Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 


and 


Environmental Assessment 


Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 


Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 


Division of Refuge Planning, Region 6 


P.O. Box 25486 DFC 


Lakewood, CO 80225 


303/236 8132 


March 2006 


Contents 

Summary ..............................................................S-1
 

Refuge Purpose............................................S-1
 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan ...........S-1
 

Management Alternatives ..........................S-1
 

Environmental Consequences....................S-2
 

Chapter 1. Introduction......................................... 1
 

1.1 Purpose and Need for Plan..................... 1
 

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 


and the National Wildlife Refuge
 

System.............................................................. 2
 

1.3 Ecosystem Descriptions and 


Threats ............................................................. 4
 

1.4 National and Regional Mandates........... 6
 

1.5 The Planning Process ............................ 10
 

Chapter 2. The Refuge ........................................ 15
 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and 


Management History.................................... 15
 

2.2 Purpose.................................................... 15
 

2.3 Vision and Goals..................................... 15
 

2.4 Special Values of the Refuge................ 17
 

2.5 Planning Issues ...................................... 18
 

Chapter 3. Alternatives....................................... 21
 

3.1 Introduction............................................ 21
 

3.2 Alternatives Development ................... 21
 

3.3 Alternatives Considered but
 

Eliminated from Detailed Study................. 21
 

3.4 Elements Common to all
 

Alternatives................................................... 22
 

3.5 Description of Alternatives .................. 22
 

3.6 Comparison of Alternatives.................. 29
 

Chapter 4. Affected Environment ..................... 34
 

4.1 Physical Environment........................... 34
 

4.2 Ecology.................................................... 38
 

4.3 Cultural Resources ................................ 45
 

4.4 Special Management Areas and 


Designations .................................................. 46
 

4.5 Visitor Services...................................... 47
 

4.6 Socioeconomic Environment ................ 48
 

Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences ........ 52
 

5.1 Effects Common to all Alternatives.... 52
 

5.2 Description of Consequences by 


Alternative..................................................... 53
 

5.3 Comparison of Effects by 


Alternative..................................................... 57
 
ii Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Chapter 6. Implementation of the
 

Proposed Action....................................................64
 

6.1 Introduction.............................................64
 

6.2 Goals, Objectives and Rationale, and 


Strategies........................................................64
 

6.3 Personnel .................................................77
 

6.4 Funding....................................................77
 

6.5 Step-Down Management Plans.............78
 

6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation....................78
 

6.7 Plan Amendment and Revision ............78
 

Contributors ..........................................................80
 

Planning Team ...............................................80
 

Other Contributors........................................80
 

Appendix A. Glossary ..........................................82
 

Appendix B. Public Involvement........................90
 

Appendix C. Key Legislation and Policies ........92
 

Appendix D. Divestiture Consideration............96
 

Introduction....................................................96
 

The Divestiture Model—Criteria and 

Rules................................................................96
 

Applying the Model to Kirwin NWR..........97
 

Appendix E. Draft Compatibility 


Determinations....................................................100
 

Appendix F. Fire Management Program........106
 

Fire: A Critical Natural Process ...............106
 

Wildland Fire Management Policy and 

Guidance........................................................106
 

Management Direction ...............................107
 

Appendix G. Species List...................................110
 

Appendix H. Graphs...........................................116
 

Appendix I. Section 7 Biological
 

Evaluation............................................................122
 

Appendix J. Mailing List ...................................124
 

Bibliography ........................................................126
 

Figures 

Figure 1. USFWS Region 6 Ecosystem Map..... 5
 

Figure 2. Partners in Flight Physiographic 


Areas............................................................... 8
 

Figure 3. The Steps in the Comprehensive 


Conservation Planning Process ................ 10
 

Figure 4. Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 


Location Map............................................... 16
 

Figure 5. Public Use Map, Alternative A ......... 25
 

Figure 6. Habitat Map, Alternative A .............. 26
 

Figure 7. Public Use Map, Alternative B ......... 28
 

Figure 8. Habitat Map, Alternative B............... 28
 

Figure 9. Kirwin Reservoir Surface 


Elevation, 1956-2003................................... 37
 

Figure 10. Map of Phillips County, Kansas 


and Vicinity.................................................. 49
 

Figure 11. Regional Overview.......................70 


Tables 

Table 1. Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge
 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning
 

Process Summary ....................................... 13
 

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives................. 29
 

Table 3. Environmental Consequences ............. 57
 

Table 4. Refuge Staffing...................................... 77
 

Table 5. Refuge Operating Needs System
 

Projects......................................................... 77
 

Table 6. Maintenance Management System 


Projects ........................................................ 78
 

Table 7. Step-down Management Plans for 


Kirwin NWR ............................................... 78
 
 

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms Used in this CCP 


BCR bird conservation region 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CD compatibility determination 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

EA environmental assessment 

EO executive order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

KDHE Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

KDWP Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Non-wildlife- water and jet skiing, personal water craft, camping, 

dependent recreation swimming, horseback riding, volleyball, basketball, 

uses tournament fishing, power and speed boating 

NWR national wildlife refuge 

PEL probable effect level 

PIF Partners in Flight 

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System 

RMP resource management plan 

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

TEL threshold effect level 

TOC total organic carbon 

URL uniform resource locators 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Wildlife-dependent hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

recreation uses and environmental education and interpretation 

WPA Waterfowl Production Area 

For definitions of terms used throughout this comprehensive conservation plan, please see the glossary at 

appendix A. 
iv Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), 

consisting of 10,778 acres, is located in northcentral Kansas. The refuge was established in 

1954 as an overlay project on a Bureau of 

Reclamation irrigation and flood control 

reservoir. Fee title to the land is held for the 

United States by the 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. 

The refuge supports diverse wildlife habitat 

including grasslands, wooded riparian areas, 

open water, and wetlands. Providing quality 

wildlife habitat and compatible recreation 

opportunities are key components to managing 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge Purpose 

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 

purpose of Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, 

“...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). 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

has developed this draft comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and environmental 

assessment (EA) to provide a foundation for 

the management and use of the refuge. This 

CCP is intended to serve as a working guide 

for management programs and actions over the 

next 15 years. 

This CCP has been prepared by a planning 

team composed of representatives from various 

Service programs, other federal agencies, and 

state agencies. In developing this CCP, the 

planning team incorporated the input of local 

citizens and organizations. 

Management Alternatives 

Alternatives are different approaches to 

management of the refuge designed to resolve 

issues, achieve the refuge purpose, and comply 

with current laws, regulations, and policies. This 

draft CCP describes two management alternatives 

for Kirwin NWR: Alternative A (No Action— 

Current Management) and Alternative B (Wildlife, 

Habitat, and Public Use—Proposed Action). Each 

alternative will maintain the core wildlife viewing, 

fishing, and hunting functions that are central to 

Kirwin NWR’s role in the local economy. 

Under alternative A, Kirwin NWR will continue to 

be managed in accordance with the current 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 

Reclamation and the Service, the Cooperative 

Agreement between the Kansas Department of 

Wildlife and Parks (KDWP), and the Kirwin 

Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) 

completed in 1996. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

describes the no action alternative as continuing 

the present course of action for the affected 

environment until the action is changed. This 

definition allows for evolution of refuge 

management over time to comply with new laws, 

regulations and policies. 

The Refuge Administration Act of 1966, made some 

elements of the cooperative agreement between 

the Service and KDWP obsolete. Under alternative 

A, the Cooperative Agreement will be updated to 

comply with current Refuge System laws, 

regulations, and policies. 

The CMP will continue to provide the foundation 

for management and use of the refuge. The CMP 

emphasizes public use and recreation, although 

required compatibility determinations may modify 

the existing public use program if this alternative 

is selected for implementation. Managing prairie 

grasslands to favor native species of flora and fauna 

will continue under this alternative. 

Alternative B strives to fully implement the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, which directs that each refuge in the 

Refuge System will be managed for the benefit of 

“wildlife first.” Under this alternative, 

management emphasis will shift from public use 

and recreation to wildlife and habitat management 
 

 

 

 

 

 

S-2 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

for migratory birds and species of conservation 

concern. Non-wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses will not be allowed. Wildlife-dependent 

recreation uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, interpretation 

and environmental education) are compatible 

with the purpose of the refuge, and will be 

promoted. 

Environmental Consequences 

Under alternative A there would be no change 

in management of the refuge’s habitat. 

Existing trends in boat traffic disturbance and 

low quality and quantity of resting and feeding 

habitat of the reservoir would continue. 

Continued dramatic fluctuations in water levels 

would continue to inhibit the establishment of 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and 

associated feeding habitat. Management would 

continue to focus on waterfowl to the exclusion 

of other migratory bird species. 

Current level of invasive species control is not 

sufficient to limit the spread of invasive 

species, resulting in continued decline in 

quality and quantity of resting, nesting, and 

feeding habitat for migratory bird species. 

Continued decrease in relative abundance of native 

plants due to competition with invasive plant 

species. 

Existing hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education programs would remain the same, but no 

efforts would be made to increase the quality or 

quantity of opportunities currently offered by 

these programs. Existing non-wildlife-dependent 

recreation uses would be reviewed for compliance 

with current laws, regulations, and policies through 

a compatibility determination process. The refuge 

would continue to have areas of degraded wildlife 

habitat due to camping and other current nonwildlife-dependent recreation. 

Socioeconomic change would be minimal. 

Alternative B would primarily focus management 

efforts on improving migratory bird habitat. This 

alternative emphasizes grassland restoration and 

management. Management of the grassland will 

promote expansion of native species and provide 

appropriate structure and composition of grassland 

habitat for migratory birds. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1. Introduction
 

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

has developed this Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to provide a foundation for 

the management and use of Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located in northcentral Kansas. This CCP is intended to serve 

as a working guide for management programs 

and actions over the next 15 years. 

This CCP was developed in compliance with 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) 

and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual. The actions described within this CCP 

also meet the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Compliance with NEPA is being achieved 

through the involvement of the public and the 

inclusion of an integrated EA. 

When fully implemented, this CCP will strive 

to achieve the program vision and the purpose 

of the refuge. Fish and wildlife are the first 

priority in refuge management. Public use 

(wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and 

encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or 

does not detract from, the refuge’s purpose(s). 

This CCP has been prepared by a planning 

team composed of representatives from various 

Service programs, including Refuges and 

Ecological Services; other federal agencies, 

including U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE); and state agencies, 

including the Kansas Department of Wildlife 

and Parks (KDWP) and the Kansas Biological 

Survey. In developing this CCP, the planning 

team has incorporated the input of local citizens 

and organizations. This public involvement and 

the planning process itself are described in 

section 1.5 and also see appendix B. 

After reviewing a wide range of public 

comments and management needs, the 

planning team developed a proposed 

alternative. This alternative will attempt to 

address major issues while determining how 

best to achieve the intent and purposes of the 

refuge. The proposed alternative is the Service’s 

recommended course of action for the future 

management of the refuge, and is embodied in this 

draft CCP and EA. 

Shortly after completion of the CMP in 1996, the 

Improvement Act was signed into law. This law 

amends and builds upon the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to 

ensure that the Refuge System is managed as a 

national system of related lands, waters, and 

interests for the protection and conservation of our 

Nation’s wildlife resources. 

The Improvement Act’s main components include: 

a strong and singular wildlife conservation mission 

for the Refuge System; a requirement that the 

Secretary of the Interior maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity and environmental health of the 

Refuge System; a new process for determining 

compatible uses of refuges; a recognition that 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses, when 

determined to be compatible, are legitimate and 

appropriate public uses of the Refuge System; that 

these compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses are the priority general public uses of the 

Refuge System; and a requirement for preparing 

CCPs for each refuge in the Refuge System. 

1.1 Purpose and Need for Plan 

The purpose of this CCP is to identify the role that 

Kirwin NWR will play in support of the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge 

System), and to provide long-term guidance to 

management programs and activities. The plan is 

needed: 

	 To build relationships and communicate 

with local landowners, the general public, 

and other partners in efforts to carry out the 

mission of the Refuge System; 

	 To provide a clear statement of direction for 

the future management of the refuge; 

	 To provide neighbors, visitors, and 

government officials with an understanding 

of the Service’s management actions on this 

refuge; 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

	 To ensure that the Service’s 

management actions are consistent with 

the mandates of the Improvement Act; 

	 To ensure that the management of this 

refuge is consistent with federal, state, 

and county plans; and 

	 To provide a basis for the development 

of budget requests for the programs 

operational, maintenance, and capital 

improvement needs. 

Sustaining our Nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources is a task that can be accomplished 

only through the combined efforts of 

governments, businesses, and private citizens. 

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

“The mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, working with others, is 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American 

people.” 

Over a hundred years ago, America’s fish and 

wildlife resources were declining at an 

alarming rate. Concerned citizens, scientists, 

and hunting and angling groups joined together 

to restore and sustain our national wildlife 

heritage. This was the genesis of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, 

restores nationally significant fisheries, 

conserves and restores vital wildlife habitat, 

protects and recovers endangered species, and 

helps other governments with conservation 

efforts. It also administers a Federal Aid 

program that distributes hundreds of millions 

of dollars to states for fish and wildlife 

restoration, boating access, hunter education, 

and related projects across America. 

The Service is the managing agency of the 

Refuge System, thousands of Waterfowl 

Production Areas, and other special 

management areas. It also operates 66 national 

fish hatcheries and 78 ecological services field 

stations. 

Service Activities in Kansas 

Service activities in Kansas contribute to the 

state’s economy, ecosystems, and education 

programs. The following lists activities (from 2000 

unless otherwise noted) (USFWS 2001). 

 The Service employs 46 people in Kansas. 

 Kansas has 4 National Wildlife Refuges, 

encompassing 58,714 acres (.011 percent of 

the state). 

 More than 350,000 people annually visit 

refuges in Kansas, and of these: 

o	 124,000 people visit refuges to view 

wildlife; 

o	 33,500 people hunt on refuges; 

o	 27,400 people fish on refuges; and 

o	 over 2,800 school children participated 

in Service education programs. 

	 Over 2,206 hours were donated by 155 

volunteers to help with Service Projects. 

	 The Service distributed $3.7 million to 

KDWP for sport fish restoration and $3.5 

million for wildlife restoration and hunter 

education. 

	 Since 1990, the Service partnered with over 

510 landowners to enhance wildlife habitat 

which included: 

o	 Restoring 125,773 upland acres; 

o	 Protecting 64 miles of riparian habitat; 

and 

o	 Restoring 21,244 wetland acres. 

	 The Service paid Kansas counties more than 

$40,683 under the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act; funds may be used for any 

governmental purpose. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the 

nation’s first wildlife refuge for the protection of 

brown pelicans and other native nesting birds. This 

was the first time the federal government set aside 

land for the sake of wildlife. This small but 

significant designation was the beginning of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. One hundred 

years later, the Refuge System has become the 

largest collection of lands in the world specifically 

managed for wildlife, encompassing over 96 million 

acres within 544 refuges and over 3,000 small areas 

for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there is 

at least one refuge in every state in the nation 

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

In 1997 a clear mission was established for the 

Refuge System through the passage of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

(Improvement Act). That mission is: 
 

 

 

 

 

1—Introduction 3 

.”.. 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.” 

The Improvement Act further states that each 

refuge shall be managed: 

 To fulfill the mission of the Refuge 

System; 

 To fulfill the individual purposes of each 

refuge; 

 To consider the needs of fish and wildlife 

first; 

	 To fulfill the requirement of developing 

a comprehensive conservation plan for 

each unit of the Refuge System, and 

fully involve the public in the 

preparation of these plans; 

	 To maintain the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of 

the Refuge System; 

	 To recognize that wildlife-dependent 

recreation activities are legitimate and 

priority public uses; and 

	 To retain the authority of refuge 

managers to determine compatible 

public uses. 

In addition to the overall mission for the 

Refuge System, the wildlife and habitat vision 

for each National Wildlife Refuge stresses the 

following principles: 

 Wildlife comes first. 

 Ecosystems, biodiversity, and 

wilderness are vital concepts in refuge 

management. 

 Refuges must be healthy. 

 Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

 The Refuge System serves as a model 

for habitat management with broad 

participation from others. 

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began efforts to carry out 

the direction of the new legislation, including 

the preparation of CCPs for all refuges. The 

development of these plans is now ongoing 

nationally. Consistent with the Improvement 

Act, all refuge CCPs are being prepared in 

conjunction with public involvement, and each 

refuge is required to complete its own plan 

within the 15-year schedule (by 2012). 

People and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Our fish and wildlife heritage contributes to the 

quality of our lives and is an integral part of our 

Nation’s greatness. People and nature are linked 

through spiritual, recreational, and cultural ties. 

Wildlife and wild places have always given people 

special opportunities to have fun, relax, and 

appreciate our natural world. 

Whether through birdwatching, fishing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife 

recreation also contributes millions of dollars to 

local economies. In 2002, approximately 35.5 million 

people visited a National Wildlife Refuge, mostly to 

observe wildlife in their natural habitats. Visitors 

are most often accommodated through nature 

trails, auto tours, interpretive programs and 

hunting and fishing opportunities. Significant 

economic benefits are being generated to the local 

communities that surround the refuges. 

Economists have reported that National Wildlife 

Refuge visitors contribute more than $792 million 

annually to the local economies. 

Compatibility Policy 

With the passage of the Improvement Act, a new 

process for determining compatibility of refuge 

uses was established. The Service Compatibility 

Policy and Regulations finalized in October 2000 

describes the current standard for determining 

compatible uses of a refuge. A copy of the 

Compatibility Policy and Regulations may be 

obtained on-line at 

(http://policy.fws.gov/library/00fr62457.pdf). 

Lands within the Refuge System are different from 

federal multiple-use public lands, such as National 

Forest System lands, in that they are closed to all 

public uses unless specifically and legally opened. 

The Improvement Act clearly establishes that 

wildlife conservation is the single Refuge System 

mission. To ensure the primacy of the Refuge 

System wildlife conservation mission, a 

compatibility policy was developed and placed into 

effect in 2000 (65 Fed. Reg.62458 (October 18, 

2000)). The compatibility policy states that the 

Service will not initiate or permit a new use of a 

National Wildlife Refuge or expand, renew, or 

extend an existing use of a National Wildlife 

Refuge, unless the Service has determined that the 

use is a compatible use and that use is not 

inconsistent with public safety. 

A refuge use is defined as any activity on a refuge, 

except administrative or law enforcement activity, 

carried out by or under the direction of an 

authorized Service employee. Recreational uses, 

including all actions associated with a recreational 

use, refuge management economic activities, or 

other use by the public are considered to be refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

uses. Facilities and activities associated with 

recreational public uses, or where there is an 

economic benefit associated with a use, require 

compatibility determinations (CDs). Refuge 

management activities such as invasive species 

control, prescribed fire, scientific monitoring, 

and facilities for managing a refuge do not 

require CDs. 

Some recreational activities, while wholesome 

and enjoyable, are not dependent on the 

presence of fish and wildlife, nor dependent on 

the expectation of encountering fish and 

wildlife. Many of these non-wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities are often disruptive or 

harmful to fish, wildlife or plants, or may 

interfere with the use and enjoyment of a 

refuge by others engaged in wildlife-dependent 

recreation. These non-wildlife-dependent uses 

may more appropriately be conducted on 

private land, or other public lands not 

specifically dedicated for wildlife conservation. 

A compatible use is a proposed or existing 

wildlife-dependent recreational use or any 

other use of a National Wildlife Refuge that, 

based on sound professional judgment, will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission or the purposes of the National 

Wildlife Refuge. Sound professional judgment 

is further defined as a decision that is 

consistent with principles of fish and wildlife 

management and administration, available 

science and resources and adherence with law. 

The Service will secure public input throughout 

the CCP and CD process. 

CDs are written determinations signed and 

dated by the refuge manager and the refuge 

supervisor stating that a proposed or existing 

use of a National Wildlife Refuge is or is not a 

compatible use. CDs are typically completed as 

part of the CCP or step-down management 

plan process. Draft CDs are open to public 

input and comment. Once a final CD is made by 

the refuge manager, it is not subject to 

administrative appeal. 

The Service requires that CDs be reevaluated 

for existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses when conditions under which the use is 

permitted change significantly, or if there is 

significant new information regarding the 

effects of the use, or concurrently with the 

preparation or revision of a CCP, or at least 

every 15 years, whichever is earlier. In 

addition, a refuge manager always may 

reevaluate the compatibility of a use at any 

time. 

Except for uses specifically authorized for a period 

longer than 10 years (such as rights-of-way), the 

Service requires CDs be reevaluated for all 

existing uses other than wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses when conditions under which the 

use is permitted change significantly, or if there is 

significant new information regarding the effects of 

the use, or at least every 10 years, whichever is 

earlier. In addition, a refuge manager always may 

reevaluate the compatibility of a use at any time. 

1.3 Ecosystem Descriptions and Threats 

Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem 

Kirwin NWR is located within the Platte/Kansas 

Rivers Ecosystem. The Platte/Kansas Rivers 

Ecosystem unit encompasses approximately 

182,000 square miles of the central Great Plains of 

the United States (figure 1). The Platte/Kansas 

Rivers Ecosystem includes the states of Colorado, 

Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming. The area is 

diverse, beginning at the headwaters of the North 

and South Platte river systems high in the Rocky 

Mountains, moving into sage brush uplands of 

north-central Colorado and southeastern Wyoming, 

traversing across the short-grass prairie regions of 

eastern Colorado, and the mixed-grass prairie 

regions of Nebraska and Kansas. The primary 

ecological processes affecting this system are 

climate, cultivation, grazing, and fire. The 

ecosystem is considered arid with an average 

annual precipitation between 8 and 16 inches per 

year. Approximately 85 percent of the 

Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem is privately 

owned. The remainder is primarily owned and 

managed by state and federal agencies. 

Three primary geographic sub-units exist within 

this ecosystem: mixed-grass prairie, mountain, and 

short-grass prairie. Kirwin NWR is located within 

the mixed-grass prairie sub-unit of the 

Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem. The mixed-grass 

prairie encompasses the eastern two-thirds of the 

north one-half of the state of Kansas and the 

eastern two-thirds of the state of Nebraska (figure 

1). Elevation varies from 3,000 to 5,500 feet above 

mean sea level. 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). Bison and other native 

herbivores have been extirpated or greatly reduced 

throughout the ecoregion. Prairie grassland birds, 

such as the mountain plover and lesser prairie 
1—Introduction 5 


 Figure 1. USFWS Region 6 Ecosystem Map 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 short-grass and tall-grass prairies 

intergrade just east of an irregular line that 

runs from northern Texas through Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Nebraska, northwestward into 

west-central North Dakota and South Dakota. 

