**OVERVIEW OF THE REGION AND THE NNWR CHAPTER 2**

As context for the analysis that we present in Chapters 3 through 5,
this chapter provides an overview of the regional economy and the NNWR.
In particular, in this chapter we discuss:

-   The regional economy in which the NNWR operates, including economic,
    demographic and socioeconomic characteristics;

-   The history of the NNWR, its purpose and its mission;

-   The commercial activities that occur on the NNWR and their
    associated values;

-   The recreational activities that take place on the NNWR;

-   Possible threats to the Refuge in continuing its mission; and

-   The proposed focus area, including possible acquisition scenarios.

# THE REGION

South-central Wisconsin is marked by low-lying hills, lakes and rivers,
forests, pasture and agricultural lands. The region of specific interest
for this study includes four counties: Adams, Juneau, Monroe and Wood.
Exhibit 2-1 shows the Refuge, the proposed Yellow River Focus Area,
nearby towns, and other nearby recreation areas.

The study region is less densely populated than Wisconsin as a whole,
and has exhibited modest population growth over the last decade. The
natural landscape, rural character and availability of local
recreational opportunities have attracted retirees and others from urban
areas in Wisconsin and bordering states. Exhibit 2-2 provides area and
population statistics for the

four counties that make up the study area. The population growth rate
for these counties from 1990 to 1995 is approximately equal to that of
the State of Wisconsin as a whole, but less than that for the entire
U.S. over this time period.[^1]

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Exhibit 2-2**                  |                                   |
|                                  |                                   |
| **AREA AND POPULATION OF THE     |                                   |
| FOUR-COUNTY REGION**             |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Area:                            | 3,110 square miles                |
|                                  |                                   |
|                                  | 1,990,400 acres                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Population:                      | 147,570 in 1990                   |
|                                  |                                   |
|                                  | 154,540 in 1995                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Percentage Growth, 1990-1995     | 4.7%                              |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Source: *County Economic         |                                   |
| Profile,* Department of          |                                   |
| Commerce, Madison, WI.           |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Exhibit 2-3 reports population projections for the State of Wisconsin
and the four counties for selected years. Note that the population of
counties in the study area is expected to grow at a rate less than that
of the State of Wisconsin as a whole over the next 30 years
(approximately 2.6 percent for the study area versus 7.3 percent for the
state by 2030).

+--------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+
| **Exhibit 2-3**          |               |             |            |
|                          |               |             |            |
| **POPULATION PROJECTIONS |               |             |            |
| FOR THE STATE OF         |               |             |            |
| WISCONSIN AND FOUR       |               |             |            |
| COUNTIES IN STUDY AREA   |               |             |            |
| FOR SELECTED YEARS**     |               |             |            |
+--------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+
| **Region**               | **2000**      | **2010**    | **2020**   |
+--------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+
| Adams County             | 18,265        | 18,423      | 17,562     |
+--------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+
| Juneau County            | 23,322        | 23,785      | 23,661     |
+--------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+
| Monroe County            | 39,384        | 40,621      | 41,238     |
+--------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+
| Wood County              | 77,427        | 79,211      | 80,077     |
+--------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+
| State of Wisconsin       | 5,287,825     | 5,512,313   | 5,676,793  |
+--------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+
| Source: Demographic      |               |             |            |
| Services Center,         |               |             |            |
| *http                    |               |             |            |
| ://www.doa.state.wi.us/d |               |             |            |
| eir/queries/pproj4.idc*. |               |             |            |
+--------------------------+---------------+-------------+------------+

Exhibit 2-4 reports the number of employed persons by industry for each
county in the study area, and for the region as a whole. A few large
manufacturing industries contribute significant employment to the
region. In addition, services such as hospitals and retail
establishments also provide many employment opportunities.

