Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

December 2006 


Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge
 

702 E. Xavier Road 


Kirwin, KS 67644
 

785/543 6673 


and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
 

Division of Refuge Planning
 

PO Box 25486 DFC
 

Lakewood, CO 80225 


303/236 4365 


Approved by: 

__________________________________ ________________ 

J. Mitch King Date 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Lakewood, CO 

 

 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

Submitted by: 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date
 

Assistant Regional Director 


National Wildlife Refuge System
 

__________________________________ ________________ 

Craig Mowry Date 

Refuge Manager 

 Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

 Kirwin, KS 

Concurred with: 

__________________________________ ________________ 

David Wiseman Date 

Refuge Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

and 

__________________________________ ________________ 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

Contents 


Summary...................................................................................................................................................................... ix 


1 Purpose and Need....................................................................................................................................................1 


Agency Guidance ........................................................................................................................................................1 


Refuge Overview........................................................................................................................................................3 


Purpose and Need for Action....................................................................................................................................3 


2 Planning Process......................................................................................................................................................7 


The Process .................................................................................................................................................................7 


Planning Issues ...........................................................................................................................................................8 


3 Refuge Description.................................................................................................................................................11 


Physical Resources...................................................................................................................................................11 


Habitat .......................................................................................................................................................................15 


Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................................22 


Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................................................23 


Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................................................23 


Special Management Areas and Designations......................................................................................................24 


Visitor Services.........................................................................................................................................................25 


Socioeconomic Setting..............................................................................................................................................26 


4 Management Direction.........................................................................................................................................29 


Management Summary............................................................................................................................................29 


Management Direction ............................................................................................................................................30 


Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................................................................................44 


Personnel and Funding............................................................................................................................................44 


Glossary ..........................................................................................................................................................................47 


Appendix A⎯Key Legislation and Policies .............................................................................................................53 


Appendix B⎯ Compatibility Determinations..........................................................................................................57 


Appendix C⎯Memorandum of Agreement..............................................................................................................63 


Appendix D⎯Landscape-level Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................67 


Appendix E⎯List of Preparers, Consultation and Coordination.........................................................................69 


Appendix F⎯Environmental Compliance ...............................................................................................................71 


Appendix G⎯Public Involvement.............................................................................................................................73 


Appendix H⎯Fire Management Program...............................................................................................................81 


Appendix I⎯Species List ...........................................................................................................................................85 


Appendix J⎯Graphs....................................................................................................................................................91 


Appendix K⎯Section 7 Biological Evaluation.........................................................................................................97 


Appendix L⎯Refuge Operations Needs System Projects ..................................................................................101 


Appendix M⎯Maintenance Management System Projects ................................................................................103 


Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................................105 


List of Figures and Tables 


Figures 

1. Vicinity map for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas...................................................................................2 


2. Platte Kansas Rivers ecosystem................................................................................................................................6 


3. Base map for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ......................................................................................12 


4. Kirwin Reservoir surface elevation, 1956–2003.....................................................................................................14 


5. Existing habitat conditions at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .........................................................16 


6. Expected habitat conditions at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas........................................................31 


7. Regional overview......................................................................................................................................................36 


8. Public use at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .......................................................................................39 


Tables 

1. Step-down Management Plans for Kirwin NWR ....................................................................................................8 


2. Refuge Staffing...........................................................................................................................................................45 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a summary of the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) for the Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Phillips County, Kansas. 

This plan, approved in 2005, will guide management 

of the refuge for the next 15 years. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) requires the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to develop a 

comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each 

national wildlife refuge in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (Refuge System). 

THE REFUGE 

Kirwin NWR, the first national wildlife refuge in 

Kansas, was established in 1954 as an overlay 

project on a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) irrigation and flood control reservoir. 

Refuge staff manage activities on the land and 

water. 

HABITAT 

Kirwin NWR is located in the rolling hills and 

narrow valley of the North Fork of the Solomon 

River in north-central Kansas. The refuge lies in an 

area where the tall-grass prairies of the east meet 

the short-grass plains of the west. As a result of this 

merging of prairies and plains, grasses and wildlife 

common to both habitats are found on the refuge. 

Consisting of 10,778 acres, the refuge includes 

prairie grassland, cropland, open water, shoreline, 

wetlands, and wooded riparian areas (found along 

the banks of the river and reservoir). 

Prairie habitat at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS 

Summary 


The reservoir is fed by the North Fork of the 

Solomon River and Bow Creek. Both are 

intermittent streams which means they may dry up 

in periods of low precipitation. The reservoir water 

levels fluctuate tremendously from year to year, 

depending upon rain and snow runoff. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historically, great herds of bison roamed the prairie 

grasslands, often followed by wolves that fed on 

weak and sick animals. Native Americans also 

resided in this area. 

Ducks and geese, now attracted to the refuge in 

great numbers, were uncommon in this area until 

large reservoirs were built in the 1950s for irrigation 

and flood control. 

Three archeological surveys have been conducted on 

the refuge since its establishment. A number of 

cultural sites have been identified on the refuge 

including historic Fort Kirwin, a U.S. Government 

fortification established in 1865, material scatters, 

and two prehistoric open camps. 

PUBLIC USE 

Each year, 40,000 to 90,000 people recreate at the 

refuge, depending on the water level and the fishing 

quality. During a typical day in hunting season, the 

refuge attracts about 100 people. Recreational 

activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, and wildlife photography can be 

enjoyed at the refuge. 

Hunting for waterfowl, doves, pheasants, quail, 

turkey, prairie chickens, snipe, coots, cottontail 

rabbits, fox squirrels and white-tailed deer is 

permitted on the refuge. Fishing is offered yearround. 

THE PLANNING PROCESS 

The CCP process consisted of a series of steps 

including environmental analysis. Public and partner 

involvement were important throughout the 

process. Management alternatives were developed 

to meet the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. 

Implementation of this CCP will be monitored 

throughout its 15-year effective period. 

ISSUES 

Public scoping initiated in 2003, along with refuge 

information, indicated that there are six major 

issues of concern regarding refuge management. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Declining Populations of Nongame Wildlife 

Species 

Management of nongame species, such as prairie 

grassland dependent migratory birds, has received 

less attention and active management than game 

species. Over the past 10 to 15 years game species 

have garnered more support and active management 

in the United States than nongame species. 

Invasive Plants 

Invasive plants, especially Canada thistle, are 

impacting refuge habitats in some areas. Canada 

thistle has been documented on the refuge as far 

back as the 1970s. However, conditions were not 

right for a major expansion of Canada thistle until 

the high water levels of the mid 1990s began to 

recede. As the water receded, the moist soil left 

behind was prime habitat to germinate the Canada 

thistle seeds, which facilitated the rapid expansion of 

this plant species on the refuge. 

Smooth brome grass is an invasive plant native to 

the steppes of Asia, which has been introduced to 

North America. If North American prairie 

grasslands are not burned or grazed at the correct 

time of year, smooth brome may increase in many 

prairie grassland sites to the point of becoming the 

dominant species in these areas. Prairie grasslands 

dominated by smooth brome grass do not include the 

diversity of plants required by many wildlife species 

to meet their life cycle needs. Areas dominated by 

smooth brome grass generally provide less benefit 

for nesting and feeding birds than prairie grasslands 

that are dominated by native plants. 

Invasive trees introduce several detrimental 

items⎯avian predators, land-based predators, and 

nest parasites- to the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem 

and prairie grassland-dependent migratory bird 

species. Trees that invade prairies provide corridors 

for red fox, raccoon, opossum, and skunks, and 

perches for avian predators and nest parasites such 

as red-tailed hawks and brown-headed cowbirds. 

Tamarisk (also called salt cedar) is an invasive 

tree/shrub that prefers moist soil, such as that near 

the reservoir. Tamarisk leaves are allelopathic, 

which fall and are absorbed into the soil leaving 

behind an environment not conducive to growing 

other native plants; thus, plant diversity is reduced. 

If allowed to grow, stands of tamarisk will become 

dense and will raise the summer temperature in the 

understory, which is not conducive to migratory 

birds. 

Invasive plants on the refuge are particularly 

troublesome for neighbors who are required by state 

and local laws to control invasive species on their 

lands and view the refuge as a source of invasive 

plant expansion onto their lands. 

Chemicals used to control invasive plants are of 

concern from the standpoint of environmental 

contamination and negative impacts on desirable 

plant species. 

Reservoir Water Level Fluctuations 

Large fluctuations of the reservoir water levels 

prevent the development of submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV). SAV is the baseline of the aquatic 

food chain. Without the presence of SAV, there are 

few invertebrates for small fish to eat. The timing of 

the large water level fluctuations also plays a role in 

emergent aquatic vegetation and plants that grow in 

the mud of the receding waters. Reservoir 

drawdowns have historically occurred in mid to late 

summer. Exposing mud at this time of year provides 

ideal habitat for invasive plants such as tamarisk. 

Exposing mud earlier in the season would benefit 

native wetland plants such as swamp smartweed, 

which are beneficial to water birds. 

Assess the Appropriateness and Compatibility of 

Current Non-wildlife-dependent Uses on the 

Refuge 

The Improvement Act and subsequent regulations 

and policies address appropriate recreational uses of 

a refuge. In conjunction with the Improvement Act, 

the Service compatibility policy states that nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses may cause 

conflicts with other refuge visitors and may degrade 

or destroy wildlife habitat. 

Develop Habitat Management Plan that Allows 

Refuge Staff to Achieve and Monitor Habitat 

Objectives 

To be productive areas for wildlife, habitats of the 

refuge must be actively managed. When habitats in 

this ecosystem remain idle for long periods of time 

invasive plants such as smooth brome grass, musk 

thistle, and locust trees invade habitat and reduce 

the value of the habitat for migratory birds. Habitat 

management tools such as prescribed fire, grazing, 

haying, and farming can help improve habitats for 

wildlife. 

Expansion of Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Programs 

The refuge plays an important role in providing 

environmental education for the surrounding area. 

People informed about wildlife and wildlife 

management practices have a greater appreciation 

for wildlife and their habitat needs. Increasing 

efforts to work with small groups (e.g., Boy Scouts, 

school groups) and conducting large events (e.g., 

Eco-Meet, Eagle Day) will enhance the general 

public knowledge of wildlife. Expanding and 

updating wildlife interpretation will also enhance the 

public knowledge of wildlife and benefit wildlife 

populations in the future. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary xi 

THE FUTURE OF THE REFUGE 

The issues, along with resource conditions, were 

important considerations during the development of 

the vision and goals for the Kirwin NWR. 

THE REFUGE VISION 

Along the seam where the tall and short grasses of 

the rolling prairie embrace and dance in the Kansas 

wind, two valleys join and beckon abundant wildlife 

and visitors alike. Visitors to the refuge will find 

themselves charmed by the melody of the 

meadowlark, captivated by the expansive vistas 

from limestone outcrops, and delighted by the 

bountiful resources of its land and waters. Wildlifedependent recreation amid the solitude of the refuge 

will provide present and future generations with an 

experience to remember for a lifetime. 

GOALS 

These goals were developed to meet the refuge 

vision. 

Ecology Goal 

The refuge will restore the native mixed-grass 

prairie ecosystem (e.g., prairie grasslands, wooded 

draws, limestone outcrops) and riparian areas above 

flood levels to emulate natural processes. When 

water levels are low, diversify wildlife habitats 

within the dry reservoir basin. 

Water Resources Goal 

In coordination with Reclamation and the Kirwin 

Irrigation District, the refuge will strive to maintain 

greater water level management and storage 

specifically for the benefit of fish and wildlife and 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Research and Science Goal 

The refuge will utilize a scientific approach with the 

best available information to guide the restoration, 

protection, and enhancement of the refuge’s water 

resources and fish and wildlife habitat for the 

prosperity of native flora and fauna. 

Cultural Resources Goal 

The refuge will protect significant prehistoric, 

Native American, and other cultural resources. 

Refuge Operations Goal 

The refuge will prioritize for “wildlife first” and 

emphasize the protection of trust resources in the 

utilization of staff, funding, partnerships, and 

volunteer programs. 

Public Use Goal 

All public uses will be compatible with the purpose 

of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. 

The following wildlife-dependent public uses will be 

prioritized: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. In association with compatible uses, 

the refuge will strive to provide a diversity of 

outreach, research, education, and interpretation. 

Partnership Goal 

The refuge will work to complement habitat on the 

refuge and surrounding landscape by developing 

partnerships regarding land and water habitat 

restoration, environmental education, wildlifedependent public use, research, and infrastructure. 

OUTCOMES OF THE PLAN 

Management actions in this CCP emphasize wildlife 

and habitat management for migratory birds and 

species of conservation concern. 

Habitat management for waterfowl, game species, 

nongame species (e.g., water birds, shorebirds, 

prairie grassland-nesting birds), and bird species of 

conservation concern will be a priority. Large open 

habitat for prairie grassland birds will increase in 

size with enhanced structural composition through 

an expanded program for managing and planting 

native grasses and forbs. 

Food crops will be used as a habitat management 

tool. Potential uses of cropland include planting 

crops to reduce the encroachment of invasive plant 

species, and the utilization of crops (e.g., sorghum) to 

prepare the soil bed for conversion to native grasses 

and forbs. The majority of existing cropland in the 

uplands will be restored to prairie grassland habitat 

within the life of this plan. 

Recreational opportunities will include wildlifedependent and wildlife-compatible uses outlined in 

the Improvement Act—hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. 

USFWS 

Observing wildlife at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 
 

 

 

 

xii Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Non-wildlife-dependent uses will not be allowed. 

These refuge uses, and the facilities that support 

them will be phased out within 1 year of CCP 

implementation. Overnight camping will be 

discontinued. However, several other camping 

opportunities exist in the local area. 

Management of invasive species will be enhanced. 

There will be an expansion and diversification of 

invasive plant management in the shoreline, 

riparian, upland, and transition zone areas. 

Fire management will be used to protect life, 

property, and other resources from wildfire by 

safely suppressing all wildfires on the refuge. 

Prescribed fire will be used for habitat management, 

as well as for protection of property through fuel 

reduction. 

With increased funding and staffing, the refuge will 

collect in-depth baseline data for wildlife and 

habitats. Increased efforts in operations and 

maintenance for natural resources will occur. 

Increased efforts in the maintenance and 

development of partnerships that promote wildlife 

and habitat management will occur. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Purpose and Need 


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has 

developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) to provide a foundation for the management 

and use of Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

located in north-central Kansas (figure 1). This CCP 

is intended to serve as a working guide for 

management programs and actions over the next 15 

years. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Improvement Act), requires that CCPs be in place 

for all national wildlife refuges within 15 years of 

enactment (2012). 

In general, a CCP serves to do the following: 

■	 Ensure that the purpose of the refuge and mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge 

System) are being fulfilled. 

■	 Ensure that national policy direction is 

incorporated into refuge management. 

■	 Ensure that opportunities are available for 

interested parties to participate in the 

development of management direction. 

■	 Provide a systematic process for making and 

documenting decisions. 

■	 Establish broad strategies for programs and 

activities. 

■	 Provide a basis for evaluating accomplishments. 

AGENCY GUIDANCE 

The Service is the principal agency responsible for 

conservation of our Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources. This responsibility is shared with other 

federal agencies and state and tribal governments. 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats 

for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. 

The Service manages a diverse network of more 

than 540 national wildlife refuges within the Refuge 

System, which encompasses 95 million acres of lands 

and waters. Kirwin is one of four national wildlife 

refuges in Kansas and was the 229th national 

wildlife refuge established. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is to administer a network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans. 

Operation and management of national wildlife 

refuges are influenced by a wide array of laws, 

treaties, and executive orders (appendix A). The 

primary guidance comes from these laws: 

■	 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, as amended 

■	 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 

All national wildlife refuges are established with 

these national goals (Service Director’s Order No. 

132): 

■	 Fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge 

purpose(s) and further the Refuge System 

mission. 

■	 Conserve, restore where appropriate, and 

enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered. 

■	 Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional 

fish, and marine mammal populations. 

■	 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

■	 Conserve and restore, where appropriate, 

representative ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes characteristic of 

those ecosystems. 

■	 Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, 

by providing the public with safe, quality, and 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use. Such 

use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation. 

These goals help support the Refuge System mission 

and principles of the 1997 amendments to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act. These goals serve as a foundation for 

stewardship of the Refuge System and define its 

role among various federal land systems. 
2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Figure 1. Vicinity map for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1⎯Purpose and Need 3 

The Improvement Act calls for making opportunities 

for wildlife-dependent recreation, as long as they are 

compatibly managed with other purposes and do not 

conflict with other use. Service policy allows use if it 

is appropriate (appendix B). 

An appropriate use 

contributes to the Refuge System mission, the 

refuge’s major purposes, or refuge goals or 

objectives; 

is a priority public use (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation); 

supports the safe and effective conduct of a 

priority public use. 

It is the policy of the federal government⎯in 

cooperation with other nations and in partnership 

with states, local governments, Indian tribes, and 

private organizations and individuals⎯to administer 

federally owned, administered, or controlled 

prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of 

stewardship for the benefit of present and future 

generations. 

To maintain the health of individual national wildlife 

refuges, and the Refuge System as a whole, 

managers must anticipate future conditions⎯to 

avoid adverse effects and take positive actions to 

conserve and protect refuge resources. Effective 

management also depends on knowledge of larger 

systems and resource relationships. 

REFUGE OVERVIEW 

Kirwin NWR was established in 1954 to provide 

habitat for and facilitate the management of the 

Nation’s migratory bird resources. 

Kirwin NWR is located west of the town of Kirwin 

in Phillips County, north-central Kansas. The 10,778­

acre refuge includes Kirwin Reservoir and 

bordering areas in southeast Phillips County. 

The refuge supports diverse wildlife habitat 

including grasslands, wooded riparian areas, open 

water, and wetlands. 

PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHMENT 

Management is dictated, in large part, by legislation 

that created the refuge and defines the purposes for 

which the refuge was established. 

Basic authority for the existence of the refuge stems 

from the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, which 

authorized the establishment of wildlife areas on 

federal water projects. 

The refuge is an overlay on the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation’s Kirwin Reservoir project, fed by the 

North Fork Solomon River and Bow Creek. Fee 

title to the land is held for the United States by the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Water 

level control of the reservoir rests with the Kirwin 

Irrigation District, Reclamation, and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

The primary purpose of the reservoir is to provide 

for flood control and provide irrigation water for the 

Kirwin Irrigation District. The Kirwin Irrigation 

District irrigates up to 11,500 acres of cropland 

downstream of the reservoir. 

The purpose of Kirwin NWR, “...shall be 

administered by him (Secretary of the Interior) 

directly or in accordance with cooperative 

agreements... and in accordance with such rules and 

regulations for the conservation, maintenance, and 

management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its 

habitat thereon, ...in behalf of the National 

Migratory Bird Management Program” (Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act). 

The refuge is managed in accordance with a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 

Reclamation and the Service that was updated and 

signed in 1985 (appendix C). 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

As directed by the Improvement Act, CCPs will be 

developed for all units of the Refuge System. These 

plans must include public involvement in their 

development. A CCP needs to set goals and 

objectives that meet the establishment purposes for 

the refuge, as well as contribute to the mission of the 

Refuge System. Wildlife has first priority in the 

management of national wildlife refuges. 

The purpose of developing this CCP is to provide a 

15-year management plan for the conservation of 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related 

habitats on the refuge, while providing opportunities 

for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

This CCP, when fully implemented, should 

achieve refuge purposes; 

maintain and restore the ecological integrity of 

the refuge; 

help fulfill the Refuge System mission; 

meet other mandates. 

VISION STATEMENT 

As part of the planning process, the refuge staff and 

planning team developed the following vision 

statement for the Kirwin NWR. 
 

 

 

 

4 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Along the seam where the tall and short grasses 

of the rolling prairie embrace and dance in the 

Kansas wind, two valleys join and beckon 

abundant wildlife and visitors alike. Visitors to 

the refuge will find themselves charmed by the 

melody of the meadowlark, captivated by the 

expansive vistas from limestone outcrops, and 

delighted by the bountiful resources of its land 

and waters. Wildlife-dependent recreation amid 

the solitude of the refuge will provide present and 

future generations with an experience to 

remember for a lifetime. 

GOALS 

A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does 

not define measurable units. Goals will direct work 

at carrying out the refuge’s mandates and achieving 

the purposes. 

These goals are derived from the purposes and 

vision statement for the refuge to reflect the 

refuge’s contribution to the Refuge System. The 

goals reflect the core mission of the Service to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources while 

providing compatible opportunities for the public to 

appreciate and enjoy the natural environment of the 

region. 

Ecology Goal. The refuge will restore the native 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem (e.g., prairie 

grasslands, wooded draws, limestone outcrops) and 

riparian areas above flood levels to emulate natural 

processes. When water levels are low, diversify 

wildlife habitats within the dry reservoir basin. 

Water Resources Goal. In coordination with 

Reclamation and the Kirwin Irrigation District, the 

refuge will strive to maintain greater water level 

management and storage specifically for the benefit 

of fish and wildlife and wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

USFWS 

Research and Science Goal. The refuge will utilize 

a scientific approach with the best available 

information to guide the restoration, protection, and 

enhancement of the refuge’s water resources and 

fish and wildlife habitat for the prosperity of native 

flora and fauna. 

Cultural Resources Goal. The refuge will protect 

significant prehistoric, Native American, and other 

cultural resources. 

Refuge Operations Goal. The refuge will prioritize 

for “wildlife first” and emphasize the protection of 

trust resources in the utilization of staff, funding, 

partnerships, and volunteer programs. 

Public Use Goal. All public uses will be compatible 

with the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the 

Refuge System. The following wildlife-dependent 

public uses will be prioritized: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. In 

association with compatible uses, the refuge will 

strive to provide a diversity of outreach, research, 

education, and interpretation. 

Partnership Goal. The refuge will work to 

complement habitat on the refuge and surrounding 

landscape by developing partnerships regarding 

land and water habitat restoration, environmental 

education, wildlife-dependent public use, research, 

and infrastructure. 

Public use at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS 

AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to 

conservation to enable it to fulfill its federal trust 

resource responsibility with greater efficiency and 

effectiveness. Through this holistic approach to 

resource conservation, the Service can accomplish 

its mission to conserve, protect, and enhance the 

Nation’s fish and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people. 

The mixed-grass prairie at Kirwin National Wildlife 

Refuge. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

1⎯Purpose and Need 5 

Landscape-level goals have been developed within 

several wildlife conservation plans for North 

America (appendix D). 

An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife 

conservation means protecting or restoring function, 

structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, 

while providing for its sustainable socioeconomic 

use. Key to implementing this approach is 

recognizing that partnerships are an essential part 

of a diverse management plan. 

The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic 

building blocks for implementing ecosystem 

conservation. Kirwin NWR is located in the Platte 

Kansas Rivers ecosystem, which includes the states 

of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming. This 

ecosystem is depicted in figure 2. 

Three primary geographic sub-units exist within the 

Platte Kansas Rivers ecosystem: mixed-grass 

prairie, mountain, and short-grass prairie. Kirwin 

NWR is located within the mixed-grass prairie subunit of the Platte Kansas Rivers ecosystem. The 

area is largely under private ownership and consists 

primarily of prairie grassland or prairie grassland 

converted to cropland. 

Prairie grasslands are considered to be one of the 

most imperiled ecosystem types in North America 

and worldwide (TNC 1998). 

“In the larger context of conserving biological 

diversity in agricultural and natural ecosystems in 

North America, prairies are a priority, perhaps the 

highest priority. It is time to bring a measure of 

prairie conservation to the forefront.” (Samson and 

Knopf 1994) 

The habitat and wildlife goals and objectives for the 

refuge will contribute to meeting the goals for the 

Platte Kansas Rivers ecosystem. 
 

 

6 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Figure 2. Platte Kansas Rivers ecosystem 

 

 

 

 

The Improvement Act directs the Service to manage 

refuges in accordance with an approved CCP. 

This section describes the planning process and 

issues specific to Kirwin NWR. 

THE PROCESS 

The Service is following the planning steps listed 

below to determine the future management of the 

refuge, in a thorough manner that meets 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and Service policy. 

The CCP process consists of a series of steps that 

are displayed sequentially; however, CCP planning, 

along with NEPA analysis and documentation, occur 

simultaneously. Although public involvement is 

listed as part of two steps, the Service will take 

public input at any point in the planning process. 

■	 Preplan⎯form a planning team, review available 

data, organize efforts. 

■	 Initiate public involvement and scoping⎯gather 

public input on issues. 

■	 Develop draft vision and goal statements. 

■	 Develop and analyze draft alternatives, including 

a proposed action⎯includes developing draft 

objectives. 

■	 Prepare documentation of the NEPA analysis, 

including the draft plan (proposed action 

alternative). 

■	 Conduct internal review (Service, federal, state, 

and tribal partners) and gather public input on 

draft document. 

■	 Analyze and respond to public comments. 

■	 Select one of the alternatives, which becomes the 

CCP. 

■	 Make revisions as necessary and prepare the final 

CCP. 

■	 Approve and implement the CCP. 

■	 Monitor and evaluate actions and results. 

2 Planning Process 


The planning team for this CCP (appendix E) has 

carried out the process and prepared this CCP. 

Coordination with the public, local groups, and other 

agencies has been essential in developing a realistic, 

meaningful plan. 

Appendix F (environmental compliance) contains 

the “Environmental Action Statement” and 

“Finding of No Significant Impact” for this CCP. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

This CCP is a broad umbrella plan that provides 

general concepts and specific ecology, water 

resources, research and science, cultural resources, 

refuge operations, public use, and partnership 

objectives. The purpose of step-down management 

plans is to provide greater detail than what is in this 

CCP to managers and employees who will 

implement the strategies described in this CCP. 

Step-down management plans describe strategies, 

procedures, methods, and tasks for specific 

resources or functions. Often these plans require 

their own compatibility determinations, 

environmental assessments (EAs), or other 

justification before they can be implemented. 

The preparation and execution of these plans is 

dependent on funding and the availability of staff or 

technical expertise. Additional step-down plans will 

need to be developed, revised, or amended as a 

result of this CCP (table 1). Plans will be completed 

or revised, as needed, within 2 years of funding and 

necessary staff becoming available. 

USFWS 

Planning team at work. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Table 1. Step-down Management Plans for Kirwin 

NWR 

Step-down Status of Plan, Proposed 


Management Plan Year Completed Revision Date 


Integrated Pest 

Management 

1996 2010 

Visitor Services 1990 2016 

Hunting 1998 Incorporated 

in next revision 

of visitor 

services plan 

Habitat 1997, 2001 2011 

Management 

Fire Management 2002 2007 

Cultural Resource none 2014 

Management 

PLAN REVISION 

Plans are dynamic- management strategies need to 

be reviewed and updated periodically. This CCP will 

be reviewed at least annually to determine if it 

requires any revisions. 

Monitoring and evaluation will determine whether 

management activities are achieving the refuge 

purposes, vision, and goals. When significant new 

information becomes available, ecological conditions 

change, major refuge expansions occur, or other 

needs are identified, this CCP can be revised. 

Revision will occur, at a minimum, every 15 years. If 

the plan requires a major revision, the CCP process 

starts anew. Plan revisions require NEPA 

compliance. The public will continue to be informed 

of, and involved with, any revision to this CCP. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The NEPA process was used by the Service to 

engage the public in refuge planning, while 

determining whether the proposed action for 

management of the refuge would have significant 

effects. 

“Scoping” is the term for requesting input from the 

public, in this case, regarding management of a 

refuge. The primary thrust for the planning process 

is to provide a forum for ideas and issues to be 

shared, reviewed, and evaluated among agency staff 

and the public. 

Comments were reviewed to identify issues and 

public concerns about, or advocacies for, future 

management of the refuge. These issues are 

addressed in the EA and draft CCP, other plans, and 

decision documents. 

Public scoping was initiated in a “Notice of Intent” 

published in the Federal Register (March 21, 2003), 

announcing the Service’s intent to gather 

information necessary to prepare a CCP and 

associated environmental document for Kirwin 

NWR. Open houses were held in May 2003. 

The Service provided a 30-day review period for the 

draft CCP and EA, during which the public 

submitted comments. A summary of the public 

involvement, including a summary of the comments 

and the Service’s responses, is in appendix G. 

PLANNING ISSUES 

The public scoping meetings, written comments, and 

refuge information indicated that there are six 

major issues of concern regarding refuge 

management. 

DECLINING POPULATIONS OF NONGAME 

WILDLIFE SPECIES 

Management of nongame species, such as prairie 

grassland dependent migratory birds, has received 

less attention and active management than game 

species. Over the past 10 to 15 years game species 

have garnered more support and active management 

in the United States than nongame species. 

INVASIVE PLANTS 

Invasive plants, especially Canada thistle, are 

impacting refuge habitats in some areas. Canada 

thistle has been documented on the refuge as far 

back as the 1970s. However, conditions were not 

right for a major expansion of Canada thistle until 

the high water levels of the mid 1990s began to 

recede. As the water receded, the moist soil left 

behind was prime habitat to germinate the Canada 

thistle seeds, which facilitated the rapid expansion of 

this plant species on the refuge. 

Smooth brome grass is an invasive plant native to 

the steppes of Asia, which has been introduced to 

North America. If North American prairie 

grasslands are not burned or grazed at the correct 

time of year, smooth brome may increase in many 

prairie grassland sites to the point of becoming the 

dominant species in these areas. Prairie grasslands 

dominated by smooth brome grass do not include the 

diversity of plants required by many wildlife species 

to meet their life cycle needs. Areas dominated by 

smooth brome grass generally provide less benefit 

for nesting and feeding birds than prairie grasslands 

that are dominated by native plants. 

Invasive trees introduce several detrimental items— 

avian predators, land-based predators, and nest 

parasites- to the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem and 

prairie grassland-dependent migratory bird species. 

Trees that invade prairies provide corridors for red 

fox, raccoon, opossum, and skunks; and perches for 

avian predators and nest parasites such as red-tailed 

hawks and brown-headed cowbirds. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2⎯Planning Process 9 

Tamarisk (also called salt cedar) is an invasive 

tree/shrub that prefers moist soil, such as that near 

the reservoir. Tamarisk leaves are allelopathic, 

which fall and are absorbed into the soil leaving 

behind an environment not conducive to growing 

other native plants; thus, plant diversity is reduced. 

If allowed to grow, stands of tamarisk will become 

dense and will raise the summer temperature in the 

understory, which is not conducive to migratory 

birds. 

Invasive plants on the refuge are particularly 

troublesome for neighbors who are required by state 

and local laws to control invasive species on their 

lands and view the refuge as a source of invasive 

plant expansion onto their lands. 

Chemicals used to control invasive plants are of 

concern from the standpoint of environmental 

contamination and negative impacts on desirable 

plant species. 

RESERVOIR WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS 

Large fluctuations of the reservoir water levels 

prevent the development of submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV). SAV is the baseline of the aquatic 

food chain. Without the presence of SAV, there are 

few invertebrates for small fish to eat. The timing of 

the large water level fluctuations also plays a role in 

emergent aquatic vegetation and plants that grow in 

the mud of the receding waters. Reservoir 

drawdowns have historically occurred in mid to late 

summer. Exposing mud at this time of year provides 

ideal habitat for invasive plants such as tamarisk. 

Exposing mud earlier in the season would benefit 

native wetland plants such as swamp smartweed, 

which are beneficial to water birds. 

Assess the Appropriateness and Compatibility of 

Current Non-wildlife-dependent Uses on the 

Refuge 

The Improvement Act and subsequent regulations 

and policies address appropriate recreational uses of 

a refuge. In conjunction with the Improvement Act, 

the Service compatibility policy states that nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses may cause 

conflicts with other refuge visitors and may degrade 

or destroy wildlife habitat. 

Develop Habitat Management Plan that Allows 

Refuge Staff to Achieve and Monitor Habitat 

Objectives 

To be productive areas for wildlife, habitats of the 

refuge must be actively managed. When habitats in 

this ecosystem remain idle for long periods of time 

invasive plants such as smooth brome grass, musk 

thistle, and locust trees invade habitat and reduce 

the value of the habitat for migratory birds. Habitat 

management tools such as prescribed fire, grazing, 

haying, and farming can help improve habitats for 

wildlife. 

Expansion of Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Programs 

The refuge plays an important role in providing 

environmental education for the surrounding area. 