The perimeter is not well defined because of 

the array of short-stature, intermediate, and 

tall grass species that make up an ecotone 

between the short-grass and tall-grass prairies 

(Bragg and Steuter 1996). In general, the 

mixed-grass prairie is characterized by the 

warm-season grasses of the short-grass prairie 

to the west and the cool- and warm-season 

grasses, which grow much taller, to the east. 

Because of this ecotonal mixing, the number of 

plant species found in mixed-grass prairies 

exceeds that in other prairie types. Estimated 

declines in area of native mixed-grass prairie, 

although less than those of the tall-grass, range 

from 30.5 percent in Texas to over 99.9 percent 

in Manitoba. 

Dominant grasses in the mixed-grass prairie of 

the central Great Plains are blue grama, little 

bluestem, sand dropseed, tall dropseed, 

western wheatgrass, buffalograss, and sideoats grama. Other important grasses include 

big bluestem, switchgrass, and Indiangrass. 

Native prairie also supports numerous 

ecologically important forbs such as scarlet 

globemallow, western ragweed, resindot 

skullcap, prairie coneflower, heath aster, black 

Samson, prairie phlox, prairie clover, dotted 

gayfeather, slim-flowered scurfpea, and 

Missouri goldenrod. 

Due to its ecological and vegetative diversity, 

this ecosystem supports at least 234 species of 

migratory birds. It provides breeding and 

migration habitat for significant populations of 

waterfowl plus a variety of other water birds. 

The ecosystem supports several species of 

candidate and federally listed threatened and 

endangered species including the least tern, 

piping plover, Topeka shiner, Meads milkweed, 

western prairie fringed orchid, pallid sturgeon, 

bald eagle, American burying beetle, tiger 

beetle, Eskimo curlew, whooping crane, 

blowout penstemon, and black-footed ferret. 

1.4 National and Regional Mandates 

This section presents, from the national level to the 

local level, highlights of legal mandates, Service 

policy, and existing resource plans that directly 

influenced development of this CCP. 

Refuges are managed to achieve the mission and 

goals of the Refuge System and the designated 

purpose of the refuge unit as described in 

establishing legislation or executive orders, or 

other establishing documents. Key concepts and 

guidance of the Refuge System are provided in the 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, Title 50 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual and, most recently, 

through the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. A list of other laws and 

executive orders that may affect the CCP for 

Kirwin NWR or the Service’s implementation of 

the CCP is provided in appendix C. 

The Improvement Act amends the Refuge System 

Administration Act by providing a unifying mission 

for the Refuge System, a new process for 

determining compatible public uses on refuges and 

a requirement that each refuge will be managed 

under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that 

wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge 

System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior 

will ensure that the biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental health of refuge lands are 

maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill 

the Refuge System mission and the specific 

purposes for which it was established. The 

Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor 

the status and trends of fish, wildlife and plants in 

each refuge. 

Service policies providing guidance on planning and 

the day-to-day management of a refuge are 

contained within the Refuge System Manual and 

the Service Manual. 

Refuge Contributions to National and Regional 

Plans 

Fulfilling the Promise 

A 1999 report titled “Fulfilling the Promise, The 

National Wildlife Refuge System: Visions for 

Wildlife, Habitat, People and Leadership” (Service 

1999) is the culmination of a year-long process by 

teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge 

System nationwide. 

This report was the focus of the first National 

Refuge System Conference, held in October 1998, 

and attended by refuge managers, other Service 

employees, and representatives from leading 

conservation organizations. The report contains 42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

1—Introduction 7 

recommendations packaged with three vision 

statements dealing with wildlife and habitat, 

people, and leadership. 

This CCP deals with all three of these major 

topics, and the Service looked to the 

recommendations in the document for guidance 

throughout the plan. 

Published in June 2004, the Region 6 Picnicking 

and Camping Policy establishes new guidance 

for picnicking and camping on Refuge System 

lands in region 6. According to the policy, 

“Generally, the act of coming to a National 

Wildlife Refuge for the sole purpose of 

picnicking and/or camping at that site is an 

inappropriate use of Refuge System lands.” 

Partners In Flight, Conservation of the Land 

Birds of the United States: Central Mixedgrass Prairie 

Partners in Flight began in 1990 with the 

recognition of the decline of many migratory 

bird species. The challenge, according to the 

Partners in Flight Program, is managing 

human population growth while maintaining 

functional natural ecosystems. To meet his 

challenge, Partners in Flight began working to 

identify priority land bird species and habitat 

types. Partners in Flight activity has resulted 

in production of 52 Bird Conservation Plans 

covering all of the continental United States. 

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to 

provide for the long-term health of the avifauna 

of this continent. The first priority is to prevent 

the rarest species from going extinct. The 

second is to prevent uncommon species from 

descending into threatened status. The third 

goal is to “keep common birds common.” 

The spatial unit chosen by Partners in Flight 

for planning purposes has been the 

physiographic area. There are 58 physiographic 

areas (i.e., areas defined by similar physical 

geographic features) wholly or partially 

contained within the contiguous United States 

and several others wholly or partially in 

Alaska. Kirwin NWR lies within the Central 

Mixed-grass Prairie, which is physiographic 

area 34 (see figure 2). 

The majority of the Central Mixed-grass 

Prairie occurs in central Kansas and Nebraska, 

with a small portion in southern South Dakota. 

The northern and western portions are covered 

by the Nebraska Sandhills, an area of rolling, 

irregular dunes interspersed with gently 

sloping valleys and numerous small wetlands. 

The remainder of the physiographic area is a 

dissected loess plain drained by several major 

rivers. Whereas all of the uplands are naturally 

mixed- and tall-grass prairie communities, the 

larger river valleys support northern flood plain 

forests. 

Priority bird species and habitats of the Central 

Mixed-grass Prairie include: 

	 Prairie grasslands 

o	 Swainson’s hawk 

o	 Greater prairie-chicken (highest percent 

population of any physiographic area) 

o	 Lesser prairie-chicken 

o	 Long-billed curlew 

o	 Bell’s vireo (requires shrubby conditions 

within prairie grasslands) 

o	 Smith’s longspur (winter only) 

o	 Dickcissel 

	 Big River Sandbars 

o	 Piping plover 

	 Wetlands 

o	 American white pelican 

o	 Black rail 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

was originally written in 1986. The plan envisioned 

a 15-year effort to achieve landscape conditions 

that could sustain waterfowl populations. In 1985, 

waterfowl populations had plummeted to record 

lows. The habitat that waterfowl depend on for 

survival was disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per 

hour. Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and 

wetlands to North Americans and the need for 

international cooperation to help in the recovery of 

a shared resource, the U.S. and Canadian 

governments developed a strategy to restore 

waterfowl populations through habitat protection, 

restoration, and enhancement. With Plan update in 

1994, Mexico became a signatory to the Plan. 

The Plan is innovative because its perspective is 

international in scope, but its implementation 

functions at the regional level. Its success is 

dependent upon the strength of partnerships, 

called “joint ventures,” involving federal, state, 

provincial, tribal, and local governments, 

businesses, conservation organizations, and 

individual citizens. Joint ventures are regionally 

based, self-directed partnerships that carry out 

science-based conservation through a wide array of 

community participation. Joint ventures develop 

implementation plans focusing on areas of concern 

identified in the Plan. As of the end of 2003, Plan 

partners have invested more than $3.2 billion to 

protect, restore, and/or enhance more than 13.1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

 Figure 2. Partners in Flight Physiographic Areas 

million acres of habitat. Kirwin NWR lies 

within the Playa Lakes Joint Venture. 

Playa Lakes Joint Venture 

The Playa Lakes Joint Venture (PLJV) takes 

in more than 50,000 wetlands known as 

“playas” across the southern High Plains of the 

U.S. Most of these 10 to 100 acre shallow, 

circular basins are found in eastern Colorado 

and New Mexico, western Nebraska, Kansas 

and Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle. 

Depending on the season, these basins can be 

concave discs of clay or shimmering pools of 

water, providing habitat for waterfowl, 

shorebirds, cranes and other migratory birds. 

Most playas are privately owned and 

landowner participation in the joint venture is 

crucial to protecting the playas. 

Playa Lakes Joint Venture Area 

Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR) 19-KS 

The BCR 19 part of Kansas contains 27,012,337 

acres dominated by cropland (67 percent) 

principally corn, wheat and soybeans. These 

areas, intermingled with wetland or other 

types, support large numbers of Swainson’s 

hawk and ring-necked pheasant. Large 

amounts of mid-grass prairies remain (18 

percent) supporting grasshopper sparrow, 

dickcissel, and eastern meadowlark. Within this 

type are small brushy ravines critical for northern 

bobwhite and Bell’s vireo. 

Tall-grass prairies, which represent only a small 

fraction of total grasslands in the Joint Venture 

(JV), are found here and support populations of 

upland sandpiper and Henslow’s sparrow when in 

large (> 200 acre) blocks. Large rivers include the 

Arkansas and support riparian species such as 

Mississippi kite, red-headed woodpecker and 

Baltimore oriole. Where large rivers create wide 

flood plains and unvegetated sandbars within the 

stream channel, least tern may find breeding 

habitat. Other wetlands in this portion of Kansas, 

especially emergent marsh and saline wetland 

complexes, support continentally important 

populations of migrant shorebirds and waterfowl, 

including mallard, northern pintail, geese, sandhill 

cranes, and migrating whooping cranes. 

Habitat assessments and modeling suggest that 

waterfowl population objectives (foraging usedays) can be supported on the available wetland 

habitats, but that only about 7 percent of shorebird 

population objectives (also foraging use-days) can 

be supported. This assessment assumed that the 

greater prairie-chicken population needed to be 

doubled from the currently modeled population.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1—Introduction 9 

To reach an average of a projected 100 percent 

of population objective for priority bird species 

PLJV recommends: 

1. Increasing the amount of protected habitats 

especially wetlands, mixed-grass and tall-grass 

prairie. 

2. Emphasizing protection and enhancement of 

existing waterfowl habitat conservation efforts 

as a hedge against future habitat declines, 

including protecting and restoring emergent 

and saline wetlands, and restoring and 

enhancing river flows. 

3. Directing shorebird habitat conservation 

efforts toward providing habitat to support 

about 23 million additional foraging use-days, 

which is the current shortfall. This could be 

done by converting 31,962 acres of playas to 

moist-soil units, and managing for optimum 

shorebird foraging suitability (mud flats and 

very shallow water with minimal emergent 

cover). Because only a small portion of existing 

wetland habitat is suitable for foraging 

shorebirds (too deep, too densely vegetated, 

etc.), alternative conservation strategies could 

involve improving suitability of existing 

wetlands for foraging shorebirds through 

management actions such as grazing, brush 

removal, and water level management. 

However, this strategy requires management 

of more acres than the strategy described 

above. 

4. Restoring and protecting 20,000 acres of 

tall-grass prairie targeting areas adjacent to 

current patches in far eastern BCR 19; and 

ensuring that approximately 2,500 acres (in 

approximate 75-acre patches) are burned on a 

rotational basis with no patch being burned 

more frequently than about every 4–5 years to 

maintain appropriate tall-grass conditions for 

Henslow’s sparrow. 

5. Managing a minimum of 1,400,000 acres of 

mixed-grass prairie and CRP, by regular patch 

burning to control eastern red cedar but 

consider on a much larger scale. 

6. Protecting and restoring saline and other 

wetlands wherever they occur. 

7. When possible, protecting and maintaining 

habitat (primarily by burning) for black-capped 

vireo where it was present historically. 

8. Encouraging signup for CRP adding 

1,000,000 acres targeting areas adjacent to 

native mixed-grass to create large blocks of 

habitat; in western BCR 19, adjacent to sand sage 

prairie; in eastern BCR 19, adjacent to tall grass 

prairie. 

9. Ensuring all CRP is planted to native and area 

appropriate grasses; and including shrubs and 

native forbs in the mixture where appropriate. 

10. Maintaining all existing prairie-dog colony 

acres in western BCR 19. 

11. Maintaining wetland habitats around 

reservoirs and ponds and improving riparian 

conditions along streams including the eradication 

of nonnative plants. 

12. Planning for the creation and “maintenance” of 

wide, braided, stream channels; and restoring more 

regular streamflow in large rivers and tributaries 

and protect water quality throughout the BCR. 

Doubling the current amount of unvegetated 

sandbar acreage. Protecting all known least tern 

colonies. Increasing the percentage of riparian 

canopy forest but rather than focusing on creation 

of large contiguous tracts of habitat concentrate on 

creating smaller groves of forest spreadout across 

the BCR. Considering also the maintenance or 

creation of wet meadows in drainages or along 

riparian corridors. 

13. Encouraging maximum enrollment in Farm Bill 

programs that help recommendations above and 

are positioned to increase block size of native 

grasslands. 

14. Protecting known colonial water bird colonies 

and areas where marsh birds breed. Consider 

especially black and king rail habitat in central 

BCR 19. 

Recovery Plans for Federally Listed Threatened or

Endangered Species 

Where the following list of federally listed 

threatened or endangered species occur on Kirwin 

NWR, the Service will follow the management 

goals and strategies laid out in their respective 

recovery plans: whooping crane (endangered), 

Eskimo curlew (endangered), bald eagle 

(threatened), piping plover (threatened), least tern 

(endangered), Meads milkweed (threatened), and 

western prairie fringed orchid (threatened). This 

list of threatened or endangered species will 

change as new species are listed, delisted, or 

discovered on refuge lands. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

10 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Figure 3. The Steps in the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 


Existing Refuge Plans 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Management Plan 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge currently 

operates under the guidance of the Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Management Plan (CMP) completed in 1996 

(Service 1996). The CMP establishes a vision 

for the refuge that includes management for 

the conservation, preservation and 

management of fish, wildlife and wildlife 

habitats, with emphasis on migratory birds. 

Although the refuge currently operates under 

the guidance of the CMP, with the passage of 

the Improvement Act, additional 

responsibilities of the Refuge System were 

defined. 

The Improvement Act requires a CCP for each 

refuge be completed by the year 2012. Above 

all, the law directs that wildlife comes first in 

the Refuge System. The Improvement Act 

accomplishes this by: establishing that wildlife 

conservation is the principal mission of the 

Refuge System; requiring that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

each refuge and the Refuge System be maintained; 

and mandating that the Service monitor the status 

and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on each 

refuge. 

When complete, the CCP will supersede the CMP 

of 1996. 

1.5 The Planning Process 

This Draft CCP and EA for Kirwin NWR is 

intended to comply with the Improvement Act, 

NEPA, and their implementing regulations. The 

Service issued a final refuge planning policy in 2000 

that established requirements and guidance for 

Refuge System planning, including CCPs and stepdown management plans, ensuring that planning 

efforts comply with the provisions of the 

Improvement Act. The planning policy identified 

several steps of the CCP and EA process (see 

figure 3): 

	 Form a planning team and conduct 


preplanning
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1—Introduction 11 

 Initiate public involvement and scoping 

 Draft Vision Statement and Goals 

 Develop and analyze alternatives, 

including a Proposed Action 

 Prepare Draft EA and CCP 

 Prepare and adopt Final CCP and EA 

and issue a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) or determine an 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

needed. 

 Implement plan, monitor and evaluate 

 Review (every 5 years) and revise 

(every 15 years) plan 

This dynamic process may require revisiting 

various steps. Nevertheless, the first step to 

beginning this project was to determine the 

planning area and establish a planning team. 

The Service began the planning process in 

October 2002. A planning team comprising 

Service personnel, other federal agencies, and 

state agencies was developed shortly after this 

initial kickoff meeting. Draft issues and 

qualities lists were developed and updated over 

a course of several meetings. During 

preplanning, several items were addressed 

including developing a mailing list and planning 

schedule. 

A draft vision statement and goals were 

developed during a workshop in February 2003, 

and a Notice of Intent to develop a 

comprehensive conservation plan for Kirwin 

NWR was published in the Federal Register 

March 21, 2003. Several communication tools 

were used to engage the public including 

newsletters and postage-paid comment forms. 

In addition, notifications of open houses were 

distributed through media press releases (for a 

summary of public scoping see appendix B). 

Public scoping began in May 2003 with open 

houses in Kirwin, Phillipsburg, and Hays, 

Kansas. The draft vision statement and goals 

were shared with the public in a planning 

update and at the open houses. 

Over the course of preplanning and public 

scoping, the planning team collected available 

information about the resources and the 

surrounding areas. This information is 

summarized in chapter 4. 

This CCP provides long-term guidance for 

management decisions; sets forth goals, 

objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish 

refuge purposes; and identifies the Service’s 

best estimate of future needs. This CCP details 

program planning levels that are sometimes 

substantially above current budget allocations and, 

as such, are primarily for Service strategic 

planning and program prioritization purposes. This 

CCP does not constitute a commitment for staffing 

increases, operational and maintenance increases, 

or funding for future land acquisition. 

Coordination with the Public 

The planning team began the public scoping 

process by contacting people that participated in 

the development of the CMP for Kirwin NWR in 

June 1996. A mailing list of over 388 names served 

as the starting point for engaging the public. 

In May 2003, the first in a series of planning 

updates was sent to each person on the mailing list. 

The planning update introduced the CCP process, 

provided history on the Refuge System and a 

schedule of upcoming public scoping meetings. 

Each person was invited to participate in the 

process, attend public meetings and to offer 

comments. Postage-paid comment forms were 

included in the planning update. Public scoping 

meetings also were announced in several local 

newspapers. 

Three open houses were held during the period 

from May 20 to 22, 2003, in Kirwin, Phillipsburg, 

and Hays, Kansas. During each open house, the 

CCP planner and refuge personnel were available 

to answer questions on the history of the Refuge 

System, and the CCP and NEPA processes. 

Attendees were given a two-page comment form 

and invited to submit comments to Service 

personnel orally or in writing. The turnout was 

mixed, from no attendees at the open house in Hays 

to more than 20 individuals at the open house in 

Kirwin. Seventy-three written comments were 

received. 

In November 2003, a second planning update was 

distributed to each person on the mailing list. This 

planning update offered a discussion of the ongoing 

public involvement efforts in support of the CCP, 

and a summary of the public comments received. 

An additional 19 comment forms were received as a 

result of the distribution of the second planning 

update. Input obtained from all meetings and 

correspondence was considered in developing this 

draft CCP. 

Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 

In January 2003, an invitation letter to participate 

in the CCP process was sent by the Service’s 

region 6 director to the director of the Great Plains 

Region of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Local 

representatives from Grand Island, Nebraska were 

tasked with representing Reclamation on the core 

CCP planning team. The local representatives and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

the refuge staff maintain excellent and ongoing 

working relations, which precedes the start of 

the CCP process. Reclamation representatives 

have participated in all of the planning 

workshops and attended the public open 

houses, providing invaluable input to the 

planning process. 

In January 2003, an invitation letter to 

participate in the CCP process was sent by the 

Service’s region 6 director to the Kansas City 

District, USACE. Although the USACE 

declined the invitation to participate in the 

planning process as a member of the core team, 

the USACE did agree to provide support for 

the planning process by reviewing pertinent 

planning documents and providing comments to 

the planning team. In addition, the local 

USACE representatives attended the 

biological workshop held in support of the CCP 

in December 2003. 

State Coordination 

The KDWP is charged with protecting Kansas 

wildlife resources for future generations 

through conservation and enhancement. Their 

mission is to, “Conserve and enhance Kansas 

natural heritage, its wildlife and its habitats to 

assure future generations the benefits of the 

state’s diverse, living resources; provide the 

public with opportunities for the use and 

appreciation of the natural resources of Kansas, 

consistent with the conservation of those 

resources; and inform the public of the status of 

the natural resources of Kansas to promote 

understanding and gain assistance in achieving 

this mission.” KDWP currently manages four 

museum/nature centers, four fish hatcheries, 24 

state parks and 63 wildlife areas in support of 

wildlife, recreation, and fisheries. 

In January 2003, an invitation letter to 

participate in the CCP process was sent by the 

Service’s region 6 director to the director of the 

KDWP. Local KDWP representatives were 

tasked with representing the KDWP on the 

core CCP planning team. The local KDWP 

representatives and the refuge staff maintain 

excellent and ongoing working relations, which 

precedes the start of the CCP process. KDWP 

representatives have participated in all of the 

planning workshops and attended the public 

open houses. 

In June 2004, an invitation letter to participate 

in the CCP process was sent by the Service’s 

region 6 director to the director of the Kansas 

Biological Survey. A positive response was 

received and a representative of the Kansas 

Biological Survey was assigned to the core 

planning team. The Kansas Biological Survey 

has attended subsequent planning team meetings 

and provided valuable input regarding migratory 

birds in Kansas. 

Offices of Senators Pat Roberts and Sam 

Brownback and Representative Jerry Moran were 

initially contacted in January 2003. The refuge 

manager and the assistant manager visited staffs at 

the appropriate district offices to inform them 

about this upcoming project. 

State Senator Janice Lee and State Representative 

Clay Aurand were visited by the refuge manager 

and assistant manager in May 2003. 

The representatives were contacted again through 

two planning update newsletters, which provided 

them with updated information. 

Tribal Coordination 

On June 19, and July 10, 2003, the Pawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma and Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation 

respectively, were contacted through a letter 

signed by the Service region 6 director. The tribes 

were provided information about the CCP project 

and were invited to serve on the core planning 

team. 

One inquiry from a representative of the Pawnee 

Tribe of Oklahoma was received. After receiving 

clarification on the project, the Pawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma wished to continue receiving 

correspondence, but felt the planning area would 

not be of major interest to tribal members. 

Initial inquires from Prairie Band Potawatomi 

Nation Department of Planning and Environmental 

Protection were received by the planning team 

leader. Upon receiving further information about 

the project, the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation 

indicated they wished to continue receiving 

correspondence, but felt the planning area would 

not be of major interest to tribal members. 

Results of Scoping 

Comments collected from scoping meetings and 

correspondence were used in the development of a 

list of key issues that needed to be addressed in the 

CCP. The planning team determined which 

alternatives could best address these issues. 

The proposed alternative formed the basis for the 

draft objectives and strategies to achieve the goals 

developed by the planning team. This process 

ensures that key issues are resolved or given 

priority over the life of this CCP. A summary of 

these issues along with some discussion of their 

impacts to the resource is discussed in chapter 2. 
 

 

 

 

Decision to be Made 

The decision to be made by the Mountain– 

Prairie regional director of the Service is the 

selection of an alternative that will be 

implemented as the Kirwin NWR CCP. This 

1—Introduction 13 

decision will be made in recognition of the 

environmental effects of each alternative 

considered. The decision will be disclosed in a 

FONSI included in the final CCP. Implementation 

of the CCP will begin upon signature and 

publication of the final CCP. 

