

extent possible, and direction of waterflow; native 

vegetation composition; and Arkansas darter population protection. 

Areas that can be managed to provide designated 

habitat are provided in table 29. 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, lidar and vegetation data, and our staff 

experience and knowledge of management potential; 

and on management philosophy described under the 

proposed alternative. 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 long-term wetland structure and function. This means that, for a 

given created wetland, we would not keep static 

hydroperiods within, and among, years. 
Table 29. 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, 

Little 

Salt 931 181.2 0 662.9 3.8 87.3 181.1 0 662.9 931 

Marsh 

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 

164 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Table 29. 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 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 165 
166 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

S WFUS

Northern shoveler in a wetland with midheight, sparce 

vegetation. 

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 would provide foraging habitat for 

waterbirds. 

■■ 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. 

■■	 Keep 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. 

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 proper times and depths. In addition, 

wildlife values of a given wetland change within, and 

among, years, and attempts to manage for static con­
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 167 

ditions 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 keep 

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. 

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 

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 discharge 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 would occur within, and among, years. In 

most years, surface water would be allowed to evaporate in late summer and ground water discharge 
168 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

would 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 would have water during the spring, and 

then slowly begin drying in late spring through the 

summer. Use of Rattlesnake Creek water would 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 proper salinity gradients through water management, including 

limiting fresh 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. 

Big Salt Marsh 

Rachel Laubhan/USFWS 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 169 

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 

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 wetland units on Quivira Refuge 

can also be managed as temporary or semipermanent 

wetlands to provide supplemental migration or 

breeding habitat and thermal cover for certain 

species. 

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 


Created Wetland 

S WFUS

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 

■■	 Collaborate with experts on evaluating habitat improvements to make sure that the 

Arkansas darter population persists, including the removal of existing infrastructure 

north of the springs. 

■■ Develop a 15-year management plan. 
170 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Seasonal Prairie Wetland 

Rachel Laubhan/USFWS 

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 

community composition and structure. However, we 

will not intentionally drain or ditch these wetlands, 

and we will control their nonnative vegetation. 

Temporary and Seasonal Prairie Wetlands 

Strategies 

■■ Find and map the location of these basins. 

■■	 Protect the integrity of basin morphology, 

such as their shape, structure and pattern. 

■■	 Avoid mechanical disturbances that would 

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 E). 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 171 

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 

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 would 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 proper 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 a minimum of 500 acres of estimated habitat predominantly native—short, 

bare–sparse—to help associated focal species, such as breeding killdeer, American 

avocet, interior least tern, western snowy 

plover, upland sandpiper, and ground-foraging passerines; defined as composition of 

less than 5 percent grass or fine-stemmed 

emergent, less than 5 percent forb, and 0 

percent shrub; mean greatest height less 

than 6 inches; visual obstruction, or height 

density, of less than 4 inches; litter depth 0 

centimeters; the estimated acres do not 

overlap with similar habitat made available 

under wetland objective B1 above. 

2. Provide a minimum of 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; defined as composition of 40–50 

percent grass or fine-stemmed emergent, 

10–20 percent forb, and 10–20 percent 

shrub; mean greatest height 6–20 inches; 

visual obstruction, or height density, of less 

than 4 inches; litter depth 0.2–1.2 inches. 

3. Provide a minimum of 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; defined as 

composition of 40–50 percent grass or finestemmed 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 a minimum of 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; 

defined as composition of 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 estimated for this objective do not include acres 

with at least 50 percent plum or shrub coverage—1,278.58 acres, which mostly occur 
172 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

in subirrigated soil types where tallgrasses 

characteristically dominate. 

5. Provide greater than 10 sparse stands of 

shrub—mostly plum—interspersed within 

larger grassland blocks and riparian corridor to support associated focal species, such 

as lark and field sparrows; defined as: shrub 

height about 3–10 feet; stand size about 

0.40–0.90 acre each; and within-stand shrub 

coverage of 7–11 percent. 

6. Provide greater than 10 dense stands of 

shrub—mostly plum—habitat interspersed 

within larger grassland blocks and riparian 

corridor to support shrub-dependent focal 

species, such as Bell’s vireo; defined as 

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 30). 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. 

Table 30. Dominant nonwetland habitat types at 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Habitat type 

Dominant 

vegetation 

Estimated 

acres 

Switchgrass 1,720 

Native tallgrass 

Big bluestem 

Sand bluestem 

974 

62 

Total 2,756 

Native midgrass Little bluestem 2,053 

Saltgrass 4,362 

Native shortgrass 

Prairie dog town 

Buffalograss 

19 

1 

Total: 4,381 

Natural bare– Sand flats 322 

sparse 

Shrub Plum, sumac, 

dogwood 1,279 

Nonnative upland 

grass 

Cheatgrass 82 

Agricultural 

(farmed) 

Agricultural 

(farmed) 885 

Cottonwood 355 

Locust 253 

Saltcedar 125 

Other 105 

Trees 

Red cedar 85 

Willow 57 

Russian olive 28 

Total: 1,008 

Wetland 

Total: 3,483 

Prairie cordgrass–three 2,054 

square 

Cattail–rush 1,096 

Water 176 

Spikerush 135 

Phragmites 23 

Roads 316 

Other 

Bare ground 

(like oil pads) 

Buildings, structures 

12 

6 

Total: 327 

Grand total outside wetland 16,581 

Strategies 

■■ Use a wide range of disturbance types, lev­
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 173 

els, 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. 

■■	 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. 

Kildeer in short, sparce grassland. 

SWFSU

Little bluestem in intermediate grassland. 

SWFUS

Switchgrass in tall, dense grassland. 

S	 WFUS

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 
174 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 

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. 

Sandhills 

S WFSU/sen JoyrraB

Native Ecological Community 

Conservation Objective 3: 

Woodland 

At least 125 acres of woodlands largely located on 

the refuge perimeter and within 55 yards of the refuge’s main roads will remain during the next 15 

years, see appendix E. 

Strategies 

■■	 Based on current conditions, maintain 

woodlands in areas identified in appendix E. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 175 

■■	 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 would 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 

species largely associated with nonnative 

woodlands. Prioritize time and money 

resources for other species–habitat communities over woodland, especially shelterbelts 

and nonnative types. 

■■	 Manage woodland areas to reduce seed or 

propagation sources or to maintain fence 

lines and other infrastructure, such as with 

the removal of 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. 

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 17). 

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 

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 would still have opportunities to view 

woodland-associated birds on refuge lands in easily 

accessible areas. It seems that bird species richness 

would be maintained. 

Shrubland	 

S WFUS

Woodland 

S WFUS
176 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Figure 17. Location of woodland groves at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kansas, in 2012. 
Chapt

6.4 Visitor Services Goal 

Visitors enjoy quality wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. 

Following are objectives for a variety of visitor 

activities. 

whooping c

sure, and ac

The pri

boundaries f

only up to 4

waterfowl 

Migratory 

Act of 1934

er 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 177 

Hunting Objective 1 

Within 5 years realign waterfowl and upland 

game hunt areas to continue to protect whooping 

cranes and provide approximately 1000 acres of additional, consistent safe zones for whooping cranes in 

the flats area north of the BSM. 

Strategies 

■■	 Allow hunting on no more acres than what 

is allowable and approved now, which is 

about 8,000 acres of the refuge’s 22,135 

acres. 

■■	 Close hunting areas favored by whooping 

cranes. 

■■	 Update boundary signs to reflect new hunt 

areas. 

■■ Do not allow sandhill crane hunting. 

■■	 Keep, improve, and increase access to hunting information through kiosks, interpretive 

displays, handout literature, and other 

means, such as social media and the refuge 

Web site. 

■■ Increase law enforcement. 

■■ Develop new parking areas. 

■■	 Alter waterfowl and upland game hunting 

area boundaries. 

■■ Update hunting maps. 

Rationale 

The refuge must manage the hunt program in a 

manner that protects whooping cranes from harm 

and disturbance. Managing hunting areas for when 

ranes are present may require the clotive management, of a specific unit. 

mary reason for separate hunting unit 

or waterfowl and upland game is because 

0 percent of the area can be opened for 

hunting on refuges created under the 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

 (Federal Duck Stamp Act). There is no 

limit to areas of the refuge that can be legally opened 

for upland, small game, furbearer and big game hunting, but hunting areas are decided by the refuge 

manager based on safety concerns; the need to separate consumptive and nonconsumptive users, when 

necessary; and disturbance to wildlife, which may 

necessitate the closure of some areas. 

