DOCSLIB.ORG

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Contents, Chapters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Contents, Chapters Comprehensive Conservation Plan Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge December 2006 Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 702 E. Xavier Road Kirwin, KS 67644 785/543 6673 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Division of Refuge Planning PO Box 25486 DFC Lakewood, CO 80225 303/236 4365 Approved by: __________________________________ ________________ J. Mitch King Date Regional Director, Region 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lakewood, CO Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Submitted by: __________________________________ ________________ Craig Mowry Date Refuge Manager Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Kirwin, KS Concurred with: __________________________________ ________________ David Wiseman Date Refuge Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Lakewood, CO and __________________________________ ________________ Richard A. Coleman, Ph.D. Date Assistant Regional Director National Wildlife Refuge System U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Lakewood, CO Contents Summary...................................................................................................................................................................... ix 1 Purpose and Need....................................................................................................................................................1 Agency Guidance ........................................................................................................................................................1 Refuge Overview........................................................................................................................................................3 Purpose and Need for Action....................................................................................................................................3 2 Planning Process......................................................................................................................................................7 The Process .................................................................................................................................................................7 Planning Issues ...........................................................................................................................................................8 3 Refuge Description.................................................................................................................................................11 Physical Resources...................................................................................................................................................11 Habitat .......................................................................................................................................................................15 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................................22 Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................................................................................23 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................................................23 Special Management Areas and Designations......................................................................................................24 Visitor Services.........................................................................................................................................................25 Socioeconomic Setting..............................................................................................................................................26 4 Management Direction .........................................................................................................................................29 Management Summary............................................................................................................................................29 Management Direction ............................................................................................................................................30 Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................................................................................44 Personnel and Funding............................................................................................................................................44 Glossary ..........................................................................................................................................................................47 Appendix A⎯Key Legislation and Policies .............................................................................................................53 Appendix B⎯ Compatibility Determinations..........................................................................................................57 Appendix C⎯Memorandum of Agreement..............................................................................................................63 Appendix D⎯Landscape-level Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................67 Appendix E⎯List of Preparers, Consultation and Coordination .........................................................................69 Appendix F⎯Environmental Compliance ...............................................................................................................71 Appendix G⎯Public Involvement.............................................................................................................................73 Appendix H⎯Fire