Table 1. Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process Summary 

Date Event 	 Outcome 

October 2002 Preplanning meeting. Kirwin NWR CMP reviewed by Service 

personnel. Decision made to write a CCP, in 

lieu of revising the CMP. 

December 2002 Established planning team; identified 

refuge purpose, history and establishing 

authority; developed planning schedule; 

internal scoping of issues; developed public 

involvement plan. 

CCP kick-off meeting. 

February 2003 Vision and goals workshop. 	 Developed draft vision statement and goals 

for Kirwin NWR. 

March 2003 Publication of Notice of Intent (to prepare 

the CCP) in the Federal Register. 

Notified public of the upcoming preparation 

of the CCP. 

March 2003 	 Site visit to Kirwin NWR by USGS, Collected data for Biological Assessment of 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Kirwin NWR. 

May 2003 News releases for public meetings sent to 

10 local newspapers. 

Notified public of opportunities for 

involvement in the CCP process. 

May 2003 Public open house in Kirwin, Kansas. 	 Opportunity for public to provide input and 

identify issues. 

May 2003 Public open house in Hays, Kansas. Opportunity for public to provide input and 

identify issues. 

May 2003 Public open house in Phillipsburg, Kansas. Opportunity for public to provide input and 

identify issues. 

December 2003 Biological workshop. Reviewed report: A Biological Assessment 

of Kirwin NWR (USGS, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, March 2003). 

February 2004 Interagency meeting at Kirwin NWR. CCP postponed while EA to divest the 

refuge under consideration. 

May 2004 CCP re-initiation meeting. Updated planning schedule and resumed 

CCP process. 

July 2004 	 Alternatives and objectives development Developed a range of management 

workshop. alternatives for the refuge. 

January 2005 Selection of the proposed alternative. Selected alternative B as the Service’s 

proposed alternative. 

August 2005 	 Release of draft CCP and EA for internal Received comments about the draft CCP 

review. and EA. 

March 2006 Release of draft CCP and EA for public 

review. 

Received public comments about the draft 

CCP and EA. 

March 2006 Public open house in Phillipsburg, Kansas. Increased public understanding of the draft 

CCP and EA, and receipt of public 

comments about the draft CCP and EA. 
14 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2. The Refuge
 

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and 

Management History 

Authorized under a General Plan approved by 

the Secretary of the Interior on June 17, 1954, 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge was 

established to provide habitat for and facilitate 

the management of the Nation’s migratory bird 

resources. 

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 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 

Reclamation. Water level control of the 

reservoir rests with the Kirwin Irrigation 

District, Reclamation and USACE. The 

watershed of the two water sources extends 

into western Kansas and covers approximately 

800,000 acres. The 10,778-acre refuge is located 

west of the town of Kirwin in Phillips County in 

north-central Kansas (see figure 4). 

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. 

When the dam was completed in 1955, the 

reservoir filled to conservation level in just a 

few years. 

The reservoir remained full, with seasonal 

fluctuations, until 1970 when a series of events 

caused a lowering of the lake level. From 1970 

on, the combined effects of irrigation releases 

and reduced stream flow, resulting from 

underground water pumping, conservation 

farming practices, and the construction of 

hundreds of stock water ponds, caused a steady 

decrease in the average lake level. In 1992– 

1993, above-normal precipitation was recorded 

in the watershed and the reservoir refilled, 

reaching a record high level of 5.8 feet above 

conservation pool elevation. In 1995, runoff 

from a rain event raised the lake level to 7.8 

feet above conservation pool, setting a new 

record level. Current data indicates Kirwin 

Reservoir is entering a period of low water levels 

due to the natural drought cycle for the next 20 to 

40 years. 

2.2 Purpose 

Refuge System lands have been acquired under a 

variety of legislative acts and administrative 

orders. The transfer and acquisition authorities, 

used to obtain the lands, usually have one or more 

purposes for which land can be transferred or 

acquired. Over time, an individual refuge may 

contain lands that have been acquired under a 

variety of transfer and acquisition authorities with 

different purposes. 

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). 

2.3 Vision and Goals 

During the early stages of the planning process, the 

planning team developed a vision for the refuge. 

The vision describes what the refuge will be, or 

what the Service hopes to do, and is based 

primarily upon the Refuge System mission and 

specific refuge purposes. 

The vision was presented to the public during 

public open houses, and is a future-oriented 

statement designed to be achieved through refuge 

management by the end of the 15-year CCP 

planning horizon. The vision for Kirwin NWR is: 
16 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

 Figure 4. Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Location Map 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

The planning team also developed a set of goals 

for the refuge based on the Improvement Act 

and information developed during project 

planning. The goals direct work toward 

achieving the vision and purpose of the refuge, 

and outline approaches for managing the 

refuge’s resources. Seven goals for Kirwin 

NWR were identified: 

Goal 1. Ecology. The refuse will restore 

the native mixed-grass prairie ecosystem 

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

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. 

Goal 2. Water Resources. In coordination 

with Reclamation, the Kirwin Irrigation 

District will strive to maintain greater 

water level management and storage 

specifically for the benefit of fish and 

wildlife and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Goal 3. Research and Science. The refuse 

will utilize a scientific approach with 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. 

Goal 4. Cultural Resources. The refuge 

will protect significant prehistoric, Native 

American, and other cultural resources. 

Goal 5. Refuge Operations. The refuge 

will prioritize for “wildlife first” and 

emphasize the protection of trust resources 

in the utilization of staff, funding, 

partnerships, and volunteer programs. 

Goal 6. Public Use. All public uses will be 

compatible with the purpose of the Kirwin 

NWR and the mission of the Refuge 

System. Wildlife-dependent public uses will 

be prioritized as follows: hunting, fishing, 

2—The Refuge 17 

wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. In 

association with compatible uses, the refuge 

will strive to provide a diversity of outreach, 

research, education, and interpretation. 

Goal 7. Partnership. 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. 

2.4 Special Values of the Refuge 

During the vision and goals workshop, the planning 

team identified the outstanding qualities of Kirwin 

NWR. Qualities are the characteristics and 

features of the refuge that make it special and 

worthy of refuge status. 

	 Kirwin NWR sits amidst the rolling hills 

and limestone outcrops of the mixed-grass 

prairie and is located within the transition 

zone of the tall-grass prairie and short-grass 

plains. 

	 The refuge lies within the heart of the 

Central Flyway and plays an important role 

as a nesting and foraging area for migratory 

birds. 

	 On December 26, 1996 the refuge was 

identified as being significant for world bird 

conservation and officially designated a 

“Globally Important Bird Area” by the 

American Bird Conservancy. 

	 Two valleys (North Fork Solomon River and 

Bow Creek) meet at Kirwin Reservoir to 

create a permanent water body in a 

semiarid environment, which attracts a 

large diversity of wildlife. 

	 The refuge is dynamic in nature with great 

changes year-to-year as a result of 

fluctuating water levels in the reservoir 

basin. 

	 A significant presence of native wildflowers 

exists in native undisturbed prairie on the 

refuge. 

	 Fremont clematis, sometimes called 

Fremont leather plant because of the 

texture of the leaves, was named in honor of 

General John C. Fremont, U.S. Army, who 

made five expeditions westward across the 

United States, discovering many new 

species of plants (Stevens 1948). This plant 

is one of the rarest in Kansas due to its 

limited range. This plant is only found in 

north-central Kansas, with Kirwin NWR 

being the only NWR to have a population of 

this rare species. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

	 Kirwin Reservoir contains a 

tremendous fishery during periods of 

high water. 

	 There is a sense of remoteness at 

Kirwin NWR; it is not crowded. 

2.5 Planning Issues 

Several key issues were identified following the 

analysis of all comments collected through the 

various public scoping activities and a review of 

the requirements of the Improvement Act and 

NEPA. These issues were considered during 

the formulation of alternatives for future 

management. The following issues were 

selected to be reviewed during the CCP 

process. 

Declining Populations of Nongame Wildlife 

Species 

On-the-ground 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 Plant Species 

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 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. Therefore, 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 hunting 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 those 

near the reservoir. Tamarisk leaves are all 

elopathic 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 nesting migratory birds. 

Reservoir Water Level Fluctuations 

Large fluctuations of the reservoir water levels 

prevent the development of 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 

fluctuations also plays a roll in emergent aquatic 

vegetation, 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 

non-wildlife-dependent recreational uses are 

generally inappropriate uses of a refuge. 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 Proposed 

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 help the refuge staff 

manage 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 and school groups) and 

2—The Refuge 19 

conducting large events (e.g., Eco-Meet and 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. 
20 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3. Alternatives
 

3.1 Introduction 

Alternatives are different approaches to 

management of the refuge designed to resolve 

issues, achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and 

goals identified in the CCP, while helping to 

fulfill the mission of the Refuge System and 

comply with current laws, regulations, and 

policies. NEPA requires an equal and full 

analysis of all alternatives considered for 

implementation. 

This chapter describes two management 

alternatives for Kirwin NWR: Alternative A 

(Current Management/No Action) and 

Alternative B (Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use— 

Proposed Action). The following sections describe 

how the alternatives were developed and how 

each alternative addresses the substantive issues 

identified during the scoping process. 

3.2 Alternatives Development 

In 2003, the Service held several meetings with 

the public to identify the issues and concerns that 

were associated with management of Kirwin 

NWR. The public involvement process is 

summarized in greater detail in chapter 2. Based 

on public input, as well as guidelines from NEPA, 

the Improvement Act, and Service Planning 

Policy, the planning team selected the 

substantive issues that will be addressed in the 

alternatives. The substantive issues identified for 

Kirwin NWR are as follows: 

1. Habitat Management 

2. Visitor Services 

3. Water Resources 

4. Research and Science 

5. Cultural Resources 

6. Refuge Operations 

7. Partnerships 

The planning team then discussed alternatives 

for management that will address the issues of 

the refuge, and meet the goals of the Refuge 

System. Each alternative described in the 

following sections attempts to address the issues 

outlined above. Degree of emphasis, approach, 

and tools used to address each of the issues differ 

between alternatives. 

3.3 Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Terminate Memorandum of Agreement 

One alternative considered by the planning team 

would have terminated the 1985 Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) between Reclamation and the 

Service which defines management 

responsibilities of the two agencies. Reclamation 

owns the land within the Kirwin Reservoir 

Project, and retains administrative jurisdiction 

over those lands designated as operations areas. 

The Service has administrative jurisdictions over 

lands designated as wildlife refuge lands and 

waters. This alternative was considered due to 

the historical precedent of some recreational uses 

at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge that conflicts 

with the purpose of the refuge and mission of the 

Refuge System as defined in the Improvement 

Act. 

During public scoping, a significant issue 

identified by the public was the desire to 

continue using the area for recreational purposes 

including camping, picnicking, and water sports 

(e.g., jet skiing and water skiing). These nonwildlife-dependent public uses are generally 

considered inappropriate and incompatible uses 

of a National Wildlife Refuge. 

If the Service remains in its role as the land 

management agency for the Kirwin Reservoir 

area, the area would be managed to fulfill the 

purpose of the refuge and mission of the Refuge 

System. Termination of the MOA would result in 

management responsibilities reverting back to 

Reclamation, and was considered to be an option 

that would allow the continuation of existing 

recreational uses of the Kirwin Reservoir area. 

In addition to the recreational uses occurring at 

the refuge, there was a perception by some 

within the Service that Kirwin NWR possessed 

minimal natural resource and biological value. 

Each refuge must meet the purpose for which it 

was established and contribute to the goals and 

mission of the Refuge System. Refuges that 

cannot meet this standard should be considered 

for divestiture. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Due to a lack of documented biological 

information, the planning team was uncertain of 

the biological resources of the area and the 

contribution of Kirwin NWR to the Refuge 

System. The planning team made a 

recommendation to obtain a biological 

assessment of the refuge. 

In January 2003, the Service entered into a 

contract with the Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) to perform a biological assessment of 

Kirwin NWR. An ecologist from the center 

visited the refuge in March of 2003. Based on the 

site visit, discussions with refuge staff, and 

relevant literature reviews, a report titled “A 

Biological Assessment of Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge” was provided to the planning 

team in November of 2003 (Laubhan 2004). 

The section on evaluation of community types 

discusses in more detail the attributes of various 

communities that occur within the refuge 

boundary. 

In December 2003 the planning team met for a 

biological workshop at the refuge. The purpose of 

the workshop was to review the information 

presented in the USGS report. Four broad 

communities were delineated: reservoir pool; 

shoreline; riparian; and upland. The report 

identified 234 bird species known to occur on 

Kirwin NWR, and documented the population 

status of these species based on various regional 

and national plans. Of the species known to occur 

on the refuge, 43 are considered to be species of 

conservation concern. A copy of the Biological 

Assessment of Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

may be obtained by contacting the Service: 

Division of Refuge Planning, 134 Union 

Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, Colorado 80228­

1807. 

Region 6’s divestiture model represents a set of 

criteria for measuring the value of a refuge. 

Designed as a preplanning tool, the model allows 

planners and refuge managers to determine 

whether or not a refuge should be considered for 

divestiture. The model consists of a set of eight 

questions that must be addressed when 

considering a refuge for divestiture. Although 

the model is still being tested and has not been 

finalized, it was used to analyze the value of 

Kirwin NWR and its contribution to the Refuge 

System. The results of the analysis indicate that 

Kirwin NWR meets at least one goal of the 

Refuge System, meets the purpose of the refuge, 

and provides substantial support for migratory 

bird species. According to the model, any refuge 

that answers yes to the above three criteria does 

not warrant further consideration for divestiture. 

A complete summary of the development of the 

divestiture model and its application to Kirwin 

NWR is included in appendix D. 

Based on the biological assessment, divestiture 

analysis, and sound professional judgment, a 

decision was made by the regional office to retain 

Kirwin NWR in the Refuge System. Therefore, 

this alternative was eliminated from detailed 

study by the planning team. 

3.4 Elements Common to all 

Alternatives 

This section identifies some of the key elements 

included in this CCP regardless of the alternative 

selected for implementation. Each alternative 

will accomplish the following: 

	 The United States will maintain 

ownership of the land, which will be 

managed by the Service and Reclamation 

according to their jurisdictional 

responsibilities, and in accordance with 

existing agreements between the two 

agencies. 

	 The Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment will continue to monitor 

water quality of the reservoir. 

	 Cultural resources will continue to be 

protected in accordance with federal and 

state laws, policies and guidelines. 

3.5 Description of Alternatives 

Alternative A (No Action—Current Management) 

Under alternative A, Kirwin NWR will continue 

to be managed in accordance with the current 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 

Reclamation and the Service, and the 

Cooperative Agreement between the Kansas 

Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). 

In addition, this alternative will continue 

implementation of the 1996 CMP described in 

chapter 1. The CMP heavily emphasizes public 

use and recreation. This management approach is 

not consistent with the direction provided to 

National Wildlife Refuges in the 1997 

Improvement Act. Continuing to manage the 

refuge in accordance with the CMP limits the 

staff’s ability to accomplish the mission of the 

Refuge System. 

A Cooperative Agreement between the Service 

and the Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game 

Commission (later renamed the Kansas 

Department of Wildlife and Parks) was signed in 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3—Alternatives 23 

June of 1954. This agreement articulates a 

cooperative partnership between the two 

agencies for management of the fishery on the 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge 

Administration Act of 1966, made some elements 

of the cooperative agreement obsolete. Under 

this alternative, the Cooperative Agreement will 

be updated to comply with current Refuge 

System laws, regulations, and policies. 

Implementation of the CMP began in 1996 and 

continues to present day. The goals of the CMP 

are as follows: 

	 Enhance and maintain migratory bird 

populations, emphasizing resting and 

feeding habitat for waterfowl and other 

water birds, while providing nesting and 

breeding habitat for prairie grassland 

nesting species, and habitat for migrant 

raptors and Neotropical migrants. 

	 Enhance and maintain habitat for 

threatened and endangered species, 

emphasizing species known to use the 

refuge, including bald eagle, least tern, 

piping plover, whooping crane, peregrine 

falcon, and any state-listed or federal 

candidate species. 

	 Enhance and maintain native mixed-grass 

prairie habitat, emphasizing structural 

diversity in the plant community, and 

providing habitat for wildlife representing 

the mixed-grass prairie. 

	 Enhance and maintain riparian areas in 

Bow Creek and North Fork Solomon 

River corridors, emphasizing structural 

diversity in the native shrub/tree 

community for wildlife. 

	 Enhance and maintain diverse wetlands 

by providing reliable water supplies to 

stabilize water levels for fish and wildlife, 

and create moist-soil management areas 

for wetland-dependent wildlife. 

	 Provide natural and domestic food crops 

for waterfowl and resident wildlife for 

population maintenance and to prevent 

depredation on surrounding private lands. 

Food crops will be grown using minimal 

chemical applications. 

	 Maintain plant and animal diversity by 

providing habitat for resident and 

migratory species representative of the 

mixed-grass prairie. 

	 Provide effective wildlife and ecosystem 

based education by fostering partnerships, 

expanding outreach, demonstrating best 

management practices, developing sitespecific curriculum and providing 

interpretive materials. 

	 Provide wildlife-oriented recreation 

emphasizing compatible hunting, fishing, 

wildlife viewing, camping and picnicking 

opportunities, while minimizing impacts 

from compatible non-wildlife-oriented 

recreation. 

The CMP places a heavy emphasis on providing 

public use and recreation opportunities at Kirwin 

NWR. 

To support the recreational program identified in 

the CMP, the Kirwin refuge manager performed 

a CD for the purpose of the continuation of 

boating on Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. This 

CD takes precedence over all other previous 

planning documents of the same purpose. The 

CD, signed in September 1996, declares boating 

on Kirwin NWR to be consistent with federal and 

state laws, supports the fishing program, and 

provides opportunities for wildlife viewing. To 

ensure compatibility with the purpose of the 

refuge, the CD includes the following 

stipulations: 

	 All special refuge regulations, laws, and 

Service policies will be adhered to by 

boaters using Kirwin Reservoir. 

	 Refuge waters may be closed to all 

flotation devices without notice when 

emergencies arise, or if boaters using the 

area will constitute a disturbance to an 

endangered species or other refuge 

wildlife. 

	 If the reservoir level drops below 

elevation 1,703.6 feet (1,500 surface acres) 

boating will be stopped to ensure 

sufficient habitat and protection is 

provided to water dependent wildlife. 

Or 

	 If the reservoir level drops below 

elevation 1,703.6 feet (1,500 surface acres) 

the buoy line will be moved east to a line 

between Railroad Flats and Beer Can 

Bottoms. 

Refuge staff began working to implement the 

CMP when it was complete. The CMP included 14 

objectives under four goals. Over the life of the 

CMP several objectives have been accomplished, 

some in whole and some in part. In alignment 

with the emphasis of the CMP, a majority of the 

refuge’s discretionary budget and staff time was 

directed toward accomplishing the public use and 

recreation goals and objectives. Due to the small 

staff and discretionary budget, little time or 

money remains to address the additional goals 

and objectives of the CMP. Objectives presented 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

in the CMP that have been accomplished to date 

include the following: 

	 Provide nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented 

recreation opportunities for public 

enjoyment while limiting disturbance to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat, on selected 

areas of the refuge. 

	 Provide biologically sustainable 

consumptive recreational opportunities, 

such as hunting and fishing, for public 

enjoyment on selected areas of the refuge. 

	 Manage prairie grasslands that favor 

native species of flora and fauna and 

emphasize habitat diversity on 3,750 acres 

of mixed-grass prairie⎯represented by 

big bluestem, little bluestem, western 

wheatgrass, switchgrass, Indiangrass, 

sideoats grama, and blue grama⎯and that 

maintain a healthy state of height/density, 

ground cover, seedlings, and mature 

plants, with 15 percent to 25 percent mix 

of native forbs. 

	 Manage the riparian habitat along Bow 

Creek and the Solomon River to: 1) retain 

and enhance a mix of cottonwood, willow, 

hardwoods, and shrubs represented by 

bur oak, green ash, black walnut, 

hackberry, silver maple, plum, and choke 

cherry; and 2) benefit migrating and 

nesting songbirds, deer, turkey, and small 

mammals. 

	 Provide food for spring and fall migrating 

waterfowl and wintering resident species 

by planting 1,300 to 1,600 acres of 

domestic crops. 

	 Prevent a dense growth of volunteer 

willow, cottonwood and tamarisk trees 

below the conservation pool when the 

reservoir levels decrease. 

	 Provide areas with minimal wildlife 

disturbance at critical times of the year, to 

allow for nesting, feeding and resting. 

	 Maintain the fisheries resource to provide 

quality recreational fishing and food 

sources for birds dependent on a fish diet. 

	 Provide a high-quality environmental 

education and interpretation program for 

refuge visitors and local K–12 students. 

Public Use 

With the advent of the Improvement Act and the 

Region 6 Picnicking and Camping Policy, some of 

the existing public uses at Kirwin NWR do not 

comply with current Service laws, regulations 

and policies. One reason to prepare a CCP for 

Kirwin NWR is because the CCP process 

provides an opportunity for refuge staff to 

reevaluate existing refuge uses, and take the 

appropriate action to obtain compliance with 

current Service laws, regulations, and policies. 

If this alternative is selected for implementation, 

all existing refuge uses will be reevaluated under 

the new compatibility process. It is anticipated 

that the non-wildlife-dependent uses will be 

modified or discontinued as a result of updated 

CDs. Refuge uses that are determined to be 

incompatible with the purpose of the refuge will 

be discontinued during the life of this CCP. 

Although the visitor services program may be 

modified as a result of the reevaluation of 

existing CDs, this program will continue to be 

one of the highest management priorities in this 

alternative. A large portion of the discretionary 

budget and staff time will continue to be 

allocated to the visitor services program. In this 

alternative, the greatest staffing need is for an 

outdoor recreation planner. 

The existing hunting program will continue with 

minimal modifications; however, no new actions 

will be planned to improve hunting quality. The 

existing fishing program will continue with 

minimal modifications, but no new actions will be 

initiated to expand boat fishing opportunities. 

Interpretive, educational and administrative 

programs and facilities will be maintained in this 

alternative (see figure 5). 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

This alternative will continue current wildlife and 

habitat management practices. Habitat 

management for waterfowl and game species will 

continue to be a high priority (figure 6). 

	 Natural and domestic food crops will 

continue to be planted on the refuge as a 

supplemental food source for waterfowl 

and resident wildlife. 

	 Habitat management for nongame species 

that have historically received less 

attention will continue to receive little 

attention in this alternative. 

	 The small area of low disturbance for 

migrating and wintering waterfowl and 

other water birds will be maintained. 
 

3—Alternatives 25 


 Figure 5. Public Use Map, Alternative A
 
26 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Figure 6. Habitat Map, Alternative A 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3—Alternatives 27 

The motorized boat closure in the Solomon Arm 

will be maintained from Railroad Flats upstream. 