Waterfowl hunting would be altered to remove 

hunting from the Marsh Road Meadow, Park Smith 

Meadow and South Deadhorse units, all, of which, 

have marginal waterfowl use and few wetlands; and 

more created wetland units would be opened up to 

hunting. These units (figure 18) would include Unit 2, 

which includes the managed marsh units 24, 25, and 

26, and Unit 4, which includes the managed marsh 

units 40, 48, 49, 50, 61, 62, 63 and 37 (Dead Horse 

Slough). The waterfowl area would total 7,606 acres, 

or 34 percent of the refuge. The current hunt area, by 

comparison, totals 8,062 acres, or 36 percent of the 

refuge. 

Waterfowl hunting regulations would follow State 

and Federal regulations. Snow goose hunting during 

the spring Conservation Hunt season is not allowed 

on Quivira Refuge. 

Upland and small game hunting would be similar 

to the waterfowl hunting area boundaries (figure 19) 

but would also include the South Deadhorse Unit, 

Park Smith Meadow, and Unit 27, which are all primarily upland habitats with no managed wetland 

units except for a small part of Unit 37(Dead Horse 

Slough). The total area open for upland and small 

game hunting would be 9,289 acres. 

Hunting Objective 2 

Within 5 years realign hunt areas to reduce the 

average annual number of days the refuge is closed to 

hunting because of the presence of whooping cranes 

from 30 to 15 days per year. 

Strategies 

■■	 Open new areas that were closed before but 

not regularly used by whooping cranes. 
178 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Figure 18. Proposed waterfowl hunt area, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 179
 

Figure 19. Proposed upland game hunt area, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
180 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

■■	 Update boundary signs to reflect new hunt 

areas. 

■■	 Provide an accessible waterfowl hunting 


blind, by reservation, in quality wetland 


habitat.
 

■■	 Keep, improve, and increase access to hunting information through kiosks, interpretive 

displays, handout literature, and other 

means, such as social media and the refuge 

Web site. 

■■ Increase law enforcement. 

■■ Develop new parking areas. 

■■	 Alter waterfowl and upland game hunting 

area boundaries. 

■■ Update hunting maps. 

Rationale 

This approach would better accommodate hunter 

needs while protecting whooping crane use areas. 

This approach would also reduce staff time spent 

closing hunt areas when whooping cranes are present. Now the refuge is closed about 30 days per year 

because of whooping crane presence, which is a frustration to hunters, especially those that travel from 

out of state to hunt at Quivira. 

Hunting Objective 3 

Within 10 years develop a hunt plan to broaden 

and increase hunting opportunities on the refuge 

including deer, turkey, and furbearers. 

Strategies 

■■	 Update the CFR to be consistent with the 

approved hunt plan. 

■■	 Work with State of Kansas to determine 

areas open for hunting and limits based on 

deer herd health and population targets. 

■■	 Deer hunting would be allowed by special 

refuge permit only, with hunting potentially 

occurring during youth, muzzleloader, firearms, special hunts, and archery seasons. 

■■	 Turkey hunting would be allowed by State 

permit and according to State regulations. 

Close specific units when whooping cranes 

are present. 

■■	 Furbearer hunting would be allowed if refuge populations allow or for health purposes. Open areas would be the same as for 

big game hunting, in accordance with State 

regulations. 

■■	 Keep, improve, and increase access to hunting information through kiosks, interpretive 

displays, handout literature, and other 

means, such as social media and the refuge 

Web site. 

Rationale 

Deer, turkey, and furbearer hunting would be 

allowed on most areas of the refuge, totaling 15,239 

acres (figure 20) except (1) the south end of the LSM 

around the headquarters and the public use facilities 

at the Kids’ Fishing Pond, the tower, and the trail; (2) 

the area around the Migrants Mile hiking trail and 

refuge storage facilities, the environmental education 

classroom, and the bunkhouse; and (3) the BSM area, 

which contains the Wildlife Drive, the most popular 

nonconsumptive public use area, and a major roosting 

area for migratory birds. Deer hunting quotas would 

be figured out, and managed in consultation with the 

KDWPT for holders of special refuge permits. Turkey hunting would be allowed without special refuge 

permits. 

Creating separate hunting areas for different species would increase the need to provide more hunting 

information, signage, and law enforcement because 

the program would be more complex, but it would 

increase opportunity for the hunting of other species 

with little-to-no disturbance to migratory birds 

Fishing Objective 1 

Throughout the life of the plan, allow fishing and 

frogging in refuge waters with minimal disturbance 

to other wildlife and the natural aquatic ecosystem. 

Strategies 

■■	 Allow fishing, in accordance with State regulations, year round on all waters on the 

refuge. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 181
 

Figure 20. Proposed deer and turkey hunt area, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
182 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

■■	 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 special fishing events for 

kids to encourage and support a new generation of anglers. 

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 

are not allowed because they increase the risk of 

exotic and invasive species introduction and spread. 

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 regulations, for kids 14 and under (and adults 

accompanying such children). Adults would 

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 keep 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.
 
 

Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 183 

■■	 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 dogs under their owners’ control, but 

leashed during the nesting season of April 1 

to August 15. 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography Objective 2 

Over the next 10 years, promote and expand the 

opportunity of use at 12 existing 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 parking and access at each of the 

sites 

■■	 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. 

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. 
184 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

■■	 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. 

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 the timeliness of communications and educational resources. 

■■	 Use social media to increase contact and 


exposure to the refuge.
 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objective 3 

At the Great Plains Nature Center, interagency 

staff will annually conduct an average of 1,700 annual 

onsite and offsite programs that focus on “at risk” 

youth and other underserved audiences. 

Strategies 

■■	 Evaluate staff needs and increase Service 

staff, as applicable, to support programming 

efforts. 

■■	 Increase communication and networking 


efforts with USD 259 (Wichita) and area 


school administrators to advertise and market GPNC program opportunities (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. 

Visitors participate in the Monarch Mania event held at 

Quivira Refuge. 

S WFUS
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 185 

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. 

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 consultant to evaluate 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, 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 signage 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 signage 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 

would not be allowed to disturb wildlife and would 

not be allowed when areas are closed for safety 

reasons. 
186 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Strategies 

■■	 Allow dog training by individuals, not commercial vendors, outside of the nesting season of April 1st to August 15th and without 

live training aids. 

■■	 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.
 

■■	 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 would not be allowed to disturb wildlife 

during certain times of the year, and would not be 

allowed when areas are closed for safety reasons. 

6.5 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 

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 

and the draw these have on bringing visitors to the area. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 187 

S WFUS

The blue goose, representing the Refuge System, rides in 

the Octoberfest Parade held in Stafford, Kansas. 

■■	 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. 

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 five 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 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. 
188 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

■■	 Develop static, portable displays about refuge and GPNC wildlife, facilities, and management that can be used at fairs, 

conventions, and other one- or multiday 

events. 

■■	 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 created 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. 

6.6 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 signage 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 

(Refuge System 2011). Cultural services are one of 

many ecosystem services, or benefits, that one can 

get from nature (Refuge System 2011). 

6.7 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. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 189 

Visitor and Employee Safety 

Objective 

Make sure that visitor safety and the safety of our 

employees at Quivira Refuge and the GPNC. Strive 

to keep the refuge as 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. 

■■	 Use directional and informative signage, 

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. 

■■	 Keep 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 proper 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 proper 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 

name 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. 

■■	 Change hunting areas and establish new 


regulations to protect whooping cranes.
 
190 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

■■	 Use law enforcement and education to protect cultural resources in accordance with 

Federal, State, and tribal laws, policies and 

guidelines. 

■■	 Keep a minimum of 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. 

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 (Refuge 

System 2011), Recommendation 16, charges us to: 

Conduct a new, independent analysis of refuge law 

enforcement to measure progress and to name 

needed improvements. 

6.8 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. 

Staff and Budget 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 YCC 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 

S WFUS
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 191 

Staff and Budget 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. 