Management Program...............................................................................................................81 Appendix I⎯Species List ...........................................................................................................................................85 Appendix J⎯Graphs....................................................................................................................................................91 Appendix K⎯Section 7 Biological Evaluation.........................................................................................................97 Appendix L⎯Refuge Operations Needs System Projects ..................................................................................101 Appendix M⎯Maintenance Management System Projects ................................................................................103 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................................105 List of Figures and Tables Figures 1. Vicinity map for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas...................................................................................2 2. Platte Kansas Rivers ecosystem................................................................................................................................6 3. Base map for Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas ......................................................................................12 4. Kirwin Reservoir surface elevation, 1956–2003.....................................................................................................14 5. Existing habitat conditions at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .........................................................16 6. Expected habitat conditions at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas........................................................31 7. Regional overview......................................................................................................................................................36 8. Public use at Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas .......................................................................................39 Tables 1. Step-down Management Plans for Kirwin NWR ....................................................................................................8 2. Refuge Staffing...........................................................................................................................................................45 Summary This is a summary of the comprehensive The reservoir is fed by the North Fork of the conservation plan (CCP) for the Kirwin National Solomon River and Bow Creek. Both are Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Phillips County, Kansas. intermittent streams which means they may dry up This plan, approved in 2005, will guide management in periods of low precipitation. The reservoir water of the refuge for the next 15 years. levels fluctuate tremendously from year to year, depending upon rain and snow runoff. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) requires the U.S. CULTURAL RESOURCES Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each Historically, great herds of bison roamed the prairie national wildlife refuge in the National Wildlife grasslands, often followed by wolves that fed on Refuge System (Refuge System). weak and sick animals. Native Americans also resided in this area. Ducks and geese, now attracted to the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-18054, and on govinfo.gov Billing Code 4333-15 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 26, 32, 36, and 71 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000] RIN 1018-BD79 2019–2020 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open seven National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing. In addition, we expand hunting and sport fishing at 70 other NWRs, and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2019–2020 season. We also formally open 15 units of the National Fish Hatchery System to hunting and sport fishing. We also add pertinent station- specific regulations that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing at these 15 National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs) for the 2019–2020 season. This rule includes global administrative updates to every NWR entry in our refuge- specific regulations and the reorganization of general public use regulations. We remove approximately 2,100 regulations that will have no impact on the administration of hunting and sport fishing within the National Wildlife Refuge System. We also simplify over 2,900 refuge- specific regulations to comply with a Presidential mandate to adhere to plain language standards 1 and to reduce the regulatory burden on the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Sediment Deposition in Reservoirs of Four Kansas Watersheds David P
    Comparison of Sediment Deposition in Reservoirs of Four Kansas Watersheds David P. Mau and Victoria G. Christensen Reservoirs are a vital source of water Kansas in 1995. Nine supply, provide recreational opportunities, reservoir studies have been support diverse aquatic habitat, and carried out in cooperation provide flood protection throughout with the Bureau of Kansas. Understanding agricultural, Reclamation, the city of industrial, and urban effects on reservoirs Wichita, Johnson County is important not only for maintaining Unified Wastewater acceptable water quality in the reservoirs Districts, the Kansas but also for preventing adverse Department of Health and environmental effects. Excessive sediment Environment, and (or) the can alter the aesthetic qualities of Kansas Water Office. These reservoirs and affect their water quality studies were supported in and useful life. part