adaptive management—The rigorous application 

of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess 

and modify management activities; a process that 

uses feedback from research, monitoring, and 

evaluation of management actions to support or 

modify objectives and strategies at all planning 

levels; a process in which policy decisions are 

implemented within a framework of scientifically 

driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. 

Analysis of results helps managers determine 

whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve 

desired conditions. 

alternative—A reasonable way to solve an 

identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 

CFR 1500.2); one of several different means of 

accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and 

contributing to the Refuge System mission (Draft 

Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

amphibian—A class of cold-blooded vertebrates 

including frogs, toads or salamanders. 

baseline—A set of critical observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or a control. 

biological control—The use of organisms or 

viruses to control invasive plants or other pests. 

biological diversity, also biodiversity—The 

variety of life and its processes, including the 

variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities and 

ecosystems in which they occur (Service Manual 

052 FW 1.12B). The National Wildlife Refuge 

System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes. 

biomass—The total amount of living material, 

plants and animals, above and below the ground in 

a particular habitat or area. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; 

caused, produced by, or comprising living 

organisms. 

Birds of Conservation Concern—The Birds of 

Conservation Concern is the most recent effort to 

satisfy the 1988 amendment to the Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Act, which mandates the 

Service to “identify species, subspecies, and 

populations of all migratory nongame birds that, 

without additional conservation actions, are likely 

Glossary 


to become candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973” (Service 2002). 

boat closure—Closed to all flotation devices. 

canopy—A layer of foliage, generally the 

uppermost layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel 

or understory vegetation in multilayered stands. 

Canopy closure (also canopy cover) is an estimate 

of the amount of overhead vegetative cover. 

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—The 

codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the 

executive departments and agencies of the federal 

government. Each volume of the CFR is updated 

once each calendar year. 

compatible use—A wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the director 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or 

the purposes of the refuge (Draft Service Manual 

603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses and 

identified stipulations or limits necessary to 

ensure compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—A 

document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge and provides long-range 

guidance and management direction for the 

refuge manager to accomplish the purposes of the 

refuge, contribute to the mission of the Refuge 

System, and to meet other relevant mandates 

(Draft Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

cool-season grasses—Grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant in 

the summer. These grasses will germinate at 

lower temperatures. Examples of cool-season 

grasses at the refuge are western wheatgrass, 

needle and thread, and green needlegrass. 

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present 

vegetation of an area. 

cultural resources—The remains of sites, 

structures, or objects used by people in the past. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

cultural resource inventory—A professionally 

conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a 

defined geographic area. Inventories may involve 

various levels including background literature 

search, comprehensive field examination to 

identify all exposed physical manifestations of 

cultural resources, or sample inventory to project 

site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to 

determine eligibility for the National Register 

follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

cultural resource overview—A comprehensive 

document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, its prehistory and 

cultural history, the nature and extent of known 

cultural resources, previous research, 

management objectives, resource management 

conflicts or issues, and a general statement on 

how program objectives should be met and 

conflicts resolved. An overview should reference 

or incorporate information from 

a field office background or literature search 

described in Section VIII of the Cultural 

Resource Management Handbook (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

dense nesting cover (DNC)—is a mixture of 

cool-season grasses and legumes, like alfalfa and 

yellow sweetclover. Some wildlife species, like 

pheasant, use it for nesting, rearing their broods, 

roosting and loafing. DNC is high quality nesting 

cover designed to maximize nesting activity and 

reproductive success. Many Conservation 

Reserve Program lands are established with a 

DNC mixture. 

depredation—Destruction or consumption of 

eggs, broods, or individual wildlife due to a 

predatory animal; damage inflicted on agricultural 

crops or ornamental plants by wildlife. 

DNC—See dense nesting cover. 

drawdown—The act of manipulating water levels 

in an impoundment to allow for the natural 

drying-out cycle of a wetland. 

EA—See environmental assessment. 

ecological diversity—The variety of life and its 

processes including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, 

and the communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur (Service Manual 052 FW 1.12B). 

ecosystem—A dynamic and interrelating 

complex of plant and animal communities and 

their associated nonliving environment (climate, 

water, rocks, nonliving components); a biological 

community, together with its environment, 

functioning as a unit. For administrative 

purposes, the Service has designated 53 

ecosystems covering the United States and its 

possessions. These ecosystems generally 

correspond with watershed boundaries and their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary. 

emergent—A plant rooted in shallow water and 

having most of the vegetative growth above 

water such as cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, federal—A plant or animal 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended, that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

endangered species, state—A plant or animal 

species in danger of becoming extinct or 

extirpated in a particular state within the near 

future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at 

critically low levels or their habitats have been 

degraded or depleted to 

a significant degree. 

environmental assessment (EA)—A concise 

public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly 

discusses the purpose and need for an action and 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency. 

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate 

animals of an area. 

federal trust resources—a resource managed by 

one entity for another who holds the ownership. 

The Service holds in trust many natural resources 

for the people of the United States of America as 

a result of federal acts and treaties. Examples are 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, 

migratory birds protected by international 

treaties, anadromous fish once they enter inland 

U.S. waterways, and native plant and wildlife 

species found on a national wildlife refuge. 

federal trust species—all species where the 

federal government has primary jurisdiction, 

including federally endangered or threatened 

species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and 

certain marine mammals. 

flora—All the plant species of an area. 

FONSI—finding of no significant impact. 

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

does not develop persistent woody tissue but dies 

down at the end of the growing season. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 49 

fragmentation—The alteration of a large block of 

habitat that creates isolated patches of the 

original habitat that are interspersed with a 

variety of other habitat types (Koford et al. 1994); 

the process of reducing the size and connectivity 

of habitat patches, making movement of 

individuals or genetic information between 

parcels difficult or impossible. 

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

geographic information system (GIS)—A 

computer system capable of storing and 

manipulating spatial data; a set of computer 

hardware and software for analyzing and 

displaying spatially referenced features (e.g., 

points, lines and polygons) with nongeographic 

attributes such as species and age (Koford et al. 

1994). 

GIBA—Globally Important Bird Area, as 

designated by the American Bird Conservancy. 

GIS—See geographic information system. 

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys a purpose but does not define measurable 

units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 

GPS—See global positioning system. 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental 

conditions required by an organism for survival 

and reproduction; the place where an organism 

typically lives and grows. 

habitat disturbance—Significant alteration of 

habitat structure or composition; may be natural 

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

timber harvest and disking). 

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type— 

A land classification system based on the concept 

of distinct plant associations. 

impoundment—A body of water created by 

collection and confinement within a series of 

levees or dikes, creating separate management 

units although not always independent of one 

another. 

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods 

of managing undesirable species such as invasive 

plants; education, prevention, physical or 

mechanical methods of control, biological control, 

responsible chemical use, and cultural methods. 

invasive plant, also noxious weed—A species 

that is nonnative to the ecosystem under 

consideration and whose introduction causes, or is 

likely to cause, economic or environmental harm 

or harm to human health. 

IPM—See integrated pest management. 

issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a 

management decision (e.g., a Service initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, a 

threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition) (Draft Service Manual 602 

FW 1.5). 

KDWP—Kansas Department of Wildlife and 

Parks. 

maintenance management system (MMS)—A 

national database which contains the unfunded 

maintenance needs of each refuge; projects 

include those required to maintain existing 

equipment and buildings, correct safety 

deficiencies for the implementation of approved 

plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal 

mandates. 

management alternative—See alternative. 

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal 

movements of birds between their breeding 

regions and their wintering regions (Koford et al. 

1994); to pass usually periodically from one region 

or climate to another for feeding or breeding. 

migratory birds—Birds which follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, 

raptors, and songbirds are all migratory birds. 

mission—Succinct statement of purpose and/or 

reason for being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact less 

severe. 

mixed-grass prairie—A transition zone between 

the tall-grass prairie and the short-grass prairie 

dominated by grasses of medium height that are 

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

the tall-grass prairie and moisture levels are less. 

MMS—See maintenance management system. 

monitoring—The process of collecting 

information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

National Wildlife Refuge—A designated area of 

land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not 

include coordination areas; a complete listing of all 

units of the Refuge System is in the current 

“Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge 

System)—Various categories of areas 

administered by the Secretary of the Interior for 

the conservation of fish and wildlife including 

species threatened with extinction, all lands, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

waters, and interests therein administered by the 

Secretary as wildlife refuges, areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife 

that are threatened with extinction, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, 

and waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997—Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all refuges in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System; defines a 

unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of 

the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation); 

establishes a formal process for determining 

appropriateness and compatibility; establish the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; 

requires a comprehensive conservation plan for 

each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended 

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966. 

native species—A species that, other than as a 

result of an introduction, historically occurred or 

currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

NAWMP—North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. 

Neotropical migrant—A bird species that breeds 

north of the United States and Mexican border 

and winters primarily south of this border. 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act. 

non-wildlife-dependent recreation uses—Use of a 

refuge that does not depend on the presence of 

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

craft, camping, swimming, horseback riding, 

volleyball, basketball, tournament fishing, power 

and speed boating). 

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living 

stage (including seeds and reproductive parts) of a 

parasitic or other plant of a kind that is of foreign 

origin (new to or not widely prevalent in the U.S.) 

and can directly or indirectly injure crops, other 

useful plants, livestock, poultry, other interests of 

agriculture, including irrigation, navigation, fish 

and wildlife resources, or public health. According 

to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a 

noxious weed (i.e., invasive plant) is one that 

causes disease or has adverse effects on humans 

or the human environment and, therefore, is 

detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of 

the U.S. and to public health. 

NWR—National Wildlife Refuge. 

objective—An objective is a concise target 

statement of what will be achieved, how much will 

be achieved, when and where it will be achieved, 

and who is responsible for the work; derived from 

goals and provide the basis for determining 

management strategies. Objectives should be 

attainable and time-specific and should be stated 

quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives 

cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be 

stated qualitatively (Draft Service Manual 602 

FW 1.5). 

palustrine—“Palustrine” comes from the Latin 

word “palus” or marsh. Wetlands within this 

category include inland marshes and swamps as 

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

Palustrine systems include any inland wetland 

which lacks flowing water and contains ocean 

derived salts in concentrations of less than .05 

percent. 

Partners in Flight (PIF)—A Western 

Hemisphere program designed to conserve 

Neotropical migratory birds and officially 

endorsed by numerous federal and state agencies 

and nongovernmental organizations; also known 

as the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 

Program (Koford et al. 1994). 

patch—An area distinct from that around it; an 

area distinguished from its surroundings by 

environmental conditions. 

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life 

span of more than 2 years. 

pergola—an arbor formed of horizontal 

trelliswork supported on columns or posts, over 

which vines or other plants are trained. A 

colonnade having the form of such an arbor. 

PIF—See Partners in Flight. 

plant community—An assemblage of plant 

species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a 

reflection or integration of the environmental 

influences on the site such as soil, temperature, 

elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and 

rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant 

community (e.g., ponderosa pine or bunchgrass). 

prescribed fire—The skillful application of fire to 

natural fuels under conditions such as weather, 

fuel moisture, and soil moisture that allow 

confinement of the fire to a predetermined area 

and produces the intensity of heat and rate of 

spread to accomplish planned benefits to one or 

more objectives of habitat management, wildlife 

management, or hazard reduction. 

priority public use—One of six uses authorized 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glossary 51 

Improvement Act of 1997 to have priority if found 

to be compatible with a refuge’s purposes. This 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation. 

proposed action—The alternative proposed to 

best achieve the purpose, vision, and goals of a 

refuge (contributes to the Refuge System mission, 

addresses the significant issues, and is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management). 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; 

officials of federal, state, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It 

may include anyone outside the core planning 

team. It includes those who may or may not have 

indicated an interest in Service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions 

may affect them. 

public involvement—A process that offers 

affected and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed 

about, and to express their opinions on, Service 

actions and policies. In the process, these views 

are studied thoroughly and thoughtful 

consideration of public views is given in shaping 

decisions for refuge management. 

purpose of the refuge—The purpose of a refuge 

is specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public 

land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing authorization or 

expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit 

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

raptor—A carnivorous bird such as a hawk, a 

falcon, or a vulture that feeds wholly or chiefly on 

meat taken by hunting or on carrion (dead 

carcasses). 

refuge operations needs system (RONS)—A 

national database that contains the unfunded 

operational needs of each refuge. Projects 

included are those required to implement 

approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and 

legal mandates. 

refuge purpose—See purpose of the refuge. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

refuge use—Any activity on a refuge, except 

administrative or law enforcement activity, 

carried out by or under the direction of an 

authorized Service employee. 

resident species—A species inhabiting a given 

locality throughout the year; nonmigratory 

species. 

restoration—Management emphasis designed to 

move ecosystems to desired conditions and 

processes (e.g., healthy upland habitats and 

aquatic systems). 

riparian area or riparian zone—An area or 

habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to 

aquatic ecosystems including streams, lakes, wet 

areas, and adjacent plant communities and their 

associated soils that have free water at or near 

the surface; an area whose components are 

directly or indirectly attributed to the influence of 

water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied 

to ecology, “riparian” describes the land 

immediately adjoining and directly influenced by 

streams. For example, riparian vegetation 

includes all plant life growing on the land 

adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the 

stream. 

RONS—See refuge operations needs system. 

SAV—See submerged aquatic vegetation. 

scoping—The process of obtaining information 

from the public for input into the planning 

process. 

seasonal boat closure—Closed to all flotation 

devices. 

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, 

and glaciers. 