People informed about wildlife and wildlife 

management practices have a greater appreciation 

for wildlife and their habitat needs. Increasing 

efforts to work with small groups (e.g., Boy Scouts, 

school groups) and conducting large events (e.g., 

Eco-Meet, Eagle Day) will enhance the general 

public knowledge of wildlife. Expanding and 

updating wildlife interpretation will also enhance the 

public knowledge of wildlife and benefit wildlife 

populations in the future. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Refuge Description 


The Kirwin NWR is located west of the town of 

Kirwin in Phillips County, north-central Kansas. 

To get to the refuge, visitors approaching from the 

south must turn north onto Highway 183 at Hays, 

Kansas and travel 55 miles to Glade. Those 

approaching from the north can reach Glade by 

driving 5 miles south of Phillipsburg on Highway 

183. From Glade, turn east onto Highway 9 and 

travel 6 miles to the refuge entrance. 

The 10,778-acre refuge includes Kirwin Reservoir 

and bordering areas in southeast Phillips County 

(figure 3). 

This chapter describes the current physical and 

socioeconomic environment of the refuge: 

■ Physical resources 

■ Ecology 

■ Cultural resources 

■ Special management areas and designations 

■ Visitor services 

■ Socioeconomic setting 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

The majority of the information presented in the 

following section was taken from a report to the 

Service by Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center titled, A Biological Assessment of Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge (Laubhan 2003). 

Topography of the area is characterized by rolling 

hills, the gently sloping Kirwin terrace, and a 

narrow river valley formed by the North Fork 

Solomon River (Leonard 1952; Christensen 1999). 

Like other valleys in north-central Kansas, the 

North Solomon Valley and its tributaries are 

asymmetrical and typically have steep south walls 

and gently sloping north walls. 

The Kirwin terrace slopes gently, is moderately well 

drained, and represents the primary area of 

cultivated farmland for Kansas. 

The refuge encompasses portions of the North Fork 

Solomon River and Bow Creek. These rivers drain 

an area of 889,248 ac above the reservoir 

(Reclamation 2002). The flood plain varies in width 

from 600–2,640 ft (Leonard 1952), and the gradient 

of the North Fork Solomon River channel is about 

7.1 ft/mi in Phillips County. 

CLIMATE 

The Solomon Basin is classified as subhumid. 

Summers are characterized by hot days and cool 

evenings. Winters are normally moderate with light 

snowfall and occasional short periods of severe cold. 

The average length of the growing season is about 

167 days (Leonard 1952) and the frost-free period 

extends from April 29 to October 13 (Albertson 

1937). The mean monthly maximum temperature 

ranges from 37.5° F in January to 92.2° F in July. 

The mean monthly minimum temperature ranges 

from 11.6° F in January to 64.0° F in July. 

Average annual precipitation is 23.0 in, with 44.2 

percent of total annual precipitation occurring in 

May, June, and July. Not all of this moisture is 

available for plant growth because evaporation also 

occurs during these months. Months with highest 

evaporative losses are June, July, and August. 

The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) 

represents the severity of dry and wet spells based 

on monthly temperature and precipitation data as 

well as the soil–water holding capacity at a location 

(Palmer 1965). For north-central Kansas, the longterm PDSI (1895–2002) indicates cyclic patterns of 

drought and wetness. The reported long-term 

drought/wet cycle is 30 years with about 23 years of 

drought and 7 years of wet conditions (Erich Gilbert, 

2003, refuge manager, Kirwin NWR, March). 

Current models indicate the refuge is entering a 

drought period. Low precipitation is normal. 

GEOLOGY 

The surface geology of the Solomon Basin consists of 

unconsolidated and consolidated rocks. The 

unconsolidated surface deposits consist of 

Quaternary alluvium, loess, and the Tertiary 

Ogallala Formation. Cretaceous and Permian rocks 

form the bedrock. In general, the basin is underlain 

by strata of marine origin (Christensen 1999). The 

dendritic and asymmetrical drainage pattern of the 

Solomon River suggests the lack of faults and folds 

and the presence of flat underlying rock units 

(Reclamation 1984). 
12 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Figure 3. Base map for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Refuge Description 13 

The Greenhorn Limestone, Graneros Shale, and 

Dakota Sandstone outcrop as far east as western 

Clay County, Kansas. Permian beds outcrop in 

counties farther east. The Greenhorn Limestone 

consists of alternating beds of calcareous shale and 

chalky limestone. The Graneros Shale is noncalcareous, fissile shale with sandstone lenses. The 

Dakota Formation consists of lenticular sandstone 

bodies that are embedded in mudstone. Generally, 

the sandstones are fine to medium grained, well 

sorted, and exhibit cross-bedding (Kansas 

Department of Agriculture 2002–2004). 

The North Fork Solomon River is underlain by, or 

incised into, Cretaceous beds that generally dip to 

the west, whereas the erosional surface generally 

slopes to the east. The oldest subsurface rocks at the 

eastern end of the basin are of the Sumner Group. 

Above the Sumner Group is Cretaceous marine 

sediment beginning with the Dakota Formation, 

which is overlain by the Cheyenne Sandstone, Kiowa 

Shale, Graneros Shale, Greenhorn Limestone, and 

Carlile Shale. The Carlile Shale is exposed in stream 

valleys in Phillips County. Above the Carlile Shale is 

the Niobrara Formation, which is exposed in much 

of the North Fork Solomon River Basin (Leonard 

1952), and the Pierre shale, of which there is only 

one known small outcrop in the basin upstream from 

Webster Reservoir (Moore and Landes 1937; Ross 

1991). The Pierre Shale lies conformably on the 

Niobrara Chalk, which is a gray, shaly, fossiliferous 

chalk with weathered surfaces. The chalk contains 

bentonite beds and limonite concretions (Kansas 

Department of Agriculture 2002–2004). 

The divides north and south of the Solomon River 

are capped by remnants of the Ogallala Formation in 

the western part of the Solomon Basin, whereas the 

uplands and valley walls over much of north-central 

Kansas are composed of loess of the Sanborn 

Formation that was deposited during glacial retreat 

(Leonard 1952). The Ogallala Formation was formed 

during the Pliocene by eastward flowing streams 

that filled pre-existing valleys with alluvial 

sediments. Continued deposition of alluvial 

sediments formed a broad alluvial plain. The 

Ogallala Formation consists mainly of silt, sand, 

gravel, and “mortar beds” formed by cementation of 

sediments with calcium carbonate. However, 

lenticular beds of well-sorted sand, gravel, 

bentonite, and volcanic ash also exist. The Ogallala 

Formation lies unconformably on the Pierre Shale in 

the western part of the basin and on the Niobrara 

Formation in the eastern part of the basin. The 

surface of the Ogallala Formation dips to the eastnortheast and the average gradient is 11 ft/mi 

(Kansas Department of Agriculture 2002–2004). 

Narrow belts of recent alluvium adjacent to the 

Solomon River and its tributaries occupy the flood 

plain (Leonard 1952). The alluvium consists mainly 

of gravel, sand, silt, and some clay. However, loess 

may also occur along major streams. The loess is 

underlain by stream-deposited sands that are in a 

high terrace position with respect to the valleys 

(Leonard 1952). At several places in the flood plain, 

wind has deposited sand from the alluvium into 

dunes or in thin layers that cover the terrace 

surfaces (Leonard 1952). These areas of sand 

deposition occur in Phillips County, but thickness of 

the fluvial and loess deposits is < 10 ft (Kansas 

Department of Agriculture 2002–2004). 

GROUNDWATER 

The Sanborn Formation, which consists of a thin 

layer of loess that overlies Cretaceous rocks, is a 

locally important source of groundwater (Leonard 

1952). The most important aquifer in the area, 

however, occurs in the deposits underlying the 

Kirwin terrace surface. In general, this terrace is 

underlain by 30–90 ft of unconsolidated deposits 

(e.g., coarse textured sand and gravel) that is quite 

permeable and lies below the water table (Leonard 

1952). The broad, nearly flat terrace surface 

constitutes a large recharge area and streams that 

originate in nearby hills contribute additional 

recharge. Groundwater moves laterally through the 

terrace deposits and into the alluvium or into the 

channel of North Fork Solomon River. Thus, the 

water table in the recent alluvium is continuous with 

the water table in the terrace deposits and with the 

water level in the flowing streams. The coarse 

nature of the alluvium makes it an important 

potential source of groundwater (Leonard 1952). 

Hydraulic conductivity has been estimated at 170 

ft/day with an average transmissivity of 2,600 ft/day 

(Phillips 1980). Well yields vary from 10–500 gal/min 

(Laubhan 2003a). Net loss/depletion of groundwater 

(pumping of aquifer) leads to loss in 

inflows/baseflows. 

The water table in the valley slopes from east to 

west, and from the sides of the valley toward the 

center. The downstream slope of the water table 

varies from about 11.5 ft/mi in western Phillips 

County to about 6.4 ft/mi near the town of Kirwin 

(Leonard 1952). Most ephemeral streams in the area 

are above the water table and, when flowing, 

probably contribute to the groundwater. In contrast, 

the Solomon River and Bow Creek are gaining 

streams (i.e., flow in these streams is partially 

maintained by groundwater that seeps into the 

channel) (Leonard 1952). 

SURFACE WATER 

The water supply for Kirwin Reservoir is furnished 

by flows from the North Fork Solomon River and its 

major tributary, Bow Creek. The North Fork 

Solomon River originates in western Thomas 

County, approximately 120 miles west of Kirwin 

Dam, and drains an area of 1,373 square miles. 

Both the North Fork and South Fork Solomon 

rivers derive their flows from precipitation runoff 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

and groundwater discharge from underlying 

aquifers. The upper reaches of the basin overlie 

eastern portions of the High Plains Aquifer. 

Since the mid-1960s, inflows to Kirwin Reservoir 

have experienced significant declines. The average 

annual inflow to Kirwin Reservoir declined from the 

1960s through the mid 1980s. During the 1990s, 

however, the reservoir registered a significant 

increase in inflows because of increased precipitation 

(Reclamation 2002). 

The apparent trend in reduction of inflows could be a 

combination of several factors. Precipitation during 

the 1960s through 1980s was frequently below 

normal. There also was a dramatic increase in the 

development of groundwater irrigation systems in 

the watersheds above the dam. Increasing 

groundwater withdrawals and less precipitation 

recharging the aquifers have probably resulted in 

reduced aquifer-to-stream contributions. Another 

factor potentially impacting streamflow is an 

increase in on-farm soil and moisture conservation 

practices, which reduce runoff (Reclamation 2002). 

Kirwin Reservoir’s conservation pool of 89,639 acrefeet is between elevation 1,697 feet and elevation 

1,729 feet. Added to the reservoir’s inactive 

conservation and dead storage pools, total storage is 

98,154 acre-feet (Reclamation 2002). 

The reduced inflow to the reservoir has resulted in a 

corresponding reduction in storage volume since 

initial filling. Kirwin Reservoir last filled to capacity 

in 1970 and did not fill again until 1993. For the 

period 1970–92, the average May end-of-month 

content for Kirwin Reservoir was 34,000 acre-feet 

(figure 4) (Reclamation 2002). 

Water rights are held by the Kirwin Irrigation 

District. A petition of organization and an 

application for water rights were filed with the 

Division of Water Resources, State of Kansas, by 

the Kirwin Irrigation District on April 22, 1948 and 

approved on September 25, 1948. The application is 

for the maximum use of 35,600 acre-feet of water 

annually and the storage of all flows of the North 

Fork Solomon River to a maximum quantity of 

80,000 acre-feet. The Kirwin Irrigation District is 

capable of irrigating up to 11,423 acres of cropland 

below the dam. Reclamation and the USACE also 

reserve the right to store up to 220,000 acre-feet of 

water for flood control purposes. The Service has no 

water rights or water control capability on Kirwin 

Reservoir (Service 1996). 

During the last two decades, reduced reservoir 

contents have resulted in less water available for 

delivery to the Kirwin Irrigation District. 

Historically, an average of 6,900 acres have been 

irrigated with diversions from Kirwin Reservoir. In 

Figure 4. Kirwin Reservoir surface elevation, 1956–2003
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Refuge Description 15 

the 1980s and early 1990s, 5 years occurred during 

which no deliveries were made to the Kirwin 

Irrigation District (Reclamation 2002). 

SOILS 

In north-central Kansas, soils are composed 

primarily of Mollisols in the suborder Ustolls. A 

dark surface horizon rich in bases are primary 

characteristics of Mollisols. Nearly all have a mollic 

epipedon, but many also have an argillic, nitric, or 

calcic horizon. Specifically, soils of the North 

Solomon Valley are primarily fertile, silty clay loams 

derived from reworked loess (Leonard 1952), some 

of which are rich in selenium. The soils in valleys are 

slightly sloping, friable, and generally have high 

agricultural productivity. In the western and central 

parts of the basin, soils are generally friable and 

relatively impermeable, with some silt loam and 

loess. The more level soils in the western and central 

parts of the basin are used for grain cultivation and 

are moderately productive. Soils in the eastern part 

of the basin range from shallow sands to thick clays 

and generally have low agricultural productivity 

(Reclamation 1984). 

AIR QUALITY 

The air quality in this area of Kansas is good, with 

little heavy industry in the area. 

FIRE REGIME AND HISTORY 

Wildfire is one of the primary natural disturbances 

of the native prairie. Historical records describe 

huge prairie fires started by lightning or humans. 

Fire burned millions of acres, as there were few 

natural fuel breaks and no suppression. Wright 

(1980) and others believe that fire frequency in the 

grasslands is 5–10 years. 

Prior to the twentieth century, the role of fire in the 

prairie had been one of continued perpetuation of 

the prairie ecosystem. Fire restored vigor to plant 

growth, increased seed production, released 

nutrients, and reduced accumulations of litter 

(Higgins 1986a, b). Since the early 1900s, and the 

establishment of the refuge, nearly all fires within 

the boundaries have been suppressed, and the 

adjacent habitat has been fragmented by 

agricultural practices. These activities have 

significantly reduced the role of fire as a vital 

element of the prairie ecosystem. 

Prior to dam construction, the mixed and tall 

grasses were diverse and unique, with the forests 

and woodlands rare, in the mixed-grass prairie 

ecosystem. Summer fires, periods of drought, and 

herbivory helped to maintain the prairie, with fire 

suppression reducing the woody vegetation. The fire 

season in north-central Kansas generally 

corresponds with weather patterns which produce 

lightning, most prevalent beginning in early April 

and continuing through September. Dry lightning is 

most likely to occur during drought years. 

Over a 10-year period (1994–2003), 3 wildland fires 

burned on the refuge, burning approximately 217 

acres, or in the 10-year period, 1 wildland fire, 

burning approximately 70 acres per every 3 years. 

This limited acreage burned is partly attributed to 

barriers such as roads, plowed fields, or the 

reservoir that serve as breaks. Prescribed fire was 

started in the year 2000. A total of 21 prescribed fire 

projects, in the 4 years, were conducted, burning 

approximately 2,557 acres, or roughly 5 prescribed 

fire projects per year, burning approximately 640 

acres/year. In 2001, one prescribed fire project in the 

“Wildland Urban Interface” (WUI) area was 

completed, burning approximately 80 acres. For 

more information on fire management, see 

appendix H. 

HABITAT 

Vegetation communities within this region are 

classified as mixed-grass prairie with forested river 

bottoms. Historically, the flood plains of the North 

Fork Solomon River and Bow Creek supported 

woody vegetation, tall-grasses, and forbs, while the 

uplands largely were mixed-grass prairie (Kuchler 

1974). 

Human settlement and associated land use activities 

altered historical processes and plant and wildlife 

communities. Prairie grassland, cropland, deepwater 

and shoreline habitats of the reservoir, and riparian 

zones bordering the tributary rivers are dominant 

communities on the refuge (figure 5). In addition, 

shelterbelts, palustrine wetlands, and chalk bluffs 

also occur within the refuge boundary. 

RESERVOIR (DEEPWATER) HABITAT 

Prior to dam construction, there was no deepwater 

habitat on the area that now constitutes the refuge. 

Flows from the North Fork Solomon River and Bow 

Creek flowed unimpeded through refuge lands and 

occasionally inundated the flood plain during wet 

periods. Construction of the Kirwin Reservoir 

changed these conditions. Damming the flows of the 

Solomon River and Bow Creek and impounding 

water in the historical flood plain of the rivers 

created deepwater habitat. 

The surface acreage of the reservoir varies 

dramatically from about 5,000 ac at conservation 

pool (1,731 ft elevation) to 879 ac during drought 

periods (Erich Gilbert, 2003, refuge manager, 

Kirwin NWR, March). These fluctuations are likely 

due to a combination of frequent drought periods 

coupled with upstream pumping from the aquifer. 
 

 

16 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Figure 5. Existing habitat conditions at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Refuge Description 17 

More than 150 alluvial wells occur above the refuge 

(Reclamation 2002). 

There also have been less obvious influences to 

biological resources from damming and agricultural 

activities. Prior to settlement, some amount of 

sediment was transported from the uplands to the 

channel during storm events. The amount of 

sediment varied, but intact upland and flood plain 

vegetation probably reduced the amount of sediment 

that entered the channel. Cultivation and intensive 

grazing likely have increased the amount of erosion 

and, therefore, sediment, entering the flood plain. 

Although sediment deposition can occur at various 

locations upstream of Kirwin Dam, the dam itself 

represents a terminal location that traps the 

majority of sediment entering the reservoir. 

The potential impacts of increased sedimentation at 

one location are numerous. In terms of quantity, 

sediment is the major pollutant of wetlands, lakes, 

estuaries, and reservoirs in the United States 

(Baker 1992). Sediment quality is an environmental 

concern because sediment may act as both a sink and 

source for water-quality constituents (U.S. 

Geological Survey 2005). Once in the food chain, 

sediment-derived constituents may bioaccumulate, 

posing a concern to fish, wildlife, and humans. In 

addition, sediment loads may never consolidate with 

bottom materials. 

The surface waters in the basin of the North Fork 

Solomon River are reported as turbid with moderate 

to high concentrations of dissolved solids 

(Reclamation 2002). Increased sedimentation may 

increase turbidity even more due to wind and wave 

action that periodically suspends sediment 

throughout the water column. This could lead to 

other impacts, including reduced dissolved oxygen 

concentrations, altered nutrient availability, and 

reduced sunlight penetration. If sufficient, these 

changes can eliminate or reduce growth of SAV 

(Robel 1961; Kullberg 1974; Dieter 1990). 

In 1998, Reclamation initiated a sampling program 

to assess the presence or absence of organic and 

inorganic compounds in reservoir waters. Part of 

this study involved collecting two groups of four 

sediment cores near the dam (Christensen 1999). 

Sediment thickness estimated from these cores 

ranged from 9.5–11.3 ft in the first group of four 

cores to 6.9–7.4 ft in the second group. 

One objective of the Reclamation sampling program 

was to determine potential environmental effects 

due to elevated levels of total organic carbon (TOC), 

trace metals, and major nutrients. The 

Environmental Protection Agency has established 

two threshold concentrations for many of these 

elements. The threshold effect level (TEL) is 

assumed to represent the concentration below which 

toxic effects rarely occur, whereas the probable 

effect level (PEL) indicates the concentration that 

usually or frequently results in toxicity. Both the 

TEL and PEL are guidelines used to screen for 

possible hazardous chemical levels, but are not 

regulatory criteria. 

The median TOC concentration in the reservoir was 

11,600 mg/kg. The trend was not increasing. There 

are no published TEL and PEL limits for TOC; thus, 

there is no classification of existing levels. 

Selenium (Se) is a naturally occurring trace element 

common in the marine shales underlying the 

Solomon River Basin (see section on Geology). This 

metal is of concern because irrigation in areas 

underlain by marine shales has resulted in elevated 

Se concentrations that have caused birth defects, 

reproductive failure, and death in fish and wildlife 

(Reclamation 2002). Concentrations of Se in Kirwin 

Reservoir bottom-sediment ranged from < 0.3 to 2.2 

mg/kg, indicating low potential for bioaccumulation 

(Christensen 1999). However, Se did exhibit a 

significant increasing trend (P = 0.006) in one of the 

two cores, suggesting that concentrations may be of 

concern in the future. No TEL/PEL has been 

established for Se. 

Reports by Christensen (1999) and Christensen and 

Juracek (2001) indicate median arsenic 

concentrations (range = 4.6–10.0 mg/kg) exceeded 

the TEL (7.24 mg/kg) but not the PEL (41.6 mg/kg) 

established for this element. The median 

concentration of copper also exceeded the TEL (18.7 

mg/kg) as did cadmium in four samples. In contrast, 

chromium, lead, nickel, silver, zinc, and mercury 

either were not detected or did not exceed TEL 

limits. These results indicate that subsequent 

monitoring of heavy metals and other water quality 

parameters are warranted. 

Phosphorous (P) and nitrogen (N) are nutrients 

required for plant growth, but excessive amounts 

can enter reservoirs from fertilizer runoff or other 

nonpoint pollution sources and create problems. The 

median P and N concentrations in core samples from 

Kirwin were 616 mg/kg and 1,700 mg/kg, 

respectively. P exhibited a significant increasing 

trend. Excessive P has been shown to cause algal 

blooms that can reduce dissolved oxygen 

concentrations and cause fish mortality, or reduce 

light penetration to levels that prevent growth of 

some aquatic plant species. 

Plant composition and biomass occurring in the 

deepwater community greatly influences potential 

wildlife values. Plants capable of growing in deep 

water provide substrate for invertebrates (Krull 

1970; Voigts 1976) that, in combination with plant 

parts, provide food for many different vertebrates 

(e.g., fish, water birds). If SAV is not present, the 

deepwater community may only provide roosting 

and loafing habitat for birds. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Waterfowl counts conducted between 1983 and 2001 

document ducks, geese, and swans occurring on the 

refuge in varying numbers. The primary periods of 

use occur during spring and fall migration; however, 

some species, primarily Canada geese and mallards, 

remain on the refuge during some winters 

(Reclamation 2002). Both diving ducks and geese use 

the deepwater portion of the reservoir. Plant 

composition and biomass information is lacking; 

thus, it is not possible to determine if foraging 

habitat is available. However, at a minimum it is 

likely that the deepwater community provides 

roosting and loafing habitat for waterfowl (ducks, 

geese, swans), as well as sanctuary from shooting 

during hunting season (Reclamation 2002). This zone 

also could provide additional benefits in the form of 

foraging habitat if SAV beds or invertebrates are 

present. 

Management Potential 

The ability of the Service to manage the deepwater 

habitat is minimal. Reservoir elevations are 

determined by other federal entities that must 

consider several factors (e.g., irrigation, flood 

control) other than wildlife. Hydrology, including the 

direction, magnitude, and time of water level 

fluctuations, is the primary factor influencing 

resource production and availability (Mitsch and 

Gosselink 1993; Fredrickson and Laubhan 1994). The 

inability of the Service to determine these 

hydrologic parameters prevents the ability to 

reliably stimulate or maintain desired plant 

communities and associated food resources, or 

influence resource availability (i.e., water depth 

between food resources and water surface). 

Although direct management is minimal, the 

deepwater community still provides resources that 

contribute to the overall value of the refuge. 

SHORELINE HABITAT 

Definitions vary, but the shoreline community is 

defined in this CCP as the portion of the reservoir 

(excluding the riparian zone) with water depths that 

range from saturated soils to < 24 in. The general 

shape of the shoreline is linear, but the width, 

topography, and spatial position of this area change 

both annually and seasonally depending on reservoir 

water levels and the topography of reservoir bottom 

sediments. A coarse estimate of 224–670 ac for the 

shoreline community at conservation pool was 

derived to provide some perspective. 

The primary value of the shoreline community, 

based on the geographic location of the refuge, is 

foraging habitat for a variety of water birds. This 

area constitutes a zone of high biological 

productivity. The growth of plants during drawdown 

results in the production of food resources (e.g., 

seeds, tubers) and the release of nutrients when 

vegetation decomposes upon reflooding can be 

assimilated by small aquatic organisms (Fredrickson 

and Laubhan 1994). These organisms make up the 

forage base for macroinvertebrates, fish, and 

amphibians, which are the primary foods of many 

water birds. In addition, the hydrologic fluctuations 

that occur within this area create numerous 

microhabitats that can be used by a number of 

species. 

According to refuge files, double-crested cormorants 

have nested on the refuge since 1959 and great blue 

herons have nested on the refuge since 1960. 

Reproductive effort varies annually, but between 

1960 and 1995 the number of great blue heron nests 

ranged from 1 to 34 with production of 2–103 young. 

During the same period, double-crested cormorant 

nests ranged from 3 to 37, and produced from 40 to 

60 young. The current location of rookeries occurs 

within or adjacent to the shoreline community near 

the main reservoir body in the eastern portion of the 

refuge. Trees currently used for nesting appear to 

be adjacent to stream channels that were inundated 

when water was impounded by the reservoir. Many 

of these trees were killed as a result of high water in 

the 1990s, but some remain standing and still 

provide suitable nesting habitat. 

Ducks (diving and dabbling) and shorebirds also 

forage within the shoreline community (Fredrickson 

and Reid 1986; Skagen and Knopf 1994). In fact, the 

scarcity of palustrine wetlands suggests that these 

species rely almost extensively on the shoreline for 

foraging when using the refuge. 

Least terns occasionally nest within the shoreline 

community and protection of ground nests is 

required. Exposed sandbars constitute the preferred 

nesting substrate of least terns. However, 

substrates similar to sandbars are exposed along the 

shoreline when reservoir elevation recedes and some 

least terns occasionally nest in these areas. 

Observations from different years provide evidence 

that the seed bank within the shoreline community 

is diverse and includes both desirable (e.g., browse, 

seed-bearing) and undesirable (e.g., invasive, exotic) 

plant species. Most species that germinate in the 

shoreline area require substrates that are moist to 

wet, but not flooded (van der Valk and Davis 1978). 

The most important factor controlling germination 

likely is the annual changes in reservoir water 

levels, including the magnitude, timing, and rate of 

water level fluctuations. These hydrologic 

parameters greatly influence recruitment from the 

seed bank by affecting time of soil exposure, soil 

temperature and oxygen levels, and the rate of soil 

moisture loss (Leck 1989; Fredrickson 1991). 

Management Potential 

Similar to the deepwater portion of the reservoir, 

the ability of the Service to manage the shoreline 

community is constrained by the lack of hydrologic 

control. Consequently, the value of the shoreline 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Refuge Description 19 

community to water birds likely will vary among 

species and years. 

Trees exist adjacent to the reservoir and the 

presence of fish near the shoreline are consistently 

available. Thus, suitable habitat for breeding great 

blue herons and double-crested cormorants, as well 

as migrating and wintering bald eagles, is present on 

the refuge in most years. 

In contrast, foraging habitat for ducks and 

shorebirds will be more variable for two primary 

reasons. First, it is not possible to manipulate water 

levels to match the germination requirements of 

plants that produce a large biomass of foods (e.g., 

seeds, tubers, browse) and provide substrate for 

invertebrates. Second, water levels cannot be 

intentionally manipulated to coincide with duck and 

shorebird migration periods. In the absence of 

hydrologic control, some exposed and vegetated 

shoreline habitat will be available to shorebirds and 

ducks every year, but water level changes that 

expose abundant foods during migration will occur 

only sporadically. 

The availability of habitat for least terns varies, but 

likely is more predictable than ducks and shorebirds. 

This statement is based on the reported long-term 

drought/wet cycle of 30 years with about 23 years of 

drought and 7 years of wet conditions (Erich Gilbert, 

2003, refuge manager, Kirwin NWR, March). 

According to the refuge staff, reservoir pool 

elevations tend to consistently decrease during the 

drought phase. When this occurs, the availability of 

substrates suitable for least tern nesting tends to 

become more reliable, and the probability of nest 

destruction due to flooding less likely, for a period of 

several years. During the start of the wet period, 

water levels in the reservoir start to increase, 

available nesting habitat decreases, and, if nesting is 

attempted, there is a greater likelihood of nests 

being destroyed by flooding. 

Typically, the land/water interface in this zone is a 

prime area for the establishment and proliferation of 

many invasive species due to the frequent presence 

of exposed soil, variable soil moisture, and high 

nutrient availability. For example, along the north 

shoreline, numerous saltcedar seedlings and stems 

of Canada thistle and reed canarygrass are evident. 

Although currently present in small numbers, the 

potential exists for expansion of these invasive 

species (or others) along the shoreline. Evidence of 

this potential exists in the flood plain of the lower 

riparian zone where reed canarygrass and Canada 

thistle currently dominate the herbaceous 

vegetation. The Service cannot alter the hydrology 

of the reservoir to minimize the potential for 

invasive species to occur. Similarly, the Service 

cannot intentionally raise pool elevations to 

eliminate invasions that do occur. 

In summary, the shoreline community has the 

potential to provide many values to water birds that 

other communities on the refuge do not provide. 

There also is potential for extensive, rapid 

colonization of invasive species. These detrimental 

impacts are common on many reservoirs, and 

approaches to minimize impacts are frequently 

difficult to develop due to constraints imposed by 

the reservoir operation plan. 

RIPARIAN HABITAT 

The riparian community, which includes the flood 

plain and channel of the Solomon River and Bow 

Creek, was dynamic prior to dam construction. 

Although both streams were considered perennial 

(Leonard 1952), flows were highly variable 

depending on precipitation cycles. Stream hydrology 

was characterized by flood flows in the spring and 

low flows or ponding during the summer and fall 

(Reclamation 2002). These extremes in hydrology 

influenced the types of flora that developed and the 

fauna that inhabited the riparian system. 

Kuchler (1974) described this community as “flood 

plain forest and savanna” with scattered trees and 

shrubs and a dominant ground cover of bluestem 

prairie. However, he also states that “the prairie 

was suppressed in areas of dense woody growth,” 

suggesting that certain areas of the flood plain were 

extensively forested. The wooded component 

apparently was continuous but narrow based on 

accounts of early settlers and one aerial photograph 

of the Solomon River near Glade, Kansas (Leonard 

1952). Dominant woody species included cottonwood, 

American elm, hackberry, and peachleaf willow, 

while the dominant herbaceous vegetation consisted 

of big bluestem, little bluestem, switchgrass, and 

Indiangrass. Marshes were dominated by prairie 

cordgrass and lesser numbers of myriad species, 

including bulrushes, cattail, and rice cutgrass 

(Kuchler 1974). 

Prior to dam construction, wildlife community 

inhabiting the riparian community was diverse and 

unique. Forests were rare in the Great Plains and 

woody vegetation provided cover, forage, and 

nesting substrates for Neotropical migrants that 

were not available in other communities. The tallgrasses provided important resources for both 

migratory and resident wildlife, and marshes 

provided resources for a host of waterfowl. The 

stream fishery was not diverse and included only 

species (e.g., plains killifish, red shiner, and creek 

chub) that could tolerate extremes in temperature, 

current velocity, and dissolved oxygen 

concentrations (Reclamation 2002). 

As with other communities on the refuge, American 

settlement and the accompanying changes have 

greatly altered processes and influenced vegetation 

in the riparian community. The composition of trees 

in the mid-1990s was dominated by eastern 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

cottonwood (58 percent) and willow (25 percent) 

with lesser amounts of American elm (4 percent) and 

green ash (3 percent), hackberry, boxelder, and 

mulberry (Sevigny 1998; Eddy 1994). The shrub and 

vine component (5 percent) also was evident. 

Perhaps the greatest change from historic structure 

and composition has occurred in the ground 

vegetation. The once dominant tall, warm-season 

grasses described by Kuchler (1974) have been 

replaced by shorter cool-season grasses (e.g., smooth 

brome), which has altered structural and floristic 

diversity (Laubhan, personal observation, 2003b). 

The avian community remains diverse. However, 

the composition and relative abundance of species 

have likely changed due to landscape level changes 

in land use (e.g., agriculture). In 1997, a study of the 

riparian bird community on the refuge during spring 

migration resulted in the identification 87 species 

from 19 families (Sevigny 1998). A detailed 

inspection of this list identified some intriguing 

(although not substantiated) aspects that may be 

related to changes in ground flora. 

The nine most abundant species were the house 

wren, blue jay, black-capped chickadee, mourning 

dove, northern cardinal, common yellowthroat, redwinged blackbird, and brown-headed cowbird. 

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data for region 6 of the 

Service exhibited stable population trends for the 

black-capped chickadee, mourning dove, northern 

cardinal, common yellowthroat, red-winged 

blackbird, and brown-headed cowbird, whereas the 

house wren and blue jay exhibited increasing 

population trends between 1966 and 2003 (Sauer 

2004). Most of these species are capable of adapting 

to changes occurring in the riparian communities 

throughout the western United States (Saab 1999). 