by the Kansas State Water Plan Fund and Introduction evaluated sediment deposition along with Figure 1. Bottom-sediment cores were collected with a gravity Reservoir sediment studies are selected chemical corer mounted on a pontoon boat. The corer is lowered to a important because of the effect that constituents in sediment designated distance above the sediment and allowed to free sediment accumulation has on the quality cores (fig. 1) from fall to penetrate through the entire thickness of reservoir of water and useful life of the reservoir. reservoirs located in bottom sediment. Sediment deposition can affect benthic various climatic, organisms and alter the dynamics of the topographic, and geologic landscape annual precipitation ranges from about aquatic food chain. Reservoir sediment regions throughout Kansas and southern 24 inches at Webster Reservoir in north- studies also are important in relation to Nebraska.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Level Management Plans Water Year 2021
    LAKE LEVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS WATER YEAR 2021 Kansas Water Office September 2020 Table of Contents U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT .................................................................................................................................... 3 CLINTON LAKE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 HILLSDALE LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 KANOPOLIS LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 MELVERN LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 MILFORD LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision
    United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Tulsa District Oklahoma Resource Area September 1991 KANSAS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Reader: This doCument contains the combined Kansas Record of Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan (RMP). The ROD and RMP are combined to streamline our mandated land-use-planning requirements and to provide the reader with a useable finished product. The ROD records the decisions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for administration of approximately 744,000 acres of Federal mineral estate within the Kansas Planning Area. The Planning Area encompasses BLM adm in i sterad sp 1 it-estate mi nera 1 s and Federa 1 minerals under Federal surface administered by other Federal Agencies within the State of Kansas. The Kansas RMP and appendices provide direction and guidance to BLM Managers in the formulation of decisions effecting the management of Federal mineral estate within the planning area for the next 15 years. The Kansas RMP was extracted from the Proposed Kansas RMP/FIES. The issuance of this ROD and RMP completes the BLM land use planning process for the State of Kansas. We now move to implementation of the plan. We wish to thank all the individuals and groups who participated in this effort these past two years, without their help we could not have completed this process. er~ 1_' Area Manager Oklahoma Resource Area RECORD OF DECISION on the Proposed Kansas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement September 1991 RECORD OF DECISION The decision is hereby made to approve the proposed decision as described in the Proposed Kansas Resource Management Plan/Final Env ironmental Impact Statement (RMP/FEIS July 1991), MANAGEMENT CONSZOERATXONS The decision to approve the Proposed Plan is based on: (1) the input received from the public, other Federal and state agencies; (2) the environmental analysis for the alternatives considered in the Draft RMP/Oraft EIS, as we11 as the Proposed Kansas RMP/FEIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Waconda Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan
    Waconda Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan Water Quality Impairments Directly Addressed: Waconda Lake Eutrophication TMDL (Medium Priority) North Fork Solomon River E. coli TMDL (Medium Priority) South Fork Solomon River E. coli TMDL (High Priority) Other Impairments Which Stand to Benefit from Watershed Plan Implementation: South Fork Solomon River Biology TMDL (Low Priority), Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing, and Total Suspended Solids 303(d) listing North Fork Solomon River Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing, Total Suspended Solids 303(d) listing, and Biology 303(d) listing Twin Creek Dissolved Oxygen TMDL (Medium Priority) Oak Creek Dissolved Oxygen 303(d) listing and Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing Carr Creek Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing and Total Suspended Solids 303(d) listing Beaver Creek Dissolved Oxygen 303(d) listing, Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing, and Total Suspended Solids 303(d) listing Deer Creek Dissolved Oxygen 303(d) listing and Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing Determination of Priority Areas Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL) Model to identify HUC 12 watersheds within highest estimated phosphorus loads for cropland targeted areas Interpretation of water quality data included within bacteria TMDLs for North and South Fork Solomon Rivers to identify HUC 12 watersheds to focus BMP implementation towards addressing bacteria impairment issues. Best Management Practice and Load Reduction Goals Phosphorus Watershed Plan Waconda Lake Load to Meet Waconda Lake Current Waconda Lake
    [Show full text]
  • Webster Fishing District Newsletter 5-7-2013