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

shelterbelts—Single to multiple rows of trees 

and shrubs planted around cropland or buildings 

to block or slow down the wind. 

shorebird—Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of 

birds such as a plover or a snipe that frequent the 

seashore or mud flat areas. 

six-shell area—A maximum of six shotgun shells 

per person per day. 

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the 

character of space. 

special-use permit—A permit for special 

authorization from the refuge manager required 

for any refuge service, facility, privilege, or 

product of the soil provided at refuge expense and 

not usually available to the general public through 

authorizations in Title 50 CFR or other public 

regulations (Refuge Manual 5 RM 17.6). 

species of concern—Those plant and animal 

species, while not falling under the definition of 

special-status species, that are of management 

interest by virtue of being federal trust species 

such as migratory birds, important game species, 

or significant keystone species; species that have 

documented or apparent populations declines, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

small or restricted populations, or dependence on 

restricted or vulnerable habitats. 

step-down management plan—A plan that 

provides the details necessary to implement 

management strategies identified in the 

comprehensive conservation plan (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—A specific action, tool, or technique or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used 

to meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5). 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)—A 

vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, either rooted 

or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath the water 

surface, except for flowering parts in some 

species. 

threatened species, federal—Species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, that are likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

threatened species, state—A plant or animal 

species likely to become endangered in a 

particular state within the near future if factors 

contributing to population decline or habitat 

degradation or loss continue. 

trust species—See federal trust species. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, 

USFWS, FWS)—The principal federal agency 

responsible for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Service manages the 93-million-acre National 

Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 

530 National Wildlife Refuges and thousands of 

waterfowl production areas. It also operates 65 

national fish hatcheries and 78 ecological service 

field stations, the agency enforces federal wildlife 

laws, manages migratory bird populations, 

restores national significant fisheries, conserves 

and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, 

administers the Endangered Species Act, and 

helps foreign governments with their 

conservation efforts. It also oversees the federal 

aid program that distributes millions of dollars in 

excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to 

state wildlife agencies. 

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

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—A federal 

agency whose mission is to provide reliable 

scientific information to describe and understand 

the earth; minimize loss of life and property from 

natural disasters; manage water, biological, 

energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and 

protect our quality of life. 

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey. 

vision statement—A concise statement of the 

desired future condition of the planning unit, 

based primarily on the Refuge System mission, 

specific refuge purposes, and other relevant 

mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

visual obstruction—Pertaining to the density of 

a plant community; the height of vegetation that 

blocks the view of predators and conspecifics to a 

nest. 

visual obstruction reading (VOR)—A method of 

visually quantifying vegetative structure and 

composition. 

VOR—See visual obstruction reading. 

wading birds—Birds having long legs that enable 

them to wade in shallow water including egrets, 

great blue herons, black-crowned night-herons, 

and bitterns. 

warm-season grasses—Grasses that begin 

growth later in the season (early June). These 

grasses require warmer soil temperatures to 

germinate and actively grow when temperatures 

are warmer. Examples of warm-season grasses 

are Indiangrass, switchgrass, and big bluestem. 

waterfowl—A category of birds that includes 

ducks, geese, and swans. 

watershed—The region draining into a river, a 

river system, or a body of water. 

wetland management district (WMD)—a feral 

administrative unit that is charged with acquiring, 

overseeing, and managing the waterfowl 

production areas and easements within a specified 

group of counties. Most districts are large, 

covering several counties. 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a 

refuge that is dependent on the presence of 

wildlife (e.g., involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

education, or interpretation). The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

specifies that these are the six priority general 

public uses of the Refuge System. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25–60 percent 

cover. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 53 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 


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

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

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SYSTEM 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997). 

Goals 

■	 To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge 

purpose(s) and further the System mission. 

■	 Conserve, restore where appropriate, and 

enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered. 

■	 Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional 

fish, and marine mammal populations. 

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

■	 Conserve and restore, where appropriate, 

representative ecosystems of the United States, 

including the ecological processes characteristic of 

those ecosystems. 

■	 To foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, 

by providing the public with safe, high quality, 

and compatible wildlife-dependent public use. 

Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. 

Guiding Principles 

There are four guiding principles for management 

and general public use of the Refuge System 

established by Executive Order 12996 (1996): 

■	 Public Use—The Refuge System provides 

important opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

■	 Habitat—Fish and wildlife will not prosper 

without high quality habitat, and without fish and 

wildlife, traditional uses of refuges cannot be 

sustained. The Refuge System will continue to 

conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of 

fish and wildlife habitat within refuges. 

■	 Partnerships—America’s sportsmen and women 

were the first partners who insisted on protecting 

valuable wildlife habitat within wildlife refuges. 

Conservation partnerships with other federal 

agencies, state agencies, tribes, organizations, 

industry, and the general public can make 

significant contributions to the growth and 

management of the Refuge System. 

■	 Public Involvement—The public should be given a 

full and open opportunity to participate in 

decisions regarding acquisition and management 

of our national wildlife refuges. 

LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE 

Management actions on national wildlife refuges are 

circumscribed by many mandates including laws and 

executive orders, the latest of which is the 

Volunteer and Community Partnership 

Enhancement Act of 1998. Regulations that affect 

refuge management the most are listed below. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)—Directs 

agencies to consult with native traditional religious 

leaders to determine appropriate policy changes 

necessary to protect and preserve Native American 

religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992)—Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and 

services. 

Antiquities Act (1906)—Authorizes the scientific 

investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of 

objects taken or collected without a permit. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974)— 

Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in federal construction projects. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as 

amended—Protects materials of archaeological 

interest from unauthorized removal or destruction 

and requires federal managers to develop plans and 

schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968)—Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to 

be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977)—Requires consultation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for 

major wetland modifications. 

Endangered Species Act (1973)—Requires all federal 

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation 

of endangered and threatened species. 

Executive Order 7169 (1935)—Establishes Sand Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge “... as a refuge and 

breeding ground for migratory birds and other wild 

life... to effectuate further the purposes of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act....” 

Executive Order 11988 (1977)—Requires federal 

agencies to provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of 

floods on human safety, and preserve the natural 

and beneficial values served by the floodplains. 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public 

Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996)— 

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public 

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also 

presents four principles to guide management of the 

Refuge System. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996)— 

Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of 

such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990)—Requires the use of 

integrated management systems to control or 

contain undesirable plant species and an 

interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of 

other federal and state agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950)—Requires the 

preservation of evidence of the government’s 

organization, functions, policies, decisions, 

operations, and activities, as well as basic historical 

and other information. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)—Allows the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife 

management purposes. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)—Establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or 

gifts of areas approved by the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(1934)—Authorizes the opening of part of a refuge to 

waterfowl hunting. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)—Designates the 

protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility; and enables the setting of seasons and 

other regulations, including the closing of areas, 

federal or nonfederal, to the hunting of migratory 

birds. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)—Requires all 

agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public 

participation in the planning and implementation of 

all actions. Federal agencies must integrate this Act 

with other planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision making. [From the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR 1500] 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended— 

Establishes as policy that the federal government is 

to provide leadership in the preservation of the 

Nation’s prehistoric and historical resources. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(1966)—Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

permit any use of a refuge, provided such use is 

compatible with the major purposes for which the 

refuge was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997—Sets the mission and administrative policy for 

all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

mandates comprehensive conservation planning for 

all units of the Refuge System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(1990)—Requires federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962)—Allows the use of 

refuges for recreation when such uses are 

compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and 

when sufficient funds are available to manage the 

uses. 

Rehabilitation Act (1973)—Requires programmatic 

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for 

all facilities and programs funded by the federal 
 

 

 

government to ensure that any person can 

participate in any program. 

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

requires the authorization of U.S. Army Corps of 

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

navigable waters of the United States. 

Appendix A—Key Legislation and Policies 55 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act 

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

the management of refuges within the Refuge 

System; facilitates partnerships between the Refuge 

System and nonfederal entities to promote public 

awareness of the resources of the Refuge System 

and public participation in the conservation of the 

resources; and encourages donations and other 

contributions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 57 

Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 


REFUGE NAME 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

REFUGE PURPOSES 

“.. shall be administered by him 

[Secretary of the Interior] directly or in 

accordance with cooperative 

agreements ... and in accordance with 

such rules and regulations for the 

conservation, maintenance, and 

management of wildlife, resources 

thereof, and its habitat thereon, ...in 

behalf of the National Migratory Bird 

Management Program” 16 U.S.C. § 664 

(Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. 

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE:

 ARMING, GRAZING, AND HAYING 

Continue upland management activities such 

as farming, grazing, and haying that are 

conducted under cooperative farming or 

special-use permit by private individuals. 

Currently these economic uses are used as 

tools to manage habitat for wildlife. 

Cropland is planted to establish seedbeds free of 

invasive plants for the establishment of grassland, to 

provide food for migratory birds, and to control 

invasive plant species. The farming rotation is based 

on a diversified crop rotation to control invasive 

plants and insects, and to provide for soil fertility. 

The crops that may be used in the rotation include, 

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

winter wheat, cane (forage sorghum), and spring 

grains (e.g., barley). 

The Service’s policy is to restrict pesticide use on 

National Wildlife Refuges. All cooperative farming 

permits do not allow insecticides and restrict the use 

of herbicides to those least toxic and persistent in 

the environment. 

Availability of Resources 

The needed staff time for development and 

administration of cooperative farming, haying, and 

grazing programs is stretched thin to maintain 

existing programs. If additional staff support were 

available, these programs could be expanded to use 

these tools more effectively and additional 

monitoring could be accomplished. 

Additional staff (assistant refuge manager) is 

identified in the CCP. This position will be needed to 

fully accomplish the goals of this CCP and improve 

existing programs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Current management affects approximately 

25 percent of the uplands, transition zone (dry 

reservoir bottom), and riparian zones. Under this 

CCP, management will place increased emphasis on 

managing refuge habitats for migratory birds. 

Without management, general habitat conditions 

would gradually deteriorate due to long periods of 

rest. While some short-term wildlife and habitat 

disturbance does occur with these activities, the 

benefits to wildlife outweigh these disturbances. 

No cultural resources will be impacted. No impact to 

endangered species should occur. 

Determination 

The use of haying, grazing, and farming as habitat 

management tools is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Require general and special conditions for each 

permit to ensure consistency with management 

objectives. 

■	 Restrict farming permittees to a list of approved 

chemicals that are less detrimental to wildlife and 

the environment. 

■	 Restrict farming permittees to a list of crops that 

are beneficial to migratory birds. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Justification 

To maintain and enhance the habitat for migratory 

birds and other wildlife, some habitat manipulation 

needs to occur. Prairie grassland habitat conditions 

would deteriorate without the use of a full range of 

management tools. Migratory bird nesting and 

feeding habitat and ecological diversity would 

decrease as habitat suitability for these species 

declines. Invasive plant species would increase and 

habitat diversity would decrease. 

Farming provides a useful tool to control invasive 

plants, restore prairie grasslands, provide open 

areas, and improve habitat conditions for the nesting 

and feeding of migratory birds. Farming facilitates 

wildlife observation, photography, and environmental 

education by attracting and concentrating wildlife in 

areas where they are highly visible. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2016 

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND 

INTERPRETATION 

Provide opportunities for environmental 

education and interpretation. 

Environmental education consists of activities 

conducted by refuge staff. Interpretation occurs in 

less formal activities with refuge staff through 

exhibits, educational trunks, signs, and brochures. 

Currently, environmental education and 

interpretation activities are conducted at the refuge 

office. Programs and activities are also conducted at 

Bluegill Point, and Knob Hill day use areas. 

Additional programs are conducted at schools and 

other locations as personnel are available. 

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

will provide enough room, displays, and educational 

materials to maximize the public’s learning 

experience while visiting the refuge. The remainder 

of the refuge will provide excellent opportunities for 

environmental learning. These uses occur yearround. 

This CCP proposes to continue with the above uses 

and add the following to improve environmental 

education and interpretation opportunities for all 

visitors: 

■	 Expand the multi-purpose room of the refuge 

office. 

■	 Update and improve refuge signs. 

■	 Update existing brochures to the Service graphic 

standards. 

■	 Expand and enhance environmental education 

through various initiatives such as educational 

displays, presentations, and websites that feature 

purposes, programs, and wildlife of the refuge. 

Availability of Resources 

Currently all environmental education and 

interpretation are conducted using available 

resources. Implementing new programs, activities, 

and facilities outlined in the CCP is tied to funding 

requests in the form of RONS and MMS projects 

(appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Minimal disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat 

will result from these uses at the current and 

proposed levels. Adverse impacts are minimized 

through careful timing and placement of activities. 

Some disturbance to wildlife will occur in areas 

frequented by visitors. There will be some minor 

damage to vegetation, littering, and increased 

maintenance. Location and time limitations placed 

on environmental education and interpretation 

activities will ensure that this activity will have only 

minor impacts on wildlife and will not detract from 

the primary purposes of the refuge. 

No cultural resources will be impacted. No impact to 

endangered species should occur. Some short-term 

disturbance to wildlife will occur during 

construction. 

Determination 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Allow environmental education and interpretation 

only in designated areas or under the guidance of 

refuge staff, a volunteer, or a trained teacher to 

ensure minimal disturbance to wildlife, minimal 

damage to vegetation, and minimal conflicts 

between groups. 

■	 Annually review environmental education and 

interpretation activities to ensure these activities 

are compatible. 

Justification 

Based on biological impacts described in the EA and 

the draft CCP, it is determined that environmental 

education and interpretation within the Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the purposes for which this 

refuge was established. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 59 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By 

facilitation of environmental education, refuge 

visitors will gain knowledge and an appreciation of 

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

increased public awareness and stewardship of 

natural resources. Increased appreciation for natural 

resources will support and complement the Service’s 

actions in achieving the purposes of the refuge and 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2021 

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: 

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND WILDLIFE 

PHOTOGRAPHY 

Provide opportunities that support wildlifedependent recreation. 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are 

facilitated by two hiking trails, two pullouts with 

pergolas (observation platform), and several parking 

areas (that are also used in support of hunting and 

fishing. 

