U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Necedah

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions;

set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and,

identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations

and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization

purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and

maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

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.

Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve,

protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the

American people.


Necedah

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Refuge Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Refuge Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 Refuge Mission Statement ................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Purpose and Need for the Plan ............................................................................................................. 3

1.6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .................................................................................................................. 4

1.6.1 Mission Statement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................... 4

1.6.2 Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................ 4

1.6.3 National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................................ 5

1.6.3.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................... 6

1.6.3.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................. 6

1.6.3.3 Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................... 6

1.7 Other Planning Efforts ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.8 Existing Partnerships ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.9 Legal and Policy Guidance .................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Explanation of Plan Development ......................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Public Involvement .............................................................................................................................. 10

2.3 Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 10

2.4 Opportunities and Issues .................................................................................................................... 11

2.4.1 Service Trust Resources ............................................................................................................ 11

2.4.2 Refuge Visitor Services ............................................................................................................. 12

2.4.3 Habitat Management ................................................................................................................ 13

2.4.4 The Yellow River Focus Area .................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment .................................................................................................................. 17

3.1 Refuge History ..................................................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Ecosystem Goals ................................................................................................................................ 19

3.3 Refuge Resources ............................................................................................................................... 19

3.3.1 Fish and Wildlife Resources ...................................................................................................... 19

3.3.1.1 Regional Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ...................................................... 19

3.3.1.2 Birds .............................................................................................................................. 19

3.3.1.3 Mammals ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1.4 Reptiles and Amphibians .............................................................................................. 20

3.3.1.5 Invertebrates ................................................................................................................. 20

3.3.1.6 Fish ................................................................................................................................ 20

3.3.1.7 Rare Plants .................................................................................................................... 20

3.3.1.8 Listed Species ............................................................................................................... 20

3.3.2 Archaeological and Cultural Values .......................................................................................... 23

3.3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 24

3.3.3.1 Refuge Watershed ........................................................................................................ 24

3.3.3.2 Refuge Water Sources and Sinks ................................................................................ 24

3.4 Physiography ....................................................................................................................................... 26

3.4.1 Refuge Ecosystem ..................................................................................................................... 26

3.4.2 Bailey’s Ecological Unit Classification System ......................................................................... 26

3.4.3 Historic Condition ...................................................................................................................... 26

3.4.4 Current Condition ....................................................................................................................... 27

3.5 Geology ............................................................................................................................................... 31

3.5.1 Refuge Soils ............................................................................................................................... 32

3.6 Social and Economic Resources ......................................................................................................... 32

3.6.1 Economic Impact Assessment ................................................................................................... 32

3.7 Refuge Operations .............................................................................................................................. 35

3.7.1 Fish And Wildlife Management ................................................................................................ 35

3.7.1.1 Birds .............................................................................................................................. 35

3.7.2 Mammals ................................................................................................................................... 37

3.7.3 Reptiles and Amphibians .......................................................................................................... 37

3.7.4 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................................. 37

3.7.5 Fish ............................................................................................................................................. 38

3.8 Habitat Restoration ............................................................................................................................ 38

3.8.1 Wetland Restoration ................................................................................................................. 38

3.8.2 Upland Restoration .................................................................................................................... 38

3.9 Habitat Management .......................................................................................................................... 39

3.9.1 Water Level Management ......................................................................................................... 39

3.9.2 Moist Soil Management ............................................................................................................ 39

3.9.3 Grazing, Haying, and Mowing .................................................................................................. 39

3.9.4 Farming ...................................................................................................................................... 40

3.9.5 Forest Management .................................................................................................................. 40

3.9.6 Fire Management ...................................................................................................................... 41

3.9.7 Pest Management ..................................................................................................................... 42

3.10 Resource Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 43

3.10.1 Law Enforcement .................................................................................................................... 43

3.10.2 Permits and Economic Use Management ............................................................................... 43

3.10.3 Contaminant Investigations and Cleanup ............................................................................... 44

3.10.4 Water Rights Management ..................................................................................................... 44

3.10.5 Cultural Resource Management .............................................................................................. 45

3.10.6 Special Designations ............................................................................................................... 45

3.10.7 Land Acquisition ...................................................................................................................... 45

3.11 Monitoring and Studies .................................................................................................................... 46

3.11.1 Surveys and Censuses ............................................................................................................. 46

3.11.2 Studies and Investigations ...................................................................................................... 46

3.12 Coordination Activities ...................................................................................................................... 47

3.12.1 Interagency Coordination ........................................................................................................ 47

3.12.2 Tribal Coordination .................................................................................................................. 48
3.12.3 Private Lands Activities ........................................................................................................... 49

3.12.4 Cooperative Events/Friends Organizations ............................................................................. 50

3.13 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................................. 50

3.13.1 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 51

3.13.1.1 Hunting ........................................................................................................................ 51

3.13.1.2 Fishing ......................................................................................................................... 53

3.13.1.3 Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography ......................................................... 54

3.13.2 Education, Interpretation, and Outreach ................................................................................ 54

3.14 Planning and Administration ............................................................................................................ 57

3.14.1 Step-down Management Plans ............................................................................................... 57

3.14.2 General Administration ........................................................................................................... 57

3.15 Work Force ........................................................................................................................................ 58

Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................. 59

4.1 Core Values and Guiding Principles ................................................................................................... 59

4.2 Compatibility ....................................................................................................................................... 60

4.3 Strategic Framework ........................................................................................................................... 60

4.4 Refuge Goals, Objective, Strategies and Projects .............................................................................. 61

4.4.1 Fish and Wildlife Management ................................................................................................. 61

4.4.1.1 Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds .......................................................................... 61

4.4.2 Listed Species ............................................................................................................................ 62

4.4.3 Habitat Restoration and Management ...................................................................................... 64

4.4.3.1 Other Habitat Management Actions ............................................................................ 70

4.4.4 Resource Conservation .............................................................................................................. 71

4.4.4.1 Law Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 71

4.4.4.2 Land Conservation ......................................................................................................... 71

4.4.5 Monitoring and Studies ............................................................................................................. 73

4.4.6 Coordination Activities .............................................................................................................. 74

4.4.7 Visitor Services .......................................................................................................................... 75

4.4.7.1 Facilities and Services .................................................................................................. 79

4.4.8 Planning And Administration .................................................................................................... 79

4.4.9 Work Force ................................................................................................................................. 80

Chapter 5: Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 82

5.1 Tools .................................................................................................................................................... 82

5.1.1 Staffing Patterns ........................................................................................................................ 82

5.2 Step-Down Management Plans .......................................................................................................... 83

5.3 Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................ 83

5.4 Volunteer Program .............................................................................................................................. 84

5.5 Land Acquisition .................................................................................................................................. 84

5.6 Budget and Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 85

5.6.1 Station Budget ........................................................................................................................... 85

5.6.2 Project Descriptions ................................................................................................................... 85

5.6.2.1 Habitat Restoration and Management Projects ........................................................... 85

5.6.2.2 Resource Conservation Projects ................................................................................... 87

5.6.2.3 Monitoring and Studies Projects .................................................................................. 88

5.6.2.4 Visitor Services ............................................................................................................. 88

5.6.2.5 Planning And Administration Projects .......................................................................... 90

5.6.2.6 Work Force Projects ...................................................................................................... 91

5.6.3 Project Schedule and Annual Funding Needs ........................................................................... 91
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................................... 95

Appendix B: Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... 195

Appendix C: Species List ................................................................................................................................ 203

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................................... 213

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ......................................................................................................... 217

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) ..... 223

Appendix G: Mailing List ................................................................................................................................ 229

Appendix H: List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 237

Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species ..................................................................................... 241

Appendix J: References ................................................................................................................................. 253

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments ........................................................................... 259

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan ................................................. 283
Necedah

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Tables

Table 1: Rare Plants Found on the Refuge and Within the Yellow River Focus Area ..................................... 21

Table 2: Summary of Water Sources and Sinks for Necedah NWR, May 1988-April 1999 ........................... 26

Table 3: Land Cover Types, Necedah NWR ..................................................................................................... 31

Table 4: Refuge Step-Down Management Plans ............................................................................................. 57

Table 5: Current Staffing Patterns, Necedah NWR ......................................................................................... 58

Table 6: Management Strategies and Vegetation Composition ...................................................................... 65

Table 7: Special Refuge Management Areas .................................................................................................. 72

Table 8: Future Staffing Needs, Necedah NWR .............................................................................................. 82
Necedah

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of Necedah National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................................2

Figure 2: National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Flyways .............................................................................................5

Figure 3: Planning Process Model for the Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan ...........................................9

Figure 4: Yellow River Focus Area ......................................................................................................................................15

Figure 5: Necedah Wildlife Management Area Location ..................................................................................................18

Figure 6: Castle Rock Watershed, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................25

Figure 7: Ecoregion of Necedah NWR ................................................................................................................................27

Figure 8: Bailey’s Ecoregions, Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .....................................................................28

Figure 9: Historic Vegetation, Necedah NWR ....................................................................................................................29

Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Necedah NWR ..................................................................................................................30

Figure 11: Soils Found On Necedah NWR ..........................................................................................................................33

Figure 12: Physiographic Areas for Necedah NWR ...........................................................................................................36

Figure 13: Private Lands District, Necedah NWR ..............................................................................................................49

Figure 14: Wildlife Management Area, Necedah NWR ....................................................................................................50

Figure 15: Facilities, Necedah NWR ..................................................................................................................................52

Figure 16: Desired Future Vegetation, Necedah NWR ......................................................................................................66

Figure 17: Desired Future Management, Necedah NWR ..................................................................................................67

Figure 18: Future Desired Conditions, Visitor Services, Necedah NWR ............................................................................76
1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

1.1 Introduction

Situated on the bed of former Glacial Lake 

Wisconsin and the Great Central Wisconsin 

Swamp, the land in and around Necedah National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was once a vast peat bog 

with low, wooded islands and savannas. Higher 

sand ridges were filled with mature stands of pine 

and other species.

In 1939, the Refuge was established as a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds and for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. 

It is located in central Wisconsin, about 180 miles 

east of Minneapolis, Minnesota, 150 miles 

northwest of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and about 4 

miles west of Necedah, Wisconsin.

Today, the 43,696-acre Necedah NWR is a mix of pine, oak and aspen forests, wetlands and open water 

areas, grasslands, and rare savannas. This mixture of habitats supports a rich diversity of fish, wildlife 

and plant populations. More than 230 species of birds have been identified on the Refuge. More than 

100,000 migratory waterfowl and shorebirds use the Refuge annually, and it is the largest stopover in 

the state for migrating Sandhill Cranes. With the surrounding Necedah Wildlife Management Area, it 

has the Wisconsin’s second largest colony of Black Terns (a state-listed endangered species). 

A number of endangered species make their home on Refuge land. Necedah NWR has the 

southernmost timber wolf habitat in the state, and it is also home to the Blanding’s turtle, the Eastern 

massasauga rattlesnake and the pholox moth. The largest population of Karner blue butterflies in the 

world uses the Refuge, and it was recently selected as the reintroduction site for a new population of 

federally-listed endangered Whooping Crane. 

The Refuge attracts people as well as wildlife. An estimated 150,000 people visit the Refuge every 

year to hunt, fish, hike, observe and photograph wildlife, and pick berries.

Managing a refuge demands long-range planning that reflects vision, science and people. The 

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, describes how we will provide for 

migratory species within our boundaries, support endangered species on the Refuge, work with 

partners to improve habitats beyond our boundaries, expand opportunities for wildlife viewing and 

fishing, and develop environmental education and outreach programs to increase appreciation of fish 

and wildlife. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 1: Location of Necedah National Wildlife Refuge
3

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

1.2 Refuge Purpose

The purpose for which the Refuge was established provides the basic framework for developing 

management direction for the Refuge. It is within the Refuge purpose that management functions are 

developed and what uses and facilities can be provided. 

Pursuant to the Refuge’s enabling legislation, the Refuge purpose is “a refuge and breeding ground 

for migratory birds and other wildlife...” (Executive Order 8065, dated 1939) and “...for use as an 

inviolate sanctuary, or for any other purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

of 1929).

1.3 Refuge Vision

Necedah NWR exemplifies a diverse and productive ecological system of woodlands, savannas, 

and wetlands managed to perpetuate waterfowl and other migratory birds, listed species, and 

native biological diversity within Wisconsin’s Central Sand Plain Natural Division. Refuge 

staff are a multi-disciplined team of biologists, technicians, and support staff who are dedicated 

to providing quality wildlife-dependent public use opportunities to a diverse and supportive 

public. The Refuge is a model in its commitment to create long-term mutually-beneficial 

relationships with its stakeholders, and has produced consistent growth in the public’s 

understanding and appreciation of the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and 

Service trust resources.

1.4 Refuge Mission Statement

Our mission is to provide scientific and community leadership and support in the restoration, 

preservation, and management of waterfowl and other migratory birds, listed species, and native 

biological diversity within south central Wisconsin, while providing, to the extent possible, quality 

wildlife-dependent recreational and educational experiences that foster an understanding and 

appreciation of these resources, and expands the role humankind plays in their stewardship.

1.5 Purpose and Need for the Plan

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) identifies the role Necedah NWR will play in 

supporting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and provides primary management 

guidance for the Refuge. The plan articulates management goals for the next 15 years and defines 

objectives and strategies that will achieve those goals. Legislative and other policies, including the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, have guided the development of this plan. 

These mandates include:

# Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.

# Wildlife-dependent recreation activities of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and interpretation are the priority public uses of the 

Refuge System. These uses will be accommodated when they do not interfere with a refuge's 

purposes or the mission of the Refuge System.

# Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when they are determined to be appropriate 

and compatible with the Refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System. 
4

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Following the recommendations in the CCP will enhance management of Necedah NWR by:

# Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the Refuge.

# Giving Refuge neighbors, visitors, and the general public an understanding of the Service's 

management actions on and around the Refuge.

# Ensuring that the Refuge's management actions and programs are consistent with the 

mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

# Ensuring that Refuge management is consistent with federal, state and county plans.

# Establishing long-term Refuge management continuity.

# Providing a basis for the development of budget requests for Refuge operations, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 

1.6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal Federal agency 

responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Service manages the 93-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System of more 

than 545 national wildlife refuges and thousands of small wetlands and other special 

management areas. It also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource 

offices and 78 ecological services field stations. Among its key functions, the Service enforces Federal 

wildlife laws, protects endangered species, manages migratory birds, restores nationally significant 

fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments 

with their international conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes 

hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and 

wildlife agencies. 

The Service employs approximately 7,500 people at facilities across the country, with a headquarters 

in Washington D.C., seven geographic regions, and nearly 700 field units. Necedah NWR is located in 

the Great Lakes/Big Rivers Region of the Service, which includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin (Figure 1). The Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region 

manages over 1.2 million acres of land and water on 46 national wildlife refuges and nine wetland 

management districts, including more than 240,000 acres in waterfowl production areas. The Region 

also manages six national fish hatcheries, nine fisheries stations, 10 ecological services field offices, 

and 18 law enforcement field offices.

1.6.1 Mission Statement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The mission of the Service is working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

1.6.2 Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

# Sustainability of Fish and Wildlife Populations: Migratory birds, endangered fish and 

wildlife species, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammals are conserved, protected, 

enhanced, or restored. The Service is participating in conservation of other species when its 

expertise, facilities, or lands can enhance state, tribal, or local efforts.

# Habitat Conservation – Network of Lands and Waters: An ecologically diverse network of 

lands and waters, of various ownerships, is conserved to provide habitats for marine 
5

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

mammals and migratory, interjuristictional, endangered, and other species associated with 

ecosystems conserved in cooperation with others.

# Connecting Americans to Wildlife: The American public understands and participates in the 

conservation and use of fish and wildlife resources.

# Workforce Excellence: The Service's workforce, scientific capability, and business practices - 

in cooperation with the Department of Interior’s scientific expertise - fully support 

achievement of the Service mission.

1.6.3 National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's largest and most diverse collection of lands and 

waters set aside specifically for wildlife. The Refuge System began in 1903 when President Theodore 

Roosevelt designated 3-acre Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as a national bird 

sanctuary. 

Today, over 545 national wildlife refuges have been established 

from the Arctic Ocean to the South Pacific, from Maine to the 

Caribbean. Varying in size from half-acre parcels to thousands of 

square miles, they encompass more than 92 million acres of the 

Nation's best wildlife habitats. The vast majority of these lands are 

in Alaska, with the rest spread across the rest of the United States 

and several U.S. territories. 

Like Pelican Island, many early wildlife refuges were created for herons, egrets, and other water 

birds. Other refuges were set aside for large mammals like elk and bison. However, most national 

wildlife refuges were created to conserve migratory waterfowl. This is a result of the United States' 

responsibilities under international treaties for migratory bird conservation and legislation such as 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. Refuges dot the map along the four major “flyways” 

that waterfowl follow from their northern nesting grounds to southern wintering areas (Figure 2). 

Figure 2: National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Flyways
6

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

National wildlife refuges play a vital role in conserving endangered and threatened species and their 

habitat. Among these are Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, the winter home of the whooping 

crane; the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, which protects one of the Nation's most 

endangered mammals; the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, home of the Laysan duck and 

monk seal; and Necedah NWR, which provides critical habitat for the federally listed endangered 

Karner blue butterfly. 

1.6.3.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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 fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. 

1.6.3.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System

# Preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practical) all species of 

animals and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

# Perpetuate the migratory bird resource.

# Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands.

# Provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and humankind’s role 

in their environment and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome and 

enjoyable recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these activities are 

compatible with the purposes for which each refuge was established.

1.6.3.3 Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System

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.

Public Use: The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation.

Partnerships: America’s sportsmen and women were the first partners who insisted on protecting 

valuable wildlife habitat with wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other Federal agencies, 

state agencies, tribes, organizations, industries, and the general public can make significant 

contributions to the growth and management of the Refuge System.

Public Involvement: The public should be given full and open opportunity to participate in decisions 

regarding the acquisition and management of our national wildlife refuges.

1.7 Other Planning Efforts

The following Federal, state, and local plans, planning efforts, and initiatives were reviewed and 

considered when developing the CCP for the Refuge:

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Timber Wolf Recovery Plan

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bald Eagle Recovery Plan

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan
7

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

# Juneau and Wood County Land and Water Resource Management Plans

# Juneau and Wood County 10-Year Forest Management Plans

# Wisconsin DNR/Refuge Cooperative Agreement (Meadow Valley Management)

# Wisconsin DNR/Refuge Cooperative Agreement (Fire Protection Agreement)

# Savanna Partnership Memorandum of Understanding 

# Golden Sands Resource Conservation and Development Area

# Central Wisconsin River Basin Partnership

# Hardwood Bombing Range Guidelines (pertaining to Refuge overflights)

# North American Waterfowl Management Plan

# Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plans

# U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

1.8 Existing Partnerships

Necedah NWR is part of the Necedah Wildlife Management Area, a 111,564-acre area of Federal 

property. Land that is outside of the Refuge is managed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) as part of surrounding State Wildlife Areas through a cooperative agreement. The 

Service considers the Wisconsin DNR a major partner in conservation efforts in the area.

In addition, the Refuge has cooperative working relationships with several universities, other Federal 

agencies, the State of Wisconsin, educational institutions, and non-government organizations.

1.9 Legal and Policy 

Guidance

The authority for developing CCPs for national 

wildlife refuges is the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. However, 

management and administration of refuges is 

governed by numerous national and regional 

directives derived from Secretarial Orders, 

Service Director’s Orders, Service Regional 

Director’s Orders, and Service Policy Guidance 

contained in the Interior Departmental Manual 

and the Service’s Manual (see part 602 of the 

Service Manual at www.fws.gov). 

In addition to the executive order establishing the 

Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, 

executive orders, and regulations govern the administration of Necedah NWR. Appendix E contains a 

partial list of the legal mandates that guided the preparation of this plan and those that pertain to 

Refuge management activities.

John and Karen Hollingsworth
8

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

2.1 Explanation of Plan 

Development

This CCP was prepared in compliance with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and Service 

policy guidance set forth in the Departmental Manual (see 

part 602 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual at the 

Internet website, www.fws.gov). 

While there are many steps involved in developing a CCP, 

the process the planning team followed for developing the 

Necedah NWR CCP focused around five functional parts 

(Figure 3): 

# Reaffirming the Refuge’s purpose and 

developing vision, 

# Conducting an operational assessment and 

environmental analysis, 

# Establishing management direction (goals and 

objectives), 

# Developing a range of programs, activities, and projects to achieve desired outcomes 

(implementation strategies), and 

# Developing protocols to monitor and evaluate progress.

As a first step, the planning team developed a vision statement to provide focus for the actions and 

character of the Refuge, as well as to clarify its purpose and direction. In developing the vision 

statement, the planning team reviewed the Refuge’s authorizing legislation, national and regional 

directives, internal and external planning documents, and information relative to the public’s 

expectations for the Refuge. Figure 3 was adapted from Justis et al. 1985. 

An operational assessment and environmental analysis was performed to identify the Refuge’s 

current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Strengths and weaknesses refer to 

internal factors, operational components controlled by management such as habitat, certain fish and 

wildlife populations, resource conservation, cooperative programs, administration, work force, public 

use, and maintenance. Opportunities and threats refer to external factors, such as favorable actions or 

situations in the Refuge environment that can benefit the Refuge, or unfavorable actions or situations 

in the Refuge environment that may impede operation and/or development of the Refuge. External 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
9

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

factors include the Refuge’s biological environment, physical environment, political/legal 

environment, economic environment, and socio/cultural environment. The results of the operational 

assessment and environmental analysis formed a planning context and provided the basis from which 

management direction was derived. 

Management direction was established through a strategic framework, which we define as a pattern 

of purposes, policies, programs, actions, decisions, or resource allocations that describe what the 

Refuge is, what it does, and why it does it. Refuge goals were developed that articulate broad 

direction, end results, or positions to be achieved. Refuge objectives serve as intermediate-term 

targets necessary for the accomplishment of goals. 

Strategies and projects were developed to describe the means, methods, and approaches used to 

achieve Refuge objectives (also answers the who, what, why, when, and where questions). However, in 

many cases step-down management plans will be developed to provide the specific details necessary 

for implementation of objectives, strategies, and projects. In this regard, step-down management 

plans refer to annual work plans, fire management plans, public use plans, inventory and monitoring 

plans, and occupational safety and health plans (see Chapter 5 for a list of step-down plans and 

schedules for revisions). Thus, the CCP provides an overview of future Refuge programs and projects 

and leaves the details of scheduling and budgets to be developed as funding levels and staffing 

patterns become clearer. Refuge staff will set priorities and make decisions based on Refuge 

operating needs and directives from Regional and Washington Office staff.

Finally, the fifth process function dealt with developing monitoring and evaluation protocols. Four 

basic steps capture this process function: (1) identification and establishment of predetermined 

standards of strategy performance, (2) a measurement of the actual performance results, (3) a 

Figure 3: Planning Process Model for the Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
10

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

comparison of the results achieved against those previously established, and (4) determining whether 

the CCP is producing the desired results, or if corrective action is necessary. The CCP was developed 

using the best information available at the time of preparation. As new and better information 

emerges, including new input from partners and stakeholders, the CCP will be revised. Additional 

step-down plans will be developed to address plan monitoring, plan evaluation, and plan change 

procedures. Adaptive management will be fundamental to keeping the plan active and effective. 

2.2 Public Involvement

Scoping is the process of identifying opportunities and 

issues related to a proposed action. The Service publicly 

announced it was preparing a CCP for the Refuge in June 

1997. Since that time, information about the planning 

project has been provided to the public through news 

releases, presentations, interviews, informational letters, 

and one-on-one briefings. Federal, state, local, and private 

entities were involved in the scoping process. More than 

6,000 people were sent information on the Refuge CCP 

(e.g., letters, newsletters, draft CCPs), including 

landowners in the four townships surrounding the Refuge 

(information was obtained from Juneau County and Wood 

County tax records) and landowners in the Yellow River 

Focus Area. Others involved were Wisconsin’s 

Congressional Delegation, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, elected officials representing Juneau and 

Wood counties, the Wisconsin DNR, local governments, representatives of national, state, and local 

conservation organizations, neighboring landowners, and other interested people. 

Public input was considered at all phases of the CCP planning process. The Service coordinated its 

scoping effort closely, and corresponded frequently with many of the aforementioned entities. Since 

June of 1997, 10 public meetings were held to gather public input. In addition, three draft CCPs/EAs 

were released for public review. The first draft was released in August 1998. The second draft was 

released in July 2000, and a third draft was released in October 2001. Draft documents were published 

on the Service’s website for this planning project, and paper copies were provided in all of the libraries 

in the counties surrounding the Refuge. In October 2001, a summary of the draft CCP was mailed to 

individuals who requested to be on the Necedah NWR mailing list. Comments received during the 

scoping and public involvement process covered a wide range of interests. 

The Service used a highly participatory planning process to develop the Necedah NWR CCP. 

Throughout the CCP process, the Service initiated outreach to diverse stakeholders and afforded 

numerous opportunities for public input. Information about the CCP was provided to stakeholders 

and the general public through news releases, presentations, interviews, informational letters, 

newsletters, public meetings, briefings, and the Internet. Questionnaires, focus groups, public 

meetings, and one-on-one discussions were used to gather input from Refuge visitors, neighbors, and 

other stakeholders. A geographic information system (GIS) was developed to aid in the analysis and 

transfer of information. Additional information on the public involvement process is located in the 

Environmental Assessment (Appendix A). 

2.3 Issues

In response to the Service’s proposed action to prepare and implement a CCP for the Refuge and 

from questions raised in conversations and correspondence with individuals and organizations within 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
11

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

and outside the Service, the Service identified several significant issues to analyze in the planning 

process, specifically:

# Service trust resources: What effect will Refuge management actions have on listed species, 

waterfowl and other migratory birds, and biological diversity (internal issue)? 

# Refuge visitor services: What effect will Refuge management actions have on the quality of 

visitor services provided at the Refuge, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation (internal/external issue)? 

# Habitat management: What effect will Refuge habitat management actions have on the 

quantity and quality of habitats within the Refuge and the Refuge watershed, namely the 

wetlands, forests, and open landscapes (internal issue)? 

# The Yellow River Focus Area: How will Refuge management actions affect the habitat in the 

Yellow River Focus Area, and how will those management actions impact private property 

rights and the areas tax base (external issue)?

2.4 Opportunities and Issues

2.4.1 Service Trust Resources

Numerous Service trust resources utilize the Refuge and the Yellow River Focus Area for meeting one 

or more of their life cycle needs, including four Federally listed threatened or endangered species. 

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Service has primary responsibility to 

conserve not only jeopardized life, but also the natural resources on which life depends. Federally 

listed species include the Karner blue butterfly (federally listed as endangered), Eastern timber wolf 

(federally listed as endangered), Whopping Crane (federally listed as endangered), and Bald Eagle 

(federally listed as threatened). The Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, which is currently a candidate 

for federal listing, is found in low numbers in the Yellow River Area. Several state-listed threatened or 

endangered species also use the Refuge, including the Blanding’s turtle and Trumpeter Swan. The 

Refuge also supports several rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants, including the spring 

beauty, oval-leaved milkweed, and wooly milkweed, and provides habitat for several important plants 

(e.g., wild lupine) that support rare organisms (e.g., Karner blue butterflies). Protecting endangered 

and threatened species and restoring them to secure status in the wild is a primary responsibility of 

the Service and the Refuge. 

Many bird species are declining across part or all of their breeding range in the Midwest (Peterjohn et 

al. 1994). Breeding Bird Surveys for the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region indicate that numerous 

grassland nesting, non game species in the Midwest have shown extensive declines since the mid1960s (National Biological Survey 1995). Grassland-dependent birds have shown steeper, more 

consistent, and geographically more widespread declines (25-65 percent) than any other group of 

North American birds (Samson and Knopf 1994). Several of these declining species utilize the Refuge 

and the Yellow River Area. These include the Bobolink, Henslow’s Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, 

Vesper Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow, Lark Sparrow, Field Sparrow, Dickcissel, Eastern Meadowlark, 

and American Bittern. The Grasshopper Sparrow and Dickcissel have declined over 80 percent in 

Wisconsin since the mid-1960s. Many others, especially those associated with rare oak savannas (e.g., 

Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern Flicker), have experienced similar, though less dramatic declines. 

In total, more than 230 different species of birds have been observed on the Refuge since its inception. 

The Refuge has long been considered an important migratory stopover area for waterfowl such as 

Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, Ring-necks, and Wood Ducks. Other migrant bird species that utilize the 

Refuge during spring, summer, or fall include: Canada, Snow, and White-fronted Geese; Sandhill 

Cranes; Woodcock; Snipe; Great Blue Herons; Swans; egrets; Dickcissels; warblers; Brown 
12

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Thrashers; several different species of sparrows; meadowlarks; Sora Rails; Black-crowned Night 

Herons; Bobolinks; bitterns; and Red-tailed Hawks; just to name a few. During migrations, three 

species of geese, 10 species of dabbling ducks, nine species of diving ducks, and Trumpeter and Tundra 

Swans can be found on the Refuge. 

The Refuge has incomplete inventories for many of its natural, archeological, and cultural resources, 

including wildlife and habitat. Monitoring systems needed to conserve and properly manage Refuge 

resources are inadequately funded. Monitoring and evaluation systems need to be developed to 

measure progress toward habitat goals.

2.4.2 Refuge Visitor Services

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 has ushered in a new era of public 

involvement on national wildlife refuges. Providing for public uses is now an essential part of Refuge 

missions across the country. Necedah NWR has always been a popular destination for hunting and 

fishing enthusiasts. However, in recent years other uses, such as wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography, hiking, environmental education and interpretation have surpassed traditional activities 

in terms of public interest. 

The Refuge currently has two major needs relative to providing quality services to its visitors. First, 

the main office (which also serves as the visitor center) is ineffective as an initial visitor contact point 

due to its isolation, distance from a main road, and small size. The current facility has no formal 

education features, with the exception of a small conference room, and it is lacking in interpretive 

programming displays. In recent years, Refuge programs and activities have attracted over 150 

participants at some events. The current facility accommodates a maximum of 30 people. Programs 

are held in the office space, reducing productivity of staff who are not directly involved with the event. 