    Stockton District Fisheries Newsletter Volume 1, Issue 1 Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks & Tourism; Fisheries Division 2013 Written By: 2013 FISHING FORECAST Mark A. Shaw, District Fisheries Biologist WEBSTER RESERVOIR Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks & Tourism Webster Area Office 1140 10 Road WEBSTER RESERVOIR - As of April 24, 2013, the reservoir elevation was 12.74 feet below Stockton, KS 67669 (785) 425-6775 conservation pool. The Morel Boat ramp is currently high and dry and not usable at this time. [email protected] However, all the other ramps are usable. BLACK BASS - Good. The largemouth bass Welcome to the Stockton population is dominated by 15 to 20 inch fish Fisheries District accounting for 49 percent of the sample. Largemouth bass in the 3 to 5 inch size range accounted for 9 percent of the sample, fish in the 8 The Stockton District consists of four counties in to 11 inch size range accounted for 2 percent and northwest Kansas. They are Rooks (RO), Phillips fish 11 to 15 inches accounted for 40 percent. The (PL) , Smith (SM) and Norton (NT). The district biggest largemouth bass sampled this past year consists of three main Reservoirs; Webster, Kirwin weighed 3.68 pounds. A remnant population of and Keith Sebelius, one state fishing lake; Rooks smallmouth bass also exists at Webster. An 11 State fishing lake, two Community Fisheries inch smallmouth was collected during the spring Assistance Program (CFAP) lakes; Logan City lake bass sample and a couple others were observed. and Plainville Township lake; and various Fishing Spinner, crank and artificial bait’s should work well Impoundments and Stream Habitats (FISH) in Rock Point and Old Marina coves, along the properties which consist of 97.5 acres of ponds in dam and bluff’s, the coves between Rock Point Phillips, Smith and Rooks counties and 5.80 miles and the outlet gates.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Level Management Plans Water Year 2017
    LAKE LEVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS WATER YEAR 2017 KANSAS WATER OFFICE 2016 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 CLINTON LAKE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 HILLSDALE LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 KANOPOLIS LAKE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 MELVERN LAKE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 MILFORD LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 PERRY LAKE .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Goal Action Plans Section
    CIMARRON REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION PLANS CIMARRON PRIORITY GOAL #1 REDUCE THE RATE OF DECLINE OF THE OGALLALA AQUIFER IN THE REGION THROUGH VOLUNTARY, INCENTIVE-BASED CONSERVATION AS ASSESSED EVERY FIVE YEARS CIMARRON PRIORITY GOAL #2 EXTEND THE USABLE LIFETIME OF THE OGALLALA AQUIFER IN THE REGION THROUGH TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION (IRRIGATION, INDUSTRIAL, MUNICIPAL, ETC.), NEW CROP VARIETIES AND CONSERVATION FOR ALL USES AND FOR MANY GENERATIONS Goals 1 and 2 seek to reduce water use in the region therefore the following actions apply to both ACTION STEPS • Define and quantify the regional aquifer decline, establishing a baseline for comparison • Work with partners, including KDA and NRCS, to develop baseline of water saving technologies in use and voluntary incentive based conservation occurring and a method to track participation. Consider using the annual water reporting system, producer surveys and other means to identify water saving efforts if needed. • Secure funding, including statutory SGF transfer to SWPF, to support water conservation programs and evaluation of technologies, crop varieties and water management to save water. • Provide water users with information on available tools and programs, including but not limited to; LEMAS, WCAs, Multi-Year Flex Accounts, Water Banks, Irrigation Scheduling, RCPP-Soil Probe program through GMDs, K-State Extension tools, K-State Research/farms and additional tools and programs as made available. • Change producer perception from a “use it or lose it” mentality. • Use demonstration projects to educate producers to economically reduce water used. (Water technology farms, LEMAS, WCAs, K-State Research and Extension farm projects and other water management and water efficiency projects can provide valuable examples and information to producers to encourage their participation in water saving efforts.) • GMD3 and DWR work with producers to establish LEMAs and WCAs.
    [Show full text]
  • Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Fishing Expansion
    U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION STATEMENT FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION The Service proposes to expand fishing opportunities (boating regulations changes) on 1,360 acres of the Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas in accordance with existing State, local, and Refuge-specific regulations (50 CFR 32.35). Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record and determined that the following proposed action is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4, 43 CFR 46.205, and 516 DM 8.5. The Service has fully satisfied the other requirements for expanding these opportunities on the refuge, including: □X determining that the opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see attached Compatibility Determination); □X ensuring the opportunities are consistent with existing State, local, and refuge- specific regulations (50 CFR 32.35); *Use of signs and brochures may supplement the refuge-specific regulations □X complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (see attached); □X complying with the Endangered Species Act section 7 evaluation (see attached) OR □ N/A because there are no candidate, threatened or endangered species present; □X complying with the National Historic Preservation Act section 106 consultation; OR □ N/A because there are no cultural or historic resources present; The Service is, therefore, waiving the requirement to prepare an opening package in compliance with Service policy (605 FW 2.9A).