+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Exhibit  |         |           |           |           |           |
| 2-4**      |         |           |           |           |           |
|            |         |           |           |           |           |
| **         |         |           |           |           |           |
| EMPLOYMENT |         |           |           |           |           |
| BY         |         |           |           |           |           |
| INDUSTRY   |         |           |           |           |           |
| AND COUNTY |         |           |           |           |           |
| (1992)**   |         |           |           |           |           |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|            | **C     |           |           |           |           |
|            | ounty** |           |           |           |           |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **         | **      | *         | *         | **Wood**  | **Total** |
| Industry** | Adams** | *Juneau** | *Monroe** |           |           |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Mining     | 0       | 0         | 10        | 0         | 10        |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Co         | 221     | 547       | 726       | 2,240     | 3,734     |
| nstruction |         |           |           |           |           |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Man        | 511     | 2,888     | 2,956     | 10,314    | 16,669    |
| ufacturing |         |           |           |           |           |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Tran       | 242     | 378       | 1,127     | 3,125     | 4,872     |
| sportation |         |           |           |           |           |
| & Public   |         |           |           |           |           |
| Utilities  |         |           |           |           |           |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Trade      | 0       | 2,333     | 3,689     | 10,805    | 16,827    |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Services   | 1,167   | 2,379     | 4,422     | 15,051    | 23,019    |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Government | 1,084   | 1,674     | 4,923     | 4,672     | 12,353    |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| A          | 429     | 938       | 2,110     | 1,640     | 5,117     |
| griculture |         |           |           |           |           |
| ^1^        |         |           |           |           |           |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| ^1^ Data   |         |           |           |           |           |
| are for    |         |           |           |           |           |
| 1990 and   |         |           |           |           |           |
| include    |         |           |           |           |           |
| forestry.  |         |           |           |           |           |
|            |         |           |           |           |           |
| Sources:   |         |           |           |           |           |
| *County    |         |           |           |           |           |
| Economic   |         |           |           |           |           |
| Profile*,  |         |           |           |           |           |
| Department |         |           |           |           |           |
| of         |         |           |           |           |           |
| Commerce,  |         |           |           |           |           |
| Madison,   |         |           |           |           |           |
| WI;        |         |           |           |           |           |
| *County    |         |           |           |           |           |
| and City   |         |           |           |           |           |
| Data       |         |           |           |           |           |
| Book*,     |         |           |           |           |           |
| 1994, U.S. |         |           |           |           |           |
| Dept. of   |         |           |           |           |           |
| Commerce.  |         |           |           |           |           |
+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

In the immediate area around the Refuge, however, agricultural
activities constitute the most important component of the regional
economy. This sector includes both dairy farms and farms that grow row
crops (e.g., sweet corn, potato, snap beans). Cranberry production is
important to the region, and is considered a premium crop in that it
commands a high price in the market.[^2] Cranberry beds, while
representing a small percentage of the total land area, are scattered
throughout the region. Because the region has large tracts of both
private and public forest land, the timber industry is important to the
regional economy as well. Exhibit 2-5 provides some summary agricultural
statistics.

+------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Exhibit 2-5**  |          |          |         |         |         |
|                  |          |          |         |         |         |
| **AGRICULTURAL   |          |          |         |         |         |
| STATISTICS FOR   |          |          |         |         |         |
| THE**            |          |          |         |         |         |
|                  |          |          |         |         |         |
| **FOUR COUNTY    |          |          |         |         |         |
| ECONOMIC REGION  |          |          |         |         |         |
| (1992)**         |          |          |         |         |         |
+------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
|                  | **       |          |         |         |         |
|                  | County** |          |         |         |         |
+------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
|                  | *        | **       | **M     | *       | **      |
|                  | *Adams** | Juneau** | onroe** | *Wood** | Total** |
+------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Number of Farms  | 340      | 675      | 1,549   | 1,029   | 3,593   |
+------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Land in Farms    | 119,354  | 195,287  | 346,398 | 221,357 | 882,396 |
| (acres)          |          |          |         |         |         |
+------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Average Size     | 351      | 289      | 224     | 215     | 246     |
| Farm (acres)     |          |          |         |         |         |
+------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Total Value of   | \$40     | \$56     | \$96    | \$83    | \$275   |
| Products         |          |          |         |         |         |
| (millions)       |          |          |         |         |         |
+------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Sources: *County |          |          |         |         |         |
| Economic         |          |          |         |         |         |
| Profile,*        |          |          |         |         |         |
| Department of    |          |          |         |         |         |
| Commerce,        |          |          |         |         |         |
| Madison, WI;     |          |          |         |         |         |
| *1997 County and |          |          |         |         |         |
| City Extra,      |          |          |         |         |         |
| Annual Metro,    |          |          |         |         |         |
| City and County  |          |          |         |         |         |
| Data Book*,      |          |          |         |         |         |
| Bernan Press,    |          |          |         |         |         |
| Lanham, MD.      |          |          |         |         |         |
+------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+