Strategies 

■■	 Find needed positions and projects in the 

RONS database and update as requested. 

The top refuge priority identified in RONS 

is one full-time 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 (Refuge System 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 (Refuge System 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 and Infrastructure 

Objective 1 

At the refuge and GPNC, within 5 years review 

and update our refuge deferred maintenance projects 

list and document deficiencies, and submit a ranked 

project list for potential money every year. 

Strategies 

■■	 Keep and enhance the water delivery infrastructure necessary to achieve our wetland 

goals and objectives for the refuge. 

■■	 Keep the roads and parking lots required to 

support public use opportunities consistent 

with our goals and objectives for the refuge. 

■■	 Keep the fencing, wells, and other infrastructure necessary to run a grazing program that helps us achieve our goals and 

objectives for the refuge. 

■■	 Keep 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. 

■■	 Keep 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 the infrastructure at the GPNC, 

including the Koch Habitat Hall, Coleman 

Auditorium, offices, classrooms, and a storage garage, to support our multi-agency 

cooperative partnership with the City of 

Wichita Department of Park and Recreation 

and KDWPT. 

Rationale 

Visitor services infrastructure for both the refuge 

and GPNC need routine annual and long-term maintenance to keep these resources 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 
192 Draft CPP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

necessitates more constant maintenance to keep 

water control structures from washing out. Some 

water control structures need to be replaced because 

of advanced age. 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, but this building was abandoned because of poor domestic water quality. So, 

there is a 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 and Infrastructure 

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 and Infrastructure 

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 and Infrastructure 

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. 
Chapter 6—Implementation of the Proposed Action 193 

Migrants Mile Trail 

USFWS 

■■	 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. 

6.9 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 

31 lists the stepdown plans needed, their status, and 

their next revision dates. 

Table 31. 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 —	 2014 

Inventory and monitoring plan —	 2014 

Integrated pest management plan 2012	 2017 

Fire management plan	 2009 2014 validate annually 

Visitor services plan 1986	 2014 

Law enforcement plan	 2012 2017 

Station safety plan	 2012 2017 

Water management plan (annual) 2012	 2013 revise annually 

Hunting plan	 — 2013 

Trapping plan	 — 2014 

GPNC operations plan	 2012 2013 revise annually 

Santana Research Natural Area plan 1984	 revise as appropriate 

 

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. 

ATV—All-terrain vehicle. 

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 
196 Draft EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

lower temperatures. Examples of cool-season 

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 197 

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. 
198 Draft EA—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 199 

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 PIF 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 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 
200 Draft EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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, USFWS)—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. 

USFWS—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 

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. 

A.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 
202 Draft EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

management of our national wildlife 

refuges. 

A.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 A—Key Legislation and Policy 203 

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 B 

List of Preparers and Contributors 

This CCP and EA 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 USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO 

Lorrie Beck Park ranger USFWS, GPNC, Wichita, KS 

Barbara Boyle Refuge supervisor USFWS, 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 USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO 

Kimberly Farr Biological technician USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Toni Griffin Refuge planner USFWS, 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 USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Steve Karel Former deputy refuge manager USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Joe Kocher Maintenance worker USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Christine LaRue Administrative officer USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Murray Laubhan Zone biologist USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Rachel Laubhan Wildlife biologist USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Dave McCauley Range technician USFWS, 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 USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Mike Rader Wildlife education coordinator KDWPT, Pratt Operations Office, 

Pratt, KS 

Andy Schaal Range technician USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Dan Severson Former project leader USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Osage Nation, Department of EnviBrad Stumph Natural resource specialist ronmental and Natural Resources, 

Pawhuska, OK 

Bill Waln Fire management specialist USFWS, Quivira Refuge 

Brent Waters Maintenance worker USFWS, Quivira Refuge 
206 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Many organizations, agencies, and individuals provided help with the preparation of this CCP and EA. 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, USFWS, Region 6)
 

Sheri Fetherman (chief, Division of Education and Visitor Services, USFWS, Region 6)
 

Mickey Heitmeyer (wetlands ecologist, contractor)
 

Wayne King (biologist, Refuge System, USFWS, Region 6)
 

Mitch Werner (writer–editor, Division of Refuge Planning, USFWS, Region 6)
 

David Lucas (chief, Division of Refuge Planning, USFWS, Region 6)
 

Meg Van Ness (regional archaeologist, USFWS, Region 6)
 
Appendix C 

Public Involvement 

C.1 Public Involvement 

We started public scoping Quivira Refuge in a 

notice of intent published in the Federal Register on 

February 24, 2010. The notice of intent announced 

our intent to prepare a CCP and EA document for 

the refuge and to obtain suggestions and information 

on the scope of issues to be considered in the planning process. Written comments were accepted 

through March 26, 2010. 

On February 2010 a planning update was sent to 

each individual, organization, and government representative on the CCP mailing list, see below. The 

planning update provided information on the history 

of the Refuge System and on the CCP process, along 

with an invitation to, and schedule of, upcoming open 

houses. 

Open houses were announced to local newspapers, 

radio, and television stations. Flyers were posted, 

and announcements were made via email and at the 

meetings of local organizations. 

Three public open houses were held from March 

8–10, 2010, in the local communities of Stafford, Great 

Bend, and Wichita, Kansas. At the meetings informational posters, maps, and handouts, along with a PowerPoint presentation provided a history of the Refuge 

System, an orientation of the planning area, and an 

overview of the CCP and NEPA processes. The draft 

vision statement developed for the refuge was also 

presented at the meetings. Our staff was available to 

answer questions on a variety of topics about refuge 

management and the CCP process. Attendees were 

encouraged to ask questions and offer comments. The 

turnout was moderate, with 5–15 people attending 

each meeting. 

More than 80 comments were received orally and 

in writing during the scoping process. We received 

letters from three organizations—the National Wild 

Turkey Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the 

Great Bend Convention and Visitors Bureau—and 

from 12 individuals. Input obtained from public meetings, letters, emails, and comment forms was considered in developing this draft CCP and EA. These 

comments identified biological, social, and economic 

concerns about our refuge management. Our planning team’s response to public comments will be completed before the final approval of this CCP. 

C.2 Public Mailing List 

What follows is the mailing list for Quivira Refuge CCP and EA. 

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 

USFWS—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 

Tribal Officials 

Osage Nation Tribal Council, Pawhuska, OK 
208 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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 

Individuals 

55 private individuals 
Appendix D 

Draft Compatibility Determinations 

D.1 Refuge Name 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. 

D.2 Date Established 

May 3, 1955. 

D.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) 

D.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.
 

D.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. 

D.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
 
 

210 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Hunting 

The refuge’s hunting program would be driven by 

its compatibility with wildlife population objectives. 

Besides the site-specific regulations mentioned 

below, the State hunting regulations would apply to 

the lands we own. Hunters may only possess and use 

our approved, nontoxic shot loads on our owned 

lands, and vehicle travel and parking is restricted to 

public roads, pullouts, and parking areas. The refuge 

Web site and public use brochures would provide 

guidance on site-specific regulations. The general 

hunting regulations are available from the KDWPT. 

This draft CCP proposes the hunting uses 

described below. Also, we would increase regulatory 

hunting signage, such as more “closed to hunting 

area” and “nontoxic shot required” signs, 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. 

Hunting of migratory gamebirds, including three 

dove species, duck, goose, snipe, Virginia and sora 

rail, and coot would continue in designated areas of 

the refuge on approximately 7,606 acres. Sandhill 

crane hunting would be prohibited. Hunting of upland 

game, including pheasant, bobwhite quail, and prairie-chicken, would be allowed in designated areas of 

the refuge on approximately 9,289 acres of upland 

and wetland habitat. Big game hunting would be 

allowed for white-tailed deer and turkey on up to 

15,239 acres. Small game hunting would include rabbits and squirrels only. Furbearer trapping by special use permit would be allowed on the same area as 

big game hunting. 

A universally accessible hunting blind is located in 

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 

would pay for the update and printing of existing and 

new brochures. 

More law enforcement staff time and resources 

would be required to manage substantial changes to 

the hunting program. Additions would be (1) to start 

a deer and turkey hunting program; (2) to change 

hunt area boundaries and parking areas including 

signage and hunt brochures; and (3) to check compliance with this new public use and manage whooping 

crane unit closures as necessary. Existing law 

enforcement staff is sufficient to manage the new 

programs. 