This CCP proposes to continue the above uses and 

add the following to improve wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography: 

■	 Hire an outdoor recreation planner. 

■	 Hire a full-time law enforcement officer to enforce 

wildlife laws. 

■	 Update and improve refuge signs. 

■	 Update existing brochures to the Service’s 

graphic standards. 

Availability of Resources 

Currently, the programs for wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography are administered using 

available resources. Implementing new programs, 

activities, and facilities outlined in this CCP is tied 

to funding requests in the form of RONS and MMS 

projects (appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Anticipated impacts from visitors engaged in 

wildlife observation and wildlife photography 

include minor damage to vegetation, littering, 

increased maintenance activity, potential conflicts 

with other visitors, and minor disturbances to 

wildlife. These activities will have only minor 

impacts on wildlife and do not detract from the 

primary purposes of the refuge. All other potential 

impacts are considered minor. 

Determination 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are 

compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Restrict vehicles to designated roads and trails. 

■	 Monitor vehicle use for wildlife disturbance, law 

enforcement violations, etc. 

■	 Monitor use, regulate access, and maintain 

necessary facilities to prevent habitat degradation 

and minimize wildlife disturbance. 

Justification 

Based on the anticipated biological impacts above 

and in the EA, it is determined that wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography on the Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge will not interfere with the 

habitat goals and objectives or purposes for which it 

was established. 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are 

priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By 

facilitating these uses, visitors will gain knowledge 

and an appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will 

lead to increased public stewardship of wildlife and 

their habitats. Increased public stewardship will 

support and complement the Service’s actions in 

achieving the purposes of the refuge and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2021 

4. DESCRIPTION OF USE: 

RECREATIONAL FISHING 

Continue to provide for recreational fishing in 

accordance with state regulations. 

The primary game fish are walleye, black bass, 

white bass, wipers, crappie, and channel catfish. 

Foot travel is allowed in all parts of the refuge. 

There are three boat ramps that are available at 

varying water elevations. Anglers park within the 

road right-of-way or designated parking areas 

where available. 

Fishing visitations and success fluctuate according 

to water conditions in the Kirwin Reservoir, Bow 

Creek, and the North Fork Solomon River. The 

river and creek have marginal fisheries due to their 

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

water in the reservoir promotes fish spawning and 

vegetation provides cover. Fish populations can 

flourish until the reservoir returns to normal (low) 

water levels. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Availability of Resources 

The current fishing program is administered using 

available resources. Implementing new programs, 

activities, and facilities outlined in this CCP is tied 

to funding requests in the form of RONS and MMS 

projects (appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Fishing and other human activities cause 

disturbance to wildlife. 

Determination 

Recreational fishing is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 See “Boating in support of the six priority public 

uses” CD for additional requirements. 

■	 Require that fishing follow state regulations. 

■	 Monitor vehicle use for wildlife disturbance, law 

enforcement violations, etc. 

■	 Do not permit unattended boats to remain on the 

refuge overnight. 

Justification 

Based on the biological impacts addressed above and 

in the EA, it is determined recreational fishing will 

not materially interfere with the habitat goals and 

objectives or purposes for refuge establishment. 

Fishing is a priority public use as listed in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2021 

5. DESCRIPTION OF USE: 

RECREATIONAL HUNTING 

Continue recreational hunting of deer, 

waterfowl, upland game birds, cottontail 

rabbits, and fox squirrels. 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge allows hunting in 

four distinct areas. 

■	 The western portion is only open to archery deer 

hunting. 

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

pheasants, quail, turkey, prairie chickens, snipe, 

coots, cottontail rabbits, fox squirrels, and archery 

deer hunting. 

■	 The area between Quillback Cove and Prairie Dog 

Town is open to the same species as Bow Creek, 

except no more than six shells are allowed per 

hunter per day. 

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

area around Knob Hill is open to the same species 

as Bow Creek, except that waterfowl hunting is 

not allowed. 

■	 Hunting pressure for upland game centers around 

opening weekends of pheasant and quail. Hunting 

pressure for waterfowl increases as waterfowl 

numbers increase. This varies annually depending 

on the weather. 

Availability of Resources 

The current administration of hunting programs is 

conducted using available resources. Implementing 

new programs, activities, and facilities outlined in 

the CCP is tied to funding requests in the form of 

RONS and MMS projects (appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

Hunting and other human activities cause 

disturbance to wildlife. Hunting has shown no 

detrimental environmental impacts to habitats or 

wildlife. Hunting harvests a small percentage of the 

populations of waterfowl and upland game species, 

which is in accordance with wildlife objectives and 

principles. 

Restricting vehicle use to designated purposes, 

times, and established roads, trails, and parking lots 

protects habitats from damage and minimizes 

disturbance to wildlife. 

Determination 

Recreational hunting is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Only nontoxic shot is permitted on the refuge 

when hunting with a shotgun (waterfowl, upland 

game, turkey). 

■	 Hunting must be in accordance with federal, state, 

and refuge specific regulations. 

■	 Vehicle travel is limited to designated roads, 

trails and parking areas. 

■	 Promote sound hunting practices for hunter 

safety and quality experiences. 

Justification 

Hunting on national wildlife refuges has been 

identified as a priority public use in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management tool 

that can be used to manage populations. 

Based on the biological impacts anticipated above 

and in the EA, it is determined that recreational 

hunting at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the 

purposes for which this refuge was established or its 

habitat goals and objectives. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B—Compatibility Determinations 61 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2021 

6. DESCRIPTION OF USE: BOATING IN SUPPORT 

OF THE SIX PRIORITY PUBLIC USES 

Allow motorized and nonmotorized boating in 

support of hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. 

Availability of Resources 

The current administration of the boating program 

is conducted using available resources. 

Implementing new programs, activities, and 

facilities outlined in the CCP is tied to funding 

requests in the form of RONS and MMS projects 

(appendices L and M). 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Hunting and other human activities cause 

disturbance to wildlife. Disturbance to migrating 

and wintering waterfowl will be reduced by 

implementing a seasonal boat closure on most of the 

reservoir during low water conditions. 

Determination 

Boating in support of the six public uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, interpretation) is 

compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

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

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

of the reservoir. 

■	 Move the boat closure buoys from Railroad Flats 

to Grays Park and leave them there at all water 

levels. (This is made possible by implementing the 

seasonal boat closure.) 

■	 Continue to allow motorless boats and float tubes 

in the area that is closed to boating (in the 

Solomon Arm) from August 1 to September 30. 

■	 Continue to allow float tubes in areas open to 

boating. 

■	 Continue the No Wake Zone in Bow Creek. 

■	 Continue the No Wake Zone within 300 feet of all 

shorelines and islands. 

■	 Boats must be equipped and operated in 

accordance with Kansas Boat and Water Safety 

Laws and appropriate federal regulations. 

Justification 

Based on biological impacts described in the EA and 

the draft CCP, it is determined that boating in 

support of the six priority public uses within the 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the purpose for which 

the refuge was established. 

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

facilitate the six priority public uses. By specifying 

areas, time of year, no wake zones, and 

implementing a seasonal boat closure, boating is 

determined to be compatible. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2016 

7. DESCRIPTION OF USE: FIREWOOD CUTTING 

Allow firewood cutting in designated areas to 

facilitate refuge management. The main 

reason for allowing the cutting of firewood is 

to remove woody vegetation from areas where 

replanting and/or restoring native prairie is 

occurring. Other reasons include reducing 

fuel loading, and preventing 

destruction/killing of desirable live native 

trees in portions of riparian area. 

Availability of Resources 

Resources are currently available to oversee the 

cutting of firewood. The workload of the staff 

involves issuing permits and checking permits in the 

field. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Anticipated adverse impacts to the refuge are 

minimal. Temporary displacement of wildlife from 

the area where cutting occurs is expected. However, 

the benefits to migratory grassland birds exceeds 

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

grasslands reduces avian predators, nest parasites, 

and mammalian predators on grassland birds). 

Determination 

Firewood cutting is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

■	 Firewood cutting may be allowed by special use 

permits issued by the refuge manager. 

■	 Firewood cutting will only be allowed in areas 

specified by the refuge manager. 

Justification 

The refuge is currently in the process of removing 

trees for several reasons, including prairie 

enhancement and restoration, eliminating invasive 

terrestrial plants, and gaining physical access to 

allow for noxious weed control. Using contractors to 

remove trees costs approximately $200 per acre, 

depending on how dense the trees are. Typically 
 

 

 

Date 

62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

trees are piled and burned. Burning of the piles can 

sterilize the soil for a period of time. 

Most of the trees are located in areas that were 

historically migratory grassland bird habitat. The 

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

be restored/enhanced. In order to accomplish this 

goal, the removal of trees is necessary. 

Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2016 

SIGNATURE CONCURRENCE 

Craig Mowry 

Refuge Manager Assistant Regional Director 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

Dave Wiseman Date 

Refuge Supervisor (CO, KS, NE) 

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

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date 

____________________________________________ 
Appendix C—Memorandum of Agreement 63 

Appendix C—Memorandum of Agreement 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D—Landscape-level Goals and Objectives 67 

Appendix D—Landscape-level Goals and Objectives 


This appendix summarizes landscape-level plans 

that are relevant to management of Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (NAWMP) is broad policy 

framework that describes the overall scope of 

requirements for management of waterfowl in the 

United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

The NAWMP also serves as a guide for the 

participation of various private organizations and 

the public in the conservation and management of 

waterfowl. The goal of the NAWMP is to restore 

waterfowl populations to the levels recorded during 

the 1970s, a benchmark decade for waterfowl. The 

NAWMP is designed to reach its objectives through 

key joint venture areas, species joint ventures, and 

state implementation plans within these joint 

ventures. 

The “North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

1998 Update, Expanding the Vision” reflects on the 

legacy established by the NAWMP and presents 

three visions to advance waterfowl conservation in 

the future: 

■	 Plan partners enhance the capability of 

landscapes to support waterfowl and other 

wetland-associated species by ensuring that plan 

implementation is guided by biologically based 

planning, which in turn is refined through ongoing 

evaluation. 

■	 Plan partners define the landscape conditions 

needed to sustain waterfowl, benefit other 

wetland-associated species, and participate in the 

development of conservation, economic, 

management, and social policies and programs 

that most affect the ecological health of these 

landscapes. 

■	 Plan partners collaborate with other conservation 

efforts, particularly migratory bird initiatives, and 

reach out to other sectors and communities to 

forge broader alliances in a collective search for 

sustainable uses of landscapes. 

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT 

Nationally and internationally, several nongame bird 

initiatives are in the planning stage and 

implementation is expected to begin in the near 

future. Partners in Flight (PIF) is developing bird 

conservation plans, primarily for land birds, in 

numerous physiographic areas. The plans include 

priority species lists, associated habitats, and 

management strategies. 

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

■	 The first priority is to prevent the rarest species 

from going extinct. 

■	 The second priority is to prevent uncommon 

species from descending into threatened status. 

■	 The third goal is to keep common birds common. 

PIF’s general recommendations for the mixed-grass 

prairie are: 

“Although agriculture has taken over much of the 

mixed-grass, significant areas of native prairie 

remain, most notably in the glacial coteau of the 

Dakotas and the sandhills of Nebraska. 

These great reservoirs for grassland birds must 

be retained through easements, protection, and 

strengthening of ranching economies. 

The interests of land birds extensively overlap 

with those of waterfowl and shorebirds in the 

wetter portions of this ecosystem.” 

U.S. SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION 

PLAN 

The shorebird plan is designed to complement the 

existing landscape-scale conservation efforts of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

Partners in Flight, and the North American Colonial 

Waterbird Conservation Plan. The plan has three 

major goals at different scales. 

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

that adequate quantity and quality of habitat is 

identified and maintained to support the different 

shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate 

through each region (Brown et al. 2001). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

There are eleven regional working groups formed in 

this planning process. The Sand Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge is in the northern plains/prairie– 

potholes region. Three major shorebird issues have 

been identified for this region: 

■	 endangered and threatened species, declining 

species, and species of special concern 

■	 habitat loss, including fragmentation and 

degradation 

■	 the need for additional information to evaluate 

potential threats, such as contaminants, 

depredation, and invasion of exotic plants, to 

migrating and breeding shorebirds 

The regional goals are: 

■	 maintain biotic integrity and persistence of 

breeding shorebird populations in the northern 

plains/prairie–potholes region 

■	 ensure that adequate stopover resources exist to 

support populations of migrating shorebirds 

■	 identify and fill information gaps, including the 

development of tools to use within the context of 

dynamic ecosystem processes 

■	 coordinate with other conservation efforts in a 

cross-border landscape 

NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD 

CONSERVATION PLAN 

VOLUME 1: SEABIRDS AND COLONIAL WATERBIRDS, REVIEW DRAFT II 

The goal of this plan is ensure that the distribution, 

diversity, and abundance of waterbird populations 

and habitats (breeding, nonbreeding, and migratory) 

is sustained or restored throughout North America 

(Kushlan et al. 2002). 

Species and population goal—Have sustainable 

distributions, diversity and abundance of priority 

species for conservation and those in decline. 

Habitat goal—Secure, maintain, and enhance 

sufficient high quality habitat throughout the year 

to achieve and maintain sustainable populations of 

waterbirds throughout North America. 

Area goal—Identify, protect, maintain, and enhance 

important areas needed to maintain sustainable 

populations and habitats of waterbirds throughout 

their ranges in North America. 