Exhibit 2-6 provides the per capita income figures for each of the four
counties. Within the region, Wood County is the most populous and the
strongest economically.

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Exhibit 2-6**                   |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| **PER CAPITA INCOME BY COUNTY     |                                  |
| (1994)**                          |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **County**                        | **Income**                       |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Adams                             | \$13,567                         |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Juneau                            | \$15,665                         |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Monroe                            | \$14,720                         |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Wood                              | \$21,299                         |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Source: *1997 County and City     |                                  |
| Extra, Annual Metro, City and     |                                  |
| County Data Book*, Bernan Press,  |                                  |
| Lanham, MD.                       |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

The four counties that make up the study area offer a variety of
recreational activities on both public and private lands. Along with the
NNWR, there are several other public recreation areas. These include
Sandhill Wildlife Area (about 20 miles north of the NNWR in Wood
County), Wood County Wildlife Area and Meadow Valley Wildlife Area.
These areas offer substitute sites and opportunities to the NNWR for
hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography and other recreational
activities.

# THE NECEDAH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

The NNWR was established in 1939 and currently incorporates about 43,655
acres of land. Prior to 1939 most of the lands that now make up the
Refuge were farmed. However, the low-lying character of this land made
it a poor choice for agriculture, and many of these farms eventually
failed. The federal government purchased much of the land that makes up
the NNWR under the Jones-Bankhead Farm Tenant Act with the intent of
establishing a wildlife refuge.

Formal establishment of the NNWR included a long-range plan to restore
the land to productive wildlife habitat. As with other national wildlife
refuges, the primary purpose of the NNWR is to provide \"a refuge and
breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.\"[^3] The Refuge
offers a sanctuary for a number of species including several species of
waterfowl and migratory songbirds, wild turkey, ruffed grouse,
white-tailed deer, beaver, raccoon, mink, otter, coyote, skunk, muskrat,
cotton tail rabbit, snowshoe hare and red, gray, and fox squirrels. The
Refuge also protects certain endangered and threatened species, such as
the Karner blue butterfly, Blanding\'s turtle, massasauga rattlesnake,
wolf and bald eagle. Managers of the NNWR have sought to restore and
maintain rare and ecologically important oak barrens located on the
Refuge.

## Commercial Activity

Several commercial activities occur on the Refuge:[^4]

-   The annual budget accounts for staff salaries, maintenance and
    operations, small capital purchases and educational programs of the
    NNWR. The Refuge employs a staff of 11 permanent employees and one
    to three temporary employees, with a total budget of \$624,200 in
    1996.[^5]

-   Each year certain sections of the NNWR are selected for timber
    harvesting. Timber is selectively marked and cut to maintain quality
    habitat. However, most of the timber harvested is of relatively low
    quality. During the 1996-97 season, 3,237 cords of wood were taken
    with a value of \$153,758.[^6]

-   Species trapped on the NNWR include mink, beaver, muskrat and
    raccoon. The annual average value of pelts taken over a 16-year
    period (1980 to 1995) was \$6,858.[^7]

-   In addition to the maintenance of lands by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), certain roads within the boundaries of the
    NNWR are maintained by the surrounding towns of Necedah, Finley,
    Cutler and Kingston. These towns spend, on average, approximately
    \$96,000 annually (in 1996 dollars) for road maintenance, with a
    large component of this cost for snow removal.[^8]

The economic values of these commercial activities are summarized in
Exhibit 2-7. The regional economic contribution of each of these
activities is estimated in Chapter 3.