It also compromises the overall effectiveness of the educational experience, due to the distraction of 

office business and the lack of student comfort. 

Public use of the Refuge now exceeds over 150,000 visits annually. Three state highways border the 

Refuge: 21, 80 and 173. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation numbers from 1995 (the latest 

information available) shows that over 1,500 vehicles a day use Highway 173; more than 3,200 vehicles 

a day travel on Highway 21; and over 1,100 use Highway 80 each day. Occupants of these vehicles are 

all potential visitors to the Refuge. Due to small, inconvenient facilities and poor signage, many of 

these potential visitors are currently being overlooked.

Further, the Refuge is now the site for an experimental Whooping Crane population, an attraction that 

will undoubtedly increase visitor use long-term at the Refuge. During the first year of the 10-15 year 

reintroduction program, the Refuge hosted an event that drew more than 600 visitors. The project 

frequently drew the attention of the media. This increased use of the Refuge could further 

disseminate key messages about the Refuge, its resources, and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Another need relates to the quality of the existing visitor facilities at the Refuge. There is a need to 

renovate existing facilities for safety and accessibility, to improve visitor information systems (signs 

and brochures), and to bring public facilities up to Service standards. To improve customer service, 

the Refuge needs to collect additional information on Refuge visitor volume, characteristics, opinions, 

and what their expectations are for the Refuge. Key components to customer service is having 

suitable facilities (addressed above) and having an eager work force that can provide quality service. 

Current refuge staffing patterns do not emphasize the importance of good customer service. A strong 

volunteer base exists and could easily be used in the contact areas. A volunteer coordinator is vital. 

Seasonal public use staff could also help meet increased needs during peak times. 

Another visitor services concern learned through scoping is that the Refuge is not known and 

understood within the local area. This was made apparent during the multi-year planning process for 
13

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

the Refuge CCP. Many people living near the Refuge do not distinguish the Service from the 

Wisconsin DNR, or understand that the Refuge is part of a national system of Refuges dedicated to 

perpetuating the nation’s fish and wildlife resources for the enjoyment of present and future 

generations. The Refuge needs to promote its recreation and educational opportunities, as well as 

raise awareness of the importance of the Refuge among the various economic and environmental 

interests that influence public policy and Refuge management direction. 

2.4.3 Habitat Management

The need for additional wildlife habitat conservation, restoration and management at the Refuge has 

been made clear by the declining status of numerous grassland, savanna, and wetland dependent 

species of birds (see “Service Trust Resources” above) and numerous studies that have demonstrated 

that habitat loss or degradation is a common causal factor in many of those declines.

Of the estimated 221 million acres of wetland habitat present in the lower 48 states at the time of 

colonial America, only 103 million acres remain (47 percent). Draining, dredging, filling, leveling, and 

flooding have reduced wetlands by 50 percent or more in 22 states, and 10 states have lost 70 percent 

or more (Dahl 1990). Prior to European settlement, Wisconsin had approximately 10 million acres of 

wetlands. Currently less that 47 percent remain (Dahl, 1990).

In recent years, many plant and animal species 

associated with Midwestern grasslands have 

experienced serious declines, primarily due to 

habitat loss and alteration of natural structure 

and function (e.g., predation, exotic species, fire 

suppression, habitat fragmentation, drainage/

flooding). The original tallgrass prairie, which 

extended from western Indiana to the eastern 

part of Kansas, Nebraska, and North and South 

Dakota and south to Oklahoma and Texas, has 

been virtually eliminated throughout its historic 

range. Recent surveys suggest that 82.6 to 99.9 

percent declines in the acreage of tallgrass prairie 

have occurred in 12 states and one Canadian 

province since European settlement. The State of 

Wisconsin has lost over 99 percent of its original 

prairies. For years following the initial conversion 

of native Midwestern prairies, many prairiedependent wildlife remained relatively stable through their ability to colonize agricultural grasslands. 

However, 20th century agricultural grassland loss has followed a similar path of decline as native 

prairie loss in the 19th century. In many parts of the Midwest, agricultural grasslands are at their 

lowest level in more than 100 years. 

Similarly, oak savanna, which covered approximately 27-32 million acres of the Midwest prior to 

European settlement (Nuzzo 1985), has become one of the nation’s most endangered ecosystems 

(Noss et al. 1995). Nationwide, over 99 percent of the original savanna has been lost, and Midwestern 

oak savannas are among the rarest ecosystems in the Nation. Historically Wisconsin had roughly 4 

million acres of savannas. Today, less than 60,000 acres remain, and much of what remains is highly 

degraded. Nuzzo (1985) found that by 1985 only 113 sites (2,607 acres) of quality oak savanna 

remained across the Midwest. Development has destroyed, fragmented, and disrupted the natural 

processes needed to maintain quality oak savanna ecosystems. 

The wide-scale loss of oak savanna and pine barren ecosystems across 12 states and the province of 

Ontario, Canada, has had severe negative impacts on Karner blue butterflies (Karner Blue Butterfly 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
14

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 1999). As a result, the Karner blue 

butterfly was proposed for federal listing on January 21, 1992, and listed as endangered on December 

14, 1992. Today scattered populations are only found in portions of New Hampshire, New York, 

Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Minnesota. The Refuge is home to the world’s largest remaining 

population of Karner blue butterflies, providing habitat for 12 population complexes. No critical 

habitat has been designated for this species. The long-term effect of these landscape-scale losses of 

important ecosystems has yet to be determined.

The long-term declines in early successional forests across the north-eastern and north-central 

United State has contributed to the decline of many bird species. Selective harvesting, fire 

suppression, urban sprawl, and cessation of agricultural abandonment contributed to the present 

imbalance in distribution of young forests (Oliver and Larson, 1999).

The Refuge is facing increasing threats to its ecological and health due to air, water, and noise 

pollution, exotic species, and incompatible recreational uses. Of late, a new round of change threatens 

many remaining ecosystems in the Refuge area. A trend called “rurbanization” where rural areas 

containing quality wildlife habitat are being converted to a more densely developed state. In recent 

years, the population of the area surrounding the Refuge has expanded, while the size of the 

undeveloped land base continues to shrink, leaving many natural areas as scattered fragments of 

increased importance for scientific study, education, and conservation of natural ecological processes. 

According to the U.S. Census, the Town of Necedah and the Town of Finley grew by 34 percent and 27 

percent respectively between 1990 and 2000. As a result, many of the large natural areas around the 

Refuge (and in the Yellow River Area) are at risk of being fragmented through housing development, 

driveways, etc., which diminishes the value of these areas for area-sensitive wildlife like the Bobolink, 

Prairie Chicken, and many large mammals. Habitat size, shape, and amount and type of edge are 

important factors in the reproductive success of many grassland birds. It is this type of development 

that particularly threatens the remaining oak savanna habitat in this region. Without management, 

most areas will continue to degrade due to their size, isolation, absence of natural processes such as 

fire and hydrologic cycle maintenance, and inadequate buffers conserving them from surrounding 

agricultural and urban land uses. It also places greater demands on the Refuge and its partners in 

terms of safeguarding Refuge ecosystem structure and function for the benefit of Service trust 

resources.

2.4.4 The Yellow River Focus Area

The Yellow River Area (Figure 4), which lies east of the Refuge within an area referred to as 

Wisconsin’s Central Sand Plain Natural Division, provides a unique opportunity to conserve rare and 

declining bottomland forest and adjacent upland habitat for the benefit of listed species, waterfowl 

and other migratory birds, and native biological diversity. According to Wisconsin’s Statewide Natural 

Area Inventory, extensive field reconnaissance by the Refuge, and other sources, the Yellow River 

Area represents one of the few remaining quality bottomland hardwood forest ecosystems in the 

Midwest. Silver maple, swamp white oak, green ash, and river birch dominate the floodplain, while the 

lower sandy ridges, slightly higher than the flood plain, support white oak, bur oak, shagbark hickory, 

basswood, and white pine. The highest of these areas were once oak and pine savannas, one of North 

America’s most endangered habitats, with only .02 percent of its pre-settlement acreage remaining. 

The shrub spectrum within the area varies in density from sparse to impenetrable, and includes 

buttonbush, dogwoods, prickly ash, winterberry, and wild grapes. The herbaceous layer of the 

forested areas support wood nettle, coneflowers, ferns, and many sedges. Aggressive non-native 

species are currently not an issue.

Many rare, uncommon, and declining species of animals have been documented in the Yellow River 

Area in recent years. Many of them are sensitive to size, isolation, context, and quality of habitat. 

These include the Eastern massasauga, Blanding’s turtle, Red-shouldered Hawk, Cerulean Warbler, 

Acadian Flycatcher, Yellow-crowned Night-heron, Prothonotary Warbler, and Louisiana Waterthrush. 
15

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Figure 4: Yellow River Focus Area
16

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Several neo-tropical migrants that are suspected of or exhibiting extensive population declines that 

use the area include the Verry, Wood Thrush, Sedge Wren, Blue-winged Warbler, and Golden-winged 

Warbler. Waterfowl species include Mallard, Wood Duck, and Hooded Merganser. Bald Eagles utilize 

the area year-round and at least one active nest has been documented. Great Blue Heron rookeries 

are found in the Yellow River Area as well as extensive Wood Duck nesting. Federally listed 

endangered Karner blue butterflies are also found on Friendship and Plainfield soils throughout the 

area. These soil types offer potential for expansion of oak savanna and the restoration of essential 

Karner blue butterfly habitat. 

While rich in biological diversity, the Yellow River Area is experiencing degradation, primarily due to 

rural development and lack of habitat management, and could benefit from habitat conservation and 

management practices designed to sustain its ecological value. Habitat conservation and management 

practices could take the form of financial incentives to landowners, prescribed fire, mowing, wetland 

and upland restorations, and forest management. Recreational development pressures are high in the 

area. An expansion of agricultural activities could directly impact Yellow River habitats and create 

many indirect impacts due to habitat fragmentation, withdrawal and discharge of surface and ground 

waters, and construction of needed infrastructure.

Many Federal, state, and local conservation organizations support stewardship and conservation of 

the natural resources in the Yellow River Area. Several property owners have indicated an interest in 

selling their land and/or a conservation easement on their land to the Service. Many landowners 

within the 21,952-acre Yellow River Focus Area have contacted the Refuge in recent years in search of 

technical assistance in managing their land for wildlife. Between 2000 and 2002, 121 landowners 

owning 17,308 acres in the Yellow River Focus Area received technical assistance from the Service. 

However, an organized group of Yellow River property owners as well as several local units of 

government strongly oppose any public acquisition of land in the area (fee title and conservation 

easements) that could potentially restrict future cranberry bed expansion, residential development, 

and impact the area’s tax base. 
17

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

3.1 Refuge History

The history of the Refuge dates back to the early 1930s when the U.S. Government acquired 114,964 

acres of land in Juneau, Wood, Monroe, and Jackson counties, Wisconsin, using the authority of the 

National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. The 

purpose for these acquisitions was to assist farmers living within the area and to develop the area for 

wildlife. 

On March 14, 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an 

executive order authorizing 43,696 acres of this Federal land be set 

aside as the Necedah Migratory Waterfowl Refuge for the purpose 

of “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife...” (Executive Order 8065) and “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other purpose, for migratory birds” 

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929). 

One year later, the Necedah Migratory Waterfowl Refuge became 

formally known as the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 

Around this same time, the management of 55,000 acres of this 

Federal land was transferred to the State of Wisconsin with the 

signing of a Cooperative and License Agreement. 

However, in 1941, Executive Order 8763 declared these federally 

owned/state-managed lands be “reserved as a refuge and breeding 

ground for native birds and other wildlife and for research relating 

to wildlife and associated forest resources, under such conditions of 

use and administration as will best carry out the purposes of the 

land conservation and land utilization program for which such 

lands have been, or are being acquired...”. Executive Order 8763 

also designated the Service as custodial agent for the property. 

Today this land is known as Necedah Wildlife Management Area, which includes parts of the Central 

Wisconsin Conservation Area (parts of Meadow Valley State Wildlife Area, parts of Wood County 

Wildlife Area, and parts of Sandhill State Wildlife Area) and scattered parcels in Jackson County 

(Figure 5). They are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but managed cooperatively with the 

Wisconsin DNR through a Cooperative Agreement. It should be noted that this CCP is for the Refuge 

portion of this land only. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
18

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 5: Necedah Wildlife Management Area Location
19

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

3.2 Ecosystem Goals 

As stated previously, the Refuge is located in the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie 

Ecosystem. Six eco-types are currently the Service’s focus for this ecosystem. They include: prairie 

wetland and associated habitats, tallgrass prairie and associated habitats, oak savanna and forest 

lands, the Driftless area, streams and riparian woodland corridors, and the Mississippi River corridor. 

Service goals for this Ecosystem are to: 

# Protect, restore, and enhance native and trust species and their habitats. 

# Restore and maintain natural ecosystem processes, including hydrology and sediment 

transport to maintain species and habitat diversity. 

# Promote environmental awareness of the ecosystem and its needs with emphasis on 

sustainable land use management, improve water quality of the Ecosystem. 

# Promote balance and compatible socioeconomic uses of the Ecosystem’s resources.

# Improve water quality in the ecosystem

3.3 Refuge Resources

3.3.1 Fish and Wildlife Resources

3.3.1.1 Regional Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities

In 1999, the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of the Service initiated a process to identify its top 

species priorities in terms of those in need of the greatest conservation attention in the Region. 

Appendix I is a list of regional priority species that occur on the Refuge and/or the Yellow River Focus 

Area. In addition, the Refuge and the adjacent Yellow River Area contain habitat that supports or 

historically supported several species of birds on the Service’s List of Migratory Nongame Birds of 

Management Concern. Appendix I contains those species as well. The planning team used this 

information when developing goals and objectives for the Refuge. 

3.3.1.2 Birds

For centuries, birds have descended upon the Refuge area during their annual migrations between 

Central and South America and their northern U.S., Canadian, and Arctic breeding grounds. In total, 

over 230 different species of birds have been observed on the Refuge since its inception. The Refuge 

has long been considered an important migratory stopover area for Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, Ringneck Duck, and Wood Duck. Other migrant species that utilize the Refuge during spring, summer, or 

fall include: Canada, Snow, and White-fronted Geese; Sandhill Crane; American Woodcock; Common 

Snipe; Great Blue Heron; swans; egrets; various warblers; Brown Thrasher; several different species 

of sparrows; meadowlarks; Sora; Black-crowned Night Heron; Bobolink; Least Bittern, American 

Bittern; Red-breasted Nuthatch, White-breasted Nuthatch, and Red-tailed Hawks; just to name a 

few. During migrations, three species of geese, 10 species of dabbling ducks, nine species of diving 

ducks, and Trumpeter and Tundra swans are commonly found on the Refuge. Waterfowl are most 

abundant in the fall, with fall counts of ducks averaging around 20,000. Resident bird species include 

Wild Turkeys, Ruffed Grouse, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Woodpeckers, and Nuthatches. 

3.3.1.3 Mammals

The Refuge supports an assortment of mammals that contribute to the ecological, economic, and 

aesthetic value of central Wisconsin. Within the past 3 years, timber wolves have established two 

packs on Refuge land. Timber wolves are a top predator that play an important ecological role, as well 

as provide educational opportunities for Refuge visitors. Black bear and bobcat are also present in low 

numbers. White-tailed deer are very abundant and can be seen on the Refuge almost anywhere, and 
20

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

at anytime. Cottontail rabbits, snowshoe hare, gray, red, fox and flying squirrels, woodchucks, 

raccoon, skunks, red and gray fox, coyotes, muskrat, mink, otter, opossum, weasels, and badger are 

mid-sized mammals that serve as both predators and prey in Refuge plant and animal communities. 

Small mammalian residents include meadow voles, white-footed and deer mice, shrews, and moles. 

These small animals are a primary food source for many larger animals.

3.3.1.4 Reptiles and Amphibians

Reptiles and amphibians are important Refuge residents. Snake species 

include hog-nosed snakes, Eastern garter snakes, smooth green snakes, 

Northern water snakes, fox snakes, and Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes. 

Five-lined skinks are a species of lizard that call the Refuge home. Painted, 

softshell, and snapping turtles can be seen in wetland environments; 

Blanding’s turtles are most frequently seen in upland savanna 

environments. Frog and toad species include leopard frogs, green frogs, 

wood frogs, grey tree frogs, spring peepers, and the American toad. Bluespotted salamanders are fairly common and can be found in dark moist 

environments, such as under decaying logs or thick leaf litter.

3.3.1.5 Invertebrates

Invertebrates are abundant on the Refuge and play an integral role in maintaining the ecological 

balance of several Refuge ecosystems. Wisconsin has approximately 20,000 species of insects. The 

Refuge is home to the world’s largest remaining population of the Federally listed endangered Karner 

blue butterfly and also to the rare Leonard’s skipper. Other rare insects that use the Refuge include 

the phlox moth, frosted elfin butterfly, Persius dusky wing, ringed bog haunter dragonfly, and two 

species of tiger beetles.

3.3.1.6 Fish

Fish species are also important members of the Refuge ecosystem. They cycle nutrients in Refuge 

aquatic systems and serve as food sources for a variety of birds and mammals. Although many fish 

species are at a disadvantage due to the drainage of Refuge pools for waterbird management, many 

people travel to the Refuge for rewarding year-round fishing opportunities on Refuge pools and 

ditches. Northern pike, large mouth bass, yellow perch, black crappie, pumpkinseed, black, brown, 

and yellow bullhead are some of the species most sought by anglers. 

3.3.1.7 Rare Plants

There may be rare species of plants that have not been identified on the Refuge, particularly those 

that may be living in remote locations. While several studies have been done on plant abundance and 

distribution, a comprehensive inventory of Refuge plants is needed. The Refuge and the Yellow River 

area have several populations of rare and declining plant species (Table 1).

3.3.1.8 Listed Species

Federally listed threatened or endangered species that utilize the Refuge and the adjacent Yellow 

River Area include the Bald Eagle, Eastern timber wolf, Karner blue butterfly, and Whooping Crane. 

The Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, which is currently a candidate for federal listing, is found in low 

numbers in the Yellow River Area. Chapter 4 discusses management actions aimed at restoring and 

protecting federally-listed species in these two areas.

Bald Eagle

The Bald Eagle, America’s national symbol, experienced a drastic decline throughout the country 

from the 1950s into the early 1970s. This decline was caused by the bio-accumulation of organochlorine 

pesticides (DDT and dieldrin) in fish and habitat destruction. The use of pesticides which contained 

DDT or dieldrin were banned in 1972, and shortly there after the number of successful eagle nests 

increased steadily. Bald Eagles were listed as an endangered species in 1976. Due to successful 

Frank Durbian
21

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

conservation efforts, the Bald Eagle was recently upgrade to a threatened species. One occupied eagle 

nest currently occurs at the Refuge which is protected from human disturbance. 

Eastern Timber Wolf

Eastern timber wolves lived throughout Wisconsin prior to the 1830s. As settlers transformed native 

habitat into farmland, prey species declined and wolves began feeding on livestock. In 1865, the 

Wisconsin Legislature paid a $5.00 state bounty for every wolf killed. The wolf bounty was later 

increased to $20.00 for adults and $10.00 for pups to protect the dwindling deer herd. By 1960, few 

wolves remained throughout the lower 48 states and were declared extirpated from the State of 

Wisconsin.

Table 1: Rare Plants Found on the Refuge and Within the Yellow River Focus Area1

Common Name Scientific Name State Status* Habitat/Location

Round-stemmed false 

foxglove

Agalinus gattingeri State threatened 

(Federal status 

assessment in progress)

Southern Juneau County in dry 

prairies and bedrock glades

Wooly milkweed Asclepias languinosa State threatened Dry savannas (oak barrens) in 

Juneau County, just south of 

Necedah Refuge

Brittle prickly pear Opuntia fragilis State threatened Dry, sandy habitats in 

neighboring Adams County; 

may occur in similar habitats in 

Juneau County

Dwarf bilberry Vaccinium cespitosum State endangered Sandy pine and oak savanna 

habitats, bracken grasslands

Sand violet Viola fimbrulata State endangered Sandy pine and oak savanna 

habitats

Pale false foxglove Agalinus skinneriana State endangered Dry savannas in Adams County

Tubercled or pale green 

orchid

Plantanthera flava var. 

herbiola

State threatened Wet prairies and sedge 

meadows in Juneau and Adams 

counties

Umbrella sedge Fuirena pumila State endangered Coastal plain species that 

inhabit peat and muck flats, wet 

sands, and fluctuating lake 

shores

Bald rush Psilocarya scirpoides State threatened Coastal plain species that 

inhabit peat and muck flats, wet 

sands, and fluctuating 

lakeshores

Netted nut-rush Scleria reticularis State endangered Coastal plain species requiring 

recently desiccated mud or 

sand lake beds with fluctuating 

water

Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena State threatened Sedge meadows and tamarack 

bogs; has been documented in 

western Adams County. 

Beak grass Diarrhena americana State endangered Floodplain forest; may inhabit 

Yellow River bottoms, adjacent 

and east of Necedah NWR

1.No federally-listed plants are likely to occur on the Refuge.
22

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

In 1973, the wolf was listed as a federal endangered species and as a state endangered species in the 

State of Wisconsin in 1975. Between 1979-1986, studies showed that four to six wolf packs (15-25 

animals) roamed two areas of northern Wisconsin. Since this period, wolf packs continue to increase 

throughout Wisconsin. Currently there are at least 66 confirmed wolf pack (248-259 animals) 

territories in northwestern and central Wisconsin and 11 established wolf packs in the central 

Wisconsin forest complex (Wydeven et al. 2000). Territories of four packs, Suk Cearney, Yellow River, 

Dead Creek, and South Bluff, may extend onto the Refuge. The Suk Cearney pack’s territory appears 

to be concentrated on the southern end of the Refuge. This pack has numbered as many as seven 

individuals at one time. Based on winter wolf track surveys, there may be two dens and/or rendezvous 

sites on the Refuge, although howling surveys have not detected wolf pups as of yet. For the most 

recent map of wolf pack distribution in Wisconsin, see the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources website at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/.

Karner Blue Butterfly

Karner blue butterflies have undoubtedly been longtime residence of the Refuge property. Savanna 

habitat was present on Refuge land at the time of the original land surveys. The butterflies most likely 

occurred on these savannas. However, definitive proof is lacking. Karner blue butterflies undoubtedly 

benefitted from the drainage and expanded burning that occurred in the area of the Refuge at the 

beginning of the 20th century. Presently, Karner blue butterflies are known to occur in 12 population 

complexes within the Refuge, which constitutes the world’s largest remaining population of Karner 

blue butterflies. The butterfly was listed as an endangered species in 1993.

Whooping Crane

Whooping Crane chicks were introduced at the Refuge in the summer of 2001 as part of an 

experimental Whooping Crane reintroduction project aimed at establishing a migratory population in 

the eastern U.S. to contribute toward recovery of the species. The population has been designated as a 

non-essential population (NEP) in a rule making action finalized on June 26, 2001. The crane chicks 

were reared in a pen situation and trained to follow ultralight aircraft in migration to a selected 

wintering site at Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge. Yearling cranes successfully returned to 

the Refuge in the spring of 2002. Annual Whooping Crane introduction, rearing, and release activities 

are expected to continue for 10 years with a goal of 25 breeding birds, 125 birds total. 

Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake

Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes have disappeared from 

most of Wisconsin. Once widespread and plentiful in 

southern and western Wisconsin, the Eastern massasauga 

has been reduced to just five populations in the state. One of 

those populations is located next to the Refuge in the Yellow 

River. The Yellow River was long considered Wisconsin’s 

best massasauga population in terms of species abundance. 

Evidence of this is found in bounty records which indicate 

that bounty was paid on over 4,000 massasaugas between 

1952 and 1972.

The Yellow River population produced 25 Eastern 

massasauga rattlesnakes in the 1990s. Nineteen of these 

snakes were neonates from two different clutches. Of the six adults, three were located during routine 

surveys and three were road-killed animals. No new snakes have been located in the Yellow River 

since 1995, despite intensive survey efforts by the Refuge and Wisconsin DNR. The Eastern 

massasauga was listed as a state endangered species in 1975.

The Refuge is currently working with landowners on the Yellow River to conserve snakes through 

habitat improvements. Similar efforts are under way with landowners around three other massasauga 

Frank Durbian
23

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

populations. These populations are in LaCrosse, Monroe, and Buffalo counties. The Refuge is 

developing Candidate Conservation Agreements with landowners on all of these areas. 

State Listed Species

State-listed threatened or endangered species that use the Refuge include the Bald Eagle, Redshouldered Hawk, Blanding’s turtle, Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and Trumpeter Swan. The 

Refuge also supports several rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants. These include the 

prairie fameflower, small skullcap, oval-leaved milkweed, and wooly milkweed. Plant species that are 

necessary to support rare organisms include wild lupine and downy phlox. 

3.3.2 Archaeological and Cultural Values

Archaeological records show evidence of human occupation in Juneau County since the end of the last 

Ice Age when Paleo Indians hunted large prehistoric animals. Every subsequent cultural period for 

the past 10,000 years is represented. The land now known as the Refuge was probably used by several 

cultures since the Ice Age. The peat-covered lowlands around the extensive marsh and shallow river 

environment contained a wide variety of food resources. Slightly higher ground would have been 

suitable for resource-extraction activities, but the people likely located their larger camps and villages 

on elevated land forms not found within the Refuge.

Archaeological investigations have covered 2 percent of the Refuge. The surveys and other sources 

have identified 27 prehistoric and historic sites. The earliest evidence of people on the Refuge has 

been dated to the Middle Archaic period of 5,000 to 3,000 years ago. The rest of the identified sites are 

camps from the Woodland period of 3,000 to 250 years ago, and farmsteads and cemeteries from the 

period of Western culture settlement and occupation. Prehistoric mounds, including effigy mounds, 

are reported near the Refuge. An inventory of Yellow River archaeological values and previous 

archaeological work within the Yellow River Focus Area has not been completed. As of November 1, 

1998, the National Register of Historic Places contained seven properties in Juneau County and three 

properties in adjacent Jackson County. These properties include a bridge, houses, and prehistoric 

sites, including the Cranberry Creek Archaeological District 3 miles east of the Refuge. Early 20th 

century fires burned across the Refuge area, destroying the peat so that now the sandy subsurface is 

exposed or shallowly covered with silt. The slight elevations that might have been used for resource 

extraction or temporary camps are virtually indistinguishable. In consultations with the Wisconsin 

State Historic Preservation Officer, the more efficient method of identifying archaeological sites 

would be to conduct a geomorphological investigation of the Refuge to determine where land forms 

exist that could have supported human use. A similar study conducted at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, 

could be a useful prototype.

Indian tribes may have interest in the Refuge area in terms of traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites, as well as claims to human remains, funerary objects, and other cultural items. During 

the early historic period in Wisconsin, Indian tribes were in a great state of flux, many tribes from the 

east having moved from their ancestral land and pushed the aborigines from Wisconsin to the south 

and west. Thus connecting historic period tribes with their prehistoric cultural antecedents in 

Wisconsin is problematic. People of the Late Woodland Lakes phases may have become the 

Menominee tribe. Evidence from archaeological excavations indicates that ancestors of the 

Winnebago had lived in Eastern Wisconsin for hundreds of years; the Oneota of Eastern Wisconsin 

may have been prehistoric Winnebago. In any event, historic records place Winnebago and 

Potawatomi in the area at the time of Western contact. The Refuge is within the area recognized by 

the Indian Claims Commission as being part of Menominee and Winnebago aboriginal territory. The 

Ioway spoke a Siouan language, which likely links them to late prehistoric cultures of central and 

southern Wisconsin. To a limited extent the Illinois were indigenous tribes in southern Wisconsin, 

probably not as far north as the Refuge. By the 1600s, however, a variety of tribal groups were moving 

in and out of areas south of the Refuge and may have spent time within the vicinity. These included the 

Sauk, Fox, Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Miami, and Mascouten.
24

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3.3.3 Hydrology

Water plays an important part in the history of the Refuge. The sandy sediments and flat topography 

of the area are a result of Glacial Lake Wisconsin, a pre-historic lake that developed when a glacier 

blocked the Wisconsin River near Baraboo, Wisconsin. This extensive lake occupied large parts of 

Juneau and Adams counties, and parts of Wood, Portage, Waushara, Marquette, Columbia, Sauk, 

Richland, Vernon, Monroe and Jackson counties. Glacial Lake Wisconsin drained catastrophically 

about 13,000 years ago when the glaciers retreated. 

3.3.3.1 Refuge Watershed

Located in the Castle Rock Watershed, the Refuge is supported by an important hydrological system 

comprised of natural and man-made waterways in which materials and energy are transferred 

(Figure 6). Some, such as the Yellow River and its tributaries, provide an important ecological 

component to the Refuge by connecting biologically diverse food webs that provide important habitat 

features for wildlife. The Refuge, along with a series of other swampy basins such as Meadow Valley 

Flowage, Beaver Flowage, and numerous managed cranberry bogs, all contribute to the 7,800-square 

mile Middle Wisconsin River Basin. The Castle Rock Watershed drains 3,259 square miles, contains 27 

rivers and streams, and has 3,358 total river miles.

3.3.3.2 Refuge Water Sources and Sinks 

On average, approximately 85 percent of the water entering the Refuge comes directly from 

precipitation, either as rain or snow (Table 2) (USGS Report). Precipitation averages about 32.6 

inches annually. Streams that flow into the Refuge contribute about 13 percent of the water, while 

groundwater flow into the Refuge accounts for about 2 percent of the water, due largely to the 

interception of ground water by the extensive drainage networks surrounding the Refuge. Surfacewater inflow to the Refuge includes: Remington Ditch (60 percent), Neal Lateral (15 percent), EBRSpencer (11 percent), Meadow Valley (6 percent), and un-gauged (8 percent). 