Education goal—Ensure that information for the 

conservation of waterbirds is widely available to 

decision makers, the public, and all those whose 

actions affect seabird and colonial waterbird 

populations. 

NONGAME MIGRATORY BIRDS 

CONSERVATION PLAN, REGION 6 

This plan outlines the conservation of nongame bird 

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information 

concerning nongame species in the region is scarce 

and research is ongoing. 

The goal of the nongame migratory bird program is 

to protect and maintain all native, nongame species 

at viable population levels and protect their habitats. 

An important part of this goal is to prevent any 

avian species from becoming listed as threatened or 

endangered, or from becoming extirpated from 

Region 6. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Appendix E—List of Preparers, Consultation, and 

Coordination 

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

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

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

Team Member Position Work Unit
 

William Busby Associate scientist Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, KS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

NE 

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

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

Hays, KS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

completeness of this document. 
 

 

 

70 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Name Position Work Unit
 

Rick Coleman Assistant regional director USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Galen Green Fire ecologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Linda Kelly Branch chief of comprehensive 

conservation planning USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Wayne King Regional biologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Murray Laubhan Biologist USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

Jamestown, ND 

Rachel Laubhan Wildlife biologist USFWS, Region 6 

Rhoda Lewis Former regional archaeologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Mimi Mather Planner Shapins Associates, Boulder, CO 

Jana Mohrman Hydrologist USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Ann Moss Planner Shapins Associates, Boulder, CO 

Dan Mulhern Biologist USFWS, Manhattan, KS 

Deb Parker Writer-editor USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Derek Reed Contracting officer USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Michael Spratt Chief of refuge planning USFWS, Lakewood, CO 

Melvie Uhland Outdoor recreation planner USFWS, Lakewood, CO 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F—Environmental Compliance 71 

Appendix F—Environmental Compliance 


 Environmental Action Statement 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

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

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

resources, I have established the following administrative record. 

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

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

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

comprehensive conservation plan. 

_____________________________________ 

Mitch King 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

__________________ 

Date 

_____________________________________ 

David Wiseman 

Refuge Supervisor (CO, KS, NE) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

__________________ 

_____________________________________ 

Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. 

Assistant Regional Director 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 

__________________ 

Date 

_____________________________________ 

Craig Mowry 

Refuge Manager 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

Kirwin, KS 

__________________ 

Date Date
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Fulfill the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

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

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

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

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

conservation concern. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

required. 

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

alternative: 

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

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

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

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

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

environmental effect on minority or low-income populations. 

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

plan and associated environmental assessment. 

________________________________ _______________ 

Mitch King Date 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6 

Lakewood, CO 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 73 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 


Public scoping was initiated for Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge in a “Notice of Intent” dated March 

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

comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge, and 

opportunities for public input on refuge 

management. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

A planning update was distributed in May 2003 

through mailings to interested parties and at public 

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

stores, etc.) announcing dates for public open houses 

to be held for public input. 

A media contact list was compiled and news releases 

and flyers were distributed the week prior to the 

public meetings. The refuge announced the intent to 

prepare a comprehensive conservation plan on their 

website and provided contact information. Three 

scoping meetings were held in May 2003 to gather 

input from the public. 

• May 20, 2003 in Kirwin, KS 

• May 21, 2003 in Hays, KS 

• May 22, 2003 in Phillipsburg, KS 

Thirty-four people attended these meetings and 

approximately 81 written comments were received 

during the initial comment period. Comments 

received identified biological, social, and economic 

concerns regarding refuge management. 

A second planning update was distributed to 

interested parities in November 2003. Eighteen 

additional comments were received during the open 

comment period as a result of the second planning 

update. 

The issues raised and comments received from the 

public, other federal agencies, the State of Kansas, 

and other organizations helped the planning team to 

develop the alternatives contemplated in the draft 

CCP/EA and the goals, objectives, and strategies 

described for the proposed action. 

The draft CCP/EA was presented to the public 

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

open house was held April 20, 2006 in Phillipsburg, 

KS. Forty-three people attended the open house and 

approximately 99 written comments were received 

during the comment period on the draft plan. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

The following issues, concerns, and comments are a 

compilation and summary of those expressed during 

the March–April 2006 comment period for the draft 

CCP and EA. Comments were provided by the 

public, federal and state agencies, local and county 

governments, private organizations, and individuals 

concerned about the natural resources and public 

use of Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. Comments 

were received orally at meetings, via email, and in 

writing. 

The refuge staff recognizes and appreciates all input 

received from the public. To address this input, 

several clarifications and some changes are reflected 

in this final CCP. 

The issues, comments and concerns are summarized, 

followed by responses from the Service. Where 

there were similar statements from more than one 

commenter, the statements were grouped into one 

summarized comment. 

Comments about editorial and presentation 

corrections were addressed in the production of this 

final CCP, and are not detailed here. 

Comment 1: Kirwin Reservoir belongs to the local 

people of Phillipsburg, Kansas, and the needs of local 

residents should be taken into consideration. 

Response: The Refuge, including Kirwin Reservoir, 

is owned by the United States of America. The 

Bureau of Reclamation has primary jurisdiction, the 

Service has secondary jurisdiction. The Service does 

not have secondary jurisdiction on the Bureau of 

Reclamation “operations area.” This includes the 

dam and approximately 450 acres down stream of 

the dam. All decisions concerning the Refuge are 

done in compliance with current Federal laws, 

regulations, and policies. Comments from local 

residents are taken into consideration to the extent 

possible. 

Comment 2: Support Alternative A (No Action). 

Access to the refuge and Kirwin Reservoir should be 

left the way it is with no change to current 

management (continue to allow non-wildlife 

dependent uses such as camping, swimming, 

waterskiing, horseback riding, volleyball, and 

tournament fishing). Several generations of local 

residents have participated in recreation at the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

refuge and would like to continue using the area as it 

currently exists. 

Response: Congress sets guiding principles for the 

management of public lands by federal agencies. 

While some federal agencies have multiple-use 

mandates from Congress, the Service has a specific 

mandate to put wildlife first. The Service is 

mandated to accommodate wildlife-oriented public 

use only when compatible with conservation of 

wildlife resources and their habitats. Non-wildlife 

dependent uses such as camping, swimming, 

picnicking, horseback riding, and volleyball are not 

appropriate uses on a national wildlife refuge. By 

law, tournament fishing is an economic use of a 

national wildlife refuge and is held to a higher 

standard than a non-economic use. 

Comment 3: Support Alternative B (Proposed 

Action). The proposed action is needed. The draft 

CCP/EA is thorough, interesting, and forwardlooking. 

Response: The proposed action (alternative B) was 

selected to allow wildlife-oriented public uses while 

ensuring the wildlife and their habitats are 

protected, enhanced, and restored, so that future 

generations of Americans can continue to enjoy 

wildlife. The Service expects that, when all the 

habitat goals are met, the results will be positive 

impacts to vegetation and wildlife. 

Comment 4: Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge should 

be transferred to, and managed by, the Kansas 

Department of Wildlife and Parks. 

Response: Divestiture of the refuge was considered, 

but eliminated as an option in the CCP planning 

process. A detailed and objective account is in 

Appendix D of the Draft CCP. 

Comment 5: Support refuge efforts to increase 

migratory bird habitat and nesting habitat for 

grassland birds. 

Response: The refuge is a migratory bird refuge. 

Grassland dependent bird numbers are declining 

faster and steeper than any other group of birds in 

North America. 

Comment 6: The Service should not cut down trees 

on the refuge. Turkey and whitetail deer populations 

are negatively affected by tree removal. Trees are 

beautiful and needed in a region (western Kansas) 

that doesn’t have many trees. 

Response: Turkey and whitetail deer populations are 

stable to increasing. An important part of grassland 

bird habitat improvement is tree removal from 

certain areas. The refuge will remove trees to 

improve habitat for the group of birds in most need 

of conservation. The refuge must also comply with 

state and federal mandates for invasive species. 

Invasive trees in the riparian corridors will be 

removed. Large areas of dead timber are targeted to 

gain physical access to the ground to control Canada 

thistle. Many trees remain along the shoreline of the 

reservoir and in the wooded stream corridors. 

Comment 7: Restoring cropland to grassland on the 

refuge will decrease the number of migrating birds 

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

source) on the refuge for geese and ducks will cause 

them to not return the refuge, and move farther 

south to migrate. 

Response: Restoring prairie to selected cropland 

areas will increase the number of many species of 

grassland dependent migratory birds on the refuge. 

Weather plays a major role in determining the 

number of waterfowl that reach the refuge. The no 

waterfowl hunting area also plays a major role in 

keeping waterfowl in the area. Due to water 

fluctuations, the acres of cropland are projected to 

remain approximately the same as in the 1990s when 

the reservoir was full. One new crop field will be 

installed in the Bow Creek area and some other 

fields will be expanded. Approximately 1,000 acres 

of cropland will remain within the transition zone 

(dry reservoir bottom). These acres generally 

produce more bushels per acre, resulting in more 

grain. 

Comment 8: Plenty of wildlife exists under the 

present conditions. Additional numbers of birds is 

not better if they become over populated. Disease 

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

Response: Grassland birds do not generally gather in 

large flocks. However, unchecked large populations 

of white-tailed deer have been known to become 

over populated resulting in disease outbreaks. 

Comment 9: The refuge should continue to maintain 

food plots for waterfowl on the northwest portion of 

the refuge. 

Response: The refuge is mandated to manage for 

wildlife, specifically migratory birds. Hunting is a 

secondary use. Improving and increasing the acres 

of habitat for the group of birds, grassland 

dependent birds, in the most need of conservation 

will take priority. 

Comment 10: More emphasis should be placed on 

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

Canada thistle) on the refuge. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 75 

Response: The refuge agrees. The CCP contains a 

goal to address invasive plant species, with specific 

objectives and strategies. 

Comment 11: Support higher water and more stable 

water levels in the reservoir. Western Kansas needs 

open waters and rivers that function. Water in the 

reservoir generates more money to the local 

economy than irrigated cropland. Encourage 

retirement/regulation of the water for the benefit of 

the refuge. The Service should try to obtain water 

rights. 

Response: Greater stability of the water levels 

would allow the development of food resources and 

make those resources available to waterfowl, 

shorebirds, wading birds and other wetlanddependent wildlife. 

Comment 12: The proposed action will stop irrigation 

and flood control if the water level is not allowed to 

fluctuate. No irrigation would lower the tax base 

and the population. 

Response: The Service has no jurisdiction over 

water management or irrigation. This jurisdiction is 

the responsibility of the Kirwin–Webster Irrigation 

District, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army 

Corps of Engineers. The refuge would expand 

efforts to work with the Irrigation District and 

Reclamation to attempt to maintain higher water 

levels and reduce dramatic water level fluctuations. 

By working with these agencies, the refuge will 

have an opportunity to discuss wildlife benefits that 

occur with greater water level stability. The CCP 

does not propose stopping irrigation or flood control. 

Comment 13: The environmental education programs 

at the refuge provide important information and 

social opportunities for the people in the local 

community. Support proposal to expand 

environmental education programs at the refuge. 

Response: Environmental education programs are 

important to disseminate information and educate 

the public. These programs will continue when the 

outdoor recreation planner position is funded. 

Comment 14: Consider providing guided tours on the 

refuge. 

Response: Guided tours will be considered when the 

outdoor recreation planner position is funded. 

Comment 15: The refuge should discontinue the use 

of jet/water skiing on the refuge because it disturbs 

wildlife and other users. 

Response: The Improvement Act states that uses of 

national wildlife refuge must be appropriate. The 

1997 Act also stipulated 6 wildlife-dependent uses 

that may occur on a refuge if they are deemed 

compatible and do not interfere with the refuges 

purpose. Jet/water skiing is not wildlife-dependent 

and is an inappropriate use on a national wildlife 

refuge. 

Comment 16: The discontinuation of camping on the 

refuge would create an opportunity for a private 

entrepreneur to start a campground on land 

adjacent to the refuge. This would be a boon for 

private enterprise in the region. Perhaps the local 

community could be of assistance in locating an 

operator or parcel of land for such a purpose. 

Response: The local community is welcome to 

explore the development of a campground near the 

refuge. However, there are already numerous places 

to camp, and modestly priced motels, nearby. The 

Bureau of Reclamation land, approximately 450 

acres, is open to camping. Camping is allowed along 

the face of the dam next to the water. 

Comment 17: Hunting should be banned on the 

refuge because it is a violent act that promotes 

additional violence. 

Response: The Improvement Act states that hunting 

is considered a priority general public use of the 

Refuge System. Hunting is an appropriate use of the 

refuge when compatible. 

Comment 18: Bow hunter education certification 

should be mandatory to obtain an archery deer 

hunting permit. 

Response: In general, the Service adheres to state 

mandated hunter education requirements. 

Comment 19: Privately sponsored deer hunts pay 

well, and many people in the area depend on revenue 

associated with deer hunting for their livelihood. 

There is an imbalance between Nebraska and 

Kansas regarding deer tags. More deer tags are 

available in Nebraska than Kansas which has 

prohibited wider patronization of the State of 

Kansas. The State of Kansas and the refuge should 

open up deer hunting to nonresidents. 

Response: All archery deer hunters on the refuge 

must obtain a Kansas deer permit to hunt on the 

refuge. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and 

Parks determines hunting criteria. A refuge specific 

permit is required and is available to all who have 

obtained a Kansas archery permit for this unit 

(residents and non-residents). 

Comment 20: The draft CCP/EA predicts that 

hunting quality will be improved, but bow hunting 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

quality has already been degraded by the removal of 

trees on the refuge. 