There will not be any additional protection for 

migrating and winter waterfowl. 

	 Management of invasive species will 

remain the same. There will not be an 

expansion or diversification of invasive 

species management in the shoreline, 

riparian, upland, or transition zone areas. 

	 Open habitat for prairie grassland birds 

will continue to be provided on a small 

scale by the planting of native grasses and 

forbs. 

	 Limited baseline data will continue to be 

collected for wildlife and habitats. 

	 There will be no increased efforts in 

operations and maintenance for natural 

resources. 

Alternative B (Wildlife, Habitat, and Public 

Use—the Service’s Proposed Action) 

Alternative B strives to fully implement the 

Improvement Act, which directs that each refuge 

in the Refuge System will be managed for the 

benefit of “wildlife first.” 

Under this alternative, management will shift 

from an emphasis on public use and recreation to 

emphasizing wildlife and habitat management for 

migratory birds and species of conservation 

concern. A majority of discretionary spending 

and staff time will be directed to habitat 

management for migratory birds. In this 

alternative the greatest need is to fill the 4.5 

vacant staff positions. 

Although secondary to wildlife and habitat 

management, the visitor services program will be 

a priority in this alternative. Wildlife-dependent 

recreation will be emphasized and promoted, 

with hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation receiving priority attention. 

In this alternative, the Service will continue to 

manage the refuge in accordance with the 

current MOA between Reclamation and the 

Service. The current MOA will remain in effect 

until an updated agreement is signed by both 

parties. 

Public Use 

Refuge Planning Policy requires the completion 

of new CDs or the reevaluation of existing CDs 

as part of the CCP process for all individual uses, 

specific use programs, or groups of related uses 

associated with the Proposed Action. In 

accordance with Planning Policy, all proposed 

refuge uses described in this alternative have 

been evaluated under the new CD process. The 

CDs are available for public review and comment, 

and are included in this document as appendix E. 

The new CDs will supersede previous CDs. 

Non-wildlife-dependent uses will not be allowed. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation uses were found to 

be compatible with the purpose of the refuge, and 

will be promoted and emphasized in this 

alternative. 

The existing hunting program will continue with 

minimal modifications. Increased efforts to 

improve the quality of the hunting program will 

be implemented. 

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 these criteria, it 

will be seasonally and/or permanently closed. If 

roads are closed, parking areas would be adjusted 

to allow pedestrian access (see figure 7). 

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. Ice fishing will continue to 

be allowed. Under low water conditions 

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

will be implemented on the entire 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. Efforts to provide wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities will 

be expanded where feasible. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Under this alternative, wildlife and habitat 

management practices will be expanded and 

enhanced (figure 8). 

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 grasslandnesting 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. 
 

 

28 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Figure 7. Public Use Map, Alternative B

 Figure 8. Habitat Map, Alternative B 
 

 

 

 

 

 

3—Alternatives 29 

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. Under this 

alternative, the majority of existing cropland in 

the uplands will be restored to prairie grassland 

habitat within the life of this plan. 

The small area designated as low disturbance for 

migrating and wintering waterfowl will be 

expanded by implementing a seasonal boat 

closure on most of the reservoir from October 1 

to April 1. The motor boat closure area in the 

Solomon Arm will be moved upriver one mile and 

will occur from Grays Park west, which will 

provide added protection for nesting, migrating 

and wintering water birds. 

Management of invasive species will be 

enhanced. Weed management will be expanded 

and diversified in the shoreline, riparian, upland, 

and/or transition zone areas. 

In-depth baseline data will be collected 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. 

3.6 Comparison of Alternatives 

The two alternatives evaluated in this planning 

process are 1) No Action, and 2) Wildlife, Habitat 

and Public Use. A comparison of the alternatives 

is shown in table 2. 

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

• Enhance wildlife and habitat 

management. 

Summary of Management Direction 

• Manage in accordance with the 

Comprehensive Management 

Plan. 

•

•

Focus on migratory birds and 

species of conservation concern. 

Promote hunting, fishing and 

other wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

OWNERSHIP 

Land ownership within the Kirwin 

Reservoir Area 

• The United States will maintain 

ownership of the land, which will 

be managed by the Service and 

• Same as A 

Reclamation according to their 

jurisdictional responsibilities, and 

in accordance with existing 

agreements between the two 

agencies. 

ECOLOGY 

Reservoir (Deepwater) Habitat • Minimal ability of the Service to • Enhance aquatic food resources 

manage deepwater habitat. and make them available for 

3⁄4 Reservoir elevations are 

determined by other federal 

entities (e.g., Reclamation, 

migratory water birds by 

reducing dramatic water level 

fluctuations. 

USACE) 3⁄4 Attempt to maintain higher 

• Continue to maintain a small 

narrow area of low disturbance 

for waterfowl and other 

water levels in reservoir for 

migratory birds and wildlifedependent recreation. 

migratory birds. 3⁄4 Expand efforts to work with 

3⁄4 Continue boat closure west of 

Railroad Flats. 

3⁄4 Continue buoy line at Railroad 

Flats at low water levels. 

3⁄4 Conduct additional reservoir 

treatments (see fishing 

section). 

•

Reclamation and the Kirwin 

Irrigation District to provide 

small spring fluctuations in 

water levels. 

Expand the area of low 

disturbance for waterfowl during 

migration. 

3⁄4 Under low water conditions 

(< 1,722 feet), implement 

seasonal boat closure on most 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

•

of the reservoir (October 1 to 

April 1). 

3⁄4 Allow boats in Bow Creek 

south of Crappie Point yearround. 

3⁄4 Maintain the year-round boat 

closure buoy line at Grays 

Park at all water levels. 

Conduct additional reservoir 

treatments (see fishing section). 

Shoreline Habitat • Continue current level of invasive 

species management. 

• Expand and diversify invasive 

species management. 

3⁄4 Enhance control of state-listed 

noxious weeds and invasive 

plant species. 

Riparian Habitat • Continue current level of invasive 

species management. 

•

• Expand and diversify invasive 

species management. 

3⁄4 Enhance control of state-listed 

noxious weeds and invasive 

plant species. 

Provide openings in timber to 

benefit declining migratory birds 

(this will also benefit game 

species such as deer, turkey, and 

quail). 

Upland Habitat •

•

Continue current level of invasive 

species management. 

Provide open habitat for prairie 

grassland birds. 

3⁄4 Continue to plant native grass 

and forbs above the 

conservation pool. 

•

•

•

Expand areas of open habitat for 

prairie grassland birds with few 

hostile areas and reduce 

disturbance to wildlife. 

3⁄4 Maximize habitat for prairie 

grassland birds by actively 

managing prairie grasslands 

(this will also benefit resident 

game species such as prairie 

chickens, quail, and 

pheasants). 

3⁄4 Expand program to convert 

cropland to areas of native 

grass and forbs above the 

conservation pool. 

3⁄4 Permanently and/or seasonally 

close some roads. 

Augment and enhance adjacent 

native prairie by using Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife resources. 

Expand and diversify invasive 

species management. 

3⁄4 Enhance control of state-listed 

noxious weeds and other 

invasive plant species. 

Transition Zone Habitat •

•

•

Continue to provide open areas 

with little disturbance near water 

for feeding and resting migratory 

water birds. 

Continue to plant native grasses. 

Continue current level of invasive 

species management. 

• Expand efforts to provide open 

areas with little disturbance near 

water for feeding and resting 

migratory water birds. 

3⁄4 Enhance prairie grassland 

corridors to facilitate habitat 

continuity and associated 
 

 

 

 

3—Alternatives 31 

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

3⁄4 Continue to plant crops below 

the conservation pool in 

specified locations. 

prairie grassland bird 

movement. 

3⁄4 Create savannah habitat for 

declining migratory bird 

species (this will also benefit 

game species such as deer, 

turkeys, pheasants, and quail). 

• Expand and diversify invasive 

species management. 

3⁄4 Continue to plant crops below 

the conservation pool in 

specified locations. 

3⁄4 Enhance control of state-listed 

noxious weeds and other 

invasive plant species. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Hunting • Continue existing hunting 

program to manage wildlife and 

provide compatible wildlifedependent recreation. 

3⁄4 Maintain current archery deer 

only hunting area. 

3⁄4 Maintain current area that is 

open to upland game and 

archery deer only. 

3⁄4 Maintain current area in Bow 

Creek that is open to upland 

game, waterfowl, and archery 

deer. 

3⁄4 Maintain current area that is 

closed to hunting. 

3⁄4 Maintain current six shell area 

for all bird hunting. 

•

•

Same as A, plus: 

Enhance the existing hunting 

program by increasing the quality 

of hunting experience. 

3⁄4 Increase habitat block size to 

attract more birds to the area. 

3⁄4 Decrease disturbance to 

hunters. 

Fishing •

•

Continue partnership with 

Kansas Department of Wildlife 

and Parks (KDWP) to manage the 

fishery by updating the current 

Cooperative Agreement between 

the Service and KDWP. 

Continue current fishing 

opportunities to provide 

compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

3⁄4 Continue foot access to entire 

refuge. 

3⁄4 Continue current No Wake 

Zones. 

• Same as A, except: 

3⁄4 Under low water conditions 

(< 1,722 feet), implement 

seasonal boat closure on most 

of the reservoir October 1 to 

April 1. 

3⁄4 Maintain the year-round boat 

closure buoy line at Grays 

Park at all water levels. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography • Continue to promote and provide 

wildlife observation and 

photography as a priority public 

use. 

• Expand efforts to promote and 

provide wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities. 

Interpretation and Environmental 

Education 

• Continue current programs such 

as Eagle Day and monthly wildlife 

educational programs. 

• Same as A, plus add new 

interpretation and environmental 

education programs where 

feasible. 
 

 

 

 

 

32 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

Other Public Uses • Existing non-wildlife-dependent • Non-wildlife-dependent uses of 

recreational uses will continue 

until these uses are reevaluated 

through the compatibility 

determination process (see 

the refuge will not be allowed. 

chapter 1, section 1.2, 

Compatibility Policy). 

WATER RESOURCES 

Water Quality • Kansas Department of Health and • Same as A. 

Environment continues to 

monitor water quality. 

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE 

Habitat • Continue limited baseline data 

collection. 

• Collect in-depth baseline data 

from which to monitor 

management actions. 

Wildlife • Continue limited baseline data 

collection. 

• Collect in-depth baseline data 

from which to monitor 

management actions. 

Visitor Services • Continue limited monitoring. • Conduct studies of visitor uses. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Extent of Cultural Resources • Continue to protect cultural • Same as A. 

Management resources in accordance with 

federal and state laws, policies 

and guidelines. 

3⁄4 The Service Regional 

Archeologist is consulted 

during the planning phase of 

proposed projects and 

determines the need for an 

archeological site clearance 

from the Kansas State Historic 

Preservation Office. 

REFUGE OPERATIONS 

Staffing •

•

•

Approved staffing level is 7.5 

FTEs. Current on-site staff 

consists of 3 FTEs. 

Hiring priority: outdoor 

recreation planner. 

Continue to supplement staff with 

seasonal labor, inmate work crew, 

volunteers, and contract labor. 

•

•

•

Same as A (7.5 FTE), except 

reallocate staff time to focus on 

wildlife and habitat management 

for migratory birds and species of 

conservation concern. 

Hiring priorities: assistant refuge 

manager, refuge biologist. 

Expand efforts to supplement 

staff with seasonal labor, inmate 

work crew, volunteers, and 

contract labor. 

Operations and Maintenance •

•

Maintain existing visitor services 

facilities. 

Continue current level of 

operations and maintenance for 

natural resources. 

•

•

Increase operations and 

maintenance efforts that support 

wildlife and habitat management 

for migratory birds and species of 

conservation concern. 

Maintain and expand where 

feasible, visitor services facilities 

that support wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 
 

 

3—Alternatives 33 

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives 

Management Categories Alternative A 

No Action 

Alternative B 

Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— 

Service’s Proposed Action 

• Remove visitor services facilities 

that support non-wildlifedependent recreation. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

Extent of Partnerships • Continue to maintain existing • Same as A, plus: 

•

partnerships. 

Continue partnership between 

the Service and the KDWP to 

help provide law enforcement and 

assist with management of the 

fishery in the Kirwin Reservoir. 

•

•

Increase efforts to maintain and 

expand existing partnerships that 

focus on wildlife and habitat 

management, adding new 

partnerships where feasible. 

Increase efforts to maintain and 

expand existing partnerships that 

promote wildlife-dependent 

recreation, adding new 

partnerships where feasible. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4. Affected Environment
 

4.1 Physical Environment 

The majority of the information presented in 

the following chapter was taken from a report 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

titled, A Biological Assessment of Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge (Laubhan, 2003). 

Kirwin NWR is located west of the town 

Kirwin in Phillips County, north-central 

Kansas. The 10,778-acre refuge includes Kirwin 

Reservoir and bordering areas in southeast 

Phillips County. 

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. 

The refuge encompasses portions of the North 

Fork Solomon River and Bow Creek. These 

rivers drain an area of 359,874 ha (889,248 ac) 

above the reservoir (Reclamation 2002). The 

flood plain varies in width from 201 to 805 m 

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

of the North Fork Solomon River channel is 

about 1.3 m/km (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 3.1° C (37.5° F) in January to 33.4° C (92.2° F) 

in July. The mean monthly minimum temperature 

ranges from -11.3° C (11.6° F) in January to 17.8° C 

(64.0° F) in July. 

Average annual precipitation is 58.5 cm (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. 

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 1900’s, 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 plays as a vital 

element of the prairie ecosystem. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4—Affected Environment 35 

Prior to dam construction, the mixed and tall 

grasses were diverse and unique, with the 

forests and woodlands rare, in the center 

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 northcentral 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 

22 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 F. 

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). 

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 non-calcareous, 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 northcentral 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 east-northeast and the average gradient is 2.1 

m/km (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 < 3.0 m (10 ft) 

(Kansas Department of Agriculture 2002–2004). A 

map illustrating the locations of these geologic 

features on the refuge was developed by Johnson 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

and Arbogast (1993) and can be obtained from 

the Kansas Geological Survey at: 

<http://www.kgs. 

ukans.edu/General/Geology/County/nop/phillips 

.html>. 

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 

9.1 to 27.4 m (30 to 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 51.8 m/day (170 ft/day) with 

an average transmissivity of 241.5 m2/day 

(2,600 ft2/day) (Phillips 1980). Well yields vary 

from 38 to 1,893 l/min (10 to 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 2.2 m/km (11.5 ft/mi) in 

western Phillips County to about 1.2 m/km (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 

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 

acre-feet 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 both reservoirs has resulted 

in a corresponding reduction in storage volumes 

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-ofmonth content for Kirwin Reservoir was 34,000 

acre-feet (figure 9) (Reclamation 2002). 
 

 

 

 

4—Affected Environment 37 

Source: BBC Research & Consulting. 

Figure 9. Kirwin Reservoir Surface Elevation, 1956–2003 

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 is 

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 acrefeet 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 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). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Air Quality 

The air quality in this area of Kansas is good, 

with little heavy industry in the area. 

4.2 Ecology 

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 mixedgrass 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. 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 2,024 ha (5,000 ac) at 

conservation pool (527 m [1,731 ft] elevation) to 

356 ha (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. 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 

submerged aquatic vegetation (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 2.9 to 3.4 m (9.5–11.3 ft) in the first 

group of four cores to 2.1 to 2.3 m (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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4—Affected Environment 39 

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 to 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. 

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 < 61 cm (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 

91 to 271 ha (224 to 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 

community to water birds likely will vary among 

species and years. 

Trees 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, during 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4—Affected Environment 41 

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 tall grasses provided important 

resources for both migratory and resident wildlife, 

and marshes provided resources for a host of 

waterfowl. The stream fishery was not rich 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 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, and some invasive trees have invaded the 

Refuge System, including saltcedar (Eddy 1994), 

Siberian elm, and honey locust (Sevigny 1998; 

Gilbert, 2003). 

Perhaps the greatest change from historic 

structure and composition has occurred in the 

ground vegetation. The once dominant tall, warmseason 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, red-winged 

blackbird, and brown-headed cowbird. 

	 Based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data 

for region 6 of the Service, the black-capped 

chickadee, mourning dove, northern 

cardinal, common yellowthroat, red-winged 

blackbird, and brown-headed cowbird 

exhibited stable population trends, whereas 

the house wren and blue jay exhibited 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 mid-1990s. 

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. 

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 timeconsuming 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), 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4—Affected Environment 43 

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. 

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 .89 mile per square mile. 

The refuge encompasses about 2,833 ha (7,000 

ac) of uplands at conservation pool. Prairie 

grasslands dominate this acreage, but the 

refuge staff reports that only about 81 ha (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 15 to 

31 m (50 to 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 and approximately 486 ha 

(1,200 ac) are planted annually when the reservoir 

is at an elevation of 527.1 m (1,729.25 ft). The 

cropping program is designed to prepare 

agricultural land for conversion to grass and 

provide foods for migratory birds and 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 coolseason 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 longterm 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 G. 

The current refuge bird list includes 233 

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. Kirwin NWR is recognized as a Globally 

Important Bird Area by the American Bird 

Conservancy (undated). The Important Bird 

Area program was developed to recognize and 

support sites of importance to birds. 

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 G). 

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. Twentyone of these 28 species also are considered to be 

of conservation concern at either Service 

region 6 or Bird Conservation Region 19 scale 

(appendix G). 

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 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4—Affected Environment 45 

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 

was 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. 

4.3 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. 

In March 1978, the Archeology Department from 

the Kansas State Historical Society contracted 

with the Service to conduct an archeological survey 

of selected areas within the refuge. Approximately 

one-fourth of the refuge was surveyed, with three 

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 to 2002. The survey 

was done under a cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Reclamation and included approximately 

85 percent of the federal lands above the 

conservation pool. Using a combination of 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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. 

4.4 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 4) may 

contain ecological, geological, or other features 

of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical 

value. 

Research Natural Area 

The Solomon River Grasslands Research 

Natural Area was established on Kirwin NWR 

in 1967. It consists of 120 acres of bluestemgrama 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. 

The area of the refuge designated as an RNA 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 RNA designation. 

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: 

1.	 To assist in the preservation of examples of 

all significant natural ecosystems for 

comparison with those influenced by man. 

2.	 To provide educational and research areas 

for scientists to study the ecology, 

successional trends, and other aspects of the 

natural environment. 

3.	 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. 

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 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4—Affected Environment 47 

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. 

4.5 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 

photography can be enjoyed at Kirwin NWR. 

Hunting 

In the fall, hunting is a major draw 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 white-tailed 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 

during all dark goose seasons. 

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, the Bureau of 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 

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 

Six 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 six kiosks and other sites to 

provide Refuge-specific information to visitors. 

Periodically, information addressing migratory 

birds, wildlife habitat and management is provided 

in the boxes. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 and Girl Scouts and school groups. 

Staff have also taught environmental classes at 

camps. 

4.6 Socioeconomic Environment 

This section characterizes current 

socioeconomic conditions in Phillips County, 

Kansas (figure 10). 

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 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. 

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 

1 Data from 2004 came from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. An industry breakdown was not available. 
 

 

 

4—Affected Environment 49 

Source: BBC Research & Consulting. 

Figure 10. Map of Phillips County, Kansas and Vicinity 

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. 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

50 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

jurisdiction, commonly called an overlay, on the 

area upstream of the dam. The refuge does not 

overlay the Kirwin Dam, and approximately 

500 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, and Reclamation 

allows camping on its undeveloped land. 

Full employment at Kirwin NWR is 7.5 

permanent FTEs. Current employment is 3.0 

FTEs. Kirwin NWR had a $234,140 budget 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 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, water 

skiing, jet skiing, and swimming are also 

recreational activities 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 

It is estimated that most refuge visitors (60 

percent to 70 percent) live in Phillips County and 

vicinity (Mowry 2005). Most destination visitors 

come for the weekend and stay approximately 2 to 

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 to 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—Affected Environment 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences 


This section analyzes and discusses the potential 

environmental effects or consequences that can 

be reasonably expected by the implementation of 

each management alternative described in 

chapter 3. 

A few potential effects would be the same under 

each alternative. These effects are summarized 

below. 

5.1 Effects Common to all Alternatives 

The following considerations apply to all future 

actions, regardless of the specific goals, 

objectives, and strategies that would be used to 

achieve the vision for the Program. 

Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice refers to the principle that 

all citizens and communities are entitled to: 

 Equal protection from environmental 

occupational health or safety hazards; 

	 Equal access to natural resources and; 

	 Equal participation in the environmental 

and natural resource policy formulation 

process. 

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued 

Executive Order (EO) 12898: “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income Populations.” The 

purpose of this order is to focus attention of 

federal agencies on human environmental health 

and to address inequities that may occur in the 

distribution of costs/benefits, land use patterns, 

hazardous material transport or facility siting, 

allocation and consumption of resources, access to 

information, planning, and decision making. 

The mission of the Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. The Service’s 

environmental justice strategy extends this 

mission by seeking to ensure that all segments of 

the human population have equal access to 

America’s fish and wildlife resources, as well as 

equal access to information that would enable 

them to participate meaningfully in activities and 

policy shaping. 

Within the spirit and intent of EO 12898, no 

minority or low income populations would be 

impacted by any Service action under any 

alternative described in this plan. 

Climate Change Impacts 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an 

order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management 

responsibilities to consider potential climate 

change impacts as part of long-range planning 

endeavors. 

Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the 

heart of any long-range plan for National Wildlife 

Refuges. The actions proposed in both 

alternatives would preserve or restore land and 

water, and would thus enhance carbon 

sequestration. This in turn contributes positively 

to efforts to mitigate human-induced global 

climate changes. 

Cultural Resources 

The Department of the Interior and its 

representative agencies are responsible for 

managing archeological and historic sites found 

on federal land. Prior to all habitat and facility 

maintenance activities, appropriate efforts would 

be made to identify known and possible cultural 

resources with the area of potential impact. 

Avoidance of cultural resources would be the 

preferred treatment. Mitigation of any impacts 

would be undertaken if impacts cannot be 

avoided. 

Cultural resources would continue to be 

protected under state and federal laws. Shoreline 

erosion periodically exposes new cultural 

resources. The Regional Archeologist would be 

consulted during the planning phase of any 

proposed project and would determine the need 

for a cultural inventory site clearance from the 

Kansas State Historic Preservation Office. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5—Environmental Consequences 53 

Maintenance of Roads and Existing Rights-ofWay 

State, county, and townships would retain 

maintenance obligations for roads and their 

rights-of-way under their jurisdiction within 

refuge boundaries. Existing rights-of-way and 

terms of other easements would continue to be 

honored. New rights-of-way and easements 

would be considered in relation to the existing 

refuge and/or flowage easement agreements, 

Refuge System regulations, and likely impacts of 

the rights-of-way or easements to wildlife 

resources. 