Of the water leaving the Refuge, about 62 percent is lost to evaporation from the pools or 

transpiration of water vapor back to the atmosphere from plants. Evaporation from open-water 

surfaces is estimated to be about 28 inches annually, as determined from a regional map of average 

annual lake evaporation (Kohler and others, 1959). Surface-water outflows from the Refuge, mostly 

through Rynearson Pools 1 (28 percent) and 2 (59 percent) and Suk-Cerney Pool (10 percent), 

constitute about 36 percent of the total outflows; groundwater flows out of the Refuge are about 2 

percent of the total annual outflows. This small amount of groundwater outflow, along with larger 

surface water outflows, demonstrates the efficiency of the extensive drainage network within the 

Refuge boundaries. A natural topographic fall of 50 feet occurs from north to south across the Refuge, 

or roughly 2-3 feet per mile. 

From recent groundwater modeling of the Refuge, annual recharge was estimated to be 9.5 inches. 

Hence, evapotranspiration was 32.6 inches (precipitation) minus 9.5 inches (groundwater recharge), or 

23.1 inches. This value agrees well with the findings of Weeks and Strangland (1971), who reported 

evapotranspiration values for nearby agricultural areas ranging from 15 to 20 inches per year, with 

higher rates expected in areas containing water-tolerant vegetation. Groundwater moves through the 

Refuge in a northwest to southeast direction traveling toward the Yellow and Wisconsin Rivers. 

Groundwater varies from 0 to 20 feet and is typically high in iron, with a pH of approximately 6.0, 

which is slightly acidic. Total dissolved solids and hardness are low. Groundwater recharge occurs 

primarily from percolation of precipitation through the loamy sands. 

Water control structures within the Refuge regulate drainage. During high water flows such as spring 

floods, water control structures are monitored regularly and outflows are controlled to prevent 

damage to down-stream roads and culverts. Water is generally stored in Refuge pools during spring 

runoff and is used to refill pools that are drained in early June for moist soil seed production. Reflooding of moist soil units takes place during September and October. Stored water can also be used 
25

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 6: Castle Rock Watershed, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge
26

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

to maintain water levels in pools that are managed at full pool to provide breeding and brood rearing 

habitat for migratory birds.

3.4 Physiography

3.4.1 Refuge Ecosystem

The Refuge is located in the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem (Ecosystem) which 

is one of eight hydrologically defined ecosystems that comprise the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of 

the Service (Figure 7). The Ecosystem is a large and ecologically diverse area that encompasses land 

in the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. The Mississippi River 

bisects the Ecosystem east and west. Other major rivers include the Minnesota, Chippewa, Black, 

Wisconsin, Iowa, Rock, Skunk, Des Moines, Illinois, and Kaskaskia. 

3.4.2 Bailey’s Ecological Unit Classification System

Bailey’s Ecological Unit Classification System (Keys et al., 1995) defines the Upper Mississippi River/

Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem as laurentian mixed forest, eastern broadleaf forest, lower Mississippi 

riverine forest, and prairie parkland. The Refuge is located in the eastern broadleaf forest province 

within the central Wisconsin sand plain subsection (Figure 8).

3.4.3 Historic Condition

Historically, land in and around the Refuge was once a vast peat bog with some low wooded islands 

and savannas. The higher sand ridges were occupied by mature stands of pines and other species 

(Figure 9). 

Table 2: Summary of Water Sources and Sinks for Necedah NWR, May 1988-April 19991

Water Sources and Sinks Annual Flow 

(acre-feet)

Water Sources

Precipitation 118,700

Surface Water Inflow 19,600

Ground Water Inflow 2,300

Total Water In 140,600

Water Sinks

Evapotranspiration Loss 85,400

Surface Water Outflow 51,500

Ground Water Outflow 2,700

Total Water Out 139,600

Change in Storate (water inflow/water outflow) 1,000

Percent of Water Inflow 0.7

1.U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, May 2000
27

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

3.4.4 Current Condition

Today the Refuge consists of roughly 43,700 acres of pine, oak, and aspen forests, grasslands and 

savannas, and wetlands and open water areas, all of which support a rich diversity of fish and wildlife 

(Figure 10). Table 3 is a summary of Refuge land cover.

Refuge forest communities (upland) include northern mesic forest (white and red pine, bigtooth 

aspen, trembling aspen, red maple) and mixed wet-mesic forest (jack pine, northern pin oak, red 

maple, trembling aspen, paper birch). Refuge forests provide excellent habitat for many neo-tropical 

migratory birds such as the Scarlet Tanager, Eastern Wood-pewee, and Ovenbird. Currently upland 

forests on the Refuge comprise roughly 16,500 acres. 

Refuge grasslands, savannas, fallow fields, and shrublands comprise open landscapes on the Refuge. 

Refuge grasslands include prairies, fallow fields, and meadows. Tree cover on the grasslands ranges 

from little to none. Plant cover is a mixture of sedges, grasses, and forbs that attract nesting 

Bobolinks, Vesper Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows, and Upland Sandpipers. Some common 

grassland species on the Refuge include big bluestem, little bluestem, Kentucky bluegrass, and a wide 

variety of other grasses, sedges and forbs. Blackberry and spirea are scattered in grassland areas as 

well. Willow-dogwood communities are invading old farm fields and wet meadows in places where 

disturbance is rare. Refuge grasslands provide important nesting habitat for many migratory birds 

including ducks, geese, and Sandhill Cranes, and also serve as grazing sites for white-tailed deer. 

Figure 7: Ecoregion of Necedah NWR
28

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 8: Bailey’s Ecoregions, Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
29

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 9: Historic Vegetation, Necedah NWR
30

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Necedah NWR
31

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Refuge savannas include northern pin oak, jack pine, warm season grasses, upland sedges, blueberry, 

goldenrod, and wild lupine. These savanna areas are also known as barrens, because fire and tree 

diseases such as oak wilt are more common in the droughty, sandy soils. These disturbances keep the 

trees small and scattered. Oak savanna has been defined as having at least one tree per acre, but less 

than 50 percent cover. Wisconsin historically had over 4 million acres of barren habitat covering 12 

percent of the state. Today less than .14 percent remains. Refuge savannas support Eastern 

massasauga rattlesnakes, phlox moths, Blandings turtles, Karner blue butterflies, and over 110 

species of birds. Currently, open landscape lands on the Refuge comprise roughly 3,700 acres.

Refuge wetlands include forested, non-forested, and open water wetlands. The majority of these occur 

within pools, streams, and ditches. Wetland plant species include pondweeds, rushes, elodea, coontail, 

milfoils, and duckweeds. Some Refuge pools are drawn down for part of the year to promote the 

growth of high energy waterfowl foods such as millet, smartweed, chufa, beggar ticks, rice, and 

spikerush. Ditches and streams also provide additional wetland habitat, although to a lesser extent 

than Refuge pools.

Wet meadows and marsh edges consist of bur-reed, smartweeds, beggar’s ticks, bulrushes, blue-joint 

grass, and reed canary grass. Open sedge meadows comprise mixed sedges with invading jack pine, 

willow, and hardhack. Sedge meadows on the Refuge are home to Northern Harriers, Sedge Wrens, 

and Sora Rails.

Bottomland forested areas include jack pine, silver and red maple, green ash, northern pin and swamp 

white oak, river birch, and trembling aspen. Tamarack was historically present in these areas. 

Currently non-forested, forested, and open water wetlands comprise roughly 23,500 acres. 

3.5 Geology

The Refuge is located in the central plain province of Wisconsin within an area known as the Great 

Central Wisconsin Swamp, an extensive alluvial lake plain that extends over 2,000 square miles. The 

Refuge is underlain by a Precambrian Crystalline bedrock complex which surface varies in elevation 

from approximately 860 Mean Sea Level at the north end of the Refuge to approximately 760 Mean 

Sea Level at the south end. The Precambrian bedrock is overlain by an estimated 30 to 100 feet 

stratum of late Cambrian sandstone. 

Table 3: Land Cover Types, Necedah NWR1

Land Cover Type Acres

Open Landscapes (grasslands, savanna, shrublands, old fields) 3,700

Coniferous Forests 900

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 10,000

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 5,600

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 10,500

Forested Wetlands 5,700

Lowland Shrubs 5,500

Open Water Areas 1,800

1.Data Source: WISCLAND (1994)
32

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3.5.1 Refuge Soils

Soils on and around the Refuge represent three major soil associations consistent with central 

Wisconsin landscapes: Aus Gres loamy sands and Morocco silt loams, Plainfield and Nekoosa loamy 

sands, and muck and peat soils (Figure 11). The dominant soil association is the Plainfield and 

Nekoosa loamy sands. Newson and Dawson peat soils are found in the impoundments, along drainage 

ditches, and in marshes. These soils are usually inundated and consist of partially decayed organic 

matter and mineral soils. 

3.6 Social and Economic Resources

3.6.1 Economic Impact Assessment

In 1998, the Refuge contracted with 

Industrial Economics Inc. to complete an 

economic impact assessment to estimate 

the regional economic and national social 

welfare benefits of the Refuge. However, 

some of the data used to generate the 

economic report is associated with 

significant uncertainty, as well as dated. 

As a result, the estimates in the report 

should be interpreted with uncertainty in 

mind. Some of the values used to generate 

that report have been updated to reflect 

more current figures. Also, it should be 

noted that the report was not 

commissioned to support any of the action 

items contained in the CCP. It was 

prepared to facilitate a better 

understanding of the economic contribution national wildlife refuges in general have on local and 

regional economies.

Within the four-county region surrounding the Refuge (Wood, Juneau, Adams, and Monroe counties), 

agricultural activities constitute an important component of the economy. This sector includes both 

dairy farms and farms that grow row crops (e.g., sweet corn, potatoes, snap peas). Cranberry 

production is also important, and is considered a premium crop in that it commands a high price in the 

market. Cranberry beds, while representing a small percentage of the total land area, are scattered 

throughout the region. The total acreage of cranberry beds currently in Juneau and Wood counties 

alone is estimated to be 4,500. Because the region has large tracts of both private and public forest 

land, the timber industry is important to the economy as well. Wood County is the most populous and 

strongest economically of the four.

These four counties offer a variety of recreational activities on both public and private land. Along 

with the Refuge, there are several other public recreation areas. These include Sandhill Wildlife Area, 

Wood County Wildlife Area, and Meadow Valley Wildlife Area. Other recreational and camping areas 

nearby include Buckhorn State Park, Castle Rock, and Petenwell County Parks, which are adjacent to 

the Refuge. These offer substitute sites and opportunities to the Refuge for hunting, fishing, wildlife 

viewing, photography, and other recreational activities.

Commercial activities on the Refuge include timber harvesting and trapping for pelts. Several of the 

surrounding towns maintain roadways that pass through the Refuge. Funding for road maintenance 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
33

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 11: Soils Found On Necedah NWR
34

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

on Federal property helps supplement the tax base used to fund road projects. The Refuge’s annual 

budget (> $1 million dollars in 2001) supports employee salaries, operation and maintenance, 

education, and improvement projects such as bridges, dams, and roads. 

Commercial and Refuge management economic activities on the Refuge include: 

# The annual budget for staff salaries, maintenance, operations, small capital purchases and 

educational programs exceeded $1,000,000 in 2001. 

# Each year, sections of the Refuge are selected for timber harvesting to maintain quality 

habitat for plants and animals. In 1996-97, 3,237 cords of wood were harvested worth 

$155,758.

# Trapping is an important management tool used to reduce or prevent damage to Refuge 

roads, dikes, and water control structures. Trapping may also reduce predation on nesting 

birds. Trapping is also a recreational opportunity afforded by the Refuge. Trapped species 

include mink, beaver, muskrat, and raccoon. The annual average value of pelts taken 

between 1980 and1995 was $6,858.

In addition to maintenance of land by the Refuge, certain roads within the boundary of the Refuge are 

maintained by the surrounding townships of Necedah, Finley, Cutler, Remington, and Kingston. 

These townships spend, on average, approximately $96,000 annually for road maintenance, with a 

large part of this cost for snow removal.

Conclusions drawn from Refuge-dependent commercial and Refuge management economic activities 

include:

# Refuge spending contributes over $1 million and roughly 18 jobs to the regional economy.

# Refuge road maintenance and timber harvesting produce similar effects on the regional 

economy, accounting for approximately $150,000 each year. 

# Furbearer trapping plays a minor role in the overall regional economy, accounting for only 

$7,000 of regional output and less than one job.

# Refuge fire support to the Necedah Fire Department accounted for $9,500 in 2001 through 

Wildland Urban Interface Funding. 

The Refuge also has an indirect economic impact on the local economy through recreational activities 

it supports. Among these are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, berry picking, 

and cross-country skiing. Although the Refuge charges no entrance fee, individuals that visit the 

Refuge and participate in these activities often purchase a variety of goods and services in the 

communities surrounding the Refuge (e.g., food, lodging, fuel, equipment). In 2000, Juneau County 

contributed $84 million to Wisconsin’s tourism industry (Wisconsin Department of Tourism). 

Some of the more popular recreational activities on the Refuge are:

# Hunting for both large (white-tailed deer) and small game species (grey, red, and fox 

squirrel; rabbit; snowshoe hare; Ruffed Grouse; waterfowl; Wild Turkey; and raccoon). In 

1996, an estimated 10,000 trips were made to the Refuge for the purpose of hunting.

# Fishing on Refuge waters, primarily for northern pike, bullheads, crappie, yellow perch, and 

sunfish. In 1996, approximately 7,000 trips were made to the Refuge for the purpose of 

fishing.

# Wildlife viewing accounted for over 106,000 trips to the Refuge in 1996.

# Blueberry, raspberry, and blackberry picking are popular during summer months. 
35

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Conclusions drawn from Refuge-dependent recreational activities include:

# Wildlife viewing has the greatest effect on the regional economy, accounting for between 

$1.9 million and $2.3 million of regional output and between 48 and 67 jobs.

# Recreational hunting has the second greatest effect on the regional economy, accounting for 

$250,000 and 6.8 jobs.

# Fishing produces the third greatest regional economic effects, accounting for $220,000 of 

regional output and 5.9 jobs. 

3.7 Refuge Operations

3.7.1 Fish And Wildlife Management

3.7.1.1 Birds

Most bird management on the Refuge is accomplished through habitat management. The Refuge’s 

prescribed burning and savanna restoration programs are designed to directly benefit nesting 

grassland birds in open and semi-open landscapes. These programs were initially created to increase 

the amount of suitable waterfowl nesting habitat. The Refuge also attempts to attract waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and other marsh birds by managing water levels on most of its main pools. The purpose of 

water level manipulation on these pools is to grow food plants and to increase the availability of 

aquatic invertebrates that are favored by migrating water birds. In the mid-1960s to early 1970s, the 

Refuge created Woodcock habitat with its forestry program. This was accomplished by clear-cutting 

small linear strips of forest in successive years, which created young stands of aspen. Now, Meadow 

Valley Wildlife Management Area, immediately adjacent to the Refuge (see Figure 5 on page 18), 

maintains extensive areas of young forest, which is prime Woodcock habitat and habitat for many 

warblers. Wetland restoration and prescribed burning activities have been used to restore and 

maintain sedge meadows on the Refuge. This provides nesting habitat for birds including Sedge 

Wrens, sparrows, rails, and warblers.

The Refuge participates in several migratory bird conservation initiatives to the extent applicable and 

practical. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is a partnership effort to 

restore waterfowl populations to historic levels, with objectives and strategies evolving through 

NAWMP Updates (the latest produced in 1998). The Refuge is found within the Upper Mississippi 

River and Great Lakes Joint Venture area of the NAWMP and contributes to the achievement of 

waterfowl objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan for this area.

Several non-game bird initiatives are in the planning stage, with implementation beginning in the near 

future. Partners In Flight (PIF) is developing Bird Conservation Plans, primarily for landbirds, in 

numerous physiographic areas; these plans include priority species lists, associated habitats, and 

management strategies. The same elements will be by-products of ongoing planning efforts for 

shorebirds (U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan) and colonial waterbirds (North American Colonial 

Waterbird Conservation Plan). The Refuge will strive to implement conservation strategies outlined 

in these plans as they are developed. The Refuge lies within PIF Physiographic Area 16 (Upper Great 

Lakes Plain) and 20 (Boreal Hardwood Transition). 

The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation 

Plan have identified priority species and conservation strategies, mostly focused around habitat, that 

will address the needs of those groups of birds. At some future point it is hoped that all migratory bird 

conservation programs will be integrated under the umbrella of the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative. This is a continental effort to have all migratory bird initiatives operate under 
36

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

common Bird Conservation Regions and for implementers to consider the conservation objectives of 

all birds together to optimize the effectiveness of management strategies.

Nest Structures

In the past, the Refuge had an extensive Wood Duck and Bluebird nest box program that ran from the 

1970s into the 1990s. During this time, approximately 200 nest boxes for both Wood Ducks and 

Bluebirds were placed on the Refuge. Success of the nest box program was monitored by Refuge 

volunteers. Wood Duck boxes have not amply contributed to Wood Duck production on the Refuge as 

most nesting occurs in abundant natural cavities. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Wood Duck nest 

box program will be phased out over the next 10-15 years and the Bluebird program maintained by 

outside interests.

The Refuge has one known active Bald Eagle nest that is protected during the nesting season by 

minimizing all human activity around it. This includes activity by the public, Refuge staff, and aircraft 

activity associated with the Hardwood Bombing Range located nearby.

Figure 12: Physiographic Areas for Necedah NWR
37

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Reintroductions

Reintroduction activities for three bird species have been conducted on the Refuge. Wild Turkeys that 

were trapped in Pennsylvania were released on the Refuge in the mid-1960s. Sandhill Cranes were 

hatched in captivity and released on the Refuge in the early 1980s. A similar project was conducted for 

Trumpeter Swans in the early 1990s. Eggs were collected in Alaska, the young were hatched in 

captivity and released at three different locations on the Refuge. 

In 1999, the Refuge was selected as a reintroduction site for the endangered Whooping Crane. 

Whooping Crane chicks were introduced at the Refuge in the summer of 2001 as part of a Whooping 

Crane reintroduction project to establish a migratory population in the eastern U.S. to contribute 

toward recovery of the species. The population has been designated as a non-essential experimental 

population in a rule making action finalized on June 26, 2001. The crane chicks were reared in a pen 

situation and trained to follow ultra light aircraft in migration to Chassahowitzka National Wildlife 

Refuge. Annual Whooping Crane introduction, rearing, and release activities are expected to continue 

for 10 years with a goal of 25 breeding birds, 125 birds total. 

3.7.2 Mammals

There is little active management for mammals on the 

Refuge. Public hunting and trapping are two management 

tools used to control certain mammalian populations. 

Small game hunters pursue gray and fox squirrels, 

cottontail rabbits, snowshoe hares, and raccoons. All other 

mammalian species that are otherwise legal small game 

are protected on the Refuge. Coyotes and red and gray 

foxes benefit from this policy more than any other 

mammalian species. White-tailed deer and black bear are 

the only big game mammals found on the Refuge, and only 

the white-tailed deer can be hunted within Refuge 

boundaries. Harvest levels on the Refuge are set by the 

Wisconsin DNR. The Refuge is currently part of deer 

management units 53 and 56.

Trapping by permit is allowed on the Refuge to aid in 

management of several mammal populations. Each fall, six 

trapping permits are awarded by drawing, and successful 

trappers then have exclusive rights to the area for which 

their permit is issued. Trappers are not allowed to make 

dry-land sets and can only trap raccoon, beaver, muskrat, mink, skunk, and opossum. This policy has 

the greatest protective effect on otter, coyotes, and grey and red foxes. 

3.7.3 Reptiles and Amphibians 

Restoration of thousands of acres of wetlands on the Refuge has re-created reptile and amphibian 

habitat that had been lost due to drainage and farming. Savanna restoration efforts on the Refuge 

benefit the Blanding’s turtle, which lays its eggs in these areas. Regulations prohibiting the collection 

of reptiles and amphibians are enforced on the Refuge. 

3.7.4 Invertebrates 

The only direct management the Refuge does for invertebrate populations is for the federally listed 

endangered Karner blue butterfly and gypsy moth. The Refuge monitors Karner populations and the 

populations of associated plant species, such as wild lupine, the Karner’s sole larval food source. The 

Refuge modifies its prescribed burns and mowing plans so as not to disturb Karner habitat. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
38

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The Refuge also cooperates with the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection, the 

Wisconsin DNR, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

in their efforts to survey gypsy moth distribution, abundance, and spread. 

3.7.5 Fish

Management of Refuge fish populations is currently limited due to shallow water and periodic drawdowns in most Refuge impoundments. Some Refuge impoundments are periodically sampled to 

determine which fish species are present. In the past, invasive species (e.g., carp) have been controlled 

by lowering pool levels in the winter, which freezes the fish out. During summer draw-downs, stranded 

native fish and/or fish that are passing through the dam have been transferred to other pools. 

Two aspects of wetland management are problematic with respect to managing the Refuge for 

maximum fisheries benefits. First, managing quality open wetland systems is difficult because 

technology is currently limited to effectively control nuisance carp and encourage desirable fish 

utilization. Secondly, many controlled quality wetlands are regulated following water management 

regimes that tend to limit fish use and production.

3.8 Habitat Restoration 

Habitat restoration at the Refuge involves using a variety of tools and techniques to enhance the 

composition, structure, and function of plant communities for the benefit of listed species, waterfowl 

and other migratory birds, and native biological diversity. 

3.8.1 Wetland Restoration

The Refuge is located in an area historically known as the 

Great Central Wisconsin Swamp, a vast lowland area 

spanning hundreds of square miles. During European 

settlement, the majority of wetlands in the area were 

drained, logged, and farmed. Over the years, Refuge staff 

have restored many of these former wetlands for a variety 

of reasons, including to provide habitat for wildlife, to aid 

in flood control, and to provide recreational opportunities 

for the public. The two most common ways wetlands are 

restored on the Refuge are plugging drainage ditches and 

constructing new dikes with water control structures. If 

management objectives for an area require an open vista, 

timber harvest may be used to speed up the process (trees 

would eventually be eliminated by higher water levels 

anyway). Native wetland plants soon return to these 

restored areas, as seeds lie dormant in the soils. Woody 

vegetation is managed to maintain open or semi-open 

wetland habitats by regulating water levels in Refuge 

pools. Some restored wetlands are also burned or mowed 

to maintain the desired vegetation composition. 

3.8.2 Upland Restoration

Restoration of upland habitats on the Refuge includes 

establishing and maintaining productive grasslands and 

savannas for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
39

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

species, and other wildlife and plants. Timber harvest is a tool used extensively on the Refuge to 

restore and maintain upland areas such as semi-open savanna habitats. Timber harvest is also used to 

eliminate hazardous standing dead trees and reduce fuel loading, especially along the southern edge 

of the Refuge near the Town of Necedah. Mowing is often used to maintain open areas, dikes, fire 

breaks, and safe roadside visibility conditions. Prescribed burning is used to restore and maintain 

semi-open and open habitats such as savannas, grasslands, and sedge meadows. 

3.9 Habitat Management

3.9.1 Water Level Management

In most cases, management of wetland habitats at the 

Refuge involves the manipulation of water to achieve the 

desired successional stage of wetland plant communities. 

Hydrologic cycle maintenance plays an important role in 

the life cycle of wetlands. As wetland soils go through the 

drying process, nutrients are released and made available 

for plant growth. Upon re-flooding, the wetland is 

rejuvenated and results in an area thriving with insect life 

and aquatic vegetation. Forested wetlands are managed 

primarily by limiting human influence to maintain natural 

levels of hydrologic change. Sedge meadows are managed 

in this way and are also burned with prescribed fires to 

help maintain their open character. The Refuge has a 

Marsh and Water Management Plan, dated June 1992, that provides guidance on day-to-day water 

management. 

3.9.2 Moist Soil Management

Management of Refuge wetlands for moist soil plant production is a major part of wetland 

management activities on the Refuge. Moist soil habitats provide shallowly flooded food resources 

(seeds, invertebrates) for migrating dabbling ducks, shorebirds, other marsh birds, and Canada 

Geese. The greatest use by all waterbirds occurs in the fall, but moist soil units provide a variety of 

resources for waterbirds and other wildlife species throughout the year. Moist soil units usually 

remain flooded for 2 years and are drawn down during the spring of the third year to make conditions 

suitable for germination of native moist soil plant species such as smartweed, millet, beggars tick, rice 

cutgrass and chufa. Drained pools are partially re-flooded in September to a depth that encourages 

foraging by dabbling ducks. Mud flats and shallow pool edges enhance food availability for shorebirds 

and other marsh birds. From that point, flooding continues at 6-inch increments making additional 

food available as the earlier flooded food is consumed. By the end of migration, water levels are 

brought up to full pool elevation. Some Refuge pools are drained in early August for green browse 

production, which is used primarily by Canada Geese and Sandhill Cranes. Other pools are partially 

drained in October to concentrate and expose invertebrates, insect larvae, and minnows as an 

additional food source for shorebirds (Long-billed Dowitcher, Greater Yellowlegs, Dunlin), ducks, and 

geese. 

3.9.3 Grazing, Haying, and Mowing 

In the past, grazing was used on the Refuge as habitat management tools. During the mid-1970s, a 

cooperative grazing program was initiated to control woody vegetation on the Pharm-Becker field. 

However, maintaining suitable fences proved costly and grazing as a management tool was 

discontinued soon after.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
40

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Cooperative haying was also used as a management tool to maintain habitat for nesting birds and to 

provide green browse for Canada Geese during fall migration. Harvesting typically began after July 

15th and was completed by September 1. Application of lime and fertilizer was required to maintain 

legume crops due to the Refuge’s sandy soil. Because of this, the activity proved cost prohibitive and 

was later discontinued. Currently there is no interest in haying Refuge land.

Mowing is regularly used as a habitat management tool on the Refuge. Each year Refuge staff mow 

about 300 acres to maintain the smaller open areas on the Refuge. Dikes, roadsides, and firebreaks 

are also mowed. A hydro-axe is used in areas containing large woody vegetation. As a precaution to 

ground nesting birds, no mowing occurs before July 15.

3.9.4 Farming

In the past the Refuge actively farmed 150 acres of Refuge land to supply migratory waterfowl and 

white-tailed deer with food. Clover, rye, millet, and buckwheat were the primary crops. Farming as a 

program was phased out on the Refuge beginning in the early 1990s in favor of more ecologically 

sound ways of providing food for wildlife. In place of row crops, the Refuge now focuses on increasing 

the availability of native food plants, such as oak shrubs for woody browse, releasing competition 

between mature oaks to increase mast production, native forbs as green browse, and moist soil 

management, which produces native seed crops for migratory birds. Certain farming practices may be 

used occasionally on the Refuge as a tool to achieve some of the above-mentioned natural foods.

3.9.5 Forest Management

Management of Refuge forests are guided by the Refuge’s “1994 Forest Management Step-down 

Plan.” The primary objectives for forest management are to provide and restore endangered species 

habitat, reduce wildfire hazard, and manage existing pine plantations to phase out monoculture 

management. This is accomplished through savanna and sedge meadow restoration and reducing the 

density of jack pine on the Refuge’s eastern border, as well as other areas, to reduce the risk of 

wildfires spreading beyond the Refuge boundary. Commercial timber sales and firewood cutting are 

used to accomplish management objectives.

Timber sales accomplish Refuge ecological objectives and contribute to the local economy. Refuge 

staff mark boundaries and trees to ensure that sales meet ecological objectives. Staff also determine 

timber volumes for each stand. Timber is cut and removed from the Refuge by private wood 

contractors. Contracts for all sales are selected by sealed bid. 

Archaeological surveys are required if any part of the timber harvest operation will disrupt the soil to 

a depth of 6 inches or more. If haul roads and/or yarding areas are to be constructed, an 

archaeological survey will be required in those areas. The surveys are funded and arranged by the 

wood contractor. The cost of these surveys is reflected in the bid price for the timber. When no other 

source of funding is available and the cut is necessary to meet ecological objectives, the Refuge 

supports the cost of the surveys. The establishment of firebreaks is also written into timber contracts 

when prescribed fire is a part of planned management. Refuge roads used for haul routes are required 

to be rehabilitated by grading and 4 inches of gravel, at the completion of the logging operation. The 

contractor is responsible for this cost which is reflected in the bid.

In recent years, the Refuge has conducted approximately two to four timber sales per year. Sales 

usually are between 40 and 400 acres. Jack pine, red pine, aspen, and Northern pin oak (Hill’s oak) are 

the species with the greatest quantities harvested. Contractors are generally allowed 1 to 2 years to 

complete each sale. Most harvesting is done during the winter months when the ground is frozen to 

prevent damage to soil, vegetation, and archaeological resources. No harvesting is done in areas 
41

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

where pin oak is present during the months of April through July when trees may be infected with the 

oak wilt fungus.

Refuge timber resources are also available to the general public in many locations by special use 

permit. Permits to harvest dead and down wood cost $5.00 for a 6-month period. Firewood cutting 

removes dead wood left over from timber harvest operations, thus reducing wildfire danger, and 

provides an inexpensive source of firewood for people in the surrounding communities who do not own 

firewood-producing lands of their own.

Timber stand improvement (TSI) is a forest management practice used at the Refuge aimed at 

improving the health and vitality of a timber stand and generating more income at a faster rate from 

the wood produced. The major benefit from TSI at the Refuge will be realized in pine plantations. 

Over a period of the first 20 years of a pine plantations life some of the trees will become overgrown by 

others. These smaller trees can be harvested in a thinning cut to allow the other trees adjacent to 

them to grow more vigorously. These remaining trees may be pruned of lower limbs to a height of 

about 20 feet to promote a larger and clearer bowl that is free of knots. The improved quality of the 

lower two logs of the tree are of greater value to the logging contractor and produce a healthier tree. 

Other TSI practices remove any remnant or invading vegetation such as oak sprouts, aspen and other 

hardwood species that also compete for nutrients.

Although the Refuge’s desired future condition favors eliminating most monoculture pine plantations, 

the Refuge plans to use TSI practices in these plantations until such time that the plantation is 

completely harvested.