Anticipated Effects of Use 

The hunting program would 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 

would be kept up to date and made readily available 

to hunters. Hunter success and satisfaction would 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 would be designed and watched 

closely for safety and quality. A substantial change in 

the hunting program would be to only close parts of 

the refuge to hunting when whooping cranes are 

present on the refuge, instead of closing the entire 

refuge. This poses a slightly increased risk to whooping cranes. However, sandhill crane hunting, which 

could lead to the misidentification of the two bird species during a hunt, is not allowed on the refuge, and 

whooping cranes are actually at higher risk of being 

accidental shot during hunting season off refuge 

when they go out to feed where sandhill crane hunting is allowed. 
Appendix D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 211 

Although hunting directly affects the hunted species and may indirectly disturb other species, limits 

on harvest and access for recreational hunting would 

make sure that populations do not fall to unsustainable levels. Closed areas on the refuge provide sanctuary to migratory birds during the hunting season. 

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. 

Determination 

Recreational hunting would be a compatible use 

on the Quivira Refuge in accordance with State 

regulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

Visitors participating in recreational hunting 

would follow our public use regulations, including 

site-specific regulations, and the State’s hunting 

regulations. 

■■	 Hunters would continue to use approved 


nontoxic shot for migratory and upland 


gamebird hunting and turkey hunting on 


the lands we own.
 

■■	 Vehicles would be restricted to county and 

public roads and parking areas on the 

refuge. 

■■	 Signage, brochures, and our Web site would 

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 would 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 and in the EA, we have found that 

recreational hunting on the refuge would 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. 

National wildlife refuges may be opened to sportfishing only after a determination is made that this 

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. 

This draft CCP and EA includes continued recreational fishing and allows for a new program for frogging. Fishing would continue on the following units of 

the refuge in accordance with State regulations: 

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. 
212 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Determination 

Fishing would be a compatible use on Quivira 

Refuge in accordance with State regulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

■■	 Visitors participating in recreational fishing 

would follow our public use regulations and 

State fishing regulations and limits. 

■■	 No bait collecting and no live fish bait use 

except for night crawlers would be allowed. 

■■	 Vehicles would be restricted to county and 

public roads and parking areas on the 

refuge. 

■■	 The use of motorized boats would be 


prohibited.
 

■■	 Boats, fishing equipment, and all other personal property must be removed at the end 

of each day. 

■■	 Fish stocking would only occur in the Kid’s 

Fishing Pond as necessary. 

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 would 

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. 

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities would continue to be provided on the refuge, and 

would be supported by providing observation towers 

and blinds, keeping an up-to-date bird species list for 

the refuge, and allowing the opportunity to use portable viewing and photography blinds through the 

issuance of special use permits. Facilities exist to 

support these activities by bringing 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. 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 would be available through the proposed tower-mounted, remote 

camera at the BSM and bald eagle nest site. The 

movable tower camera would be installed near the 

bald eagle nest. It would allow Internet viewing of 

the nesting activity and would also provide viewing 

of wildlife on the BSM year round. 

Commercial birding would be allowed with a special use permit obtained at the refuge headquarters. 

Availability of Resources 

The only money required for a new facility would 

go toward buying and installing an Internet-connected tower camera at the BSM. Money would be 

acquired from various sources, such as the Friends of 
Appendix D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 213 

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 would 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 signage at 

headquarters and closed areas announce closures. 

Sanctuary would be provided for migrating 

waterfowl and other waterbirds during the waterfowl hunting season at Quivira Refuge. Changes to 

the waterfowl hunt boundary would reduce any conflicts between hunters and nonhunters in the Marsh 

Road and Wildlife Drive area, as those areas become 

nonhunting sanctuary, but they may increase in other 

parts of the auto tour route when hunting is allowed 

in units next to the tour route. Much of the area 

already sees hunting activity on the Hunter Access 

Road, but units 26, 49, 62, and 63 have been closed to 

hunting. 

Determination 

Wildlife observation and photography would be 

compatible uses on Quivira Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

■■	 Visitors participating in wildlife observation and photography would follow all public 

use regulations. 

■■	 Seasonal closures to protect sensitive wildlife areas and reduce disturbance to fish and 

wildlife would be kept. 

■■	 Commercial photography would require a 

special use permit. 

■■	 Non-Service vehicles would be restricted to 

county and public access roads on the 

refuge. 

■■	 ATV or UTV use on the refuge would be 

compatible with State and county regulations on county roads. ATV or UTV use by 

the public is prohibited off public roads, 

unless allowed under a special use permit. 

■■	 Viewing areas would 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 would 

be provided with information on their 

proper 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 would be prohibited on hiking trails, off roads, or in 

closed areas. 

■■	 Dogs must be under owner’s control, but 

leashed during the nesting season of April 1 

to August 15. 

Justification 

Wildlife observation and photography are identified as priority public uses in the Improvement Act 

and would 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 and in the EA, we have found that wildlife 

observation and photography on the refuge would 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 
 

214 Draft CCP and EA—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 

would continue to offer binocular and Let’s 

Go Outside! backpack loan programs at the 

refuge and at the GPNC. We would continue 

to use social media, and update it weekly, to 

increase contact with, and exposure to, the 

refuge. 

■■	 We would 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 would 

increase programs as staff and time allow. 

■■	 We would continually evaluate our interpretive media, such as brochures, signs, and 

displays, for relevancy, effectiveness, and 

timeliness, and we would 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 would be used in conjunction with the classroom, including trails, 

an observation tower, a pavilion, restrooms, 

wetlands, sand prairie uplands, meadows 

and other habitats. 

■■	 We would 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 would be developed for the refuge, and accessible observation sites would 

be developed on the refuge. The mammal, 

reptile and amphibian lists would be 

updated for the refuge, and a brochure 

would be developed. 

■■	 We would interpret the cultural history of 

the Quivira Refuge area, including tribal 

uses, and early settlement. 

■■	 Refuge staff would 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 would occur as staff and time allow. 

■■	 Environmental education programs would 

be provided to teach curriculum-based programs for all grade levels that meet State 

educational standards. 

■■	 We would encourage the use of both Quivira 

Refuge and GPNC facilities by educational 

organizations as outdoor classrooms. 

■■	 We would continue to support the GPNC 

through its partnership with the City of 

Wichita Department of Park and Recreation 

and the KDWPT. We would 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 would encourage virtual geocaching to 

enhance the appreciation of refuge 

resources. 

Availability of Resources 

Payment for environmental education and interpretation activities, directional signs, and brochures 

would come from annual operations and maintenance 

money. Other sources, such as grants, regional project proposals, challenge cost-share agreements, 

deferred maintenance and others would also be 

sought and used as they became available. 
Appendix D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 215 

Requests to pay for new facilities would 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 would continue to be updated 

as needed to meet our needs. Features such as the 

auto tour route and accessible observation sites 

would continue to provide access to the refuge. 

A new, relocated environmental education classroom would have a small effect on lands near the 

Kid’s Fishing Pond, but this would 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 would be 

removed, including the bunkhouse and trailer pads, 

which would be relocated at the headquarters administrative site, and the area would be restored to 

upland habitat. 

We would 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 

would continue to provide environmental education 

and interpretation both on and off the lands we own. 

Presentations, both on and off our lands, would be 

provided to refuge visitors, school groups, and organizations, allowing us to reach a broader audience. 

Onsite presentations would 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 would not affect wildlife or habitat in 

the urban setting. 

Determination 

Environmental education and interpretation 

would be a compatible use on Quivira Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

■■	 Visitors participating in environmental education and interpretation programs would 

follow all of our regulations. Onsite activities would be held where minimal effect to 

wildlife and habitats would occur. 

■■	 We would 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 would help meet Refuge System goals with 

only minimal conflicts. Environmental education and 

interpretation would 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 

would 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 and in the EA, we have found that environmental education and interpretation on the refuge would 

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 would limit any adverse 

effects. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 

2028 
216 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Cooperative Farming, Haying, and 

Grazing 

We would continue to use cooperative farming and 

prescriptive livestock grazing and haying as management tools on the refuge. These tools would 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 would 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 would be issued a 

cooperative farming agreement or special use permit 

by the refuge manager and would 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 generally would 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 would keep 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 would be 

deposited into the Refuge Revenue Sharing Account. 