Management Activities 

All management activities that could affect 

natural resources, including subsurface mineral 

reservations, utility lines and easements, soil, 

water and air, and historical and archaeological 

resources would be managed to comply with all 

laws and regulations. 

Water Resources 

Under all alternatives, KDHE would continue to 

monitor water quality and Reclamation would 

continue to monitor sedimentation. 

Socioeconomics 

Each alternative will the maintain core wildlife 

viewing, fishing, and hunting functions that are 

central to Kirwin NWR’s role in the local 

economy (BBC 2004). 

5.2 Description of Consequences by 

Alternative 

This section describes the environmental 

consequences of adopting each refuge 

management alternative. 

Alternative A (No Action—Current Management) 

Alternative A assumes continued management 

for wildlife-dependent and non-wildlifedependent uses. Existing non-wildlife recreation 

uses would be reviewed for compliance with the 

Improvement Act and accompanying regulations 

and policies through a CD process. Cropland 

acres would remain the same. Current levels of 

invasive plant management would continue. The 

refuge has not used grazing as a management 

tool for the last few years, but may utilize it in 

the future. The refuge would retain current 

facilities (including visitor center, kiosks, and 

campgrounds; additional details provided in 

section 4.6). 

Ecology 

Reservoir (Deepwater) Habitat. Under 

Alternative A, there would be no change in 

management of the refuge’s Reservoir 

(Deepwater) Habitat. Existing trends in boat and 

traffic disturbance and low quality and quantity 

of resting and feeding habitat for migrating bird 

species would continue. Continued dramatic 

fluctuations in water levels would continue to 

inhibit the establishment of SAV beds and 

associated feeding habitat. Management would 

continue to focus on waterfowl to the exclusion of 

other migratory species. Under alternative A, 

the Reservoir would provide only resting habitat 

for migratory waterfowl. Existing disturbance 

trends and lack of feeding habitat for migratory 

waterfowl and other birds would continue. 

Shoreline. Under alternative A, there would be 

no change in management of the refuge’s 

Shoreline Habitat. Existing trends in boat and 

traffic disturbance and low quality and quantity 

of resting and feeding habitat for migrating bird 

species would continue. There would be a 

continued decline in the quality and quantity of 

resting, nesting, and feeding habitat due to the 

current trend of increasing invasive plant 

populations and corresponding decrease in native 

plant populations. Management would continue to 

focus on waterfowl to the exclusion of other 

migratory species. 

Riparian. Under alternative A, there would be 

no change in management of the refuge’s riparian 

habitat. Existing trends in boat and traffic 

disturbance and low quality and quantity of 

habitat for migrating bird species would 

continue. There would be a continued decline in 

the quality and quantity of resting, nesting, and 

feeding habitat due to the current trend of 

increasing invasive plant populations and 

corresponding decrease in native plant 

populations. Invasive woody species such as 

Russian olive, Siberian elm, and black locust 

would continue to increase by out competing 

native species such as cottonwoods, American 

elm, and green ash and the wooded corridor along 

the Solomon River and Bow Creek would become 

less favorable for migratory woodland birds. 

The trend of change in the riparian understory 

also would continue to change from native warmseason grasses to invasive cool-season grasses 

such as smooth broom and Kentucky bluegrass, 

which provide lower quality nesting habitat 

compared to the native grasses. Under 

alternative A, management would continue to 

focus on waterfowl to the exclusion of other 

migratory species. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Upland. Under alternative A, there would be no 

change in management of the refuge’s Upland 

Habitat. Existing trends in traffic disturbance 

and low quality and quantity of habitat for 

migrating bird species would continue. There 

would be a continued decline in the quality and 

quantity of resting, nesting, and feeding habitat 

due to the current trend of increasing invasive 

plant populations and corresponding decrease in 

native plant populations. Invasive woody 

vegetation from riparian areas may spread into 

the upland prairies and further degrade native 

and restored habitat. The trend of decline in 

habitat quality and quantity would continue 

despite maintained benefits of restored and 

native prairie grasslands, and use of croplands to 

aid in invasive plant control. Under alternative 

A, management of uplands would continue to 

focus on waterfowl to the exclusion of other 

migratory species. 

Transition Zone (Bottomland). Under 

alternative A, there would be no change in 

management of the refuge’s Transition Zone 

(Bottomland) Habitat. Existing trends in traffic 

disturbance and low quality and quantity of 

habitat for migrating bird species would 

continue. There would be a continued decline in 

the quality and quantity of resting, nesting, and 

feeding habitat due to the current trend of 

increasing invasive plant populations and 

corresponding decrease in native plant 

populations. Prairie grassland dependent birds 

and birds that nest in shrubs (such as the Bell’s 

vireo) face the greatest risk due to continued 

habitat degradation. Under alternative A, 

management of the transition zone would 

continue to focus on waterfowl to the exclusion of 

other migratory species. 

Visitor Services 

Hunting. Under alternative A, there would be no 

change in current hunting management and 

hunting opportunities. 

Fishing. Under alternative A, there would be no 

change in current fishing management and 

fishing opportunities. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Interpretation, and Environmental Education. 

Existing opportunities would remain the same as 

current management. Current programs such as 

Eagle Day and monthly wildlife programs would 

continue as funding and personnel allow. 

Other Public Uses (Non-wildlife-dependent). 

Existing non-wildlife recreation uses would be 

reviewed for compliance with the Improvement 

Act and accompanying regulations and policies 

through a CD process. These uses would continue 

until the CD process is complete. These uses 

would continue to divert staff time and funding 

away from wildlife habitat projects. The refuge 

would continue to have areas of degraded wildlife 

habitat due to camping and other current nonwildlife-dependent recreation. 

Water Resources 

Under alternative A, water quality would likely 

follow existing trends in decline and sediment 

would continue to accumulate in Kirwin 

Reservoir. KDHE would continue to monitor 

water quality, and Reclamation would continue to 

monitor sedimentation. 

Cultural Resources 

As funding and staffing allow, a cultural resource 

management plan will be developed for the 

refuge which will describe how ongoing effects to 

cultural resources will be addressed. 

Socioeconomics 

Under alternative A, the refuge would continue 

to be managed much as it is today; thus, 

socioeconomic change would be minimal. CDs 

allowing non-wildlife-dependent uses of the 

refuge would be reviewed to assure compliance 

with current regulations and policies. No 

significant capital investment in active recreation 

facilities would be made. Wildlife-dependent 

recreation likely would remain a minor element 

of the refuge’s operations. 

Under alternative A, the refuge likely would 

remain a destination hunting and fishing location. 

Onsite employment and visitor counts, as well as 

offsite impacts, would remain at or near current 

levels. 

Other Issues and Resources 

Research and Science activities would continue at 

their current level under alternative A. Limited 

baseline data collection and monitoring would 

continue. Refuge operations would continue at 

current levels of staffing, operations, and 

maintenance. Existing partnerships would 

continue. 

Alternative B (Wildlife, Habitat, and Public 

Use—Proposed Action) 

Alternative B would primarily focus management 

efforts on improving migratory bird habitat. This 

alternative emphasizes grassland restoration and 

management. Management of the grassland will 

promote expansion of native species and provide 

appropriate structure and composition of 

grassland habitat for migratory birds. Efforts to 

reduce invasive plant species and dramatic water 

level fluctuations would enhance migratory bird 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

habitat, and improve fish populations. This 

alternative supports and encourages the six high 

priority public uses identified in the 

Improvement Act. The priority public uses are 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education. Some existing non-wildlife-dependent 

public uses would be discontinued. Cropping and 

grazing would continue to be used as 

management tools to achieve habitat 

requirements for migratory birds and to achieve 

refuge goals such as restoring prairie and 

controlling invasive plants. 

Ecology 

Reservoir (Deepwater) Habitat. Under 

alternative B, talks would be initiated with the 

Kirwin Irrigation District, Reclamation, and 

other entities regarding stabilization of water 

levels in Kirwin Reservoir. Water level 

stabilization would result in increased cover of 

SAV and lead to more and better habitat for 

invertebrates and small fish which provide 

feeding habitat for water birds and large fish. 

Improved feeding habitat would improve spring 

and fall migration and wintering habitat for 

water birds, and water birds would remain in the 

area longer. 

Changes in management of boating and public 

access under alternative B also would reduce 

disturbance to migrating and wintering 

waterfowl. Under alternative B, Kirwin 

Reservoir would provide resting habitat for 

migratory waterfowl and feeding habitat for 

many migratory birds, including eared grebe, 

western grebe, American white pelican, redhead, 

lesser scaup, Franklin’s gull, common tern, and 

black tern. Increased SAV also would benefit 

federally listed species, particularly the bald 

eagle and least tern. 

Shoreline. Under alternative B, efforts to 

stabilize water levels would benefit the refuge’s 

Shoreline Habitat by reducing invasive plants. In 

addition, increased staff time would be focused on 

controlling invasive plants. The combination of 

these two factors—stabilized water levels and 

increased invasive plant control efforts—would 

result in increased native plant populations and 

improved quality and quantity of resting and 

feeding habitat for migrating bird species. 

In addition, changes in management of boating 

and public access under alternative B also would 

reduce disturbance to migrating and wintering 

waterfowl. As mentioned under the Reservoir 

(Deepwater) Habitat section above, reducing 

dramatic drawdowns would increase submerged 

and emergent aquatic plants, increasing 

invertebrates along the shoreline and providing 

5—Environmental Consequences 55 

more food for migratory birds. The combination 

of reduced disturbance and improved habitat 

would benefit many migratory bird species, 

including eared grebe, western grebe, American 

white pelican, Canada goose, white-front goose, 

snow-Ross’ goose, wood duck, mallard, northern 

pintail, American widgeon, 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 as 

well as threatened and endangered species such 

as bald eagle and least tern. 

Riparian. Under alternative B, invasive plant 

management efforts would be expanded, 

resulting in improved quality and quantity of 

resting, nesting, and feeding habitat for 

migratory woodland birds. Created openings 

from the removal of invasive tree species would 

allow native warm-season grasses and shrubs to 

establish, benefiting migratory woodland bird 

species. In addition, removal of invasive tree 

species would eliminate a seed source that 

currently is spreading into prairie habitat. 

Improvements to riparian habitat would benefit 

species of concern such as wood duck, 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, as well as threatened and 

endangered species such as the bald eagle. 

Upland. Under alternative B, invasive plant 

management efforts would be expanded, 

resulting in improved quality and quantity of 

resting, nesting, and feeding habitat for 

migratory prairie grassland birds. Methods that 

would be used include grazing, burning, haying, 

restoring cropland to prairie, establishing 

permanent and/or seasonal road closures, 

removing non-wildlife-dependent recreation 

facilities, and establishing partnerships to 

enhance prairie habitat that is adjacent to the 

refuge boundary. These prairie improvements 

would benefit migratory bird species that use 

prairie grassland habitat during all or a portion of 

their lifecycle, including 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. 

Transition Zone (Bottomland). Under 

alternative B, invasive plant management efforts 

in the transition zone would be expanded, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

resulting in improved quality and quantity of 

resting, nesting, and feeding habitat for 

migratory prairie grassland, woodland, and 

savannah birds. Existing cropped areas, which 

provide control of invasive trees and other 

plants, a food source, and a seedbed for future 

seeding edits, would be maintained. Habitat 

improvements from these management efforts 

would benefit 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. 

·In addition, management efforts would result in 

improved perching habitat for bald eagle and 

open cropped areas for whooping crane. 

Visitor Services 

Hunting. Improved quality of the hunting 

experience is anticipated under alternative B due 

to decreased traffic disturbance and 

improvements to the quality, quantity, and 

continuity of habitat. Some reduction in 

motorized hunting access to portions of the 

refuge is likely based on the road evaluation that 

will begin in 2007. 

Fishing. Under alternative B, boat fishing access 

would vary based on the water level on Kirwin 

Reservoir. Pedestrian fishing access would 

remain the same. At all water levels, boating and 

fishing opportunities would be expanded by 

moving the boat closure buoy line from Railroad 

Flats to Grays Park, an increase of 

approximately 500 acres (acreage varies based on 

water level), for 6 months out of the year (April 1 

to October 1). Under high water conditions 

(elevation > 1,722 feet), boating and fishing 

opportunities would be expanded by about 3,000 

acres by not implementing the seasonal closure 

and maintaining the boat closure buoy line at 

Grays Park. Under low water conditions 

(elevation < 1,722 feet), boating and fishing 

opportunities would be reduced by closing most 

of the reservoir to boating during October 1 to 

April 1. In addition, the overall boat-fishing 

experience would improve due to the 

discontinuation of competing, non-wildlifedependent water recreation including jet skiing 

and water skiing. Reservoir access to fish from a 

boat in Bow Creek would remain available by 

launching boats from Crappie Point. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Interpretation, and Environmental Education. 

Under alternative B, many opportunities for 

wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, 

and environmental education would remain the 

same. As staffing is available, all existing 

programs would be supported. In addition, the 

quality of the visitor experience for these 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities would 

improve by discontinuing competing non-wildlifedependent uses such as jet skiing and water 

skiing. 

Other Public Uses (Non-wildlife-dependent). 

Under alternative B, support for non-wildlifedependent recreation uses would decrease. 

Jet/water skiing, camping, swimming, horseback 

riding uses would be discontinued in order to 

comply with current Service policies, regulations, 

and federal laws. The six existing campsites 

would be closed and the areas revegetated. 

Restrooms associated with the campsites also 

would be closed and removed, changing the 

number of restrooms on the refuge from six to 

three. 

Although these activities are currently allowed 

on the refuge, they are low-use activities. For 

instance, informal surveys of camping by refuge 

staff indicate that during holiday weekends when 

demand for campsites is generally highest, the 

maximum number of occupied campsites is about 

6. It is estimated that less than 2 percent of 

destination guests camp on the refuge. 

Approximately 30 percent of refuge visitor days, 

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

Camping uses and other discontinued nonwildlife-dependent uses on the refuge are easily 

absorbed by other facilities in the area, including 

Reclamation lands adjoining the refuge. Within 

45 miles of Kirwin NWR, 42 camping and lodging 

facilities, and seven city, state, and federal 

reservoirs allow similar non-wildlife recreation. 

Beginning in 2007, the refuge manager will 

evaluate all refuge roads (see section 3.5 

alternative B). If a road is determined to fail the 

screening criteria, then it will be seasonally 

and/or permanently closed, resulting in changes 

to vehicle access. Pedestrian access would not 

change. 

The refuge manager may issue Special Use 

Permits for various activities, including 

university research and Boy Scout safety 

training. 

Water Resources 

Water quality and sedimentation trends would 

likely remain the same as alternative A. There 

may be some water quality and sedimentation 

control benefits from improvements to 

vegetation communities within riparian, 

shoreline, and transition zones. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5—Environmental Consequences 57 

Cultural Resources 

A cultural resource management plan will be 

developed for the refuge which will describe how 

ongoing effects to cultural resources will be 

addressed. 

Socioeconomics 

Removal of refuge campgrounds may modestly 

increase lodging revenues and lodging tax 

revenues in Phillipsburg and surrounding 

communities, as local entrepreneurs step up to 

offer alternative locations for these discontinued 

services. It is estimated that the current 

campground supports less than 5,000 visitor 

nights; thus, the transference of a portion of this 

activity to the regional economy would have a 

very modest but beneficial impact. 

Given the small number of non-wildlifedependent activities, the discontinuation of 

swimming, jet skiing, and water skiing would 

have no significant socioeconomic consequences. 

Less than 2 percent of refuge visitors participate 

in jet/water skiing; thus, the loss of this business 

would have minor consequences. Economic value 

would be redistributed but not entirely lost 

because it is likely that this recreation market 

can find suitable substitutes in nearby locations. 

Changes in management practices may increase 

hunter/fisher visitation over time because 

noncompatible uses on the reservoir would be 

discontinued. Wildlife viewing, fishing, and 

hunting are the most popular activities at the 

refuge. Improvement in the quality of the 

hunting and fishing experience may, over time 

bring in a minor number of additional visitors and 

additional local spending. 

Other Issues and Resources 

Research and Science activities would increase 

under alternative B to include in-depth baseline 

data collection and studies of visitor use. While 

approved staffing levels at the refuge would 

remain the same (7.5 FTE), staff time and hiring 

priorities would be refocused on wildlife and 

habitat management for migratory birds and 

species of conservation concern. With the 

discontinuation of non-wildlife-dependent uses 

and facilities, staff time would be diverted to 

wildlife and habitat management efforts 

including increased invasive weed control efforts, 

planting and seeding, and controlled burns. 

Efforts to expand supplemental staff sources, 

including seasonal labor, inmate work crews, 

volunteers, and contract labor would be initiated. 

Operations and maintenance efforts also would be 

focused on wildlife-dependent uses and wildlife 

and habitat management for migratory birds and 

species of conservation concern. Existing 

partnerships would continue. In addition, efforts 

to expand existing and develop new partnerships 

would be initiated, with the focus on partnerships 

that promote wildlife-dependent uses and habitat 

improvement. 

5.3 Comparison of Effects by 

Alternative 

Table 3 provides a summary of the potential 

effects on environmental resources associated 

with the implementation of each of the 

management alternatives. 

Table 3. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

Enhance wildlife and habitat management 

Summary of Management 

Direction 

Continue to manage the refuge in 

accordance with the CMP completed 

in 1996. 

practices on the refuge. Manage all wildlife 

and fish resources with a focus on 

migratory birds and species of conservation 

concern. Promote hunting, fishing and other 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

ECOLOGY 

Reservoir (Deepwater) Habitat No Change in Management Management Improvements 

• Continued disturbance from boat 

presence to waterfowl during 

migration and winter. 

• Continuation of low/non-existent 

levels of SAV and aquatic 

invertebrates; low volume of food 

sources for some migrating 

species. 

• Reservoir provides mainly resting 

• Reduced disturbance from boat 

presence (seasonal boat closures) to 

waterfowl during migration, and 

winter. 

• Stabilization of water levels results in 

increased SAV volumes and increased 

production of aquatic invertebrates 

and small fish for winter and migration 

food source for waterfowl. 
 

 

 

58 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Table 3. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

•

habitat (limited feeding habitat). 

Management focused on 

waterfowl. 

•

•

Reservoir provides resting and feeding 

habitat. 

Management focused on waterfowl and 

the following species of concern: eared 

grebe, western grebe, American white 

pelican, redhead, lesser scaup, 

Franklin’s gull, common tern, black 

tern. Increased SAV also benefits 

threatened and endangered species: 

bald eagle, least tern. 

Shoreline •

•

Dramatic water level fluctuations 

increase abundance of invasive 

plants such as salt cedar and 

Canada thistle. 

Continued decline in quality and 

quantity of resting, nesting and 

feeding habitat for shorebirds due 

to increase in invasive plants and 

continued decrease in relative 

abundance of native plants due to 

competition with invasive plant 

species. 

•

•

•

•

Increased efforts to stabilize water 

levels result in reduction in invasive 

plants. 

Increased efforts to improve habitat 

through control of invasive plants 

results in improved quality and 

quantity of resting, nesting, and 

feeding habitat for shorebirds. 

Species of concern that benefit from 

improved shoreline habitat: eared 

grebe, western grebe, American white 

pelican, Canada goose, white-front 

goose, snow-Ross’ goose, wood duck, 

mallard, northern pintail, American 

widgeon, redhead, lesser scaup, snowy 

egret, whooping crane, piping plover, 

snowy plover, American avocet, 

semipalmated sandpiper, least 

sandpiper, Baird’s sandpiper, longbilled dowitcher, Wilson’s phalarope, 

Franklin’s gull, common tern, black 

tern. 

Decreases in invasive plants also 

benefits threatened and endangered 

species such as bald eagle and least 

tern. 

Riparian •

•

Current level of invasive plant 

control not sufficient to limit 

spread of salt cedar, Canada 

thistle, Siberian elm, Russian 

olive, eastern red cedar, locust, 

hedge and other species. 

Continued decline in quality and 

quantity of resting, nesting and 

feeding habitat for migratory 

woodland birds due to invasive 

plants and continued decrease in 

relative abundance of native 

plants due to competition with 

invasive plants. 

•

•

Increased efforts to improve habitat 

through control of invasive plants 

results in improved quality and 

quantity of resting, nesting, and 

feeding habitat for migratory woodland 

birds. 

Created openings from removal of 

invasive tree species will allow 

understory transition from cool-season 

grasses (smooth brome) to native 

warm-season grasses (big bluestem, 

Indiangrass, and switchgrass) and 

shrubs (sumac, currants, snowberry), 

which benefit migratory woodland 

birds. Habitat improvements resulting 

from removal of invasive shrubs, forbs, 

and grasses would benefit other 

species of concern such as wood duck, 

Swainson’s hawk, northern bobwhite 

quail, yellow-billed cuckoo, red-headed 

woodpecker, western kingbird, 

loggerhead shrike, Bell’s vireo, 

Baltimore oriole, American tree 
 

 

 

 

 

5—Environmental Consequences 59 

Table 3. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

•

sparrow, and Harris’ sparrow. 

Decreases in invasive plants also 

benefits threatened and endangered 

species such as the bald eagle. 

Upland •

•

•

•

•

Current level of invasive plant 

control not sufficient to limit 

spread of musk thistle, smooth 

brome, Siberian elm, Russian 

olive, eastern red cedar, locust, 

hedge and other species. 

Continued decline in quality and 

quantity of resting, nesting and 

feeding habitat for migratory 

prairie grassland birds due to 

invasive plants. 

Continued decrease in relative 

abundance of native plants due to 

competition with invasive plant 

species. 

Maintain benefits of restored and 

native prairie, including reducing 

habitat fragmentation, tree and 

invasive plant control, and prairie 

grassland bird food sources 

Maintain benefits of croplands, 

including tree and invasive plant 

control, waterfowl food, and 

seedbed for future prairie 

grassland restoration 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Increase quality of nesting and feeding 

habitat for migratory prairie grassland 

birds through active management of 

invasive plants such as musk thistle, 

smooth brome, Siberian elm, Russian 

olive, eastern red cedar, locust, and 

hedge using practices such as burning, 

grazing, haying, and invasive plant 

control on existing prairie. 

Increase quantity of habitat for 

migratory prairie grassland birds by 

restoring cropland to prairie. 

Permanent and/or seasonal road 

closures result in increased habitat 

block size, reduced disturbance, and 

reduced fragmentation for migratory 

prairie grassland birds. 