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Exhibit 2-7**                  |                                   |
|                                  |                                   |
| **1996 COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY       |                                   |
| VALUES OF THE NNWR (1996\$)**    |                                   |
+==================================+===================================+
| **Activity**                     | **Value**                         |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Refuge Budget                    | \$624,200                         |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Road Maintenance                 | \$96,000                          |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Timber Sales                     | \$153,758                         |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Trapping Sales                   | \$6,858                           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Sources: NNWR management; Town   |                                   |
| Chairpersons of Necedah, Cutler, |                                   |
| Finley and Kingston.             |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

## Recreational Activity

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge offers a variety of recreational
opportunities, including but not limited to hunting, fishing and
wildlife viewing. Although the NNWR is open to the public all year, most
visitation occurs in the summer and fall. The hunting season includes
the fall, winter and spring, and fishing is allowed in certain sections
of the Refuge in all seasons.

Approximately 60 percent of the Refuge is closed to most public
activities to minimize disturbance to migratory birds.[^9] Consumptive
recreational activities on the NNWR include the following:[^10]

-   Hunting for both large game (white-tailed deer) and small game
    species (gray and fox squirrel, rabbit, snowshoe hare, ruffed grouse
    and raccoon).[^11]

-   Waterfowl hunting in the fall and wild turkey hunting in the spring
    and fall.

-   Fishing on Refuge waters, primarily for northern pike and bullheads
    (less frequently fished species include black crappie, yellow perch
    and sunfish).[^12]

-   Blueberry and red raspberry picking during the summer season.

-   Gathering of firewood (with a five dollar permit).

The most common non-consumptive activity is wildlife viewing. Logbook
records in the visitor contact area indicate that people from all over
the world come to the NNWR to observe native and migratory species; in
fact, most visitors live outside the local area.[^13] The Refuge offers
wildlife auto routes, with parking areas at points of interest and
observation towers for more expansive views. Environmental education
opportunities are provided through the visitor contact area and in the
form of placards along the auto route and trails. In addition, the NNWR
offers other activities such as hiking on established roads and trails
in the summer and snowshoeing and cross-country skiing in the winter. In
July, visitors have the opportunity to walk and pick berries through the
entire, extensive forest habitat of pine, oak and aspen.

Exhibit 2-8 summarizes 1996 expenditure data for recreational trips
taken to the NNWR. Reported expenditures per trip are based on the *1991
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated
Recreation*, developed by FWS (converted to 1996 dollars). These
expenditure estimates reflect expected state-wide averages, and are not
based on survey data or other primary data from users of this specific
Refuge. As with the commercial activity values, the importance of the
recreational expenditures is not only in the direct effects but also the
indirect and induced regional economic effects, described in Chapter 3.

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **Exhibit 2-8** |                 |                 |                |
|                 |                 |                 |                |
| **RECREATIONAL  |                 |                 |                |
| ACTIVITY        |                 |                 |                |
| EXPENDITURES ON |                 |                 |                |
| THE NNWR**      |                 |                 |                |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
|                 | **Average       |                 |                |
|                 | Expenditures    |                 |                |
|                 | per Recreation  |                 |                |
|                 | Day (1996 \$)** |                 |                |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **Expenditure   | **Fishing**     | **Hunting**     | **Wildlife     |
| Category**      |                 |                 | Viewing**      |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| Food            | \$9.39          | \$7.01          | \$6.61         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| Lodging         | \$3.43          | \$2.56          | \$1.41         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| Equipment       | \$8.10          | \$15.73         | \$1.35         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| Transportation  | \$6.85          | \$5.09          | \$6.08         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| Boating         | \$2.94          | N/A             | N/A            |
| Expenses        |                 |                 |                |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| Ice and Bait    | \$2.29          | N/A             | N/A            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| TOTAL           | \$33.00         | \$30.39         | \$15.45        |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+
| Source: FWS*,   |                 |                 |                |
| 1991 National   |                 |                 |                |
| Survey of       |                 |                 |                |
| Fishing,        |                 |                 |                |
| Hunting, and    |                 |                 |                |
| Wildlife        |                 |                 |                |
| Associated      |                 |                 |                |
| Recreation.*    |                 |                 |                |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------+

In 1996, the NNWR supported an estimated 7,325 fishing days, 9,230
hunting days and 106,835 wildlife viewing days. Activity trips are drawn
from tallies developed by NNWR managers and reported in the Refuge
Management Information System (RMIS).