In contrast, however, the list also included 19 

species whose status is of some concern according to 

current regional and national plans. The presence of 

these species in low abundance suggests the riparian 

plant community has not been completely altered, 

but subtle, significant changes have occurred that 

has reduced habitat suitability. 

Increased groundwater pumping, canals, diversion 

dams, and reservoir construction have contributed 

to altered stream flow in both streams (Christensen 

and Juracek 2001). Groundwater pumping, canals, 

and diversion dams occur above the refuge, are 

associated largely with agriculture, and have 

changed the annual hydrograph by reducing the 

volume of water in the channel and changing when 

peak and low-flow periods occur in the stream 

(Reclamation 2002). Compared to historical 

conditions, the general effect is that larger storm 

events or longer wet periods are required to cause 

the same amount of overbank flooding and channel 

scouring. The periodic occurrence of these actions is 

critical to maintaining channel diversity (e.g., pools, 

riffles) and creating conditions suitable for 

germination of new woody and herbaceous 

vegetation. 

Construction of the reservoir occurred immediately 

downstream of the riparian community managed by 

the refuge. Similar to upstream hydrologic 

alterations, the dam has reduced flow velocity in the 

stream because water no longer can be transported 

downstream unobstructed. Historically, these 

events were important because flood plain 

vegetation was disturbed and areas suitable for new 

germination were created. The reduced frequency or 

absence of these events likely lowers the potential of 

bare, moist substrate necessary for regeneration of 

species such as cottonwood and willow (Scott et al. 

1993). 

During prolonged wet periods, or during extreme 

precipitation events, the impoundment of 

floodwaters can result in inundation of the flood 

plain to deeper depths and for longer periods than 

historically occurred. If inundation lasts a sufficient 

time it can lead to the mortality of vegetation 

(Teskey and Hinckley 1977). Also, the release of 

water from the reservoir is timed to coincide with 

irrigation needs, usually summer and early fall 

(Reclamation 2002). This, in combination with 

upstream activities, has changed the period of 

maximum stream flow from spring to summer. This 

shift has several impacts, but one of the most 

important is the potential effect on germination of 

riparian vegetation. Seeds of many species, including 

cottonwood and willow, are dispersed in spring, are 

short-lived, and require bare, moist substrate for 

germination. Thus, the shift from spring to summer 

flows can negatively impact germination of these 

species. 

Because the most recent wet period (1993–2000) 

ended in 2000, reservoir water levels should 

continue to decline over the next 20 years. However, 

even if these long-term predictions are correct, the 

impacts of recent high water have been severe. Tree 

mortality has been significant, regeneration of the 

woody component is sparse, and invasive vegetation 

has replaced natives in the understory. 

Undoubtedly, such changes have altered the avian 

community from what was reported in the mid1990s. 

Management Potential 

Streams and their associated flood plains are 

complex ecological systems that provide many 

benefits to society. The ability to successfully 

manage a reach for a specific outcome is often 

influenced by uses both upstream and downstream 

of the site. Past alterations upstream and 

downstream of the refuge have caused significant 

changes that affect the ability of the Service to 

maintain the functions and processes that supported 

the historical riparian community. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Refuge Description 21 

Of primary concern are the hydrologic alterations 

that result in extreme water level fluctuations in the 

flood plain. High water similar to that experienced 

in the mid-1990s may occur infrequently, but the 

cost of restoring the native community following 

such events will be time-consuming and costly. 

Further, this effort may be required every 20 to 30 

years based on long-term predictions. 

Potential solutions that address the entire riparian 

community are not readily apparent because release 

of water from the reservoir during high spring flow 

periods would be required. This is not likely because 

a primary reason for reservoir construction was to 

store water for irrigation below Kirwin NWR. 

UPLAND 

Kirwin NWR is within the central dissected, or 

mixed-grass, prairie region historically dominated 

by the bluestem-grama association (Launchbaugh 

and Owensby 1978). According to Kuchler (1974), 

the bluestem-grama association is characterized by 

dense communities of grasses and forbs that often 

are in two distinct layers: one of low-growing 

grasses and one of medium tall-grasses and forbs 

that is usually more open. Dominant species are big 

and little bluestem, sideoats grama, and blue grama. 

Other characteristic species include western 

wheatgrass, western ragweed, leadplant, purple 

threeawn, hairy grama, buffalograss, Freemont’s 

clematis, purple coneflower, and Canada wildrye 

among others. 

Factors historically controlling the mixed-grass 

prairie included precipitation, fire, and herbivory. 

The plant species composing this prairie are 

sensitive to major precipitation fluctuations; thus, 

their relative abundance shifts east and west in 

response to alternating periods of intense drought or 

wetness (Kuchler 1967, 1972). Summer fires (Sauer 

1950) and herbivory (Dyksterhuis 1958) also helped 

maintain the prairie by suppressing woody 

vegetation. Certain woody plants were always 

present as natural components in some areas 

(Kuchler 1974). Herbivores, including bison and 

smaller vertebrates such as prairie dogs, altered soil 

characteristics and other factors that influenced 

plant establishment and growth (Kuchler 1974). 

Following the onset of human settlement, processes 

were modified that profoundly affected the prairie 

(Knopf and Samson 1997). Fire suppression, 

development and expansion of agricultural crops, 

changes in herbivores and herbivory, and planting of 

trees have significantly altered the prairie 

landscape. In addition, technological advances 

brought about other less obvious but equally 

important changes, including the development and 

introduction of new grasses and crops, groundwater 

pumping, herbicides, and fertilization. These and 

other actions have resulted in significant loss and 

fragmentation of the prairie community. 

Prairie wildflowers⎯ echinacea. 

Roads also result in habitat fragmentation. Existing 

road density on the refuge is high. This results in 

many areas of habitat being dissected by roads, 

reducing habitat continuity and quality. Currently 

there are approximately 15 miles of roads on the 

refuge, a road density of 0.89 mile per square mile. 

The refuge encompasses about 7,000 ac of uplands at 

conservation pool. Prairie grasslands dominate this 

acreage, but the refuge staff reports that only about 

200 ac of native prairie occur on the refuge. The 

remainder is either restored prairie or reseeded 

grass. Much of the native grass is isolated (i.e., 

fragmented) and occurs in small blocks. 

Other habitats occurring in the uplands include 

shelterbelts, croplands, chalk bluffs, and a few 

temporary wetlands. Although the exact area of 

shelterbelts is not known, many appear to be 50–100 

ft wide and extend for various distances along roads 

and fence lines. The tree composition includes a mix 

of both hardwood and evergreen species. 

Wheat, sorghum, corn, and alfalfa are the dominant 

crops on the refuge. The cropping program is 

designed to prepare agricultural land for conversion 

to grass and provide foods for migratory birds and 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

resident wildlife. Farming is accomplished using 

cooperative farmers and arrangements vary 

depending on crop (Gilbert 2003). For example, the 

refuge share of row crops is 25–33 percent, whereas 

stubble constitutes the refuge share of wheat. Chalk 

outcroppings occur at higher elevations in the 

uplands, and a few isolated wetlands occur in 

depressional areas. 

Although much of the historical prairie on the refuge 

was converted or degraded prior to establishment, 

this community (excluding areas adjacent to the 

reservoir) appears to be the least effected by the 

reservoir. Consequently, the Service has more direct 

control and can likely influence future conditions 

more reliably. The current condition of refuge 

prairie grasslands varies greatly. Small areas, many 

on the south side of the reservoir contain a high 

proportion of native grass and forb species. In 

contrast, other areas are primarily composed of 

invasive, cool-season grasses. The dominant invasive 

species is smooth brome, but small areas of 

Kentucky bluegrass also are present (Gilbert 2003). 

Areas in various stages of restoration also occur on 

the refuge. Species composition of these stands is 

mixed, with the presence of both warm-season 

natives and cool-season invasives. 

Management Potential 

In many respects, the Service can exert the greatest 

influence on the upland community compared to 

other community types. However, constraints still 

exist that will influence future conditions. 

Uplands adjacent to the reservoir are wetter during 

high water years and extensive groundwater 

pumping upstream of the refuge likely has altered 

the subsurface hydrology of some upland habitats. 

The effects of these alterations are unknown, but 

research indicates changes in the water table can 

effectively alter environmental conditions and, 

therefore, plant species occurrence (Currier 1988). 

Restoration of native grasses and forbs adjacent to 

the reservoir may not be feasible due to changes in 

soil characteristics. Invasive species have altered 

floristic and structural attributes of many prairie 

grassland tracts. Although techniques have been 

developed for controlling many of these species, 

desirable vegetation must be established following 

control of invasive species or there are no long-term 

biological benefits. 

WILDLIFE 

BIRDS 

Baseline information on the avian community of 

Kirwin NWR was developed using a checklist of 205 

bird species sighted on the refuge (Igl 1996). 

Scientific names for all species mentioned are given 

in appendix I. 

The current refuge bird list includes 234 species, of 

which 45 are recorded as nesting and four (piping 

plover, bald eagle, whooping crane, and least tern) 

are listed as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act. Refuge files of duck, 

goose, and swan counts were used to generate 

graphs of total annual use days, average annual 

populations, and average peak populations spanning 

a 20-year period (appendix J). 

BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN 

The Birds of Conservation Concern is the most 

recent effort to satisfy the 1988 amendment to the 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which mandates 

the Service to “identify species, subspecies, and 

populations of all migratory nongame birds that, 

without additional conservation actions, are likely to 

become candidates for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973” (Service 2002). 

There are 28 species known to occur on Kirwin 

NWR that are considered to be of national 

conservation concern in the Birds of Conservation 

Concern (Service 2002). Among these are eight 

shorebirds, five hawks and falcons, two owls, and 

two sparrows. Twenty-one of these 28 species also 

are considered to be of conservation concern at 

either Service region 6 or Bird Conservation Region 

19 scale. 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Ninety-one species of reptiles and amphibians have 

been identified in Kansas. Thirty-nine of these 

species potentially occur in Phillips County. No 

federally listed threatened or endangered reptiles or 

amphibians occur in this area. The presence of two 

state species in need of conservation, the eastern 

and western hog-nose snake, has been confirmed 

(Service 1996). 

INVERTEBRATES 

Prairie grasslands of the refuge provide for a wide 

variety of insect life. The range of the federally 

listed endangered American burying beetle extends 

throughout Kansas. Surveys of the area have failed 

to find any local populations and no extant 

populations are known in western Kansas (Service 

1996). 

FISH 

Fisheries management in the reservoir is conducted 

in partnership with the KDWP through a 

cooperative agreement. Due to the fluctuating 

nature of the reservoir, extensive stocking has been 

used to maintain viable fish populations, especially 

walleye and wiper (white bass/striped bass hybrid). 

Current game fish populations include walleye, 

largemouth bass, channel catfish, flathead catfish, 

bullhead, black crappie, white crappie, white bass, 

wiper, bluegill, and green sunfish. Introduced prey 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Refuge Description 23 

fish species include gizzard shad. In addition, large 

numbers of carp and freshwater drum are present in 

the reservoir. No threatened or endangered fish are 

present (Service 1996). 

MAMMALS 

Thirty-four species of native mammals have been 

documented as occurring on the refuge at the 

present time. Three other species have been 

identified as locally common, occurring in areas of 

preferred habitat. Additionally, seven species are 

listed as probable and nine species are listed as 

possible. One state-threatened species, the eastern 

spotted skunk, is known to rarely occur in this area 

(Service 1996). 

The refuge hosts one of the few remaining blacktailed prairie dog colonies in Phillips County, Kansas 

(Service 1996). 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED 

SPECIES 

BIRDS 

Bald eagles are the most visible and common of the 

threatened and endangered birds that utilize the 

refuge. Previously listed as endangered, the status 

of the bald eagle was upgraded to threatened in July 

1995. They are a common visitor during the winter 

months, arriving in late October/early November 

and leaving by late March. Unusually high numbers 

of eagles have been censused in recent high water 

years, including peaks of 50 in March 1994, and 67 in 

March 1995. Eagle use at the refuge appears to be 

tied to the migration of waterfowl, especially Canada 

geese, with eagles feeding on sick and injured ducks 

and geese during the winter. During periods of open 

water, fish also make up an important component of 

the eagle’s diet (Service 1996). 

Endangered whooping cranes, although infrequent 

visitors to the refuge, are sighted almost annually in 

Phillips and surrounding counties. They pass 

through the area during spring and fall migrations 

with most sightings in April and October. Sightings 

in this area are mainly in cropfields or shallow ponds 

with a large, unobstructed field of view. The last 

confirmed sighting on the refuge was in 1977, during 

a period of receding water. Since 1977, the most 

limiting factors to their use of the refuge have been 

the absence of large open expanses of mud flat and 

shallow water (Service 1996). 

Peregrine falcons are uncommon visitors to the area, 

pausing briefly during spring and fall migrations. 

Interior least terns, federally listed as endangered, 

are occasional visitors to the refuge. Nesting has 

been confirmed in the past with young produced in 

1974, 1976, and 1980 (Service 1996). This was during 

a period of receding water levels. The nests were 

located on open rocky shorelines and islands as the 

water level receded. The majority of this type of 

habitat is found on the east end of the reservoir. 

Piping plovers, federally listed as threatened, are 

occasional visitors to the refuge during spring and 

fall migration (Service 1996). This plover occupies 

sandy areas bordering vegetation and open 

shorelines. Piping plover use is often determined by 

the presence or absence of large open shoreline 

areas. 

In addition to federally listed species, the refuge is 

host to two state-listed threatened bird species. 

Snowy plovers and white-faced ibis are rare visitors 

to the refuge during the migration season. Six state 

species in need of conservation (golden eagle, 

ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, long-billed curlew, 

and bobolink) have been documented on the refuge, 

although no evidence of nesting of these species has 

been observed. 

PLANTS 

The refuge is outside the range of any federally 

listed endangered, threatened, or candidate plant 

species. 

Invasive Plants 

State designated invasive plants present on the 

refuge include Johnson grass, musk thistle, Canada 

thistle, and field bindweed. 

Johnson grass is restricted to a few small sites 

located in refuge prairie grasslands. Canada thistle 

is primarily associated with old shoreline elevations. 

Field bindweed is present in farm fields, prairie 

grasslands, and along roads throughout the refuge. 

Musk thistle is the most persistent problem in 

refuge prairie grasslands. It often competes with, 

and has a negative effect on, prairie grassland 

species. 

Biological control agents for musk thistle have been 

released and are established on the refuge. Other 

invasive plants are controlled using mechanical and 

chemical methods. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In May 1947, prior to construction of Kirwin Dam, 

an archeological and paleontological resource survey 

was conducted by the Smithsonian Institute. This 

survey identified two archeological sites. One was a 

prehistoric site that was later destroyed during the 

construction of the dam. The other was the site of 

historic Fort Kirwin, a U.S. Government 

fortification established in 1865. A supplemental 

survey was conducted in 1952, identifying three 

additional archeological sites. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

In March 1978, the Archeology Department from the 4) may contain ecological, geological, or other 

Kansas State Historical Society contracted with the features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

Service to conduct an archeological survey of historical value. 

selected areas within the refuge. Approximately 

one-fourth of the refuge was surveyed, with three RESEARCH NATURAL AREA 

additional sites being identified. Of the eight 

identified sites, one was destroyed as noted in the 

previous paragraph, five are inundated by the 

reservoir, one is located in the transition areas 

between the reservoir and croplands, and one is 

located in a reseeded native grass area. 

The Museum of Anthropology at the University of 

Kansas conducted a cultural resource survey of 

much of the refuge from 1999–2002. The survey was 

done under a cooperative agreement with 

Reclamation and included approximately 85 percent 

of the federal lands above the conservation pool. 

Using a combination of traditional archaeological 

survey methods and geomorphological techniques, 

the crews recorded several surface sites and 

identified a number of localities with a high potential 

for buried cultural remains. The report is incomplete 

as of February 2006, but some general information is 

available (Logan 2004). 

A total of 33 sites were found—two of which were 

previously recorded. The majority of the sites are 

sparsely represented historical trash and 

construction material scatters from the early 

twentieth century. Sixteen of the resources are 

prehistoric and many of these consist of a single 

artifact. Only two of the sites, both prehistoric open 

camps, are considered significant and therefore 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

The Regional Archeologist is consulted during the 

planning phase of any proposed project and 

determines the need for an archeological site 

clearance from the Kansas State Historic 

Preservation Office. 

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

AND DESIGNATIONS 

WILDERNESS 

Due to the small size of the refuge and current and 

past land use patterns, the refuge does not appear to 

meet the criteria for wilderness described below. 

To be determined a wilderness area, lands must 

meet certain criteria as outlined in the Wilderness 

Act of 1964. A wilderness area: 1) generally appears 

to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the human imprint substantially 

unnoticeable; 2) has outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; 3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of 

sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

The Service administratively designates Research 

Natural Areas on refuges. Currently, there are 210 

such areas on refuges totaling 1,955,762 acres. 

Research natural areas are part of a national 

network of reserved areas under various 

ownerships. A research natural area is an area 

where natural processes are allowed to predominate 

and which is preserved for the primary purpose of 

research and education. Research natural areas have 

these objectives: 

■	 To assist in the preservation of examples of all 

significant natural ecosystems for comparison 

with those influenced by man. 

■	 To provide educational and research areas for 

scientists to study the ecology, successional 

trends, and other aspects of the natural 

environment. 

■	 To serve as gene pools and preserves for rare and 

endangered species of plants and animals. 

Scientists and educators are encouraged by 

participating federal agencies to use research 

natural areas. Restrictions are applied only to 

preserve the natural values of the area and to 

protect the research projects already underway. 

Research on natural areas must be essentially 

nondestructive and reasonably consistent with the 

purpose and character of the surrounding land. 

Studies that require manipulation of the 

environment normally are done elsewhere. 

The Solomon River Grasslands Research Natural 

Area was established on Kirwin NWR in 1967. It 

consists of 120 acres of Bluestem–Grama Prairie, 

and is located in the southwest corner of the 

Solomon River arm. Topographically, the area is 

made up of a series of low hills set off by arroyos 

that extend toward the river. 

During the planning process for this CCP, refuge 

staff discovered that the area of the refuge 

designated as a research natural area is not native 

prairie, but rather old farmland that was reseeded to 

a few grass species shortly after the refuge was 

established. At this time it is uncertain if this land 

still qualifies for the research natural area 

designation. 

IMPORTANT BIRD AREA 

Kirwin NWR received designation as an Important 

Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy in 

August 2002. The American Bird Conservancy’s 

Important Bird Area Program concentrates on 

identifying and documenting the top important bird 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Refuge Description 25 

sites throughout all 50 states. Some of these sites 

are important primarily within the context of other 

sites; they exist as links or endpoints in a chain along 

a migratory pathway. Other sites are important 

independent of any other site, and a few⎯most 

notably several in Hawaii⎯support species found 

nowhere else on earth. 

For a site to be designated an Important Bird Area, 

it must, during at least some part of the year, 

contain critical habitat that supports 1) significant 

numbers of an endangered or threatened species 

such as piping plover, red-cockaded woodpecker, or 

Kirtland’s warbler; 2) a watch list species such as 

black rail, cerulean warbler, or Henslow’s sparrow; 

3) a species with a limited range such as tricolored 

blackbird, yellow-billed magpie, or brown-capped 

rosy-finch; or 4) a significantly large concentration of 

breeding, migrating or wintering birds, including 

waterfowl, seabirds, wading birds, raptors or land 

birds. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Kirwin NWR provides an important recreation area 

for the citizens of Phillips County and the 

surrounding area. Recreational activities such as 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography can be enjoyed at Kirwin NWR. 

HUNTING 

In the fall, hunting is a major attraction to the 

Kirwin NWR. The lack of public hunting areas in 

this part of the state concentrates hunters on and 

around the refuge. Opportunities for hunting whitetailed deer, Canada geese, ducks, ring-necked 

pheasants, and bobwhite quail attract hunters from 

across Kansas and other states. Canada goose 

hunting provides a major economic boost to the area, 

with several commercial hunting operations 

surrounding the refuge. 

The north-central portion of the refuge, from 

Solomon Bend to the four-way intersection east of 

Cottonwood Grove, is closed to hunting. 

Archery deer hunting is the only hunting allowed in 

the western portion of the refuge. This area is to the 

west of Solomon Bend and Quillback Cove. 

The Bow Creek area, roughly encompassing the area 

south of Prairie Dog Town and Crappie Point, is 

open to: waterfowl, doves, pheasants, quail, turkey, 

prairie chickens, snipe, coots, cottontail rabbits, fox 

squirrels and deer (archery only). Hunting of 

cottontail rabbits and fox squirrels is allowed only 

during pheasant season. This area is the only place 

where hunting on the water is permitted. 

The area between Quillback Cove and Prairie Dog 

Town is open to the same species as the Bow Creek 

Area; however, a maximum of six shotgun shells per 

person, per day is permitted. 

The area from Crappie Point to the south end of the 

dam, and the area from the four-way intersection 

east of Cottonwood Grove to the north end of the 

dam is open to: doves, pheasants, quail, turkey, 

prairie chickens, snipe, coots, cottontail rabbits, fox 

squirrels and deer (archery only). Hunting of 

cottontail rabbits and fox squirrels is allowed only 

during pheasant season. 

Nontoxic shot is required on the refuge for all 

shotgun hunting, including turkeys. Rifles and 

pistols are not permitted on the refuge. 

FISHING 

Fishing is a popular activity, especially in the spring 

and early summer. The reservoir is the only major 

water body in the county, attracting many people to 

the area. Fishing for walleye, largemouth bass, black 

crappie, channel catfish, and other species is 

permitted in accordance with Kansas State Fishing 

Regulations, in the reservoir, the North Fork 

Solomon River, and Bow Creek, unless signs 

indicate a particular closed area. 

There is a “no wake zone” in effect within 300 feet of 

all shorelines and islands, as well as on the Bow 

Creek arm. 

The North Shore boat ramp is available during 

periods of high water. 

The South Shore boat ramp is available at times of 

high water and when the water is at medium height. 

The Low Water boat ramp is available at low water 

levels. It is located on the north end of the dam. 

Historically, Reclamation has permitted the 

launching of boats from the face of the dam. 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND PHOTOGRAPHY 

The entire refuge is open to foot travel for wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography. Open roads 

are also open to wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography. Two observation platforms, called 

USFWS 

Bird watching is popular on many national wildlife 

refuges, including Kirwin. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

pergolas, are also available. One is located north of 

the visitor center at the refuge overlook, and the 

other one is at Crappie Point. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 

INTERPRETATION 

Seven informational kiosks dispersed throughout 

the refuge contain interpretive panels about 

migratory birds, wildlife habitat and management. 

Refuge regulations are located in boxes labeled 

“Refuge Information” at the seven kiosks and other 

sites to provide refuge-specific information to 

visitors. Periodically, information addressing 

migratory birds, wildlife habitat and management is 

also provided in the boxes. 

At times, educational programs have been held in 

the evenings. Until recently, an Eco-Meet program 

for high school science classes has been held 

annually. Eagle Day is held in January of each year 

to educate school groups and the public about the 

Refuge System, the refuge, and migratory birds of 

prey. 

Refuge staff have historically hosted groups of Boy 

Scouts, Girl Scouts, and school groups. Staff have 

also taught environmental classes at camps. 

SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING 

This section characterizes current socioeconomic 

conditions in Phillips County, Kansas. 

BACKGROUND 

Kirwin NWR plays a socioeconomic role in Phillips 

County by serving the local community and 

attracting visitors and dollars from outside Phillips 

County. 

Direct visitor spending at the refuge, as well as 

ancillary visitor activity, such as spending on 

supplies, gasoline, and overnight accommodations in 

the local area, helps support local business 

establishments and increases the local tax base. 

Refuge management decisions regarding refuge 

operations may affect the amount of hunting/fishing, 

and wildlife viewing traffic that occurs in Phillips 

County, and thus the economic activity associated 

with Kirwin NWR operations. 

CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

Kirwin is known as the “Goose Capital of Kansas” as 

the county is an attractive stopover point for many 

species of migratory birds, including hawks, 

pelicans, geese, and ducks. 

Phillips County also offers blue-ribbon hunting for 

deer and upland game. The area is the home of 

“Kansas’ Biggest Rodeo,” which occurs every 

Interpretive displays at refuge headquarters. 

summer in Phillipsburg, the county seat. Other 

communities in Phillips County include Agra, Glade, 

Gretna, Kirwin, Logan, Long Island, Prairie View, 

Speed, Stuttgart, and Woodruff ⎯ each of which has 

less than 1,000 residents. 

Population 

Phillips County, like many other rural counties in 

the Midwest, is experiencing slow but steady 

population decline. The 2004 population estimate 

(5,547) represents a 7.6 percent decline from just 

four years ago, and a 15.8 percent loss from 1990. 

U.S. Census projections indicate that the population 

will decline by 9.4 percent over the next five years. 

Population decline in Phillips County occurs despite 

steady statewide growth. This loss of population 

influences other socioeconomic components of 

Phillips County. 

Demographics 

The percentage of the population between 18 and 34 

years old declined from 21 percent in 1980 to 16 

percent in 2004. Other age group percentages (over 

65 and under 18) have stayed relatively consistent 

across the same period, or have modestly increased 

(35 years to 64 years). The median age in Phillips 

County has increased from 38 to nearly 44 since 

1980. In 2004, the median age in Phillips County was 

8 years older than the rest of the nation (36). The 

population in Phillips County is not only declining, 

but aging as well. 

Business and Economic Climate 

Phillips County has an agriculturally based 

economy, yet the deterioration of agriculture as a 

viable business is evident as farms lost an average of 

$4,360 per farm in 2002. The farm loan/asset ratio 

rose to 60 percent in 2002, up from 28 percent in 

1998. Financial losses have contributed to the 

decline in the number of farms from 600 in 1990 to 

510 in 2002. Farm employment has also become less 

prominent. In 1980, farm employment accounted for 

22 percent of all employment in Phillips County, that 

figure has slipped to 14 percent in 2002. 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3⎯Refuge Description 27 

Most nonfarm businesses in Phillips County (220) 

are small and have less than twenty employees. 

Fourteen businesses have between 20 and 99 

employees, and only two businesses have over 100 

employees. The retail trade sector accounted for 

most (38) of the business establishments. The 

finance/insurance and construction sectors are also 

strong. Lodging/food, healthcare, professional/ 

technical services, wholesale trade, and transportation/ 

warehousing businesses each had between 14 and 18 

establishments in 2002. The total number of 

businesses fluctuated between 233 and 241 between 

1999 and 2003, but dropped to 212 in 2004.1 

The retail pull factor, which measures the strength 

of the retail market relative to the state average, 

has been declining steadily since 1985. At .60 in 2002, 

the Phillips County retail pull factor indicates that 

residents leave the county to buy retail goods more 

often than the average Kansas resident, an 

indication of consolidating retail services in larger 

towns, and of Phillips County’s eroding economic 

base. 

Employment 

Since 1985, the civilian workforce (3,229) has 

declined 7.2 percent. The unemployment rate in 

Phillips County (2.3 percent) was lower than the rest 

of rural Kansas (3.9 percent) in 2002. Local 

government employed the most people (776) in 2002. 

The retail sector employed 11 percent (451) of all 

nonfarm workers in 2002, yet retail employment has 

declined by 33 percent since 1996. Other large 

employers were manufacturing (371), healthcare/ 

social services (367), and other services (264), which 

include religious organizations, auto repair services, 

beauty salons, funeral homes, and other 

nonrecreation services. 

Business Characteristics 

Approximately 40 lodging businesses are within 35 

miles of Kirwin NWR in Phillips County, which 

includes 6 campground/RV parks, 4 motels, 2 bed 

and breakfasts, and 2 hunting lodges. There are 13 

locally owned and 2 fast food restaurants, 3 grocery 

stores, 3 gas stations, 8 bait/convenience stores, and 

7 banks. Phillipsburg is the retail center of Phillips 

County and offers a healthy mix of personal 

services, clothing, furniture, antique, hardware and 

drug stores, along with insurance agents and 

lawyers. Several antique stores are scattered 

throughout the other communities in Phillips 

County. 

1

 Data from 2004 came from the Bureau of Economic

 Analysis. An industry breakdown was not available. 

KIRWIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE CURRENT 

CONDITIONS 

Facilities and Operations 

Kirwin NWR contains nearly 11,000 acres, including 

Kirwin Reservoir. Reclamation has primary 

jurisdiction and the Service has secondary 

jurisdiction, commonly called an overlay, on the area 

upstream of the dam. The refuge does not overlay 

the Kirwin Dam, and approximately 450 acres of 

land downstream of the dam. Reclamation and 

Kirwin Irrigation District control the outflow of 

water from the reservoir for irrigation purposes. Six 

campgrounds on the refuge have a capacity to 

accommodate approximately 48 people. 

Full employment at Kirwin NWR is 7.5 permanent 

full time employees (FTEs). Current employment is 

3.0 FTEs. Kirwin NWR had a budget of $234,140 in 

2000. The refuge does not collect any fees for use of 

its facilities and does not directly generate any 

revenue. 

Activities 

Recreational opportunities at Kirwin NWR include 

fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife 

photography. Wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting 

are the most popular activities, accounting for 98 

percent of annual visitation (KNR 2004; Mowry 

2005). 

Visitors can hunt various waterfowl, doves, 

pheasants, quail, turkey, prairie chickens, snipe, 

coots, cottontail rabbits, fox squirrels, and deer 

(archery only) at the refuge. 

Hunting season for all species falls between 

September 1st and May 31st. The most popular 

fishing season is during May and June, but the 

reservoir is open for fishing year-round. 

Motorized and nonmotorized boating, to support 

wildlife-dependent recreation, are also available at 

Kirwin NWR. 

Visitation Levels 

Visitation levels fluctuate between 40,000 and 90,000 

visitor days per year, depending on the water level 

and the fishing quality. During a typical day in 

hunting season, the refuge will attract 

approximately 100 persons. It is estimated that a 

typical breakdown of annual visitation by use is as 

follows: 

■	 17 percent hunting 

■	 29 percent fishing 

■	 52 percent wildlife viewing 

■	 Less than 2 percent non-wildlife-dependent 

recreation 
 

 

 

28 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

It is estimated that most refuge visitors (60–70 

percent) live in Phillips County and vicinity (Mowry 

2005). Most destination visitors come for the 

weekend and stay approximately 2–3 days. It is 

estimated that 2 percent of destination guests camp 

on the refuge. Some visitors prefer the refuge for 

outdoor recreation because it does not charge 

admission for any activity. State parks in Kansas 

charge an entrance fee ($6.50 per vehicle) and a 

camping fee ($8 to $15 per night). Private hunting 

grounds near the refuge charge admission fees that 

range from $25 to $150 per day. 

Employment 

The refuge currently employs 3.0 FTEs. There are 

no retail operations at the site. 

Retail Sales 

Off-site spending by visitors helps support local 

lodging and retail establishments in surrounding 

towns. Approximately 30 percent of refuge visitor 

days, or 19,500 visitor days, are from nonlocal 

visitors. If 50 percent of these guests spend the 

night locally in commercial lodging or campgrounds, 

and on average nonlocal visitors spend $60 per day 

for lodging, food and supplies, then refuge activity 

spurs about $585,000 of new annual spending in the 

Phillips County economy. 

Agriculture 

Kirwin NWR permits farming on specified portions 

of the refuge. The cooperative farming permits 

usually stipulate that the farming cooperator 

harvests 66–75 percent of the crop and the refuge 

gets the remainder of the yield. The refuge usually 

leaves its share of the crop in the field to serve as a 

food supply for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Private farm revenues from crop production at the 

refuge are modest and have little impact on the local 

economy. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Management Direction 


The management direction in this chapter meets the 

purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. Objectives 

and strategies to carry out the goals will provide for 

ecosystem and resource needs and public use. 

■	 A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does 

not define measurable units. 

■	 An objective is a concise statement of 

o what is to be achieved; 

o how much is to be achieved; 

o when and where it is to be achieved; 

o who is responsible to achieve it. 

■	 Strategies are ways to achieve an objective. 

■	 Rationale for each objective includes background 

information, assumptions, and technical details 

used to formulate the objective. The rationale 

provides context to enhance comprehension and 

facilitate evaluations. 