Creation of the 45,000 acre block 

increases effectiveness of habitat and 

management. On a larger scale, 

performs the same functions as above. 

Use Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

resources to augment and enhance 

adjacent native prairie by controlling 

invasive plants and restoring prairie. 

Restore prairie areas and reduce 

habitat fragmentation by discontinuing 

non-wildlife-dependent facilities and 

reducing concentrations of disturbance. 

Habitat improvements resulting from 

removal of invasive plants, restoring 

cropland, road closures, and habitat 

expansion would benefit species of 

concern that use prairie grassland 

habitat such as 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. 

Transition Zone •

•

Current level of invasive plant 

control not sufficient to limit 

spread salt cedar, Canada thistle, 

Siberian elm, Russian olive, 

eastern red cedar, locust and 

other species. 

Continued decline in quality and 

quantity of resting, nesting and 

feeding habitat for migratory 

prairie grassland birds due to 

•

•

Increase quantity, quality, and 

continuity of resting, nesting and 

feeding habitat for migratory prairie 

grassland and woodland birds through 

active management of invasive plants 

such as salt cedar, Canada thistle, 

Siberian elm, Russian olive, eastern 

red cedar, locust and other species. 

Maintain benefits of croplands, 

including tree and invasive plant 
 

 

 

 

60 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Table 3. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

invasive plants. Continued decline 

in quality and quantity of resting, 

nesting and feeding habitat for 

migratory woodland birds due to 

invasive plants. •

•

•

control, waterfowl food, and seedbed 

for future prairie grassland 

restoration. 

Creation of savannah habitat will 

benefit Bell’s vireo, red-headed 

woodpecker, orchard oriole, Baltimore 

oriole, and other savannah species. 

Habitat improvements resulting from 

removal of invasive plants would 

benefit species of concern that use 

transition zone habitat such as 

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. 

Improved feeding habitat for bald 

eagle; maintain benefits of open areas 

for whooping crane. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Hunting • No change. •

•

Potential for improved quality of 

hunting due to decreased traffic 

disturbance and improved quality, 

quantity, and continuity of habitat. 

Potential for reduced motorized vehicle 

access based on road evaluation that 

would begin in 2007. 

Fishing • No change. •

•

•

•

•

At all water levels, 

3⁄4 Expand boat fishing opportunities 

(about 500 acres, depending on 

water level) for 6 months (April 1 to 

October 1) by moving the boat 

closure buoys from Railroad Flats 

to Grays Park. 

Under low water conditions (elevation 

< 1,722 feet): 

3⁄4 Decrease boat fishing opportunities 

(about 2,000 acres depending on 

water level) for 6 months (October 1 

to April 1; boat closure on most of 

the reservoir). 

Under high water conditions (elevation 

> 1,722 feet). 

Expand boat fishing opportunities 

(about 3,000 acres depending on water 

level) year-round by moving the boat 

closure buoys from Railroad Flats to 

Grays Park and not implementing 

seasonal boat closure. 

Improve fishing experience by 

discontinuing non-wildlife-dependent 

competing uses such as jet skiing and 

water skiing. 
5—Environmental Consequences 61 

Table 3. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

Wildlife Observation, 

Photography 

• No change. • Improve wildlife observation and 

photography experience by 

discontinuing non-wildlife-dependent 

competing uses such as jet skiing and 

water skiing. 

Interpretation and Environmental 

Education 

• No change. • Improve Interpretation and 

Environmental Education experience 

by discontinuing non-wildlifedependent competing uses such as jet 

skiing and water skiing. 

Other Public Uses • Review existing non-wildlifedependent recreation uses for 

compliance with the Improvement 

Act and accompanying 

regulations and policies through a 

CD process. Incompatible uses 

would be discontinued. 

•

•

•

Discontinue non-wildlife-dependent 

uses and reduce non-wildlifedependent recreation facilities and 

focus staff time on improving wildlife 

habitat and wildlife-dependent uses. 

Discontinued uses are easily absorbed 

by other facilities in the region. 

If a road is seasonally and/or 

permanently closed, changes to vehicle 

access would result. Pedestrian access 

would not change. 

Water Resources 

Water Quality and Sedimentation • No change in existing conditions 

of water quality 

Same as A 

• No change in existing 

sedimentation trends 

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE 

Habitat, Wildlife, Visitor Services • Continue limited baseline data • Collect in-depth baseline data from 

collection and/or monitoring. which to monitor management actions; 

conduct studies of visitor uses. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural Resources No change. A cultural resource management plan will 

be developed. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

Employment, Income, Housing, 

Community 

• Maintain current economic 

involvement in the local 

community. 

• Increase contributions to the local 

economy (to over $600,000 per year) 

by employing 7.5 FTEs. 

• Increase operational spending in the 

local economy as budgets increase. 

• Total input to the local economy would 

be approximately one million dollars 

per year. 

• Improvement in quality of hunting and 

fishing experience may, over time, 

bring in a minor number of additional 

visitors and local spending. 

REFUGE OPERATIONS 

Staffing • Approved staffing level is 7.5 

FTEs. Current on-site staff 

• Same as A (7.5 FTE), except reallocate 

staff time to focus on wildlife and 

•

consists of 3.5 FTEs. 

Hiring priority: outdoor 

habitat management for migratory 

birds and species of conservation 

recreation planner concern. 

• Continue to supplement staff with 

seasonal labor, inmate work crew, 

•

•

Hiring priority: refuge biologist 

Expand efforts to supplement staff 

with seasonal labor, inmate work crew, 
 

 

 

 

 

62 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Table 3. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B Alternative A Management Categories Wildlife, Habitat and Public Use— No Action Service’s Proposed Action 

volunteers, and contract labor. volunteers, and contract labor. 

Operations and Maintenance •

•

Maintain existing visitor services 

facilities. 

Continue current level of 

operations and maintenance for 

natural resources. 

•

•

•

Increase operations and maintenance 

efforts that support wildlife and 

habitat management for migratory 

birds and species of conservation 

concern. 

Maintain and expand where feasible, 

visitor services facilities that support 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Discontinue visitor services facilities 

that support non-wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

Changes to partnerships with • Continue to maintain existing • Increase efforts to maintain and 

agencies, conservation, and partnerships. expand existing partnerships that 

community groups • Continue partnership between 

the Service and the KDWP to 

manage the fishery in the Kirwin 

focus on wildlife and habitat 

management, adding new partnerships 

where feasible. 

Reservoir. • Increase efforts to maintain and 

expand existing partnerships that 

promote wildlife-dependent recreation, 

adding new partnerships where 

feasible. 

• Continue partnership between the 

Service and the KDWP to manage the 

fishery in the Kirwin Reservoir. 
5—Environmental Consequences 63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6. Implementation of the Proposed Action
 

6.1 Introduction 

Once the preferred management alternative 

has been selected and finalized, the CCP has 

been approved, and the Service has notified the 

public of its decision, the implementation phase 

of the CCP begins. If the Proposed Action is 

selected for implementation, the objectives and 

strategies presented below will be realized 

during the next 15 years. The CCP will serve 

as the primary management document for 

Kirwin NWR until it is formally revised. The 

Service will implement the final CCP with 

assistance from existing and new partner 

agencies and organizations, and the public. 

Overview of Selection of this Alternative 

It is the responsibility of the planning team to 

recommend a Proposed Action that best 

achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and 

goals; helps fulfill the Refuge System mission; 

maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

Refuge System; addresses the significant 

issues and mandates; and is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. 

During the development and analysis of 

alternatives for the CCP, Alternative B 

(Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use) was selected 

as the Proposed Action by the Service. The 

planning team believes alternative B best 

achieves the mission of the Refuge System and 

the goals of the refuge, while addressing the 

substantive issues identified during the scoping 

process. 

Alternative Description 

Alternative B, the Proposed Action, strives to 

fully implement the Improvement Act, which 

directs that each refuge in the Refuge System 

will be managed for the benefit of wildlife first. 

Management actions emphasize wildlife and 

habitat management for migratory birds and 

species of conservation concern. 

Revisiting the visitor services program will be 

a priority in this alternative. Wildlifedependent recreation will be emphasized and 

promoted, with hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation receiving priority 

attention. Non-wildlife-dependent uses would be 

discontinued. These refuge uses, and the facilities 

that support them will be phased out within 1 year 

of CCP implementation. 

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 manage the refuge in 

accordance with the MOA between Reclamation 

and the Service. The MOA may be updated and 

revised during the life of this plan. 

The Service will continue to seek assistance from 

KDWP to help manage portions of the fishery in 

Kirwin Reservoir. The existing MOA between the 

Service and KDWP needs to be updated due to the 

1954 MOA being voided by the 1966 National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act to 

comply with Service laws, policies and regulations. 

6.2 Goals, Objectives and Rationale, and 

Strategies 

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, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5—Environmental Consequences 65 

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. 

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. 

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: 

	 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). 

	 Open Bow Creek to boating year-round 

from Crappie Point upstream (south of 

Crappie Point). 

	 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, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

snow-Ross’ 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. 

Objective 1: Within 1 year, 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. 

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. 

 Utilize grazing at varying stocking 

rates, seasons, and intensities as a 

management tool. 

 Use nongrazing as a management tool. 

 Use a variety of 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. 

5—Environmental Consequences 67 

 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). 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 

(USFWS 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, ringnecked 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. 

	 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 11). A 42,000-acre 

block of prairie grassland is desirable because it 

fulfills the 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. 
5—Environmental Consequences 69 
 

Figure 11. Regional Overview 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

In addition, Vesper sparrows and chestnutcollared 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). 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

5—Environmental Consequences 71 

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 shrubsavannah 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 whooping7 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 (USFWS 1996). 

Strategies: 

 Utilize cooperative farmers to control statelisted 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 federally endangered species that are very 

sensitive to use 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 the Reclamation for 

nesting least terns on Reclamation land. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

	 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 

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 wildlifedependent public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, 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 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 E. 

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. 

Hunting 

Objective 1: Throughout the life of the CCP, 

maintain 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 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 (USFWS 1996). 

Areas closed to hunting and 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. 

Strategies: 

	 Hire a park ranger (refuge law enforcement 

officer). 

 Continue archery-only deer hunting in the 

western part of the refuge. 

	 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: 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 3: 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 

sound 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. 

5—Environmental Consequences 73 

 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 4: 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. 

 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 priority use and 

will continue to be supported. 

Strategies: 

	 Continue to allow motorized and 

nonmotorized boating in designated areas 

and at designated times to support the 

priority 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. 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

waterfowl, its primary use is during migration 

and winter. Fall migration brings up to 70,000 

Canada geese, 40,000 white-fronted 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 (USFWS 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. 

	 Implement a seasonal (October 1 to 

April 1) boat closure on the majority of 

the reservoir. 

 Keep Bow Creek open to boating yearround 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, Photography, 

Interpretation, and Environmental Education 

Objective 1: Throughout the life of the plan, 

continue to provide wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities based on refuge 

habitat goals and objectives. 

Rationale: These are compatible priority 

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, 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, nonwildlife-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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5—Environmental Consequences 75 

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 shrub-nesting 

birds occur in campsites due to the altered 

habitat (Knight 1991). Campsite impacts 

decrease rapidly once the disturbance is 

terminated (Marion 1996). 

Strategies: 

	 Discontinue volleyball, power/speed 

boating, water/jet skiing (personal 

water craft), camping, swimming, and 

horseback riding. 

	 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. 

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. 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

76 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

	 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. 

o	 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 

wildlife-dependent recreation and remove all 

facilities previously used to support non-wildlifedependent recreation. 

Strategies: The restrooms at the South Shore Boat 

Ramp, North Shore Boat Ramp, and Knob Hill will 

remain and continue to be maintained. There are a 

few facilities that support non-wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses on the refuge that should be 

discontinued such as the restrooms at Grays Park, 

Cottonwood, and Crappie Point. 

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 wildlifedependent recreation. 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5—Environmental Consequences 77 

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. 

6.3 Personnel 

Current staffing at the refuge consists of 3 

permanent FTEs. 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. 

Table 4 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. 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. 

Table 4. Refuge Staffing 

Proposed (Approved Current Minimum Staffing) 

Management 

Staff 

Refuge Manager 

GS-12 

Refuge Manager 

GS-12 

Assistant Manager 

GS-11 

Biolog- Wildlife Biologist 

ical Staff GS-11 

Public 

Use 

Staff 

Park Ranger (law 

enforcement) GS-9 

Outdoor Recreation 

Planner (6-month career 

seasonal) GS-9 

Admin- Administrative Administrative 

istrative Assistant Assistant GS-8 

Staff GS-8 

Maintenance 

Staff 

Maintenance 

Mechanic 

WG-8 

Maintenance Mechanic 

WG-8 

Equipment Operator 

WG-8 

6.4 Funding 

Projects required to implement the CCP are 

funded through two separate systems. The first 

system is the Refuge Operations Needs System 

(RONS). RONS documents requests to Congress 

for funding and staffing needed to carry out 

projects above the existing base budget. Amounts 

shown include a startup cost of implementing each 

program with successive yearly costs that are 

significantly less. Table 5 lists RONS projects 

required to fully implement the CCP. 

Table 5. Refuge Operating Needs System Projects 

Recurring Initial Year Annual (thousands $) (thousands $) 

Biologist $151 $86 

Park Ranger (LEO) $140 $75 

Deputy Refuge 

Manager 

$151 $86 

Outdoor Recreation $140 $75 

Planner 

Equipment Operator $140 $75 

Habitat Projects $283 $30 

(invasive plants) 

Research/Monitoring 

(RLGIS) 

$56 $8 

Total $1,061 k $435 k 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

78 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

The second system, the Maintenance 

Management System (MMS), documents the 

equipment, buildings, and other existing 

properties that require repair or replacement. 

Table 6 lists MMS projects required to 

implement the CCP and maintain the 

structures and equipment to a safe and 

productive standard for the 15 years of the 

CCP. 

Table 6. Maintenance Management System 

Projects 

Project Cost 

Replace 1982 tractor $88,000 

Expand visitor center $627,000 

Replace unsafe shop 

building 

$410,000 

6.5 Step-down Management Plans 

The Kirwin NWR CCP is intended to be a 

broad umbrella plan that outlines general 

concepts and objectives for habitat, wildlife, 

public use, cultural resources, and partnerships 

that will guide refuge management over the 

next 15 years. Step-down management plans 

provide greater detail for implementing 

specific actions authorized by the CCP. Table 7 

presents those plans that are anticipated to be 

needed for Kirwin NWR, their current status, 

and next revision date. 

Table 7. Step-down Management Plans for 

Kirwin NWR 

Step-down Status of Plan Proposed Management Year Revision Date Plan Completed 

Integrated Pest 

Management 

1996 2010 

Visitor Services 1990 2012 

Hunting 1998 Incorporated 

in next 

revision of 

visitor services 

plan 

Habitat 1997, 2001 2011 

Management 

Fire Management 2002 2007 

Cultural none 2014 

Resource 

Management 

6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to 

long-term management of biotic resources. 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 the step-down plans (see section 6.5). 

6.7 Plan Amendment and Revision 

This CCP will be reviewed annually to determine 

the need for revision. A revision will occur if and 

when significant information becomes available, 

such as a change in ecological conditions. The final 

CCP will be augmented by detailed step-down 

management plans to address the completion of 

specific strategies in support of the CCP goals and 

objectives. Revisions to the CCP and the stepdown management plans will be subject to public 

review and NEPA compliance. 

At a minimum, this plan will be evaluated every 5 

years and revised after 15 years. 
5—Environmental Consequences 79 
 

 

Contributors 


Planning Team 

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

team for the Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. Many others contributed insight and support. The draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment were written by refuge staff and the 

refuge planner, with input from other team members. 

William Busby, associate scientist Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, KS 

Ron Cole, former refuge supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Lakewood, 

CO 

Mark Ely, geographic information system specialist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

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

Toni Griffin, planning team leader USFWS, 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, Lakewood, CO 

Diane Stockman, administrative assistant Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kirwin, KS 

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

Dave Wiseman, refuge supervisor USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Other Contributors 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would like to acknowledge the efforts of the following individuals 

toward the completion of this CCP. The diversity, talents, and knowledge contributed by these individuals 

dramatically improved the vision and completeness of this document. 

Rick Coleman, assistant regional director USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Galen Green, fire ecologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Linda Kelly, CCP branch chief USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Wayne King, regional biologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Murray Laubhan, biologist U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Jamestown, ND 

Rachael Laubhan, biologist USFWS, Jamestown, ND 

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 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 
Contributors 81 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A. Glossary
 

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 

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. 

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. 

Appendix A—Glossary 83 

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 dryingout 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

84 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 

seed-producing annual, biennial, or perennial 

plant that does not develop persistent woody 

tissue but dies down at the end of the growing 

season. 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block 

of habitat that creates isolated patches of the 

original habitat that are interspersed with a 

variety of other habitat types (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). 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 85 

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 shortgrass 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, 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Glossary 87 

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. 

SDGFP—South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish and Parks. 

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 is permitted during 

all dark goose seasons. 

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, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 nightherons, 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 warmseason 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. 

WMD—See wetland management district. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent 

cover. 

WPA—waterfowl production area. 
Glossary 89 

 

Appendix B. Public Involvement 

Planning team response to public comments will be completed prior to final approval of the plan. 
Public Involvement 91 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C. Key Legislation and Policies 


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. 

American Conservation and Youth Service 

Corps: Offers an opportunity for young adults 

between the ages of 16-25, or in the case of 

summer programs, 15-21, to engage in 

approved human and natural resources projects 

which benefit the public or are carried out on 

federal or Indian lands. To be eligible for 

assistance, natural resources programs will 

focus on improvement of wildlife habitat and 

recreational areas, fish culture, fishery 

assistance, erosion, wetlands protection, 

pollution control and similar projects. 

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): 

Prohibits discrimination in public 

accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the 

scientific investigation of antiquities on federal 

land and provides penalties for unauthorized 

removal of objects taken or collected without a 

permit. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation 

Act (1974): Directs the preservation of historic 

and archaeological data in federal construction 

projects. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(1979) As Amended: Protects materials of 

archaeological interest from unauthorized 

removal or destruction and requires federal 

managers to develop plans and schedules to 

locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires 

federally owned, leased, or funded buildings 

and facilities to be accessible to persons with 

disabilities. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

(1940): Prohibits the taking or possession of 

and commerce in bald and golden eagles, with 

limited exceptions. 

Clean Air Act (1977) As Amended: Establishes 

federal standards for various pollutants from both 

stationary and mobile sources and to provide for 

the regulation of polluting emissions via state 

implementation plants. In addition, and of special 

interest for National Wildlife Refuges, some 

amendments are designed to prevent significant 

deterioration in certain areas where air quality 

exceeds national standards, and to provide for 

improved air quality in areas which do not meet 

federal standards (“nonattainment” areas). Federal 

facilities are required to comply with air quality 

standards to the same extent as nongovernmental 

entities (42 U.S.C. 7418). 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major 

wetland modifications. 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986): 

Authorizes the purchase of wetlands from Land 

and Water Conservation Fund moneys, removing a 

prior prohibition on such acquisitions. The Act also 

requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, requires the 

States to include wetlands in their Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plans, and transfers to the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amount equal 

to import duties on arms and ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all 

federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of endangered and threatened species. 

Environmental Education Act (1990): 

Establishes the Office of Environmental Education 

within the Environmental Protection Agency to 

develop and administer a federal environmental 

education program. The Office is required to 

develop and support environmental programs in 

consultation with other federal natural resource 

management agencies, including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Executive Order No. 11593, Protection and 

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

(1971): Consults with federal and state historic 

preservation officers to comply with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, if the Service proposes any development 

activities that would affect the archaeological or 

historical sites. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Order No. 11987, Exotic 

Organisms (1977): Requires federal agencies, 

to the extent permitted by law, to: restrict the 

introduction of exotic species into the natural 

ecosystems on lands and waters owned or 

leased by the United States; encourage States, 

local governments, and private citizens to 

prevent the introduction of exotic species into 

natural ecosystems of the U.S.; restrict the 

importation and introduction of exotic species 

into any natural U.S. ecosystems as a result of 

activities they undertake, fund, or authorize; 

and restrict the use of federal funds, programs, 

or authorities to export native species for 

introduction into ecosystems outside the U.S. 

where they do not occur naturally. 

Executive Order No. 11988, Flood plain 

Management (1977): Provides leadership and 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

served by flood plains. 

Executive Order No. 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands (1977): Directs all federal agencies 

to avoid, if possible, adverse impacts to 

wetlands and to preserve and enhance the 

natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Each 

agency shall avoid undertaking or assisting in 

wetland construction projects unless the head 

of the agency determines that there is no 

practicable alternative to such construction and 

that the proposed action includes measures to 

minimize harm. Also, agencies shall provide 

opportunity for early public review of proposals 

for construction in wetlands, including those 

projects not requiring an EIS. 

Executive Order No. 12898, Environmental 

Justice (1994): Requires minority and lowincome populations an opportunity to comment 

on the development and design of Reclamation 

activities. Federal agencies shall make 

achieving environmental justice part of their 

missions by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income 

populations. 

Executive Order No. 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. 

Appendix C—Key Legislation and Policies 93 

Executive Order No. 13007, Indian Sacred Sites 

(1996): Directs federal land management agencies 

to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious 

practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the 

physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where 

appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred 

sites. 

Executive Order No. 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

(1998): Maintains a unique legal relationship with 

Indian tribal governments as set forth in the 

Constitution of the United States, treaties, 

statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. 

Since the formation of the Union, the United States 

has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent 

nations under its protection. In treaties, our Nation 

has guaranteed the right of Indian tribes to selfgovernment. As domestic dependent nations, 

Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers 

over their members and territory. The United 

States continues to work with Indian tribes on a 

government-to-government basis to address issues 

concerning Indian tribal self-government, trust 

resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other 

rights. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (1937) 

As Amended: Provides funding to States for game 

and nongame wildlife restoration work. This Act, 

commonly referred to as the “Pittman-Robertson 

Act,” funds from an excise tax on sporting arms 

and ammunition are appropriated to the Secretary 

of the Interior annually and apportioned to States 

on a formula basis for approved land acquisition, 

research, development and management projects 

and hunter safety programs. 