## Caveats On the Activity Data

The data on NNWR commercial and recreational activity have associated
with them varying levels of certainty. In general, the commercial
activity estimates are more certain than the recreational estimates. For
example, the NNWR budget for 1996 has already been established, and the
timber and pelt output estimates are based on market values and actual
revenue averages.

The estimates of recreation days are more uncertain, however, since a
variety of approaches were used to collect these data. NNWR management
places emphasis on the development of a precise estimate of hunting
activity on the Refuge, while counts of the number of recreational
anglers are more sporadic. Therefore, the true number of fishing trips
is known with less certainty.

To estimate the number of wildlife viewing days, Refuge management use
substantial professional judgment to fill in data gaps. These estimates,
obtained from RMIS, required significant interpretation. In particular,
they contained some double-counting among various types of
nonconsumptive recreation. For example, a visitor who drives the auto
tour route and hikes a nature trail would be counted as a participant in
each of these activities. By removing fishing and hunting days from the
total, we arrived as a smaller, but still upper-bound, estimate. In sum,
the level of precision in these data simply do not allow for an accurate
estimate of annual wildlife viewing days.

## Threats To The Refuge

The lands that currently make up the NNWR were set aside to offer
habitat and provide food for migrating waterfowl and native species.
This has been the principle mission of the NNWR over the last five
decades. While the character of the NNWR has changed little since it was
established, the area surrounding the Refuge has changed considerably.
Some of these changes have come in the agricultural sector. For example,
agriculture in the region has become more dependent on applications of
pesticides and fertilizers. Runoff from farm fields can eventually end
up in the canals, lakes, ponds, shallows and streams of the NNWR, posing
a threat to wildlife and the habitats on which they rely.[^14]

The growth of the regional cranberry industry, which occurred relatively
slowly until the increase in consumer demand for cranberry products in
the early 1970s, represents another possible threat to the NNWR. The
Wisconsin cranberry crop has a total annual market value in excess of
\$100 million.[^15] The counties surrounding the NNWR all contain
cranberry beds, with the largest number of acres planted with this crop
in Wood County, north of the Refuge. Like other agricultural crops,
cranberry beds are sprayed intensively with a variety of pesticides and
fertilizers, which may eventually work their way into the main water
channels supplying the Refuge. Cranberry beds recently developed near
the Refuge are also competing for water supplies serving the Refuge.
[^16]

Cranberry beds are best suited for low lying wet or moist ground.
However, this is also the very type of land that supports productive
wildlife habitat.[^17] Although land presently in the NNWR cannot be
sold or leased for cranberry production, land adjacent to the Refuge\'s
borders may be sold for this purpose. This encroachment on the borders
of the Refuge can have a detrimental effect on the quality of the
habitat and the survival of wildlife. Currently, an estimated 200 acres
of cranberry beds per year are being developed near the boundaries of
the Refuge. The total acreage of cranberry beds currently in Juneau and
Wood counties is estimated to be 4,500.[^18]

Potato growing also represents a potential threat to the Refuge. Potato
fields are plentiful in the area surrounding the Refuge; approximately
3,700 acres are planted in Juneau and Wood counties combined.[^19] The
potato crop, perhaps even more than the cranberry crop, requires
extensive application of pesticides and fertilizers.[^20] However,
potato production is not expanding as rapidly as cranberry production.
Whereas potatoes are a commodity crop grown practically everywhere in
the U.S. and exhibit stable market demand, cranberries are a premium
crop grown in only about five states that have an increasing world-wide
demand. Therefore, a significant increase in the number of acres of
potatoes planted in the near future appears unlikely.[^21]