Although TSI in other mixed pine/hardwood forest stands is possible, it is impractical from an 

economical standpoint because of the vast area of these types of stand on Refuge lands and the 

minimal affect TSI would have. More importantly, TSI is not in keeping with the Refuge’s primary 

mission, the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plants.

3.9.6 Fire Management

Over many centuries, wildland fire has influenced the life cycles of plants and plant communities. 

History shows that wildland fires were once common in a variety of ecosystems, including those found 

on the Refuge. Many ecosystems adapted to fire, and some are even dependent on fire for critical 

functions such as seed germination and growth, return of nutrients in dead foliage to the soil, control 

of competing plants and plant communities, and prevention of stagnation in the last stage of the fire 

cycle. Fire is the key that starts the cycle again. It gives many plants and animals a chance to 

reproduce and grow again. The renewed supply of nutrients and light produces forage and cover used 

by wildlife. Under appropriate circumstances, prescribed fire can be reintroduced into many 

ecosystems. Such application of fire to natural or modified wildland fuels is done under specific, 

preplanned conditions. The fire is confined to a specific area, is planned to produce the intensity 

required to attain desired objectives, and is carried out by trained burn managers.

The Refuge is located in an area that is at a high risk for wildfires. This is caused by the dry sandy soil, 

which promotes the growth of jack pine and light fluffy grasses and shrubs that carry fire well. Jack 

pine is especially adaptable to fire. Although all other species of trees and vegetation will burn, the 

jack pine-oak ecosystem, which is characteristic of central Wisconsin, is one of the most fire-prone 

areas of the country. Forest management practices are used on the Refuge with wildfire prevention in 

mind.

Since 1948, 63 wildfires have occurred on the Refuge. Eliminating the occasional large and small fires, 

the average size appears to be about 10 acres. The cost to Federal and state forces responsible for 

their suppression is about $7,000 each. The highest fire danger periods occur in the spring and fall 

when temperatures are mild, humidity is low, and fuels are dry. Regular precipitation during the 
42

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

summer months and green vegetation usually lead to moderate to low fire danger. Snowfall during the 

winter usually eliminates any fire danger during that period. 

Refuge staff annually burn an average of 2,000 acres of Refuge land to enhance habitat for upland 

game, waterfowl, and endangered species. The periodic burning of savannas, grasslands, and sedge 

meadows reduces encroaching vegetation such as oak sprouts and willow. It also encourages the 

growth of more desirable species like blueberry, big and little bluestem, and wild lupine (a plant 

necessary for the survival of the endangered Karner blue butterfly).

All prescribed burns are carried out by highly trained and qualified personnel who perform the 

operation under very precise plans. No burning takes place unless it meets the qualifications of the 

prescription for each unit. A prescription is a set of parameters that define the air temperature, fuel 

moisture, wind direction and velocity, soil moisture, relative humidity, and several other environmental 

factors under which a prescribed burn may be ignited. This insures that there is minimal chance the 

fire will escape the unit boundaries and that the fire will have the desired effect on the plant 

community. 

3.9.7 Pest Management

Invasive weeds are the primary pest species of concern at the Refuge. Spotted knapweed, leafy 

spurge, and purple loosestrife are of greatest concern. Spotted knapweed occurs mostly on roadsides 

near the Refuge’s boundary, and to date has not invaded higher quality interior habitats. Control 

includes mowing dike-tops and spot-spraying with Roundup and 2,4-D. Leafy spurge occurs in one 

isolated pocket near the road entrance to Suk Cerney Pool. The Wisconsin Conservation Corps crew 

assigned to the Refuge has been clipping the plants before they flower. Purple loosestrife occurs in 

areas around the Refuge, but has not yet been found on the Refuge. Refuge staff regularly monitor 

wetland areas for signs of loosestrife invasion.

The Refuge has two notable forest pests, oak wilt and the IPS beetle. Oak wilt, caused by the fungus 

Ceratocystis fagacearum, is a primary cause of red oak mortality on the Refuge and in south central 

Wisconsin. A study by the U.S. Forest Service in 1979 concluded that oak wilt accounts for less than 1 

percent of volume loss of red oaks on the Refuge. Research on oak wilt ecology was conducted on the 

Refuge in the mid 1990s; this research showed that oak wilt was a natural disturbance process that 

actually helps maintain savanna habitats on the Refuge. Therefore, the Refuge does not implement 

oak wilt control methods. The IPS beetle is another pest that occasionally infests red pine. Infestation 

sites are usually less than 2 acres in size. Since wood production is not a purpose of the Refuge, IPS 

beetle control is a low priority.

Carp is another notable pest species found on the Refuge. Carp retard the growth of aquatic 

vegetation by consuming it and by roiling the water and causing turbidity, which reduces 

photosynthetic efficiency, an essential component of wetland food chains. Several pools are drawn 

down as a part of the Refuge’s moist soil management program, which keeps carp populations in 

check. No other active management occurs for this species.

On occasion, beaver dams obstruct water flow along Refuge drainage ditches, sometimes threatening 

to flood Refuge or township roads. Beaver are occasionally trapped as a part of the Refuge’s public 

use (trapping) program and Refuge staff eliminate beaver dams as problems arise.
43

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

3.10 Resource Conservation

The Refuge conserves its fish, wildlife, plant, archaeological, and cultural resources through enforcing 

laws and regulations, pursuing the conservation and acquisition of additional land, investigating and 

cleaning up contaminants, and ensuring adequate receiving waters through the enforcement of water 

rights.

3.10.1 Law Enforcement 

The purpose of the Refuge’s law enforcement program is 

to offer protection for Refuge resources and the public 

through the efforts of highly trained professional officers. 

The Refuge currently employs two staff members whose 

law enforcement duties are concurrent with their other 

primary duties. 

The authorities for law enforcement on refuges originate 

from several Federal statutes, but primarily are derived in 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979; the 

Lacey Act (1981 Amendments); the Endangered Species 

Act; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act; and the National 

Wildlife Refuge Administration Act. Federal regulations 

specific to Refuges are derived from the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, including 

Refuge authority for enforcing state laws governing hunting, fishing, and motor vehicle use. Some 

common law enforcement activities on the Refuge include:

# Assisting visitors in understanding Refuge laws and regulations.

# Protecting Refuge property and its fish, wildlife, plant, cultural, and archaeological 

resources from illegal activities by visitors or trespassers.

# Protecting Refuge visitors and their possessions from disturbance and harm by other 

visitors or themselves.

# Ensuring compliance with Refuge and state regulations governing the use and enjoyment of 

the Refuge.

# Cooperating and coordinating with other local law enforcement agencies, including the 

Wisconsin DNR, Juneau County Sheriff, Wisconsin Highway Patrol, and the Juneau County 

Office of Emergency Management.

# Enforcement and compliance issues on 46 conservation easements in the Refuge 

Management District, which by policy, requires a two-officer response.

# Protecting high-hazard dams regarding terrorist threat, vandalism, or emergency action.

# Preventing illicit drug use, possession, sale, or manufacture on Service-owned land.

# Protecting endangered species, including Karner blue butterfly habitat and the newly 

established Whooping Crane population.

# Immediate response for building security and fire alarm systems. 

3.10.2 Permits and Economic Use Management

All uses and activities of the Refuge that are not available to the general public are controlled through 

a permitting system. Contract labor and construction is regulated through work orders, purchase 

orders and contractual agreements. Other uses are controlled through the issuing of special use 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
44

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

permits. These permits regulate firewood cutting, biological research and specimen collecting, 

commercial photography, special access for individuals with disabilities, trapping, and commercial 

timber harvest. Allowed activities and special conditions are detailed on the Permit. 

Within the Refuge Management District, (See Figure 5 on page 18), special use permits have been 

used to allow limited grazing, haying, firewood harvesting for personal use, and fence construction 

that are deemed compatible with the purposes of Conservation Easements developed as part of the 

Service’s Private Lands program. 

3.10.3 Contaminant Investigations and Cleanup

The Service has adopted a Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) to provide a systematic, 

cost-effective approach for evaluating whether environmental contaminants pose threats to all 

National Wildlife Refuge System lands. Recently, contaminant-related information was gathered for 

the Refuge and a data base was established to assist in land management decisions. The database 

contains physical and biological descriptions of the Refuge as well as potential contamination sites off 

the Refuge. Application of the process will also identify areas vulnerable to spills or releases of oil or 

hazardous substances that will lead to baseline data collections. The CAP for the Refuge is complete. 

The Service completed one contaminant cleanup in April 1995 in which three barrels with unlabeled 

contents were removed from a former Civilian Conservation Corps work site and properly processed. 

Any contaminated soils were also removed from the site and incinerated. As a precautionary measure, 

all unused Refuge underground fuel storage tanks were removed in 1986, and remaining tanks in use 

were taken out of service and removed in 1993. No soil contamination was detected at these sites.

Before the Service acquires an interest in any property, 

either fee purchase or easement, an Environmental Site 

Assessment is completed. This assessment is used to 

ascertain the likelihood and extent of hazardous 

substances or other environmental problems associated 

with a property, and any needed remediation or cleanup 

costs. This analysis was performed on the last Refuge 

tract purchased in 1994, and on all conservation easements 

within the Refuge Management District. There are 

currently two Refuge staff trained to perform these 

investigations. 

3.10.4 Water Rights Management

The Refuge contains approximately 23,500 acres of 

wetlands. Much of this wetland consists of impoundments 

created to approximate wetland values that existed prior to agricultural drainage in the early 1900s. 

About 70 percent of the Refuge surface water supply enters the Refuge from the north, through the 

Remington diversion structure in the northwest and the Spencer-Robinson ditch in the northeast. 

The Remington diversion structure was built around 1940 to allow additional inflows to the Yellow 

River to run a small hydroelectric generator. The structure was designed with a maximum stop-log 

elevation of 958.0 Mean Sea Level. The Refuge has a long history dating back to at least the mid-1970s 

of setting these stop-logs to 957.5 and diverting all water that passed between the 957.5 and 958.0 

elevations. Water below the 957.5 or above the 958 level is diverted to the Yellow River, even though 

the power generating facility no longer exists. This setup prevents flood waters from damaging 

Refuge or township culverts and water control structures. During the late 1980s, cranberry 

operations were developed both along the Remington diversion ditch and the Spencer-Robinson ditch 

north of Refuge property. This placed demands on traditional Refuge water uses. The Refuge has 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
45

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

obtained a Field Solicitor's opinion (from the Service's legal branch) regarding the established use 

along the Remington diversion structure that affirmed the Service's right to continue this established 

use even though state law gives agricultural users and cranberry farms a priority use.

The primary conflict in water use comes in August, September, and early October, when the Refuge 

re-floods moist soil impoundments for migrating waterfowl use. This is also the time that cranberry 

growers typically flood their beds for harvest. The Refuge has had requests from growers to change 

its water discharge to accommodate agricultural needs. Therefore, it is critical that the Service 

document existing water rights to provide a solid informational and legal basis for making future 

management decisions regarding source waters. 

3.10.5 Cultural Resource Management

Archaeological investigations and collecting are performed only in the public interest by qualified 

archeologists working under an Archaeological Resources Protection Act permit issued by the 

Regional Director. Refuge personnel take steps to prevent unauthorized collecting by the public, 

contractors, and Refuge personnel. Violations are reported to the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer.

The Refuge has museum collections (art, documents, botany, zoology) that are managed under a Scope 

of Collection Statement (10-31-94). To date, three archaeological investigations have produced 40 

artifacts from Refuge lands; artifacts are or will be stored at the Mississippi Valley Archaeology 

Center under a cooperative agreement.

3.10.6 Special Designations

There are four established natural areas on the Refuge. The 100-acre Necedah Jackpine-Oak 

Research Natural Area is located in Section 34 of the southeast quarter of the Refuge, north of Becker 

Road. It is designated an SAF-14, Northern Oak-Pine type ecosystem. This area is managed as an 

oak-jack pine forest. No logging or prescribed burning is permitted, and the area is protected from 

wildfire to the extent practical. The Wisconsin Scientific Areas Preservation Council refers to this 

area as the Necedah Oak-Pine Natural Area (No. 14).

The 240-acre Sandstone Research Natural Area is located in Section 12 in the southwest quarter of 

the Refuge, just south of Sprague-Mather Road. It is designated a Kuchler K18 Oak Savanna type 

ecosystem. Fire is an integral part of the management of this area with prescribed burning done about 

once every 5 years. 

On January 20, 1987, two more areas on the Refuge were approved for inclusion into the Natural Area 

Land Bank. The Tomezek Research Natural Area is a 100-acre area located in Section 20 (T20N, R3E) 

of the Refuge. The Sand Ridge Public Use Natural Area is a 74-acre area located in Section 18 (T20N, 

R3E) of the Refuge. All types of land manipulation are withheld from these two areas.

It should be noted that lands within the legislative boundaries of the Refuge were reviewed for 

wilderness suitability as part of the CCP process. No lands were found suitable for designation as 

Wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous 

roadless acres nor does the Refuge have any units of sufficient size to make their conservation 

practicable as designated Wilderness. 

3.10.7 Land Acquisition

Currently there is no active land acquisition program at the Refuge. With the completion of this CCP/

EA, the Refuge will initiate an effort aimed at purchasing conservation easements and fee-title 

interests in lands from willing sellers in the Yellow River Focus Area (Appendix L). Funding for land 
46

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

acquisition (conservation easements and fee-title purchases) will come from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, using the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. However, no funding for 

land acquisition is currently available, and no money was requested by the Service for either of the 

years 2004 or 2005. When and if money is received for land acquisition, all land acquisition by the 

Service will be from willing sellers and all land acquired by the Service will be administered and 

managed by the National Wildlife Refuge System, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. Additional 

information on Service land acquisition policies and procedures can be found in at www.fws.gov. 

The Yellow River Focus Area project provides a unique opportunity for the Refuge to assist 

landowners in the restoration and conservation of rare and declining bottomland forest and adjacent 

upland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and public 

recreation and environmental education. Many landowners within this 21,953-acre area have 

approached the Refuge in recent years in search of technical assistance and/or to sell an interest in 

their land. In response to this interest, the Refuge obtained two grants to provide technical assistance 

to private landowners in the area. Between 2000 and 2002, 121 landowners owning 17,308 acres 

received technical assistance from the Service in managing their land. Interest in conserving this 

important natural area is high among landowners, local residents, conservation organizations, and 

state and local governments (USFWS personal communication). However, there are a number of 

landowners in the area who are opposed to any land acquisition by the Service in the Yellow River 

Focus Area.

3.11 Monitoring and Studies

The support and implementation of scientifically rigorous monitoring and research creates a 

foundation for quality management decisions at the Refuge. 

3.11.1 Surveys and Censuses

Each year, beginning in August, Refuge staff band approximately 

1,000 ducks to assess population levels and monitor migration 

patterns through band returns and band recaptures. Other species 

that have been banded in the past include: Woodcock, Red-winged 

Blackbirds, Black-capped Chickadees, White-breasted 

Nuthatches, Upland Sandpipers, Blue Jays, Eastern Towhees, 

Brown Thrashers, Vesper Sparrows, Bay-breasted Warblers, 

Brown-headed Cowbirds, Cooper’s Hawks, Canada Geese, Rosebreasted Grosbeaks, White-throated Sparrows, White-crowned 

Sparrows, Brewer’s Blackbirds, Barn Swallows, Fox Sparrows, 

and Sandhill Cranes.

The Refuge also participates in several national, regional, and local 

wildlife surveys. These include spring waterfowl breeding pair surveys, fall waterfowl surveys, 

Sandhill Crane fly-out surveys, Mourning Dove coo surveys, Woodcock surveys, fall Sandhill Crane 

roost surveys, songbird point counts, Karner blue butterfly surveys, wolf howling surveys, wolf 

tracking surveys, and massasauga rattlesnake population surveys. Data from several of the bird 

surveys are pooled with other national and regional data to determine population trends for the 

species. The population trends are then used to set harvest limits for states where these species are 

hunted. 

3.11.2 Studies and Investigations

The Refuge also participates in numerous regional studies in partnership with other government 

agencies and/or universities, with graduate students and faculty from the University of Wisconsin 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
47

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

(Stevens Point and Madison campuses) being the most numerous. However, graduate students and 

faculty from Bowling Green University (Ohio), the University of Michigan, Ripon College (Wisconsin), 

the University of Wisconsin-Platteville, and Ohio State University have all participated in research 

activities on the Refuge. Staff from the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, the Wisconsin 

DNR, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have conducted research on the Refuge. Research topics 

have included the ecology of oak wilt in savannas, invertebrate inventories, and bluebird nesting 

success studies, to name a few. 

The Refuge currently takes part in a wide variety of monitoring and research projects. Most activities 

center around determining the effects of Refuge management actions on songbirds, savanna habitats, 

and species associated with savannas, although water quality issues are becoming higher research and 

monitoring priorities. Management activities currently being monitored include prescribed burning, 

water level manipulations, and forestry practices. 

The Refuge also conducts studies to determine the effects of prescribed burning and savanna 

restoration on plant communities and their associated bird species. Many of the Refuge’s research and 

management efforts have been supported by private organizations. These organizations include 

Ducks Unlimited, the Milwaukee County Zoo, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, The Sand 

County Foundation, the Prairie Chicken Society, and the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association.

In recent years, the Refuge has dedicated a substantial amount of research effort toward the Karner 

blue butterfly. Refining monitoring methods for this butterfly, determining the effects of Refuge 

management activities on the species, and determining the butterfly’s dispersal ability, have been and 

will continue to be major research efforts. 

The Refuge has also studied a variety of turtles including the Blanding’s, softshell, painted and 

snapping turtle. Snake species including hognose, smooth green, garter, and the Eastern massasauga 

rattlesnake are among the species that have been studied on the Refuge and in the Yellow River Area. 

The Refuge has done several surveys for insects and spiders. There have been no surveys for other 

invertebrate groups on the Refuge. Bald Eagle nests are monitored for success rates.

In 1999, 15 massasauga rattlesnakes that were reared in captivity were radio-marked and temporarily 

released into two closed areas of the Refuge. The purpose of the study was to determine survival, 

habitat use, dispersal, and home range information for the radio-marked snakes. Snakes were 

monitored until mid-May 2001, at which time all surviving snakes were captured and returned to 

educational institutions. No attempt to reestablish massasauga rattlesnake populations on the Refuge 

will occur without future public input.

3.12 Coordination Activities

Cooperative working relationships with other Federal agencies, the State of Wisconsin, universities, 

elementary and secondary educational institutions, and non-government organizations are key assets 

to the Refuge’s success. 

3.12.1 Interagency Coordination

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS Upper Mississippi Science Center) has assisted the Refuge with 

research on massasauga rattlesnakes, which are endangered in the State of Wisconsin and a candidate 

species for Federal listing. Similarly, Refuge staff have cooperated with USGS staff at the Indiana 

Dunes National Lake Shore conducting Karner blue butterfly research and invertebrate inventories 

on restored savannas. The Refuge is currently working with USGS to create maps for the Refuge 

(GIS support). 
48

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The Department of Army (Fort McCoy) and the U.S. Forest Service (Huron, Manistee, and 

Chequamegon National Forests) are Federal cooperators involved with Karner blue butterfly 

research and savanna restoration efforts. The U.S. Forest Service also conducts national forest 

inventories on Refuge land. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) assists Refuge 

staff in providing technical assistance to landowners interested in restoring wetlands on their 

property through the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Refuge staff also work with 

the Farm Service Agency and the NRCS on Farm Bill issues (Swampbuster violations and wetland 

delineations) and administration of the Wetland Reserve and Conservation Reserve Programs. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Wisconsin DNR are also cooperators on Farm Bill issues and 

wetland determinations. 

The Central Wisconsin Basin Partnership (Partnership) is a Wisconsin DNR-coordinated group of 

agencies, private organizations, university faculty, and others interested in natural resource 

management. The Partnership chooses projects that support land and water resource management 

priorities within Juneau, Adams, Wood, and Portage counties. Support for the Partnership comes from 

endorsement of projects, networking with individual partners to achieve project goals, and financial 

assistance with projects from the Wisconsin DNR. The Refuge brought its interest in working with 

private landowners within the Yellow River Focus Area to the Partnership in 1998. As a result, the 

Yellow River has been adopted by the Partnership as a focus for regional management efforts.

Management of portions of the Necedah Wildlife Management Area (Figure 5 on page 18) was 

transferred to the State of Wisconsin on June 29, 1940, with the signing of a Cooperative and License 

Agreement. The area is currently managed by the Wisconsin DNR under a 15-year extension of the 

original agreement granted in 1990. In addition to the Cooperative and License Agreement, the 

Refuge has a Memorandum of Understanding with the State that transfers management of the 

portion of the Refuge north of Finley Road to the Wisconsin DNR in exchange for a block of the 

Necedah Wildlife Management Area south of Grand Dike Road. 

Other cooperative efforts involving the Wisconsin DNR include:

# Three State Natural Areas (areas set aside for their unique natural features, forest health 

and inventory efforts) 

# Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan 

# Technical assistance with Karner blue butterfly and other endangered species issues 

# Coordination efforts (comments on Hardwood Bombing Range issues) 

# Butterfly and moth inventories (gypsy moth inventories) 

# Weather data collection

# Suppression and control assistance with wild and prescribed fires

# Air quality monitoring using aspen plots 

3.12.2 Tribal Coordination

Tribal coordination primarily occurs through the Refuge’s Private Lands Program. Private Lands 

biologists have worked cooperatively with Ho-Chunk Nation members on four wetland and upland 

habitat restoration projects in Juneau, Monroe, LaCrosse, and Richland counties. The Refuge will 

continue to coordinate with Tribes as opportunities arise. 
49

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

3.12.3 Private Lands Activities

The Refuge and its cooperating partner, the Wisconsin DNR, have focused considerable effort over 

the past few years on encouraging and assisting private landowners in restoring converted and 

degraded wetlands and associated upland habitats through private land efforts.

The Refuge’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program offers technical assistance and financial 

assistance to private landowners to voluntarily restore wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats on 

their property. The program emphasizes the reestablishment of native vegetation for the benefit if fish 

and wildlife, but also takes the needs and desires of private landowners into consideration. Although 

the Refuge’s primary partners are private landowners, the Refuge also works with a variety of groups 

and agencies to restore habitat. These partners include other Federal agencies, Tribes, the State, local 

governments, conservation organizations, academic institutions, businesses, and school groups. 

Participation in this program is voluntary. 

In a 12-county area (Figure 13), over 400 wetland basins totaling nearly 2,000 acres have been 

restored since 1986. Interest in the Partner’s for Wildlife Program and wetland restoration remains 

high. Requests for restoration and technical assistance averages over 200 annually. At current funding 

levels, Refuge private lands staff anticipate completing 25 restorations per year in the 12-county area 

of responsibility. Approximately $150,000 has been spent to-date by the Refuge Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program to benefit fish and wildlife on private land. Approximately $700,000 is needed to 

complete all restoration requests from private landowners. Predictions for future demand for wetland 

restorations on private land within the District remain high. The Refuge’s Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program is one of the Refuge’s most successful outreach tools.

Figure 13: Private Lands District, Necedah NWR
50

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Refuge staff also conserve, restore, and manage habitat within the Necedah Refuge Management 

District, which is a 17-county area in central and north central Wisconsin (Figure 14). The Necedah 

Refuge Management District is an area where the Refuge has obtained land conserved through 

conservation easements (the easement protects wetlands and other sensitive habitats from 

development through deed restrictions). The Refuge currently oversees 41 conservation easements 

totaling 2,475 acres in 11 of the 17 counties, with another four easements with 418 acres waiting to be 

finalized. Wetland restorations have been completed on several of these easement lands; old farm 

fields have been seeded to permanent cover; boundaries have been posted, and fencing has been 

constructed as needed to restrict cattle grazing. Management plans will be developed for these areas 

to ensure additional conservation and enhancement of the land.

3.12.4 Cooperative Events/Friends Organizations

One of the Refuge’s most successful cooperative events is the Wisconsin Federal Junior Duck Stamp 

Program. Brochures are sent to over 2,900 public, private, and home schools statewide. Students from 

kindergarten through high school create original drawings or paintings of North American waterfowl 

and their surroundings and submit them for judging. The Wisconsin Best of Show winner moves on to 

the national competition. A display of winning entries travels to throughout the state for public 

viewing.

3.13 Visitor Services

Providing recreational opportunities and educating and interpreting the unique natural features of 

the Refuge for visitors are important elements of the Service’s mission and the goals and objectives of 

Figure 14: Wildlife Management Area, Necedah NWR
51

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

the Refuge. In the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, six wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses were determined priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. These are: 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography, environmental education and 

interpretation. These six uses, when compatible with the Refuge purpose, are the focus of the 

Refuge’s public use activities. 

3.13.1 Recreation

3.13.1.1 Hunting

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 

as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, identifies hunting as a priority public use of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Hunting programs on Refuges 

promote understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural 

resources and their management. Hunting is also an integral part 

of a comprehensive wildlife management program. Hunting 

programs on the Refuge are administered in consultation and in 

cooperation with the State. Programs are conducted, to the extent 

practicable, in accordance with applicable State and Tribal 

regulations. Service objectives for hunting programs on refuges 

are to promote public understanding of and increase public appreciation for America’s natural 

resources, to manage wildlife populations at optimum levels, and to provide opportunities for quality 

recreational and educational experiences. 

The Service defines a quality hunting experience on a national wildlife refuge as one that:

# Maximizes safety for hunters and other visitors;

# Encourages the highest standards of ethical behavior in taking or attempting to take 

wildlife;

# Is available to a broad spectrum of the hunting public; 

# Contributes positively to or has no adverse affect on population management of resident or 

migratory species;

# Reflects positively on the individual refuge, the System, and the Service;

# Provides hunters uncrowded conditions by minimizing conflicts and competition among 

hunters;

# Provides reasonable challenges and opportunities for taking targeted species under the 

described harvest objective established by the hunting program. It also minimizes the 

reliance on motorized vehicles and technology designed to increase the advantage of the 

hunter over wildlife;

# Minimizes habitat impacts;

# Creates minimal conflict with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses or refuge 

operations; and 

# Incorporates a message of stewardship and conservation in hunting opportunities.

Hunters have been primary supporters of the Refuge since its creation in 1939. However, as a 

migratory bird refuge (authorized under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929), the Refuge 

has a large percentage of its managed pools closed to migratory bird hunting during fall bird 

migration (a requirement of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act). Twenty percent of the Refuge is 

open to all small game, waterfowl, and deer hunting (except October Zone T, if applicable). The 

remaining 80 percent, except for a 2-square-mile safety zone around the office complex, is open for 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
52

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 15: Facilities, Necedah NWR
53

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

gun deer, late archery deer, and small game. One large pool, Suk-Cerney, receives substantial 

waterfowl hunting use and also has a universally accessible waterfowl hunting blind. The Refuge’s 

hunting brochure provides information on seasons, open and closed areas, and Refuge regulations. 

Refuge visitors participate in hunting small game, migratory birds, and deer in designated areas. 

Hunters pursue Ruffed Grouse, Wild Turkey, and all migratory game birds with the exception of 

Sandhill Cranes. Dogs can be used when hunting small game and migratory birds. No permit or quota 

system is used to regulate the number of hunters on the Refuge or the number of birds killed. 

However, the take of all these species is regulated by state and Federal law. Ring-necked Pheasant, 

Northern Bobwhite, and Sharp-tailed Grouse are not hunted on the Refuge due to low population 

numbers. The Refuge currently does not hold any special hunts, but offers opportunities for hunters 

with disabilities. Nearly 12,140 visits were made to the Refuge in 2001 for the purpose of hunting.

3.13.1.2 Fishing

Fishing as a traditional outdoor pastime is deeply rooted in America's natural heritage. As such, 

fishing is a legitimate and appropriate public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and along 

with the five other priority public uses in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, will receive 

enhanced consideration over other uses. Refuge staff rely on close cooperation and coordination with 

State fish and wildlife management agencies in managing fishing opportunities on refuges and in 

setting Refuge population management goals and objectives. Regulations permitting fishing on 

refuges are, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and 

management plans. Service objectives for fishery programs on refuges are to effectively maintain 

healthy and diverse fish population resources through the use of scientific management techniques; to 

promote public understanding of, and increase public appreciation for, America’s natural resources 

and the Service’s role in managing the System; to provide opportunities for quality recreational and 

educational experiences; and to minimize conflicts between anglers and other visitors. 

The Service defines a quality fishing experience on a national wildlife refuge as one that:

# Maximizes safety for anglers and other visitors; 

# Causes no adverse impact on populations of resident or migratory species, native species, 

threatened and endangered species, or habitat;

# Encourages the highest standards of ethical behavior in regard to catching, attempting to 

catch, and releasing fish;

# Is available to a broad spectrum of the public that visits, or potentially would visit, the 

refuge; 

# Provides reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities to participate in refuge 

fishing activities;

# Reflects positively on the System;

# Provides uncrowded conditions;

# Creates minimal conflict with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses or refuge 

operation;

# Provides reasonable challenges and harvest opportunities; and

# Increases the visitors understanding and appreciation for the fisheries resource. 

Recreational fishing is a popular pastime on the Refuge. In 2001, over 3,600 visits were made to the 

Refuge for the purpose of fishing. The Refuge promotes recreational fishing by hosting annual 

National Fishing Day events. Activities for past National Fishing Days have included a children’s 

fishing contest with prizes donated by area businesses, a “create a fish” art contest, and presentations 

by local fishing professionals. Most Refuge pools are managed as resting and feeding sites for 

migratory birds, which means that water levels are lowered every third year in each pool. This limits 
54

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

management for desirable fish species that inhabit the Refuge, such as northern pike, large mouth 

bass, bluegill, yellow perch, and black crappie.

Anglers fish the Refuge in accordance with state regulations. The Refuge’s fishing brochure provides 

information on seasons, open and closed areas, and other Refuge-specific regulations. The Refuge 

recently developed a universally accessible fishing pier around Harvey’s Pond to promote quality 

fishing opportunities. A new trail at this same location is currently in development.