Response: The CCP states that in general the 

quality of the hunting experience would be enhanced 

due to increased block size, and quality of grassland 

habitat which will increase wildlife populations 

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

Decreased traffic disturbance would benefit bow 

hunters where roads are closed. Ground blinds are 

one alternative to tree stands. 

Comment 21: Clarify the archery only hunting area 

boundaries (specifically, the river bottom of the 

North Fork Solomon River). 

Response: The archery deer hunting zone will be 

expanded to include the North Fork Solomon river 

bottom. If high water levels return to the reservoir, 

this hunting area may be re-evaluated for 

compatibility. If deemed incompatible as a result of 

the evaluation, the area will be closed to hunting. 

Hunting brochures and maps will be updated to 

indicate the new hunting boundaries. 

Comment 22: The Willow Flats area has been a good 

hunting area. If the area is restored to grassland, 

the geese will feed on private ground and hunting 

opportunities would deteriorate. The six shell area 

will be of little benefit to hunters with decreased use 

of area by geese. 

Response: Some cropland will remain in the Willow 

Flats area. The bottomland northeast of Prairie Dog 

Town will retain approximately 1,000 acres of 

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

main factors that dictate how long and how many 

geese use the refuge, not the acres of cropland on 

the refuge. The benefits of continuing the six shell 

zone will continue to be evaluated. 

Comment 23: The six shell area provides a good 

opportunity for decoy goose hunters, however it is 

confusing. Please simplify the regulations. 

Response: The six shell zone regulations will be 

simplified to stipulate that no more than six shotgun 

shells per person per day are allowed during all 

hunting seasons. 

Comment 24: The refuge does not provide any 

muzzleloader deer hunting opportunities. Consider 

opening the refuge to muzzleloader deer hunting. 

Response: The refuge will consider this in the near 

future. Muzzleloader hunting has some appealing 

attributes from a migratory bird management point 

of view, especially when compared to archery 

hunting. Muzzleloader deer hunting has a short 14 

day season in September that provides less 

disturbance to wildlife than the 80 day archery 

season in October, November, and December. It 

does not coincide with waterfowl migration, and 

therefore provides separation of deer and waterfowl 

hunters, and therefore provides less disturbance 

amongst the two types of hunters. Rationale for 

opening the western end of the Refuge to archery 

deer hunting was to harvest deer to deter 

depredation by them on private land. Muzzleloader 

hunting would harvest more deer to better meet this 

objective. Muzzleloader hunting is better suited for 

prairie habitat. Deer may be cleanly harvested at 

longer ranges. Muzzleloader hunters generally hunt 

from the ground. Fewer tree stands would be used, 

leading to fewer law enforcement violations due to 

illegal tree stands and illegal screw-in steps. 

Comment 25: The refuge gets crowded with archery 

deer hunters sometimes. Consider implementing a 

draw permit system to alleviate the congestion. 

Response: The refuge will consider this in the near 

future. 

Comment 26: The refuge should continue to allow 

fishing (including boat fishing) on Kirwin Reservoir 

because it is one of the few areas near Phillipsburg, 

KS that provides fishing opportunities. 

Response: 100% of the refuge will remain open to 

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

water, boat fishing will remain open to the main 

body of the reservoir year round. At times of low 

water, boat fishing will remain open on the majority 

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

water levels, boat fishing will remain open year 

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

motorized boats in August and September. Within a 

sixty mile radius of the refuge there are at least five 

large reservoirs, six smaller lakes, and state owned 

access on two streams. 

Comment 27: The public needs better access to the 

water on the south side of the reservoir. Currently 

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

access the reservoir. Suggest mowing access paths 

to facilitate foot traffic to the reservoir for fishing. 

Response: The refuge is amenable to improving foot 

access to the reservoir in selected locations. 

Comment 28: The refuge should place more timber 

and brush in the reservoir to create fish habitat. 

Response: Historically, every 3 years, the refuge has 

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

Recently the refuge has increased the frequency and 

quantity of trees placed on the attractors. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 77 

Comment 29: Dredge the boat ramp on the north side 

of the reservoir and extend all boat ramps to the 

water level. 

Response: The reservoir receives the most boat 

fishing use at times of high water, and less boat 

fishing use at normal low water levels. The north 

shore boat ramp is useable at high water levels and 

has 2 ramps available. The south shore boat ramp is 

useable at high and medium water levels and also 

has 2 ramps available. At low water levels the low 

water boat ramp and the face of the dam provide 

sufficient access for the reduced number of boats. 

Comment 30: Install a boat ramp to provide access to 

Bow Creek for boating and hunting. 

Response: The refuge is open to a boat ramp at 

Crappie Point. At this time refuge funding and 

staffing are not available. However, the refuge 

would be amenable to members of the public seeking 

grants and facilitating the work under refuge 

supervision. 

Comment 31: Install boat ramp on the south side of 

the reservoir to alleviate safety concerns associated 

with launching a boat on the north side of the 

reservoir when the wind is from the south. 

Response: Boats may be launched from the south 

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

are not safe for boating. See comment 30. 

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

Response: With implementation of the CCP the buoy 

line will be moved to Grays Park. This is made 

possible by implementing the seasonal boat closure. 

Comment 33: The refuge should not implement a 

seasonal boat closure. A no wake zone or five mile 

per hour speed limit on the entire reservoir could be 

implemented in place of the seasonal boat closure. 

Response: The presence of boats is a bigger factor in 

disturbance of waterfowl than the speed of the 

boats. 

Comment 34: Eliminate the no wake zone on the 

reservoir. Slow boating causes more damage to the 

resource than fast boating. 

Response: The no wake zone was implemented to 

help alleviate the disturbance boats were causing to 

shore fishermen. 

Comment 35: Reduced recreation opportunities will 

reduce visitation and create a negative impact on 

local businesses. 

Response: The majority of visitors to the refuge 

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

allowed on Reclamation lands along the face of the 

dam. Visitation to the area is not expected to decline 

appreciably. A socio-economic evaluation was 

completed for the CCP and presented in Chapter 4 

of the Draft CCP. CCP implementation should have 

no significant detrimental affects to the local 

economy. 

Comment 36: The citizens of Kansas pay the refuge 

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

purchase hunting and fishing licenses pay the 

refuge’s operating expenses. 

Response: Funding for the refuge is appropriated by 

Congress and the President of the United States. 

The state of Kansas sells state hunting and fishing 

licenses and keeps the money. No money from the 

sale of hunting and fishing licenses, including 

Federal Duck Stamp money, goes to the refuge. 

Comment 37: Maintain existing roads and marina 

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

reach the reservoir. Closing roads limits wildlife 

viewing opportunities. 

Response: Access to the reservoir will be 

maintained. Seasonal and permanent road closures 

drastically reduce disturbance to wildlife. The 

Service anticipates wildlife observation 

opportunities will increase with improved habitat. 

Comment 38: The refuge should not remove 

outhouses. It doesn’t make sense to remove what 

already exists. 

Response: Currently, six restrooms are located on 

the refuge. Three restrooms associated with 

campgrounds were proposed for removal. Although 

camping at Crappie Point will be discontinued, the 

area will remain a popular location for fishing. Due 

to public comments, the refuge will maintain a 

restroom at Crappie Point. Restrooms removed 

from camping areas that are in good condition will 

be reused on the refuge or transferred to another 

national wildlife refuge for reuse. 

Comment 39: The refuge should not change the 

management of the face of the dam. 

Response: Decisions regarding management of the 

dam are made by the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Comment 40: Form partnerships to involve the 

community to assist with litter control, facilities 

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

Wildlife Refuge Clean Day. 

Response: Local Boy Scouts spend one day per year 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

78 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

would greatly appreciate assistance from the 

community for the above mentioned items. Due to 

reduced staff and funding, the refuge will need a 

member of the public to spearhead the effort. 

Comment 41: Consider obtaining grants and/or 

donations to improve the refuge. 

Response: The refuge annually applies for grants to 

improve wildlife habitat. Grant applications will 

increase with implementation of the CCP. 

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

plan, but the refuge has been operating under 

alternative B for several years by removing trees on 

the refuge. 

Response: The refuge has been operating under the 

guidance of the Kirwin NWR Comprehensive 

Management Plan (CMP) completed in 1996. The 

goals of the CMP include: 

■	 enhance and maintain migratory bird populations 

■	 provide nesting and breeding habitat for 

grassland nesting species 

■	 enhance and maintain native mixed-grass prairie, 

emphasizing structural diversity in the plant 

community 

■	 enhance and maintain riparian areas in Bow 

Creek and North Fork of the Solomon River 

corridors, emphasizing structural diversity in the 

native shrub-tree community for wildlife 

■	 manage grasslands that favor native species of 

flora and fauna, represented by big bluestem, 

little bluestem 

■	 plant native grasses in retired croplands and 

areas previously seeded to smooth bromegrass 

Comment 43: At times the Refuge gets crowded with 

archery deer hunters. Please consider implementing 

a limited quota draw for refuge deer permits. This 

would provide a more quality hunt with less 

competition amongst hunters. 

Response: The Refuge has heard complaints from 

archers for years about this issue. The Refuge will 

consider implementing a limited quota draw for 

refuge deer permits in the near future. 

MAILING LIST 

The following mailing list was developed for this 

CCP. 

Federal Officials 

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

Topeka, and Prairie Village, KS 

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback—Topeka, Overland 

Park, Garden City, Pittsburg, and Wichita, KS 

U.S. Congressman Jerry Moran—Hutchinson, and 

Hays, KS 

Federal Agencies 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Kansas City 

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

Republican City, NE 

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

Billings, MT 

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

Manhattan, KS and Grand Island, NE 

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

Wildlife Refuge, Harford, KS 

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

National Wildlife Refuge, Pleasanton, KS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Quivira National 

Wildlife Refuge, Stafford, KS 

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

Center, Wichita, KS 

U.S. Geological Survey—Biological Resources 

Division, Fort Collins, CO 

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, ND 

Tribal Officials 

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Mayetta, KS 

Pawnee Tribe, Pawnee, OK 

Kansas State Officials 

Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Topeka, KS 

Senator Janice Lee, Kensington, KS 

Representative John Faber, Brewster, KS 

Representative Dan Johnson, Hays, KS 

Representative Laura McClure, Osborne, KS 

Kansas State Agencies 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks—Office of 

the Secretary, Topeka, KS- Mike Hayden 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks—Region 1 

Office, Hays, KS 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks—Area 

Conservation Officer, Kirwin, KS 

Kansas Biological Survey—Lawrence, KS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G—Public Involvement 79 

Local Agencies and Officials 

Mayor, Kirwin 

Mayor, Phillipsburg 

Mayor, Agra 

Mayor, Prairie View 

Mayor, Logan 

Mayor, Long Island 

Mayor, Glade 

Mayor, Speed 

Phillips County Commissioners 

Phillips County Extension Office 

State Colleges, Universities, Schools and 

Libraries 

Fort Hays State University, Division of Biology, 

Hays 

Kansas State University, Division of Biology, 

Manhattan 

Eastern Heights High School, Agra 

Northern Valley High School, Almena 

Osborne High School, Osborne 

Hill City High School, Hill City 

Hays High School, Hays 

West Smith County High School, Kensington 

Logan High School, Logan 

Natoma High School, Natoma 

Palco High School, Palco 

Phillipsburg High School, Phillipsburg 

Plainville High School, Plainville 

Smith Center High School, Smith Center 

Stockton High School, Stockton 

Norton Community High School, Norton 

Media 

Smith County Pioneer, Smith Center, KS 

Phillips County Review, Phillipsburg, KS 

Norton Daily Telegram, Norton, KS 

Hill City Times, Hill City, KS 

Plainville Times, Plainville, KS 

Phillips County Advocate, Phillipsburg, KS 

Stockton Sentinel, Stockton, KS 

Osborne County Farmer, Osborne, KS 

Hays Daily News, Hays, KS 

The Logan Republican, Logan, KS 

KKAN_KQMA 

Organizations, Business, and Civic Groups 

Friends of Kirwin Lake, Phillipsburg, KS 

Solomon Valley Birdwatcher’s, Agra, KS 

Phillips County Chamber of Commerce, 

Phillipsburg, KS 

National Audubon Society, Manhattan, KS 

Kansas Audubon Society, Lawrence, KS 

Burroughs Audubon of Greater Kansas City, 

Overland Park, KS 

Wildlife Society, Manhattan, KS 

Rotary Club, Phillipsburg, KS 

Lions Club—Phillipsburg, Kirwin, Kensington, 

Smith Center, Agra, and Stockton, KS 

Boothill Bass Club, Spearville, KS 

American Bass Anglers—Fort Collins, CO, Abilene, 

KS, and Ceresco, NE 

Blue Valley Bass Club, Seward, NE 

Sarpy County Bassmasters, Bellevue, NE 

Liberal Bassmaster Bass Club, Liberal, KS 

Southern Colorado Bass Club, Pueblo, CO 

Southwest Anglers, Hugoton, KS 

Midwest Bass Anglers, Weeping Water, NE 

Trophy Teams Association, Colorado Springs, CO 

Kansas Bass Anglers Association, Junction City, KS 

Omaha Bass Club, Omaha, NE 

Southwest Anglers, Liberal, KS 

Northern Colorado Bass Club, Johnstown, CO 

Front Range Bassmasters, Colorado Springs, CO 

Lincoln County Bassmasters, North Platte, NE 

Mile High Bass Pioneers, Longmont, CO 

Heartland His and Hers Bass Circuit, Omaha, NE 

McPherson Bassmasters, Lindsborg, KS 

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

Pikes Peak Bassmasters, Security, CO 

Coronado Area Council/BSA, Salina, KS 

National Wild Turkey Federation, Phillipsburg, KS 

Individuals 

83 persons 
 

 

 

Appendix H—Fire Management Program 81 

Appendix H—Fire Management Program 


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

administrative responsibility, including fire 

management, on approximately 10,778 acres of 

National Wildlife Refuge lands, in Phillips, Kansas. 