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Guidebook
    KANSAS FIELD CONFERENCE FIELD GUIDE 2005 FIELD CONFERENCE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS WATER, RECREATION, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JUNE 8–10, 2005 EDITED BY ROBERT S. SAWIN REX C. BUCHANAN CATHERINE S. EVANS JAMES R. MCCAULEY THIS PROJECT IS OPERATED BY THE KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND FUNDED, IN PART, BY THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS, THE KANSAS WATER OFFICE, AND THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGY EXTENSION THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS 1930 CONSTANT AVE. LAWRENCE, KANSAS 66047–3726 KGS OPEN-FILE TELEPHONE: (785) 864–3965 REPORT 2005–17 WWW.KGS.KU.EDU CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS WATER, RECREATION, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2005 FIELD CONFERENCE 3 2 7 8 1 6 5 Proposed HorseThief Reservoir 4 Wednesday Thursday Friday 0 10 mi KANSAS FIELD CONFERENCE Central Great Plains Water, Recreation, and Economic Development 2005 FIELD CONFERENCE June 8-10, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Participants List ....................................................................................................... 1 - 1 Biographical Information ........................................................................................ 1 - 5 KANSAS FIELD CONFERENCE 2005 Field Conference – “Central Great Plains – Water, Recreation, and Economic Development” ....... 2 - 1 Sponsors .................................................................................................................. 2 - 3 Kansas Geological Survey ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • General Fishing Atlas Information
    ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2021.qxp_ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2/17/21 10:42 AM Page 1 Kansas Fishing Atlas 2021 Public Fishing Access Includes Walk-in Fishing Access (WIFA) Get our mobile app HuntFish KS ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2021.qxp_ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2/17/21 10:42 AM Page 2 WIFA Area Rules Walk-in Fishing Access (WIFA), formerly F.I.S.H., sites 6. Avoid stretching fences when crossing them, and use are leased from private landowners and are typically open to fence stiles where available. public fishing from March 1 – Oct. 31, though some proper- ties are open year-round. The WIFA program provides 7. Do not attempt to contact cooperating landowners to ask anglers increased opportunities to enjoy fishing on the state’s about fishing other portions of their land. streams and small impoundments, all that is required is a state fishing license. Funding for the program is provided Regulations governing WIFA area use: through fishing license revenues and Sport Fish Restoration Funds. Please observe all rules and regulations, and remem- • Impounded WIFA waters have a creel limit of two channel ber that common sense and ethical behavior will influence catfish, a creel limit of two largemouth bass, and an 18-inch the future of the program. minimum length limit on largemouth bass. Otherwise, all Kansas fishing regulations and statewide creel limits apply. It’s The following guidelines help maintain a good relation- especially important for anglers using the sites to respect and fol- ship between landowners and anglers: low the rules that apply on WIFA properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Kirwin Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan
    Kirwin Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan Water Quality Impairments Directly Addressed: • Kirwin Lake Eutrophication TMDL (Medium Priority) Other Impairments Which Stand to Benefit from Watershed Plan Implementation: • Kirwin Lake Dissolved Oxygen TMDL (Medium Priority) • Bow Creek Near Stockton Total Phosphorous 303(d) listing • North Fork Solomon River Near Glade Total Phosphorous 303(d) listing • Logan City Lake Eutrophication 303(d) listing Determination of Priority Areas Information collected by the Graham, Norton and Phillips county NRCS offices was used by KSU in a SWAT model to identify priority HUC12s. Because of extremely low soil erosion rates, the SLT requested KDHE verify the SWAT model results. KDHE used the Cropland/Slope Analysis method to verify the SWAT model data. The results confirmed the SWAT results identifying nine HUC12s. This method also identified eleven additional HUC12s as significant potential sediment contributors. The SLT agreed to develop two priority area, Tiers 1 and 2, above Kirwin Lake to focus BMP implementation towards addressing nonpoint source impairment issues. Best Management Practice and Load Reduction Goals Phosphorus Load to Watershed Plan Kirwin Lake Current Meet Kirwin Lake Phosphorus Load Phosphorus Load EU TMDL (143,000 lbs/yr) Reduction Goal (48,400 lbs/yr) (94,600 lbs/yr) BMPs to be implemented in association Watershed Plan Duration and Costs with Watershed Plan: • Total plan length = 30 years • Cropland-related BMPs o Load reduction goal of plan met during year 30 o Permanent vegetation • o Grassed waterways Total plan cost = $25,802,172 Cropland BMP Implementation o No-till cropland production o . $15,638,153 o Terraces Livestock BMP Implementation o Nutrient management o .
    [Show full text]