Development of refuge goals and objectives involved 

multiple sources of information: 

■	 a review and interpretation of national plans 

■	 a biological assessment of the refuge 

■	 a review of existing scientific literature 

■	 an evaluation of habitat conditions 

■	 the personal knowledge of planning team 

participants 

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 

The Service will continue to manage the refuge in 

accordance with the MOA between Reclamation and 

the Service (appendix C). The MOA may be updated 

and revised during the life of this plan. The current 

MOA (1985) between Reclamation and the Service 

will remain in effect until an updated agreement is 

signed by both parties. 

Management actions emphasize wildlife and habitat 

management for migratory birds and species of 

conservation concern. 

Habitat management for waterfowl and game 

species will continue to be a high priority. Habitat 

management for nongame species (e.g., water birds, 

shorebirds, prairie grassland-nesting birds) and bird 

species of conservation concern will be elevated to a 

higher priority. Large open habitat for prairie 

grassland birds will increase in size with enhanced 

structural composition through an expanded 

program for managing and planting native grasses 

and forbs. 

Food crops will be used as a habitat management 

tool. Potential uses of cropland include planting 

crops to reduce the encroachment of invasive plant 

species, and the utilization of crops (e.g., sorghum) to 

prepare the soil bed for conversion to native grasses 

and forbs. The majority of existing cropland in the 

uplands will be restored to prairie grassland habitat 

within the life of this plan. 

Food crops on the refuge. 

The small area designated as low disturbance for 

migrating and wintering waterfowl will be expanded 

by implementing a seasonal boat closure on the 

majority of the reservoir from October 1 to April 1, 

which will provide added protection for nesting, 

migrating, and wintering water birds. The motor 

boat closure area in the Solomon Arm will be moved 

Sunset over Kirwin Reservoir. 

USFWS 	 USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

upriver one mile and will occur from Grays Park 

west. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation will be emphasized 

and promoted, with hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation receiving priority 

attention. 

Non-wildlife-dependent uses will not be allowed. 

These refuge uses, and the facilities that support 

them will be phased out within 1 year of CCP 

implementation. Overnight camping will be 

discontinued. However, several other camping 

opportunities exist in the local area. 

Restrooms that do not support wildlife-dependent 

recreation will be closed and removed or relocated, 

changing the number of restrooms on the refuge 

from six to four. Restrooms in good condition will be 

relocated and used on the refuge, or transferred to 

another national wildlife refuge. 

The existing hunting program will continue with 

minimal modifications. Increased efforts to improve 

the quality of the hunting program will be 

implemented. The archery deer only hunting unit 

will be expanded to include the Solomon River 

bottom. 

Beginning in 2007, the refuge manager will evaluate 

all refuge roads for criteria including but not limited 

to wildlife disturbance, law enforcement problems, 

safety concerns, redundancy of purpose, and 

maintenance issues. If a road is determined to fail 

any one of these criteria, it will be seasonally and/or 

permanently closed. If roads are closed, parking 

areas will be adjusted to facilitate pedestrian access. 

The existing fishing program will continue with a 

few modifications. Shore fishing will continue to be 

allowed year-round. Foot access to the entire refuge 

will continue. The refuge will clear and maintain foot 

paths to the reservoir to allow fishing access. Ice 

fishing will continue to be allowed. Under low water 

conditions (elevation <1,722 feet), a seasonal boat 

closure will be implemented on the majority of the 

reservoir October 1 to April 1. Under high water 

conditions (elevation >1,722 feet), the seasonal boat 

closure will be lifted to provide additional fishing 

opportunities. The Service will work with others to 

install a boat ramp at Crappie Point to allow access 

to Bow Creek. 

Efforts to provide wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation opportunities will be expanded where 

feasible. 

The refuge manager may issue Special Use Permits 

for various activities, which do not materially 

detract from refuge purposes, such as university 

research and Boy Scout safety training. 

Management of invasive species will be enhanced. 

There will be an expansion and diversification of 

invasive plant management in the shoreline, 

riparian, upland, and transition zone areas. 

With increased funding and staffing, the refuge will 

be able to collect in-depth baseline data for wildlife 

and habitats. Increased efforts in operations and 

maintenance for natural resources will occur. 

Increased efforts in the maintenance and 

development of partnerships that promote wildlife 

and habitat management will occur. 

The Service will continue to seek voluntary 

assistance from KDWP to help with the fishery in 

Kirwin Reservoir. A new MOA between the Service 

and KDWP needs to be developed due to the 1954 

MOA being voided by the 1966 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act to comply with 

Service laws, policies and regulations. 

The refuge will manage its wildland fire program 

according to the steps outlines in appendix H. 

The section 7 biological evaluation for threatened 

and endangered species can be found in appendix K. 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

The following objectives and strategies outline the 

actions needed to achieve the vision and goals of 

Kirwin NWR. 

Although a number of needs have been identified 

during the planning process, there are no assurances 

that any projects or staff positions will be fully or 

even partially funded. Implementation of some of 

the following objectives will be subject to future 

increases in staffing and/or funding for the refuge. 

However, within every planning effort, there are 

opportunities to examine current allocations of 

funding and resources and determine the best 

available uses based on a comprehensive evaluation 

of critical needs. 

ECOLOGY GOAL 

Restore the native mixed-grass prairie ecosystem 

(e.g., prairie grasslands, wooded draws, and 

limestone outcrops) and riparian areas above flood 

levels by emulating natural processes. When water 

levels are low, diversify wildlife habitats within the 

dry reservoir basin (see figure 6). 

Deepwater (Reservoir) Habitat 

Species of concern that use deepwater habitat 

include eared grebe, western grebe, American white 

pelican, redhead, lesser scaup, Franklin’s gull, 

common tern, black tern. Threatened and 

endangered species that use deepwater habitat 

include bald eagle and least tern. 
 

 

 

4⎯Management Direction 31
 

Figure 6. Expected habitat conditions at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Objective 1: Within 1 year of CCP approval, initiate 

discussions with Reclamation, and the Kirwin 

Irrigation District to discuss the feasibility of 

maintaining greater stability of water levels (with 

target elevations between 1,710 feet and 1,729 feet) 

in the reservoir to allow the development of food 

resources and to make those resources available to 

migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds and 

other wetland-dependent wildlife. 

Rationale: 

The water supply is currently managed by 

Reclamation and the Kirwin Irrigation District, for 

flood control and irrigation purposes. By working 

with these agencies, the Service will have an 

opportunity to discuss wildlife benefits that occur 

with greater stability of water levels. Reducing 

dramatic drawdowns during summer months for 

elevations below 1,729 feet will benefit deepwater 

dependent fish and wildlife species. Water levels 

between 1710 feet and 1,729 feet were chosen 

because sufficient shoreline and waterfowl habitat is 

significantly reduced as water levels drop below 

1,710 feet. 

When water levels exceed conservation pool 

(elevation 1,729) for an extended amount of time, 

vegetation that becomes flooded dies. This flooded 

area is extremely vulnerable to invasive plants. For 

example, if the water level is held just 2 feet above 

conservation pool, 591 acres of vegetation are 

damaged. This will also protect riparian and prairie 

grassland habitats above the conservation pool from 

flood kill when the water level rises above 1,729 feet. 

Reclamation hydrologists project water levels will 

be down for +/- 40 years. Inflows have been 

decreased substantially due to upstream 

development of wells, farm ponds, and terraces. 

Strategies: 

— Discuss wildlife benefits of modified hydrology 

with Reclamation, Vicksburg, MS (Waterways 

Experiment Station), USACE, and the Kirwin 

Irrigation District. 

— Discuss invasive plant species management with 

Reclamation, Vicksburg, MS (Waterways 

Experiment Station), USACE, and the Kirwin 

Irrigation District. 

— Conduct waterfowl surveys. 

Objective 2: Within 1 year of CCP approval, create 

an optimum area of low disturbance for waterfowl 

by introducing a seasonal boat closure on the 

majority of the reservoir between October 1 and 

April 1. 

Rationale: 

Providing an area of low disturbance for migrating 

and wintering waterfowl will retain birds in the area 

for a longer period of time than having a small 

narrow area that can be easily disturbed. Holding 

more geese in the area will improve goose hunting 

on the refuge and the surrounding area. Boating can 

impact waterfowl by lowering productivity, reducing 

use of preferred habitat, and increasing indirect 

mortality, aberrant behavior, and stress (Pomerantz 

1988). 

Strategies: 

— At water levels <1,722 ft, implement a seasonal 

(October 1—April) boat (motorized and 

nonmotorized) closure on the majority of the 

reservoir (north of Crappie Point). 

— Allow nonmotorized boats in the motorized boat 

closure area from August through September 

(Grays Park ⎯ west). 

— Maintain Bow Creek to boating year-round from 

Crappie Point upstream (south of Crappie Point). 

— Continue to allow boats to launch at Crappie Point 

to access Bow Creek to the south. 

Objective 3: Throughout the life of the CCP, 

Reclamation will continue to monitor sedimentation. 

Rationale: 

Reclamation owns the dam, is responsible for 

irrigation operations, and monitors sedimentation 

levels. 

Shoreline Habitat 

Species of concern that use shoreline habitat include 

eared grebe, western grebe, American white 

pelican, Canada goose, white-front goose, snowRoss’ goose, wood duck, mallard, northern pintail, 

American wigeon, redhead, lesser scaup, snowy 

egret, whooping crane, piping plover, snowy plover, 

American avocet, semipalmated sandpiper, least 

sandpiper, Baird’s sandpiper, long-billed dowitcher, 

Wilson’s phalarope, Franklin’s gull, common tern, 

and black tern. Threatened and endangered species 

that use shoreline habitat include bald eagle and 

least tern. 

The objectives and strategies for the shoreline 

habitat are the same as those of the deepwater 

(reservoir) habitat. 

Riparian Habitat 

Species of concern that use riparian habitat include 

wood ducks, Swainson’s hawk, northern bobwhite 

quail, yellow-billed cuckoo, red-headed woodpecker, 

western kingbird, loggerhead shrike, Bell’s vireo, 

Baltimore oriole, American tree sparrow, and 

Harris’ sparrow. Threatened and endangered 

species that use riparian habitat include the bald 

eagle. 

Objective 1: Throughout the life of the CCP, provide 

openings in wooded riparian corridors along Bow 

Creek and North Fork Solomon River for the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

benefit of declining migratory birds (e.g., Baltimore 

oriole, yellow billed cuckoo, and Swainson’s hawk) 

by removing all nonnative trees. 

Rationale: 

Most species of concern utilize woodland edge, 

brush, or patch woodland; not large blocks of 

continuous canopy woodland. Consequently, 

removing nonnative trees and using fire to restore 

woodland–prairie mosaic is desirable (Busby 2005). 

Invasive tree removal provides openings beneficial 

to migratory bird species of conservation concern. 

Removal of invasive tree species (e.g. cedar, locust, 

Siberian elm, and Russian olive) is desired above the 

conservation pool because they provide a seed 

source for expansion into prairie grassland areas. 

Native trees such as green ash, hackberry, boxelder, 

American elm, and eastern cottonwood provide 

better foraging areas for tree dependent birds 

(Sevigny 1997). A mixture of native plants (trees, 

herbaceous and shrubby vegetation) in riparian 

areas will create habitat for species of conservation 

concern (Peak 2002). Resident game species such as 

white-tailed deer, turkeys, and bobwhite quail will 

benefit as well. 

Vegetation requires periodic manipulation to 

achieve the stated objectives. The combination of 

grazing, rest, mechanical treatments, burning, 

herbicides, and biological agents are the best tools to 

accomplish this. Certain tree species seedlings 

increase with grazing and when overstory trees are 

removed. Light to moderate grazing of shrubs 

produces greater vegetative growth than 

nongrazing (Uresk 1986). Healthy riparian habitat 

helps filter runoff, reduces sedimentation, improves 

water quality, and provides habitat for associated 

wildlife species (Meyer 2003). 

Strategies: 

— Provide openings in the canopy along Bow Creek 

and the North Fork Solomon River by removing 

invasive trees. 

— Retain most of the native trees. 

— Plant warm-season native grasses in the 

understory. 

— Complete a detailed habitat inventory of the 

refuge. 

— Establish a vegetation-monitoring plan to assess 

health of established riparian areas, and measure 

and document success or changes needed in 

management efforts. The plan should include 

herbivory and hydrology factors. 

— Develop a wildlife-monitoring plan that correlates 

wildlife use and habitat condition. 

— Develop an integrated pest management plan. 

4⎯Management Direction 33 

— Utilize grazing at varying stocking rates, seasons, 

and intensities as a management tool. 

— Use nongrazing as a management tool. 

— Use a variety of methods such as mechanical 

treatments, prescribed burning, herbicides, and 

biological agents as management tools. 

Objective 2: Throughout the life of the plan, the 

Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

will continue to work in cooperation with other 

agencies to provide funding and technical assistance 

to private landowners in order to improve riparian 

health on the surrounding private lands for the 

benefit of declining migratory birds that use the 

wooded corridor. 

Rationale: 

Issues in riparian corridors adjacent to the refuge 

that Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program will address are the essentially the same as 

on the refuge. 

Strategies: 

— Use a Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologist to 

work with local partners and willing landowners 

to identify, prioritize, and restore/enhance 

degraded areas for the benefit of riparian birds. 

— Have a Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

biologist apply for funding to accomplish the work 

listed above. 

— Provide openings in the wooded riparian corridors 

along Bow Creek and the North Fork Solomon 

River. 

— Remove invasive trees. 

— Retain most of the native trees. 

— Plant warm-season native grasses in open areas. 

— Use prescribed fire, grazing, and mechanical 

means as management tools. 

Upland Habitat 

Species of concern that use upland habitat include 

mallard, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, greater 

prairie chicken, upland sandpiper, burrowing owl, 

short-eared owl, red-headed woodpecker, western 

kingbird, loggerhead shrike, Bell’s vireo, Baltimore 

oriole, dickcissel, lark sparrow, American tree 

sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Harris’ sparrow, 

chestnut collared longspur, and Lapland longspur. 

Objective 1: Within 5 years of CCP approval, create 

a minimum of 5,000 acres of restored prairie habitat 

on the refuge that contains less than 5 percent trees 

and a diversity of vegetation height, litter depth, 

and floristic composition to provide habitat for 

prairie grassland dependent birds (e.g., prairie 

chicken, upland sandpiper, and Swainson’s Hawk). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Rationale: 

The patch size of the prairie grassland habitat and 

the structure of the vegetation (visual obstruction, 

height, and litter depth) are the most important 

qualities of prairie grassland habitat (Skinner 1975). 

Because different prairie grassland bird species 

require different habitat conditions, the refuge will 

manage sections of the 5,000-acre block differently in 

order to ensure a diversity of vegetation height, 

floristic composition and litter depth. Prairie 

chickens require the largest size tract of prairie 

grassland (minimum ~640 acres) (Robel et al. 1970; 

Niemuth 2000), upland sandpipers require the next 

largest tract of prairie grassland (minimum ~160 

acres) (Winter 1999), with other prairie grassland 

birds requiring smaller parcels of prairie grassland 

to minimally inhabit an area. Therefore, if size 

requirements for prairie chickens can be obtained, 

all other prairie grassland bird area requirements 

will be met. Removing trees within the uplands will 

also discourage predators (Rodgers 2003; Bakker 

2002). Trees within wooded draws and riparian areas 

and parts of the transition zone will not be totally 

removed. [See bird list for more specific habitat 

requirements.] 

Prairies are dynamic and may change rapidly if left 

undisturbed. Dead vegetation builds up suppressing 

new growth and woody vegetation may invade 

changing the characteristic vegetation of the area 

(Naugle 2000). Periodic manipulations using 

prescribed fire, seeding, mowing, and grazing are 

used to maintain the diversity of the prairie 

vegetation and ensure the continuance of the prairie 

community (Service 1996). A completed inventory of 

the upland vegetation will assist in determining 

outcomes and utilizing adaptive management. 

Monitoring the response of the flora and fauna will 

aid in assessing the success of the tools applied and 

help improve these methods. Resident game species 

such as mule deer, ring-necked pheasants, prairie 

chickens, and bobwhite quail will benefit as well. 

Research advocates periodic treatment of prairie 

grasslands to remove excessive litter accumulations 

and invasions of woody vegetation that negatively 

affect vegetative health, structure, and vigor. 

Burning provides the fastest and most effective 

means of litter removal (Naugle 2000). Many prairie 

grassland birds avoid woody vegetation. Upland 

sandpiper, greater prairie chicken, ferruginous 

hawk, short-eared owl, horned lark, bobolink, 

western meadowlark, savannah sparrow, and 

grasshopper sparrow all avoid woody vegetation 

(Wildlife Habitat Management Institute 1999). 

Strategies: 

— Restore 1,300 acres of cropland to native prairie 

grassland above the conservation pool. 

— Remove all trees from grasslands (native and 

nonnative). 

Prairie wildflowers 

— Plant a diverse mix of native grasses and forbs 

containing over 100 different species. 

— Use equipment such as a grass drill, and 

broadcasters to plant the seed. 

— Use a variety of tools to encourage plant 

establishment and growth such as prescribed 

burning, mowing/haying, and grazing. 

— Complete a detailed habitat inventory of the 

refuge. 

— Establish a vegetation monitoring plan to assess 

health of established riparian areas, and measure 

and document success or changes needed in 

management efforts. The monitoring plan should 

include herbivory and hydrology factors. 

— Develop a wildlife monitoring plan that correlates 

wildlife use and habitat condition. 

— Develop an integrated pest management plan. 

— Use nongrazing as a management tool. 

— Implement seasonal and permanent road closures 

in selected areas. 

Objective 2: Within 5 years of CCP approval, create 

one block of restored prairie habitat with a minimum 

block size of 42,000 acres connecting two isolated 

prairie grassland areas of private land (17,000 and 

20,000 acres) through the restoration of the 5,000­

acre block of refuge prairie habitat, for the benefit of 

prairie grassland birds. 

Rationale: 

Virtually all of the suggestions in conservation 

biology literature pose two ideas for preserving 

biodiversity in fragmented landscapes: 1) establish 

corridors; 2) buffer native patches with native 

habitat (Marzluff 2001). The refuge is the focal point 

between two large blocks of adjacent prairie 

grassland (see figure 7). A 42,000-acre block of 

prairie grassland is desirable because it fulfills the 

USFWS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4⎯Management Direction 35 

minimum area requirements of all prairie grassland 

birds. The larger the block, the less the habitat is 

degraded by outside sources (i.e., herbicide drift 

from cropland). 

The 37,000 acres of prairie that is adjacent to the 

refuge is owned and managed by many different 

people. These tracts are similar in numerous ways. 

This variety of management potentially produces 

the appropriate litter depths, visual obstruction 

readings, and vegetation heights necessary to 

support prairie grassland birds. However, the 

refuge block of 5,000 acres is the only area that will 

be managed specifically for prairie grassland birds. 

The refuge habitat will be the cornerstone of the 

42,000-acre block. 

Strategies: 

— Same as strategies for upland habitat objective 1. 

Objective 3: Provide approximately 500 to 2,000 

acres, over a 5-year average, of native and restored 

prairie habitat with a vegetation height of < 6 

inches, composed of < 5 percent woody vegetation 

over 8 feet in height to benefit vesper sparrow, 

chestnut collared longspur, horned lark, upland 

sandpiper, grasshopper sparrow, western 

meadowlark, Sprague’s pipit, clay-colored sparrow, 

ferruginous hawk, McCown’s longspur, lark bunting, 

burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, lark sparrow, and 

greater prairie chicken. 

Rationale: 

Same rationale as upland habitat objective 1. 

In addition, Vesper sparrows and chestnut-collared 

longspurs prefer open prairie with short-grasses 

(Dechant 2003). Clay-colored sparrows prefer 

grasses 10 to 30 cm high (Dechant et al. 2003e, 2001). 

McCown’s longspurs use short vegetation (Dechant 

2003). Lark buntings use prairie grasslands of low to 

moderate height (Dechant 2003). 

Burrowing owls prefer prairie grasslands of sparse 

vegetation, bare ground and relatively short 

vegetation (Dechant 2003). Lark sparrows prefer 

areas that are burned and have moderate to heavy 

grazing with 13 cm grass height (Dechant 2003). 

Strategies: 

— Same as strategies for upland habitat objective 1. 

Objective 4: Provide approximately 500 to 2,000 

acres, over a 5-year average, of native and restored 

prairie habitat with a vegetation height of 6 to 20 

inches, composed of < 5 percent woody vegetation 

over 8 feet in height to benefit chestnut collared 

longspur, horned lark, upland sandpiper, 

grasshopper sparrow, savannah sparrow, western 

meadowlark, bobolink, Sprague’s pipit, clay-colored 

sparrow, short-eared owl, northern harrier, 

dickcissel, ferruginous hawk, short-eared owl, 

eastern meadowlark, lark bunting, Swainson’s hawk, 

lark sparrow, and greater prairie chicken. 

Rationale: 

Same rationale as upland habitat objective 1. 

In addition, upland sandpipers prefer areas 

moderate to high litter cover with moderate grazing 

and low woody cover (Dechant 2003). Western 

meadowlarks use a wide variety of vegetation 

heights, however, they avoid extremely sparse or 

tall cover (Dechant 2003). Bobolinks prefer habitat 

with moderate to tall vegetation (Dechant 2003). 

Grasshopper sparrows prefer prairie grasslands of 

intermediate height (Dechant 2003). Dickcissels 

prefer habitat with dense, moderate to tall 

vegetation (Dechant 2003). Short-eared owls prefer 

large open areas with a vegetation height of 30 to 60 

cm, with a maximum vegetation height of 90 cm 

(Dechant 2003). 

Strategies: 

— Same as strategies for upland habitat objective 1. 

Objective 5: Provide approximately 500 to 2,000 

acres, over a 5-year average, of native and restored 

prairie habitat with a vegetation height of > 20 

inches, composed of < 5 percent woody vegetation 

over 8 feet in height to benefit savannah sparrow, 

northern harrier, dickcissel, bobolink, and 

grasshopper sparrow. 

Rationale: 

Same rationale as upland habitat objective 1. 

In addition, northern harriers prefer tall vegetation 

(Johnson 1998). Dickcissels prefer habitat with 

dense, moderate to tall vegetation (Dechant 2003). 

Grasshopper sparrows and bobolinks occur most 

frequently in area of tall, dense vegetation (Arnold 

1986). Savannah sparrows usually do not occur in 

areas that contain shrubs (Arnold 1986). 

Strategies: 

— Same as strategies for upland habitat objective 1. 

Objective 6: Throughout the life of the plan, the 

Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

will continue to work in cooperation with other 

agencies to provide funding and technical assistance 

to private landowners for improved upland habitat 

management to benefit prairie grassland birds. 

Rationale: 

Private lands adjoining the refuge are a priority for 

the Service. To more effectively maintain refuge 

habitat, the landscape surrounding the refuge must 

also be managed (Marzluff 2001). 
36 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Figure 7. Regional overview
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4⎯Management Direction 37 

Strategies: 

— Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program biologist 

may apply for funding to address stocking rates, 

tree encroachment, and lack of rest, fire, and 

residual cover. 

— A Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologist will 

continue to work with local partners and willing 

landowners to identify, prioritize, and 

restore/enhance degraded areas for the benefit of 

prairie grassland birds. 

Transition Zone (Dry Reservoir) Habitat 

Species of concern that use transition zone habitat 

include Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, greater 

prairie chicken, yellow-billed cuckoo, short-eared 

owl, red-headed woodpecker, western kingbird, 

loggerhead shrike, Bell’s vireo, Baltimore oriole, 

dickcissel, lark sparrow, American tree sparrow, 

grasshopper sparrow, Harris’ sparrow, and 

chestnut-collared longspur. Threatened and 

endangered species include bald eagle and whooping 

crane. 

Objective 1: Throughout the life of the CCP, manage 

the dry reservoir bottom to provide approximately 0 

to 2,000 acres of prairie habitat for the benefit of 

prairie grassland dependent birds. 

Rationale: 

Same rationale as upland habitat objective 1. 

Strategies: 

— Retain treeless areas of prairie. 

— Use native prairie grassland seedings, prescribed 

fire, grazing and mowing, as well as mechanical 

and chemical removal to create prairie grassland 

corridors (relatively devoid of trees) in selected 

locations within the Bow Creek and Solomon 

Arms. Examples of this will occur between 

Catfish Cove and the confluence of Hungry 

Hollow, and between Solomon Bend and Big 

Bend. 

Objective 2: Throughout the life of the CCP, manage 

the dry reservoir bottom to provide approximately 0 

to 2,000 acres of shrub–savannah habitat with 

occasional dense timber stands for the benefit of 

migratory birds that depend on shrubs for survival. 

Rationale: 

Migratory bird species of conservation concern (e.g., 

redheaded woodpecker and Baltimore oriole) 

require a more savannah-like habitat than dense 

stands of timber. Migratory bird species of 

conservation concern (e.g., Bell’s vireo) require 

shrub habitat. 

Strategies: 

— Use native prairie grassland seedings, prescribed 

fire, grazing and mowing to create savannah 

habitat dominated by grasses and forbs 

interspersed with shrubs, stunted trees and 

occasional mature trees. 

Objective 3: Throughout the life of the plan, manage 

portions of the dry reservoir bottom to provide 

approximately 0–1,500 acres open areas (without 

trees) for feeding and resting waterfowl, sandhill 

cranes and whooping cranes. 

Rationale: 

Cropping is the most efficient way to retain open 

areas. Without cropping, the area will develop into 

stands of trees. These trees will not benefit 

waterfowl and cranes. Cropping also helps control 

the spread of invasive plants and provides a food 

source for migratory birds and resident wildlife. 

Without open areas, waterfowl and cranes will not 

remain in the area as long, which will reduce hunting 

and wildlife viewing opportunities significantly. As 

the water level fluctuates, the cropland will flood 

and become shoreline habitat. Areas of open 

shoreline are desirable for shoreline birds and other 

water birds. 

Endangered whooping cranes are sighted almost 

annually on the refuge and in the surrounding area. 

They pass through the area during spring and fall 

migrations with most sightings occurring in April 

and October. Sightings are mainly in crop fields or 

shallow ponds with a large, unobstructed field of 

view. Historically, times of receding water are when 

whooping cranes visit the refuge. The most limiting 

factors to their use of the refuge have been the 

absence of large open expanses of mud flat and 

shallow water, and the excess growth of trees and 

brush along exposed shorelines (Service 1996). 

Strategies: 

— Utilize cooperative farmers to control state-listed 

invasive plants in select areas. 

— Plant native grasses in select areas. 

— Use cropping to retain open areas, control 

invasive plants, and provide a food source. 

Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat 

Threatened and endangered species that occur at 

the refuge include the bald eagle (threatened), 

whooping crane (endangered), interior least tern 

(endangered), and piping plover (threatened). 

Objective 1: Throughout the life of the plan, protect 

federally listed threatened and endangered species. 

Inform and educate the public to their presence and 

needed protection. Cooperate with Reclamation on 

all management of threatened and endangered 

species that occur on and around the face of the dam. 

Rationale: 

Federal law requires that threatened and 

endangered species are protected. Least terns are a 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

federally endangered species that are very sensitive 

to human disturbance and were documented nesting 

in late 1970s and early 1980s on the refuge. In many 

years they use the refuge during migration. 

Strategies: 

— Protect nesting least terns by installing signs and 

increasing patrols. 

— Develop an MOU with Reclamation for nesting 

least terns on Reclamation land. 

— Develop informational kiosks to educate the 

public. 

— Protect future nesting bald eagles. 

— Close specific areas, roads, or the entire refuge to 

all access or hunting when whooping cranes or 

other sensitive wildlife are present. 

Invasive Species 

State designated invasive plants present on the 

refuge include Johnson grass, musk thistle, Canada 

thistle, and field bindweed. 

Objective 1: Throughout the life of the plan, 

annually treat a minimum of 50 percent of the acres 

that contain state-listed invasive plants. 

Rationale: 

For native birds to be retained, invasive plants must 

be actively controlled (Marzluff 2001). Invasive 

species pose a serious threat to existing fish and 

wildlife resources. Once present, it is important to 

maximize efforts to gain control of invasive plants. 

State laws mandate that all landowners control 

certain invasive plants. Currently, Canada thistle is 

the primary invasive plant of concern. Canada 

thistle invades along the shoreline; the magnitude of 

water drawdowns in summer months facilitates the 

spread of invasive plants within the transition and 

shoreline zones. 

Strategies: 

— Use of any tool available to control invasive 

species. 

Visitor Services 

The Improvement Act declares that compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses are legitimate 

and appropriate priority general public uses of the 

Refuge System. Six wildlife-dependent public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation) receive enhanced consideration in 

this CCP. These activities receive special attention 

because they help foster an appreciation and 

understanding of wildlife and the outdoors. 

Consequently, these six activities are priorities for 

the refuge’s available staff and financial resources. 

A compatibility determination (CD) is required for 

all proposed refuge uses. A compatible use is one 

that, in the sound professional judgment of the 

refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or 

detract from fulfillment of the Refuge System 

mission or a refuge purpose. CDs for proposed uses 

at Kirwin NWR can be found in appendix C. 

Visitor Services Goal 

All public uses will be compatible with the purpose 

of Kirwin NWR and the mission of the Refuge 

System. The following wildlife-dependent public 

uses⎯hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation⎯will be prioritized. In association 

with other compatible uses, the refuge will strive to 

provide a diversity of outreach, research, and 

education and interpretation (see figure 8). 

Hunting 

Additional hunting opportunities may be considered 

during the development of a visitor services plan 

(table 1). The public will be included in the 

development of the visitor services plan. 

Objective 1: Until the new visitor services stepdown management plan is completed (table 1), 

maintain most of the existing hunting program to 

manage wildlife and maximize hunting opportunities 

consistent with refuge goals and objectives 

(waterfowl, pheasant, quail, doves, turkey, prairie 

chicken, snipe, coots, cottontail rabbit, fox squirrel, 

and archery deer). See public use map (figure 8) for 

designated hunting areas. 

Rationale: 

The existing upland game and archery deer only 

areas were established to disperse the deer 

population, and to provide additional compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities (Service 

1996). 

Areas closed to hunting and/or flotation devices 

provide a sanctuary that attracts wildlife, promotes 

wildlife observation, and causes waterfowl to stay at 

the refuge longer. This provides more hunting 

opportunities on the refuge and on adjacent lands. 

The presence of hunters and boats increases 

disturbance responsible for substantial population 

decreases (Service 1976). Human disturbance 

reduces the quality of staging and wintering areas 

(Korschgen 1985). Boating impacts to waterfowl 

include indirect mortality, lowered productivity, 

reduced use of preferred habitat, and aberrant 

behavior and stress (Pomerantz 1988). 

The potential exists for enhancing waterfowl 

hunting opportunities by enlarging or developing a 

new crop field in the Bow Creek area. Most of the 

area between Quillback Cove and Prairie Dog Town 

will be restored to prairie and is key to connecting 

the two large parcels of prairie that are adjacent to 

the refuge. Historically, when the water level is low, 

this area is not used as much by geese as when the 

water level is higher. 
 

 

4⎯Management Direction 39
 

Figure 8. Public use at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Strategies: 

— Hire a park ranger (refuge law enforcement 

officer). 

— Continue archery-only deer hunting in the 

western part of the refuge. 

— Increase archery-only deer hunting unit to include 

the Solomon River bottom. 

— Implement a limited quota draw system for 

archery deer permits. 

— Require all archery deer stands, blinds, etc., to be 

labeled with the hunter’s name. 

— Continue existing hunting regulations along the 

north and south sides of the main body of the 

reservoir: open to doves, pheasants, quail, turkey, 

prairie chicken, snipe, coots, cottontail rabbit, fox 

squirrel and deer (archery only). Closed to 

waterfowl hunting. 

— Continue existing hunting regulations in the Bow 

Creek area: open to doves, pheasants, quail, 

turkey, prairie chicken, snipe, coots, cottontail 

rabbit, fox squirrel and deer (archery only). Open 

to waterfowl hunting. 

— Continue existing no hunting zone. 

— Enhance or develop a new crop field along Bow 

Creek. 

Objective 2: Simplify the existing hunting plan as 

much as possible, until the new visitor services stepdown management plan is completed (table 1). 

Rationale: 

Kirwin has a fairly complicated hunting plan which 

creates problems for new and veteran hunters of the 

refuge. National wildlife refuges strive for the 

simplest hunting plans on refuges to make refuges 

user friendly and reduce law enforcement workloads 

and violations. 