Fire—A Critical Natural Process 

In ecosystems in the prairies of the Great Plains, 

vegetation has evolved under periodic disturbance 

and defoliation from bison, fire and drought. This 

periodic disturbance is what kept the ecosystem 

diverse and healthy while maintaining significant 

biodiversity for thousands of years. Historically, 

natural fire has played an important role in many 

ecosystems by removing fuel accumulations, 

decreasing the impacts insects and diseases, 

simulating regeneration, cycling critical nutrients, 

and providing a diversity of habitats for plant 

species and wildlife. 

When fire is excluded on a broad scale, the unnatural 

accumulation of living and dead fuels that occurs can 

contribute to degraded plant communities and 

wildlife habitats. These fuel accumulations often 

change fire regime characteristics, and have created 

a potential in many areas across the country for 

uncharacteristically severe wildland fires. These 

catastrophic wildland fires often pose risks to public 

and firefighter safety. In addition, they threaten 

property and resource values such as wildlife 

habitat, grazing opportunities, timber, soils, and 

water quality. 

In the grassland species of the northern Great Plains, 

vegetation has evolved under periodic disturbance 

and defoliation from bison and fire. This periodic 

disturbance is what made the prairie healthy and a 

place of enormous diversity for thousands of years. 

Return of fire in most ecosystems is essential for 

healthy vegetation in grasslands, wetlands, and 

some woodlands, for wildlife habitat. 

When integrated back into an ecosystem, fire can 

help restore and maintain healthy systems and 

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

natural role in the environment, fire must be 

integrated into land and resource management plans 

and activities on a broad scale. Reintroduced fire: 

■	 Can improve wetlands and riparian areas by 

reducing the density of vegetation, thereby 

increasing the amount of available water; 

■	 Can improve deer and elk habitat, especially in 

areas with shortages such as winter habitat and 

on the spring and fall transitional ranges; 

■	 Can sustain biological diversity; 

■	 Can improve access in woodlands and shrublands; 

■	 Can improve soil fertility; 

■	 Can improve the quality and amount of livestock 

forage; 

■	 Can improve growth in immature woodlands by 

reducing density; 

■	 Can reduce susceptibility of plants to insects and 

disease caused by moisture and nutrient stress; 

■	 Can improve water yield for off-site activities and 

communities dependent on wildlands for their 

water supply. 

Wildland Fire Management Policy and Guidance 

In 2001, an update of the 1995 Federal Fire Policy 

was completed and approved by the Secretaries of 

Interior and Agriculture. The 2001 Federal Wildland 

Fire Management Policy directs federal agencies to 

achieve a balance between fire suppression to 

protect life, property, and resources and fire use to 

regulate fuels and maintain healthy ecosystems. In 

addition, it directs agencies to use the appropriate 

management response for all wildland fires 

regardless of the ignition source. This policy provides 

nine guiding principles that are fundamental to the 

success of the fire management program: 

■	 Firefighter and public safety is the first priority 

in every fire management activity. 

■	 The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological 

process and natural change agent will be 

incorporated into the planning process. 

■	 Fire management plans (FMPs), programs, and 

activities support land and resource management 

plans and their implementation. 

■	 Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire 

management activities. 

■	 Fire management programs and activities are 

economically viable, based upon values to be 

protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives. 

■	 FMPs and activities are based upon the best 

available science. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

■	 FMPs and activities incorporate public health and 

environmental quality considerations. Federal, 

state, tribal, local, interagency, and international 

coordination and cooperation are essential. 

■	 Standardization of policies and procedures among 

federal agencies is an ongoing objective. 

It is essential to have written fire management in 

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

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

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

and fire management activities. 

Management Direction 

Fire management will be used to protect life, 

property and other resources from wildland fires by 

safely suppressing all wildfires on the Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge. Prescribed fire will be 

used in an ecosystem management context for 

habitat management and to protect both federal and 

private property. Fuel reduction activities will be 

applied where needed, especially in areas with a 

higher proportion of residences that may be 

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

All fire management programs will be conducted in a 

manner consistent with applicable laws, policies, and 

regulations. The refuge will maintain a Fire 

Management Plan to accomplish resource 

management objectives. Prescribed fire and manual 

and/or mechanical fuels treatments will be applied in 

a scientific way under selected weather and 

environmental conditions on approximately 500 to 

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

restored prairie habitat, to accomplish habitat 

management objectives. 

Fire Management Goal 

Restore and enhance fire as an ecosystem process 

within prairie habitats. The return and maintenance 

of fire is essential for wildlife habitat in these 

ecosystems. 

Fire Management Objective 

Fire is an important grassland management tool 

that can be used to accomplish habitat management 

objectives. Fire is also a tool that can quickly 

destroy equipment, buildings and property, and hurt 

or kill those that work with it. Prescribed fire and 

WUI treatments will be used to reduce hazardous 

fuels on refuge lands to reduce the intensity and 

favorable conditions for wildland fires. 

Strategies 

Strategies and tactics that consider public and 

firefighter safety and values at risk will be used. A 

more detailed fire plan for information on wildland 

fire suppression and prescribed fire methods, timing, 

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

All management actions will use prescribed fire to 

control nonnative vegetation and the spread of 

woody vegetation in grassland habitats. 

The prescribed fire program will be outlined in the 

FMP for the refuge. This plan describes the 

following: 

■	 the year’s burn units and their predominant 

vegetation 

■	 the primary objectives of the units and the fires 

■	 the acceptable range of results 

■	 site preparation requirements 

■	 weather requirements 

■	 safety considerations and measures to protect 

sensitive features 

■	 burn-day activities 

■	 communications and coordination for burns 

■	 ignition techniques 

■	 smoke management procedures 

■	 post-burn monitoring 

Air Quality 

Prescribed fire temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing several components 

through combustion. The four major components are 

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and 

particulates. Varying amounts of particulate content 

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

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

met during all prescribed fire under all fire 

management actions. 

Visibility and clean air are primary natural resource 

values. The protection of these resources must be 

given full consideration in fire management planning 

and operations. Additionally, smoke can have serious 

health and safety effects that must be considered. 

The management of smoke will be incorporated into 

the planning of prescribed fires and, to the extent 

possible, in the suppression of wildland fire. The 

state of South Dakota does not have a permit system 

for air quality, but does have regulations concerning 

agricultural burning. 

Fire Management Organization, Contacts, and 

Cooperation 

Qualified fire management technical oversight and 

support for the refuge will be established by the 

Region using the Fire Management District 

approach. Under this approach, an appropriate fire 

management staffing organization will be 
 

 

 

 

determined by established modeling systems based 

on the fire management workload of a group of 

refuges and possibly even that of interagency 

partners. (Fire management workload consists of 

historical wildfire suppression activities and 

historical and planned fuels treatment workload.) 

Depending on budgets, fire management staffing 

and support equipment may be located on the 

station or at other refuges in the district and shared 

between all units. Wherever possible, fire 

management activities will be conducted in a 

Appendix H—Fire Management Program 83 

coordinated and collaborative manner with federal 

and nonfederal partners. 

With the signature of this CCP, a new Fire 

Management Plan will be developed for the Kirwin 

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

Fire Management Plan with two or three refuges 

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

or as an interagency Fire Management Plan. 

 

 

Appendix I—Species List 85 

Appendix I—Species List
 

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

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

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

dated 01/30/2003). 

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

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


Amphibians 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Great plains narrow-mouthed Gastrophryne olivacea 

frog 

Great plains toad Bufo cognatus 

Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans 

Plains leopard frog Rana blairi 

Plains spadefoot Scaphiopus bombifrons 

Rocky mountain toad Bufo woodhousii 

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum 

Reptiles 

Brown snake 

Bull snake 

Coachwhip 

Common garter snake 

Common kingsnake 

Eastern fence lizard 

Eastern hog-nosed snake 

Five-lined skink 

Great plains skink 

Lesser earless lizard 

Lined snake 

Milk snake 

Northern water snake 

Plains blackhead snake 

Plains garter snake 

Prairie rattle snake 

Rat snake 

Ringneck snake 

Slender glass lizard 

Texas horned lizard 

Western hog-nosed snake 

Western ribbon snake 

Yellow-bellied racer 

Alligator snapping turtle 

Common snapping turtle 

Storeria dekayi 

Pituophis melanoleucus 

Masticophis flagellum 

Thamnophis sirtalis 

Lampropeltis getula 

Sceloporus undulates 

Heterodon platirhinos 

Eumeces fasciatus 

Eumeces faciatus 

Holbrookia maculate 

Tropidoclonion lineatum 

Lampropeltis triangulum 

Nerodia sipedon 

Tantilla nigriceps 

Thamnophis radix 

Crotalus viridis 

Elaphe obsolete 

Diadophis punctatus 

Ophisaurus attenuatus 

Phrynosoma cornutum 

Heterodon nasicus 

Thamnophis proximus 

Coluber constrictor 

Macroclemys temmincki 

Chelydra serpentine 

Ornate box turtle 

Smooth soft-shelled turtle 

Spiny soft-shelled turtle 

Western painted turtle 

Yellow mud turtle 

Terrapene ornata 

Apalone mutica 

Apalone spinifera 

Chrysemys picta 

Kinosternon flavescens 

Birds 

American avocet 

American black duck 

American bittern 

American coot 

American crow 

American golden plover 

American goldfinch 

American kestrel 

American pipit 

American redstart 

American robin 

American tree sparrow 

American white pelican 

American widgeon 

Baird’s sandpiper 

Bald eagle 

Baltimore oriole 

Bank swallow 

Barn owl 

Barn swallow 

Barred owl 

Bell’s vireo 

Belted kingfisher 

Bullock’s oriole 

Black-and-white warbler 

Black-bellied plover 

Black-billed cuckoo 

Black-billed magpie 

Black-capped chickadee 

Black-crowned night-heron 

Recurvirostra Americana 

Anas rubripes 

Botaurus lentiginosus 

Fulica Americana 

Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Pluvialis dominica 

Carduelis tristis 

Falco sparverius 

Anthus rubescens 

Setophaga ruticilla 

Turdus migratorius 

Spizella arborea 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Anas Americana 

Calidris bairdii 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Icterus galbula 

Riparia riparia 

Tyto alba 

Hirundo rustica 

Strix varia 

Vireo bellii 

Ceryle alcyon 

Icterus bullockii 

Mniotilta varia 

Pluvialis squatarola 

Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Pica hudsonia 

Poecile atricapillus 

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

Black-headed grosbeak 

Black-necked stilt 

Black-throated gray warbler 

Blackpoll warbler 

Black tern 

Blue grosbeak 

Blue jay 

Blue-winged teal 

Bobolink 

Bonaparte’s gull 

Brewer’s blackbird 

Brewer’s sparrow 

Brown-headed cowbird 

Brown creeper 

Brown thrasher 

Bufflehead 

Burrowing owl 

Canada goose 

Canvasback 

Caspian tern 

Cattle egret 

Cedar waxwing 

Chestnut-collared longspur 

Chimney swift 

Chipping sparrow 

Cinnamon teal 

Clay-colored sparrow 

Cliff swallow 

Common goldeneye 

Common grackle 

Common loon 

Common merganser 

Common nighthawk 

Common redpoll 

Common snipe 

Common tern 

Common yellowthroat 

Cooper’s hawk 

Dark-eyed junco 

Dickcissel 

Double-crested cormorant 

Downy woodpecker 

Dunlin 

Eared grebe 

Eastern bluebird 

Eastern kingbird 

Eastern meadowlark 

Pheucticus melanocephalus 

Himantopus mexicanus 

Dendroica nigrescens 

Dendroica striata 

Chlidonias niger 

Passerina caerulea 

Cyanocitta cristata 

Anas discors 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Larus Philadelphia 

Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Spizella breweri 

Molothrus ater 

Certhia Americana 

Toxostoma rufum 

Bucephala albeola 

Athene cunicularia 

Branta Canadensis 

Aythya valisineria 

Sterna caspia 

Bubulcus ibis 

Bombycilla cedrorum 

Calcarius ornatus 

Chaetura pelagica 

Spizella passerina 

Anas cyanoptera 

Spizella pallida 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Bucephala clangula 

Quiscalus quiscula 

Gavia immer 

Mergus merganser 

Chordeiles minor 

Carduelis flammea 

Gallinago gallinago 

Sterna hirundo 

Geothlypis trichas 

Accipiter cooperii 

Junco hyemalis 

Spiza Americana 

Phalacrocorax auritus 

Picoides pubescens 

Calidris alpina 

Podiceps nigricollis 

Sialia sialis 

Tyrannus tyrannus 

Sturnella magna 

Eastern phoebe 

Eastern screech owl 

Eastern towhee 

Eastern wood-pewee 

European starling 

Ferruginous hawk 

Field sparrow 

Forster’s tern 

Franklin’s gull 

Gadwall 

Glaucous gull 

Golden-crowned kinglet 

Golden eagle 

Grasshopper sparrow 

Gray catbird 

Greater prairie chicken 

Great blue heron 

Great crested flycatcher 

Great egret 

Great horned owl 

Greater scaup 

Greater yellowlegs 

Greater white-fronted goose 

Green-winged teal 

Green heron 

Hairy woodpecker 

Harris’ sparrow 

Hermit thrush 

Herring gull 

Hooded merganser 

Horned grebe 

Horned lark 

House finch 

House sparrow 

House wren 

Hudsonian godwit 

Indigo bunting 

Killdeer 

Lapland longspur 

Lark bunting 

Lark sparrow 

Lazuli bunting 

Least bittern 

Least flycatcher 

Least sandpiper 

Least tern 

Lesser scaup 

Sayornis phoebe 

Megascops asio 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Contopus virens 