This draft 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 draft 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 would guide management 

to achieve the habitat needs of these species. The 

refuge would improve monitoring and research programs for vegetation and wildlife to assess habitat 

and wildlife population responses to cooperative 

farming and haying. 

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 the effect on habitat is controllable 

and measurable. 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 our management 

needs dictate. Where applicable, a rotation schedule 

using multiple grazing units is used to manage 

intensity. 

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 would determine stocking rates in 

each grazing unit. 

This draft CCP proposes to continue using prescriptive livestock grazing to meet habitat objectives. 

Furthermore, the draft 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 

would guide the prescriptive grazing program to 

achieve the habitat needs of these species while helping many others. The refuge would improve the monitoring and research programs for vegetation to 

assess habitat responses to prescriptive livestock 

grazing. Different grazing rates and management 

strategies would be investigated to decide on the best 

methods for meeting habitat goals and objectives. 

Availability of Resources 

Existing resources would be sufficient to administer the farming, haying, and grazing programs at 

current levels. These programs would 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 would 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 would 

increase the effectiveness of the grazing program by 

spreading out grazing use and reducing the effects 
Appendix D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 217 

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 would be 

used to meet habitat goals and objectives identified in 

the draft CCP. These programs are intended to support and enhance habitat conditions for the benefit of 

a wide 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 would 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 

would 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. 

Determination 

Cooperative farming, haying, and grazing as habitat management tools would be compatible uses on 

the Quivira Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

For consistency with management objectives, we 

would require general, and specific conditions, for 

each farming, haying, or grazing permit. 

Only areas that have a prior crop history would be 

included in the farming and haying program. To 

decrease effects to nesting birds and other wildlife, 

the refuge manager would decide on, and incorporate, any needed timing constraints on the permitted 

activity into the cooperative farming agreement or 

special use permit. For example, haying would 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 would specify the type of crop to be planted. 

Farming permittees would 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 would decide 

where fences, water tanks, and livestock supplements 

would be placed within the management unit. Temporary electric fence would 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 would be 

required to remove fences at the end of the permit. 

Grazing fees would 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 would be 

established by bid. Standard deductions for labor 

associated with the grazing permit would be included 

on the special use permit. 

The refuge would carry out a vegetation monitoring program to assess if habitat needs of focal species 

are being met. A minimum of one temporary biological technician would be necessary to check and document these activities. A biologist would 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 keep 

and enhance habitat for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. When properly 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 
218 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

plant species. Each of these tools can be controlled, 

and the results would 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 

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 would 

continue to evaluate each request on an individual 

basis, and, if the use is allowed, the requesting individual or group would be issued a special use permit. 

The permit would 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 would 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 would be denied. 

Determination 

Commercial filming, audio recording, and still 

photography would be 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 would result in a special use permit being denied. 

All commercial filming would require a special 

use permit that would (1) name 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 would not 

be allowed, establishing time limitations, and finding 

routes of access. These conditions would be identified 
Appendix D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 219 

to prevent excessive disturbance to wildlife, damage 

to habitat or refuge infrastructure, or conflicts with 

other visitor services or management activities. 

The special use permit would stipulate that imagery produced on refuge lands would 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 would 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 would incur more administrative costs 

to check the activity. 

■■	 We would 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 would 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 would 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 

USFWS. 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 would 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 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 

would 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 would review research 

proposals case by case and issue special use permits 

if approved. Criteria for evaluation would include, but 

would not be limited to, the following: 

■■	 Research that would contribute to specific 

refuge management issues would be given 

higher priority over other requests. 
220 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

■■	 Research that would conflict with other 

ongoing research, monitoring programs, or 

management programs would not be 

approved. 

■■	 Research that would cause undue disturbance or would be intrusive would likely not 

be approved. The degree and type of disturbance would be carefully weighed when 

evaluating a research request. 

■■	 Proposals would 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 would be considered, and agreed on, before approval. 

■■	 Research proposals involving threatened 

and endangered species would require concurrence and Section 7 Endangered Species 

Act review before approval. 

Availability of Resources 

Current resources would be adequate to administer research and monitoring programs on a limited 

basis. A refuge biologist would 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 would name research 

and monitoring needs and work with our other staff, 

universities, and scientists to develop studies that 

would help the refuge and address the goals and 

objectives in this draft CCP. 

Anticipated Effects of Use 

Some degree of disturbance would be 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 would be expected to minimally affect wildlife and habitats because special use 

permits would include conditions on their effects. 

Determination 

Research and monitoring would be compatible 

uses on Quivira Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

Extremely sensitive wildlife habitats and species 

would be sufficiently protected from disturbance by 

limiting research activities in these areas. All refuge 

rules and regulations would be followed unless otherwise exempted by our refuge management. Projects 

would be reviewed annually. 

Our refuge staff would 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 would need to 

be developed and included as part of the study 

design; these measures would be conditions on the 

special use permit. 

Our refuge staff would 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 find that 

research that was approved for special use permits 

before is terminated because of observed effects. Our 

refuge manager would 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 would be decreased through restrictions 

included as part of the study design, and research 

activities would be checked by our refuge staff. 

Results of research projects would contribute to the 

understanding, enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of the refuge’s wildlife populations and their habitats. 

Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date: 

2023 

Dog Training 

Dog training during the nonnesting 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. 
Appendix D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 221 

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 would be minimal disturbance to wildlife as 

a result of the activity, and effects would be 

temporary. 

Public Review and Comment 

This compatibility determination is 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 would be 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 would be allowed when most bird 

breeding activities do not occur: September 

1–March 1. 

■■	 Training would only be allowed in wetland 

areas along public use roads and where disturbance to wildlife can be decreased. For 

instance, we would encourage the use of 

wetland areas that do not provide foraging 

or resting habitat for waterbirds at that 

time. 

■■	 Training would not be allowed in the Kids’ 

Fishing Pond area. 

■■	 Training would 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 would 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 would 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 would be a new use at Quivira 

Refuge. Firewood cutting would be an economic use 

of the refuge’s natural resources. The use would 

facilitate and aid with habitat management and 

grassland restoration through the removal of undesirable invasive woody vegetation. The public would 

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 would acquire a permit 

and a map with designated areas on the refuge to cut 

firewood. Unlimited permits would be available with 

a $25 annual fee. The public would 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 
 

222 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

would be required to be at ground level. Access 

would be limited to areas along roads and trails to 

prevent habitat destruction and wildlife 

disturbance. 

The use would occur potentially on all wooded 

upland and partially wooded upland acres of the refuge, totaling approximately 15,000 acres. Specific 

areas would chosen by the refuge manager to not 

interfere with habitat management or threatened 

and endangered species, and areas on the refuge 

would 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 

the wetlands and marshes of the refuge might also be 

affected. 

Firewood cutting would be permitted from 

August 1 to April 30 to prevent effects to migrating 

bird nesting. Firewood cutting would be permitted 

seven days a week from sunrise to sunset. Areas 

would be designated by the refuge manager and subject to closure at any time. Firewood cutting would 

not be permitted during periods of fire danger reaching red flag warnings as issued by the National 

Weather Service. 

The public would be required to obtain a special 

use permit. Power chainsaws, handsaws, or axes 

would be the only means permitted to cut trees and 

firewood. All permittees would be required to have 

spark arrestors on power chainsaws and have a 

shovel or fire extinguisher available to aid with extinguishing fire. The public would 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 would be removed daily. 

The use would facilitate and aid with 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 would 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 would 

be done while conducting routine refuge law 

enforcement. 

■■	 Offsetting revenues: an annual fee of $25 

would be assessed for a special use permit 

to cover administrative costs and maps. 

Anticipated Effects of Use 

■■	 Short-term effects: the use would 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 would 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 

would 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. 
elp 

ducts 

tible use on 

Appendix D—Draft Compatibility Determinations 223 

■■	 Cumulative effects: the use would 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 would 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 would h

reduce the amount of petroleum pro

required to heal their homes. 