3.13.1.3 Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography

Wildlife observation, including the observation of plants and other natural features, is the single most 

popular recreational use of the Refuge, with over 154,000 visits made in 2001. The Refuge is a 

designated watchable wildlife site and has a wildlife viewing “hot spots” brochure that highlights the 

most productive wildlife viewing areas, including the Rynearson Wetlands Observation Tower and 

Trail, the Pair Ponds Trail, and the Lupine Loop. 

The Service defines a quality wildlife observation experience on a national wildlife refuge as one that:

# Observations occur in a primitive setting or use safe facilities and provide an opportunity to 

view wildlife and its habitat in a natural environment;

# Observation facilities or programs maximize opportunities to view the spectrum of wildlife 

species and habitats of the refuge.

# Observation opportunities, in conjunction with interpretive and educational opportunities, 

promote public understanding of and increase public appreciation for America’s natural 

resources and the role of the System in managing and protecting these resources; 

# Viewing opportunities are tied to interpretive and educational messages related to 

stewardship and key resource issues;

# Most facilities blend with the natural setting, station architectural style, and provide viewing 

opportunities for all visitors, including persons with disabilities;

# Design of observation facilities minimize disturbance to wildlife while facilitating the 

visitor’s views of the spectrum of species found on the refuge;

# Observers understand and follow procedures that encourage the highest standards of 

ethical behavior;

# Viewing opportunities exist for a broad spectrum of the public; and 

# Observers have minimal conflict with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

refuge operations.

Wildlife photography is another popular public use related to wildlife observation. Visitors often take 

advantage of the Refuge’s observation tower, observation platforms, and photo blind to capture 

special moments of nature’s beauty. The photo blind is a place where wildlife observers can get upclose views and pictures of waterfowl, eagles, coyotes, and other wildlife species. Over 25,000 visits 

were made to the Refuge in 2001 to photograph wildlife and nature.

3.13.2 Education, Interpretation, and Outreach 

Environmental education, interpretation, and outreach are important tools that Refuge staff use to 

inform and remind the public about Refuge issues and opportunities, such as bird migrations, special 

events, or to call attention to Refuge resources, such as rare oak savanna or threatened and 

endangered species such as the Karner blue butterfly and Whooping Crane. Refuge staff participate 

in education, interpretation, and outreach efforts both on and off the Refuge. Refuge staff give slide 

shows, lead interpretive tours and hikes, create educational exhibits, conduct activities and contests 

that offer hands-on learning opportunities, provide demonstrations and workshops, write educational 
55

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

articles, and give informational interviews. There are over 20 interpretive kiosks and signs on the 

Refuge to enhance visitor education and enjoyment. Over 300,000 people are reached through the 

Refuge’s environmental education and interpretation efforts annually (both on-site and off-site, 

excluding media). 

Refuge education, interpretation, and outreach 

programs focus on assisting youth and adults with 

becoming more environmentally literate and 

action oriented. Five primary functions or goals 

provide the framework for these goals: creating 

environmental awareness, knowledge, values, 

skills, and action. Because environmental 

education is part of a formal, structured method of 

teaching, there is an opportunity to work with 

people over several years. Programs are typically 

structured to begin with awareness in earlier 

years, and move through the higher goals in 

succeeding years. Interpretation, on the other 

hand, is more of an informal method of teaching 

directed at casual audiences, such as individuals 

or families who take part in programs on their 

own initiative rather than as part of a structured 

program. Interpretative programs often focus on 

awareness and knowledge in a fun and thought-provoking manner. Refuge outreach consists of 

communication with internal and external publics using a variety of different mediums aimed at 

specific communication tasks designed to inform, persuade, or remind. Refuge outreach goals aim to 

build a stronger base of public understanding, appreciation, and support of the Refuge, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and Service trust resources beyond that portion of the American public that 

visits the Refuge.

Refuge staff recognize the crucial link between public awareness and understanding of environmental 

issues and effective stewardship of the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and Service 

trust resources. Currently Refuge education, interpretation, and outreach programs focus on the 

following target five audiences as prompted by the Service’s 100 by 100 Outreach Campaign: 

# Congress

# Conservation Organizations

# Communities surrounding the Refuge, with a focus on school-age children and their 

educators, Yellow River landowners, and local residents.

# Communications media

# Corporations

Some of the more popular environmental education, interpretation, and outreach activities and tools 

the Refuge utilizes include:

# Wildlife Signs slide show 

# Reptiles and amphibians of Wisconsin presentations 

# Educator workshops 

# Waterfowl banding workshops 

# Radio telemetry demonstrations

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
56

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

# Guided hikes highlighting major Refuge themes

# Wolf awareness programs

# National Fishing Day events

# Earth Day activities

# Yellow River landowner technical support (through the Refuge’s Private Lands Program)

# Print and broadcast media, including the Refuge’s web page

# Volunteer programs, including the Refuge Friend’s group

# Publications

# Over 20 interpretative kiosks and signs 

Through these tools, three general themes provide the focus for the Refuges education, 

interpretation, and outreach efforts:

The Necedah National Wildlife Refuge

# The Refuge as a “good neighbor”

# The Refuge as an enduring asset to the community

# The Refuge as a federal land base managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

# Refuges are part of a national system of refuges comprising the worlds largest collection of 

land and water managed specifically for wildlife 

# Refuges are national treasures 

# Refuges are places where wildlife come first 

Service Trust Resources

# Listed species management (e.g., Karner blue butterflies, Eastern massasaugas, gray 

wolves, Whooping Cranes, and Bald Eagles).

# Waterfowl and other migratory bird management (e.g., providing resting, nesting, and 

feeding habitat for wetland, open landscape, and forest migratory bird species of concern).

# Ecosystem management (e.g., wetland, open landscape, and forest ecosystems) with a focus 

on restoration and management of sedge meadows, savannas, bottomland forests, and 

native biological diversity.

# The Yellow River as an exceptional natural resource and a place worth conserving. 
57

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

3.14 Planning and Administration

3.14.1 Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans (Table 4) are an important component of Refuge management. These 

detailed plans serve as guiding documents for the day-to-day operation of the Refuge. Step-down 

management plans differ from CCPs in that they provide more detail relative to Refuge management 

subjects (e.g., habitat management, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. In many 

cases, step-down management plans will serve as an implementation tool to describe specific 

strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and objectives. In other cases, stepdown plans provided the general framework for developing the CCP (the Refuge’s Forest 

Management Plan helped affirm future management direction for forest land and savannas on the 

Refuge). The referenced plans in Table 4 are currently utilized and/or will be developed in support of 

the goals and objectives set forth in this document, either in their current or updated form.

3.14.2 General Administration

Many administrative functions support the operation and maintenance of the Refuge. These include 

payroll, accounting, budgeting, procurement, acquisition, contracting, and planning. Some of these 

functions were formerly handled at the Regional Office in Minnesota. With Regional Office staff 

downsizing in the early 1990s, a greater amount of this activity was shifted to field stations, including 

this Refuge. It is anticipated that the complexity of the administrative support function will continue 

to increase. 

Table 4: Refuge Step-Down Management Plans

Step-down Management Plan Last Revised Current Status

Refuge Management Plan, Parts 1 and 2 1/5/87 Replaced by CCP/Habitat Management Plan

Refuge Management Plan, Part 3 9/15/89 Replaced by CCP/Habitat Management Plan

Forest Management Plan 7/29/94 Review

Marsh and Water Management Plan 6/24/92 Review

Cropland Management Plan 11/24/86 Review and Revise

Grassland Management Plan 5/3/88 Review and Revise

Fire Management Plan 1/6/87 Review and Revise

Visitor Services Plan 12/5/79 Review and Revise

Sign Plan 2/17/88 Review and Revise

Law Enforcement Plan 1/7/86 Review and Revise

Fur Management Plan 3/11/88 Review and Revise

Disease Contingency Plan 7/24/87 Review and Revise

Integrated Pest Management Plan To be Developed

Cultural Resource Management Plan To be Developed

Habitat Management Plan To be Developed
58

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Maintenance of the Refuge infrastructure includes 13 buildings, 62 water control structures, six 

bridges, over 20 miles of dikes, and more than 20 miles of roads that need regular maintenance. There 

are over 35 miles of boundaries to maintain, as well as decks, towers, trails, signs, and parking areas. 

Maintenance of some of these facilities has fallen behind due to inadequate personnel and funding. 

3.15 Work Force

The ultimate success of the Refuge in carrying out its mission depends on staffing patterns (Table 5) 

and funding levels. Staff support is provided by a Regional Office in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, an 

Ecological Services Field Office in Green Bay, Wisconsin, a Fisheries Field Office in LaCrosse, 

Wisconsin, a Private Lands Office in Madison, Wisconsin, and a National Office in Washington, D.C. 

Table 5: Current Staffing Patterns, Necedah NWR

Position Status

Refuge Manager 1.0 FTE (full time equivalent)

Refuge Operations Specialist 1.0 FTE

Refuge Operations Specialist 1.0 FTE

Refuge Operations Specialist 1.0 FTE

Biologist 1.0 FTE

Park Ranger 1.0 FTE

Fire Management Officer 1.0 FTE

Range Technician 0.6 FTE (permanent seasonal)

Biological Technician 0.6 FTE

Range Technician 1.0 FTE

Administrative Technician 1.0 FTE

Maintenance Mechanic 1.0 FTE

Equipment Operator 1.0 FTE

Office Automation Clerk P-INT (intermittent)

Office Automation Clerk PPT
59

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Chapter 4: Management Direction

4.1 Core Values and Guiding Principles 

The Refuge holds the core values of quality, credibility, reliability, integrity, and responsiveness as the 

basis for all Refuge activities. They will be guided by these core values as well as the following guiding 

principles: 

An Ecosystem Approach: The ecosystem approach is a vision of desired future conditions 

developed in collaboration with a diverse group of stakeholders 

that integrates ecological, economic, and social factors. It is 

applied within a geographic framework (usually watershed) and 

founded primarily on ecological factors. 

Results through Partnerships: Partnership initiatives require extensive coordination and 

communication between Federal agencies; state, tribal, and 

local governments; and stakeholders and customers. 

Partnerships promote the pooling of resources and expertise to 

obtain results more quickly and efficiently. Results also tend to 

be longer lasting because consensus is built over a wide range of 

stakeholder interests.

Public Involvement: Refuge management will include a clear, credible, and 

meaningful role for public input from the full spectrum of social 

and cultural backgrounds, and will receive full consideration in 

Refuge decision-making. The Refuge serves local, state, and 

national constituencies, therefore, public input at each of these 

levels will be solicited and incorporated into the Refuge’s 

decision making process.

Cornerstones of Biology: The Refuge will conserve existing, relatively intact ecosystems 

first, for they are the cornerstones for providing biota and other 

natural materials needed for future restoration.

Ecological Integrity: The Refuge will restore ecological integrity, particularly the 

structure, composition, and natural processes of native biotic 

communities and physical environments.

Design for Self-Sustainability: The Refuge will design for self-sustainability of natural 

systems. The best way to ensure long-term viability of habitat is 

to minimize the need for continuous maintenance.

Within a Watershed Context: The Refuge will focus within the watershed and/or broader 

landscape level context and seek to understand its biological 

potential. A watershed/landscape has the capacity to become 

only what its physical and biological setting will support. This 
60

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

includes climate, geology, hydrology, and biological 

characteristics.

Address Degradation: The Refuge will address ongoing causes of habitat degradation. 

Conservation, restoration, and management activities will fail if 

the sources of degradation persist.

Have Clear Goals and Objectives: The Refuge will have clear, up-to-date goals, objectives, and 

strategies, and will include a diverse array of expertise and 

interests in their development. 

Use Passive Restoration: The Refuge will use passive restoration and management when 

appropriate. Where possible, simulate natural hydrological 

process using low input, low impact, and sustainable measures 

that capture the energies of the system to perpetuate the 

resources in question.

Use Reference Sites: The Refuge will, whenever available, use reference sites when 

restoring habitat. Reference sites are areas that are comparable 

in structure and function to the proposed restoration before it 

was degraded.

Adaptive Management Processes: An adaptive management approach features a structured, 

iterative process that recognizes that most information used in 

decision making is incomplete. Adaptive management guides 

managers in efficiently collecting and using better information, 

thus enabling appropriate changes in management direction.

4.2 Compatibility

The requirement that an activity or use of a refuge be compatible 

with the refuge purpose governs whether or not an activity or use 

can be allowed on the refuge. “Compatible use” means a proposed 

or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of 

a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge 

Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

major purposes of the affected refuge (the mission of the Refuge 

System and the purposes of Necedah NWR are described in 

Chapter 1). 

All proposed actions in this CCP are considered compatible based 

upon site-specific evaluations of the anticipated impacts with the 

Refuge purpose and Service policies.

4.3 Strategic Framework

To facilitate the development of future Refuge management 

direction, the planning team utilized a strategic framework (e.g., 

purpose, vision, mission, goals, objectives, strategies, projects). For the purpose of this CCP, we define 

strategic framework as a pattern of purposes, policies, programs, actions, decisions, or resource 

allocations that define what the Refuge is, what it does, and why it does it. Goals refer to broad-based 

statements of direction or positions to be achieved. Objectives represent intermediate-term targets 

USFWS
61

Chapter 4: Management Direction

necessary for the satisfaction of goals. Strategies and projects are the means, methods, and 

approaches used to achieve Refuge objectives.

However, it should be noted that detailed management scenarios and budgets were not developed for 

each Refuge operational component (e.g., fish and wildlife management, habitat restoration and 

management, resource conservation, etc.). The planning team instead chose to provide a general 

overview of future Refuge programs and projects and leave the details of scheduling and budgets to 

be developed as opportunities for funding and staffing develop. Step-down management plans (e.g., 

habitat management plan, fire management plan, integrated pest management plan) will be used and/

or developed by Refuge staff to provide detailed scenarios and budgets associated with most 

objectives, strategies, and projects. Projects are described in detail in Chapter 5 and differ from 

objectives and strategies in that they require additional funding beyond the current station budget. 

4.4 Refuge Goals, Objective, Strategies and Projects

4.4.1 Fish and Wildlife Management

4.4.1.1 Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds

Goal 1: The Refuge will actively conserve, restore, establish and manage diverse and productive 

populations of waterfowl and other migratory birds within the Refuge and the Yellow River Focus 

Area, with an emphasis on regional and national species of management concern.

Objective 1.1: By 2019, increase the breeding pair population of waterfowl on Refuge land to 700 

pairs (e.g., Mallard, Teal, and Pintail) through additional grassland habitat 

management, in accordance with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(see Open Landscape Objective 1 and associated strategies). The Refuge currently 

supports roughly 400 breeding pairs of waterfowl.

Objective 1.2: By 2007, eliminate Wood Duck houses on Refuge land in favor of natural nesting 

cavities (the Refuge will maintain existing Wood Duck houses until they become 

unusable).

Objective 1.3: By 2019, increase the breeding pair population of grassland species of concern (e.g., 

Dickcissel, Upland Sandpiper, Grasshopper Sparrow, Bobolink) on Refuge land 

through additional grassland habitat restoration and management, in accordance 

with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Karner Blue Butterfly 

Recovery Plan, and guidelines developed by Sample and Mossman (1997). See Open 

Landscape Objective 1 and associated strategies. 

Objective 1.4: By 2019, increase the breeding pair population of savanna species of concern (e.g., 

Red-headed Woodpeckers, Field Sparrow, Northern Flicker) on Refuge land through 

additional savanna habitat restoration and management, in accordance with the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery 

Plan, and guidelines developed by Sample and Mossman (1997). See Open Landscape 

Objective 2 and associated strategies.

Objective 1.5: By 2008, increase the breeding pair population of Black Terns on Refuge land to 

eight nesting pairs through additional wetland habitat management (Region 3 

priority species) (see Wetlands Objective 1, strategy D). The Refuge currently 

supports four nesting pairs.
62

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Objective 1.6: By 2008, increase the breeding pair population of Goshawks on Refuge land (Region 

3 priority species)(see Forests Objective 3.7). In the past, the Refuge has supported 

one nesting pair of Goshawks in select red and white pine plantations. 

4.4.2 Listed Species

Goal 2: The Refuge will provide a federal leadership role in the conservation, recovery, and where 

appropriate the reintroduction of federally listed species (e.g. Karner blue butterfly, Whooping 

Crane, Eastern timber wolf, Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, Bald Eagle) throughout central 

Wisconsin over the life of the CCP.

Objective 2.1: Establish and maintain one large population of Karner blue butterflies on the Refuge 

as stated in the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan (see Open Landscape 

Objective 2 and associated strategies). In this context, “large population” refers to 

>6,000 second flight adults consisting of 25 sub-populations and dispersed over at 

least 10 square miles. The following strategies pertain to Refuge lands only.

Strategies:

1. Restrict all construction activities in Karner blue butterfly habitat located on 

Refuge land. The only exception to this will be for the graveling or paving of two 

hiking trails (Cranberry Loop and Lupine Loop).

2. All silviculture activities in occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat will be 

designed to avoid or minimize impacts to butterflies. Conservation measures will 

be written into timber sale contracts when necessary to conserve Karner blue 

habitat from timber operations. Slash and stumps will not be placed in occupied 

Karner blue habitat. Skid trails and hauling roads will be designed to avoid or 

minimize impacts to lupine and butterflies.

3. Refuge visitors will be advised to avoid disturbing lupine plants in occupied 

Karner blue butterfly areas. 

Objective 2.2: Provide technical assistance and staff support to the Whooping Crane 

Reintroduction program throughout the life of this CCP.

Strategies:

1. Should an experimental population of Whooping Cranes establish themselves on 

or near the Refuge, manage select Refuge pools and associated habitats to 

support the population, as directed by the Whooping Crane Recovery Team. 

2. Where Whooping Cranes exhibit territorial, breeding and/or nesting behavior, 

maintain or adjust pool levels to create optimum conditions.

3. Preclude prescribed burning in or near a unit containing an active Whooping 

Crane nest site.

4. Prohibit human and vehicular traffic in or near Whooping Crane nest sites. 

5. Implement any additional Whooping Crane guidelines that may be developed for 

nest protection.

Objective 2.3: Maintain resident packs of Eastern timber wolves on public lands in central 

Wisconsin, in accordance with the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan. 

1. All new wolf den and rendezvous sites verified by wildlife biologists as well as 

den and rendezvous sites used within the last 2 years will be protected through 
63

Chapter 4: Management Direction

implementation of the “Management Policy for Wolf Den and Rendezvous Sites” 

(Wydeven and Schultz 1993).

2. Preclude land use activities, including timber harvest, within 100 meters of a wolf 

den at any time of the year.

3. Restrict human activity within 100 meters of a den to those activities specifically 

related to wolf research and which generally are done only when wolves are not 

active in the area.

4. Maintain volunteer tracking efforts of wolves on the Refuge. 

5. Continue to keep Refuge roads closed to public vehicular traffic and continue 

berming access roads upon completion of timber sales.

6. Continue prohibiting coyote hunting and trapping year-round on the Refuge. 

7. Collaborate with the Wisconsin DNR on wolf trapping and radio tracking.

8. Issue an annual press release prior to gun deer season advising hunters of the 

coyote hunting closure.

Objective 2.4: Continue international management efforts for the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, 

including research, to help preclude the need for federal listing (see open landscape 

habitat objectives and associated strategies).

1. If the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake is listed as federally threatened or 

endangered, the Refuge will cooperate and support the Federal Recovery Team.

2. Should the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake occur on the Refuge, the protective 

measures in “The Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake: A Handbook for Land 

Managers 2000" (Johnson et al. 2000) will be implemented.

3. Continue to assist landowners in the Yellow River Area, Monroe County, 

LaCrosse, and Buffalo County with Eastern massasauga rattlesnake 

management support and surveys, in accordance with “The Eastern 

Massasauga Rattlesnake: A Handbook for Land Managers 2000.” (Johnson et al. 

2000).

Objective 2.5: Protect Bald Eagles nesting on the Refuge from human disturbance throughout the 

life of this CCP.

1. Enforce protective buffer zones around Bald Eagle nests in accordance with the 

Refuge’s “Water Management Plan” and the “Northern States Bald Eagle 

Recovery Plan,” including a one-half mile no fly zone for Air National Guard 

aircraft.

2. Restrict prescribed burning and water level drawdowns within one-quarter mile 

of Bald Eagle nests. 

3. Continue monitoring Bald Eagle nesting success on the Refuge throughout the 

life of the CCP.
64

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4.4.3 Habitat Restoration and Management

Goal 3: The Refuge will, in partnership with others, conserve, restore, establish and manage diverse and 

productive wetland, open landscape, and forest habitats on Refuge land and within the Yellow River 

Focus Area that benefits listed species, waterfowl and other migratory birds, and native biological 

diversity.

Table 6 describes desired future conditions by soil type, and Figure 16 and Figure 17 illustrate the 

future desired vegetation and vegetation management on the Refuge.

Wetlands

Objective 3.1: Emergent Wetlands/Wet Meadows: By 2008, maintain on Refuge land 12,500 acres of 

emergent wetland (e.g., palustrine) and wet meadow habitat (e.g., sedge meadows) to 

support nesting, resting, and feeding waterfowl, all types, associated bird species of 

concern (e.g., Black Terns, American Bittern, Henslow’s Sparrow, Sedge Wren), and 

to promote native biological diversity. The Refuge currently has roughly 10,500 acres 

of emergent wetlands and wet meadows. 

Strategies/Projects

1. Restore and maintain two additional palustrine emergent wetland complexes 

(approximately 1,000 acres each) on the Refuge by converting 2,000 acres of 

lowland shrubs (Low Priority). (Project 1)

2. Manage palustrine emergent wetlands for dense annual and perennial 

vegetation. Burn, mow, and disk as necessary.

3. By 2009, sub-divide Sprague-Mather Pool, the largest impoundment on the 

Refuge, into three units to enhance water management capability to provide 

moist soil food production and/or invertebrate availability for migrating 

waterfowl (High Priority). (Project 2)

4. Beginning in 2005, provide stable water and emergent vegetation for Black 

Terns by leaving Pool 19 (east and west), Carter-Woggon Pool, Upper Rice Pool, 

and Rice Pool at “full pool” except for maintenance purposes, in accordance with 

guidelines developed by Naugle et al. 2000. 

5. By 2005, develop internal guidelines for acceptable amounts of woody vegetation 

in existing Refuge pools. Control as necessary.

6. By 2005, acquire and install staff water gauges in Refuge pools for accurate 

water level readings (High Priority). (Project 3)

7. By 2006, install a shallow well and a solar-powered pump as a supplemental 

water source for the Ducks Unlimited Wetland Project (High Priority). (Project 

4)

Objective 3.2: Forested Wetlands: For the life of this CCP, maintain on Refuge land 5,700 acres of 

forested wetland habitat to support forest-nesting waterfowl (e.g., Wood Ducks) and 

associated bird species of concern (e.g., American Woodcock, Veery, Northern 

Flicker) and to promote native biological diversity. The Refuge currently has roughly 

5,700 acres of forested wetland habitat. 

Strategy:

1. Maintain large blocks of forested wetland habitat with mature trees, sparse 

understory, and within one-half mile of water. Implement disturbance regimes 
65

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Table 6: Management Strategies and Vegetation Composition

Management Strategies

Soil Natural Areas Minimum Management 

Areas

Maintenance Areas

(includes state-managed lands)

Open Landscape Areas

Sandy Oak and Pine Woodland

(26 acres): Oak and pine 

woodland consisting of 

Hill’s oak, jack pine, red 

pine, white oak; 

understory of 

Pennsylvania sedge, 

blueberry, huckleberry, 

sweet fern.

Oak and Pine Woodland 

(389 acres): Oak and pine 

woodland consisting of 

Hill’s oak, jack pine, red 

pine, white oak; 

understory of 

Pennsylvania sedge, 

blueberry, huckleberry, 

sweet fern.

Oak and Pine Woodland 

(1,698 acres): Oak and 

pine woodland to oak and 

pine savanna/barrens, 

depending on burning 

frequency and intensity. 

Overstory of oak and pine 

woodland, same as in 

Natural and Minimum 

Management Areas; oak 

and pine savanna/barrens 

with scattered Hill’s oak, 

jack and red pine, with an 

understory of little 

bluestem, big bluestem, 

Indian grass, 

Pennsylvania sedge, 

cricaceous shrubs (e.g. 

blueberry), goldenrods, 

and milkweeds.

Oak and Pine Savanna 

Barrens (2,399 acres): 

Oak and pine savanna/

barrens with scattered 

Hill’s oak, jack, and red 

pine, with an understory 

of little bluestem, big 

bluestem, Indian grass, 

Pennsylvania sedge, 

cricaceous shrubs (e.g. 

blueberry), goldenrods 

and milkweeds.

Mesic Mature Hill’s Oak, 

Eliminate Aspen (404 

acres): Mature Hill’s oak, 

white oak, red maple, 

black cherry, bigtooth 

and trembling aspen, 

jack, red and white pine; 

early successional species 

such as aspen will be 

slowly eliminated as the 

stand ages. The 

understory consists of 

dewberry, raspberry, 

mosses, club-mosses, 

blueberry, Pennsylvania 

sedge, and wintergreen.

Mature Hill’s Oak, 

Eliminate Aspen (5,875 

acres): Mature Hill’s oak, 

white oak, red maple, 

black cherry, bigtooth 

and trembling aspen, 

jack, red and white pine; 

early successional species 

such as aspen will be 

slowly eliminated as the 

stand ages. The 

understory consists of 

dewberry, raspberry, 

mosses, club-mosses, 

blueberry, Pennsylvania 

sedge, and wintergreen.

Mature Hill’s Oak, 

Maintain Aspen (10,997 

acres): Mature Hill’s oak, 

white oak, red maple, 

black cherry, bigtooth 

and trembling aspen, 

jack, red and white pine; 

early successional species 

such as aspen will be 

maintained for the 

diversity of wildlife and 

plant habitat they 

provide. The understory 

consists of dewberry, 

raspberry, mosses, clubmosses, blueberry, 

Pennsylvania sedge, and 

wintergreen.

Young, Shrubby Hill’s 

Oak (5,712 acres): Young, 

shrubby Hill’s oak, white 

oak, red maple, willow, 

bigtooth and trembling 

aspen; pines will be 

slowly eliminated over 

time. The understory 

consists of wool grass, 

spirea or hardhack, 

goldenrods, dewberry, 

raspberry, mosses, clubmosses, blueberry, 

Pennsylvania sedge, 

wintergreen and bracken 

fern.

Peat Jack Pine/Tamarack

(375 acres): Some jack 

pine and tamarack, sedge 

meadows, bogs with 

sphagnum, leatherleaf, 

cranberry, and cotton 

grass.

Jack Pine/Tamarack

(3,862 acres): Some jack 

pine and tamarack, sedge 

meadows, bogs with 

sphagnum, leatherleaf, 

cranberry and cotton 

grass.

Jack Pine/Tamarack and 

Willow and Reed 

Canarygrass (5,768 

acres): Some jack pine 

and tamarack, sedge 

meadows, bogs with 

sphagnum, leatherleaf, 

cranberry, and cotton 

grass. Where the 

watertable has been 

significantly altered, 

willow and reed 

canarygrass are 

dominant.

Jack Pine/Tamarack and 

Willow and Reed 

Canarygrass (6,847 

acres): Some jack pine 

and tamarack, sedge 

meadows, bogs with 

sphagnum, leatherleaf, 

cranberry, and cotton 

grass. Where the 

watertable has been 

significantly altered, 

willow and reed 

canarygrass are 

dominant.
66

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 16: Desired Future Vegetation, Necedah NWR
67

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Figure 17: Desired Future Management, Necedah NWR
68

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(e.g., mechanical thinning, burning, mowing) to maintain the desired herbaceous 

understory (sparse), as necessary (High Priority). (Project 5)

Objective 3.3: Lowland Shrubs: By 2009, maintain on Refuge land 3,500 acres of lowland shrub 

habitat to support associated bird species of concern (e.g. Blue-winged Warbler, 

Golden-winged Warbler, Willow Flycatcher) and to promote native biological 

diversity. The Refuge currently has 5,500 acres of lowland shrubs.

Strategy:

1. Establish and maintain large blocks of lowland shrub habitat with a range of 

young to mature shrubs and dense understory. Maintain hydrology and active 

wildfire suppression.

Objective 3.4: Open Water: For the life of this CCP, maintain on Refuge land 1,800 acres of open 

water habitat to support nesting, resting, and feeding waterfowl (all types), other 

associated bird species of concern (e.g., Common Loon) and to promote native 

biological diversity. The Refuge currently has 1,800 acres of open water.

Strategy:

1. Maintain the current water management regime on Refuge pools, which includes 

leaving pools flooded at full-pool 2 out of 3 years (to setback woody vegetation). 

Open Landscapes

Objective 3.5: Grasslands: By 2019, establish and maintain on Refuge land 6,200 acres of native 

grassland habitat (e.g., midgrass and tallgrass prairies characteristic of the central 

Wisconsin sand plain subsection (Keys et al., 1995) to support nesting waterfowl (e.g., 

Mallard, Teal, Pintail), other associated bird species of concern (e.g., Dickcissel, 

Upland Sandpipers, Grasshopper Sparrows, Bobolink), and to promote native 

biological diversity, in accordance with the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan and guidelines developed by Sample and Mossman (1997). The Refuge currently 

has roughly 2,700 acres of grasslands.

Strategies:

1. Establish and maintain a mosaic of small (40 acres to 1,000 acres) and mediumsized (1,000 to 5,000 acres) native grasslands comprised of short, medium, and 

tall height-density patches containing diverse structure (e.g., bare soil, stiffstemmed forbs, sparse woody vegetation) to provide nesting, brood-rearing, and 

foraging habitat for grassland birds and to enhance biological diversity. The 

Refuge will focus on creating blocks of grassland habitat that are structurally 

open and free of major linear woody edges. In most cases, woody cover will 

represent less than 5 percent of the grasslands habitat.

2. Convert 200 acres of existing non-native grasslands to native grasslands for the 

purpose of enhancing native biological diversity. The Refuge currently has 

roughly 945 acres of non-native cool season grasses.