Sturnus vulgaris 

Buteo regalis 

Spizella pusilla 

Sterna forsteri 

Larus pipixcan 

Anas strepera 

Larus hyperboreus 

Regulus satrapa 

Aquila chrysaetos 

Ammodramus savannarum 

Dumetella carolinensis 

Tympanuchus cupido 

Ardea herodias 

Myiarchus crinitus 

Ardea alba 

Bubo virginianus 

Aythya marila 

Tringa melanoleuca 

Anser albifronus 

Anas crecca 

Butorides virescens 

Picoides villosus 

Zonotrichia querula 

Catharus guttatus 

Larus argentatus 

Lophodytes cucullatus 

Podiceps auritus 

Eremophila alpestris 

Carpodacus mexicanus 

Passer domesticus 

Troglodytes aedon 

Limosa haemastica 

Passerina cyanea 

Charadrius vociferus 

Calcarius lapponicus 

Calamospiza melanocorys 

Chondestes grammacus 

Passerina amoena 

Ixobrychus exilis 

Empidonax minimus 

Calidris minutilla 

Sterna antillarum 

Aythya affinis 
Appendix I—Species List 87 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus 

MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei 

Magnolia warbler Dendrocia magnolia 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis 

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 

Northern mockingbird Minus polyglottos 

Northern pintail Anas acuta 

Northern rough-winged Stelgidopterys serripennis 

swallow 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata 

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

Pie-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus 

Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus 

Purple martin Progne subis 

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor 

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 

Redhead Aythya Americana 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoenicens 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 

Ring-necked pheasant 

Rock pigeon 

Rose-breasted grosbeak 

Ross’s goose 

Rough-legged hawk 

Ruby-crowned kinglet 

Ruddy duck 

Ruddy turnstone 

Sanderling 

Sandhill crane 

Scissor-tailed flycatcher 

Scott’s oriole 

Semipalmated plover 

Semipalmated sandpiper 

Sharp-shinned hawk 

Short-eared owl 

Snow goose 

Snowy egret 

Snowy owl 

Snowy plover 

Song sparrow 

Sora 

Spotted sandpiper 

Spotted towhee 

Stilt sandpiper 

Swainson’s Hawk 

Swainson’s thrush 

Tennessee warbler 

Townsend’s warbler 

Trumpeter swan 

Tundra swan 

Turkey vulture 

Upland sandpiper 

Veery 

Vesper sparrow 

Virginia rail 

Warbling vireo 

Western grebe 

Western kingbird 

Western meadowlark 

Western sandpiper 

White-breasted nuthatch 

White-crowned sparrow 

White-faced ibis 

White-rumped sandpiper 

White-throated sparrow 

Whooping crane 

Phasianus colchicus 

Columba livia 

Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Chen rossii 

Buteo lagopus 

Regulus calendula 

Oxyura jamaicensis 

Arenaria interpres 

Calidris alba 

Grus Canadensis 

Tyrannus forficatus 

Icterus parisorum 

Charadrius semipalmatus 

Calidris pusilla 

Accipiter striatus 

Asio flammeus 

Chen caerulescens 

Egretta thula 

Bubo scandiacus 

Charadrius alexandrinus 

Melospiza melodia 

Porzana carolina 

Actitis macularia 

Pipilo maculates 

Calidris himantopus 

Buteo swainsoni 

Catharus ustulatus 

Vermivora peregrine 

Dendroica townsendi 

Cygnus buccinator 

Cygnus columbianus 

Cathartes aura 

Bartramia longicauda 

Catharus fuscescens 

Pooecetes gramineus 

Rallus limicola 

Vireo gilvus 

Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Tyrannus verticalis 

Sturnella neglecta 

Calidris mauri 

Sitta carolinensis 

Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Plegadis chihi 

Calidris fuscicollis 

Zonotrichia albicollis 

Grus Americana 
 

 

88 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

Willet Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens 

Yellow-crowned night hereon Nyctanassa violacea 

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons 

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 

Fishes 

Black bullhead Ictalurus melas 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Common carp Cyprinus carpio 

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris 

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis 

Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis 

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 

Sand shiner Notropis stramineus 

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 

White crappie Pomoxis annularis 

White base Morone chrysops 

Wiper Morone chrysops XM. 

Saxatilis 

Mammals 

American beaver Castor canadensis 

American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

American badger Taxidea taxus 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus 

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus 

Bobcat Felis rufus 

Brasilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis 

Common muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Common raccoon Procyon lotor 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Deer mouse 

Desert cottontail 

Eastern cottontail 

Eastern mole 

Eastern spotted skunk 

Eastern wood rat 

Evening bat 

Fox squirrel 

Franklin’s ground squirrel 

Gray fox 

Hispid cotton rat 

Hispid pocket mouse 

Hoary bat 

Keen’s bat 

Least shrew 

Long-tailed weasel 

Mule deer 

Northern grasshopper mouse 

Plains harvest mouse 

Plains pocket gopher 

Plains pocket mouse 

Prairie vole 

Ord’s kangaroo rat 

Red bat 

Red fox 

Short-tailed shrew 

Silky pocket mouse 

Silver-haired bat 

Small-footed bat 

Striped Skunk 

Peromyscus maniculatus 

Sylvilagus audubonii 

Sylvilagus floridanus 

Scalopus aquaticus 

Spilogale putorius 

Peromyscus gossypinus 

Nycticeius humeralis 

Sciurus niger 

Spermophilus frankinii 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Sigmodon hispidus 

Chaetodipus hispidus 

Lasiurus cinereus 

Myotis keenii 

Cryptotis parva 

Mustela frenata 

Odocoileus hemionus 

Onychomys leucogaster 

Reithrodontomys montanus 

Geomys bursarius 

Perognathus flavescens 

Microtus ochrogaster 

Dipodomys ordii 

Lasiurus borealis 

Vulpes vulpes 

Blarina brevicauda 

Perognathus flavus 

Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Myotis leibii 

Mephitis mephitis 

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus 

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis 

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Plants 

Grasses 

Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii 

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis 

Buffalograss Buchloe dactyloides 

Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis 

Fall Panicum Digitaria cognatum. 

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 

Green needlegrass Stipa viridula 

Hairy grama Bouteloua hirsuta 

Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans 
Appendix I—Species List 89 

Junegrass Koeleria macrantha 

Little bluestem Andropogon scoparius 

Marsh muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa 

Porcupine grass Stipa spartea 

Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata 

Prairie three-awn Aristida oligantha 

Purple lovegrass Eragrostis spectabilis 

Scribners Panicum Panicum oligosanthes 

Side-oats grama Bouteloua curtipendula 

Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus 

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 

Tall dropseed Sporobolus asper 

Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus 

Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 

Forbs 

American germander Teucrium canadense 

American vetch Vicia americana 

Bee balm Monarda fistulosa 

Blackeyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta 

Blue lettuce Lactuca oblongifolia 

Blue sage Salvia azurea 

Blue vervain Verbena hastata 

Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchum campestre 

Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum 

Bracted spiderwort Tradescantia bracteata 

Buckbrush Symphoricarpos occidentalis 

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis 

Canada milkvetch Astragalus canadensis 

Canada tickclover Desmodium canadense 

Clammy ground cherry Physalis heterphylla 

Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca 

Common sunflower Heliathus annuus 

Compass plant Silphium laciniatum 

Coralberry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 

Croton Croton texensis. 

Cudweed sagewort Artemesia ludoviciana 

Cup plant Silphium perfoliatum 

Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa 

Daisy fleabane Erigeron strgosus 

Dandelion hawks-beard Crepis runcinata 

Deer vetch Lotus purshianus 

False boneset Brickellia eupatoroides 

False boneset Kuhnia eupatoriodes 

False sunflower Heliopsis helianthoides 

Field pussytoes Antennaria neglecta 

Grass-leaved goldenrod Solidago graminifolia 

Green sage Artemisia 

Ground plum Astragalus crassicarpus 

Hairy goldaster Chrysopsis villosa 

Hairy pucoon Lithospermum caroliniense 

Heath aster Aster ericoides 

Hemp dogbane Apocynum cannabinum 

Hoary vervain Verbena stricta 

Illinois bundleflower Desmanthus illinoiensis 

Illinois tick clover Desmodium illinoensis 

Indian hemp dogbane Apocynum cannabinum 

Indigo bush Amorpha fruticosa 

Jerusalem artichoke Helianthus tuberose 

Leadplant Amorpha canescens 

Lemon scurfpea Psoralidium lanceolatum 

Longbeard hawkweed Hieracium longipilum 

Marble-seeded Borage Onosmodium molle 

Maximillian sunflower Helianthus maximilliani 

Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis 

Mountain mint Pycnanthemum virginianum 

Narrowleaf pucoon L.incisum 

New England aster Aster novae-angliae 

Norwegian cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica 

Panicled aster Aster simplex 

Philadelphia fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus 

Pink poppy mallow Callirhoe alcaeoides 

Plains sunflower Helianthus petiolaris 

Plains yellow primrose Calylophus serrulatus 

Prairie cinquefoil Potentilla arguta 

Prairie coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria 

Prairie goldenrod Solidago missouriensis 

Prairie larkspur Delphinium virescens 

Prairie ragwort Senecio plattensis 

Prairie violet Viola pedatifida 

Prairie wild rose Rosa arkansana 

Prickly poppy Argemone plyanthemos 

Purple coneflower Echinacea angustifolia 

Purple poppy mallow Callirhoe involucrata 

Purple prairie clover Dalea purpureum 

Redroot New Jersey tea Ceanothus herbaceous 

Rigid goldenrod Solidago rigida 

Rosinweed Silphium integrifolium 

Rough blazingstar Liatris punctata 

Rough rattlesnake-root Prenanathes aspera 

Round head lespedeza Lespedeza capitata 

Rush skeleton plant Lygodesmia juncea 

Sand lovegrass Eragrostis trichoides 

Sawtooth sunflower Helianthus grosseratus 

Scarlet globemallow Spharalcea coccinea 
 

 

90 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Sensitive brier 

Shell-leaf penstemon 

Short green milkweed 

Showy partridge pea 

Silky prairie clover 

Silver-leaf scurf pea 

Slender-leaf scurf pea 

Spider milkweed 

Stiff goldenrod 

Stiff sunflower 

Tall thistle 

Talus slope penstemon 

Thick-spike gayfeather 

Thimbleweed 

Upright prairie coneflower 

Venus’ looking glass 

Violet wood sorel 

Virginia ground cherry 

Wavyleaf thistle 

Western ironweed 

Western wild lettuce 

Schrankia nuttallii 

Penstemon grandiflorus 

Asclepias viridiflora 

Cassia chamaecrista 

Dalea villosa 

Psoralea argophylla 

Psoralea tenuiflora 

Asclepias viridis 

S. rigida 

Helianthus rigidus 

Cirsium altissimum 

Penstemon digitalis 

Liatris pycnostachya 

Anemone cylindrica 

Ratibiada columnifera 

Tridanis perfoliata 

Oxalis violacea 

Physallis virginiana 

Cirsium undulatum 

Vernonia fasciculata 

Lactuca ludoviciana 

Western yarrow Achillea millefolium 

White prarie clover Dalea candida 

Whorled milkweed Asclepias verticillata 

Wild four-O-clock Mirabilis nyctaginea 

Wild lettuce Lactuca canadensis 

Wild licorice Glycyrrhizia lepidota 

Wild onion Allium canadense 

Willowleaf aster Aster praealtus 

Wooly plantain Plantago patagonica 

Wetland emergents 

Duley rush Juncus dudleyyi 

Fescue sedge Carex brevior 

Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 

Gravid sedge Carex gravida 

Interior rush Juncus interior 

Marsh smartweed Polygonum coccineum 

Pale smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium 

Self heal Prunella vulgaris 

Wedgelead fog-fruit Lippia cuneifolia 
 

 

 

Appendix J—Graphs 91 

Appendix J—Graphs
 

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

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

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

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

400 
 

A m erican C oot 

G adw all 350 
 N orthern P intail 

G reen-w inged Teal 

B lue-w inged Teal 

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

Wood Duck 

250 
 

200 
 

150 
 

100 
 

5 0 
 

0
 

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

(a) 

1200 
 

1100 
 

1000 
 A m erican C oot 
 

900 
 G adw all 
 

800 
 N orthern P intail
 

700 
 G reen-w inged Teal 
 

600 
 B lue-w inged Teal 
 

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

N orthern S hoveler 

Wood Duck 450 
 

400 
 

350 
 

300 
 

250 
 

200 
 

150 
 

100 
 

5 0 
 

0
 

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

Average Population Total Use Days (x 1000) 

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

20 

18 

13 American Coot 

Gadwall 

12 Northern Pintail 

Green-winged Teal 

11 Blue-winged Teal 

American Wigeon 

10 Northern Shoveler 

Wood Duck 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

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

(c) 

650 

600 

550 Redhead 

Ring-necked Duck 500 

Canvasback 

450 Lesser Scaup 

400 Ruddy Duck 

350 Bufflehead 

Hooded Merganser 300 Com m on Goldeneye 

250 Common Merganser 

200 

150 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

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

(d) 

0 
Appendix J—Graphs 93 

Peak Population (x 1000) Average Population 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

900 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

1800 

2000 

Redhead 

Ring-necked Duck 

Canvasback 

Lesser Scaup 

Ruddy Duck 

Bufflehead 

Hooded Merganser 

Common Goldeneye 

Common Merganser 

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

(e) 