Strategies: 

— Change the six shell zone regulations to state that 

no more than six shotgun shells per person per 

day are allowed during all hunting seasons. 

— During times when there is no water in the 

reservoir bottom west of a line between Quillback 

Cove and Solomon Bend, open the dry reservoir 

bottom to archery deer hunting. The area will be 

re-evaluated for hunting compatibility with refuge 

purposes if water is present in the area. 

Objective 3: Throughout the life of the CCP, 

continue to allow motorized and nonmotorized 

boating in designated areas and at designated times 

to support hunting. 

Rationale: 

The six wildlife-dependent uses will continue to be 

supported when compatible. 

Strategies: 

— Continue to allow boats to be launched at Crappie 

Point in order to access Bow Creek year-round. 

Objective 4: Within the life of the CCP, enhance the 

quality of hunting opportunities, reduce disturbance 

to hunters and wildlife, increase the chance of 

harvest, and promote ethical hunting practices. 

Rationale: 

Reducing disturbances to hunters and wildlife will 

improve opportunities to observe and harvest game. 

Animals feel safer when they have greater open 

distance between themselves and potential threats. 

Disturbance causes increased mortality of young by 

forcing adults to leave the nests, reducing parental 

attentiveness, and increasing the odds of the young 

being preyed upon (Knight 1991). Minimize resource 

damage caused by vehicles. 

Definition of Quality Hunt: A better than 

average opportunity to observe and harvest an 

animal while providing an opportunity for 

solitude. 

Strategies: 

— Increase habitat block size by increasing the acres 

of open prairie. 

— Implement seasonal and permanent road closures 

in selected areas. 

— Adjust hunting and fishing parking areas to 

minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

— Enhance the quality of refuge prairie. 

— Provide more cover for wintering and nesting 

prairie grassland birds. 

Objective 5: Within 3 years, improve the availability 

of information for hunters regarding the refuge’s 

specific hunting regulations. 

Rationale: 

Clear, concise, and current information is necessary 

for hunters to plan a hunt at the refuge and to be 

sure they are following the regulations once they 

arrive. Hunter awareness of ethics, methods and 

opportunities increases the quality of the hunting 

experience for all hunters and provides a safe 

environment. 

Strategies: 

— Develop a new hard copy brochure that will be 

available a designated locations. 

— Update the refuge website to include a map of the 

hunting areas. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4⎯Management Direction 41 

— Provide hunting brochures at the visitor center 

and select locations on the refuge. 

— Develop signage that facilitates hunting. 

Fishing 

Objective 1: Where compatible, opportunities for 

fishing will be provided based on refuge goals and 

objectives. 

Rationale: 

Fishing is a compatible use and will continue to be 

supported. 

Strategies: 

— Continue to allow motorized and nonmotorized 

boating in designated areas and at designated 

times to support wildlife-dependent uses. 

— Continue foot access to the entire refuge. 

— Encourage fishing opportunities on the refuge. 

— Provide fishing brochures and information at the 

visitor center and other locations on the refuge. 

— Clear and maintain foot paths to the reservoir for 

fishing access. 

Objective 2: Within 1 year, enhance boat fishing 

opportunities by opening the area between Railroad 

Flats and Grays Park to motorized boats at all water 

levels between April 1 and October 1. 

Rationale: 

The opportunity is made compatible by having the 

seasonal boat closure (October 1 to April 1). While 

the refuge does produce some waterfowl, its primary 

use is during migration and winter. Fall migration 

brings up to 70,000 Canada geese, 40,000 whitefronted geese, 26,000 snow/Ross’ geese, and 220,000 

ducks to the refuge annually. Depending on weather 

conditions, many Canada geese and mallards stay 

through the winter. Numbers build up again during 

spring migration with only a few local birds left by 

April 1 (Service 1996). Providing an area of low 

disturbance for migrating and wintering waterfowl 

will hold birds in the area for a longer period of time 

than having a small narrow area that can be easily 

disturbed (Dahlgren 1992). Holding more geese in 

the area will improve goose hunting on the refuge 

and the surrounding area. 

Strategies: 

— Move the “closed to boats” boundary from 

Railroad Flats to Grays Park. 

— Keep buoy line at Grays Park at all water levels. 

— At water levels <1,722 ft, implement a seasonal 

(October 1 to April 1) boat closure on the majority 

of the reservoir. 

— Keep Bow Creek open to boating year-round from 

Crappie Point upstream. 

— Allow boats to be launched at Crappie Point to 

access Bow Creek. 

— Allow nonmotorized boats in the motorized boat 

closure area from August 1 through September 

30. 

Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, 

Interpretation, and Environmental Education 

Objective 1: Throughout the life of the plan, 

continue to provide wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography opportunities based on refuge habitat 

goals and objectives. 

Rationale: 

These are compatible public uses. The refuge 

overlook and pergola at Crappie Point provide 

excellent areas for viewing and photographing many 

kinds of wildlife. Prairie Dog Town provides the 

opportunity to view and photograph animals up 

close. 

Strategies: 

— Hire an outdoor recreation planner. 

— Maintain foot access to the refuge. 

— Maintain pergolas at the refuge overlook and 

Crappie Point. 

— Maintain trails at Prairie Dog Town and Crappie 

Point. 

Objective 2: Within one year of hiring an outdoor 

recreation planner, provide interpretive and 

environmental education programs such as Eagle 

Day, Eco-Meet, and monthly wildlife education 

programs. 

Rationale: 

The public should be made aware of the Refuge 

System and Kirwin NWR and the benefits it 

provides to wildlife and the local community. 

Strategies: 

— Hire an outdoor recreation planner to conduct 

outreach and education activities. 

— Create programs for students and volunteers to 

assist in management tasks for service learning. 

— Use existing environmental education 

opportunities as they occur, such as scouting, 

school groups, and refuge field trips. 

— Maintain and potentially modify existing facilities 

to reflect new management strategies. 

Other Public Uses (Non-wildlife-dependent) 

Objective 1: Within 1 year of CCP approval, gain 

compliance with current laws, policies and 

regulations. For the benefit of declining prairie 

grassland and woodland dependent migratory birds, 

reduce habitat fragmentation, wildlife disturbance, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

and conflicts with fishermen, and increase acres of 

available habitat and public safety by discontinuing 

non-wildlife-dependent uses. 

Rationale: 

The Improvement Act defines what public uses are 

compatible and priorities on national wildlife 

refuges. Noncompatible, non-wildlife-dependent 

uses are not in compliance with the Improvement 

Act. 

In high water years, several fishing tournaments 

were permitted. These created conflicts with other 

fishermen. At current, normal, low water, water 

levels, tournament fishing has all but disappeared. 

Tournament fishing is considered an economic use of 

an NWR and is held to a higher standard than a 

noneconomic use of an NWR. An economic use must 

benefit wildlife to be allowed on an NWR. Fishing 

tournaments do not benefit wildlife. 

Discontinuing camping will reduce fragmentation of 

upland habitat and disturbance to wildlife, and 

improve available habitat. Although many forms of 

non-wildlife-dependent uses seem innocuous, they 

can cause displacement, detrimental changes in 

behavior, and reproductive declines in wildlife 

(Gutzwiller 1993). Campsites disturb or alter 

vegetation, soil, topography, microclimates, and 

light and moisture conditions (Knight 1991). 

Camping may disturb wildlife through trampling of 

habitat. Habitat changes caused by trampling 

generally reduce vegetation diversity and increase 

soil compaction, resulting in an overall loss of habitat 

(Boyle 1985). Reductions in ground- and shrubnesting birds occur in campsites due to the altered 

habitat (Knight 1991). Campsite impacts decrease 

rapidly once the disturbance is terminated (Marion 

1996). Camping is available in the local area. 

Strategies: 

— Discontinue volleyball, power/speed boating, 

water/jet skiing (personal water craft), camping, 

swimming, horseback riding, basketball, 

tournament fishing, and power and speed boating. 

— Remove facilities associated with camping and 

rehabilitate the areas. 

Research and Science Goal 

A scientific approach utilizing the best available 

information will guide the restoration, protection, 

and enhancement of the refuge’s water resources 

and fish and wildlife habitat for the prosperity of 

native flora and fauna. 

Objective 1: Within 1 year after hiring a wildlife 

biologist, initiate a detailed baseline inventory of all 

habitat types and use the data to identify and 

prioritize habitat management research needs. 

USFWS 

Bluebird box. 

Rationale: 

A baseline inventory is necessary to understand 

what habitat types exist on the refuge. The 

inventory will also expose areas that require 

additional research. Refuge staff will benefit from 

research targeted to specific habitat management 

techniques. 

Strategies: 

— Hire a wildlife biologist. 

— Conduct baseline habitat inventories. 

Objective 2: Within 1 year after hiring a wildlife 

biologist, initiate a detailed baseline inventory of all 

species of conservation concern. 

Rationale: 

A baseline inventory is necessary to understand 

what species exist on the refuge. The inventory also 

will expose areas that require additional research. 

Refuge staff will benefit from research targeted to 

specific species management techniques. 

Strategies: 

— Hire a wildlife biologist. 

Objective 3: Within 1 year after hiring a wildlife 

biologist, initiate a formal monitoring program to 

measure burn response, prairie grassland 

restoration, and invasive species control. Within 5 

years of that, start monitoring vegetation response 

to management activities. 

Rationale: 

Provide current research information for the 

purpose of enhancing management techniques and 

result son the refuge. In contrast to alternative A, 

formal monitoring will consist of refuge staff 

collecting baseline data through surveying and 

operation. 

Strategies: 

— Hire a wildlife biologist. 

— Conduct baseline habitat inventories. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4⎯Management Direction 43 

Objective 4: Within 1 year after hiring a wildlife 

biologist, initiate surveys of migratory birds and 

monitor wildlife responses to management activities 

with an emphasis on migratory birds. 

Rationale: 

Monitoring data will provide valuable information on 

the success of management techniques. Through 

observation and surveys refuge staff will monitor 

wildlife populations in order to gauge fluctuations in 

population sizes. 

Strategies: 

— Hire a wildlife biologist. 

Cultural Resources Goal 

The refuge will protect significant prehistoric, 

Native American, and other cultural resources. 

Objective 1: Throughout the life of the plan, 

continue to maintain the relationship with 

Reclamation in which Reclamation and the Service 

jointly determine which agency will be responsible 

for cultural resource management on the refuge. 

Rationale: 

At the time of the plan Reclamation and the Service 

are revisiting this relationship. 

Strategies: 

— Protect cultural resources found on the refuge by 

minimizing disturbance in sensitive areas. 

— Develop an interpretive display about Fort 

Kirwin. 

— Develop a cultural resources management plan to 

address ongoing effects to cultural resources. 

Refuge Operations Goal 

The refuge will prioritize for wildlife first and 

emphasize the protection of trust resources in the 

utilization of staff, funding, partnerships, and 

volunteer programs. 

Objective 1: Within 5 years of CCP approval, fill the 

approved minimum staffing level vacancies (4.5 

FTE) to fully implement the CCP. This will be 

dependent on national and regional level budgets. 

Rationale: 

The additional staff will be necessary to fully 

implement the CCP. Currently, there are 4.5 vacant 

FTEs. The staffing assessment of the refuge 

concluded that 7.5 FTEs was the minimum staffing 

level required to complete necessary functions. 

Strategies: 

— Fill the following vacant positions. 

— Deputy refuge manager to assist in 

administration and guide day-to-day activities. 

o	 Wildlife biologist to monitor management 

actions and recommend modifications to 

habitat management actions. 

o	 Park ranger to assist in administering the 

refuge’s public use program. 

o	 Equipment operator to focus on habitat 

restoration activities, invasive species 

control and facilities maintenance. 

o	 Outdoor recreation planner (0.5 FTE) to 

assist in the administration and 

development of public use program. 

Objective 2: Throughout the life of the CCP, 

maintain current headquarters, administrative 

facilities and equipment. 

Rationale: 

Adequate support should be provided for 

management activities. 

Strategies: 

— Continue operation of the shooting range to 

facilitate law enforcement firearms 

prequalification for refuge officers. 

— Continue operation of the rock pit to support 

refuge road requirements. 

Objective 3: Throughout the life of the CCP, 

increase public safety and aesthetic values, and 

reduce hazards to wildlife by expanding resource 

clean-up of old building foundations and by closing 

abandoned water wells. 

Objective 4: Throughout the life of the CCP, retain 

public use facilities that support compatible wildlifedependent recreation and remove all facilities that 

do not support wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Strategies: 

— The restrooms at the South Shore Boat Ramp, 

North Shore Boat Ramp, Knob Hill, and Crappie 

Point will remain and continue to be maintained. 

There are a few facilities that support nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses on the refuge 

that will be discontinued such as the restrooms at 

Grays Park and Cottonwood. 

Objective 5: Throughout the life of the CCP, strive 

to provide boat ramp access at all water levels. 

Rationale: 

Boat ramps provide access to the reservoir and 

support compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Strategies: 

— Work with others to install a boat ramp at 

Crappie Point to allow access to Bow Creek. 

— Extend the low water boat ramp to facilitate 

easier launching and retrieving during low water 

conditions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Objective 6: When funding is attained, expand the 

multi-purpose room in the visitor center to provide 

adequate space for environmental education 

programs, hunter education classes, and other uses. 

Rationale: 

Provide adequate space for environmental education 

programs, hunter education, and other uses. 

Partnerships Goal 

The refuge will work to complement habitat on the 

refuge and surrounding landscape by developing 

partnerships regarding land and water habitat 

restoration, environmental education, wildlifedependent public use, research and infrastructure. 

Objective 1: Throughout the life of the CCP, seek to 

maintain existing partnerships and continue to seek 

new partnerships that promote sound wildlife 

management on and in the vicinity of the refuge. 

Rationale: 

Refuge staff will continue partnerships to promote 

sound ecosystem management within and outside 

the refuge. The refuge will actively participate in 

partnerships that result in improvements to land 

health and provide appropriate wildlife habitat in 

the area. The refuge will collaborate with partners 

on management of critical wildlife habitats on the 

refuge and in the surrounding area. The Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife biologist will continue to 

contribute biological expertise and resources to 

landowners as requested. Improve community 

awareness and foster appreciation of the refuge and 

its environment. Existing partnerships include: 

Solomon Valley Birdwatchers, Kansas Biological 

Survey, Boy Scouts, Kirwin Volunteer Fire 

Department, KDWP, USACE, Reclamation, Kirwin 

Irrigation District, Fort Hays State University, 

Aphis, Kirwin NWR Association, Kansas 

Department of Corrections, Phillips County Visitors 

and Convention Bureau, Phillips County Invasive 

Weed Department, and local school districts and 

educators. 

Strategies: 

— Increase partnerships focused on habitat and 

wildlife management. 

— Work with partners to promote wildlifedependent recreation opportunities. 

— Work with partners to achieve refuge goals and 

objectives. 

— Engage in partnerships that result in wildlife 

and/or land–health improvements. 

— Participate in the Platte/Kansas Rivers 

Ecosystem team and others to protect, enhance, 

and restore wildlife habitats. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Habitat management on refuges is an ongoing 

process and the Service recommends that planning 

be conducted within the context of adaptive 

resource management (Service 1995b, 1996A). 

This management is directed over time by the 

results of ongoing monitoring activities and other 

information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are 

implemented within a framework of scientifically 

driven experiments to test the predictions and 

assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, 

inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies 

will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This 

information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being 

accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

and other appropriate partner participation. If 

monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and nontarget species and/or 

communities, then alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the CCP will 

be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be 

described in step-down management plans 

(described in chapter 2). 

PERSONNEL AND FUNDING 

The personnel and funding needed to carry out this 

CCP are described below. 

PERSONNEL 

Current, the refuge has a staff of three full-time 

employees to manage the refuge. Additional 

permanent and career seasonal staff will be required 

to implement the strategies in the CCP and 

effectively monitor the flora and fauna to determine 

if the goals and objectives of the CCP are being met. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4⎯Management Direction 45 

Table 2 shows the current staff and the proposed 

additional staff required to fully implement the CCP. 

A staffing assessment of the refuge concluded that 

7.5 permanent FTEs was the minimum staffing level 

required to complete necessary functions. If all 

positions are funded, the refuge staff will be able to 

carry out all aspects of this CCP, which will provide 

maximum benefits to wildlife, maximum efficiency, 

improve facilities, and provide for increased public 

use. The proposed positions are also included in the 

database for refuge operations needs (appendix L). 

Projects that have adequate funding and staffing 

will receive priority for accomplishment. Staffing 

and funding are requested for the 15-year period of 

the CCP. 

FUNDING 

Funding to implement this CCP is derived from 

three sources: 

■	 The refuge operations needs system (RONS) 

includes requests made to the Congress for 

funding and staffing above the existing base 

budget needed to administer programs and carry 

out projects. 

■	 The maintenance management system (MMS) is a 

database that documents the maintenance and 

replacement needs for existing equipment, 

buildings, roads, fences, and other property 

(appendix M). 

■	 Cost estimates are developed for projects needed 

to implement this CCP, which are not yet 

reflected in the RONS or MMS. 

Table 2. Refuge Staffing 

Proposed (Approved Current Minimum Staffing) 

Management 

Staff 

Refuge 

Manager 

GS-12 

Refuge Manager 

GS-12 

Assistant Manager 

GS-11 

Biological Wildlife Biologist 

Staff GS-11 

Public Use 

Staff 

Park Ranger (law 

enforcement) GS-9 

Outdoor Recreation 

Planner (6-month 

career seasonal) GS-9 

Administrative Administrative Administrative 

Staff Assistant Assistant GS-8 

GS-8 

Maintenance 

Staff 

Maintenance 

Mechanic 

WG-8 

Maintenance 

Mechanic WG-8 

Equipment Operator 

WG-8 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adaptive management—The rigorous application 

of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess 

and modify management activities; a process that 

uses feedback from research, monitoring, and 

evaluation of management actions to support or 

modify objectives and strategies at all planning 

levels; a process in which policy decisions are 

implemented within a framework of scientifically 

driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. 

Analysis of results helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve 

desired conditions. 

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. 

baseline—A set of critical 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. 

biomass—The total amount of living material, 

plants and animals, above and below the ground in 

a particular habitat or area. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; 

caused, produced by, or comprising living 

organisms. 

Birds of Conservation Concern—The Birds of 

Conservation Concern is the most recent effort to 

satisfy the 1988 amendment to the Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Act, which mandates the 

Service to “identify species, subspecies, and 

populations of all migratory nongame birds that, 

without additional conservation actions, are likely 

Glossary 


to become candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973” (Service 2002). 

boat closure—Closed to all flotation devices. 

canopy—A layer of foliage, generally the 

uppermost layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel 

or understory vegetation in multilayered stands. 

Canopy closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate 

of the amount of overhead vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

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. 

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 selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to 

ensure 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. 

cool-season grasses—Grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant in 

the summer. These grasses will germinate at 

lower temperatures. Examples of cool-season 

grasses at the refuge are western wheatgrass, 

needle and thread, and green needlegrass. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

cultural resource inventory—A professionally 

conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a 

defined geographic area. Inventories may involve 

various levels including background literature 

search, comprehensive field examination to 

identify all exposed physical manifestations of 

cultural resources, or sample inventory to project 

site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to 

determine eligibility for the National Register 

follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

cultural resource overview—A comprehensive 

document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, its prehistory and 

cultural history, the nature and extent of known 

cultural resources, previous research, 

management objectives, resource management 

conflicts or issues, and a general statement on 

how program objectives should be met and 

conflicts resolved. An overview should reference 

or incorporate information from 

a field office background or literature search 

described in Section VIII of the Cultural 

Resource Management Handbook (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

dense nesting cover (DNC)—is a mixture of 

cool-season grasses and legumes, like alfalfa and 

yellow sweetclover. Some wildlife species, like 

pheasant, use it for nesting, rearing their broods, 

roosting and loafing. DNC is high quality nesting 

cover designed to maximize nesting activity and 

reproductive success. Many Conservation 

Reserve Program lands are established with a 

DNC mixture. 

depredation—Destruction or consumption of 

eggs, broods, or individual wildlife due to a 

predatory animal; damage inflicted on agricultural 

crops or ornamental plants by wildlife. 

DNC—See dense nesting cover. 

drawdown—The act of manipulating water levels 

in an impoundment to allow for the natural 

drying-out cycle of a wetland. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

ecological diversity—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). 

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating 

complex of plant and animal communities and 

their associated nonliving environment (climate, 

water, rocks, nonliving components); a biological 

community, together 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. 

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 significant portion 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 significant degree. 

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 impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency. 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate 

animals of an area. 

federal trust resources—a resource 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, anadromous fish once they enter inland 

U.S. waterways, and native plant and 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. 

FONSI—finding of no significant impact. 

forb—A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seedproducing annual, biennial, or perennial plant that 

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 49 

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 (Koford et al. 1994); 

the process of reducing the size and connectivity 

of habitat patches, making movement of 

individuals or genetic information between 

parcels difficult or impossible. 

FWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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 (e.g., 

points, lines and polygons) with nongeographic 

attributes such as species and age (Koford et al. 

1994). 

GIBA—Globally Important Bird Area, as 

designated by the American Bird Conservancy. 

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). 

GPS—See global positioning system. 

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—Significant alteration of 

habitat structure or composition; may be natural 

(e.g., wildland fire) or human-caused events (e.g., 

timber harvest and disking). 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type— 

A land classification system based on the concept 

of distinct plant associations. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

IPM—See integrated pest management. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision (e.g., 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). 

KDWP—Kansas Department of Wildlife and 

Parks. 

maintenance management system (MMS)—A 

national database which contains the unfunded 

maintenance needs of each refuge; projects 

include those required to maintain existing 

equipment and buildings, correct safety 

deficiencies for the implementation of approved 

plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal 

mandates. 

management alternative—See alternative. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal 

movements of birds between their breeding 

regions and their wintering regions (Koford et al. 

1994); to pass usually periodically from one region 

or climate to another for feeding or breeding. 

migratory birds—Birds which 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 and/or 

reason for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact less 

severe. 

mixed-grass prairie—A transition zone between 

the tall-grass prairie and the short-grass prairie 

dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

approximately 2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as 

the tall-grass prairie and moisture levels are less. 

MMS—See maintenance management system. 

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 Interior for 

the conservation of fish and wildlife including 

species threatened with extinction, all lands, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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—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 Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; 

requires a comprehensive conservation plan for 

each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended 

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966. 

native species—A species that, other than as a 

result of an introduction, historically occurred or 

currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

NAWMP—North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. 

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. 

non-wildlife-dependent recreation uses—Use of a 

refuge that does not depend on the presence of 

wildlife (e.g., water and jet skiing, personal water 

craft, camping, swimming, horseback riding, 

volleyball, basketball, tournament fishing, power 

and speed boating). 

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 U.S.) 

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 (i.e., 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 U.S. and to public health. 

NWR—National Wildlife Refuge. 

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 

attainable 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). 

palustrine—“Palustrine” comes from the Latin 

word “palus” or marsh. Wetlands within this 

category include inland marshes and swamps as 

well as bogs, fens, tundra, and flood plains. 

Palustrine systems include any inland wetland 

which lacks flowing water and contains ocean 

derived salts in concentrations of less than .05 

percent. 

Partners in Flight (PIF)—A Western 

Hemisphere program designed to conserve 

Neotropical migratory birds and officially 

endorsed by numerous federal and state agencies 

and nongovernmental organizations; also known 

as the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 

Program (Koford et al. 1994). 

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 life 

span of more than 2 years. 

pergola—an arbor formed of horizontal 

trelliswork supported on columns or posts, over 

which vines or other plants are trained. A 

colonnade having the form of such an arbor. 

PIF—See Partners in Flight. 

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 (e.g., 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 51 

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; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It 

may include anyone outside the core planning 

team. It includes those who may or may not have 

indicated 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). 

refuge operations needs system (RONS)—A 

national database that contains the unfunded 

operational needs of each refuge. Projects 

included are those required to implement 

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. 

restoration—Management emphasis designed to 

move ecosystems to desired conditions and 

processes (e.g., 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 components 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. 

SAV—See submerged aquatic vegetation. 

scoping—The process of obtaining information 

from the public for input into the planning 

process. 

seasonal boat closure—Closed to all flotation 

devices. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, 

and glaciers. 

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

shelterbelts—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 mud flat areas. 

six-shell area—A maximum of six shotgun shells 

per person per day. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the 

character of space. 

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 general 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, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

small or restricted populations, or dependence on 

restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

step-down management plan—A plan that 

provides the details necessary to implement 

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). 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)—A 

vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, either rooted 

or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath the water 

surface, except for flowering parts in some 

species. 

threatened species, federal—Species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, that are likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion 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. 

trust species—See federal trust species. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, 

USFWS, FWS)—The principal federal agency 

responsible for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Service manages the 93-million-acre National 

Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 

530 National Wildlife Refuges and thousands of 

waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 

national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service 

field stations, the agency enforces federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, 

restores national significant fisheries, conserves 

and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, 

administers the Endangered Species Act, and 

helps foreign governments with their 

conservation efforts. It also oversees the federal 

aid program that distributes millions of dollars in 

excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to 

state wildlife agencies. 

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; minimize 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. 

warm-season grasses—Grasses that begin 

growth later in the season (early June). These 

grasses require warmer soil temperatures to 

germinate and actively grow when temperatures 

are warmer. Examples of warm-season grasses 

are Indiangrass, switchgrass, and big bluestem. 

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)—a feral 

administrative unit that is charged with acquiring, 

overseeing, and managing the waterfowl 

production areas and easements within a specified 

group of counties. Most districts are large, 

covering several counties. 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a 

refuge that is dependent on the presence of 

wildlife (e.g., 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 general 

public uses of the Refuge System. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent 

cover. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 53 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 


This appendix briefly describes the guidance for the National Wildlife Refuge System and other policies and 

key legislation that guide the management of Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

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 

■	 To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge 

purpose(s) and further the System mission. 

■	 Conserve, restore where appropriate, and 

enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered. 

■	 Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional 

fish, and marine mammal populations. 

■	 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

■	 Conserve and restore, where appropriate, 

representative ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes characteristic of 

those ecosystems. 

■	 To foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, 

by providing the public with safe, high quality, 

and compatible wildlife-dependent public use. 

Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. 

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 wildlifedependent recreational activities involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

■	 Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper 

without high 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 management 

of our national wildlife refuges. 

LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges are 

circumscribed by many mandates including laws and 

executive orders, the latest of which is the 

Volunteer and Community Partnership 

Enhancement Act of 1998. Regulations that affect 

refuge management the most are listed below. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Directs 

agencies to consult with native traditional religious 

leaders to determine appropriate policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 funded 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. 

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all federal 

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation 

of endangered and threatened species. 

Executive Order 7169 (1935)—Establishes Sand Lake 

National Wildlife 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, minimize the impact 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 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of 

such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

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 regulations, including the closing of areas, 

federal or nonfederal, 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 

appropriate documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision making. [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 historical resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

permit 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, determine 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 funds are available to manage the 

uses. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

all facilities and programs funded by the federal 
 

 

 

government to ensure that any person can 

participate in any program. 

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899)—Section 10 of this Act 

requires the authorization of U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States. 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 55 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act 

(1998)—Encourages the use of volunteers to assist in 

the management of refuges within the Refuge 

System; facilitates partnerships between the Refuge 

System and nonfederal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System 

and public participation in the conservation of the 

resources; and encourages donations and other 

contributions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 57 

Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 


REFUGE NAME 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

REFUGE PURPOSES 

“.. shall be administered by him 

[Secretary of the Interior] directly or in 

accordance with cooperative 

agreements ... and in accordance with 

such rules and regulations for the 

conservation, maintenance, and 

management of wildlife, resources 

thereof, and its habitat thereon, ...in 

behalf of the National Migratory Bird 

Management Program” 16 U.S.C. § 664 

(Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. 

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE:

 ARMING, GRAZING, AND HAYING 

Continue upland management activities such 

as farming, grazing, and haying that are 

conducted under cooperative farming or 

special-use permit by private individuals. 

Currently these economic uses are used as 

tools to manage habitat for wildlife. 

Cropland is planted to establish seedbeds free of 

invasive plants for the establishment of grassland, to 

provide food for migratory birds, and to control 

invasive plant species. The farming rotation is based 

on a diversified crop rotation to control invasive 

plants and insects, and to provide for soil fertility. 

The crops that may be used in the rotation include, 

but are not limited to, corn, milo (grain sorghum), 

winter wheat, cane (forage sorghum), and spring 

grains (e.g., barley). 

The Service’s policy is to restrict pesticide use on 

National Wildlife Refuges. All cooperative farming 

permits do not allow insecticides and restrict the use 

of herbicides to those least toxic and persistent in 

the environment. 

Availability of Resources 

The needed staff time for development and 

administration of cooperative farming, haying, and 

grazing programs is stretched thin to maintain 

existing programs. If additional staff support were 

available, these programs could be expanded to use 

these tools more effectively and additional 

monitoring could be accomplished. 

Additional staff (assistant refuge manager) is 

identified in the CCP. This position will be needed to 

fully accomplish the goals of this CCP and improve 

existing programs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Current management affects approximately 

25 percent of the uplands, transition zone (dry 

reservoir bottom), and riparian zones. Under this 

CCP, management will place increased emphasis on 

managing refuge habitats for migratory birds. 

Without management, general habitat conditions 

would gradually deteriorate due to long periods of 

rest. While some short-term wildlife and habitat 

disturbance does occur with these activities, the 

benefits to wildlife outweigh these disturbances. 

No cultural resources will be impacted. No impact to 

endangered species should occur. 

Determination 

The use of haying, grazing, and farming as habitat 

management tools is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Require general and special conditions for each 

permit to ensure consistency with management 

objectives. 

■	 Restrict farming permittees to a list of approved 

chemicals that are less detrimental to wildlife and 

the environment. 

■	 Restrict farming permittees to a list of crops that 

are beneficial to migratory birds. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Justification 

To maintain and enhance the habitat for migratory 

birds and other wildlife, some habitat manipulation 

needs to occur. Prairie grassland habitat conditions 

would deteriorate without the use of a full range of 

management tools. Migratory bird nesting and 

feeding habitat and ecological diversity would 

decrease as habitat suitability for these species 

declines. Invasive plant species would increase and 

habitat diversity would decrease. 

Farming provides a useful tool to control invasive 

plants, restore prairie grasslands, provide open 

areas, and improve habitat conditions for the nesting 

and feeding of migratory birds. Farming facilitates 

wildlife observation, photography, and environmental 

education by attracting and concentrating wildlife in 

areas where they are highly visible. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2016 

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 

INTERPRETATION 

Provide opportunities for environmental 

education and interpretation. 

Environmental education consists of activities 

conducted by refuge staff. Interpretation occurs in 

less formal activities with refuge staff through 

exhibits, educational trunks, signs, and brochures. 

Currently, environmental education and 

interpretation activities are conducted at the refuge 

office. Programs and activities are also conducted at 

Bluegill Point, and Knob Hill day use areas. 

Additional programs are conducted at schools and 

other locations as personnel are available. 

The CCP proposes an expansion of the multipurpose room at the refuge office. This expansion 

will provide enough room, displays, and educational 

materials to maximize the public’s learning 

experience while visiting the refuge. The remainder 

of the refuge will provide excellent opportunities for 

environmental learning. These uses occur yearround. 

This CCP proposes to continue with the above uses 

and add the following to improve environmental 

education and interpretation opportunities for all 

visitors: 

■	 Expand the multi-purpose room of the refuge 

office. 

■	 Update and improve refuge signs. 

■	 Update existing brochures to the Service graphic 

standards. 

■	 Expand and enhance environmental education 

through various initiatives such as educational 

displays, presentations, and websites that feature 

purposes, programs, and wildlife of the refuge. 

Availability of Resources 

Currently all environmental education and 

interpretation are conducted using available 

resources. Implementing new programs, activities, 

and facilities outlined in the CCP is tied to funding 

requests in the form of RONS and MMS projects 

(appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Minimal disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat 

will result from these uses at the current and 

proposed levels. Adverse impacts are minimized 

through careful timing and placement of activities. 

Some disturbance to wildlife will occur in areas 

frequented by visitors. There will be some minor 

damage to vegetation, littering, and increased 

maintenance. Location and time limitations placed 

on environmental education and interpretation 

activities will ensure that this activity will have only 

minor impacts on wildlife and will not detract from 

the primary purposes of the refuge. 