3. Implement disturbance regimes such as grazing, burning and mowing on all 

Refuge grasslands to establish and maintain the desired herbaceous covers (e.g., 

composition, height/density), as necessary (High Priority). (Project 5)
69

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Objective 3.6: Savannas: By 2019, restore and maintain on Refuge land 3,600 acres of native 

savanna habitat (e.g., oak savanna) characteristic of the central Wisconsin sand plain 

subsection (Keys et al., 1995) to support Karner blue butterflies, associated bird 

species of concern (e.g., Red-headed Woodpeckers, Field Sparrows, Flicker), and to 

promote native biological diversity in accordance with the Karner Blue Butterfly 

Recovery Plan, Refuge Forest Management Plan, and guidelines developed by 

Sample and Mossman (1997). The Refuge currently has roughly 1,000 acres of 

savanna.

Strategies:

1. Restore and maintain an additional 640 acres of oak and pine woodlands and 

sedge meadow wetlands on the Refuge distributed over at least a 10-square-mile 

area by 2015, in accordance with the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan. 

2. Implement disturbance regimes (e.g., mowing, burning) to establish and 

maintain herbaceous cover, as necessary (High Priority). 

3. Maintain a mature oak component in savanna restoration units to provide 

nesting cavities for Red-headed Woodpeckers.

4. Enhance and maintain a warm-season grass component in savanna restoration 

units to provide nesting cover for Field Sparrows.

5. By 2013, construct an additional 30 miles of firebreaks around savanna 

restoration units and along the Refuge’s eastern boundary, an area with 

concentrations of hazardous fuels, to allow for periodic fire (High Priority). 

(Project 6)

6. By 2007, acquire a hydro-axe to maintain open landscape habitats for Karner 

blue butterflies and other savanna-dependent species (High Priority). Hydroaxe operation in Karner blue butterfly management units will be conducted 

between August 15 and April 15, and no more than one time per year. (Project 7)

Forests

Objective 3.7: Coniferous Forest: By 2019, maintain on Refuge land 550 acres of coniferous forest 

habitat to support associated bird species of concern (e.g., Northern Goshawks) and 

to promote native biological diversity. The Refuge currently has roughly 900 acres. 

Timber harvest will only in occur in areas designated open landscape (Figure 17),

except in pine plantations or for safety, operations, or fuel reduction purposes.

Strategies:

1. Maintain select red and white pine plantations as monotypic, even-aged stands to 

support nesting Goshawks, in accordance with Rosenfield et al. 1998.

2. Within designated maintenance areas of the Refuge (Figure 17), employ 

approved Timber Stand Improvement techniques, such as proper thinning and 

harvest schedules, to transition monocultural stands (primarily red and white 

pine plantations) to mixed composition, uneven-aged stands. Treat stands at 

least once over the life of this CCP.

3. Prepare and advertise for selective timber harvest on 350 acres of Refuge 

coniferous forest land, in support of the Refuge’s savanna and grassland 

restoration efforts.

Objective 3.8: Mixed Deciduous/Coniferous Forests: By 2019, maintain on Refuge land 4,500 acres 

of mixed deciduous and coniferous forest habitat to support associated bird species of 
70

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

concern (e.g., Pine Warblers, Scarlet Tanager, Whip-poor-will, Black-and-white 

Warbler) and to promote native biological diversity consistent with the Refuge’s 

Forest Management Plan. The Refuge currently has roughly 10,000 acres. Timber 

harvest will only in occur in areas designated open landscape (Figure 17), except in 

pine plantations or for safety, operations, or fuel reduction purposes.

Strategies:

1. Maintain large mature stands of oak forest with a white pine component to 

provide nesting habitat for Scarlet Tanagers and Least Flycatchers.

2. Maintain large mature stands of jack pine with an oak component for nesting 

Pine Warblers, Whip-poor-wills, and Black-and-white Warblers.

3. Conserve 640 acres of mesic mixed oak/pine forest with interspersed sedge 

meadows free from active human manipulation to provide a control area 

(reference site) where successional changes can be monitored and compared to 

other managed areas. Wildfires will be suppressed in the area to protect 

adjacent landowners.

Objective 3.9: Broad-Leaf Deciduous Forests: By 2019, maintain on Refuge land 5,350 acres of 

broad-leaf deciduous forest habitat to support associated bird species of concern 

(e.g., Wood Thrush) and to promote native biological diversity. The Refuge currently 

has roughly 10,000 acres. Timber harvest will only in occur in areas designated open 

landscape (Figure 17), except in pine plantations or for safety, operations, or fuel 

reduction purposes.

Strategy:

1. Maintain large mature stands of oak forest with a diverse, dense understory 

component, to provide nesting habitat for Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Chestnut-sided 

Warbler, and Wood Thrush. 

4.4.3.1 Other Habitat Management Actions

Objective 3.10: Fire Program

Strategies:

1. Maintain a fire management program that supports habitat objectives and 

reduces damage associated with wildfires throughout the life of this CCP. 

Contain 100 percent of wildfires occurring on the Refuge before they cross 

Highway 80 moving east and Highway 21 moving south.

2. By 2007, acquire an additional pump engine to increase the effectiveness of both 

prescribed burning and fire suppression (Medium Priority). (Project 8) 

3. By 2007, construct a storage building that can be heated to protect fire 

management vehicles from the weather (Medium Priority). (Project 9)

4. Reduce the density of jack pine and remove slash from at least one unit with 

significant overmature and standing dead timber biannually with emphasis on 

the Refuge's eastern boundary to aid in fire control. All treated units will be 

within designated Maintenance Areas of the Refuge Figure 17. 
71

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Objective 3.11: Pest Management

Strategies:

1. By 2005, develop an Integrated Pest Management step-down plan that will 

reduce populations of exotic and invasive species from current levels, restrict the 

distribution of pest plants (e.g., leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, reed canary 

grass) to their current acreage, and reduce the impact pest plant species have on 

rare plant communities, throughout the life of this CCP.

2. Beginning in 2006, complete a rare plant inventory, and inventory every 5 years 

thereafter (Medium Priority). (Project 10)

Special Refuge Management Areas

Restoration and management of the above mentioned habitats will be accomplished through the 

development of six special management areas on the Refuge Figure 17. Figure 17 represents a 

blueprint (long-term) for what the Refuge landscape might consist of within these special 

management areas. Table 7 describes how these areas would be managed to achieve the Refuges 

wildlife, habitat, and people commitments. 

4.4.4 Resource Conservation

Goal 4: The Refuge will, in partnership with others, conserve Refuge resources (e.g., fish and wildlife, 

cultural and archaeological, water and visitor experiences) for future generations.

4.4.4.1 Law Enforcement

Objective 4.1: Increase compliance of Refuge regulations on Refuge land throughout the life of this 

CCP.

Strategies:

1. By 2007, review and revise Refuge visitor regulations for consistency and 

compatibility.

2: Increase the public’s knowledge of Refuge visitor regulations and the boundaries 

of Fish and Wildlife Service lands, throughout the life of this CCP.

3. By 2007, add one full-time law enforcement officer.

4.4.4.2 Land Conservation

Objective 4.2: By 2019, conserve 3,750 acres of wetland, upland, and riparian habitats within the 

Yellow River Focus Area (willing seller only). (Table 4 on page 15). 

Strategies:

1. Maintain working relationships with landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area. 

2. By 2006, ensure landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area have viable options 

for restoring, enhancing, and conserving their land for the benefit of wildlife.

3. Acquire voluntary partnership agreements, conservation easements, and fee-tile 

ownerships on approximately 250 acres per year from willing landowners within 

the Yellow River Focus Area (High Priority). The Service will acquire the 

minimum interest necessary to accomplish natural resource goals and only 

acquire land from willing sellers. (Project 11)
72

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4. By 2008, develop a land stewardship and natural history slide presentation for 

the Yellow River to raise awareness of its unique ecological value and need for 

conservation (High Priority). (Project 12)

Objective 4.3: By 2011, actively manage 100 percent of all existing Farm Service Agency 

Conservation Easement land under the jurisdiction of the Refuge.

Strategies:

1. By 2007, develop habitat management plans for all Conservation Easements.

Table 7: Special Refuge Management Areas 

Management Area Description of Management

Set-aside Area This area will be set aside to serve as a wilderness-like 

area for Refuge visitors. The area currently has two 

unpaved roads that will be maintained as hiking trails, with 

the possibility of being connected in the future to form a 

loop. The only management activities that will occur in this 

area will be trail maintenance and alteration of drainage 

ditches to restore a natural hydrologic regime wherever 

possible. Prescribed fire will be allowed in this area if it is 

determined to be an ecological benefit and if it will assist in 

maintaining the wild character of the area. Standards for 

fire breaks and rehabilitation options have yet to be 

developed.

Minimal Management Areas These are areas where manipulative management 

activities, such as timber harvest, prescribed fire, and 

water management are only practiced on a limited basis. 

Prescribed fire will be allowed in this area on a limited 

basis, if determined to be ecologically beneficial. Standards 

for fire breaks and rehabilitation options will not be as 

stringent as those for the Wildland Set-Aside Area.

Maintenance Areas These areas are subject to manipulative management for 

the benefit of wildlife, plants and public use. This includes 

timber harvest, prescribed fire, mowing, and water 

management, and any other activity deemed necessary to 

maintain the desired habitat. Except for small, isolated 

openings that will be allowed to close, these areas will be 

maintained close to their current character and condition.

Open landscape Areas Due to the significant nation-wide decline in many 

grassland and barrens species, the Refuge has designated 

several areas to be managed as an open landscape. Most of 

these areas expand upon existing open lands to provide 

suitable habitat for those species that need large, open 

vistas. The area running from Sprague Pool to Pool 2 will 

serve as a corridor, connecting the northern and southern 

blocks of grassland and barrens habitat. These areas will 

be subject to timber harvest, prescribed fire, mowing, 

water management, and other manipulative management 

for the purpose of creating and maintaining open habitat 

for rare and declining trust species.

Full-pool Management These pools will be maintained as full, except when 

drainage is necessary for maintenance. 

Variable Pool Management These pools will be maintained at various water levels, 

both seasonally and yearly. 
73

Chapter 4: Management Direction

2. By 2008, survey and post all of the Refuge’s conservation easement lands (High 

Priority). (Project 13)

3. By 2011, implement active management, according to developed plans, on 50 

percent of existing conservation easements, and on 100 percent of easements by 

2015 (Medium Priority). (Project 14)

4. Beginning in 2006, annually monitor each of the Refuge’s easement lands for 

posting and compliance (Medium Priority). (Project 15)

Objective 4.4: Archaeological and Cultural Resource Management: By 2019, in accordance with 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, protect 100 percent of the known 

archaeological and cultural resources on the Refuge.

Strategies:

1. By 2007, develop a step-down plan to fulfill requirements of Section 14 of the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act for surveying lands to identify 

archaeological resources; and Section 110(a)(2) of the National Historic 

Preservation Act for a preservation program.

2. By 2008, contract with a cultural resources professional to complete a Cultural 

Resources Management Plan including a geomorphological study of potential 

living surfaces (Medium Priority). (Project 16)

3. Notify the Regional Historic Preservation Officer early in the planing process 

for each construction and development action and upon receiving requests for 

archaeological investigations on Refuge land.

Objective 4.5: Contaminant Investigations/Cleanup: Maintain a contaminant status on Refuge 

land that does not negatively impact fish and wildlife populations, human health, or 

create liability issues, throughout the life of this CCP.

Strategies:

A. Investigate all potential contamination sites on Refuge lands within 2 weeks of 

their discovery.

B. Conduct a level I contaminant investigation on all land considered for acquisition.

Objective 4.6: Water Rights Management: Maintain 1997 baseline water flows throughout the Refuge 

over the life of this CCP. 

1. By 2008, research and document Refuge water rights and establish baseline 

water quality/quantity standards for receiving waters (Medium Priority). 

(Project 17)

4.4.5 Monitoring and Studies

Goal 5: Quality scientific research and monitoring will guide Refuge management decision making.

Objective 5.1: Studies and Investigations: Ensure that research conducted on the Refuge is 

published in an appropriate scientific journal no later than 2 years after the 

completion of the field work.
74

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Objective 5.2: By 2007, establish coordinated research programs to expand our understanding of 

the Refuge and Yellow River Area natural resources.

Strategies:

1. By 2008, conduct at least two studies of rare sedge meadow habitat (Medium 

Priority). (Project 18)

2. By 2007, complete a baseline inventory and cover type mapping for the Refuge 

and the Yellow River Focus Area (High Priority). (Project 19)

Objective 5.3: Surveys and Censuses: In accordance with the Refuge’s wildlife inventory step-down 

plan, the Refuge will continue to conduct/support the following surveys throughout the life of this 

CCP: 

# Spring Waterfowl Breeding Pair Surveys

# Fall Waterfowl Surveys

# Waterfowl Banding

# Sandhill Crane Fly-out Surveys

# Mourning Dove Coo Surveys

# Woodcock Surveys

# Songbird Point Counts

# Karner Blue Butterfly Surveys

# Massasauga Rattlesnake Population Surveys 

# Wolf Howling Surveys

# Wolf Tracking Surveys

# Midwest Sandhill Crane Counts

4.4.6 Coordination Activities

Goal 6: Strong, long-term, mutually-beneficial working relationships with Refuge stakeholders will lead to 

healthy sustainable fish and wildlife populations within the Refuge and the Yellow River Focus Area.

Objective 6.1: Interagency Coordination: Beginning in 2005, hold annual joint management plan 

reviews with the Wisconsin DNR to facilitate management and coordination of 

Meadow Valley Wildlife Area, Wood County Wildlife Area, Sandhill Wildlife Area, 

and scattered parcels in Jackson County.

Objective 6.2: Enhance communications with the Air National Guard by participating in at least one 

meeting per year to discuss the routing of low-flying aircraft in relation to wildlife 

and visitor use impacts.

Objective 6.3: Work with natural resource management agencies in Juneau, Wood, and Adams 

counties to enhance Service trust resource management throughout the life of this 

CCP.

Strategies:

1. Conduct one coordination meeting per year with Juneau County forestry 

personnel (including the county’s advising Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources forester).
75

Chapter 4: Management Direction

2. Participate in the annual Adams County and Juneau County interagency 

meeting.

3. Beginning in 2005, meet annually with Wisconsin DNR Bureau of Endangered 

Resources staff to enhance cooperation in identification of rare species on the 

Refuge.

Objective 6.4: Tribal Coordination: Ensure open communication and provide technical assistance to 

local Tribal Nations, as requested, throughout the life of this CCP. 

Objective 6.5: Private Lands Activities: Restore a minimum of 15 wetlands per year on private land 

within the Necedah Private Lands District to provide for a diversity of fish and 

wildlife values throughout the life of this CCP.

Objective 6.6: Private Lands Activities: Restore a minimum of 60 acres per year of native 

grasslands on private land within the Necedah Private Lands District to provide for a 

diversity of wildlife values throughout the life of this CCP.

Objective 6.7: Cooperative/Friends Organizations: Actively support the “Friends of Necedah 

National Wildlife Refuge, Inc.” throughout the life this CCP.

Strategies:

1. Maintain a staff liaison to the Friends of Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Inc. 

2. Provide office space and use of office equipment to Friends volunteers over the 

life of this Plan.

4.4.7 Visitor Services

Goal 7: The Refuge will provide the public quality wildlife-dependent uses of the Refuge (e.g. wildlife 

observation and photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education and interpretation) to foster 

the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and 

Service trust resources, and to expand the role the public plays in their stewardship.

Objective 7.1: Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography: By 2012, increase wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography use-days on Refuge land by 20 percent (in 2001, 

roughly 154,000 visits were made to the Refuge for wildlife observation and 25,000 

for photography). 

Strategies:

1. In partnership with local, regional, and national tourism groups, promote the 

Refuge as a “Watchable Wildlife” destination in central Wisconsin.

2. Increase/establish new signage on Interstate 90/94.

3. Develop a local Intelligent Transportation System (radio messaging) to inform 

motorists about the Refuge and Refuge events.

4. By 2008, develop an observation tower at Carpenter Field to enhance wildlife 

viewing opportunities (Medium Priority). (Project 20)

Objective 7.2: Hunting: Provide the public safe, quality hunting opportunities on Refuge land 

where hunters will have a reasonable chance of success for waterfowl and other 

migratory birds, deer, turkey, and small game, throughout the life of this CCP.
76

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 18: Future Desired Conditions, Visitor Services, Necedah NWR
77

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Strategies:

1. Beginning in 2005, coordinate with the Wisconsin DNR to participate in local 

annual hunter education program.

2. By 2006, determine appropriate Refuge deer hunter use-day numbers from 

safety, deer population, and hunter satisfaction standpoints. Incorporate findings 

into the Visitor Services step-down plan (hunting plan).

3. By 2007, develop and maintain two additional off-road parking areas on the 

Refuge (Low Priority). (Project 21)

4. Continue to emphasize special Refuge hunts for the disabled and youth.

Objective 7.3: Fishing: By 2014, increase fishing use-days on Refuge land by 10 percent (in 1999, 

roughly 3,500 fishing visits were made to the Refuge for the purpose of fishing). 

Strategies:

1. Promote and host National Fishing Day events in coordination with the 

Wisconsin DNR and other partners.

2. Cooperate and coordinate with Wisconsin DNR and Service fishery biologists on 

Refuge fishery management issues. 

3. By 2006, develop a fishing pier and trail at Harvey’s Pond to enhance Refuge 

fishing opportunities (Medium Priority). (Project 22)

Objective 7.4: Education and Interpretation: By 2010, expand the Refuge’s education and 

interpretation efforts by 20 percent over 1999 estimates (in 1999, the Refuge reached 

an estimated 300,000 people through its on-site and off-site efforts, excluding media 

contacts).

Strategies:

1. By 2005, complete the Ellen Allen Outdoor Learning Center to facilitate 

additional on-site outdoor learning opportunities (High Priority). (Project 23)

2. Enhance coordination with local and regional educators and partner 

organizations to promote Refuge-specific themes and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

3. Develop a comprehensive guide to interpretation and education for teachers and 

other community members interested in Refuge wildlife and nature. The guide 

will list slide shows, videos, activities, and “topic trunks” like the wetlands trunk, 

as well as appropriate audiences and running times. 

4. By 2007, design and print a nature guide, coloring book, and activity guide for 

elementary students that features endangered species and unique habitats to 

increase knowledge of and interest in the Refuges fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

interrelationships (Medium Priority). (Project 24)

5. By 2009, in partnership with the Wisconsin DNR, develop and install new 

signage that welcomes and orients visitors to the Necedah Wildlife Management 

Area (Low Priority). (Project 25)

6. By 2006, develop five additional miles of interpretive trails on the Refuge (High 

Priority). (Project 26)

7. By 2007, develop and install new interpretative signs on the Refuge, including 

two interpretive kiosks and site interpretation signage (High Priority). (Project 

27)
78

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8. The Refuge, in conjunction with the Friends of Necedah, will coordinate at least 

five public events per year.

Objective 7.5: Outreach: By 2007, develop and maintain a comprehensive communication strategy 

for the Refuge (communication step-down plan) focusing on five target audiences 

(e.g., Congress, conservation organizations, communities, communications media, 

corporations). The communication plan will focus on achieving the following 

outcomes: 

# By 2019, 75 percent of landowners within the four townships surrounding the 

Refuge will perceive the Refuge as an enduring asset to their community.

# By 2019, 50 percent of landowners within the four townships surrounding the 

Refuge will know the Refuge is a federal property managed by the Service.

# By 2019, 50 percent of high school seniors taking biology within the 17-county 

Refuge Management District will perceive 1) the National Wildlife Refuge 

System as a national treasure, 2) the Refuge as a place where wildlife come first, 

and 3) the Refuge as part of a national system of refuges comprising the world’s 

largest collection of land and water managed specifically for wildlife.

# By 2010, 85 percent of landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area will recognize 

that ecosystem as an area worth conserving.

# By 2005, all elected officials representing the Refuge area will be aware of all 

large or important Refuge events (prior to happenings).

Strategies:

1. Enhance cooperation with local and regional media. Issue a minimum of one 

news release per month and one news release for every Refuge special event to 

all local written and broadcast media. Hold an annual media event focusing on 

the Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

2. Develop and maintain (update quarterly) the Refuge’s web site over the life of 

this CCP.

3. Annually, brief Wisconsin’s conservation organizations about the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and how any changes may affect their organizations.

4. Participate with the Juneau County Economic Development Committee and 

work with local corporations on natural resource-related projects that will 

benefit local communities.

Objective 7.6: In conjunction with the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association, maintain sponsorship (and 

funding) for the Wisconsin Federal Junior Duck Stamp contest throughout the life of 

this CCP. (Project 28)

Strategies:

1. Maintain a database of teachers and individuals that have participated in or 

expressed interest in the Federal Junior Duck Stamp program.

2. Attend conferences and special events, and follow up on referrals to increase 

awareness of the Federal Junior Duck Stamp program. 

3. Acknowledge the contributions of the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association to the 

Federal Junior Duck Stamp program’s success through various medias.
79

Chapter 4: Management Direction

4.4.7.1 Facilities and Services

Objective 7.7: By 2019, 75 percent of Refuge visitors completing a Refuge “customer service 

feedback form” will rate their overall Refuge experience as good to excellent.

Strategies:

1. Maintain and develop Refuge facilities and services that encourage quality 

visitor experiences.

2. By 2006, in cooperation with other federal, state, and local partners, complete 

site selection and preliminary planning for a visitor center that will serve as a 

first point of contact for Refuge visitors, office space for Refuge staff, and 

classrooms and meeting space for educators. Construction could occur in 2008. 

(Figure 18 on page 76) (High Priority). (Project 29)

3. By 2008, facilitate the development of housing to accommodate Refuge 

volunteers and other stakeholders living outside the commuting area. (Project 

38)

Objective 7.8: By 2010, improve the accessibility of Refuge visitor groups with special needs. 

Strategies:

1. By 2010, construct one additional universally accessible blind, and hard surface 

trail or boardwalk (High Priority). (Project 30)

2. By 2009, have available at the Refuge universally accessible versions of select 

brochures (braille) and videos (close-captioned) (Medium Priority). (Project 31)

4.4.8 Planning And Administration 

Goal 8: Necedah NWR will be a safe and healthy environment for employees, volunteers and visitors and 

will be pro-active in addressing a wide-range of conservation opportunities and issues.

Objective 8.1: By 2009, review and revise all Refuge step-down management plans.

Objective 8.2: Hold the number of work-related injuries to two per year or less.

Strategies:

1. Support a trained safety officer that will conduct annual safety inspections.

2. Hold monthly safety meetings for Refuge staff and volunteers. 

3. By 2006, construct suitable containment facilities for hazardous materials such 

as petroleum-based products, laboratory supplies, and pesticides (Medium 

Priority). (Project 32)

Objective 8.3: Maintain a safe and palatable water supply for Refuge staff and visitors.

Strategies:

1. Maintain and test the Refuge’s new drinking water treatment system consistent 

with Service policies (High Priority). (Project 33)

2. By 2005, install a carbon filter to supplement the Refuge’s drinking water 

treatment system.
80

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Objective 8.4: By 2005, identify all property stewardship needs and complete the following projects 

that have already been identified.

Strategies:

1. By 2006, construct a 50-foot by 100-foot storage building to protect vehicles, 

heavy equipment, and other maintenance implements (Medium Priority). 

(Project 34)

2. By 2006, update the Refuge’s security system (Medium Priority). (Project 35)

4.4.9 Work Force

Goal 9: Technically skilled and diverse employees with high morale and job satisfaction will achieve high 

levels of stakeholder satisfaction.

Objective 9.1: Provide all Refuge staff members with an opportunity to participate in 40 hours of 

training annually.

Objective 9.2: Hold weekly staff meetings to facilitate staff communication and coordination of 

Refuge activities.

Objective 9.3: Fill all staff vacancies within 1 year of creation.

Objective 9.4: Ensure diverse candidates are on every hiring certificate, in compliance with Region 

3 diversity directives.

Strategies:

1. Utilize the Student Temporary Employment Experience Program and the 

Student Career Experience Program whenever possible.

2. Maintain contacts with colleges.

Objective 9.5: By 2006, hire one additional full-time Private Lands employee (Medium Priority). 

(Project 36)

Objective 9.6: By 2005, hire one additional full-time Wage Grade employee (Medium Priority). 

(Project 37)

Objective 9.7: By 2005, add one full-time Refuge law enforcement officer.

Objective 9.8: By 2008, increase Refuge volunteer participation by 20 percent over 1999 levels.

Strategies:

1. By 2008, remodel the Annex Building to make it suitable housing for volunteers 

and interns (High Priority). (Project 38)

2. By 2006, complete a kit of volunteer recruitment and orientation tools, including 

a volunteer slide show, volunteer opportunities leaflet, and a list of volunteer 

recruitment outlets (Medium Priority). (Project 39)
81

Chapter 4: Management Direction

Objective 9.9: Continue to support work training programs such as the Youth Conservation Corps 

and the Private Industry Council’s youth training program each year throughout the 

life of this CCP. 

Objective 9.10: By 2010, hire one additional park ranger interpretative specialist in conjunction with 

the new visitor center and increased public use.
82

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 5: Implementation

Implementation of this CCP will depend on the full involvement of 

Refuge staff, support staff, cooperating partners, and volunteers. 

However, in recognition of the fiscal atmosphere under which 

Federal agencies operate, we recognize that optimal funding to 

carry out the various Refuge programs may not be realistic. 

Therefore, rather than layout a detailed scenario and budget for 

implementation of each Refuge operational component and 

project, we have chosen instead to provide a general overview of 

future Refuge programs and projects and leave the details of 

scheduling and budgets to be developed as funding levels and 

staffing patterns become clearer. A description of each project 

follows in section 5.6.2, as does a table that describes annual 

funding needs (Appendix F). 

5.1 Tools

5.1.1 Staffing Patterns

Obtaining the necessary staff to implement the CPP will be essential to realizing the Refuge vision in 

15 years. Appendix F reflects the staff needed to fully implement the action items and projects in this 

CCP.

Table 8: Future Staffing Needs, Necedah NWR 

Position Title Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Value

Refuge Manager 1.0

Refuge Operations Specialist 1.0 

Refuge Operations Specialist 1.0

Refuge Operations Specialist 1.0

Biologist 1.0

Biologist*1 1.0

Park Ranger* 1.0

Law Enforcement Officer* 1.0

USFWS
83

Chapter 5: Implementation

5.2 Step-Down Management Plans

Step-down management plans are an important component of the day-to-day management of national 

wildlife refuges. They are designed (in most cases) to provide detailed guidance on refuge 

management areas (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety, new construction, etc.) or groups of related 

subjects. Step-down management plans describe strategies and implementation schedules for 

meeting CCP goals and objectives. In other cases, step-down management plans provided a general 

framework for CCP actions. Table 4 on page 57 illustrates the plans that will be employed in support 

of the goals and objectives set forth in this document, either in their current or updated form. 

5.3 Partnerships

Partnerships with federal, state, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals will be 

essential to the successful implementation of this CCP. Refuge staff will seek out partnerships to fulfill 

the goals and objectives outlined in this plan and create the desired future habitat condition illustrated 

by Figure 17 on page 67. Natural resource issues extend beyond social and political boundaries. 

Stakeholders with a variety of interests and backgrounds need to be included in the day-to-day 

management of the Refuge, and take ownership in its development. 

Voluntary participation from private landowners will be an essential part of the Refuge’s new focus in 

the Yellow River area. Nearly all the land in the Yellow River area is in private ownership. In fact, 

nearly 70 percent of all available fish and wildlife habitat in the United States is in private ownership. 

With increased demographic trends toward urbanization and suburbanization, there is a tendency for 

people to lose touch with the land and the goods and services it provides. The Refuge’s approach to 

Fire Management Officer 1.0

Range Technician 0.6

Biological Technician 0.6

Range Technician 1.0

Forester* 1.0

Administrative Technician 1.0

Maintenance Mechanic 1.0

Maintenance Worker* 1.0

Equipment Operator 1.0

Student Trainee* .33 TFT

Office Automation Clerk 1.0 P-INT

Office Automation Clerk .6 PPT

1. New position indicated by “*”

Table 8: Future Staffing Needs, Necedah NWR (Continued)

Position Title Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Value
84

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

sustainable management of public and private land will be to actively support a network of lands and 

waters dedicated to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. This means that partnerships are not only 

desirable for accomplishing Refuge objectives, they are necessary.

Also, natural resources do not organize themselves according to political boundaries. Clean air and 

water, sustainable populations of wildlife and plants, and positive aesthetic and recreational 

experiences are a community-wide effort involving multiple Federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The 

Refuge will support other governmental agencies, private organizations and industries, and private 

landowners in managing natural resources in ways that enhance Service Trust Resources for present 

and future generations. The Refuge will contribute staff expertise, equipment, and monetary 

resources, where possible, to individuals and groups requesting assistance with:

# Sustainable timber management

# Game management

# Habitat management

# Conducting rare species inventories 

# Water management, including wetland restorations, water level management, and water 

quality issues

# Real estate transfers and easement information

# Education and outreach

5.4 Volunteer Program

The Refuge’s volunteer program is vital to the fulfillment of the Refuge’s vision. Volunteers assist the 

Refuge with fish and wildlife management, habitat management, education and outreach, 

administration, and maintenance - in other words, in nearly every aspect of the Refuge’s operation. In 

1998, volunteers contributed over 7,000 hours at the Refuge. Some volunteer projects have included:

# Tracking pileated woodpeckers using radio telemetry 

# Building new Refuge hiking trails

# Assisting with the Wisconsin Federal Junior Duck Stamp Contest

# Burning brush piles for the Refuge’s savanna restorations

# Creating a savanna demonstration area in proximity to the Refuge Headquarters 

5.5 Land Acquisition

Land acquisition is one method the Refuge can use to facilitate restoration and conservation of the 

Yellow River Focus Area. With the completion of this CCP and associated environmental assessment, 

the Refuge will initiate the purchase of conservation easements and fee-title land acquisition from 

willing sellers in the Yellow River Focus Area. Presently, the Refuge has no money to purchase land 

(including conservation easements) in the Yellow River Focus Area. 