Increasing population in the region represents a small but persistent
threat to the NNWR. As noted earlier in this chapter, the population of
the four county region surrounding the Refuge has increased slowly over
the past decade, and is expected to continue to rise slowly. These
population increases could strain the region\'s water resources. As
mentioned above, the availability of a variety of public and private
recreational areas has attracted many of the new residents. Developers
are buying land and parceling out areas for trailers and mobile
homes.[^22] Most of the acreage being transformed for residential use is
currently forest land, with the remainder from a mix of lands that are,
in general, no longer being farmed.[^23]

The Wisconsin Air National Guard maintains a gunnery and bombing
training range, the Hardwood Air-to-Surface Gunnery, just northeast of
the NNWR. According to Refuge management, an expansion of this range
could have a significant effect on the Refuge, especially on native
wildlife and migrating bird populations. Although the local community
appears to be opposed to such expansion, further development of the
range remains uncertain.[^24]

## The Proposed Yellow River Focus Area

To mitigate the encroachment on the Refuge by agriculture, new
residences and other influences, the management of the Refuge is
evaluating the feasibility of restoring and preserving habitat within a
strip of land east of the Refuge border known as the Yellow River Focus
Area (YRFA). This area contains about 18,100 acres, is approximately 22
miles long, and averages nearly a mile wide. The strip encompasses the
Yellow River.

The area provides a valuable breeding habitat for a wide variety of
wildlife, particularly neotropical migratory birds and waterfowl. It is
also an important corridor for migratory species through central
Wisconsin. Preservation of this land would enhance the viability of
several important species, including the Karner blue butterfly,
Blanding\'s turtle, red-shouldered hawk and the eastern massasauga
rattlesnake. Bald eagles and great blue herons have bred in this area
for the past several years. Other animal species found in the proposed
focus area include the glass lizard, wood thrush, cerulean warbler,
scarlet tanager, blue-winged warbler, woodcock, wild turkey, ruffed
grouse, white-tailed deer, and fox and gray squirrel.[^25]

The Yellow River watershed is characterized by near-level topography and
sandy soils. The river area contains a low stream gradient with many
oxbows, cut-off and running sloughs and small ponds. The watershed is
home to a predominant plant community of floodplain forest, i.e.,
bottomland hardwoods, and supports silver maple, green ash, swamp white
oak and river birch. Sandy ridges support white oak, Hill\'s oak, black
cherry, white pine and some red pine.[^26]

The Refuge plans to restore and preserve this area through a variety of
voluntary partnerships, easements and land acquisition. These three
options, described below, may be exercised singly or in conjunction with
each other:

-   The preferred option involves developing written cooperative
    agreements specifying land use practices sensitive to the needs of
    FWS trust resources with willing landowners within this area. This
    low (or no) cost option is

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the least difficult of the three to implement. However, because the
    agreements are not legally binding, the long-run effect on land
    within the area is uncertain.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The next preferred option involves the Refuge purchasing easements
    on land within the YRFA to encourage certain land uses. Such
    easements likely would preclude commercial agricultural activity in
    sensitive areas. The costs of this option are higher than the
    cooperative agreement option because developing appropriate
    easements can take several years. However, purchasing easements may
    be worth the level of effort required because they constitute
    enforceable agreements.

-   The least preferred option involves the outright purchase of the
    land (fee title ownership). Although this option ensures that the
    Refuge manages the land in perpetuity, the cost may be prohibitive
    (nearly nine million dollars (\$1997)).[^27] Funding uncertainties
    make plans for fee title acquisition difficult.

Preservation of the YRFA appears to enjoy wide support. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has identified the entire Yellow
River watershed as significantly important for wildlife resources and
supports the FWS effort. The Nature Conservancy also supports this
proposal. In addition, Juneau county personnel and local conservation
groups have voiced their support for a preservation project.

As suggested above, however, details of the protection plan are
uncertain at this time. Issues remaining include:

-   Funding for the project is uncertain, and prices per acre for
    easements or fee title may range as high as \$500.