No cultural resources will be impacted. No impact to 

endangered species should occur. Some short-term 

disturbance to wildlife will occur during 

construction. 

Determination 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Allow environmental education and interpretation 

only in designated areas or under the guidance of 

refuge staff, a volunteer, or a trained teacher to 

ensure minimal disturbance to wildlife, minimal 

damage to vegetation, and minimal conflicts 

between groups. 

■	 Annually review environmental education and 

interpretation activities to ensure these activities 

are compatible. 

Justification 

Based on biological impacts described in the EA and 

the draft CCP, it is determined that environmental 

education and interpretation within the Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the purposes for which this 

refuge was established. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 59 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By 

facilitation of environmental education, refuge 

visitors will gain knowledge and an appreciation of 

fish, wildlife, and their habitats, which will lead to 

increased public awareness and stewardship of 

natural resources. Increased appreciation for natural 

resources will support and complement the Service’s 

actions in achieving the purposes of the refuge and 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2021 

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND WILDLIFE 

PHOTOGRAPHY 

Provide opportunities that support wildlifedependent recreation. 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are 

facilitated by two hiking trails, two pullouts with 

pergolas (observation platform), and several parking 

areas (that are also used in support of hunting and 

fishing. 

This CCP proposes to continue the above uses and 

add the following to improve wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography: 

■	 Hire an outdoor recreation planner. 

■	 Hire a full-time law enforcement officer to enforce 

wildlife laws. 

■	 Update and improve refuge signs. 

■	 Update existing brochures to the Service’s 

graphic standards. 

Availability of Resources 

Currently, the programs for wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography are administered using 

available resources. Implementing new programs, 

activities, and facilities outlined in this CCP is tied 

to funding requests in the form of RONS and MMS 

projects (appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Anticipated impacts from visitors engaged in 

wildlife observation and wildlife photography 

include minor damage to vegetation, littering, 

increased maintenance activity, potential conflicts 

with other visitors, and minor disturbances to 

wildlife. These activities will have only minor 

impacts on wildlife and do not detract from the 

primary purposes of the refuge. All other potential 

impacts are considered minor. 

Determination 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are 

compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Restrict vehicles to designated roads and trails. 

■	 Monitor vehicle use for wildlife disturbance, law 

enforcement violations, etc. 

■	 Monitor use, regulate access, and maintain 

necessary facilities to prevent habitat degradation 

and minimize wildlife disturbance. 

Justification 

Based on the anticipated biological impacts above 

and in the EA, it is determined that wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography on the Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge will not interfere with the 

habitat goals and objectives or purposes for which it 

was established. 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are 

priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By 

facilitating these uses, visitors will gain knowledge 

and an appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will 

lead to increased public stewardship of wildlife and 

their habitats. Increased public stewardship will 

support and complement the Service’s actions in 

achieving the purposes of the refuge and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2021 

4. DESCRIPTION OF USE: 

RECREATIONAL FISHING 

Continue to provide for recreational fishing in 

accordance with state regulations. 

The primary game fish are walleye, black bass, 

white bass, wipers, crappie, and channel catfish. 

Foot travel is allowed in all parts of the refuge. 

There are three boat ramps that are available at 

varying water elevations. Anglers park within the 

road right-of-way or designated parking areas 

where available. 

Fishing visitations and success fluctuate according 

to water conditions in the Kirwin Reservoir, Bow 

Creek, and the North Fork Solomon River. The 

river and creek have marginal fisheries due to their 

seasonal flows. During the prairie’s wet cycles, high 

water in the reservoir promotes fish spawning and 

vegetation provides cover. Fish populations can 

flourish until the reservoir returns to normal (low) 

water levels. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Availability of Resources 

The current fishing program is administered using 

available resources. Implementing new programs, 

activities, and facilities outlined in this CCP is tied 

to funding requests in the form of RONS and MMS 

projects (appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Fishing and other human activities cause 

disturbance to wildlife. 

Determination 

Recreational fishing is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 See “Boating in support of the six priority public 

uses” CD for additional requirements. 

■	 Require that fishing follow state regulations. 

■	 Monitor vehicle use for wildlife disturbance, law 

enforcement violations, etc. 

■	 Do not permit unattended boats to remain on the 

refuge overnight. 

Justification 

Based on the biological impacts addressed above and 

in the EA, it is determined recreational fishing will 

not materially interfere with the habitat goals and 

objectives or purposes for refuge establishment. 

Fishing is a priority public use as listed in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2021 

5. DESCRIPTION OF USE: 

RECREATIONAL HUNTING 

Continue recreational hunting of deer, 

waterfowl, upland game birds, cottontail 

rabbits, and fox squirrels. 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge allows hunting in 

four distinct areas. 

■	 The western portion is only open to archery deer 

hunting. 

■	 The Bow Creek area is open to waterfowl, doves, 

pheasants, quail, turkey, prairie chickens, snipe, 

coots, cottontail rabbits, fox squirrels, and archery 

deer hunting. 

■	 The area between Quillback Cove and Prairie Dog 

Town is open to the same species as Bow Creek, 

except no more than six shells are allowed per 

hunter per day. 

■	 The areas from Crappie Point to the dam, and the 

area around Knob Hill is open to the same species 

as Bow Creek, except that waterfowl hunting is 

not allowed. 

■	 Hunting pressure for upland game centers around 

opening weekends of pheasant and quail. Hunting 

pressure for waterfowl increases as waterfowl 

numbers increase. This varies annually depending 

on the weather. 

Availability of Resources 

The current administration of hunting programs is 

conducted using available resources. Implementing 

new programs, activities, and facilities outlined in 

the CCP is tied to funding requests in the form of 

RONS and MMS projects (appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Hunting and other human activities cause 

disturbance to wildlife. Hunting has shown no 

detrimental environmental impacts to habitats or 

wildlife. Hunting harvests a small percentage of the 

populations of waterfowl and upland game species, 

which is in accordance with wildlife objectives and 

principles. 

Restricting vehicle use to designated purposes, 

times, and established roads, trails, and parking lots 

protects habitats from damage and minimizes 

disturbance to wildlife. 

Determination 

Recreational hunting is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Only nontoxic shot is permitted on the refuge 

when hunting with a shotgun (waterfowl, upland 

game, turkey). 

■	 Hunting must be in accordance with federal, state, 

and refuge specific regulations. 

■	 Vehicle travel is limited to designated roads, 

trails and parking areas. 

■	 Promote sound hunting practices for hunter 

safety and quality experiences. 

Justification 

Hunting on national wildlife refuges has been 

identified as a priority public use in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management tool 

that can be used to manage populations. 

Based on the biological impacts anticipated above 

and in the EA, it is determined that recreational 

hunting at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the 

purposes for which this refuge was established or its 

habitat goals and objectives. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 61 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2021 

6. DESCRIPTION OF USE: BOATING IN SUPPORT 

OF THE SIX PRIORITY PUBLIC USES 

Allow motorized and nonmotorized boating in 

support of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

Availability of Resources 

The current administration of the boating program 

is conducted using available resources. 

Implementing new programs, activities, and 

facilities outlined in the CCP is tied to funding 

requests in the form of RONS and MMS projects 

(appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Hunting and other human activities cause 

disturbance to wildlife. Disturbance to migrating 

and wintering waterfowl will be reduced by 

implementing a seasonal boat closure on most of the 

reservoir during low water conditions. 

Determination 

Boating in support of the six public uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, interpretation) is 

compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 At water levels <1,722 ft., implement a seasonal 

(October 1 to April 1) boat closure on the majority 

of the reservoir. 

■	 Move the boat closure buoys from Railroad Flats 

to Grays Park and leave them there at all water 

levels. (This is made possible by implementing the 

seasonal boat closure.) 

■	 Continue to allow motorless boats and float tubes 

in the area that is closed to boating (in the 

Solomon Arm) from August 1 to September 30. 

■	 Continue to allow float tubes in areas open to 

boating. 

■	 Continue the No Wake Zone in Bow Creek. 

■	 Continue the No Wake Zone within 300 feet of all 

shorelines and islands. 

■	 Boats must be equipped and operated in 

accordance with Kansas Boat and Water Safety 

Laws and appropriate federal regulations. 

Justification 

Based on biological impacts described in the EA and 

the draft CCP, it is determined that boating in 

support of the six priority public uses within the 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the purpose for which 

the refuge was established. 

Boating is not a priority public use. However, it does 

facilitate the six priority public uses. By specifying 

areas, time of year, no wake zones, and 

implementing a seasonal boat closure, boating is 

determined to be compatible. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2016 

7. DESCRIPTION OF USE: FIREWOOD CUTTING 

Allow firewood cutting in designated areas to 

facilitate refuge management. The main 

reason for allowing the cutting of firewood is 

to remove woody vegetation from areas where 

replanting and/or restoring native prairie is 

occurring. Other reasons include reducing 

fuel loading, and preventing 

destruction/killing of desirable live native 

trees in portions of riparian area. 

Availability of Resources 

Resources are currently available to oversee the 

cutting of firewood. The workload of the staff 

involves issuing permits and checking permits in the 

field. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Anticipated adverse impacts to the refuge are 

minimal. Temporary displacement of wildlife from 

the area where cutting occurs is expected. However, 

the benefits to migratory grassland birds exceeds 

the temporary disturbance (i.e., removing trees from 

grasslands reduces avian predators, nest parasites, 

and mammalian predators on grassland birds). 

Determination 

Firewood cutting is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Firewood cutting may be allowed by special use 

permits issued by the refuge manager. 

■	 Firewood cutting will only be allowed in areas 

specified by the refuge manager. 

Justification 

The refuge is currently in the process of removing 

trees for several reasons, including prairie 

enhancement and restoration, eliminating invasive 

terrestrial plants, and gaining physical access to 

allow for noxious weed control. Using contractors to 

remove trees costs approximately $200 per acre, 

depending on how dense the trees are. Typically 
 

 

 

Date 

62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

trees are piled and burned. Burning of the piles can 

sterilize the soil for a period of time. 

Most of the trees are located in areas that were 

historically migratory grassland bird habitat. The 

CCP identifies a block of 5,000 acres of prairie will 

be restored/enhanced. In order to accomplish this 

goal, the removal of trees is necessary. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2016 

SIGNATURE CONCURRENCE 

Craig Mowry 

Refuge Manager Assistant Regional Director 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, CO 

Dave Wiseman Date 

Refuge Supervisor (CO, KS, NE) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, CO 

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date 

____________________________________________ 
Appendix C—Memorandum of Agreement 63 

Appendix C—Memorandum of Agreement 

64 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 
Appendix C—Memorandum of Agreement 65 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D—Landscape-level Goals and Objectives 67 

Appendix D—Landscape-level Goals and Objectives 


This appendix summarizes landscape-level plans 

that are relevant to management of Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (NAWMP) is broad policy 

framework that describes the overall scope of 

requirements for management of waterfowl in the 

United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

The NAWMP also serves as a guide for the 

participation of various private organizations and 

the public in the conservation and management of 

waterfowl. The goal of the NAWMP is to restore 

waterfowl populations to the levels recorded during 

the 1970s, a benchmark decade for waterfowl. The 

NAWMP is designed to reach its objectives through 

key joint venture areas, species joint ventures, and 

state implementation plans within these joint 

ventures. 

The “North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

1998 Update, Expanding the Vision” reflects on the 

legacy established by the NAWMP and presents 

three visions to advance waterfowl conservation in 

the future: 

■	 Plan partners enhance the capability of 

landscapes to support waterfowl and other 

wetland-associated species by ensuring that plan 

implementation is guided by biologically based 

planning, which in turn is refined through ongoing 

evaluation. 

■	 Plan partners define the landscape conditions 

needed to sustain waterfowl, benefit other 

wetland-associated species, and participate in the 

development of conservation, economic, 

management, and social policies and programs 

that most affect the ecological health of these 

landscapes. 

■	 Plan partners collaborate with other conservation 

efforts, particularly migratory bird initiatives, and 

reach out to other sectors and communities to 

forge broader alliances in a collective search for 

sustainable uses of landscapes. 

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT 

Nationally and internationally, several nongame bird 

initiatives are in the planning stage and 

implementation is expected to begin in the near 

future. Partners in Flight (PIF) is developing bird 

conservation plans, primarily for land birds, in 

numerous physiographic areas. The plans include 

priority species lists, associated habitats, and 

management strategies. 

The primary goal of PIF is to provide for the longterm health of the avifauna of this continent. 

■	 The first priority is to prevent the rarest species 

from going extinct. 

■	 The second priority is to prevent uncommon 

species from descending into threatened status. 

■	 The third goal is to keep common birds common. 

PIF’s general recommendations for the mixed-grass 

prairie are: 

“Although agriculture has taken over much of the 

mixed-grass, significant areas of native prairie 

remain, most notably in the glacial coteau of the 

Dakotas and the sandhills of Nebraska. 

These great reservoirs for grassland birds must 

be retained through easements, protection, and 

strengthening of ranching economies. 

The interests of land birds extensively overlap 

with those of waterfowl and shorebirds in the 

wetter portions of this ecosystem.” 

U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION 

PLAN 

The shorebird plan is designed to complement the 

existing landscape-scale conservation efforts of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

Partners in Flight, and the North American Colonial 

Waterbird Conservation Plan. The plan has three 

major goals at different scales. 

At a regional scale, the goal of the plan is to ensure 

that adequate quantity and quality of habitat is 

identified and maintained to support the different 

shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate 

through each region (Brown et al. 2001). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

There are eleven regional working groups formed in 

this planning process. The Sand Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge is in the northern plains/prairie– 

potholes region. Three major shorebird issues have 

been identified for this region: 

■	 endangered and threatened species, declining 

species, and species of special concern 

■	 habitat loss, including fragmentation and 

degradation 

■	 the need for additional information to evaluate 

potential threats, such as contaminants, 

depredation, and invasion of exotic plants, to 

migrating and breeding shorebirds 

The regional goals are: 

■	 maintain biotic integrity and persistence of 

breeding shorebird populations in the northern 

plains/prairie–potholes region 

■	 ensure that adequate stopover resources exist to 

support populations of migrating shorebirds 

■	 identify and fill information gaps, including the 

development of tools to use within the context of 

dynamic ecosystem processes 

■	 coordinate with other conservation efforts in a 

cross-border landscape 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD 

CONSERVATION PLAN 

VOLUME 1: SEABIRDS AND COLONIAL WATERBIRDS, REVIEW DRAFT II 

The goal of this plan is ensure that the distribution, 

diversity, and abundance of waterbird populations 

and habitats (breeding, nonbreeding, and migratory) 

is sustained or restored throughout North America 

(Kushlan et al. 2002). 

Species and population goal—Have sustainable 

distributions, diversity and abundance of priority 

species for conservation and those in decline. 

Habitat goal—Secure, maintain, and enhance 

sufficient high quality habitat throughout the year 

to achieve and maintain sustainable populations of 

waterbirds throughout North America. 

Area goal—Identify, protect, maintain, and enhance 

important areas needed to maintain sustainable 

populations and habitats of waterbirds throughout 

their ranges in North America. 

Education goal—Ensure that information for the 

conservation of waterbirds is widely available to 

decision makers, the public, and all those whose 

actions affect seabird and colonial waterbird 

populations. 

NONGAME MIGRATORY BIRDS 

CONSERVATION PLAN, REGION 6 

This plan outlines the conservation of nongame bird 

species in Region 6 (Mountain–Prairie Region) of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information 

concerning nongame species in the region is scarce 

and research is ongoing. 

The goal of the nongame migratory bird program is 

to protect and maintain all native, nongame species 

at viable population levels and protect their habitats. 

An important part of this goal is to prevent any 

avian species from becoming listed as threatened or 

endangered, or from becoming extirpated from 

Region 6. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E—List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination 69 

Appendix E—List of Preparers, Consultation, and 

Coordination 

This document is the result of the extensive, collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the 

planning team shown below. Many others contributed insight and support. The Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan was written by refuge staff and the refuge planner, with input from other team members. 

Team Member Position Work Unit
 

William Busby Associate scientist Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, KS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Mary Ely GIS specialist Region 6, Lakewood, CO 

Erich Gilbert Former refuge manager Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kirwin, KS 

Toni Griffin Refuge planner USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO 

Tony Ifland Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologist Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kirwin, KS 

Steve Knowles Maintenance worker Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kirwin, KS 

Jill Manring Natural resource specialist U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Island, 

NE 

Craig Mowry Refuge manager Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kirwin, KS 

Steve Price Fisheries and wildlife supervisor Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, 

Hays, KS 

Ron Shupe Former refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO 

Dianne Stockman Administrative assistant Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kirwin, KS 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Bruce Taggart Public lands supervisor Hays, KS 

Dave Wiseman Refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6, Lakewood, CO 

Valuable support to the planning team was provided by the individuals listed on the next page. The 

diversity, talents, and knowledge contributed by these individuals dramatically improved the vision and 

completeness of this document. 
 

 

 

70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Name Position Work Unit
 

Rick Coleman Assistant regional director USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Galen Green Fire ecologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Linda Kelly Branch chief of comprehensive 

conservation planning USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Wayne King Regional biologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Murray Laubhan Biologist USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

Jamestown, ND 

Rachel Laubhan Wildlife biologist USFWS, Region 6 

Rhoda Lewis Former regional archaeologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Mimi Mather Planner Shapins Associates, Boulder, CO 

Jana Mohrman Hydrologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Ann Moss Planner Shapins Associates, Boulder, CO 

Dan Mulhern Biologist USFWS, Manhattan, KS 

Deb Parker Writer-editor USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Derek Reed Contracting officer USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Michael Spratt Chief of refuge planning USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Melvie Uhland Outdoor recreation planner USFWS, Lakewood, CO 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F—Environmental Compliance 71 

Appendix F—Environmental Compliance 


 Environmental Action Statement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife 

resources, I have established the following administrative record. 

I have determined that the action of implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge is found not to have significant environmental effects, as determined by the 

attached Finding of No Significant Impact and the environmental assessment as found with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

_____________________________________ 

Mitch King 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

__________________ 

Date 

_____________________________________ 

David Wiseman 

Refuge Supervisor (CO, KS, NE) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

__________________ 

_____________________________________ 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. 

Assistant Regional Director 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

__________________ 

Date 

_____________________________________ 

Craig Mowry 

Refuge Manager 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

Kirwin, KS 

__________________ 

Date Date
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Fulfill the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

Two management alternatives for the Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge were assessed as to their 

effectiveness in achieving the refuge purposes and their impact on the human environment. Alternative A, 

the “no-action” alternative, would continue current management of the refuge. Alternative B, to enhance 

habitat, wildlife and public use, would place management emphasis on grassland-nesting birds and species of 

conservation concern. 

Based on this assessment and comments received, I have selected Alternative B for implementation. 

The preferred alternative was selected because it best meets the purposes for which the Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge was established and is preferable to the “no-action” alternative in light of physical, biological, 

economic, and social factors. The preferred alternative will continue to provide public access for wildlifedependent recreation, environmental education, and interpretation. 

I find that the preferred alternative is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of 

the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969. Accordingly, the preparation of an environmental impact statement on the proposed action is not 

required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated environmental effects from implementation of the preferred 

alternative: 

■	 The preferred alternative will not adversely impact endangered or threatened species or their habitat. 

■	 The preferred alternative will not adversely impact archaeological or historical resources. 

■	 The preferred alternative will not adversely impact wetlands nor does the plan call for structures that 

could be damaged by or that would significantly influence the movement of floodwater. 

■	 The preferred alternative will not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or 

environmental effect on minority or low-income populations. 

■	 The state of Kansas has been notified and given the opportunity to review the comprehensive conservation 

plan and associated environmental assessment. 

________________________________ _______________ 

Mitch King Date 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 73 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 


Public scoping was initiated for Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge in a “Notice of Intent” dated March 

3, 2003, announcing the Service’s intent to prepare a 

comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge, and 

opportunities for public input on refuge 

management. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

A planning update was distributed in May 2003 

through mailings to interested parties and at public 

locations (e.g., libraries, grocery and hardware 

stores, etc.) announcing dates for public open houses 

to be held for public input. 

A media contact list was compiled and news releases 

and flyers were distributed the week prior to the 

public meetings. The refuge announced the intent to 

prepare a comprehensive conservation plan on their 

website and provided contact information. Three 

scoping meetings were held in May 2003 to gather 

input from the public. 

• May 20, 2003 in Kirwin, KS 

• May 21, 2003 in Hays, KS 

• May 22, 2003 in Phillipsburg, KS 

Thirty-four people attended these meetings and 

approximately 81 written comments were received 

during the initial comment period. Comments 

received identified biological, social, and economic 

concerns regarding refuge management. 

A second planning update was distributed to 

interested parities in November 2003. Eighteen 

additional comments were received during the open 

comment period as a result of the second planning 

update. 

The issues raised and comments received from the 

public, other federal agencies, the State of Kansas, 

and other organizations helped the planning team to 

develop the alternatives contemplated in the draft 

CCP/EA and the goals, objectives, and strategies 

described for the proposed action. 

The draft CCP/EA was presented to the public 

March 24, 2006 for a 30-day comment period. An 

open house was held April 20, 2006 in Phillipsburg, 

KS. Forty-three people attended the open house and 

approximately 99 written comments were received 

during the comment period on the draft plan. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

The following issues, concerns, and comments are a 

compilation and summary of those expressed during 

the March–April 2006 comment period for the draft 

CCP and EA. Comments were provided by the 

public, federal and state agencies, local and county 

governments, private organizations, and individuals 

concerned about the natural resources and public 

use of Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. Comments 

were received orally at meetings, via email, and in 

writing. 

The refuge staff recognizes and appreciates all input 

received from the public. To address this input, 

several clarifications and some changes are reflected 

in this final CCP. 

The issues, comments and concerns are summarized, 

followed by responses from the Service. Where 

there were similar statements from more than one 

commenter, the statements were grouped into one 

summarized comment. 

Comments about editorial and presentation 

corrections were addressed in the production of this 

final CCP, and are not detailed here. 

Comment 1: Kirwin Reservoir belongs to the local 

people of Phillipsburg, Kansas, and the needs of local 

residents should be taken into consideration. 

Response: The Refuge, including Kirwin Reservoir, 

is owned by the United States of America. The 

Bureau of Reclamation has primary jurisdiction, the 

Service has secondary jurisdiction. The Service does 

not have secondary jurisdiction on the Bureau of 

Reclamation “operations area.” This includes the 

dam and approximately 450 acres down stream of 

the dam. All decisions concerning the Refuge are 

done in compliance with current Federal laws, 

regulations, and policies. Comments from local 

residents are taken into consideration to the extent 

possible. 

Comment 2: Support Alternative A (No Action). 

Access to the refuge and Kirwin Reservoir should be 

left the way it is with no change to current 

management (continue to allow non-wildlife 

dependent uses such as camping, swimming, 

waterskiing, horseback riding, volleyball, and 

tournament fishing). Several generations of local 

residents have participated in recreation at the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

refuge and would like to continue using the area as it 

currently exists. 

Response: Congress sets guiding principles for the 

management of public lands by federal agencies. 

While some federal agencies have multiple-use 

mandates from Congress, the Service has a specific 

mandate to put wildlife first. The Service is 

mandated to accommodate wildlife-oriented public 

use only when compatible with conservation of 

wildlife resources and their habitats. Non-wildlife 

dependent uses such as camping, swimming, 

picnicking, horseback riding, and volleyball are not 

appropriate uses on a national wildlife refuge. By 

law, tournament fishing is an economic use of a 

national wildlife refuge and is held to a higher 

standard than a non-economic use. 

Comment 3: Support Alternative B (Proposed 

Action). The proposed action is needed. The draft 

CCP/EA is thorough, interesting, and forwardlooking. 

Response: The proposed action (alternative B) was 

selected to allow wildlife-oriented public uses while 

ensuring the wildlife and their habitats are 

protected, enhanced, and restored, so that future 

generations of Americans can continue to enjoy 

wildlife. The Service expects that, when all the 

habitat goals are met, the results will be positive 

impacts to vegetation and wildlife. 

Comment 4: Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge should 

be transferred to, and managed by, the Kansas 

Department of Wildlife and Parks. 

Response: Divestiture of the refuge was considered, 

but eliminated as an option in the CCP planning 

process. A detailed and objective account is in 

Appendix D of the Draft CCP. 

Comment 5: Support refuge efforts to increase 

migratory bird habitat and nesting habitat for 

grassland birds. 

Response: The refuge is a migratory bird refuge. 

Grassland dependent bird numbers are declining 

faster and steeper than any other group of birds in 

North America. 

Comment 6: The Service should not cut down trees 

on the refuge. Turkey and whitetail deer populations 

are negatively affected by tree removal. Trees are 

beautiful and needed in a region (western Kansas) 

that doesn’t have many trees. 

Response: Turkey and whitetail deer populations are 

stable to increasing. An important part of grassland 

bird habitat improvement is tree removal from 

certain areas. The refuge will remove trees to 

improve habitat for the group of birds in most need 

of conservation. The refuge must also comply with 

state and federal mandates for invasive species. 

Invasive trees in the riparian corridors will be 

removed. Large areas of dead timber are targeted to 

gain physical access to the ground to control Canada 

thistle. Many trees remain along the shoreline of the 

reservoir and in the wooded stream corridors. 

Comment 7: Restoring cropland to grassland on the 

refuge will decrease the number of migrating birds 

that use the refuge. The lack of cropland (i.e., food 

source) on the refuge for geese and ducks will cause 

them to not return the refuge, and move farther 

south to migrate. 

Response: Restoring prairie to selected cropland 

areas will increase the number of many species of 

grassland dependent migratory birds on the refuge. 

Weather plays a major role in determining the 

number of waterfowl that reach the refuge. The no 

waterfowl hunting area also plays a major role in 

keeping waterfowl in the area. Due to water 

fluctuations, the acres of cropland are projected to 

remain approximately the same as in the 1990s when 

the reservoir was full. One new crop field will be 

installed in the Bow Creek area and some other 

fields will be expanded. Approximately 1,000 acres 

of cropland will remain within the transition zone 

(dry reservoir bottom). These acres generally 

produce more bushels per acre, resulting in more 

grain. 

Comment 8: Plenty of wildlife exists under the 

present conditions. Additional numbers of birds is 

not better if they become over populated. Disease 

(e.g., avian bird flu) can result from overpopulation. 

Response: Grassland birds do not generally gather in 

large flocks. However, unchecked large populations 

of white-tailed deer have been known to become 

over populated resulting in disease outbreaks. 

Comment 9: The refuge should continue to maintain 

food plots for waterfowl on the northwest portion of 

the refuge. 

Response: The refuge is mandated to manage for 

wildlife, specifically migratory birds. Hunting is a 

secondary use. Improving and increasing the acres 

of habitat for the group of birds, grassland 

dependent birds, in the most need of conservation 

will take priority. 

Comment 10: More emphasis should be placed on 

controlling invasive species (e.g., musk thistle, 

Canada thistle) on the refuge. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 75 

Response: The refuge agrees. The CCP contains a 

goal to address invasive plant species, with specific 

objectives and strategies. 

Comment 11: Support higher water and more stable 

water levels in the reservoir. Western Kansas needs 

open waters and rivers that function. Water in the 

reservoir generates more money to the local 

economy than irrigated cropland. Encourage 

retirement/regulation of the water for the benefit of 

the refuge. The Service should try to obtain water 

rights. 

Response: Greater stability of the water levels 

would allow the development of food resources and 

make those resources available to waterfowl, 

shorebirds, wading birds and other wetlanddependent wildlife. 

Comment 12: The proposed action will stop irrigation 

and flood control if the water level is not allowed to 

fluctuate. No irrigation would lower the tax base 

and the population. 

Response: The Service has no jurisdiction over 

water management or irrigation. This jurisdiction is 

the responsibility of the Kirwin–Webster Irrigation 

District, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army 

Corps of Engineers. The refuge would expand 

efforts to work with the Irrigation District and 

Reclamation to attempt to maintain higher water 

levels and reduce dramatic water level fluctuations. 

By working with these agencies, the refuge will 

have an opportunity to discuss wildlife benefits that 

occur with greater water level stability. The CCP 

does not propose stopping irrigation or flood control. 

Comment 13: The environmental education programs 

at the refuge provide important information and 

social opportunities for the people in the local 

community. Support proposal to expand 

environmental education programs at the refuge. 

Response: Environmental education programs are 

important to disseminate information and educate 

the public. These programs will continue when the 

outdoor recreation planner position is funded. 

Comment 14: Consider providing guided tours on the 

refuge. 

Response: Guided tours will be considered when the 

outdoor recreation planner position is funded. 

Comment 15: The refuge should discontinue the use 

of jet/water skiing on the refuge because it disturbs 

wildlife and other users. 

Response: The Improvement Act states that uses of 

national wildlife refuge must be appropriate. The 

1997 Act also stipulated 6 wildlife-dependent uses 

that may occur on a refuge if they are deemed 

compatible and do not interfere with the refuges 

purpose. Jet/water skiing is not wildlife-dependent 

and is an inappropriate use on a national wildlife 

refuge. 

Comment 16: The discontinuation of camping on the 

refuge would create an opportunity for a private 

entrepreneur to start a campground on land 

adjacent to the refuge. This would be a boon for 

private enterprise in the region. Perhaps the local 

community could be of assistance in locating an 

operator or parcel of land for such a purpose. 

Response: The local community is welcome to 

explore the development of a campground near the 

refuge. However, there are already numerous places 

to camp, and modestly priced motels, nearby. The 

Bureau of Reclamation land, approximately 450 

acres, is open to camping. Camping is allowed along 

the face of the dam next to the water. 

Comment 17: Hunting should be banned on the 

refuge because it is a violent act that promotes 

additional violence. 

Response: The Improvement Act states that hunting 

is considered a priority general public use of the 

Refuge System. Hunting is an appropriate use of the 

refuge when compatible. 

Comment 18: Bow hunter education certification 

should be mandatory to obtain an archery deer 

hunting permit. 

Response: In general, the Service adheres to state 

mandated hunter education requirements. 

Comment 19: Privately sponsored deer hunts pay 

well, and many people in the area depend on revenue 

associated with deer hunting for their livelihood. 

There is an imbalance between Nebraska and 

Kansas regarding deer tags. More deer tags are 

available in Nebraska than Kansas which has 

prohibited wider patronization of the State of 

Kansas. The State of Kansas and the refuge should 

open up deer hunting to nonresidents. 

Response: All archery deer hunters on the refuge 

must obtain a Kansas deer permit to hunt on the 

refuge. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and 

Parks determines hunting criteria. A refuge specific 

permit is required and is available to all who have 

obtained a Kansas archery permit for this unit 

(residents and non-residents). 

Comment 20: The draft CCP/EA predicts that 

hunting quality will be improved, but bow hunting 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

quality has already been degraded by the removal of 

trees on the refuge. 

Response: The CCP states that in general the 

quality of the hunting experience would be enhanced 

due to increased block size, and quality of grassland 

habitat which will increase wildlife populations 

(pheasants, quail, prairie chickens, and mule deer). 

Decreased traffic disturbance would benefit bow 

hunters where roads are closed. Ground blinds are 

one alternative to tree stands. 

Comment 21: Clarify the archery only hunting area 

boundaries (specifically, the river bottom of the 

North Fork Solomon River). 

Response: The archery deer hunting zone will be 

expanded to include the North Fork Solomon river 

bottom. If high water levels return to the reservoir, 

this hunting area may be re-evaluated for 

compatibility. If deemed incompatible as a result of 

the evaluation, the area will be closed to hunting. 

Hunting brochures and maps will be updated to 

indicate the new hunting boundaries. 

Comment 22: The Willow Flats area has been a good 

hunting area. If the area is restored to grassland, 

the geese will feed on private ground and hunting 

opportunities would deteriorate. The six shell area 

will be of little benefit to hunters with decreased use 

of area by geese. 

Response: Some cropland will remain in the Willow 

Flats area. The bottomland northeast of Prairie Dog 

Town will retain approximately 1,000 acres of 

cropland. The 'no hunting' zone and weather are the 

main factors that dictate how long and how many 

geese use the refuge, not the acres of cropland on 

the refuge. The benefits of continuing the six shell 

zone will continue to be evaluated. 

Comment 23: The six shell area provides a good 

opportunity for decoy goose hunters, however it is 

confusing. Please simplify the regulations. 

Response: The six shell zone regulations will be 

simplified to stipulate that no more than six shotgun 

shells per person per day are allowed during all 

hunting seasons. 