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. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Establishes a 

comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and 

development of refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (1980): 

Creates a mechanism for federal matching funding 

of the development of state conservation plans for 

nongame fish and wildlife. Subsequent amendments 

to this law require that the Secretary monitor and 

assess migratory nongame birds, determine the 

effects of environmental changes and human 

activities, identify birds likely to be candidates for 

endangered species listing, and identify 

conservation actions that would prevent this from 

being necessary. In 1989, Congress also directed 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

the Secretary to identify lands and waters in 

the Western Hemisphere, the protection, 

management or acquisition of which would 

foster conservation of migratory nongame 

birds. These activities are intended to assist 

the Secretary in fulfilling the Secretary’s 

responsibilities under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird 

conservation Act, and provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act implementing the 

Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife 

Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934): 

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

assist federal, state and other agencies in 

development, protection, rearing and stocking 

fish and wildlife on federal lands, and to study 

effects of pollution on fish and wildlife. The Act 

also requires consultation with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the wildlife agency of any 

State wherein the waters of any stream or 

other water body are proposed to be 

impounded, diverted, channelized or otherwise 

controlled or modified by any federal agency, or 

any private agency under federal permit or 

license, with a view to preventing loss of, or 

damage to, wildlife resources in connection 

with such water resource projects. The Act 

further authorizes federal water resource 

agencies to acquire lands or interests in 

connection with water use projects specifically 

for mitigation and enhancement of fish and 

wildlife. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): 

Allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter 

into agreements with private landowners for 

wildlife management purposes. 

Food Security Act (1985) As Amended: 

Authorizes acquisition of easements in real 

property for a term of not less than 50 years for 

conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act 

(1935): Declares a national policy to preserve 

historic sites and objects of national 

significance, including those located on refuges. 

This Act popularly known as the Historic Sites 

Act, among other things, designates National 

Historic and Natural Landmarks under 

authority of this Act. As of January 1989, 31 

National Wildlife Refuges contained such sites. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

(1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of 

surplus federal land, outer continental shelf oil 

and gas sales, and other sources for land 

acquisition under several authorities. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): 

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, 

rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act (1934) As Amended: Requires each 

waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to 

possess a valid federal hunting stamp. The “Duck 

Stamp Act,” as this authority is commonly called, 

requires receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited in a special treasury account known as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the 

protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of 

seasons, and other regulations including the closing 

of areas, federal or nonfederal, to the hunting of 

migratory birds. 

National Community Service Act (1990): 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of 

the U.S. in full- and/or part-time projects designed 

to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, 

enhance educational skills, and fulfill environmental 

needs. Several provisions are of particular interest 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969) As 

Amended: Requires all federal agencies to 

examine the impacts upon the environment that 

their actions might have, to incorporate the best 

available environmental information, and the use of 

public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. All federal agencies 

must integrate NEPA with other planning 

requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documentation to facilitate sound environmental 

decision-making. NEPA requires the disclosure of 

the environmental impacts of any major federal 

action that affects in a significant way the quality 

of the human environment. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) As 

Amended: Establishes as policy that the federal 

government is to provide leadership in the 

preservation of the nation’s prehistoric and historic 

resources. As of January, 1989, 91 historic sites on 

National Wildlife Refuges have been placed on the 

National Register. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act (1966): Authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to “permit the use of any area within the 

Refuge System for any purpose including, but not 

limited to, hunting, fishing, public recreation and 

accommodations, and access whenever he 

determines that such uses are compatible with the 

major purposes for which such areas were 

established.” Consolidates authorities for the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

various categories of areas previously 

established that are administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for conservation of 

fish and wildlife, including species that are 

threatened with extinction, all lands, waters, 

and interests therein administered by the 

Secretary as wildlife refuges, etc., which are 

hereby designated as the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Provides that the Secretary 

may authorize hunting and fishing to the extent 

practicable and consistent with state fish and 

wildlife laws and regulations. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act (1997): Sets the mission and 

administrative policy for all refuges in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Clearly 

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge 

System; establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of six priority public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining compatibility; establishes the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior 

for managing and protecting the Refuge 

System; and requires a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 

2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge 

Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(1968): Provides funding and administrative 

direction for implementation of the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan and the 

Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between 

Canada, U.S. and Mexico. The Act converts the 

Pittman-Robertson account into a trust fund, 

with the interest available without 

appropriation through the year 2006 to carry 

out the programs authorized by the Act, along 

with an authorization for annual appropriation 

of $15 million plus an amount equal to the fines 

and forfeitures collected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. 

Available funds may be expended, upon 

approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 

percent of the United States share of the cost 

of wetlands conservation projects in Canada, 

Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of 

the cost of projects on federal lands). At least 

50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the 

funds received are to go to Canada and Mexico 

each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use 

of refuges for recreation when such uses are 

compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes 

Appendix C—Key Legislation and Policies 95 

and when sufficient funds are available to manage 

the uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935) As 

Amended: Provides for payments to counties in 

lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale 

of products from refuges. Public Law 88-523 (1964) 

revised this Act and required that all revenues 

received from refuge products, such as animals, 

timber and minerals, or from leases or other 

privileges, be deposited in a special treasury 

account and net receipts distributed to counties for 

public schools and roads. Payments to counties 

were established as: 1) on acquired land, the 

greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents 

per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the 

appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts 

produced from the land; and 2) on land withdrawn 

from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts 

and basic payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 

U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of 

taxes on public lands. 

Refuge Trespass Act (1906): Provides first 

federal protection for wildlife on National Wildlife 

Refuges. This Act made it unlawful to hunt, trap, 

capture, willfully disturb, or kill any bird or wild 

animal, or take or destroy the eggs of any such 

birds, on any lands of the United States set apart 

or reserved as refuges or breeding grounds for 

such birds or animals by any law, proclamation, or 

executive order, except under rules and regulations 

of the Secretary. The Act also protects government 

property on such lands. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

all facilities and programs funded by the federal 

government to ensure that anybody can participate 

in any program. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act (1948): Provides that 

upon determination by the Administrator of the 

General Services Administration, real property no 

longer needed by a federal agency can be 

transferred, without reimbursement, to the 

Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular 

value for migratory birds, or to a state agency for 

other wildlife conservation purposes. 

Wilderness Act (1964): Directs the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every 

roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every 

roadless island (regardless of size) within National 

Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D. Divestiture Consideration
 

Introduction 

During the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) process, Kirwin National Wildlife 

Refuge (Kirwin NWR) was identified as a 

candidate for divestiture from the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). The 

refuge was analyzed by the planning team, 

Regional Office, and the refuge manager to 

determine if it warranted status as a national 

wildlife refuge. Following the analysis, a 

decision was made by the Regional Office to 

retain Kirwin in the Refuge System. 

This document utilizes region 6’s newly 

developed divestiture model to articulate why 

Kirwin NWR was not recommended for 

divestiture. 

The divestiture model represents a set of 

criteria for measuring the value of a refuge. 

Designed as a preplanning tool, the model 

allows planners and refuge managers to 

determine if a refuge or easement refuge 

should be considered for divestiture. If the 

model indicates that a refuge should be 

considered for divestiture, the process and 

consequences of divestiture will be studied 

further during the CCP process. In the case of 

Kirwin, the model proved that the refuge was 

not a candidate for divestiture. 

The Divestiture Model—Criteria and 

Rules 

Region 6’s divestiture model was developed 

during a two-day workshop held December 14– 

15, 2004, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Regional Office in Denver. The purpose of the 

workshop was to standardize policy in region 6 

for identifying which refuges to consider for 

divestiture. At this time, the model is still 

being tested and has not been finalized. 

The model consists of a set of eight questions 

that must be addressed when considering a 

refuge for divestiture. The questions were 

prioritized as primary and secondary criteria 

for evaluation. 

Primary Criteria 

1.	 Does the refuge achieve one or more of the 

NWRS goals? 

Explanation: Look beyond the purpose to see if the 

refuge is meeting NWRS goals. refuge purpose is 

forever, but may become obsolete over time (e.g., 

recovery of threatened and endangered species). 

Obsolete purpose does not necessarily mean 

divestiture of the refuge should be pursued. 

2.	 Does the refuge meet its purpose (fulfill the 

refuge’s intent and statutory purpose)? 

Explanation: Try to understand the intent of 

decision makers at the time the refuge was 

established. 

3.	 Does the refuge provide substantial support 

for migratory bird species, provide important 

sheltering habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, or support species 

identified in authorizing legislation? 

Explanation: The planning team that answers this 

question must define “substantial.” Refuge context 

is the key consideration. Substantial is relative to 

species, location, and region. 

Example: Flocks of migratory birds (thousands) 

would be considered substantial. 

4A. Does the refuge have biological integrity? 

If not, is it feasible to restore the biological 

integrity of the converted or degraded 

habitat? 

To answer “yes” on biological integrity, the answer 

on both 4A and 4B should be yes. 

Explanation: The presence of native habitat is not 

enough to meet Refuge System standards; the 

Service is not trying to save every remnant species. 

Identify what has changed from presettlement 

habitat conditions and consider the contribution to 

regional biodiversity. 

4B. Does the Service have or can it reasonably 

acquire the right to restore the habitat? 

Biological integrity = Native habitat and 

contribution to regional biodiversity. 

Degraded = Native vegetation exists but the value 

has been reduced due to nonnatives and loss of 

ecological functions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. 	 Does the refuge contribute to landscape 

conservation, provide a stepping stone for 

migratory birds, or serve as a unique 

habitat patch important to the 

conservation of a trust species? 

Secondary Criteria 

6. 	 Politics/Community—Is there such 

significant community interest in and 

support for the refuge that divesture 

would result in unacceptable long-term 

public relations? 

Explanation: Environmental education is a 

means to an end, not a purpose in itself; 

conservation must be broader than the refuge. 

Public use should be considered as criteria only 

when public use is legislated in the purpose. 

7. 	 Jurisdiction—Do we have or can we 

acquire the jurisdiction to meet the 

refuge’s purpose, Refuge System mission 

and goals, and prevent incompatible uses? 

8. 	 Other Land Manager—Can another 

agency or organization achieve most or all 

of the purposes of the refuge without the 

Service having to incur costs? 

Only ask this question if the answer to 

questions 1 and 2 are “no.” 

Additional Considerations 

9.	 Cost/Liability—Cost will never be a 

primary or secondary factor for 

divesting a refuge; cost (in itself) should 

not be a criterion for divesting land. 

	 If cost is a consideration for divestiture, 

it is because some other factor is driving 

the decision. 

	 Cost is a piece of information that can be 

used to justify decision. 

	 Liability is an additive to a decision to 

either keep or divest a refuge, but it is 

not a primary or secondary decisionmaking criteria. 

Rules 

The following five rules organize the responses 

to the above criteria questions and determine 

whether to consider a refuge for divestiture. 

Rule 1: IF the refuge cannot meet one or more 

Refuge System goals, THEN it should be 

considered for divestiture. 

Appendix D—Divestiture Consideration 97 

Rule 2: IF the answers to questions 1 through 4 are 

as follows: 

1.	 Yes — Meets a Refuge System goal, but only 

the education goal 

2.	 No — Does not meet refuge purpose 

3.	 No — Does not substantially support trust 

species 

4.	 No — Does not possess biological integrity 

THEN the refuge should be considered for 

divestiture. 

Rule 3: IF the answers to questions 1 through 5 are 

as follows: 

1.	 Yes — Meets a Refuge System goal, but only 

the education goal 

2.	 Yes — Purpose 

3.	 No — Trust Species 

4.	 No — Biological Integrity 

5.	 No — Connectivity 

THEN the refuge should be considered for 

divestiture. 

Rule 4: IF the answers to questions 1 through 6 are 

as follows: 

1.	 Yes — Goal 

2.	 Maybe — Purpose 

3.	 No — Trust Species 

4.	 Yes — Biological Integrity 

5.	 No — Connectivity 

6.	 Yes — Jurisdiction 

THEN keep the refuge (positive rule). 

Rule 5: IF the answers to questions 1 through 3 are 

as follows: 

1.	 Yes — Goal 

2.	 Yes — Purpose 

3.	 Yes — Trust Species 

THEN keep the refuge (positive rule). 

Applying the Model to Kirwin NWR 

When applied to Kirwin NWR, the divestiture 

model indicated that Kirwin should not be 

considered for divestiture. 

This section provides a detailed and objective 

account of how Kirwin was evaluated using the 

divestiture model. In keeping with the model’s 

format, the refuge is subject to the criteria 

questions until the responses represent one of the 

above-mentioned rules—either to keep the refuge 

or consider it for divestiture. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

98 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Primary Criteria 

1. 	 Does the refuge achieve one or more of 

the Refuge System goals? 

Kirwin NWR achieves all six of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System goals. The refuge 

meets its purpose by perpetuating migratory 

bird populations. Kirwin NWR conserves and 

restores wildlife populations and mixed-grass 

prairie habitat. Additionally, the refuge 

conserves diversity of fish, wildlife and plants 

including 236 bird species, 30 reptile species, 8 

amphibian species, 19 fish species, 45 mammal 

species and over 138 plant species. 

Furthermore, Kirwin NWR conserves and 

restores a representative ecosystem of the 

United States—the mixed-grass prairie. The 

refuge lies solidly in the mixed-grass prairie 

ecoregion and is dominated by the bluestemgrama association. Currently 5,000 acres of the 

refuge are either unplowed virgin sod or in 

various stages of prairie restoration. Another 

1,400 acres of the refuge are slated to be 

restored to prairie by 2008. Adjacent to the 

southeast side of the refuge are over 18,000 

acres of native mixed-grass prairie. Adjacent to 

the west side of the refuge are over 22,000 

acres of native mixed-grass prairie. Currently, 

these two parcels of habitat do not connect. The 

refuge is the hinge-pin linking these two large 

prairie tracts. Mixed-grass prairie will be 

restored in critical areas of the refuge to 

ensure that an expansive block of over 46,000 

acres of mixed-grass prairie is added to the 

landscape for the benefit of migratory 

grassland birds by 2008. 

Compatible wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities at Kirwin NWR ensure that the 

refuge fosters understanding and appreciation 

of fish, wildlife and plants and their 

conservation. In 2004, visitor use days totaled 

75,000 (fishing 34,000, hunting 29,000, wildlife 

observation and photography 12,000). Annual 

events at Kirwin include Eagle Day (400 

visitors), Kids Fishing Day, Eco-Meet, monthly 

environmental education programs, and Boy 

Scout/Girl Scout programs. Although 

noncompatible uses are permitted on the 

refuge, these uses have been declining in recent 

years. The refuge has made a concerted effort 

to minimize the impacts of these noncompatible 

uses on the habitat. Over the course of the 

entire 2004 summer, refuge staff saw only four 

water skiers and one jet skier. On Labor Day 

weekend, generally the last opportunity of the 

year to camp, only four campers were observed 

on the refuge. One alternative in the draft CCP 

calls for the prohibition of all noncompatible 

uses. 

2. 	 Does the refuge meet its purpose (fulfill the 

refuge’s intent and statutory purpose)? 

Kirwin NWR’s purpose reads as follows: 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge .”.. 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,...the 

Secretary of the Interior shall have the right to 

assume the management and administration of 

such lands in behalf of the National Migratory 

Bird Management Program...” 16 U.S.C. 715d 

(Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

In keeping with the intent of the above legislation, 

Kirwin NWR is managed for wildlife with a special 

emphasis on migratory birds. (For further 

discussion on migratory bird conservation, see 

question 3.) 

3. 	 Does the refuge provide substantial support 

for migratory bird species, provide important 

sheltering, feeding and breeding habitat for 

threatened and endangered species, or 

support species identified in authorizing 

legislation? 

Kirwin NWR does provide substantial support for 

migratory birds such as waterfowl, grassland 

dependents, and bald eagles. The refuge provides 

feeding and resting areas for thousands of 

waterfowl annually. Peak numbers for waterfowl 

include 70,000 Canada geese, 39,000 white-fronted 

geese, 26,000 snow/Ross’ geese, and 218,000 ducks. 

Great blue heron and double-crested cormorant 

rookeries are also present on the refuge. 

Deepwater Habitat (1,300 acres) 

Species of concern that use deepwater habitat 

include eared grebe, western grebe, American 

white pelican, redhead, lesser scaup, Franklin’s 

gull, common tern, and black tern. Threatened and 

endangered species that use this habitat are bald 

eagle and least tern. 

Shoreline Habitat (200 acres) 

Species of concern that use shoreline habitat 

include eared grebe, western grebe, American 

white pelican, Canada goose, white-front goose, 

snow-Ross’ 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 this habitat are 

bald eagle and least tern. 

Riparian Habitat (2 miles) 

Species of concern that use riparian habitat 

include wood duck, Swainson’s hawk, northern 

bobwhite quail, yellow-billed cuckoo, redheaded woodpecker, western kingbird, 

loggerhead shrike, Bell’s vireo, Baltimore 

oriole, American tree sparrow, and Harris’ 

sparrow. Bald eagles are a threatened species 

found in the riparian habitat. 

Prairie Habitat (5,000 acres currently, 6,400 

potentially following restoration; additionally, 

over 40,000 acres of prairie on private land 

adjacent to the refuge) 

Species of concern that use prairie 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. 

Dry Reservoir/Transition Zone Habitat (3,500 

acres) 

This area consists of prairie, cropland, shrub 

savanna, dense trees, and riparian habitats. 

Species of concern that use dry 

reservoir/transition zone habitat include 

Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, greater 

prairie chicken, yellow-billed cuckoo, shorteared 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 that use 

this habitat type are bald eagle and whooping 

crane. 

Threatened and Endangered Species Summary 

Up to 105 bald and golden eagles utilize the 

refuge from October to March every year. In 

normal years, least terns occur on the refuge 

with nesting occurring periodically. Whooping 

cranes annually visit the refuge during spring 

and fall migration. 

Rule 5 Applies 

According to Rule 5 of the Divestiture model, 

any refuge that answers “yes” to the first three 

questions regarding meeting Refuge System 

goals, fulfilling the refuge purpose, and 

supporting trust species does not warrant 

Appendix D—Divestiture Consideration 99 

further consideration for divestiture. Therefore, 

Kirwin NWR is not a candidate for divestiture and 

should remain in the NWRS. 

Other Considerations 

Although Kirwin is not subject to the other criteria 

because it falls out of the model with the positive 

responses to questions 1, 2, and 3, the remaining 

primary criteria do provide additional support for 

the argument to keep Kirwin in the Refuge System 

and warrant a brief discussion in this summary 

report. 

4A. Does the refuge have biological integrity? If 

not, is it feasible to restore the biological 

integrity? 

4B. Does the Service have or can it reasonably 

acquire the right to restore the habitat? 

Kirwin NWR does have biological integrity. 

Located within the mixed-grass prairie ecoregion, 

the refuge contains 5,000 acres of prairie—a 

combination of restored grasslands and unplowed, 

virgin sod. Kirwin contributes to regional 

biodiversity by providing feeding and resting areas 

for multitudes of migratory birds within the 

Central Flyway. Restoration of prairie habitat is 

ongoing and refuge staff endeavors to restore an 

additional 1,400 acres of prairie by 2008. 

5. 	 Does the refuge contribute to landscape 

conservation, provide a stepping stone for 

migratory birds or serve as a unique habitat 

patch important to the conservation of a trust 

species? 

Kirwin NWR’s contribution to landscape 

conservation is evidenced by its location between 

two fragmented tracts of native mixed-grass 

prairie. Over 18,000 acres of native mixed-grass 

prairie abut the refuge’s southeast boundary and to 

the west of the refuge lies over 22,000 acres of 

native mixed-grass prairie. With its own 5,000 

acres of virgin or restored prairie habitat, Kirwin 

NWR serves as the connecting piece between these 

two large patches of native mixed-grass prairie. 

When considered altogether, this 45,000-acre patch 

of prairie provides substantial habitat for 

migratory grassland birds. 

The refuge also provides a stepping stone to the 

waterfowl resources of the Central Flyway by 

providing resting and feeding areas during 

migrations and during the winter for 70,000 Canada 

geese, 39,000 white-fronted geese, 26,000 

snow/Ross’ geese, and 218,000 ducks. Given Kirwin 

NWR’s location in the relatively arid mixed-grass 

prairie, the deepwater, shoreline, riparian, and 

upland habitats provide an important stepping 

stone for over 230 trust species. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E. Draft Compatibility Determinations
 

Refuge Name: Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge; 

Established June 17, 1954. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

Refuge Purpose: 

.”.. 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, ...” 16 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the 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: Use of 

Farming, Grazing, and Haying as Management 

Tools⎯Continue upland management activities 

such as farming, grazing, and haying that are 

conducted under cooperative farming or specialuse 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, grazing, and haying 

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 would be 

needed to fully accomplish certain goals of the 

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 the draft 

CCP, management would 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 long-term benefits to wildlife 

outweigh these short-term disturbances. 

No cultural resources would 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E—Draft Compatibility Determinations 101 

Justification: To maintain and enhance habitat 

for migratory birds, 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, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education by 

attracting and concentrating wildlife in areas 

where they are highly visible. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2015 

2. Description of Proposed Use: Environmental 

Education and Interpretation⎯Continue to 

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 usually 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 of the refuge office. This expansion 

would provide enough room, displays, and 

educational materials to maximize the public’s 

learning experience while visiting the refuge. 

The remainder of the refuge would provide 

excellent opportunities for environmental 

learning. These uses occur year-round. 

The CCP proposes to continue with the above 

uses and add the following to improve 

environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities for visitors. 

 Expand the multi-purpose room of the 

refuge office. 

 Update and improve refuge signs. 

 Update existing brochures. 

	 Expand and enhance environmental 

education through various initiatives such 

as educational displays, presentations, and 

websites that feature 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 refuge operations needs 

system (RONS) and maintenance management 

system (MMS) projects in chapter 6. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Minimal 

disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat 

would 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 would 

occur in areas frequented by visitors. There 

would be some minor damage to vegetation, 

littering, and increased maintenance. Location 

and time limitations placed on environmental 

education and interpretation activities would 

ensure that this activity would have only minor 

impacts on wildlife and would not detract from 

the primary purpose of the refuge. 

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. 

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 would not materially interfere 

with or detract from the purpose for which the 

refuge was established. 

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 would gain knowledge and an 

appreciation of fish, wildlife, and their habitats, 

which would lead to increased public awareness 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

and stewardship of migratory birds, and natural 

resources. Increased appreciation for migratory 

birds, and natural resources would 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: 2020 

3. Description of Proposed Use: Wildlife 

Observation and Wildlife Photography⎯

Continue to provide opportunities that support 

priority wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are 

facilitated by two hiking trails, two pull-outs with 

pergollas (observation platforms), and several 

parking areas (that are also used in support of 

hunting and fishing). 

The CCP proposes to continue the above uses 

and add the folowing 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. 

Availability of Resources: Currently, the 

programs for wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography are administered using available 

resources. Implementing new programs, 

activites, and facilities outlined in the CCP are 

tied to funding requests in the form of RONS and 

MMS projects (chapter 6). 