Determination 

Firewood cutting would be a compa

Quivira Refuge. 

Stipulations Necessary to Make Sure that 

There is Compatibility 

Refuge staff would mark trees or spray trees in 

designated areas before firewood cutting. The refuge 

manager would 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 would be limited to power chainsaws with spark arrestors, axes, 

and hand saws. Heavy equipment and tractors owned 

by the public would not be permitted to aid with firewood cutting. Monitoring the activity would be performed by refuge staff on a regular basis. Law 

enforcement staff would visit sites regularly during 

routine patrols to monitor that activities are conducted within special use permit guidelines and refuge regulations. 

Justification 

Firewood cutting would help us reach and meet 

the overall goal of managing habitat for migratory 

birds. It would aid refuge staff and provide a cost 

savings to the Government by reducing labor, equipment, and fuel costs to remove trees. It would help 

reduce hazardous fuel and fuel load to help prevent or 

manage wildfires. By managing locations, firewood 

cutting would not interfere with other wildlifedependent uses. Temporary disturbance of the 

wooded areas may cause minimal disturbance to 

wildlife in the area but would be necessary to 

increase quality habitat for migratory birds and 

other refuge species. It would 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 

D.7 Signatures 

Submitted by: 

Michael 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: 

Matt Hogan, Assistant Regional Director Date 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Appendix E 

Grassland Fragmentation Assessment 

To figure out the optimal distribution and area of 

grasslands on Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, a 

quantitative analysis comparing the benefits of current versus potential future grassland area and distribution was conducted on refuge lands 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 the literature and the digital NVCS map of the refuge. 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 grasslanddependent 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 find 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 with the exception 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 budgetary constraints, respectively, and 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 and could not be restored to grasslands. 

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 dra­
226 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

matically improve grassland habitats for area-sensitive 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. 

E.1 Current Conditions: 54.68­

Yard Analysis 

Black areas in figure 22 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. 

E.2 Future Conditions: 54.68­

Yard Analysis 

Black areas in figure 22 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. 

E.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 23. Perimeter-to-area ratios 

were computed for each patch. White space is area 

hostile to grassland birds. 

E.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. 

E.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 Big Salt 

Marsh, the Little Salt Marsh, and the presence of 

primary roads, which would not change. 
Appendix E—Grassland Fragmentation Assessment 227 


Figure 21. Current grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
228 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Figure 22. Future grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 
Appendix E—Grassland Fragmentation Assessment 229 


Figure 23. Current nonhostile grassland conditions at Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. 

Appendix F
 

Species Lists 

This appendix contains the common and scientific Wildlife Refuge. 

names of animals and plants of the Quivira National 

F.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 
Common name Scientific name 

Spring 

March– 

May 

Summer 

June– 

August 

Fall 

September– 

November 

Winter 

December– 

February 

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca accidental 

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 

232 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Common name Scientific name 

Spring 

March– 

May 

Summer 

June– 

August 

Fall 

September– 

November 

Winter 

December– 

February 

Yellow-crowned NightHeron* Nyctanassa violacea uncommon uncommon occasional 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus rare rare 

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 

Appendix F—Species Lists 233 
234 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Spring Summer Fall Winter 

Common name Scientific name March– June– September– December– 

May August November February 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus common uncommon common 

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus uncommon occasional occasional 

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferis common common common occasional 

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 
Common name Scientific name 

Spring 

March– 

May 

Summer 

June– 

August 

Fall 

September– 

November 

Winter 

December– 

February 

Franklin’s Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan common uncommon common rare 

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus accidental 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis common uncommon common uncommon 

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 

Appendix F—Species Lists 235 
Common name Scientific name 

Spring 

March– 

May 

Summer 

June– 

August 

Fall 

September– 

November 

Winter 

December– 

February 

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 

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 

236 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Common name Scientific name 

Spring 

March– 

May 

Summer 

June– 

August 

Fall 

September– 

November 

Winter 

December– 

February 

Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis accidental 

Black-capped Chickadee* Poecile atricapillius occasional occasional occasional occasional 

Tufted Titmouse Bacolopus bicolor rare occasional occasional 

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 

Appendix F—Species Lists 237 
238 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Spring Summer Fall Winter 

Common name Scientific name March– June– September– December– 

May August November February 

Tennessee Warbler Oreothlypis peregrina occasional 

Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata uncommon uncommon 

Nashville Warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla occasional occasional 

Northern Parula Parula pitiayumi accidental 

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 
Common name Scientific name 

Spring 

March– 

May 

Summer 

June– 

August 

Fall 

September– 

November 

Winter 

December– 

February 

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni occasional occasional 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca uncommon uncommon uncommon 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia common common common 

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 

Appendix F—Species Lists 239 
Spring Summer Fall Winter 

Common name Scientific name March– June– September– December– 

May August November February 

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). 

F.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 

240 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 
Appendix F—Species Lists 241 

F.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 

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* Spilogale putorius 

Skunk, Striped Mephitis mephitis 

Squirrel, Eastern Fox Sciurus niger 

Wood Rat, Eastern Neotoma floridana 

F.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 
242 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Common name Scientific name 

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, 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 

F.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 
Appendix F—Species Lists 243 

Common name Family Scientific name 

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 

F.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 
244 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Common name Scientific name 

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 

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 
Appendix F—Species Lists 245 

F.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 

Tall Waterhemp Amaranthaceae Amaranthus tuberculatus 

Snake-cotton Amaranthaceae Froelichia floridana var. campestris 

Fragrant Sumac Anacardiaceae Rhus aromatica 

Smooth Sumac Anacardiaceae Rhus glabra 

Poison Ivy Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron rydbergii 

Cut-leaf Water Parsnip Apiaceae Berula erecta var. incisa 

Common Water Hemlock Apiaceae Cicuta maculata 

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 

Butterfly Milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias tuberosa ssp. interior 

Whorled Milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias verticillata 

Green Antelopehorn Asclepiadaceae Asclepias viridis 

Common Yarrow Asteraceae Achillea millefolium ssp. lanulosa 

Western Ragweed Asteraceae Ambrosia psilostachya 

Giant Ragweed Asteraceae Ambrosia trifida 

Cudweed Sagewort Asteraceae Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. ludoviciana 

White Panicled Aster Asteraceae Aster lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus 

Willow Baccharis Asteraceae Baccharis salicina 

Spanish Needles Asteraceae Bidens bipinnata 

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 

Philadelphia Fleabane Asteraceae Erigeron philadelphicus 

Daisy Fleabane Asteraceae Erigeron strigosus 
246 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Common name Family Scientific name 

Boneset Asteraceae Eupatorium perfoliatum 

Alkali Yellowtops Asteraceae Flaveria campestris 

Curly-cup Gumweed Asteraceae Grindelia ciliata 

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 

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 var. altissima 

Missouri Goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago missouriensis 

Downy Goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago petiolaris 

Sow Thistle Asteraceae Sonchus asper 

Annual Saltmarsh Aster Asteraceae Symphyotrichum divaricatum 

White Heath Aster Asteraceae Symphyotrichum ericoides var. ericoides 

Red-seed Dandelion Asteraceae Taraxacum laevigatum 

Common Dandelion Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale 

Green Threads Asteraceae Thelesperma megapotamicum 

Common Salsify Asteraceae Tragopogon dubius 

Prairie Ironweed Asteraceae Vernonia fasciculata ssp. corymbosa 

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 Heliotropium convolvulaceum 

Salt Heliotrope Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum var. curassavicum 

Seaside Heliotrope Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum var. obovatum 

Stickseed Boraginaceae Lappula redowskii 

Fringed Puccoon Boraginaceae Lithospermum incisum 

Spring Forget-me-not Boraginaceae Myosotis verna 

Shepherd’s Purse Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris 

Whitetop Brassicaceae Cardaria draba 

Western Tansymustard Brassicaceae Descurainia pinnata var. brachycarpa 
Appendix F—Species Lists 247 