Comment 24: The refuge does not provide any 

muzzleloader deer hunting opportunities. Consider 

opening the refuge to muzzleloader deer hunting. 

Response: The refuge will consider this in the near 

future. Muzzleloader hunting has some appealing 

attributes from a migratory bird management point 

of view, especially when compared to archery 

hunting. Muzzleloader deer hunting has a short 14 

day season in September that provides less 

disturbance to wildlife than the 80 day archery 

season in October, November, and December. It 

does not coincide with waterfowl migration, and 

therefore provides separation of deer and waterfowl 

hunters, and therefore provides less disturbance 

amongst the two types of hunters. Rationale for 

opening the western end of the Refuge to archery 

deer hunting was to harvest deer to deter 

depredation by them on private land. Muzzleloader 

hunting would harvest more deer to better meet this 

objective. Muzzleloader hunting is better suited for 

prairie habitat. Deer may be cleanly harvested at 

longer ranges. Muzzleloader hunters generally hunt 

from the ground. Fewer tree stands would be used, 

leading to fewer law enforcement violations due to 

illegal tree stands and illegal screw-in steps. 

Comment 25: The refuge gets crowded with archery 

deer hunters sometimes. Consider implementing a 

draw permit system to alleviate the congestion. 

Response: The refuge will consider this in the near 

future. 

Comment 26: The refuge should continue to allow 

fishing (including boat fishing) on Kirwin Reservoir 

because it is one of the few areas near Phillipsburg, 

KS that provides fishing opportunities. 

Response: 100% of the refuge will remain open to 

fishing, most of this by foot travel. At times of high 

water, boat fishing will remain open to the main 

body of the reservoir year round. At times of low 

water, boat fishing will remain open on the majority 

of the reservoir from April 1 to October 1. At all 

water levels, boat fishing will remain open year 

round in Bow Creek from Crappie Point south. Nonmotorized boats will be allowed in the area closed to 

motorized boats in August and September. Within a 

sixty mile radius of the refuge there are at least five 

large reservoirs, six smaller lakes, and state owned 

access on two streams. 

Comment 27: The public needs better access to the 

water on the south side of the reservoir. Currently 

there are 15–20’ banks which make it difficult to 

access the reservoir. Suggest mowing access paths 

to facilitate foot traffic to the reservoir for fishing. 

Response: The refuge is amenable to improving foot 

access to the reservoir in selected locations. 

Comment 28: The refuge should place more timber 

and brush in the reservoir to create fish habitat. 

Response: Historically, every 3 years, the refuge has 

placed 25 cedar trees on each of the 4 fish attractors. 

Recently the refuge has increased the frequency and 

quantity of trees placed on the attractors. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 77 

Comment 29: Dredge the boat ramp on the north side 

of the reservoir and extend all boat ramps to the 

water level. 

Response: The reservoir receives the most boat 

fishing use at times of high water, and less boat 

fishing use at normal low water levels. The north 

shore boat ramp is useable at high water levels and 

has 2 ramps available. The south shore boat ramp is 

useable at high and medium water levels and also 

has 2 ramps available. At low water levels the low 

water boat ramp and the face of the dam provide 

sufficient access for the reduced number of boats. 

Comment 30: Install a boat ramp to provide access to 

Bow Creek for boating and hunting. 

Response: The refuge is open to a boat ramp at 

Crappie Point. At this time refuge funding and 

staffing are not available. However, the refuge 

would be amenable to members of the public seeking 

grants and facilitating the work under refuge 

supervision. 

Comment 31: Install boat ramp on the south side of 

the reservoir to alleviate safety concerns associated 

with launching a boat on the north side of the 

reservoir when the wind is from the south. 

Response: Boats may be launched from the south 

end of the dam at low water levels. Some windy days 

are not safe for boating. See comment 30. 

Comment 32: Move the buoy line back to Grays Park. 

Response: With implementation of the CCP the buoy 

line will be moved to Grays Park. This is made 

possible by implementing the seasonal boat closure. 

Comment 33: The refuge should not implement a 

seasonal boat closure. A no wake zone or five mile 

per hour speed limit on the entire reservoir could be 

implemented in place of the seasonal boat closure. 

Response: The presence of boats is a bigger factor in 

disturbance of waterfowl than the speed of the 

boats. 

Comment 34: Eliminate the no wake zone on the 

reservoir. Slow boating causes more damage to the 

resource than fast boating. 

Response: The no wake zone was implemented to 

help alleviate the disturbance boats were causing to 

shore fishermen. 

Comment 35: Reduced recreation opportunities will 

reduce visitation and create a negative impact on 

local businesses. 

Response: The majority of visitors to the refuge 

come to hunt, fish, and view wildlife. Camping is 

allowed on Reclamation lands along the face of the 

dam. Visitation to the area is not expected to decline 

appreciably. A socio-economic evaluation was 

completed for the CCP and presented in Chapter 4 

of the Draft CCP. CCP implementation should have 

no significant detrimental affects to the local 

economy. 

Comment 36: The citizens of Kansas pay the refuge 

manager’s salary. The fees paid by local residents to 

purchase hunting and fishing licenses pay the 

refuge’s operating expenses. 

Response: Funding for the refuge is appropriated by 

Congress and the President of the United States. 

The state of Kansas sells state hunting and fishing 

licenses and keeps the money. No money from the 

sale of hunting and fishing licenses, including 

Federal Duck Stamp money, goes to the refuge. 

Comment 37: Maintain existing roads and marina 

areas. People do not want to walk a mile or more to 

reach the reservoir. Closing roads limits wildlife 

viewing opportunities. 

Response: Access to the reservoir will be 

maintained. Seasonal and permanent road closures 

drastically reduce disturbance to wildlife. The 

Service anticipates wildlife observation 

opportunities will increase with improved habitat. 

Comment 38: The refuge should not remove 

outhouses. It doesn’t make sense to remove what 

already exists. 

Response: Currently, six restrooms are located on 

the refuge. Three restrooms associated with 

campgrounds were proposed for removal. Although 

camping at Crappie Point will be discontinued, the 

area will remain a popular location for fishing. Due 

to public comments, the refuge will maintain a 

restroom at Crappie Point. Restrooms removed 

from camping areas that are in good condition will 

be reused on the refuge or transferred to another 

national wildlife refuge for reuse. 

Comment 39: The refuge should not change the 

management of the face of the dam. 

Response: Decisions regarding management of the 

dam are made by the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Comment 40: Form partnerships to involve the 

community to assist with litter control, facilities 

maintenance and construction, and general caretaking of the refuge. Create a Keep Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge Clean Day. 

Response: Local Boy Scouts spend one day per year 

picking up litter, as do a few fishermen. The refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

would greatly appreciate assistance from the 

community for the above mentioned items. Due to 

reduced staff and funding, the refuge will need a 

member of the public to spearhead the effort. 

Comment 41: Consider obtaining grants and/or 

donations to improve the refuge. 

Response: The refuge annually applies for grants to 

improve wildlife habitat. Grant applications will 

increase with implementation of the CCP. 

Comment 42: The draft CCP/EA states it is a draft 

plan, but the refuge has been operating under 

alternative B for several years by removing trees on 

the refuge. 

Response: The refuge has been operating under the 

guidance of the Kirwin NWR Comprehensive 

Management Plan (CMP) completed in 1996. The 

goals of the CMP include: 

■	 enhance and maintain migratory bird populations 

■	 provide nesting and breeding habitat for 

grassland nesting species 

■	 enhance and maintain native mixed-grass prairie, 

emphasizing structural diversity in the plant 

community 

■	 enhance and maintain riparian areas in Bow 

Creek and North Fork of the Solomon River 

corridors, emphasizing structural diversity in the 

native shrub-tree community for wildlife 

■	 manage grasslands that favor native species of 

flora and fauna, represented by big bluestem, 

little bluestem 

■	 plant native grasses in retired croplands and 

areas previously seeded to smooth bromegrass 

Comment 43: At times the Refuge gets crowded with 

archery deer hunters. Please consider implementing 

a limited quota draw for refuge deer permits. This 

would provide a more quality hunt with less 

competition amongst hunters. 

Response: The Refuge has heard complaints from 

archers for years about this issue. The Refuge will 

consider implementing a limited quota draw for 

refuge deer permits in the near future. 

MAILING LIST 

The following mailing list was developed for this 

CCP. 

Federal Officials 

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts,—Dodge City, Wichita, 

Topeka, and Prairie Village, KS 

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback—Topeka, Overland 

Park, Garden City, Pittsburg, and Wichita, KS 

U.S. Congressman Jerry Moran—Hutchinson, and 

Hays, KS 

Federal Agencies 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Kansas City 

District, Kansas City, MO, and Harlan County Lake, 

Republican City, NE 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation—Grand Island, NE, and 

Billings, MT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Ecological Services, 

Manhattan, KS and Grand Island, NE 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Flint Hills National 

Wildlife Refuge, Harford, KS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Marais des Cygnes 

National Wildlife Refuge, Pleasanton, KS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge, Stafford, KS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Great Plains Nature 

Center, Wichita, KS 

U.S. Geological Survey—Biological Resources 

Division, Fort Collins, CO 

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, ND 

Tribal Officials 

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Mayetta, KS 

Pawnee Tribe, Pawnee, OK 

Kansas State Officials 

Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Topeka, KS 

Senator Janice Lee, Kensington, KS 

Representative John Faber, Brewster, KS 

Representative Dan Johnson, Hays, KS 

Representative Laura McClure, Osborne, KS 

Kansas State Agencies 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks—Office of 

the Secretary, Topeka, KS- Mike Hayden 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks—Region 1 

Office, Hays, KS 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks—Area 

Conservation Officer, Kirwin, KS 

Kansas Biological Survey—Lawrence, KS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 79 

Local Agencies and Officials 

Mayor, Kirwin 

Mayor, Phillipsburg 

Mayor, Agra 

Mayor, Prairie View 

Mayor, Logan 

Mayor, Long Island 

Mayor, Glade 

Mayor, Speed 

Phillips County Commissioners 

Phillips County Extension Office 

State Colleges, Universities, Schools and 

Libraries 

Fort Hays State University, Division of Biology, 

Hays 

Kansas State University, Division of Biology, 

Manhattan 

Eastern Heights High School, Agra 

Northern Valley High School, Almena 

Osborne High School, Osborne 

Hill City High School, Hill City 

Hays High School, Hays 

West Smith County High School, Kensington 

Logan High School, Logan 

Natoma High School, Natoma 

Palco High School, Palco 

Phillipsburg High School, Phillipsburg 

Plainville High School, Plainville 

Smith Center High School, Smith Center 

Stockton High School, Stockton 

Norton Community High School, Norton 

Media 

Smith County Pioneer, Smith Center, KS 

Phillips County Review, Phillipsburg, KS 

Norton Daily Telegram, Norton, KS 

Hill City Times, Hill City, KS 

Plainville Times, Plainville, KS 

Phillips County Advocate, Phillipsburg, KS 

Stockton Sentinel, Stockton, KS 

Osborne County Farmer, Osborne, KS 

Hays Daily News, Hays, KS 

The Logan Republican, Logan, KS 

KKAN_KQMA 

Organizations, Business, and Civic Groups 

Friends of Kirwin Lake, Phillipsburg, KS 

Solomon Valley Birdwatcher’s, Agra, KS 

Phillips County Chamber of Commerce, 

Phillipsburg, KS 

National Audubon Society, Manhattan, KS 

Kansas Audubon Society, Lawrence, KS 

Burroughs Audubon of Greater Kansas City, 

Overland Park, KS 

Wildlife Society, Manhattan, KS 

Rotary Club, Phillipsburg, KS 

Lions Club—Phillipsburg, Kirwin, Kensington, 

Smith Center, Agra, and Stockton, KS 

Boothill Bass Club, Spearville, KS 

American Bass Anglers—Fort Collins, CO, Abilene, 

KS, and Ceresco, NE 

Blue Valley Bass Club, Seward, NE 

Sarpy County Bassmasters, Bellevue, NE 

Liberal Bassmaster Bass Club, Liberal, KS 

Southern Colorado Bass Club, Pueblo, CO 

Southwest Anglers, Hugoton, KS 

Midwest Bass Anglers, Weeping Water, NE 

Trophy Teams Association, Colorado Springs, CO 

Kansas Bass Anglers Association, Junction City, KS 

Omaha Bass Club, Omaha, NE 

Southwest Anglers, Liberal, KS 

Northern Colorado Bass Club, Johnstown, CO 

Front Range Bassmasters, Colorado Springs, CO 

Lincoln County Bassmasters, North Platte, NE 

Mile High Bass Pioneers, Longmont, CO 

Heartland His and Hers Bass Circuit, Omaha, NE 

McPherson Bassmasters, Lindsborg, KS 

Douglas County Bassmasters, Boone, IA 
80 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Pikes Peak Bassmasters, Security, CO 

Coronado Area Council/BSA, Salina, KS 

National Wild Turkey Federation, Phillipsburg, KS 

Individuals 

83 persons 
 

 

 

Appendix H—Fire Management Program 81 

Appendix H—Fire Management Program 


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

administrative responsibility, including fire 

management, on approximately 10,778 acres of 

National Wildlife Refuge lands, in Phillips, Kansas. 

Fire—A Critical Natural Process 

In ecosystems in the prairies of the Great Plains, 

vegetation has evolved under periodic disturbance 

and defoliation from bison, fire and drought. This 

periodic disturbance is what kept the ecosystem 

diverse and healthy while maintaining significant 

biodiversity for thousands of years. Historically, 

natural fire has played an important role in many 

ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the impacts insects and diseases, 

simulating regeneration, cycling critical nutrients, 

and providing a diversity of habitats for plant 

species and wildlife. 

When fire is excluded on a broad scale, the unnatural 

accumulation of living and dead fuels that occurs can 

contribute to degraded plant communities and 

wildlife habitats. These fuel accumulations often 

change fire regime characteristics, and have created 

a potential in many areas across the country for 

uncharacteristically severe wildland fires. These 

catastrophic wildland fires often pose risks to public 

and firefighter safety. In addition, they threaten 

property and resource values such as wildlife 

habitat, grazing opportunities, timber, soils, and 

water quality. 

In the grassland species of the northern Great Plains, 

vegetation has evolved under periodic disturbance 

and defoliation from bison and fire. This periodic 

disturbance is what made the prairie healthy and a 

place of enormous diversity for thousands of years. 

Return of fire in most ecosystems is essential for 

healthy vegetation in grasslands, wetlands, and 

some woodlands, for wildlife habitat. 

When integrated back into an ecosystem, fire can 

help restore and maintain healthy systems and 

reduce the risk of wildland fires. To facilitate fire’s 

natural role in the environment, fire must be 

integrated into land and resource management plans 

and activities on a broad scale. Reintroduced fire: 

■	 Can improve wetlands and riparian areas by 

reducing the density of vegetation, thereby 

increasing the amount of available water; 

■	 Can improve deer and elk habitat, especially in 

areas with shortages such as winter habitat and 

on the spring and fall transitional ranges; 

■	 Can sustain biological diversity; 

■	 Can improve access in woodlands and shrublands; 

■	 Can improve soil fertility; 

■	 Can improve the quality and amount of livestock 

forage; 

■	 Can improve growth in immature woodlands by 

reducing density; 

■	 Can reduce susceptibility of plants to insects and 

disease caused by moisture and nutrient stress; 

■	 Can improve water yield for off-site activities and 

communities dependent on wildlands for their 

water supply. 

Wildland Fire Management Policy and Guidance 

In 2001, an update of the 1995 Federal Fire Policy 

was completed and approved by the Secretaries of 

Interior and Agriculture. The 2001 Federal Wildland 

Fire Management Policy directs federal agencies to 

achieve a balance between fire suppression to 

protect life, property, and resources and fire use to 

regulate fuels and maintain healthy ecosystems. In 

addition, it directs agencies to use the appropriate 

management response for all wildland fires 

regardless of the ignition source. This policy provides 

nine guiding principles that are fundamental to the 

success of the fire management program: 

■	 Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity. 

■	 The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological 

process and natural change agent will be 

incorporated into the planning process. 

■	 Fire management plans (FMPs), programs, and 

activities support land and resource management 

plans and their implementation. 

■	 Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire 

management activities. 

■	 Fire management programs and activities are 

economically viable, based upon values to be 

protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives. 

■	 FMPs and activities are based upon the best 

available science. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

■	 FMPs and activities incorporate public health and 

environmental quality considerations. Federal, 

state, tribal, local, interagency, and international 

coordination and cooperation are essential. 

■	 Standardization of policies and procedures among 

federal agencies is an ongoing objective. 

It is essential to have written fire management in 

the land use resources plans (e.g., the 

comprehensive conservation plans). FMPs are stepdown processes from the land use plans and habitat 

plans, with more detail on fire suppression, fire use, 

and fire management activities. 

Management Direction 

Fire management will be used to protect life, 

property and other resources from wildland fires by 

safely suppressing all wildfires on the Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge. Prescribed fire will be 

used in an ecosystem management context for 

habitat management and to protect both federal and 

private property. Fuel reduction activities will be 

applied where needed, especially in areas with a 

higher proportion of residences that may be 

considered “wildland–urban interface” (WUI) areas. 

All fire management programs will be conducted in a 

manner consistent with applicable laws, policies, and 

regulations. The refuge will maintain a Fire 

Management Plan to accomplish resource 

management objectives. Prescribed fire and manual 

and/or mechanical fuels treatments will be applied in 

a scientific way under selected weather and 

environmental conditions on approximately 500 to 

2,000 acres, over a 5-year average, for native and 

restored prairie habitat, to accomplish habitat 

management objectives. 

Fire Management Goal 

Restore and enhance fire as an ecosystem process 

within prairie habitats. The return and maintenance 

of fire is essential for wildlife habitat in these 

ecosystems. 

Fire Management Objective 

Fire is an important grassland management tool 

that can be used to accomplish habitat management 

objectives. Fire is also a tool that can quickly 

destroy equipment, buildings and property, and hurt 

or kill those that work with it. Prescribed fire and 

WUI treatments will be used to reduce hazardous 

fuels on refuge lands to reduce the intensity and 

favorable conditions for wildland fires. 

Strategies 

Strategies and tactics that consider public and 

firefighter safety and values at risk will be used. A 

more detailed fire plan for information on wildland 

fire suppression and prescribed fire methods, timing, 

and monitoring will be found in a step-down FMP. 

All management actions will use prescribed fire to 

control nonnative vegetation and the spread of 

woody vegetation in grassland habitats. 

The prescribed fire program will be outlined in the 

FMP for the refuge. This plan describes the 

following: 

■	 the year’s burn units and their predominant 

vegetation 

■	 the primary objectives of the units and the fires 

■	 the acceptable range of results 

■	 site preparation requirements 

■	 weather requirements 

■	 safety considerations and measures to protect 

sensitive features 

■	 burn-day activities 

■	 communications and coordination for burns 

■	 ignition techniques 

■	 smoke management procedures 

■	 post-burn monitoring 

Air Quality 

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing several components 

through combustion. The four major components are 

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and 

particulates. Varying amounts of particulate content 

are generated in different types of burns (e.g., 

wildlife habitat improvement burns vs. fuelreduction burns). Clean Air Act standards will be 

met during all prescribed fire under all fire 

management actions. 

Visibility and clean air are primary natural resource 

values. The protection of these resources must be 

given full consideration in fire management planning 

and operations. Additionally, smoke can have serious 

health and safety effects that must be considered. 

The management of smoke will be incorporated into 

the planning of prescribed fires and, to the extent 

possible, in the suppression of wildland fire. The 

state of South Dakota does not have a permit system 

for air quality, but does have regulations concerning 

agricultural burning. 

Fire Management Organization, Contacts, and 

Cooperation 

Qualified fire management technical oversight and 

support for the refuge will be established by the 

Region using the Fire Management District 

approach. Under this approach, an appropriate fire 

management staffing organization will be 
 

 

 

 

determined by established modeling systems based 

on the fire management workload of a group of 

refuges and possibly even that of interagency 

partners. (Fire management workload consists of 

historical wildfire suppression activities and 

historical and planned fuels treatment workload.) 

Depending on budgets, fire management staffing 

and support equipment may be located on the 

station or at other refuges in the district and shared 

between all units. Wherever possible, fire 

management activities will be conducted in a 

Appendix H—Fire Management Program 83 

coordinated and collaborative manner with federal 

and nonfederal partners. 

With the signature of this CCP, a new Fire 

Management Plan will be developed for the Kirwin 

NWR, as a stand-alone Fire Management Plan, a 

Fire Management Plan with two or three refuges 

(i.e., three refuges in the fire management district), 

or as an interagency Fire Management Plan. 

 

 

Appendix I—Species List 85 

Appendix I—Species List
 

This appendix presents the scientific and common names of vertebrates and plants known to occur on 

Kirwin NWR. Bold indicates species that have been recorded as nesting. Information on fish, 

amphibians, and reptiles was obtained from Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (refuge files 

dated 01/30/2003). 

Birds follow the American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on Classification and Nomenclature 

(American Ornithologists’ Union 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003). 


Amphibians 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Great plains narrow-mouthed Gastrophryne olivacea 

frog 

Great plains toad Bufo cognatus 

Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans 

Plains leopard frog Rana blairi 

Plains spadefoot Scaphiopus bombifrons 

Rocky mountain toad Bufo woodhousii 

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum 

Reptiles 

Brown snake 

Bull snake 

Coachwhip 

Common garter snake 

Common kingsnake 

Eastern fence lizard 

Eastern hog-nosed snake 

Five-lined skink 

Great plains skink 

Lesser earless lizard 

Lined snake 

Milk snake 

Northern water snake 

Plains blackhead snake 

Plains garter snake 

Prairie rattle snake 

Rat snake 

Ringneck snake 

Slender glass lizard 

Texas horned lizard 

Western hog-nosed snake 

Western ribbon snake 

Yellow-bellied racer 

Alligator snapping turtle 

Common snapping turtle 

Storeria dekayi 

Pituophis melanoleucus 

Masticophis flagellum 

Thamnophis sirtalis 

Lampropeltis getula 

Sceloporus undulates 

Heterodon platirhinos 

Eumeces fasciatus 

Eumeces faciatus 

Holbrookia maculate 

Tropidoclonion lineatum 

Lampropeltis triangulum 

Nerodia sipedon 

Tantilla nigriceps 

Thamnophis radix 

Crotalus viridis 

Elaphe obsolete 

Diadophis punctatus 

Ophisaurus attenuatus 

Phrynosoma cornutum 

Heterodon nasicus 

Thamnophis proximus 

Coluber constrictor 

Macroclemys temmincki 

Chelydra serpentine 

Ornate box turtle 

Smooth soft-shelled turtle 

Spiny soft-shelled turtle 

Western painted turtle 

Yellow mud turtle 

Terrapene ornata 

Apalone mutica 

Apalone spinifera 

Chrysemys picta 

Kinosternon flavescens 

Birds 

American avocet 

American black duck 

American bittern 

American coot 

American crow 

American golden plover 

American goldfinch 

American kestrel 

American pipit 

American redstart 

American robin 

American tree sparrow 

American white pelican 

American widgeon 

Baird’s sandpiper 

Bald eagle 

Baltimore oriole 

Bank swallow 

Barn owl 

Barn swallow 

Barred owl 

Bell’s vireo 

Belted kingfisher 

Bullock’s oriole 

Black-and-white warbler 

Black-bellied plover 

Black-billed cuckoo 

Black-billed magpie 

Black-capped chickadee 

Black-crowned night-heron 

Recurvirostra Americana 

Anas rubripes 

Botaurus lentiginosus 

Fulica Americana 

Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Pluvialis dominica 

Carduelis tristis 

Falco sparverius 

Anthus rubescens 

Setophaga ruticilla 

Turdus migratorius 

Spizella arborea 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Anas Americana 

Calidris bairdii 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Icterus galbula 

Riparia riparia 

Tyto alba 

Hirundo rustica 

Strix varia 

Vireo bellii 

Ceryle alcyon 

Icterus bullockii 

Mniotilta varia 

Pluvialis squatarola 

Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Pica hudsonia 

Poecile atricapillus 

Nycticorax nycticorax 
86 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Black-headed grosbeak 

Black-necked stilt 

Black-throated gray warbler 

Blackpoll warbler 

Black tern 

Blue grosbeak 

Blue jay 

Blue-winged teal 

Bobolink 

Bonaparte’s gull 

Brewer’s blackbird 

Brewer’s sparrow 

Brown-headed cowbird 

Brown creeper 

Brown thrasher 

Bufflehead 

Burrowing owl 

Canada goose 

Canvasback 

Caspian tern 

Cattle egret 

Cedar waxwing 

Chestnut-collared longspur 

Chimney swift 

Chipping sparrow 

Cinnamon teal 

Clay-colored sparrow 

Cliff swallow 

Common goldeneye 

Common grackle 

Common loon 

Common merganser 

Common nighthawk 

Common redpoll 

Common snipe 

Common tern 

Common yellowthroat 

Cooper’s hawk 

Dark-eyed junco 

Dickcissel 

Double-crested cormorant 

Downy woodpecker 

Dunlin 

Eared grebe 

Eastern bluebird 

Eastern kingbird 

Eastern meadowlark 

Pheucticus melanocephalus 

Himantopus mexicanus 

Dendroica nigrescens 

Dendroica striata 

Chlidonias niger 

Passerina caerulea 

Cyanocitta cristata 

Anas discors 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Larus Philadelphia 

Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Spizella breweri 

Molothrus ater 

Certhia Americana 

Toxostoma rufum 

Bucephala albeola 

Athene cunicularia 

Branta Canadensis 

Aythya valisineria 

Sterna caspia 

Bubulcus ibis 

Bombycilla cedrorum 

Calcarius ornatus 

Chaetura pelagica 

Spizella passerina 

Anas cyanoptera 

Spizella pallida 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Bucephala clangula 

Quiscalus quiscula 

Gavia immer 

Mergus merganser 

Chordeiles minor 

Carduelis flammea 

Gallinago gallinago 

Sterna hirundo 

Geothlypis trichas 

Accipiter cooperii 

Junco hyemalis 

Spiza Americana 

Phalacrocorax auritus 

Picoides pubescens 

Calidris alpina 

Podiceps nigricollis 

Sialia sialis 

Tyrannus tyrannus 

Sturnella magna 

Eastern phoebe 

Eastern screech owl 

Eastern towhee 

Eastern wood-pewee 

European starling 

Ferruginous hawk 

Field sparrow 

Forster’s tern 

Franklin’s gull 

Gadwall 

Glaucous gull 

Golden-crowned kinglet 

Golden eagle 

Grasshopper sparrow 

Gray catbird 

Greater prairie chicken 

Great blue heron 

Great crested flycatcher 

Great egret 

Great horned owl 

Greater scaup 

Greater yellowlegs 

Greater white-fronted goose 

Green-winged teal 

Green heron 

Hairy woodpecker 

Harris’ sparrow 

Hermit thrush 

Herring gull 

Hooded merganser 

Horned grebe 

Horned lark 

House finch 

House sparrow 

House wren 

Hudsonian godwit 

Indigo bunting 

Killdeer 

Lapland longspur 

Lark bunting 

Lark sparrow 

Lazuli bunting 

Least bittern 

Least flycatcher 

Least sandpiper 

Least tern 

Lesser scaup 

Sayornis phoebe 

Megascops asio 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Contopus virens 

Sturnus vulgaris 

Buteo regalis 

Spizella pusilla 

Sterna forsteri 

Larus pipixcan 

Anas strepera 

Larus hyperboreus 

Regulus satrapa 

Aquila chrysaetos 

Ammodramus savannarum 

Dumetella carolinensis 

Tympanuchus cupido 

Ardea herodias 

Myiarchus crinitus 

Ardea alba 

Bubo virginianus 

Aythya marila 

Tringa melanoleuca 

Anser albifronus 

Anas crecca 

Butorides virescens 

Picoides villosus 

Zonotrichia querula 

Catharus guttatus 

Larus argentatus 

Lophodytes cucullatus 

Podiceps auritus 

Eremophila alpestris 

Carpodacus mexicanus 

Passer domesticus 

Troglodytes aedon 

Limosa haemastica 

Passerina cyanea 

Charadrius vociferus 

Calcarius lapponicus 

Calamospiza melanocorys 

Chondestes grammacus 

Passerina amoena 

Ixobrychus exilis 

Empidonax minimus 

Calidris minutilla 

Sterna antillarum 

Aythya affinis 
Appendix I—Species List 87 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus 

MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei 

Magnolia warbler Dendrocia magnolia 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis 

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Northern mockingbird Minus polyglottos 

Northern pintail Anas acuta 

Northern rough-winged Stelgidopterys serripennis 

swallow 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata 

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

Pie-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus 

Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus 

Purple martin Progne subis 

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor 

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Redhead Aythya Americana 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoenicens 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 

Ring-necked pheasant 

Rock pigeon 

Rose-breasted grosbeak 

Ross’s goose 

Rough-legged hawk 

Ruby-crowned kinglet 

Ruddy duck 

Ruddy turnstone 

Sanderling 

Sandhill crane 

Scissor-tailed flycatcher 

Scott’s oriole 

Semipalmated plover 

Semipalmated sandpiper 

Sharp-shinned hawk 

Short-eared owl 

Snow goose 

Snowy egret 

Snowy owl 

Snowy plover 

Song sparrow 

Sora 

Spotted sandpiper 

Spotted towhee 

Stilt sandpiper 

Swainson’s Hawk 

Swainson’s thrush 

Tennessee warbler 

Townsend’s warbler 

Trumpeter swan 

Tundra swan 

Turkey vulture 

Upland sandpiper 

Veery 

Vesper sparrow 

Virginia rail 

Warbling vireo 

Western grebe 

Western kingbird 

Western meadowlark 

Western sandpiper 

White-breasted nuthatch 

White-crowned sparrow 

White-faced ibis 

White-rumped sandpiper 

White-throated sparrow 

Whooping crane 

Phasianus colchicus 

Columba livia 

Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Chen rossii 

Buteo lagopus 

Regulus calendula 

Oxyura jamaicensis 

Arenaria interpres 

Calidris alba 

Grus Canadensis 

Tyrannus forficatus 

Icterus parisorum 

Charadrius semipalmatus 

Calidris pusilla 

Accipiter striatus 

Asio flammeus 

Chen caerulescens 

Egretta thula 

Bubo scandiacus 

Charadrius alexandrinus 

Melospiza melodia 

Porzana carolina 

Actitis macularia 

Pipilo maculates 

Calidris himantopus 

Buteo swainsoni 

Catharus ustulatus 

Vermivora peregrine 

Dendroica townsendi 

Cygnus buccinator 

Cygnus columbianus 

Cathartes aura 

Bartramia longicauda 

Catharus fuscescens 

Pooecetes gramineus 

Rallus limicola 

Vireo gilvus 

Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Tyrannus verticalis 

Sturnella neglecta 

Calidris mauri 

Sitta carolinensis 

Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Plegadis chihi 

Calidris fuscicollis 

Zonotrichia albicollis 

Grus Americana 
 

 

88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

Willet Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens 

Yellow-crowned night hereon Nyctanassa violacea 

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons 

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 

Fishes 

Black bullhead Ictalurus melas 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Common carp Cyprinus carpio 

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris 

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis 

Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis 

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 

Sand shiner Notropis stramineus 

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 

White crappie Pomoxis annularis 

White base Morone chrysops 

Wiper Morone chrysops XM. 

Saxatilis 

Mammals 

American beaver Castor canadensis 

American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

American badger Taxidea taxus 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus 

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus 

Bobcat Felis rufus 

Brasilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis 

Common muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Common raccoon Procyon lotor 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Deer mouse 

Desert cottontail 

Eastern cottontail 

Eastern mole 

Eastern spotted skunk 

Eastern wood rat 

Evening bat 

Fox squirrel 

Franklin’s ground squirrel 

Gray fox 

Hispid cotton rat 

Hispid pocket mouse 

Hoary bat 

Keen’s bat 

Least shrew 

Long-tailed weasel 

Mule deer 

Northern grasshopper mouse 

Plains harvest mouse 

Plains pocket gopher 

Plains pocket mouse 

Prairie vole 

Ord’s kangaroo rat 

Red bat 

Red fox 

Short-tailed shrew 

Silky pocket mouse 

Silver-haired bat 

Small-footed bat 

Striped Skunk 

Peromyscus maniculatus 

Sylvilagus audubonii 

Sylvilagus floridanus 

Scalopus aquaticus 

Spilogale putorius 

Peromyscus gossypinus 

Nycticeius humeralis 

Sciurus niger 

Spermophilus frankinii 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Sigmodon hispidus 

Chaetodipus hispidus 

Lasiurus cinereus 

Myotis keenii 

Cryptotis parva 

Mustela frenata 

Odocoileus hemionus 

Onychomys leucogaster 

Reithrodontomys montanus 

Geomys bursarius 

Perognathus flavescens 

Microtus ochrogaster 

Dipodomys ordii 

Lasiurus borealis 

Vulpes vulpes 

Blarina brevicauda 

Perognathus flavus 

Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Myotis leibii 

Mephitis mephitis 

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus 

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis 

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Plants 

Grasses 

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii 

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis 

Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides 

Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis 

Fall Panicum Digitaria cognatum. 