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 would have only minor impacts 

on wildlife and would 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 minmize 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 would not interfere with the habitat goals 

and objectives or purposes for which it was 

established. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2020 

4. Description of Use: Recreational Fishing⎯

Continue 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 if available. 

Fishing visitations and success fluctuate 

according to water conditions in the 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. 

Availability of Resources: The fishing program 

is administered using available resources. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Fishing and other 

human activites 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 

overnight. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E—Draft Compatibility Determinations 103 

Justification: Based on the biological impacts 

addressed above and in the EA, it is determined 

that recreational fishing would 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: 2020 

5. Description of Use: Recreational Hunting⎯

Kirwin NWR 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 during dark goose seasons. 

	 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. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Hunting and other 

human activites 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 

areas minimizes habitat damage and 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 

established roads/trails and parking areas. 

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 NWR would not materially 

interfere with or detract from the purposes for 

which this refuge was established or its habitat 

goals and objectives. 

One of the secondary goals of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System is to provide 

opportunities for public hunting when it is found 

to be compatible. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2020 

6. Description of Use: Boating in support of 

the six priority public uses⎯Continue to 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. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Hunting and other 

human activities cause disturbance to wildlife. 

Disturbance to migrating and wintering 

waterfowl will be reduced by implementing the 

seasonal boat closure on the reservoir north of 

Crappie Point. 

Determination: Boating in support of the six 

priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation) is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility 

 Implement a seasonal boat closure from 

October 1 to April 1, on the reservoir 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104 	 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

north of Crappie Point, when the water 

level is below 1,722 feet in elevation. 

	 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 (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation) within the Kirwin 

NWR would 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 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, 

interpretation). By specifying areas, time of year, 

no wake zones, and implementing the seasonal 

boat closure, boating is determined to be 

compatible. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2015 

7. Description of Use: Firewood Cutting⎯ 

Continue to allow the cutting of firewood 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 

resaons include reducing fuel loading, and 

preventing destruction/killing of desireable live 

native trees in portions of riparian areas, etc. 

Availability of Resources: Resources are 

currently available to oversee the cutting of 

firewood. The workload of the staff involves 

issuing permits, checking permits in the field, etc. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Anticipated 

adverse impacts to the refuge are minimal. 

Temporary displacement of wildlife from the area 

where cutting in occurring 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, gaining 

physical access to allow for noxious weed control, 

etc. Using contractors to remove trees costs 

approximately $200 per acre, depending on how 

dense the trees are. Typically trees are piled and 

burned. Burning of the piles can sterilize the soil 

for a period of time. 

Most of the trees are in places that were 

historically migratory grassland bird habitat. It 

is identified in the CCP that a block of 5,000 acres 

of prairie will be restored/enhanced. In order to 

accomplish this goal, removal of trees must occur. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2016 
Appendix E—Draft Compatibility Determinations 105 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F. 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 

and including native American ignitions, have 

played an important disturbance role in many 

ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the impacts insects and diseases, 

stimulating regeneration, cycling critical 

nutrients, and providing a diversity of habitats 

for plant species and wildlife. 

When fire is excluded on a broad scale (i.e., 

several decades) as it has been in many areas, 

the unnatural accumulation of living and dead 

fuel 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 wildfires often pose risks to 

public and firefighter safety. In addition, they 

threaten property and resource values such as 

wildlife habitat, grazing opportunities, timber, 

soils, water quality, and cultural resources. 

Return of fire is essential for healthy 

vegetation and wildlife habitat in most 

ecosystems including grasslands and wetlands, 

and in woodlands and forests. 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 first be 

integrated into land and resource management 

plans and activities on a broad scale. 

Reintroduced fire can: 

	 Improve waterfowl habitat, wetlands 

and riparian areas by reducing the 

density or modify the species in the 

vegetation. 

	 Improve deer and elk habitat, especially in 

areas with shortages such as winter habitat 

and on spring and fall transitional ranges. 

 Sustain biological diversity; 


 Improve access in woodlands and 


shrublands. 

 Improve soil fertility. 

 Improve the quality and amount of livestock 

forage. 

 Improve growth in immature woodlands by 

reducing density. 

 Remove excessive build-up of fuels. 

 Reduce susceptibility of plants to insects 

and disease caused by moisture and nutrient 

stress. 

	 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 

utilize the appropriate management response for 

all wildland fires regardless of the ignition source. 

This policy provides eight 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 fires 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, 

	 FMPs and activities incorporate public 

health and environmental quality 

consideration, federal, state, tribal, local, 

interagency, and international 

coordination and cooperation are 

essential, 

	 Standardization of policies and 

procedures among federal agencies is an 

ongoing objective. 

The Fire Management considerations, 

guidance, and direction should be addressed in 

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

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan). Fire 

Management Plans are step-down processes 

from the land-use plans and habitat plans, with 

more detail on fire suppression, fire use, and 

fire management activities. 

Management Direction 

The Kirwin Refuge will protect life, property, 

and other resources from wildfire by safely 

suppressing all wildfires. Prescribed fire and 

manual and/or mechanical fuel treatments will 

be utilized 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 aspects of the fire management program 

would be conducted in a manner consistent 

with applicable laws, policies, and regulations. 

The station will maintain a Fire Management 

Plan and implement the 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, 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. 

Appendix F—Fire Management Program 107 

Fire Management Objective: 

Fire is an important management tool that can be 

utilized to accomplish habitat management 

objectives. If not used properly, fire is also a tool 

that can quickly damage or destroy natural 

resources, equipment, building and property, and 

hurt or kill those that work with it. Prescribed fire 

and manual and/or mechanical fuels treatments will 

be used to reduce hazardous fuels and on refuge 

lands to reduce the intensity and severity of 

wildland fires. Special attention will be given to 

Wildland Urban Interface areas, both on Serviceowned and adjacent lands, in order to reduce the 

risk of wildfires to communities and improvements. 

Strategies: 

Strategies and tactics that consider public and 

firefighter safety as well as resource values at risk 

will be used. Wildland fire suppression, prescribed 

fire methods, manual and/or mechanical means, 

timing, and monitoring are all found in a more 

detailed list, in a step-down Fire Management Plan. 

All management actions would use prescribed fire 

and manual and/or mechanical means to restore and 

maintain desired habitat conditions and control 

nonnative vegetation and the spread of woody 

vegetation within the diverse ecosystem habitats. 

The prescribed fire program will be outlined in the 

Fire Management Plan for the refuge. Detailed 

Prescribed Burn Plans will be developed which 

describe the following: 

 burn units and their predominant 

vegetation; 

 the primary objectives for the units; 

 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; and 

 post-burn monitoring. 

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 fuels (e.g., wildlife habitat improvement 

burns vs. fuel reduction burns). The refuge will 

meet the Clean Air Act emission standards by 

adhering to the Kansas State Implementation Plan 

requirements during all prescribed fire activities. 
 

 

 

108 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 coordinated and collaborative 

manner with federal and nonfederal partners. 

With the signature of this CCP, a new Fire 

Management Plan would be developed for the 

Kirwin NWR, as 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 F—Fire Management Program 109 
Appendix G. Species List
 

This appendix shows 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). 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Amphibians 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Great plains narrow- Gastrophryne olivacea 

mouthed 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 

Birds 

American avocet Recurvirostra Americana 

American black duck Anas rubripes 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

American coot Fulica Americana 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

American golden plover Pluvialis dominica 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

American pipit Anthus rubescens 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 

American white pelican Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos 

American widgeon Anas Americana 

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia 

Barn owl Tyto alba 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica 

Barred owl Strix varia 

Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii 

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii 

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia 

Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia 

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus 

melanocephalus 

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

Black-throated gray Dendroica nigrescens 

warbler 

Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata 

Black tern Chlidonias niger 

Blue grosbeak Passerina caerulea 

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata 

Blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Bonaparte’s gull Larus Philadelphia 

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

Brown creeper Certhia Americana 

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia 

Canada goose Branta Canadensis 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Caspian tern Sterna caspia 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus 

Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 
Appendix G—Species List 111 

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera 

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida 

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Common loon Gavia immer 

Common merganser Mergus merganser 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Common redpoll Carduelis flammea 

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago 

Common tern Sterna hirundo 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

Dickcissel Spiza Americana 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna 

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Eastern screech owl Megascops asio 

Eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis 

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri 

Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus 

savannarum 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Greater prairie chicken Tympanuchus cupido 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias 

Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Great egret Ardea alba 

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus 

Greater scaup Aythya marila 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

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 

Lesser yellowlegs 

Lincoln’s sparrow 

Little blue heron 

Loggerhead shrike 

Long-billed dowitcher 

Long-billed curlew 

MacGillivray’s Warbler 

Magnolia warbler 

Mallard 

Marbled godwit 

Merlin 

Mississippi kite 

Mountain bluebird 

Mourning dove 

Northern bobwhite 

Northern cardinal 

Northern flicker 

Northern goshawk 

Northern harrier 

Northern mockingbird 

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 

Tringa flavipes 

Melospiza lincolnii 

Egretta caerulea 

Lanius ludovicianus 

Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Numenius americanus 

Oporornis tolmiei 

Dendrocia magnolia 

Anas platyrhynchos 

Limosa fedoa 

Falco columbarius 

Ictinia mississippiensis 

Sialia currucoides 

Zenaida macroura 

Colinus virginianus 

Cardinalis cardinalis 

Colaptes auratus 

Accipiter gentiles 

Circus cyaneus 

Minus polyglottos 
112 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Northern pintail 

Northern rough-winged 

swallow 

Northern shoveler 

Northern waterthrush 

Orange-crowned warbler 

Orchard oriole 

Osprey 

Ovenbird 

Peregrine falcon 

Pied-billed grebe 

Pine siskin 

Piping plover 

Plumbeous vireo 

Prairie falcon 

Purple martin 

Prairie warbler 

Red-bellied woodpecker 

Red-eyed vireo 

Redhead 

Red-breasted nuthatch 

Red-headed woodpecker 

Red-shouldered hawk 

Red-tailed hawk 

Red-winged blackbird 

Ring-billed gull 

Ring-necked duck 

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 

Anas acuta 

Stelgidopterys serripennis 

Anas clypeata 

Seiurus noveboracensis 

Vermivora celata 

Icterus spurius 

Pandion haliaetus 

Seiurus aurocapilla 

Falco peregrinus 

Podilymbus podiceps 

Carduelis pinus 

Charadrius melodus 

Vireo plumbeus 

Falco mexicanus 

Progne subis 

Dendroica discolor 

Melanerpes carolinus 

Vireo olivaceus 

Aythya Americana 

Sitta canadensis 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

Buteo lineatus 

Buteo jamaicensis 

Agelaius phoenicens 

Larus delawarensis 

Aythya collaris 

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 

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 

Wild turkey 

Willet 

Willow flycatcher 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Winter wren 

Wood duck 

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

Yellow-breasted chat 

Yellow-crowned night 

hereon 

Yellow-headed blackbird 

Yellow-rumped warbler 

Yellow-throated vireo 

Yellow warbler 

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 

Meleagris gallopavo 

Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

Empidonax traillii 

Phalaropus tricolor 

Troglodytes troglodytes 

Aix sponsa 

Coccyzus americanus 

Icteria virens 

Nyctanassa violacea 

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus 

Dendroica coronata 

Vireo flavifrons 

Dendroica petechia 
Fishes 

Black bullhead 

Black crappie 

Bluegill 

Channel catfish 

Common carp 

Creek chub 

Flathead catfish 

Freshwater drum 

Gizzard shad 

Green sunfish 

Largemouth bass 

Orangespotted sunfish 

Red shiner 

River carpsucker 

Sand shiner 

Walleye 

White crappie 

White base 

Wiper 

Ictalurus melas 

Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Lepomis macrochirus 

Ictalurus punctatus 

Cyprinus carpio 

Semotilus atromaculatus 

Pylodictis olivaris 

Aplodinotus grunniens 

Dorosoma cepedianum 

Lepomis cyanellus 

Micropterus salmoides 

Lepomis humilis 

Cyprinella lutrensis 

Carpiodes carpio 

Notropis stramineus 

Stizostedion vitreum 

Pomoxis annularis 

Morone chrysops 

Morone chrysops XM. 

Saxatilis 

Mammals 

American beaver 

American porcupine 

American badger 

Big brown bat 

Black-tailed jackrabbit 

Black-tailed prairie dog 

Bobcat 

Brasilian free-tailed bat 

Common muskrat 

Common raccoon 

Coyote 

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 

Castor canadensis 

Erethizon dorsatum 

Taxidea taxus 

Eptesicus fuscus 

Lepus californicus 

Cynomys ludovicianus 

Felis rufus 

Tadarida brasiliensis 

Ondatra zibethicus 

Procyon lotor 

Canis latrans 

Peromyscus maniculatus 

Sylvilagus audubonii 

Sylvilagus floridanus 

Scalopus aquaticus 

Spilogale putorius 

Peromyscus gossypinus 

Nycticeius humeralis 

Sciurus niger 

Spermophilus frankinii 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Sigmodon hispidus 

Chaetodipus hispidus 

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 

Thirteen-lined ground 

squirrel 

Virginia opossum 

Western harvest mouse 

White-footed mouse 

White-tailed deer 

Appendix G—Species List 113 

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 

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus 

Didelphis virginiana 

Reithrodontomys 

megalotis 

Peromyscus leucopus 

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 

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 
114 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 

Fox glove beard toungue Penstemon digitalis 

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 
Appendix G—Species List 115 

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 

Thick-spike gayfeather 

Thimbleweed 

Upright prairie coneflower 

Venus’ looking glass 

Violet wood sorel 

Virginia ground cherry 

Wavyleaf thistle 

Western ironweed 

Western wild lettuce 

Western yarrow 

White prarie clover 

Whorled milkweed 

Wild four-O-clock 

Wild lettuce 

Wild licorice 

Wild onion 

Willowleaf aster 

Wooly plantain 

Schrankia nuttallii 

Penstemon grandiflorus 

Asclepias viridiflora 

Cassia chamaecrista 

Dalea villosa 

Psoralea argophylla 

Psoralea tenuiflora 

Asclepias viridis 

S. rigida 

Helianthus rigidus 

Cirsium altissimum 

Liatris pycnostachya 

Anemone cylindrica 

Ratibiada columnifera 

Tridanis perfoliata 

Oxalis violacea 

Physallis virginiana 

Cirsium undulatum 

Vernonia fasciculata 

Lactuca ludoviciana 

Achillea millefolium 

Dalea candida 

Asclepias verticillata 

Mirabilis nyctaginea 

Lactuca canadensis 

Glycyrrhizia lepidota 

Allium canadense 

Aster praealtus 

Plantago patagonica 

Wetland emergents 

Duley rush 

Fescue sedge 

Fox sedge 

Gravid sedge 

Interior rush 

Marsh smartweed 

Pale smartweed 

Self heal 

Wedgelead fog-fruit 

Juncus dudleyyi 

Carex brevior 

Carex vulpinoidea 

Carex gravida 

Juncus interior 

Polygonum coccineum 

Polygonum lapathifolium 

Prunella vulgaris 

Lippia cuneifolia 

Reptiles 

Brown snake Storeria dekayi 

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 

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 

Turtles 

Alligator snapping turtle 

Common snapping turtle 

Ornate box turtle 

Smooth soft-shelled turtle 

Spiny soft-shelled turtle 

Western painted turtle 

Yellow mud turtle 

Macroclemys temmincki 

Chelydra serpentine 

Terrapene ornata 

Apalone mutica 

Apalone spinifera 

Chrysemys picta 

Kinosternon flavescens 
Appendix H. 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 
 

(b) 

Average Population Total Use Days (x 1000) 
Appendix H—Graphs 117 

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 

450 

500 Ring-necked Duck 

Canvasback 

Lesser Scaup 

400 Ruddy Duck 

350 Bufflehead 

250 

300 Hooded Merganser 

Com m on Goldeneye 

Common Merganser 

200 

150 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

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

(d) 
118 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 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) 

Peak Population (x 1000) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

22 

150 

200 

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 

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

(f) 
Appendix H—Graphs 119 

Average Population Total Use Days (x 1000) 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

3500 

4000 

4500 

10000 

12000 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 

(g) 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 

C a n a d a G o o s e 

M a lla rd 

Canada Goose 

M allard 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 

(h) 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 
 

Canada goose

M a lla rd

120 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS Total Use Days (x 10,000) Peak Populations (x 10,000) 

9
 

8
 

7
 

6
 

5
 

4
 

3
 

2
 

1
 

0 

(i) 

3 0 
 

2 5 
 

2 0 
 

1 5 
 

1 0 
 

5
 

4
 

3
 

2
 

1
 

0 

(j) 

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 
 

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 
 
Appendix H—Graphs 121 

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 I. Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

Intra-Service Section 7 consultation will be completed prior to final approval of the comprehensive 

conservation plan. 
Appendix I—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 123 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J. Mailing List
 

Federal Officials 

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts 

Dodge City, KS office—Debbie Pugh 

Wichita, KS office—Karin Wisdom 

Topeka, KS office—Gilda Lintz 

Prairie Village, KS office—Chad Tenpenny 

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback 

Topeka, KS office 

Overland Park, KS office—Shawn Cowing 

Garden City, KS office—Dennis Mesa 

Pittsburg, KS office—Anne Emerson 

Wichita, KS office—Chuck Alderson, Jamie 

Woodworth 

U.S. Congressman Jerry Moran 

Hutchinson, KS office 

Hays, KS office 

Federal Agencies 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Kansas City District, Kansas City, MO 

Harlan County Lake, Republican City, NE 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Grand Island, NE—Jill Manring 

Grand Island, NE—Gil Gyllenborg 

Grand Island, NE—Alice Johns 

 Billings, MT—Jaralyn Beek 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ecological Services, Manhattan, KS 

Ecological Services, Grand Island, NE 

Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge, Harford, 

KS 

Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Pleasanton, KS 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Stafford, KS 

Great Plains Nature Center, Wichita, KS 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Biological Resources Division, Fort Collins, 

CO 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

Jamestown, ND 

Tribal Officials 

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Mayetta, KS 

Pawnee Tribe, Pawnee, OK 

State Officials 

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Topeka, KS 

Kansas State Senator Janice Lee, Kensington, KS 

Kansas State Representative John Faber, 

Brewster, KS 

Kansas State Representative Dan Johnson, Hays, 

KS 

Kansas State Representative Laura McClure, 

Osborne, KS 

State Agencies 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 

Office of the Secretary, Topeka, KS—Mike 

Hayden 

Region 1 Office, Hays, KS—Bruce Taggart 

Region 1 Office, Hays, KS—Steve Price 

Region 1 Office, Hays, KS—Mark Shaw 

Area Conservation Officer, Kirwin, KS— 

Larry Stone 

Universities, Schools, and Libraries 

Fort Hays State University Division of Biology, 

Hays, KS 

Kansas State University Division of Biology, 

Manhattan, KS 

Eastern Heights High School, Agra, KS 

Northern Valley High School, Almena, KS 

Osborne High School, Osborne, KS 

Hill City High School, Hill City, KS 

Hays High School, Hays, KS 

West Smith County High School, Kensington, KS 

Logan High School, Logan, KS 

Natoma High School, Natoma, KS 

Palco High School, Palco, KS 

Phillipsburg High School, Phillipsburg, KS 

Plainville High School, Plainville, KS 

Smith Center High School, Smith Center, KS 

Stockton High School, Stockton, KS 

Norton Community High School, Norton, KS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J—Mailing List 125 

Local Governments 

Mayor of Agra, KS—Scott Bretton 

Mayor of Glade, KS—Willa Chestnut 

Mayor of Kirwin, KS—Tracy Atchison 

Mayor of Logan, KS—Jerry Gosha 

Mayor of Long Island, KS—Tim Hammond 

Mayor of Phillipsburg, KS—Doug Driggs 

Mayor of Prairie View, KS—John Kats 

Mayor of Speed, KS—Denise Lyon 

Phillips County Commissioners 

Phillips County Extension Office 

Organizations 

American Bass Anglers 

Fort Collins, CO

 Abilene, KS 

 Ceresco, NE 

Blue Valley Bass Club, Seward, NE 

Boothill Bass Club, Spearville, KS 

Burroughs Audubon of Greater Kansas City, 

Overland Park, KS 

Coronado Area Council/BSA, Salina, KS 

Douglas County Bassmasters, Boone, IA 

Friends of Kirwin Lake, Phillipsburg, KS 

Front Range Bassmasters, Colorado Springs, CO 

Heartland His and Hers Bass Circuit, Omaha, NE 

Kansas Audubon Society, Lawrence, KS 

Kansas Bass Anglers Association, Junction City, 

KS 

Liberal Bassmaster Bass Club, Liberal, KS 

Lincoln County Bassmasters, North Platte, NE 

Lions Club

 Phillipsburg, KS 


 Kirwin, KS


 Kensington, KS 


 Smith Center, KS 


 Agra, KS


 Stockton, KS
 

McPherson Bassmasters, Lindsborg, KS 

Midwest Bass Anglers, Weeping Water, NE 

Mile High Bass Pioneers, Longmont, CO 

National Audubon Society, Manhattan, KS 

National Wild Turkey Federation, Phillipsburg, 

KS 

Northern Colorado Bass Club, Johnstown, CO 

Omaha Bass Club, Omaha, NE 

Phillips County Chamber of Commerce, 

Phillipsburg, KS 

Pikes Peak Bassmasters, Security, CO 

Rotary Club, Phillipsburg, KS 

Sarpy County Bassmasters, Bellevue, NE 

Solomon Valley Birdwatcher’s, Agra, KS 

Southern Colorado Bass Club, Pueblo, CO 

Southwest Anglers, Hugoton, KS 

Southwest Anglers, Liberal, KS 

Trophy Teams Association, Colorado Springs, CO 

Wildlife Society, Manhattan, KS 

Newspapers 

Hays Daily News, Hays, KS 

Hill City Times, Hill City, KS 

Norton Daily Telegram, Norton, KS 

Osborne County Farmer, Osborne, KS 

Phillips County Advocate, Phillipsburg, KS 

Phillips County Review, Phillipsburg, KS 

Plainville Times, Plainville, KS 

Smith County Pioneer, Smith Center, KS 

Stockton Sentinel, Stockton, KS 

The Logan Republican, Logan, KS 

Radio Stations 

KKAN_KQMA 

Individuals 

83 persons 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. Fortyfourth 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 FieldNaturalist 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/gras 

bird/upsa/upsa.htm (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/gras 

bird/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 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/ 

grasbird/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). 

Bibliography 127 

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/gras 

bird/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/gras 

bird/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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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, editors. Management of nongame 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, 

Besthesda, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography 129 

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. 

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 URL 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130 Draft CCP and EA, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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 

long-term 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://factfinder.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://mountain-prairie.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. 

———. 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.