Common name Family Scientific name 

Common Pepperweed Brassicaceae Lepidium densiflorum 

Water-cress Brassicaceae Nasturtium officinale 

Winged Rockcress Brassicaceae Sibara virginica 

Plains Prickly-pear Cactaceae Opuntia phaecantha 

Waterstarwort Callitrichaceae Callitriche heterophylla 

Cardinal Flower Campanulaceae Lobelia cardinalis 

Great Blue Lobelia Campanulaceae Lobelia siphilitica 

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 canadensis 

Coralberry Caprifoliaceae Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 

Thymeleaf Sandwort Caryophyllaceae Arenaria serpyllifolia 

Mouse-ear Chickweed Caryophyllaceae Cerastium brachypodum 

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 

Desert Goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium pratericola 

Red Goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium rubrum 

Winged Pigweed Chenopodiaceae Cycloloma atriplicifolium 

Kochia, Fireweed Chenopodiaceae Kochia scoparia 

Red Saltwort Chenopodiaceae Salicornia rubra 

Russian Thistle Chenopodiaceae Salsola iberica 

Western Seepweed Chenopodiaceae Suaeda calceoliformis 

Poison Suckleya Chenopodiaceae Suckleya suckleyana 

Bee Spiderflower Cleomaceae Cleome serrulata 

Common Saint John’s Wort Clusiaceae Hypericum perforatum 

Dayflower Commelinaceae Commelina erecta var. angustifolia 

Prairie Spiderwort Commelinaceae Tradescantia occidentalis 

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 

Cosmopolitan Bulrush Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus maritimus ssp. paludosus 

Southern Sedge Cyperaceae Carex austrina 

Shortbeak Sedge Cyperaceae Carex brevior 

Buxbaum Sedge Cyperaceae Carex buxbaumii 

Emory’s Sedge Cyperaceae Carex emoryi 
248 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Common name Family Scientific name 

Fescue Sedge Cyperaceae Carex festucacea 

Smooth-cone Sedge Cyperaceae Carex laeviconica 

Wooly-fruit Sedge Cyperaceae Carex lasiocarpa 

Mead’s Sedge Cyperaceae Carex meadii 

Wooly Sedge Cyperaceae Carex pellita 

Clustered Field Sedge Cyperaceae Carex praegracilis 

Awlfruit Sedge Cyperaceae Carex stipata var. stipata 

Fox Sedge Cyperaceae Carex vulpinoidea 

Taperleaf Flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus acuminatus 

Yellow Nutsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus esculentus 

Great Plains Flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus lupulinus 

Sand Flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus schweinitzii 

Lean Flatsedge Cyperaceae Cyperus setigerus 

Bald Spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis erythropoda 

Pale Spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis macrostachya 

Sand Spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis montevidensis 

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 ssp. validus 

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 Chamaesyce geyeri 

Rip-seed Sandmat Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce glyptosperma 

Sand Spurge Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce missurica var. intermedia 

Sand Croton Euphorbiaceae Croton glandulosus var. septentrionalis 

Texas Croton Euphorbiaceae Croton texensis 

David’s Spurge Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia davidii 

Snow-on-the-Mountain Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia marginata 

Roughpod Spurge Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia spathulata 

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 

Honeylocust Fabaceae Gleditsia triacanthos 

Wild Licorice Fabaceae Glycyrrhiza lepidota 
Appendix F—Species Lists 249 

Common name Family Scientific name 

Kentucky Coffeetree Fabaceae Gymnocladus dioica 

Round-head Lespedeza Fabaceae Lespedeza capitata 

American Birdsfoot Trefoil Fabaceae Lotus unifoliolatus var. unifoliolatus 

White Sweetclover Fabaceae Melilotus albus 

Yellow Sweetclover Fabaceae Melilotus officinalis 

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 grandiflorum 

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 arcticus var. balticus 

Tuftedstem Rush Juncaceae Juncus brachyphyllus 

Dudley Rush Juncaceae Juncus dudleyi 

Inland Rush Juncaceae Juncus interior 

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 

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 var. fraseri 

Wild Asparagus Liliaceae Asparagus officinalis 

False Lily-of-the-Valley Liliaceae Maianthemum sp. 

False Lily-of-the-Valley Liliaceae Maianthemum stellatum 

Wild Flax Linaceae Linum sp. 
250 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Common name Family Scientific name 

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 

Four-o’clock Nyctaginaceae Mirabilis exaltata 

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 Calylophus serrulatus 

Velvetweed Onagraceae Gaura mollis 

Bushy Seedbox Onagraceae Ludwigia alternifolia 

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 

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 var. 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 

Big Bluestem Poaceae Andropogon gerardii 

Sand Bluestem Poaceae Andropogon hallii 

Forked Three-awn Poaceae Aristida basiramea 

Prairie Three-awn Poaceae Aristida oligantha 
Appendix F—Species Lists 251 

Common name Family Scientific name 

Caucasian Bluestem Poaceae Bothriochloa bladhii 

Silver Bluestem Poaceae Bothriochloa saccharoides 

Sideoats Grama Poaceae Bouteloua curtipendula 

Blue Grama Poaceae Bouteloua gracilis 

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 

Windmill Grass Poaceae Chloris verticillata 

Bermudagrass Poaceae Cynodon dactylon 

Orchardgrass Poaceae Dactylis glomerata 

Hotsprings Panicum Poaceae Dichanthelium acuminatum ssp. fasciculatum 

Scribner Panicum Poaceae Dichanthelium oligosanthes ssp. scribnerianum 

Carolina Crabgrass Poaceae Digitaria cognata ssp. 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 Wildrye Poaceae Elymus canadensis 

Quackgrass Poaceae Elymus repens 

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 Festuca 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 

Wirestem Muhly Poaceae Muhlenbergia racemosa 

Witchgrass Poaceae Panicum capillare var. barbipulvinatum 

Witchgrass Poaceae Panicum capillare var. brevifolium 

Fall Panicum Poaceae Panicum dichotomiflorum 

Panic Grass Poaceae Panicum praecocious 
252 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Common name Family Scientific name 

Redtop Panicum Poaceae Panicum rigidulum 

Panic Grass Poaceae Panicum vilosissimum 

Switchgrass Poaceae Panicum virgatum 

Western Wheatgrass Poaceae Pascopyrum smithii 

Sand Paspalum Poaceae Paspalum setaceum var. stramineum 

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 

Tumblegrass Poaceae Schedonnardus paniculatus 

Little Bluestem Poaceae Schizachyrium scoparium 

Cultivated Rye Poaceae Secale cereale 

Yellow Foxtail Poaceae Setaria glauca 

Marsh Foxtail Poaceae Setaria parviflora 

Green Foxtail Poaceae Setaria viridis 

Indiangrass Poaceae Sorghastrum nutans 

Johnsongrass Poaceae Sorghum halepense 

Alkali Cordgrass Poaceae Spartina gracilis 

Prairie Cordgrass Poaceae Spartina pectinata 

Prairie Wedgegrass Poaceae Sphenopholis obtusata var. 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 

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 

Swamp Smartweed Polygonaceae Persicaria hydropiperoides 

Curlytop Knotweed Polygonaceae Persicaria lapathifolia 

Bushy Knotweed Polygonaceae Polygonum ramosissimum ssp. prolificum 

Yellow-flowered Knotweed Polygonaceae Polygonum ramosissimum ssp. ramosissimum 

Curly Dock Polygonaceae Rumex crispus 

Dock Polygonaceae Rumex fueginus 

Narrowleaf Dock Polygonaceae Rumex stenophyllus 

Blue Mudplantain Pontederiaceae Heteranthera limosa 
Appendix F—Species Lists 253 