-   Landowner participation is unclear. Landowners holding acreage in
    the area may not wish to form cooperative agreements, sell easements
    or sell their land.

-   The timeline for plan implementation is unclear.

# summary

Established in 1939, the NNWR is located in a largely agricultural area
in an economic region comprised of Adams, Juneau, Monroe and Wood
counties. The Refuge offers hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing and other
recreational opportunities for nearby residents and area visitors.
Timber harvesting and trapping also take place on the NNWR. In addition,
the Refuge is home to a number of rare and endangered wildlife species.

Growth in local agriculture, and to a lesser extent increasing local
population, pose hazards to the Refuge in the form of increasing
fertilizer and pesticide runoff and strain on local water supplies. NNWR
management seeks to develop a habitat restoration and preservation
project encompassing land adjacent to the Yellow River to the east of
the Refuge. By encouraging stewardship of the natural resources in this
area, Refuge managers hope to reduce these threats.

The NNWR\'s role in the YRFA may take the form of cooperative agreements
with local landowners, acquisition of easements to encourage certain
land uses, fee title purchase of land within the area, or some
combination of these activities. These options, particularly acquisition
of easements and fee titles, have various effects on the local economy.
These effects are the subject of study in Chapters 3 and 4 of this
report.

[^1]: Population growth in the U.S. from 1990 to 1995 was approximately
    5.4 percent.

[^2]: In 1996 Wisconsin surpassed Massachusetts to become the largest
    producer of cranberries in the U.S.

[^3]: *Necedah National Wildlife Refuge*, FWS fact sheet.

[^4]: For the purposes of implementing the IMPLAN model, the Refuge\'s
    annual budget, revenues from timber harvests, budgets for road
    maintenance and revenues from trapping are all considered part of
    the region\'s commercial activity sector.

[^5]: *Necedah National Wildlife Refuge*, FWS fact sheet.

[^6]: Personal communication with Larry Wargowsky, NNWR manager, August
    28, 1997.

[^7]: Data provided by Refuge management; value estimated by IEc.

[^8]: This value can increase in some years based on special grants from
    the state government for road improvements. Special grants were not
    included in the estimates presented here or used in the IMPLAN
    model. Telephone conversation with town managers, September 1997.

[^9]: Refuge personnel were not able to provide details on the
    characteristics of the closed portions of the Refuge.

[^10]: *Necedah National Wildlife Refuge*, FWS fact sheet.

[^11]: Hunting of deer is only permitted in specific zones of the NNWR
    during the 10-day state deer gun hunting season. During this time no
    other public use activities take place on the Refuge. Small game are
    hunted from the end of the deer season through February.

[^12]: The NNWR allows use of non-motorized and motorized boats within
    certain areas of the Refuge during prescribed times.

[^13]: Visitor statistics do not contain sufficient detail to enable a
    characterization of the demographics of NNWR recreationalists.

[^14]: Personal communication with Refuge management, August 1997.

[^15]: Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer
    Protection, *Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics, 1997.*

[^16]: Personal communication with Refuge management, August 1997.

[^17]: Personal communication with Refuge management, August 1997.

[^18]: Personal communications with Juneau and Wood County Agricultural
    Extension Office personnel, September 1997.

[^19]: Personal communications with Juneau and Wood County Agricultural
    Extension Office personnel, September 1997.

[^20]: Personal communications with Juneau and Wood County Agricultural
    Extension Office personnel, September 1997.

[^21]: Personal communications with Juneau and Wood County Agricultural
    Extension Office personnel, September 1997.

[^22]: Personal communications with Refuge management and local
    assessors, August and September 1997.

[^23]: Personal communications with local assessors, September 1997.

[^24]: Personal communications with local assessors, September 1997.

[^25]: U.S. FWS, *Preliminary Project Proposal Summary*, January 1995.

[^26]: U.S. FWS, *Preliminary Project Proposal Summary*, January 1995.

[^27]: This estimate is based on a FWS estimate of \$500 per acre.