200 
 

150 
 

2 2 
 

2 0 
 

1 8 
 

1 6 
 

1 4 
 

1 2 
 

1 0 
 

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

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

Redhead 

Ring-necked Duck 

Canvasback 

Lesser Scaup 

Ruddy Duck 

Bufflehead 

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

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

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

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

4500 
 

4000 
 

3500 
 

3000 
 

2500 
 

2000 
 

1500 
 

1000 
 

500 
 

0 

12000 
 

10000 
 

8000 
 

6000 
 

4000 
 

2000 
 

0 

Canada Goose 

M a lla rd 

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

Canada Goose 

M allard 

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

(g) 

(h) 
 

Canada goose

M a lla rd

Appendix J—Graphs 95 

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

9
 

8
 

7
 

6
 

5
 

4
 

3
 

2
 

1
 

0 

C a n a d a G o o s e 

M a lla rd 

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

(i) 

3 0 
 

2 5 
 

2 0 
 

1 5 
 

1 0 
 

5
 

4
 

3
 

2
 

1
 

0 

G reater W hite-fronted G oose 

Snow Goose 

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

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

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

550 

600 

650 

700 

750 

G reater W hite-fronted G oose 

Snow Goose 

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

(k) 

23
 

22
 

21
 

20
 

11
 

10
 

9
 

8
 

7
 

6
 

5
 

4
 

3
 

2
 

1
 

0
 

Greater White-fronted Goose 

Snow Goose 

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

(l) 

Peak Population (x 1000) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix K—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 97 

Appendix K—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Persons: Craig Mowry (785) 543-6673 

Toni Griffin (303) 236-4378 

Date: May 1, 2006 

I. Region 6

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

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat 

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

1. bald eagle-threatened 

2. whooping cranes-endangered 

3. interior least tern-endangered 

4. piping plovers-endangered 

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

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

1. none 

C. Candidate species within the action area: 

1. none 

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

IV. Geographic area or station name and action 

Station: Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

Action: Issuance and implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kirwin 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

V. Location (map attached) 

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

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

B. County and State: Phillips County, Kansas 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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

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

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

 adjacent to the northeast portion of the refuge boundary. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

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

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

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

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

Refuge. 

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

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

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

 crop fields with large, unobstructed field of view. 

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

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

 is found on the east end of the reservoir. 

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

vegetation and open shoreline areas. 

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

 for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

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

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

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

 levels. 

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

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

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

 line, in the Bow Creek arm. 

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

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

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

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

trees. 

VII. Determination of effects: 

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

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

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

 at this time. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix K—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 99 

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

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

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

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

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

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

on interior least terns, or piping plovers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 around the Refuge for them to roost in. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIII. Effect determination and response requested 

[* = optional] 

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat: 

 Determination Response requested 

 No effect/no adverse modification _____ *Concurrence 

(species: _____ ) 

May affect, but is not likely to adversely X Concurrence 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

(species: all 4 ) 

May affect, and is likely to adversely _____ Formal Consultation 

affect species/modify critical habitat 

(species:______) 

B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat: 

 Determination Response requested 

No effect on proposed species/no adverse _____ *Concurrence 

modification of proposed critical habitat 

(species: _____ ) 

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species _____ Conference 

adversely modify proposed critical habitat 

(species: _____ ) 

C. Candidate Species: 

 Determination Response requested 

 no effect _____ *Concurrence 

(species:______) 

is likely to jeopardize candidate species _____ Conference 

(species: _____ ) 

_ 

Craig Mowry, Refuge Manager, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Date 

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence X Nonconcurrence __________ 

B. Formal Consultation required _____ 

C. Conference required _____ 

D. Informal conference required _____ 

E. Remarks 

Signature Date 

[Title/office of reviewing official] 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix L—Refuge Operations Needs System Projects 101 

Appendix L—Refuge Operations Needs System 

Projects 

 Initial Year Recurring Annual

(thousands $) (thousands $) 

Park Ranger (LEO) $140 $75 

Outdoor Recreation Planner $140 $75 

Habitat Projects (invasive plants) $283 $30 

 Total $1,061 $435 

Biologist $151 $86 

Deputy Refuge Manager $151 $86 

Equipment Operator $140 $75 

Research/Monitoring (RLGIS) $56 $8 

 

 

Appendix M—Maintenance Management System Projects 103 

Appendix M—Maintenance Management System 

Projects 

Project Cost 

Expand visitor center $627,000 

Replace 1982 tractor $88,000 

Replace unsafe shop building $410,000 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography 


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

west central Kansas. Ecological Monographs 

7:481–547. 

American Bird Conservancy. Undated. List of 

globally Important Bird Areas in Kansas. 

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

/kansas.htm> Accessed June 2005. 

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

edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of 

North American Birds. Auk 117:847–858. 

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

American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of 

North American Birds. Auk 119:897–906. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 2003. Forty-fourth 

supplement to the American Ornithologists’ 

Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 

120:923–931. 

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

Coverages on Birds of North Dakota Mixed-grass 

Prairies. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 

100(1):10–14. Ottawa, Canada. 

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

Saltcedar negatively affects biodiversity of 

aquatic macroinvertebrates. Wetlands 21:442– 

447. 

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

pollution in the United States and prospects for 

wetland use. Ecological Engineering 1:1–26. 

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

on Grassland Nesting Birds. College of Natural 

Sciences, Dakota State University, Madison, 

South Dakota. 

BBC Research & Consulting. ARCview 9.0, ESRI. 

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

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110–116. 

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

The Mixed Prairie. Chapter 4 In Prairie 

Conservation: Preserving North America’s most 

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

Knopf, editors. Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Busby. Sept. 2005. Personal observation. 

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

other constituents in reservoir bottom sediment 

of the Solomon River Basin, north-central 

Kansas. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 99-4230. 

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

metals in reservoir sediment from two adjacent 

basins in the central Great Plains. Environmental 

Geology 40:470–481. 

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

groundwater levels in a Platte River wet 

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

Stubbendieck, editors. Proceedings of the 11th 

North American Prairie Conference. University 

of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

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

Disturbances of Waterfowl: An Annotated 

Bibliography. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 

188, Washington, D.C. 

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

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

2003a. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Upland Sandpiper. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

m> (Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

management practices on grassland birds: Vesper 

Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center, Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home 

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

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

12DEC2003). 

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

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

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

grassland birds: Short-eared Owl. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

(Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

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

grassland birds: Dickcissel. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 
 

 

 

106 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

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

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

(Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

2003e. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Lark Sparrow. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

(Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

2003f. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Burrowing Owl. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Short-eared Owl. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

(Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Grasshopper Sparrow. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Home Page. 

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

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

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

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

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Lark Bunting. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: McCown’s Longspur. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Clay-colored Sparrow. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Bobolink. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Western Meadowlark. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

.htm> (Version 12DEC2003). 

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

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

B.R. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Chestnut-collared Longspur. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 

Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 

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

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

12DEC2003). 

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

turbidity: a selected annotated bibliography. 

South Dakota Cooperative Wildlife Research 

Unit, South Dakota State University, Technical 

Bulletin Number 5. 

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

on sites and conditions classes. Journal of Soil and 

Water Conservation 13:151–155. 

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

Proceedings of the 14th Annual North American 

Prairie Conference. Kansas State University, 

Manhattan, Kansas. 

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

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

and Wildlife Service, Waterfowl Management 

Handbook, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.6. 

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

riparian habitats: a non-game overview. Pages 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography 107 

editors. Management of non-game wildlife in the 

Midwest: a developing art. North-Central 

Section, The Wildlife Society, Grand Rapids, 

Michigan. 

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

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

Bookhout, editor. Research and management 

techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth edition. 

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Gilbert, E. 2003. Refuge Manager, Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Gutzwiller, K.J. 1993. Serial Management 

Experiments: An Adaptive Approach to Reduce 

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

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 528– 

536. 

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

Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

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

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

.htm> (Version 12MAY03). 

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

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

B.R. 1998. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Northern Harrier. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND. 12 pages. 

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

Phillips County. Kansas Geological Survey, Map 

M-29. 

Kansas Department of Agriculture. 2002–2004. 

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

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

Recreational Activity on Wildlife in Wildlands. 

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

Conference 238–247. 

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

grassland vertebrates. Ecological Studies 

125:273–289. 

KNR. 2004. Crime Report. 

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

Disturbance of Diving Ducks by Boaters on a 

Migrational Staging Area. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 13:290–296. 

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

associations and waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:707–718. 

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

Kansas prairie. Transactions of the Kansas 

Academy of Science 70:388–401. 

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

Kansas. Erdkunde 26:120–129. 

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

Ecology 55:586–604. 

Kullberg, R.G. 1974. Distribution of aquatic 

macrophytes related to paper mill effluents in a 

southern Michigan stream. American Midland 

Naturalist 91:271–281. 

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

of Oakville Prairie, North Dakota. The Prairie 

Naturalist. 18(4): 203–210. 

Laubhan, M. 2003a. A Biological Assessment of 

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

North Dakota. 

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

observations. March. 

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

rangelands: their management based on a half 

century of research. Kansas Agricultural 

Experiment Station Bulletin 622. 

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

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

editors. Ecology of soil seed banks. Academic 

Press, San Diego, California. 

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

resources of the North Fork Solomon River in 

Mitchell, Osborne, Smith, and Phillips counties, 

Kansas. State Geological Survey of Kansas. 

Bulletin 98. 

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

S. 2004. Geoarchaeological and GIS Modeling of 

Archaeological Site Locations at Kirwin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Phillips County, Kansas. Office 

of Archaeological Research, Museum of 

Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 

submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Nebraska-Kansas Area Office, Grand Island, 

Nebraska. 

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

Variation in Soil and Vegetation Impacts on 

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

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

Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of 

Birds: A General Framework and Specific 

Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes. 

Restoration Ecology 9(3): 280–292. 

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

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

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

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

Scientific Imperative for Defending Small 

Streams and Wetlands. Small Stream Report. 

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

edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New 

York. 

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

Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, KS 

Mowry, C. 2005. Refuge Manager. Personal 

communication with Adam Orens, Research 

Associate, BBC Research & Consulting. 

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

synthesis of the Effects of Upland Management 

Practices on Waterfowl and Other Birds in the 

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

College of Natural Resources, University of 

Wisconsin–Stevens Point, WI. Wildlife Technical 

Report 1. 

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

associated with greater prairie-chicken leks in an 

agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 64. 

Palmer, W.C. 1965. Meteorological drought. 

Research Paper Number 45. Department of 

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

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

richness, density, and nest success in riparian 

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

Columbia. 

PCensus. 2004. PCensus–USA 7.6, Tetrad Computer 

Applications, Bellingham, WA. 

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

of the North Fork Solomon River Basin above 

Kirwin Dam Northwest Kansas. U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Water and Power Resources 

Service, Region 7, Denver, Colorado. 

Policy Research Institute. 2005. Kansas County 

profile report: Phillips County. Kansas Center for 

Community and Economic Development. Policy 

Research Institute, University of Kansas. 

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

K.G. 1988. Assessing Impact of Recreation on 

Wildlife a Classification Scheme. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 16:58–62. 

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

relation to growth of sago pondweed. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 25:436–438. 

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

L.C. 1970. Relationships between visual 

obstruction measurements and weight of 

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

297. 

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

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Hays, 

Kansas. 

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

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

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

use by breeding birds in riparian forests: a 

hierarchical analysis. Ecological Applications 

9:135–151. 

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

in North America. Bioscience 44:418–421. 

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

Journal of Range Management 3:16–21. 

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

American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966–2003. USGS Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, Maryland Version 

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

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

Hydrograph characteristics relevant to the 

establishment and growth of western riparian 

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

annual American Geophysical Union Hydrology 

Days. Hydrology Days Publications, Atherton, 

California. 

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

selection by spring migrants in north central 

Kansas. Ms. Thesis, Fort Hays State University, 

Fort Hays, Kansas. 

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

shorebirds and habitat dynamics at a prairie 

wetland complex. Wilson Bulletin 106:91–105. 

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

Prairie Bird Populations in Missouri. Grassland 

Management 171–180. 

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

level changes on woody riparian and wetland 

communities, Volume I: Plant and soil resources. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
 

Services Program. FWS/OBS-77/58. 


The Nature Conservancy. 1998. Ecoregional Based 

Conservation in the Central Shortgrass Prairie 1– 

92. 

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

Basin water management study, Kansas. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Special Report. 

———. 2002. Solomon River Basin final 

environmental assessment: conversion of longterm water service contracts to repayment 

contracts. Nebraska–Kansas Area Office, Grand 

Island, Nebraska. May. 

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

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

finder.census.gov/> 

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

boating on management of the Ruby Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. 

Environmental Assessment. Department of 

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

OR. 

———. 1994. Whooping Crane Recovery Plan. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 
 

 

 

 

———. 1996. Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Management Plan. Denver, 

Colorado. 

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

Wildlife, Habitat, People and Leadership in 

Preparation for the National Wildlife Refuge 

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

.fws.gov/pubs3.html> 

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

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

.pdf> March. 

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

Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. Online version 

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

reports/bcc2002.pdf> 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. A biological 

assessment of Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 

March 26–27. 

Bibliography 109 

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

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

/studies/ressed/> 

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

Treatments on Regeneration of Native 

Woodlands on the Northern Great Plains. The 

Prairie Naturalist 18(4):193–201. 

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

seed-banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie 

glacial marshes. Ecology 59:322–335. 

Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic invertebrate abundance 

in relation to changing marsh vegetation. 

American Midland Naturalist 95:313–322. 

Wildlife Habitat Management Institute. 1999. 

Grassland Birds. Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Leaflet 8. 

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

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

Conservation Area Concept in the Northern 

Tallgrass Prairie, Annual Report: 1998. 

Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center