The Yellow River Focus Area project, which has undergone significant changes since it was initially 

conceptualized in 1994, is a 21,953-acre project designed to conserve quality bottomland forest and 

associated habitat in the area. The project was first conceptualized in1994 as a potential addition to 

the Refuge, with fee title land acquisition as the primary conservation tool. However, as the project 

evolved, Refuge and regional planning staff recognized that extensive land acquisition was not needed 

at this time as much of the area is currently conserved under state wetland regulations. This has also 
85

Chapter 5: Implementation

been the view of many of the landowners within the area. Therefore, the project currently emphasizes 

outreach, technical assistance, and conservation easements as the primary conservation tools, with fee 

title acquisition of land the least preferred option. Landowner participation in any Service program, 

including selling their land to the Service, is strictly voluntary. Also, it should be noted that the 

Service did not request money for land acquisition (including conservation easements) in the Yellow 

River Focus Area for the years 2004 or 2005. It is anticipated that the Service will request land 

acquisition money for this area in fiscal year 2006. 

5.6 Budget and Schedule

5.6.1 Station Budget

The costs to implement the objectives, strategies, and projects identified in this CCP are captured in 

Service budget databases, including the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS), Maintenance 

Management System (MMS), and Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS). However, obtaining 

additional operating funds for the Refuge will be the single most important part of implementing this 

CCP. 

The Refuge budget consists of base funding – the base varies in actual dollar amounts, but includes all 

approved permanent salary positions plus an allocation to cover minimum needs of utilities and minor 

supplies. This base budget is then supplemented through an application process for additional funding 

for specific needs. The needs and deficiencies are identified and add-on funding is applied for through 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Fire Pre-Suppression, Prescribed Fire, Maintenance Management, 

Refuge Operating Needs, Non-Game Bird, Challenge Cost Share both on and off-refuge, Clean Water 

Action, Fisheries, Roads, etc. Other funds that may become available as a result of refuge activities 

are funds for volunteers, contributions, and partnership match donations. Without these add-on fund 

sources which amount to a 30-40% increase over the base budget, the Refuge would not be able to 

carry out day-to-day operations, many of which are mandated for resource conservation and safety. 

5.6.2 Project Descriptions

5.6.2.1 Habitat Restoration and Management Projects

1. Restore two additional wetland complexes (approximately 1,000 acres) on the Refuge to provide 

migration and breeding habitat for water birds (shorebirds) (Low Priority) (2006-2017). A large 

portion of the Refuge was drained in the early 20th century. The hydrology has been restored on about 

half of the original wetland acreage. These restorations will be accomplished by blocking existing 

ditches and installing water control structures. Some existing impoundments could also be managed 

more efficiently with the addition of water control structures. The engineering ditch plugs and water 

control structures will be completed by seasonal Refuge staff and private contractors. 

Estimated Cost: $162,000

2. Sub-divide Sprague-Mather Pool (the largest impoundment on the Refuge) into three units that can 

be managed and drawn-down independently for moist soil food production and/or invertebrate 

availability for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds (High Priority) (2006 - 2009). The SpragueMather Pool (1,400 acres) serves as a resting and feeding area for migratory waterbirds. This project 

will construct dikes and water control structures to sub-divide the pools into three sub-units that can 

be managed and drawn down independently for moist soil food production and/or invertebrate 

availability. This will allow more flexibility in the management of this impoundment and greatly 

increase the chances for success. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service engineer will design the dikes and 

construction will be by a private contractor. 

Estimated Cost: $1,169,000
86

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3. Acquire and install staff water gauges for accurate water level readings (High Priority) (2005). 

Nearly half of Refuge wetlands are in impoundments which have managed water levels. To fine tune 

the water level management for maximum benefit, it is necessary to have each water control structure 

surveyed to Mean Sea Level Elevation and have a staff water gauge installed for accurate water level 

readings. The survey work would be completed by a private contractor. The water gauges will be 

installed by seasonal staff. 

Estimated Cost: $75,000

4. Acquire and install a shallow well and a solar-powered pump to serve as a supplemental water 

source for the Ducks Unlimited Wetland Project by 2006 (High Priority). The Refuge provides 

valuable habitat for a variety of migratory bird species. This wetland restoration project, a 

partnership with Ducks Unlimited, will restore 350 acres of wetland in seven impoundments on the 

southern portion of the Refuge. Due to wetland drainage in the past and other Refuge water supply 

needs, it may be necessary to supplement gravity flows of water into the impoundments with pumping 

from sub-surface water supplies. The Refuge will investigate the feasibility of a shallow well and a 

solar powered pump will serve as a reliable supplemental water source. The pumps and wells would be 

installed by private contractors. 

Estimated Cost: $80,000

5. Implement disturbance regimes such as prescribed fire to establish and maintain herbaceous cover 

within savanna, grassland, and other habitat units to support nesting birds and the Karner blue 

butterflies throughout the life of this CCP (High Priority). The implementation and maintenance of 

this habitat represents a significant increase in the Refuge’s workload and operating costs. 

Maintaining barrens habitat is essential for the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly, several 

species of migratory birds that have recently experienced severe declines, and a diverse variety of 

other plant and animal species that are not found in closed-canopy savanna. This will be accomplished 

using Refuge staff. 

Estimated Cost: $451,000

6. Construct an additional 30 miles of firebreaks around savanna restoration units and along the 

Refuge’s eastern boundary (an area with concentrations of hazardous fuels) by 2015 to allow for 

periodic fire (High Priority). The completion and maintenance of 30 miles of adequate firebreaks is 

necessary for the Refuge’s wildfire and prescribed fire management programs. The creation of the 

firebreaks also serves the safety of the public, especially adjacent landowners, by protecting their 

structures and other resources from escaped fire. Construction of firebreaks, by additional staff and 

contractors, will facilitate the access of equipment and suppression of wildfires and prescribed fires. 

Estimated Cost: $160,000 

7. Acquire a hydro-axe to maintain openings for migratory birds, resident wildlife, and endangered 

species by 2007 (High Priority). Necedah Refuge has nearly 20,000 acres of upland habitat, as well as 

over 5,000 acres of forested wetland habitat. Both are important for a number of resident, migratory, 

and endangered species. It is essential that succession be controlled on some of this by setting back 

the encroachment of willow and other brush and tree species. The use of a hydro-axe would 

complement the station prescribed burning program and would also be used to a lesser degree to 

construct and maintain firebreaks. The machine will be operated by additional Refuge staff, and could 

be shared, at times, with other nearby Refuges. 

Estimated Cost: $201,000

8. Acquire an additional pump engine to increase the effectiveness of both prescribed burning and 

fire suppression activities by 2007 (Medium Priority). Necedah NWR’s important habitats for 

migratory and native wildlife includes upland and wetland habitats which are dependent upon the use 

of periodic fires for maintenance. The acquisition of a fire pump unit would increase the effectiveness 

of both burning and fire suppression activities. An effective fire suppression capability is needed to 

protect Refuge buildings, structures, the general public, and other resources. There are also many 
87

Chapter 5: Implementation

homes adjacent to Refuge boundaries that could need protection. In addition, the pump engine will 

support the Service’s cooperative agreement with the Wisconsin DNR to work together in local fire 

suppression efforts. 

Estimated Cost: $108,000

9. Construct a 40-foot x 70-foot storage building that can be heated to protect fire management 

vehicles from the weather by 2007 (Medium Priority). The Refuge manages a variety of important 

habitats which benefit from prescribed fire. These areas are home to federally listed endangered 

Karner blue butterflies, rare migratory songbirds, and nesting waterfowl. The Refuge has two fire 

tank trucks, a fire pump truck, and a fire bulldozer that require a secure storage area that can be 

heated to prevent water from freezing in winter months. This equipment is vital to the Refuge 

prescribed fire program, as well as for wildfire suppression. 

Estimated Cost: $100,000

10. Complete a rare plant inventory beginning in 2005 and every 5 years thereafter for the life of this 

CCP (Medium Priority). The Refuge has never done a comprehensive inventory of plant species on 

Refuge lands. Common plants are less likely to be eliminated, therefore, rare plants are priority. Rare 

plant inventories will be completed on Refuge lands by seasonal staff or a qualified private contractor 

beginning in 2006 and every 5 years thereafter for the life of this plan. 

Estimated Cost: $15,000

5.6.2.2 Resource Conservation Projects

11. Acquire voluntary partnership agreements, conservation easements, and fee-title ownerships on 

approximately 250 acres per year from willing sellers within the Yellow River Focus Area (High 

Priority). This project will emphasize voluntary private land stewardship agreements, technical 

assistance, conservation easements, and fee title purchases within the Yellow River Focus Area in 

order to facilitate restoration and conservation of this. Estimated Cost: $3,000,000 over 12 years. 

12. Develop land stewardship and natural history slide presentations for the Yellow River by 2008 

(High Priority). The Yellow River is a quality example of bottomland hardwood habitat, which is home 

to a variety of rare species. The area provides ecosystem services that are valuable to human beings 

too, such as flood control and water quality maintenance. The Refuge will develop slide presentations 

to increase public awareness of the area and to promote land stewardship. 

Estimated Cost: $5,000

13. Survey and post all of the Refuge’s conservation easement lands by 2008 (High Priority). The 

Refuge holds easements and deed restrictions on over 3,400 acres of land on the Necedah Wildlife 

Management District. To maintain a responsible stewardship role in the management of this land, it is 

necessary to have it accurately surveyed and posted. A private contractor will do the surveys, and 

seasonal staff and/or volunteers will install signs. 

Estimated Cost: $450,000 

14. Implement active management, according to developed plans, on 50 percent of existing 

conservation easements by 2011 and on 100 percent of easements by 2015 (Medium Priority). The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has management responsibility for over 3,500 acres of conservation 

easements on the Necedah Wildlife Management District. These easements are protected from 

development and provide valuable habitat for wildlife. However, they are not actively managed and do 

not have well-developed land stewardship objectives. 

Estimated Cost: $120,000 

15. Beginning in 2006, monitor each of the Refuge’s easement lands for posting and compliance at 

least once per year (Medium Priority). The Necedah Wildlife Management District covers a 17-

county area for easement management and private lands assistance. Complete coverage of the 
88

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

District is necessary to check for violations on over 60 Conservation Easements through aerial 

photography and site visits. This project includes annual contact with each landowner through 

correspondence and in person. It also includes fencing and posting of easement boundaries. Contacts, 

inspections, fencing, and posting will be completed by additional Refuge staff, such as a seasonal 

biological technician and new Refuge law enforcement staff. The aerial photography will be completed 

by a contractor. 

Estimated Cost: $654,000

16. Contract with a cultural resources professional to complete a Cultural Resources Management 

Plan by 2008 (Medium Priority). A major component should be a geomorphological study of landforms that could have supported human use and left archeological materials in meaningful context for 

the prehistoric and proto-historic periods (i.e., the Fort McCoy model). Other components would be 

the Section 14 and Section 110(a)(2) surveys, analysis of early Refuge facilities such as the dams and 

water control structures and CCC activities, and a determination if any significant conservation or 

wildlife activities occurred on the Refuge. 

Estimated Cost: $500,000

17. Research and document Refuge water rights and establish baseline water quality standards by 

the year 2008 (Medium Priority). The Refuge is an important area for migratory waterfowl and other 

wetland-dependent species. Over 10,000 acres of wetland exist on the Refuge, with plans for restoring 

more acreage to pre-drainage hydrology. One of the threats to the Refuge is the expansion of the 

cranberry industry in the Refuge’s watershed adjacent to the north Refuge boundary. Documentation 

of legal water rights is needed to resolve and/or avoid potential future disputes with other water users 

in the watershed, primarily cranberry growers. Additional research is needed to establish baseline 

water quality standards also. Research and monitoring will be completed by contractors. 

Estimated Cost: $258,000

5.6.2.3 Monitoring and Studies Projects

18. Complete at least two studies of rare sedge meadow habitat by 2008 (Medium Priority). Providing 

and managing wetland habitat for a wide variety of wetland-dependent species is a priority for the 

Refuge. Sedge meadow is a habitat present in abundance on the Refuge that is becoming regionally 

rare. Research may be oriented toward species using sedge meadows, studying the hydrology of these 

areas, or analyzing the management of these valuable areas. This research will be completed by a 

graduate student with staff, volunteer, logistical, and/or monetary support from the Refuge. 

Estimated Cost: $20,000

19. Complete baseline inventory and cover type mapping, including a description of plant species 

composition and relative abundance, litter cover and depth, and height and canopy cover for the 

Refuge and the lower Yellow River watershed by 2007 (High Priority). Necedah NWR and the Yellow 

River Focus Area comprise over 60,000 acres of important wildlife habitat. To effectively plan and 

manage these areas, vegetation mapping is essential. This project would be accomplished through the 

efforts of additional Refuge staff, student interns, contractors, and volunteers. 

Estimated Cost: $103,000

5.6.2.4 Visitor Services

20. Develop an observation tower at Carpenter Field by 2008 (Medium Priority). The creation of 

additional viewing locations will allow visitors to experience new places on the Refuge, and new 

wildlife found in those areas. 

Estimated cost: $30,000

21. Develop and maintain at least two new off-road parking areas by 2007 (Low Priority). 

Recreational activities such as nature observation, hiking, hunting, and fishing are popular uses of 

Refuge lands. Additional parking areas will allow visitors easier access to recreational opportunities 

and will help eliminate safety issues created by hazardous parking. New off-road parking areas will 
89

Chapter 5: Implementation

also reduce human impact on roadsides, by concentrating usage onto areas designed to handle such 

impacts. 

Estimated Cost: $5,000

22. Develop a fishing pier and trail at Harvey’s Pond to enhance fishing opportunities by 2006 

(Medium Priority). The fishing facility will allow universal access and enable the public to utilize a 

great fisheries resource on site. 

Estimated Cost: $15,000

23. By 2005, complete the Ellen Allen Outdoor Learning Center (High Priority). Necedah NWR does 

not have adequate facilities to handle school groups or meetings with more than 20 participants. 

Construction has begun on an outdoor classroom that will serve as a group project area and meeting 

area. An old, single-car garage has been expanded with a 26-foot by 30-foot addition. The concrete 

floor and structural shell has been completed. Additional supplies needed to complete the project are 

siding, storage, decking, heating, and materials for a restroom. The cost for these remaining supplies 

totals $12,000. Labor for this project has been supplied by Refuge staff, WCC, and Friends volunteers. 

Estimated cost: $12,000

24. Design and print a nature guide, coloring, and activity booklet for elementary students featuring 

Refuge wildlife and habitats to increase knowledge of and interest in fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

inter-relationships by 2007 (Medium Priority). Necedah NWR is visited annually by several 

thousand school-aged children as an outdoor classroom. There is a need for Refuge-specific printed 

materials to educate this group. This project will design and print a nature guide/coloring and activity 

booklet featuring Refuge wildlife and habitats. The booklet will be geared toward elementary 

students to peak their interests in the opportunities offered at the Refuge to view and learn about fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their inter-relationships. The booklet will be designed by contractors with input 

from Refuge public use staff and printed commercially. 

Estimated Cost: $10,000

25. In partnership with the Wisconsin DNR, develop and install new signage for the Necedah 

Wildlife Management Area by 2009 (Low Priority). Visitor awareness of the ownership and 

management of the Necedah Wildlife Management Area is limited, at best. This project will promote 

recognition of the identity of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the relationship between the 

Service and the Wisconsin DNR. It will also assist visitors in distinguishing between the Refuge 

proper and adjacent public lands, which have different public use regulations. 

Estimated Cost: $20,000

26. Develop five additional miles of recreational/interpretive trails on the Refuge by 2006 (High 

Priority). Necedah NWR is an important wildlife viewing area and destination for over 150,000 

visitors annually. New trails will enable visitors to enjoy the Refuge year-round. The longer trail 

length will help reach an additional audience currently being overlooked at the Refuge. The trails 

would help reach a segment of visitors interested in a longer visit and a more rigorous tour of the 

Refuge provided by a lengthier hiking trail. This project will provide for the construction of visitor 

trails (at least one recreational/interpretive trail, approximately 5 miles). These facilities will also 

improve opportunities for visitors and expand options for creating enjoyable educational experiences 

on the Refuge. Facilities development will be completed by a combination of new seasonal Refuge staff 

and contracted services. Some facilities will be designed for accessibility. 

Estimated Cost: $55,000

27. Develop and install new interpretative signage, including two interpretive kiosks, boundary 

signage, and site interpretation signs by 2007 (High Priority). This CCP has identified a need to 

update, complete, and create interpretive and informational signage to improve visitors’ outdoor 
90

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

experiences. Design and construction of signs will occur through a combination of Regional Office and 

Refuge public use staff, and private contractors. Signs will be installed by Refuge staff. 

Estimated Cost: $112,000

28. In conjunction with the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association, sponsor the Wisconsin Federal Junior 

Duck Stamp contest yearly for the life of this CCP (Medium Priority). The Wisconsin Federal Junior 

Duck Stamp art contest supports appreciation for the importance of wildlife, natural resources, and 

artistic intelligence and expression. Necedah NWR, in cooperation with the Wisconsin Waterfowl 

Association, will sponsor the Wisconsin Federal Junior Duck Stamp art contest. Funds will be used for 

the administration of the program, including the following strategies. 

Estimated Cost: $75,000

29. By 2008, design and build a visitor center which will serve as the first point of contact for Refuge 

visitors, office space for Refuge staff, and classrooms and meeting space for educators (High 

Priority). Located near three major highways, the Refuge attracts thousands of visitors each year. No 

current space has been set aside to deal with the needs of current or projected visitation. The Refuge’s 

Whooping Crane project will attract many more visitors from within and outside the area. There is 

strong support for construction of a visitor center and related public use facilities. By 2006, we will 

select a site and complete preliminary design for a visitor center that would be located on Refuge 

property.

Estimated Cost: $3,000,000

30. Construct one additional universally accessible hunting blind, and hard surface trail or 

boardwalk by 2010 (High Priority). Necedah NWR attracts nearly 150,000 visitors each year. Several 

thousand require special accommodations to fully enjoy the Refuge. Facilities and services are needed 

to better meet the needs of the public. These would include one universally accessible hunting blind, 

and a hard surface trail or boardwalk by 2000. These facilities would be planned by new public use 

staff and contractors. 

Estimated Cost: $80,000

31. Provide universally accessible versions of brochures (braille) and videos (close-captioned) by 2009 

(Medium Priority). Necedah NWR provides services to a diverse group of public, including those 

that have special needs regarding interpretive materials such as brochures and videos. The Refuge 

will develop universally accessible versions of brochures (braille) and videos (close-captioned) by 2007. 

These materials will be planned by new public use staff and contractors. 

Estimated Cost: $35,000

5.6.2.5 Planning And Administration Projects

32. Construct suitable containment facilities for hazardous materials such as petroleum-based 

products, laboratory supplies, and pesticides by 2006 (Medium Priority). During the course of 

managing Necedah NWR, it is necessary to handle and store some products that have the potential to 

cause environmental damage or a health hazard. It is necessary to have a storage facility appropriate 

for such items. This facility will be designed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service engineers and 

constructed by a private contractor. 

Estimated Cost: $105,000

33. Maintain and test the Refuge’s new drinking water treatment system for the life of this CCP 

(High Priority). The need for safe drinking water for the Refuge for staff and visitors is critical. 

Funding needed in Operations and Maintenance base funding to complete new requirement for 

testing the water supply to offer safe drinking water for the public and staff. This project requires 

baseline testing using four major tests, then subsequent testing at quarterly, annual, 3-year, and 6-

year intervals. 

Estimated Cost: $40,000 
91

Chapter 5: Implementation

34. Construct a 50-foot by 100-foot storage building to protect vehicles, heavy equipment, and other 

maintenance implements by 2006 (Medium Priority). Necedah NWR maintains almost 44,000 acres 

of habitat for a variety of species. Inclement weather shortens the life span of vehicles and equipment 

and is increasing maintenance costs. This building will increase the useful life of vehicles, heavy 

equipment, and maintenance implements. 

Estimated Cost: $60,000

35. Update the Refuge security system by 2006 (Medium Priority). The Refuge has a great deal of 

valuable equipment that is used for Refuge operations, research, and maintenance. There has not 

been any staff living on the Refuge since 1986. Adequate security for station facilities has been 

lacking. An updated security system will be installed in all buildings and at other sites, such as dams, 

where theft or vandalism have a high potential for impacting public safety. The appropriate system 

will be recommended after an analysis is completed by Refuge law enforcement staff and a private 

security contractor. Installation and maintenance of the security system will be completed by a private 

contractor. 

Estimated Cost: $57,000

5.6.2.6 Work Force Projects

36. Hire one additional full-time Private Lands employee by 2006 (Medium Priority). Refuge 

Private Lands personnel get approximately 200 requests from landowners per year for technical and 

restoration assistance. An average of 30 restorations are completed each year, which leaves a backlog 

of landowners that current staff are not able to service. Also, landowners in the Yellow River Area will 

require additional staff time. This staff person would assist with the current project backlog and then 

work primarily with landowners in the Yellow River. 

Estimated Cost: $535,000 

37. Hire one additional full-time Wage Grade employee by 2007 (Medium Priority). To improve 

visitor services and satisfaction, it is necessary to improve and maintain current facilities at a higher 

standard. Facilities must also be maintained in operable condition in order to meet public 

expectations. This maintenance will be accomplished through the addition of one Wage Grade 

employee. 

Estimated Cost: $318,000

38. Remodel the Annex Building to make it suitable housing for volunteers by 2008 (High Priority). 

Refuge volunteers contribute invaluable time, innovation and dedication to accomplishing many facets 

of Refuge operations. There are often volunteers that would come great distances to volunteer, but 

cannot afford housing. This project would provide housing for these volunteers. 

Estimated Cost: $51,000

39. Complete a kit of volunteer recruitment and orientation tools, including a volunteer slide show, 

volunteer opportunities leaflet, and a list of volunteer recruitment outlets by 2006 (Medium 

Priority). Refuge volunteers contribute invaluable time, innovation, and dedication to accomplishing 

many facets of Refuge operations. Likewise, volunteering for the Refuge can provide people with 

unique experiences that enrich the quality of their lives. A volunteer slide show and volunteer 

opportunities leaflet would inform people of volunteer opportunities. A list of volunteer recruitment 

outlets would assist Refuge employees in reaching a diverse group of potential volunteers. 

Estimated Cost: $10,000

5.6.3 Project Schedule and Annual Funding Needs

Appendix F describes annual project funding needs for each of the projects referenced in the 

preceding section. 
92

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

It should be noted that this CCP for the Refuge provides long-term guidance for management 

decisions and sets forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish Refuge purposes and 

identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. Comprehensive Conservation Plans detail 

program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as 

such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational 

and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
93

Appendices

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................ 95

Appendix B: Glossary......................................................................................................................... 193

Appendix C: Species List ................................................................................................................... 203

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations....................................................................................... 213

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ............................................................................................ 217

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and 

 Maintenance Management System (MMS)................................................................... 223

Appendix G: Mailing List ................................................................................................................... 229

Appendix H: List of Preparers............................................................................................................ 237

Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species ........................................................................ 241

Appendix J: References..................................................................................................................... 253

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments .............................................................. 259

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan .................................... 283

95

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment



99

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

FOR NECEDAH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to implement a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin. This Environmental 

Assessment (EA) considers the biological, environmental, and socioeconomic effects that 

implementing the CCP (the preferred alternative is the proposed action) and two other alternatives 

would have on the issues and concerns identified during the planning process. The purpose of the 

proposed action is to establish the management direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years. This 

management action will be achieved by implementing a detailed set of goals, objectives, and strategies 

described in a CCP. 

Responsible Agency and Official:

Robyn Thorson, Regional Director

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building

1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111

Contacts for additional information about this project:

Larry Wargowsky, Refuge Manager

Necedah NWR

W7996 20th Street West

Necedah, WI 54646

608/565-2551

Thomas Larson, Chief, Division of Conservation Planning

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NWRS/Conservation Planning

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building

1 Federal Drive

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111

612/713-5430

Environmental Assessment

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge

Table of Contents

101

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................ 105

1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 105

1.2 Need .......................................................................................................................................... 105

1.3 Background Information ............................................................................................................ 106

1.3.1: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................ 106

1.3.2: Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................... 106

1.3.3: Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................. 106

1.3.4: Objectives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................... 107

1.3.5: Functions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................ 107

1.4 The National Wildlife Refuge System ....................................................................................... 107

1.4.1: Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System ......................................................... 108

1.4.2: Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................. 108

1.5 Necedah National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................... 108

1.5.1: Background ..................................................................................................................... 108

1.5.2: History of the Refuge ..................................................................................................... 108

1.5.3: Resource Setting ............................................................................................................ 108

1.5.4: Management .................................................................................................................. 110

1.5.5: Refuge Purpose .............................................................................................................. 110

1.5.5.1: Refuge Vision ................................................................................................... 110

1.5.5.2: Refuge Mission ................................................................................................. 110

1.5.5.3: Refuge Goals ..................................................................................................... 110

1.5.5.4: Refuge Core Values and Guiding Principles ..................................................... 111

1.5.6: Current Issues and Needs .............................................................................................. 112

1.5.6.1: Service Trust Resources ................................................................................... 112

1.5.6.2: Refuge Visitor Services ..................................................................................... 113

1.5.6.3: Habitat Management ........................................................................................ 114

1.5.6.4: The Yellow River Focus Area ............................................................................ 115

1.6 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 117

1.7 Scoping and Public Involvement ................................................................................................ 117

1.8 Decision Framework .................................................................................................................. 118

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 119

2.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives ...................................................................................... 119

2.1.1: Archaeological and Cultural Resource Protection ......................................................... 119

2.1.2: Hydrology and Drainage ................................................................................................. 120

2.1.3: Landowner Rights Adjacent to Refuge Lands ................................................................ 120

2.1.4: Service Land Acquisition Policy ..................................................................................... 120

2.1.5: Maintenance of Roads and Existing Right-of-Ways ...................................................... 121

2.1.6: Environmental Justice .................................................................................................... 122

2.1.7: Timber Harvest ............................................................................................................... 122

2.1.8: Fire .................................................................................................................................. 123

2.1.8.1: Prescribed Fire .................................................................................................. 123

2.2 Description of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 123

2.2.1: Alternative 1 (Status Quo) .............................................................................................. 123
102

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2.2.2: Service Trust Resources ................................................................................................. 124

2.2.2.1: Listed Species ................................................................................................... 124

2.2.3: Visitor Services .............................................................................................................. 126

2.2.4: Habitat Management ..................................................................................................... 126

2.2.5: Yellow River Focus Area ................................................................................................ 127

2.3 Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................................. 127

2.3.1: Service Trust Resources ................................................................................................. 127

2.3.1.1: Listed Species ................................................................................................... 127

2.3.1.2: Waterfowl and other Migratory Birds .............................................................. 127

2.3.1.3: Native Biological Diversity ............................................................................... 128

2.3.2: Visitor Services .............................................................................................................. 128

2.3.3: Habitat Management ..................................................................................................... 128

2.3.4: The Yellow River Focus Area ......................................................................................... 129

2.4 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) ......................................................................................... 129

2.4.1: Service Trust Resources ................................................................................................. 129

2.4.1.1: Listed Species ................................................................................................... 129

2.4.1.2: Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds .............................................................. 129

2.4.1.3: Native Biological Diversity ............................................................................... 130

2.4.2: Visitor Services .............................................................................................................. 130

2.4.3: Habitat Management ..................................................................................................... 132

2.4.4: Yellow River Focus Area ................................................................................................ 136

Chapter 3: Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 140

3.1 History of the Refuge ................................................................................................................. 140

3.2 Description of the Physical Environment ................................................................................... 141

3.2.1: Archaeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................... 141

3.2.2: Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 142

3.2.3: Physiography .................................................................................................................. 143

3.2.3.1: Historic Situation .............................................................................................. 144

3.2.3.2: Current Situation ............................................................................................... 144

3.2.4: The Yellow River Focus Area ......................................................................................... 146

3.3 Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 147

3.4 Description of the Biological Environment ................................................................................ 147

3.4.1: Listed Species ................................................................................................................ 147

3.4.2: Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds ........................................................................... 150

3.4.3: Native Biological Diversity ............................................................................................. 150

3.4.4: Species Level Biological Diversity ................................................................................. 150

3.4.5: Ecosystem Level Biological Diversity ............................................................................. 152

3.4.6: Landscape Level Biological Diversity ............................................................................. 152

3.5 Description of the Socioeconomic Environment ....................................................................... 152

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 155

4.1 General Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................ 155

4.1.1: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ....................................................................................... 155

4.1.2: Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity ............................................................ 155

4.1.3: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ............................................ 155

4.2 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 156

4.2.1: Listed Species ................................................................................................................ 159

4.2.1.1: Bald Eagles ....................................................................................................... 159

4.2.1.2: Timber Wolves .................................................................................................. 160
103

4.2.1.3: Karner Blue Butterflies ..................................................................................... 161

4.2.1.4: Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake .................................................................... 163

4.2.1.5: Whooping Cranes ............................................................................................. 164

4.2.2: Maintenance of Roads and Existing Right-Of-Ways ..................................................... 164

4.2.3: Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 164

4.2.4: Environmental Justice .................................................................................................... 165

4.2.5: Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 165

4.3 Impacts Associated with Service Trust Resources ................................................................... 165

4.3.1: Alternative 1 (No Action) ............................................................................................... 165

4.3.1.1: Listed Species ................................................................................................... 165

4.3.1.2: Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds .............................................................. 166

4.3.1.3: Native Biological Diversity ............................................................................... 166

4.3.2: Alternative 2 .................................................................................................................. 167

4.3.2.1: Listed Species ................................................................................................... 167

4.3.2.2: Waterfowl and other Migratory Birds .............................................................. 167

4.3.2.3: Native Biological Diversity ............................................................................... 168

4.3.3: Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................... 168

4.3.3.1: Listed Species ................................................................................................... 168

4.3.3.2: Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds .............................................................. 169

4.3.3.3: Native Biological Diversity ............................................................................... 169

4.4 Impacts Associated with Visitor Services ................................................................................. 170

4.4.1: Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................... 170

4.4.2: Alternative 2 .................................................................................................................. 170

4.4.3: Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................... 171

4.5 Impacts Associated with Habitat Management ....................................................................... 172

4.5.1: Alternative 1 (No Action) ............................................................................................... 172

4.5.1.1: General Considerations .................................................................................... 172

4.5.2: Alternative 2 .................................................................................................................. 173

4.5.2.1: General Considerations .................................................................................... 173

4.5.3: Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) .............................................................................. 173

4.5.3.1: General Considerations .................................................................................... 174

4.6 Impacts Associated with the Yellow River Focus Area ............................................................ 174

4.6.1: Alternative 1 (No Action) ............................................................................................... 174

4.6.1.1: Habitat Considerations ..................................................................................... 174

4.6.1.2: Land Acquisition and Property Taxes ............................................................... 175

4.6.2: Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................... 175

4.6.2.1: Habitat Considerations ..................................................................................... 175

4.6.2.2: Land Acquisition and Property Taxes ............................................................... 176

4.6.3: Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................... 176

4.6.3.1: Habitat Considerations ..................................................................................... 176

4.6.3.2: Land Acquisition and Property Taxes ............................................................... 176

Chapter 5: List of Preparers .................................................................................................................... 181

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination with the Public .................................................................... 183

Chapter 7: Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 188

Chapter 8: References and Selected Readings ...................................................................................... 193
104

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 1: Necedah National Wildlife Refuge Location ........................................................................... 109

Figure 2: Yellow River Focus Area .......................................................................................................... 116

Table 1: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2019 / Alternative 1, Necedah NWR .................................... 127

Table 2: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2017 / Alternative 2, Necedah NWR .................................... 129

Table 3: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2019 / Alternative 3, Necedah NWR .................................... 133

Table 4: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Tools ................................................................ 137

Table 5: Summary and Comparison of Alternatives, Necedah NWR ..................................................... 138

Table 6: Summary of Water Sources and Sinks for Necedah NWR (May 1998 - April 1999) ............... 143

Table 7: Land Cover Types, Necedah NWR ............................................................................................ 145

Table 8: Land Cover Types Within the Watershed, Necedah NWR ...................................................... 145

Table 9: Land Cover Types in the Yellow River Focus Area ................................................................... 147

Table 10: Karner Blue Butterfly Population Levels, Necedah NWR, 1993-2000 ................................... 149

Table 11: Rare Plants Found on the Refuge and Within the Yellow River Focus Area .......................... 151

Table 12: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2015, Alternative 1, Necedah NWR ................................... 172

Table 13: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2015, Alternative 2, Necedah NWR ................................... 173

Table 14: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2015, Alternative 3, Necedah NWR ................................... 174

Table 15: Summary of Environmental Impacts, Necedah NWR ............................................................. 179

Table 16: Summary of Opportunities for Public Involvement in the CCP Process, Necedah NWR ....... 184
105

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this chapter is to briefly describe the underlying purpose and need to which the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responding in proposing the proposed action and project 

alternatives. 