Common name Family Scientific name 

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 pectinatus 

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 

Agrimony Rosaceae Agrimonia parviflora 

White Avens Rosaceae Geum canadense 

American Plum Rosaceae Prunus americana 

Sand Plum Rosaceae Prunus angustifolia 

Chokecherry Rosaceae Prunus virginiana 

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 exigua ssp. interior 

Black Willow Salicaceae Salix nigra 

Western Soapberry Sapindaceae Sapindus drummondii 

Slenderleaf False-foxglove Scrophulariaceae Agalinis tenuifolia 

Roundleaf Monkeyflower Scrophulariaceae Mimulus glabratus var. fremontii 

Texas Toadflax Scrophulariaceae Nuttallanthus texanus 

Common Mullein Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thaspus 

Purslane Speedwell Scrophulariaceae Veronica peregrina var. xalapensis 

Tree-of-Heaven Simaroubaceae Ailanthus altissima 

Bristly Greenbrier Smilacaceae Smilax hispida 

Jimsonweed Solanaceae Datura stramonium 

Groundcherry Solanaceae Physalis hispida 

Long-leaf Groundcherry Solanaceae Physalis longifolia var. longifolia 

Horsenettle Solanaceae Solanum carolinense 

Deadly Nightshade Solanaceae Solanum interius 

Buffalo-bur Solanaceae Solanum rostratum 

Saltcedar Tamaricaceae Tamarix ramosissima 

Southern Cattail Typhaceae Typha domingensis 

Broadleaf Cattail Typhaceae Typha latifolia 

Hackberry Ulmaceae Celtis occidentalis 

Dwarf Hackberry Ulmaceae Celtis tenuifolia 

American Elm Ulmaceae Ulmus americana 
254 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

Common name Family Scientific name 

Chinese Elm Ulmaceae Ulmus parvifolia 

Siberian Elm Ulmaceae Ulmus pumila 

False Nettle Urticaceae Boehmeria cylindrica 

Pennsylvania Pellitory Urticaceae Parietaria pensylvanica 

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 inserta 

Riverbank Grape Vitaceae Vitis riparia 

Horned Pondweed Zannichelliaceae Zannichellia palustris 

Puncture-vine Zygophyllaceae Tribulus terrestris 
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; City, State of conference. City, 

State: 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. 

USFWS, 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; City, State of conference. City, State: 

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. 

Basin Management Team. 2011. Rattlesnake Creek 

2010 field summary. Kansas. [City, State 

unknown]: Department of Agriculture, Division of 

Water Resources. 32 p. 

Basin Management Team. 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]. 
 

256 Draft CCP and EA—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. 

[City, State 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. [City, State: Publisher unknown]. 

[Pages unknown]. Prepared for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Carver, E. and 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].
 

Cody, R.L. 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 

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. 

Coppedge, B.R.; Engle, D.M.; Masters, R.E.; Gregory, M.S. 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 Septermber 25, 2012. 

<www.doi.gov/safetynet/#scorecard> [access 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?S 

tateFIPS=20&StateName=Kansas> accessed 

December 20, 2012. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 257 

Edvarchuk, K.A.; Ransom, C. 2012. Inventory of 

invasive non-native plant on Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge. [Unpublished draft: weed science 

research project report no. CR1101A 2011]. City, 

UT: Utah State University, Plants, Soils, and Climate Department for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 34 p. [On file at location unknown]. 

(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. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2011b. Science 

and technology. [Internet]. [Revised date 

unknown]. <http://www.epa.gov/gateway/science/ 

air.html> accessed December 23, 2011. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 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 

uknown]. <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]. 

Farr, K.; Laubhan, R. 2011. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge vegetation mapping project. [Unpublished report]. On file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, [City, State 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. 

Fuhlendorf, S.D. 1999. Ecological considerations for 

woody plant management. Rangelands 

21(1):12–15. 

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. 

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]. 

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. and Burns and McDonnell. 

1998. Quivira National Wildlife Refuge water 

resource study. Document No. 97–806–4. [City, 

State: 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. [City, State 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. 
258 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

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. 

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 SurveyWater Resources Investigations Report 97–4289. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 1978. The ornithogeography of the 

Great Plains states. Prairie Naturalist 

10(4):97–112. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 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-EndangeredSpecies/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. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 259 

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. [City, State 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. 

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. 

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. PLoS 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. 

(Refuge System) National Wildlife Refuge System. 

2011. Conserving the future: wildlife refuges and 

the next generation. [City, State: publisher 

unknown]. 93 p. 

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]. 
260 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

<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. and Lindall, S. 1999. IMPLAN professional 

software, analysis and data guide. [City,State 

unknown}: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 

[Pages unknown]. 

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 contamination 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. 

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. 

Schoewe, W.H. 1949. Geography of Kansas II; physical geography. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 52(3):261–333. 

Sheridan, R. 1956. Economic development in south 

central Kansas. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, School of Business, Bureau of Business 

SPELL OUT Res. 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. 

Skagen, S.K.; Knopf, F.L. 1993. Towards conservation of midcontinental shorebird migrations. Conservation Biology 7(3):533–541. 

Skagan, S.K.; Knopf, F.L. 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. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 261 

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.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.; 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.; 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. 1997. Water budget and stream 

routing study for the Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge. [City, State unknown]:Kansas Geological 

Survey. [Pages unknown]. Report to U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Sophocleous, M.A. 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. 

Sophocleous, M.A. 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.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 III, F.S.; 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> [date 

accessed unknown]. 296 p. 

Steele, F.A. 1953. History of Stafford County. [City, 


State: publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown].
 

Stynes, D. 1998. Guidelines for measuring visitor 


spending. [City, State 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 uknown]. <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. 

Ungar, I.A. 1964. A phytosociological analysis of the 

Big Salt Marsh, Stafford County, Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 

67(1):50–64. 

Ungar, I.A. 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]. 

U. S. Census Bureau. 2012b. State & County QuickFacts. [Internet]. [Revised date unknown]. 

<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html> 

accessed online 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.

 (USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1953. 

Memorandum no. 46 procedure, Great Salt Marsh 
National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. [City, State: 

publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown]. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1962. Master plan for 

physical and biological development of Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge. Stafford, KS: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fish

eries and Wildlife. [Pages unknown]. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. An assessment 

of alternatives for management of upland habitats 

at the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. Environ

mental assessment. [City, State unknown]: [pub

lisher unknown]. [Pages unknown]. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the 

Promise. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 94p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Birds of con

servation concern 2008. Arlington, VA: U. S. 

Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. 

85 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Staffing 

model for field stations—final report. [Unpub

lished report on file at Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge, Stafford, Kansas]. 22 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Environmental 

assessment use of genetically-modified glypho

sate-tolerant soybeans and corn on National Wild

life Refuge lands in the Mountain–Prairie Region 

(Region 6) [City, State: publisher unknown]. 

[Pages unknown]. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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> [date accessed unknown]. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Quivira 

National Wildlife Refuge. [Internet]. [Revised 

date unknown]. <http://www.fws.gov/refuge/qui

vira/> accessed December 15, 2012. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012c.Species by 

county report, Stafford, KS. [Internet]. [Revised 

date unknown]. <http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ 

countySearch!speciesByCountyReport. 

action?fips=20185> accessed January 5, 2012. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012d. Species profile 

for Arkansas Darter. [Internet]. [Revised July 23, 

2012]. <http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/ 

speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06H> [accessed 

date unknown]. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Canadian Wildlife 

Service. 1986. North American waterfowl man

agement plan—a strategy for cooperation. Wash

ington, 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> [Date accessed 

unknown]. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 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/> 

[Date accessed unknown]. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2012b. Rattlesnake Creek 

subbasin, hydrologic unit code 11030009. [Inter

net]. [Revised February 1, 2012]. <http://water. 

usgs.gov/lookup/getwatershed?11030009> 

[accessed date unknown]. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2012c. Regional economic 

impacts of current and proposed management 

alternatives for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge. 

[City, State unknown]: United States Geological 

Survey. 17 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 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 

unknown], CO: Rocky Mountain Bird Observa

tory. [Pages unknown]. 

Wasson, T., Yasui, L.; Brunson, K.; Amend, S.; 

Ebert, V. 2005. A future for Kansas wildlife, Kan

sas’ comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. 

[City, State 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 Kan

sas 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 

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 

262 Draft CCP and EA—Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
BIBLIOGRAPHY 263 

communities in agricultural and urban land

scapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 49:49–65. 

Wichita State University. 2011. Kansas county popu

lation 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. Evi

dence for edge effects on multiple levels in tall-

grass 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 land

scape 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. Remain

ing large grasslands may not be sufficient to pre

vent grassland bird declines. Biological 

Conservation 141:3152–3167. 

Zedler, J.B.; Kercher, S. 2005. Wetland resources: 

status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorabil

ity. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 

30:39–74. 

Zeller, D.E., editor. 1968. The strategraphic succes

sion in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulle

tin 189. [Revised date unknown]. <http://www. 

kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/189/index. 

html> accessed June 20, 2012. 

­­­­­­­­­