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 

Green needlegrass Stipa viridula 

Hairy grama Bouteloua hirsuta 

Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans 
Appendix I—Species List 89 

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha 

Little bluestem Andropogon scoparius 

Marsh muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa 

Porcupine grass Stipa spartea 

Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata 

Prairie three-awn Aristida oligantha 

Purple lovegrass Eragrostis spectabilis 

Scribners Panicum Panicum oligosanthes 

Side-oats grama Bouteloua curtipendula 

Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 

Tall dropseed Sporobolus asper 

Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus 

Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 

Forbs 

American germander Teucrium canadense 

American vetch Vicia americana 

Bee balm Monarda fistulosa 

Blackeyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta 

Blue lettuce Lactuca oblongifolia 

Blue sage Salvia azurea 

Blue vervain Verbena hastata 

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchum campestre 

Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum 

Bracted spiderwort Tradescantia bracteata 

Buckbrush Symphoricarpos occidentalis 

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis 

Canada milkvetch Astragalus canadensis 

Canada tickclover Desmodium canadense 

Clammy ground cherry Physalis heterphylla 

Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca 

Common sunflower Heliathus annuus 

Compass plant Silphium laciniatum 

Coralberry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 

Croton Croton texensis. 

Cudweed sagewort Artemesia ludoviciana 

Cup plant Silphium perfoliatum 

Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa 

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strgosus 

Dandelion hawks-beard Crepis runcinata 

Deer vetch Lotus purshianus 

False boneset Brickellia eupatoroides 

False boneset Kuhnia eupatoriodes 

False sunflower Heliopsis helianthoides 

Field pussytoes Antennaria neglecta 

Grass-leaved goldenrod Solidago graminifolia 

Green sage Artemisia 

Ground plum Astragalus crassicarpus 

Hairy goldaster Chrysopsis villosa 

Hairy pucoon Lithospermum caroliniense 

Heath aster Aster ericoides 

Hemp dogbane Apocynum cannabinum 

Hoary vervain Verbena stricta 

Illinois bundleflower Desmanthus illinoiensis 

Illinois tick clover Desmodium illinoensis 

Indian hemp dogbane Apocynum cannabinum 

Indigo bush Amorpha fruticosa 

Jerusalem artichoke Helianthus tuberose 

Leadplant Amorpha canescens 

Lemon scurfpea Psoralidium lanceolatum 

Longbeard hawkweed Hieracium longipilum 

Marble-seeded Borage Onosmodium molle 

Maximillian sunflower Helianthus maximilliani 

Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis 

Mountain mint Pycnanthemum virginianum 

Narrowleaf pucoon L.incisum 

New England aster Aster novae-angliae 

Norwegian cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica 

Panicled aster Aster simplex 

Philadelphia fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus 

Pink poppy mallow Callirhoe alcaeoides 

Plains sunflower Helianthus petiolaris 

Plains yellow primrose Calylophus serrulatus 

Prairie cinquefoil Potentilla arguta 

Prairie coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria 

Prairie goldenrod Solidago missouriensis 

Prairie larkspur Delphinium virescens 

Prairie ragwort Senecio plattensis 

Prairie violet Viola pedatifida 

Prairie wild rose Rosa arkansana 

Prickly poppy Argemone plyanthemos 

Purple coneflower Echinacea angustifolia 

Purple poppy mallow Callirhoe involucrata 

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpureum 

Redroot New Jersey tea Ceanothus herbaceous 

Rigid goldenrod Solidago rigida 

Rosinweed Silphium integrifolium 

Rough blazingstar Liatris punctata 

Rough rattlesnake-root Prenanathes aspera 

Round head lespedeza Lespedeza capitata 

Rush skeleton plant Lygodesmia juncea 

Sand lovegrass Eragrostis trichoides 

Sawtooth sunflower Helianthus grosseratus 

Scarlet globemallow Spharalcea coccinea 
 

 

90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Sensitive brier 

Shell-leaf penstemon 

Short green milkweed 

Showy partridge pea 

Silky prairie clover 

Silver-leaf scurf pea 

Slender-leaf scurf pea 

Spider milkweed 

Stiff goldenrod 

Stiff sunflower 

Tall thistle 

Talus slope penstemon 

Thick-spike gayfeather 

Thimbleweed 

Upright prairie coneflower 

Venus’ looking glass 

Violet wood sorel 

Virginia ground cherry 

Wavyleaf thistle 

Western ironweed 

Western wild lettuce 

Schrankia nuttallii 

Penstemon grandiflorus 

Asclepias viridiflora 

Cassia chamaecrista 

Dalea villosa 

Psoralea argophylla 

Psoralea tenuiflora 

Asclepias viridis 

S. rigida 

Helianthus rigidus 

Cirsium altissimum 

Penstemon digitalis 

Liatris pycnostachya 

Anemone cylindrica 

Ratibiada columnifera 

Tridanis perfoliata 

Oxalis violacea 

Physallis virginiana 

Cirsium undulatum 

Vernonia fasciculata 

Lactuca ludoviciana 

Western yarrow Achillea millefolium 

White prarie clover Dalea candida 

Whorled milkweed Asclepias verticillata 

Wild four-O-clock Mirabilis nyctaginea 

Wild lettuce Lactuca canadensis 

Wild licorice Glycyrrhizia lepidota 

Wild onion Allium canadense 

Willowleaf aster Aster praealtus 

Wooly plantain Plantago patagonica 

Wetland emergents 

Duley rush Juncus dudleyyi 

Fescue sedge Carex brevior 

Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 

Gravid sedge Carex gravida 

Interior rush Juncus interior 

Marsh smartweed Polygonum coccineum 

Pale smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium 

Self heal Prunella vulgaris 

Wedgelead fog-fruit Lippia cuneifolia 
 

 

 

Appendix J—Graphs 91 

Appendix J—Graphs
 

This appendix displays graphs showing total annual use days, average annual populations, and peak 

populations, respectively for the following waterfowl groups: American Coot and dabbling ducks 

excluding Mallard (a – c), diving ducks (d – f), Canada Goose and Mallard (g – i), and White-fronted 

Goose and Snow Goose (j – l) using Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge between 1983 and 2001. 

400 
 

A m erican C oot 

G adw all 350 
 N orthern P intail 

G reen-w inged Teal 

B lue-w inged Teal 

A m e ric a n W ig e o n 300 
 N orthern S hoveler 

Wood Duck 

250 
 

200 
 

150 
 

100 
 

5 0 
 

0
 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
 

(a) 

1200 
 

1100 
 

1000 
 A m erican C oot 
 

900 
 G adw all 
 

800 
 N orthern P intail
 

700 
 G reen-w inged Teal 
 

600 
 B lue-w inged Teal 
 

500 
 A m e ric a n W ig e o n 

N orthern S hoveler 

Wood Duck 450 
 

400 
 

350 
 

300 
 

250 
 

200 
 

150 
 

100 
 

5 0 
 

0
 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
 

Average Population Total Use Days (x 1000) 

(b) 
92 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS Total Use Days (x 1000) Peak Population (x 1000) 

20 

18 

13 American Coot 

Gadwall 

12 Northern Pintail 

Green-winged Teal 

11 Blue-winged Teal 

American Wigeon 

10 Northern Shoveler 

Wood Duck 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

(c) 

650 

600 

550 Redhead 

Ring-necked Duck 500 

Canvasback 

450 Lesser Scaup 

400 Ruddy Duck 

350 Bufflehead 

Hooded Merganser 300 Com m on Goldeneye 

250 Common Merganser 

200 

150 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

(d) 

0 
Appendix J—Graphs 93 

Peak Population (x 1000) Average Population 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

900 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

1800 

2000 

Redhead 

Ring-necked Duck 

Canvasback 

Lesser Scaup 

Ruddy Duck 

Bufflehead 

Hooded Merganser 

Common Goldeneye 

Common Merganser 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
 

(e) 

200 
 

150 
 

2 2 
 

2 0 
 

1 8 
 

1 6 
 

1 4 
 

1 2 
 

1 0 
 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1994 1996 1997 1999 1998 2000 2001 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

Redhead 

Ring-necked Duck 

Canvasback 

Lesser Scaup 

Ruddy Duck 

Bufflehead 

H o o d e d M e rg a n s e r 

C o m m o n G o ld e n e ye 

C o m m o n M e rg a n s e r 

(f) 
94 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS Average Population Total Use Days (x 1000) 

4500 
 

4000 
 

3500 
 

3000 
 

2500 
 

2000 
 

1500 
 

1000 
 

500 
 

0 

12000 
 

10000 
 

8000 
 

6000 
 

4000 
 

2000 
 

0 

Canada Goose 

M a lla rd 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 
 

Canada Goose 

M allard 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 
 

(g) 

(h) 
 

Canada goose

M a lla rd

Appendix J—Graphs 95 

Total Use Days (x 10,000) Peak Populations (x 10,000) 

9
 

8
 

7
 

6
 

5
 

4
 

3
 

2
 

1
 

0 

C a n a d a G o o s e 

M a lla rd 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
 

(i) 

3 0 
 

2 5 
 

2 0 
 

1 5 
 

1 0 
 

5
 

4
 

3
 

2
 

1
 

0 

G reater W hite-fronted G oose 

Snow Goose 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
 

(j) 
96 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS Average Population 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

550 

600 

650 

700 

750 

G reater W hite-fronted G oose 

Snow Goose 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
 

(k) 

23
 

22
 

21
 

20
 

11
 

10
 

9
 

8
 

7
 

6
 

5
 

4
 

3
 

2
 

1
 

0
 

Greater White-fronted Goose 

Snow Goose 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
 

(l) 

Peak Population (x 1000) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix K—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 97 

Appendix K—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Persons: Craig Mowry (785) 543-6673 

Toni Griffin (303) 236-4378 

Date: May 1, 2006 

I. Region 6

 II. Service Activity (Program): Refuges, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat 

A. Federally Listed Species and/or their critical habitat within the action area: 

1. bald eagle-threatened 

2. whooping cranes-endangered 

3. interior least tern-endangered 

4. piping plovers-endangered 

*There is no federally designated critical habitat on the Action Area (Kirwin NWR) 

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: 

1. none 

C. Candidate species within the action area: 

1. none 

D. Include species/habitat occurrence on a map. (see attachment) 

IV. Geographic area or station name and action 

Station: Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

Action: Issuance and implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

V. Location (map attached) 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge is located within Service 

 Region 6 Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem (Unit #18) 

B. County and State: Phillips County, Kansas 

C. Section, township, and range: Kirwin NWR includes parts or all of sections 26, 27, 28, 33, 

34, 35, 36 in Township 4 South, Range 17 West; sections 1, 2, 13, 23, 24, 25 in 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

 Township 5 South, Range 17 West; sections 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 in Township 4 South, Range 

 16 West; sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18 in Township 5 South, Range 16 West. 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: The town of Kirwin, Kansas is located 

 adjacent to the northeast portion of the refuge boundary. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

1. bald eagle: This species occurs only as a migrant and winter species. Commonly

 found on the Refuge from October-March. Wintering numbers are typically 25 with a 

 range of 0-105. Bald eagle activity centers around the reservoir portion of the Refuge 

 where there are flocks of waterfowl. Roosting occurs in various trees around the 

Refuge. 

2. whooping cranes: Records indicate that the last confirmed sighting was in 1977. 

 Unconfirmed sightings on the Refuge occur almost annually. They pass through the 

 area during spring and fall migrations with most sightings in April and October. Prefer 

 crop fields with large, unobstructed field of view. 

3. interior least tern: Occasional visitors to the Refuge. Nesting has been confirmed in 

 the past with young produced in 1974, 1976, and 1980. The majority of nesting habitat 

 is found on the east end of the reservoir. 

4. piping plovers: Occasional visitor during migration. Prefers sandy areas bordering 

vegetation and open shoreline areas. 

VI. Description of proposed action: Issuance and implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

-Continue to provide for priority public use by maintaining the current hunt plan. 

-Increase the area of low disturbance to migrating and wintering waterfowl and bald eagles by

 implementing a seasonal boat closure on most of the reservoir (October 1-April 1) at low water 

 levels. 

-Comply with current laws, regulations, and policies by discontinuing non-wildlife dependent 

 recreational uses, such as camping, jet/water skiing, swimming. 

-Increase efforts to control noxious weeds by installing a new crop field below the high water 

 line, in the Bow Creek arm. 

-Continue to improve grassland bird habitat by removing invasive trees, and restoring mixed 

grass prairie to most of the croplands above the high water line. 

-Continue to improve the health of the riparian corridors to benefit declining migratory birds, 

 such as Baltimore oriole, yellow billed cuckoo and Swainson’s hawk, by removing non-native 

trees. 

VII. Determination of effects: 

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items III. A, B & C: 

1. There is no federally designated critical habitat on the action area (Kirwin NWR) and 

 the CCP does not find a need to propose designating critical habitat within the Refuge 

 at this time. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix K—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 99 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

-Continuing to provide for priority public use by maintaining the current hunt plan would not 

have any negative affects on bald eagles, whooping cranes, interior least terns, or piping plovers. 

-Increasing the area of low disturbance to migrating and wintering waterfowl and bald eagles by

 implementing a seasonal boat closure on most of the reservoir (October 1-April 1) at low water 

 levels would be a benefit to bald eagles, potential benefit to whooping cranes, and have no affect 

on interior least terns, or piping plovers. 

-Complying with current laws, regulations, and policies by discontinuing non-wildlife dependent 

 recreational uses, such as camping, jet/water skiing, swimming. This would be a benefit by

 reducing disturbance and increasing available habitat to bald eagles, interior least terns, piping 

plovers, and it would have no affect on whooping cranes. 

-Increasing efforts to control noxious weeds by installing a new crop field below the high water 

 line, in the Bow Creek arm. This would have no affect on interior least terns, piping plovers, or 

 whooping cranes. It may affect bald eagles, but it is not likely to due to the many other trees 

 around the Refuge for them to roost in. 

-Continuing to improve grassland bird habitat by removing invasive trees, and restoring mixed 

grass prairie to most of the croplands above the high water line. This will not have any affect on 

bald eagles, whooping cranes, interior lease terns, or piping plovers. 

-Continuing to improve the health of the riparian corridors to benefit declining migratory birds,

 such as Baltimore oriole, yellow billed cuckoo and Swainson’s hawk, by removing non-native 

 trees. Removing non-native trees from the riparian areas may affect bald eagles, but it is not 

 likely to due to the many other trees around the Refuge for them to roost in. This action will not 

 affect whooping cranes, interior least terns, or piping plovers. 

VIII. Effect determination and response requested 

[* = optional] 

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat: 

 Determination Response requested 

 No effect/no adverse modification _____ *Concurrence 

(species: _____ ) 

May affect, but is not likely to adversely X Concurrence 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

(species: all 4 ) 

May affect, and is likely to adversely _____ Formal Consultation 

affect species/modify critical habitat 

(species:______) 

B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat: 

 Determination Response requested 

No effect on proposed species/no adverse _____ *Concurrence 

modification of proposed critical habitat 

(species: _____ ) 

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species _____ Conference 

adversely modify proposed critical habitat 

(species: _____ ) 

C. Candidate Species: 

 Determination Response requested 

 no effect _____ *Concurrence 

(species:______) 

is likely to jeopardize candidate species _____ Conference 

(species: _____ ) 

_ 

Craig Mowry, Refuge Manager, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Date 

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence X Nonconcurrence __________ 

B. Formal Consultation required _____ 

C. Conference required _____ 

D. Informal conference required _____ 

E. Remarks 

Signature Date 

[Title/office of reviewing official] 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix L—Refuge Operations Needs System Projects 101 

Appendix L—Refuge Operations Needs System 

Projects 

 Initial Year Recurring Annual

(thousands $) (thousands $) 

Park Ranger (LEO) $140 $75 

Outdoor Recreation Planner $140 $75 

Habitat Projects (invasive plants) $283 $30 

 Total $1,061 $435 

Biologist $151 $86 

Deputy Refuge Manager $151 $86 

Equipment Operator $140 $75 

Research/Monitoring (RLGIS) $56 $8 

 

 

Appendix M—Maintenance Management System Projects 103 

Appendix M—Maintenance Management System 

Projects 

Project Cost 

Expand visitor center $627,000 

Replace 1982 tractor $88,000 

Replace unsafe shop building $410,000 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography 


Albertson, F.W. 1937. Ecology of mixed prairie in 

west central Kansas. Ecological Monographs 

7:481–547. 

American Bird Conservancy. Undated. List of 

globally Important Bird Areas in Kansas. 

Available from: <http://www.abcbirds.org/iba 

/kansas.htm> Accessed June 2005. 

———. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th 

edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, 

Washington, D.C. 

———. 2000. Forty-second supplement to the 

American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of 

North American Birds. Auk 117:847–858. 

———. 2002. Forty-third supplement to the 

American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of 

North American Birds. Auk 119:897–906. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 2003. Forty-fourth 

supplement to the American Ornithologists’ 

Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 

120:923–931. 

Arnold, T.W.; Higgins, K.F. 1986. Effects of Shrub 

Coverages on Birds of North Dakota Mixed-grass 

Prairies. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 

100(1):10–14. Ottawa, Canada. 

Bailey, J.K.; Schweitzer, J.A.; Whitman, T. G. 2001. 

Saltcedar negatively affects biodiversity of 

aquatic macroinvertebrates. Wetlands 21:442– 

447. 

Baker, L.A. 1992. Introduction to nonpoint source 

pollution in the United States and prospects for 

wetland use. Ecological Engineering 1:1–26. 

Bakker, K.K. 2002. The Effect of Woody Vegetation 

on Grassland Nesting Birds. College of Natural 

Sciences, Dakota State University, Madison, 

South Dakota. 

BBC Research & Consulting. ARCview 9.0, ESRI. 

Boyle, S.A.; Samson, F.B. 1985. Effects of Nonconsumptive Recreation on Wildlife: A Review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110–116. 

Bragg, T.B.; Steuter. A.A. 1996. Prairie Ecology— 

The Mixed Prairie. Chapter 4 In Prairie 

Conservation: Preserving North America’s most 

endangered ecosystem. F.B. Sampson and F.L. 

Knopf, editors. Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Busby. Sept. 2005. Personal observation. 

Christensen, V.G. 1999. Deposition of selenium and 

other constituents in reservoir bottom sediment 

of the Solomon River Basin, north-central 

Kansas. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 99-4230. 

Christensen, V.G.; Juracek, K.E. 2001. Variability of 

metals in reservoir sediment from two adjacent 

basins in the central Great Plains. Environmental 

Geology 40:470–481. 

Currier, P.J. 1988. Plant species composition and 

groundwater levels in a Platte River wet 

meadow. Pages 19–24 in T. B. Bragg and J. 

Stubbendieck, editors. Proceedings of the 11th 

North American Prairie Conference. University 

of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Dahlgren, R.B.; Korschgen, C.E. 1992. Human 

Disturbances of Waterfowl: An Annotated 

Bibliography. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 

188, Washington, D.C. 

Dechant, J.A.; Dinkins, M.F.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Parkin, B.D.; Euliss, B.R. 

2003a. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Upland Sandpiper. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/upsa/upsa.ht 

m> (Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Dinkins, M.F.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Euliss, B.R. 2003b. Effects of 

management practices on grassland birds: Vesper 

Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center, Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home 

Page. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource 

/literatr/grasbird/vesp/vesp.htm> (Version 

12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003c. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Short-eared Owl. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/seow.htm> 

(Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Zimmerman, A.L.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003d. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Dickcissel. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 
 

 

 

106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/dick/dick.htm 

(Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. 

Igl, C.M. Goldade, B.D. Parkin, and B.R. Euliss. 

2003e. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Lark Sparrow. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/lasp.htm> 

(Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Rabie, P.A.; Euliss, B.R. 

2003f. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Burrowing Owl. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/buow/buow 

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A., Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Short-eared Owl. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/seow.htm> 

(Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Grasshopper Sparrow. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/gras 

bird/grsp/grsp.htm (Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Zimmerman, A.L.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Lark Bunting. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/larb/larb 

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Rabie, P.A.; Euliss, B.R. 

2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: McCown’s Longspur. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/mclo/mclo 

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Clay-colored Sparrow. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/ccsp/ccsp 

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Zimmerman, A.L.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Bobolink. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/bobo/bobo 

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Zimmerman, A.L.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Western Meadowlark. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/weme/weme 

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, M.L.; Johnson, D.H.; Igl, 

L.D.; Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, 

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Chestnut-collared Longspur. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ 

resource/literatr/grasbird/cclo/cclo.htm (Version 

12DEC2003). 

Dieter, C.D. 1990. Causes and effects of water 

turbidity: a selected annotated bibliography. 

South Dakota Cooperative Wildlife Research 

Unit, South Dakota State University, Technical 

Bulletin Number 5. 

Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1958. Range conservation as based 

on sites and conditions classes. Journal of Soil and 

Water Conservation 13:151–155. 

Eddy, T.A. 1994. Phreatophyte survey and wateruse estimates for nine river systems in Kansas. 

Proceedings of the 14th Annual North American 

Prairie Conference. Kansas State University, 

Manhattan, Kansas. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Strategies for water level 

manipulations in moist-soil systems. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Waterfowl Management 

Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.6. 

Fredrickson, L.H.; Reid, F.A. 1986. Wetland and 

riparian habitats: a non-game overview. Pages 

58–96 in J. B. Hale, L. B. Best, and R. L. Clawson, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography 107 

editors. Management of non-game wildlife in the 

Midwest: a developing art. North-Central 

Section, The Wildlife Society, Grand Rapids, 

Michigan. 

Fredrickson, L.H.; Laubhan, M.K. 1994. Managing 

wetlands for wildlife. Pages 623–647 in T. A. 

Bookhout, editor. Research and management 

techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth edition. 

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Gilbert, E. 2003. Refuge Manager, Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Gutzwiller, K.J. 1993. Serial Management 

Experiments: An Adaptive Approach to Reduce 

Recreational Impacts on Wildlife. Trans. 58th N.A. 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 528– 

536. 

Igl, L.D. 1996. Bird checklists of the United States. 

Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. <http://www.npwrc 

.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/chekbird/chekbird 

.htm> (Version 12MAY03). 

Johnson, D.H.; Igl, L.D.; Dechant, J.A.; Sondreal, 

M.L.; Goldade, C.M.; Nenneman, M.P.; Euliss, 

B.R. 1998. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Northern Harrier. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. 12 pages. 

Johnson, W.C.; Arbogast, A.F. 1993. Geologic map, 

Phillips County. Kansas Geological Survey, Map 

M-29. 

Kansas Department of Agriculture. 2002–2004. 

Available at: < http://www.ksda.gov> 

Knight, R.L.; Cole, D.N. 1991. Effects of 

Recreational Activity on Wildlife in Wildlands. 

Trans. 56th N.A. Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference 238–247. 

Knopf, F.L.; Samson, F.B. 1997. Conservation of 

grassland vertebrates. Ecological Studies 

125:273–289. 

KNR. 2004. Crime Report. 

Korschgen, C.E.; George, L.S.; Green, W.L. 1985. 

Disturbance of Diving Ducks by Boaters on a 

Migrational Staging Area. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 13:290–296. 

Krull, J.N. 1970. Aquatic plant-macroinvertebrate 

associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:707–718. 

Kuchler, A.W. 1967. Some geographic features of the 

Kansas prairie. Transactions of the Kansas 

Academy of Science 70:388–401. 

———. 1972. The oscillations of the mixed prairie in 

Kansas. Erdkunde 26:120–129. 

———. 1974. A new vegetation map of Kansas. 

Ecology 55:586–604. 

Kullberg, R.G. 1974. Distribution of aquatic 

macrophytes related to paper mill effluents in a 

southern Michigan stream. American Midland 

Naturalist 91:271–281. 

La Duke, J.C.; Wyckoff, A.M. 1986. Vascular Plants 

of Oakville Prairie, North Dakota. The Prairie 

Naturalist. 18(4): 203–210. 

Laubhan, M. 2003a. A Biological Assessment of 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

North Dakota. 

———. 2003b. Ecologist, NPWRC. Personal 

observations. March. 

Launchbaugh, J.L.; Owensby, C.E. 1978. Kansas 

rangelands: their management based on a half 

century of research. Kansas Agricultural 

Experiment Station Bulletin 622. 

Leck, M.A. 1989. Wetland seed banks. Pages 283– 

305 in M.A. Leck, V.T. Parker, and R.L. Simpson, 

editors. Ecology of soil seed banks. Academic 

Press, San Diego, California. 

Leonard, A.R. 1952. Geology and ground-water 

resources of the North Fork Solomon River in 

Mitchell, Osborne, Smith, and Phillips counties, 

Kansas. State Geological Survey of Kansas. 

Bulletin 98. 

Logan, Brad; Johnson, William C.; Campbell, Joshua 

S. 2004. Geoarchaeological and GIS Modeling of 

Archaeological Site Locations at Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Phillips County, Kansas. Office 

of Archaeological Research, Museum of 

Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 

submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Nebraska-Kansas Area Office, Grand Island, 

Nebraska. 

Marion, J.L.; Cole, D.N. 1996. Spatial and Temporal 

Variation in Soil and Vegetation Impacts on 

Campsites. Ecological Application, 6(2):520–530. 

Marzluff, J.M.; Ewing, K. 2001. Restoration of 

Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of 

Birds: A General Framework and Specific 

Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes. 

Restoration Ecology 9(3): 280–292. 

Meyer, J.L.; Kaplan, L.A.; Newbold, D.; Strayer, 

D.L.; Woltemade, C.J.; Zedler, J.B.; Beilfuss, R.; 

Carpenter, Q; Semlitsch, R; Watzin, M.C.; Zedler, 

P.H. 2003. Where Rivers Are Born: The 

Scientific Imperative for Defending Small 

Streams and Wetlands. Small Stream Report. 

Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. 1993. Wetlands. Second 

edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New 

York. 

Moore, R.C.; Landes, K.K. 1937. Geologic map of 

Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Mowry, C. 2005. Refuge Manager. Personal 

communication with Adam Orens, Research 

Associate, BBC Research & Consulting. 

Naugle, D.E.; Higgins, K.F.; Bakker, K.K. 2000. A 

synthesis of the Effects of Upland Management 

Practices on Waterfowl and Other Birds in the 

Northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada. 

College of Natural Resources, University of 

Wisconsin–Stevens Point, WI. Wildlife Technical 

Report 1. 

Niemuth, N.D. 2000. Land use and vegetation 

associated with greater prairie-chicken leks in an 

agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 64. 

Palmer, W.C. 1965. Meteorological drought. 

Research Paper Number 45. Department of 

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

Peak, R.G. 2002. Factors affecting avian species 

richness, density, and nest success in riparian 

corridors: M.S. thesis, University of Missouri, 

Columbia. 

PCensus. 2004. PCensus–USA 7.6, Tetrad Computer 

Applications, Bellingham, WA. 

Phillips, M.A. 1980. Ground-Water Reconnaissance 

of the North Fork Solomon River Basin above 

Kirwin Dam Northwest Kansas. U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Water and Power Resources 

Service, Region 7, Denver, Colorado. 

Policy Research Institute. 2005. Kansas County 

profile report: Phillips County. Kansas Center for 

Community and Economic Development. Policy 

Research Institute, University of Kansas. 

Pomerantz, G.A.; Decker, D.J.; Goff, G.R.; Purdy, 

K.G. 1988. Assessing Impact of Recreation on 

Wildlife a Classification Scheme. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 16:58–62. 

Robel, R.J. 1961. Water depth and turbidity in 

relation to growth of sago pondweed. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 25:436–438. 

Robel, R.J.; Briggs, J.N.; Dayton, A.D.; Hulbert, 

L.C. 1970. Relationships between visual 

obstruction measurements and weight of 

grassland vegetation. J. Range Manage. 23:295– 

297. 

Rodgers, R. 2003. Tree Invasion. Wildlife & Parks, 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Hays, 

Kansas. 

Ross, J.A., compiler. 1991. Geologic map of Kansas. 

Kansas Geologic Survey, Map M-23, 1:500,000. 

Saab, V. 1999. Importance of spatial scale to habitat 

use by breeding birds in riparian forests: a 

hierarchical analysis. Ecological Applications 

9:135–151. 

Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L. 1994. Prairie conservation 

in North America. Bioscience 44:418–421. 

Sauer, C.O. 1950. Grassland climax, fire, and man. 

Journal of Range Management 3:16–21. 

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J. 2004. The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966–2003. USGS Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, Maryland Version 

2004.1. Available online at <http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html> 

Scott, M.L.; Wondzell, M.A.; Auble, G.T. 1993. 

Hydrograph characteristics relevant to the 

establishment and growth of western riparian 

vegetation. Pages 237–246 in H. J. MorelSeytoux, editor. Proceedings of the thirteenth 

annual American Geophysical Union Hydrology 

Days. Hydrology Days Publications, Atherton, 

California. 

Sevigny, M.S. 1998. Foraging behavior and habitat 

selection by spring migrants in north central 

Kansas. Ms. Thesis, Fort Hays State University, 

Fort Hays, Kansas. 

Skagen, S.K.; Knopf, F.L. 1994. Migrating 

shorebirds and habitat dynamics at a prairie 

wetland complex. Wilson Bulletin 106:91–105. 

Skinner, R.M. 1975. Grassland Use Patterns and 

Prairie Bird Populations in Missouri. Grassland 

Management 171–180. 

Teskey, R.D.; Hinckley, T.M. 1977. Impact of water 

level changes on woody riparian and wetland 

communities, Volume I: Plant and soil resources. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
 

Services Program. FWS/OBS-77/58. 


The Nature Conservancy. 1998. Ecoregional Based 

Conservation in the Central Shortgrass Prairie 1– 

92. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1984. Solomon River 

Basin water management study, Kansas. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Special Report. 

———. 2002. Solomon River Basin final 

environmental assessment: conversion of longterm water service contracts to repayment 

contracts. Nebraska–Kansas Area Office, Grand 

Island, Nebraska. May. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Summary file 3, 

American Factfinder. Available at: <http://fact 

finder.census.gov/> 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. Effect of 

boating on management of the Ruby Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. 

Environmental Assessment. Department of 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

OR. 

———. 1994. Whooping Crane Recovery Plan. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 
 

 

 

 

———. 1996. Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Management Plan. Denver, 

Colorado. 

———. 1999. Fulfilling the Promise: Visions for 

Wildlife, Habitat, People and Leadership in 

Preparation for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Conference. FWS-WILD or <http://info 

.fws.gov/pubs3.html> 

———. 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Presence in Kansas. Available: <http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/reference/briefing_book_ks_2000 

.pdf> March. 

———. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. Online version 

available at <http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/ 

reports/bcc2002.pdf> 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. A biological 

assessment of Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 

March 26–27. 

Bibliography 109 

———. 2005. Reservoir sediment Studies in Kansas. 

Available from: <http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas 

/studies/ressed/> 

Uresk, D.W.; Boldt, C.E. 1986. Effect of Cultural 

Treatments on Regeneration of Native 

Woodlands on the Northern Great Plains. The 

Prairie Naturalist 18(4):193–201. 

Van der Valk, A.G.; Davis, C.B. 1978. The role of 

seed-banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie 

glacial marshes. Ecology 59:322–335. 

Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance 

in relation to changing marsh vegetation. 

American Midland Naturalist 95:313–322. 

Wildlife Habitat Management Institute. 1999. 

Grassland Birds. Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Leaflet 8. 

Winter, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Donovan, T.M.; 

Svedarsky, W.D. 1999. Evaluation of the Bird 

Conservation Area Concept in the Northern 

Tallgrass Prairie, Annual Report: 1998. 

Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center