Murray K. Laubhan

A Preliminary Biological Assessment of Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Murray K. Laubhan

Stimulation for this report was generated by passage of the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) that requires each refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System to develop a CCP that includes goals and objectives that are based on the best available science. To accomplish this mandate, Region 6 of FWS contracted with the Biological Resources Division of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) to inspect refuge habitats and synthesize available information pertinent to the management of Kirwin NWR as part of a pre-planning phase to guide development of a CCP. This report represents such a synthesis. The brevity of the site visit did not allow for detailed discussions between USGS and FWS personnel, but it did provide the opportunity to exchange thoughts regarding the information needed to evaluate the biological program. Thus, the ideas contained within this report are of a general nature and should be viewed as a collaborative effort that involved the refuge staff. Additional work will be required to objectively evaluate the biological program, and this report should be viewed as an initial effort to start this process. In addition, there are alternative ways of approaching an evaluation that would require different levels and types of information. Therefore, the responsibility of FWS is to review the report and other relevant materials, discuss available options with appropriate personnel, and determine if the identified information needs and recommendations outlined in this report are acceptable and represent the preferred manner of proceeding. General descriptive information on refuge establishment, topography, climate, geology, soils, vegetation, and wildlife is intended to provide a brief background of the refuge with regard to functions, processes, and values. This information is important as a baseline for understanding the impact of past land alterations and for developing management guidelines for the future. In contrast, the section on conservation is intended to provide perspective regarding potential refuge contributions to natural resources based on conservation plans that have been developed for application at larger geographic scales that encompass the refuge. The section on evaluation of community types discusses in more detail the attributes of various communities that occur within the refuge boundary. For ease of discussion, four broad communities were delineated as follows: (1) Reservoir Pool, (2) Shoreline, (3) Riparian, and (4) Upland. For each community, a brief synopsis of historic and current conditions is provided. Also, potential management options are discussed along with some associated benefits and detriments. Appendix A summarizes the information needs that may be required to address the recommendations provided in the evaluation section. These recommendations largely are those of the author and are based on thoughts that resulted from discussions with FWS personnel during the site visit trip in March. Therefore, the list is incomplete from a biological perspective and largely ignores recreational and other considerations. Additional effort will be required by FWS personnel to identify and integrate issues, concerns, and recommendations through internal discussions and public scoping. Although some scoping has already occurred, hopefully this report will assist future efforts by providing some background biological information. Obviously, this represents only the first step in a long process and additional work is necessary.