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to evaluate and publicly disclose the possible 

environmental consequences that implementation of the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), including the possible construction of a new visitor center 

at the Refuge and the acquisition of land from willing sellers in the Yellow River Focus Area, could 

have on the quality of the physical, biological, and human environment, as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

1.2 Need

The need for a CCP for the Refuge was established by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act (Act) of 1997. The need for an EA for the CCP was established by Service policy 

guidance in accordance with CEQ regulations. The needs to be met by any long-range plan adopted 

for the Refuge were identified through internal and external scoping and the public involvement 

process. They are:

# Service trust resources, namely, the need to perpetuate listed species, waterfowl and other 

migratory birds, and native biological diversity.

# Refuge visitor services, namely, the need to provide the public quality visitor services at the 

Refuge, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation.

Chapter Highlights:

# A Description of the Purpose and Need for Action

# A Discussion of Relevant Background Information

# A Description of the Service’s Proposed Action

# A Description of the Scoping and Public Involvement Process, including Issues

# An Explanation of the Decision(s) to be Made

# A Description of Applicable Federal Laws and Executive Orders 
106

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

# Habitat management; namely, the need to provide quality habitat within the Refuge and the 

Yellow River Focus Area for the benefit of listed species, waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, and native biological diversity. 

# The Yellow River Focus Area, namely, the need to conserve the existing quality habitat in 

the Yellow River Focus Area (Figure 1) for the benefit of listed species, waterfowl and other 

migratory birds, and native biological diversity.

1.3 Background Information

1.3.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service 

manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which includes more than 520 national 

wildlife refuges and thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 

66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices and 78 ecological services field stations. Among 

its key functions, the Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, protects endangered species, manages 

migratory birds, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such 

as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their international conservation efforts. It also 

oversees a Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on 

fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. 

The Service employs approximately 7,500 people in seven geographic regions. Its headquarters are 

located in Washington D.C. Necedah National Wildlife Refuge is located in the Great Lakes/Big 

Rivers Region of the Service, which includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region manages over 1.2 

million acres of land and water on 46 national wildlife refuges and nine wetland management districts, 

including more than 240,000 acres in waterfowl production areas. The Region also manages six 

national fish hatcheries, nine fisheries stations, 10 ecological services field offices, and 18 law 

enforcement field offices. 

1.3.2 Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The mission of the Service is working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

1.3.3 Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

# Sustainability of Fish and Wildlife Populations: Migratory birds, endangered fish and 

wildlife species, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammals are conserved, protected, 

enhanced, or restored. The Service is participating in conservation of other species when its 

expertise, facilities, or lands can enhance state, tribal, or local efforts.

# Habitat Conservation: An ecologically diverse network of lands and waters, of various 

ownerships, is conserved to provide habitats for marine mammals and migratory, 

interjuristictional, endangered, and other species associated with ecosystems conserved in 

cooperation with others.

# Connecting Americans to Wildlife: The American public understands and participates in 

the conservation and use of fish and wildlife resources.

# Workforce Excellence: The Service's workforce, scientific capability, and business practices – 

in cooperation with the Department of Interior’s scientific expertise – fully support 

achievement of the Service mission.
107

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

1.3.4 Objectives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

# Assist in the development and application of an environmental stewardship ethic for our 

society, based on ecological principles, scientific knowledge of fish and wildlife, and a sense 

of moral responsibility. 

# Guide the conservation, development, and management of the nation's fish and wildlife 

resources. 

# Administer a national program to provide the public opportunities to understand, 

appreciate, and wisely use fish and wildlife resources. 

1.3.5 Functions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

# Acquire, protect, and manage unique ecosystems necessary to sustain fish and wildlife such 

as migratory birds, resident species, and endangered species. 

# Operate a National Fish Hatchery System in support of the restoration of depleted 

interjurisdictional fish stocks, the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, and the fulfillment of Federal mitigation responsibilities.

# Provide protection of fish and wildlife from dislocation or destruction of their habitats, 

overuse, and industrial, agricultural, and domestic pollutants. 

# Render financial and professional technical assistance to states through Federal Aid 

programs for the enhancement and restoration of fish and wildlife resources. 

# Conduct programs of enforcement, management, and professional technical assistance to 

other agencies for the protection of endangered species. 

# Promulgate and enforce regulations for the protection of migratory birds, marine mammals, 

fish and other non-endangered wildlife from illegal taking, transportation, or sale within the 

United States or from foreign countries.

# Conduct programs of planning, evaluation, and professional technical assistance to other 

agencies for the proper use and protection of fish and wildlife habitat that directly benefit 

the living natural resource and add quality to human life. 

# Conduct programs of interpretation, education, and recreation to foster a stewardship ethic 

in the American public through quality fish and wildlife oriented experiences. 

# Communicate information essential for public awareness and understanding of the 

importance of fish and wildlife resources and interpret fish and wildlife changes reflecting 

environmental degradation that ultimately will affect the welfare of human beings. 

1.4 The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's largest and most diverse collection of lands and 

waters set aside specifically for wildlife. The Refuge System began in 1903 when President Theodore 

Roosevelt designated 3-acre Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as a national bird 

sanctuary. 

Today, over 500 national wildlife refuges have been established from the Arctic Ocean to the South 

Pacific, from Maine to the Caribbean. Varying in size from half-acre parcels to thousands of square 

miles, they encompass more than 92 million acres of the Nation's best wildlife habitats. The vast 

majority of these lands are in Alaska, with the rest spread across the rest of the United States and 

several U.S. territories. 
108

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1.4.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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 fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. 

1.4.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System

# Preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practical) all species of 

animals and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

# Perpetuate the migratory bird resource.

# Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands.

# Provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and humankind’s role 

in their environment and provide refuge visitors with quality, safe, wholesome and enjoyable 

recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent that these activities are 

compatible with the purposes for which each refuge was established.

1.5 Necedah National Wildlife Refuge

1.5.1 Background

The Necedah NWR CCP represents an intensive effort by the Service to identify and evaluate 

strategic opportunities and issues relative to the Refuge’s ability to accomplish its purpose, contribute 

to the mission of the Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to meet other relevant 

mandates.

1.5.2 History of the Refuge

The history of the Refuge dates back to the early 1930s when the U.S. Government acquired 114,964 

acres of land in Juneau, Wood, Monroe, and Jackson counties, Wisconsin, to assist farmers living 

within the area and to develop the area for wildlife. The Refuge was established in 1939 as a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds and for use as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. It 

is located in central Wisconsin, about 180 miles southeast of Minneapolis, Minnesota, 150 miles 

northwest of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and about 4 miles west of Necedah, Wisconsin (Figure 1).

1.5.3 Resource Setting

Situated on the bed of former Glacial Lake Wisconsin and the Great Central Wisconsin Swamp, land 

in and around the Refuge was once a vast peat bog with some low wooded islands and savannas; the 

higher sand ridges were occupied by mature stands of pines and other species. Currently the Refuge 

consists of 43,696 acres of wetlands and open water areas, pine, oak, and aspen forests, grasslands, 

and rare savannas, all of which support a rich diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant populations. Over 

230 different species of birds have been observed on the Refuge since its inception. The Refuge also 

supports several threatened, endangered, and rare species like the Karner blue butterfly, Blanding’s 

turtle, and the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, as well as resident game species including the whitetailed deer, wild turkey, and ruffed grouse. Over 150,000 people visit the Refuge annually to hunt, fish, 

hike, observe and photograph wildlife, pick berries, or just relax among the trees, wetlands, and 

wildlife. 
109

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Figure 1: Necedah National Wildlife Refuge Location
110

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1.5.4 Management

Management of the Refuge is carried out by a multi-disciplined team of biologists, technicians, and 

support staff who are recognized leaders in their fields. Conserving, restoring, and maintaining 

biologically diverse and productive wetlands, forest land, and open landscapes for listed species, 

waterfowl and other migratory birds are key indicators of management success. Management tools 

involve water level manipulation, prescribed burning, timber harvest, land acquisition, and public 

outreach and environmental education. Scientifically rigorous monitoring and research activities 

create the foundation from which quality management decisions are made. Cooperative working 

relationships with universities, other Federal agencies, the State of Wisconsin, elementary and 

secondary educational institutions, and non-government organizations are key assets to management 

success.

1.5.5 Refuge Purpose

Pursuant to the Refuge’s enabling legislation, the Refuge purpose is “a refuge and breeding ground 

for migratory birds and other wildlife...” (Executive Order 8065, dated 1939) and “...for use as an 

inviolate sanctuary, or for any other purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

of 1929).

1.5.5.1 Refuge Vision 

Necedah NWR exemplifies a diverse and productive ecological system of woodlands, savannas, and 

wetlands managed to perpetuate waterfowl and other migratory birds, listed species, and native 

biological diversity within Wisconsin’s Central Sand Plain Natural Division. Refuge staff are a multidisciplined team of biologists, technicians, and support staff who are dedicated to providing quality 

wildlife-dependent public use opportunities to a diverse and supportive public. The Refuge is a model 

in its commitment to create long-term mutually-beneficial relationships with its stakeholders, and has 

produced consistent growth in the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and Service trust species.

1.5.5.2 Refuge Mission

Our mission is to provide scientific and community leadership and support in the restoration, 

preservation, and management of waterfowl and other migratory birds, listed species, and native 

biological diversity within south central Wisconsin, while providing, to the extent possible, quality 

wildlife-dependent recreational and educational experiences that foster an understanding and 

appreciation of these resources, and expands the role humankind plays in their stewardship.

1.5.5.3 Refuge Goals

# Fish and Wildlife Management: Fish and wildlife populations within the Refuge and the 

Yellow River Focus Area will be healthy, resilient, and capable of producing a variety of 

outdoor recreation benefits over the long-term. 

# Habitat Restoration and Management: Diverse, productive, and self-sustaining wetlands, 

open landscapes, and forests within the Refuge and the Yellow River Focus Area will provide 

quality habitat for Service trust resources.

# Resource Conservation: Fish, wildlife, cultural, archaeological, water, and visitor resources 

on Refuge land will be conserved for the enjoyment of future generations.

# Monitoring and Studies: Quality scientific research and monitoring will guide Refuge 

management decision-making.

# Coordination Activities: Strong, long-term, mutually-beneficial working relationships with 

Refuge stakeholders will lead to healthy sustainable fish and wildlife populations within the 

Refuge and the Yellow River Focus Area.
111

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

# Visitor Services: Quality wildlife-dependent uses of the Refuge (namely, wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education and interpretation) will 

foster public understanding and appreciation of the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and Service trust resources, and will expand the role the public plays in their 

stewardship.

# Planning and Administration: Necedah NWR will be a safe and healthy environment for 

employees, volunteers and visitors and will be pro-active in addressing a wide-range of 

conservation opportunities and issues.

# Work Force: Technically skilled and diverse employees with high morale and job satisfaction 

will achieve high levels of stakeholder satisfaction.

1.5.5.4 Refuge Core Values and Guiding Principles

The Refuge holds the core values of quality, credibility, reliability, integrity, and responsiveness as the 

basis for all Refuge activities. They will be guided by these core values as well as the following guiding 

principles:

# An Ecosystem Approach: The ecosystem approach is a vision of desired future conditions 

developed in collaboration with a diverse group of stakeholders that integrates ecological, 

economic, and social factors. It is applied within a geographic framework (usually 

watershed) and founded primarily on ecological factors. 

# Results through Partnerships: Partnership initiatives require extensive coordination and 

communication between Federal agencies; state, tribal, and local governments; and 

stakeholders and customers. Partnerships promote the pooling of resources and expertise to 

obtain results more quickly and efficiently. Results also tend to be longer lasting because 

consensus is built over a wide range of stakeholder interests.

# Public Involvement: Refuge management will include a clear, credible, and meaningful role 

for public input from the full spectrum of social and cultural backgrounds, and will receive 

full consideration in Refuge decision-making. The Refuge serves local, state, and national 

constituencies, therefore, public input at each of these levels will be solicited and 

incorporated into the Refuge’s decision making process.

# Cornerstones of Biology: The Refuge will conserve existing, relatively intact ecosystems 

first; for they are the cornerstones for providing biota and other natural materials needed 

for future restoration.

# Ecological Integrity: The Refuge will restore ecological integrity, particularly the structure, 

composition, and natural processes of native biotic communities and physical environments.

# Design for Self-Sustainability: The Refuge will design for self-sustainability of natural 

systems. The best way to ensure long-term viability of habitat is to minimize the need for 

continuous maintenance.

# Within a Watershed Context: The Refuge will focus within the watershed and/or broader 

landscape level context and seek to understand its biological potential. A watershed/

landscape has the capacity to become only what its physical and biological setting will 

support. This includes climate, geology, hydrology, and biological characteristics.

# Address Degradation: The Refuge will address on-going causes of habitat degradation. 

Conservation, restoration, and management activities will fail if the sources of degradation 

persist.

# Have Clear Goals and Objectives: The Refuge will have clear, up-to-date goals, objectives, 

and strategies, and will include a diverse array of expertise and interests in their 

development. 

# Use Passive Restoration: The Refuge will use passive restoration and management when 

appropriate. Where possible, simulate natural hydrological process using low input, low 
112

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

impact, and sustainable measures which capture the energies of the system to perpetuate 

the resources in question.

# Use Reference Sites: The Refuge will, whenever available, use reference sites when 

restoring habitat. Reference sites are areas that are comparable in structure and function to 

the proposed restoration before it was degraded.

# Adaptive Management Processes: An adaptive management approach features a 

structured, iterative process that recognizes that most information used in decision making 

is incomplete. Adaptive management guides managers in efficiently collecting and using 

better information, thus enabling appropriate changes in management direction.

1.5.6 Current Issues and Needs

1.5.6.1 Service Trust Resources

Numerous Service trust resources utilize the Refuge and the Yellow River Focus Area for meeting one 

or more of their life cycle needs, including four Federally listed threatened or endangered species. 

These include the Karner blue butterfly (federally listed as endangered), Eastern timber wolf 

(federally listed as endangered), Whopping Crane (federally listed as endangered), and Bald Eagle 

(federally listed as threatened). The Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, which is currently a candidate 

for federal listing, is found in low numbers in the Yellow River area. Several state-listed threatened or 

endangered species also use the Refuge, including the Blanding’s turtle, and Trumpeter Swan. The 

Refuge also supports several rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants, including the spring 

beauty, oval-leaved milkweed, and wooly milkweed, and provides habitat for several important plants 

(e.g., wild lupine) that support rare organisms (e.g., Karner blue butterflies). Protecting endangered 

and threatened species and restoring them to secure status in the wild is a primary responsibility of 

the Service and the Refuge. Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Service has 

primary responsibility to conserve not only jeopardized life, but also the natural resources on which 

life depends.

In total, more than 230 different species of birds have been observed on the Refuge since its inception. 

The Refuge has long been considered an important migratory stopover area for waterfowl such as 

Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, Ring-necks, and Wood Ducks. Other migrant bird species that utilize the 

Refuge during spring, summer, or fall include: Canada, Snow, and White-fronted Geese; Sandhill 

Cranes; Woodcock; Snipe; Great Blue Herons; swans; egrets; Dickcissels; warblers; Brown 

Thrashers; several different species of sparrows; meadowlarks; Sora Rails; Black-crowned Night 

Herons; Bobolinks; Bitterns; and Red-tailed Hawks; just to name a few. During migrations, three 

species of geese, 10 species of dabbling ducks, nine species of diving ducks, and Trumpeter and Tundra 

Swans can be found on the Refuge. 

Many bird species are declining across part or all of their breeding range in the Midwest (Peterjohn et 

al. 1994). Breeding Bird Surveys for the Great Lakes/Big Rivers Region indicate that numerous 

grassland nesting, non game species in the Midwest have shown extensive declines since the mid1960's (National Biological Survey 1995). Grassland-dependent birds have shown steeper, more 

consistent, and geographically more widespread declines (25-65 percent) than any other group of 

North American birds (Samson and Knopf 1994). Several of these declining species utilize the Refuge 

and the Yellow River area. These include the Bobolink, Henslow’s Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, 

Vesper Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow, Lark Sparrow, Field Sparrow, Dickcissel, Eastern Meadowlark, 

and American Bittern. The Grasshopper Sparrow and Dickcissel have declined over 80 percent in 

Wisconsin since the mid-1960s. Many others, especially those associated with rare oak savannas (e.g., 

Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern Flicker), have experienced similar, though less dramatic declines. 

The Refuge has incomplete inventories for many of its natural, archeological, and cultural resources, 

including wildlife and habitat. Monitoring systems needed to protect and properly manage Refuge 
113

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

resources are inadequately funded. Monitoring and evaluation systems need to be developed to 

measure progress toward habitat goals and objectives. 

1.5.6.2 Refuge Visitor Services

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 has ushered in a new era of public 

involvement on national wildlife refuges. Providing for public uses is now an essential part of Refuge 

missions across the country. Necedah NWR has always been a popular destination for hunting and 

fishing enthusiasts. However, in recent years other uses, such as wildlife observation, hiking, 

environmental education, and interpretation have surpassed traditional activities in terms of public 

interest. 

The Refuge currently has two major needs relative to providing quality services to its visitors. First, 

the main office (which also serves as the visitor center) is ineffective as an initial visitor contact point 

due to its isolation, distance from a main road, and small size. The current facility has no formal 

education features (with the exception of a small conference room) and lacks in interpretive 

programming displays. In recent years, Refuge programs and activities have attracted over 150 

participants at some events. The current facility accommodates a maximum of 30. Programs are held 

in the office space, reducing productivity of staff who are not directly involved with the event. It also 

compromises the overall effectiveness of the educational experience, due to the distraction of office 

business and the lack of student comfort. 

Public use of the Refuge now exceeds over 150,000 visits annually. Three state highways border the 

Refuge: 21, 80 and 173. Wisconsin Department of Transportation numbers from 1995 (the latest 

information available) shows that over 1,500 vehicles a day use Highway 173; more than 3,200 vehicles 

a day travel on Highway 21; and over 1,100 use Highway 80 each day. Occupants of these vehicles are 

all potential visitors to the Refuge. Due to small, inconvenient facilities and poor signage, many of 

these potential visitors are currently being overlooked.

Further, the Refuge is now the site for an experimental Whooping Crane population, an attraction that 

will undoubtedly increase visitor use long-term at the Refuge. During the first year of the 10-15 year 

reintroduction program, the Refuge hosted an event that drew more than 600 visitors. The project 

frequently drew the attention of the media. This increased use of the Refuge could further 

disseminate key messages about the Refuge, its resources, and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The second major need relates to the quality of the existing visitor facilities at the Refuge. There is a 

need to renovate existing facilities for safety and accessibility, to improve visitor information systems 

(signs and brochures), and to bring public facilities up to Service standards. To improve customer 

service, the Refuge needs to collect additional information on Refuge visitor volume, characteristics, 

opinions, and what their expectations are for the Refuge. Key components to customer service is 

having suitable facilities (addressed above) and having an eager work force that can provide quality 

service. Current Refuge staffing patterns do not emphasize the importance of good customer service. 

A strong volunteer base exists and could easily be used in the contact areas. A volunteer coordinator is 

vital. Seasonal public use staff could also help meet increased needs during peak times. 

Other visitor services concerns learned through scoping is the Refuge are not known and understood 

within the local area. This was made apparent during the 3-year planning process for the Refuge CCP. 

Many people living near the Refuge do not distinguish the Service from the Wisconsin DNR, or 

understand that the Refuge is part of a national system of refuges dedicated to perpetuating our 

nation’s fish and wildlife resources for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Refuge 

needs to promote its recreation and educational opportunities, as well as raise awareness of the 

importance of the Refuge among the various economic and environmental interests that influence 

public policy and Refuge management direction. 
114

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1.5.6.3 Habitat Management

The need for additional wildlife habitat conservation, restoration and management at the Refuge has 

been made clear by the declining status of numerous grassland, savanna, and wetland-dependent 

species of birds (see “Service Trust Resources” above) and numerous studies that have demonstrated 

that habitat loss or degradation is a common causal factor in many of those declines.

Of the estimated 221 million acres of wetland habitat present in the lower 48 states at the time of 

colonial America, only 103 million acres remain (47 percent). Draining, dredging, filling, leveling, and 

flooding have reduced wetlands by 50 percent or more in 22 states, and 10 states have lost 70 percent 

or more (Dahl 1990). Prior to European settlement, Wisconsin had approximately 10 million acres of 

wetlands. Currently less that 47 percent remain.

In recent years, many plant and animal species associated with Midwestern grasslands have 

experienced serious declines, primarily due to habitat loss and alteration of natural structure and 

function (e.g., predation, exotic species, fire suppression, habitat fragmentation, drainage/flooding). 

The original tallgrass prairie, which extended from western Indiana to the eastern part of Kansas, 

Nebraska, and North and South Dakota and south to Oklahoma and Texas, has been virtually 

eliminated throughout its historic range. Recent surveys suggest that 82.6 to 99.9 percent declines in 

the acreage of tallgrass prairie have occurred in 12 states and one Canadian province since European 

settlement. The State of Wisconsin has lost over 99 percent of its original prairies. For years following 

the initial conversion of native Midwestern prairies, many prairie-dependent wildlife remained 

relatively stable through their ability to colonize agricultural grasslands. However, 20th century 

agricultural grassland loss has followed a similar path of decline as native prairie loss in the 19th 

century. In many parts of the Midwest, agricultural grasslands are at their lowest level in more than 

100 years. 

Similarly, oak savanna, which covered approximately 27-32 million acres of the Midwest prior to 

European settlement (Nuzzo 1985), has become one of the nation’s most endangered ecosystems 

(Noss et al. 1995). Nationwide, over 99 percent of our original savanna has been lost, and Midwestern 

oak savannas are among the rarest ecosystems in the Nation. Historically Wisconsin had roughly 4 

million acres of savannas. Today, fewer than 60,000 acres remain, and much of what remains is highly 

degraded and of limited value for wildlife. Nuzzo (1985) found that by 1985 only 113 sites (2,607 acres) 

of quality oak savanna remained across the Midwest. Development has destroyed, fragmented, and 

disrupted the natural processes needed to maintain quality oak savanna ecosystems. 

The wide-scale loss of oak savanna and pine barren ecosystems across 12 states and the province of 

Ontario, Canada, has had severe negative impacts on Karner blue butterflies (Karner Blue Butterfly 

Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 1999). As a result, the KBB was 

proposed for federal listing on January 21, 1992, and listed as endangered on December 14, 1992. 

Today scattered populations are only found in portions of New Hampshire, New York, Michigan, 

Wisconsin, Indiana, and Minnesota. The Refuge is home to the world’s largest remaining population of 

Karner blue butterflies, providing habitat for 12 population complexes. No critical habitat has been 

designated for this species. The long-term effect of these landscape-scale losses of important 

ecosystems has yet to be determined. 

The long-term declines in early successional forests across the north-eastern and north-central 

United State has contributed to the decline of many bird species. Selective harvesting, fire 

suppression, urban sprawl, and cessation of agricultural abandonment contributed to the present 

imbalance in distribution of young forests (Oliver and Larson, 1999). 

The Refuge is facing increasing threats to its ecological health due to air, water, and noise pollution, 

exotic species, and incompatible recreational uses. Of late, a new round of change threatens many 

remaining ecosystems in the Refuge area. A trend called “rurbanization” where rural areas 
115

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

containing quality wildlife habitat are being converted to a more densely developed state. In recent 

years, the population of the area surrounding the Refuge has expanded, while the size of the 

undeveloped land base continues to shrink, leaving many natural areas as scattered fragments of 

increased importance for scientific study, education, and conservation of natural ecological processes. 

According to the U.S. Census, the Town of Necedah and the Town of Finley grew by 34 percent and 27 

percent respectively between 1990 and 2000. As a result, many of the large natural areas around the 

Refuge (and in the Yellow River area) are at risk of being fragmented through housing development, 

driveways, etc., which diminish the value of these areas for area-sensitive wildlife like the Bobolink, 

Prairie Chicken, and many large mammals. Habitat size, shape, and amount and type of edge are 

important factors in the reproductive success of many grassland birds. It is this type of development 

that particularly threatens the remaining oak savanna habitat in this region. Without management, 

most areas will continue to degrade due to their size, isolation, absence of natural processes such as 

fire and hydrologic cycle maintenance, and inadequate buffers conserving them from surrounding 

agricultural and urban land uses. It also places greater demands on the Refuge and its partners in 

terms of safeguarding Refuge ecosystem structure and function for the benefit of Service trust 

resources. 

1.5.6.4 The Yellow River Focus Area

The Yellow River Area (Figure 2), which lies east of the Refuge within an area referred to as 

Wisconsin’s Central Sand Plain Natural Division, provides a unique opportunity to conserve rare and 

declining bottomland forest and adjacent upland habitat for the benefit of listed species, waterfowl 

and other migratory birds, and native biological diversity. According to Wisconsin’s Statewide Natural 

Area Inventory, extensive field reconnaissance by the Refuge, and other sources, the Yellow River 

area represents one of the few remaining quality bottomland hardwood forest ecosystems in the 

Midwest. Silver maple, swamp white oak, green ash, and river birch dominate the floodplain, while the 

lower sandy ridges, slightly higher than the flood plain, support white oak, bur oak, shagbark hickory, 

basswood, and white pine. The highest of these areas were once oak and pine savannas, one of North 

America’s most endangered habitats, with only .02 percent of its pre-settlement acreage remaining. 

The shrub spectrum within the area varies in density from sparse to impenetrable, and includes 

buttonbush, dogwoods, prickly ash, winterberry, and wild grapes. The herbaceous layer of the 

forested areas support wood nettle, coneflowers, ferns, and many sedges. Aggressive non-native 

species are currently not an issue.

Many rare, uncommon, and declining species of animals have been documented in the Yellow River 

area in recent years. Many of them are sensitive to size, isolation, context, and quality of habitat. 

These include the Eastern massasauga, Blanding’s turtle, Red-shouldered Hawk, Cerulean Warbler, 

Acadian Flycatcher, Yellow-crowned Night-heron, Prothonotary Warbler, and Louisiana Waterthrush. 

Several neo-tropical migrants that are suspected of or exhibiting extensive population declines that 

use the area include the Verry, Wood Thrush, Sedge Wren, Blue-winged Warbler, and Golden-winged 

Warbler. Waterfowl species include Mallard, Wood Duck, and Hooded Merganser. Bald Eagles use the 

area year-round and at least one active nest has been documented. Great Blue Heron rookeries are 

found in the Yellow River area as well as extensive Wood Duck nesting. Federally-endangered Karner 

blue butterflies are also found on Friendship and Plainfield soils throughout the area. These soil types 

offer potential for expansion of oak savanna and the restoration of essential Karner blue butterfly 

habitat. 

While rich in biological diversity, the Yellow River area is experiencing human-induced degradation, 

primarily due to rural development and lack of habitat management, and would benefit from habitat 

conservation and management practices designed to sustain its ecological value (conservation of 

habitat through financial incentives to landowners, prescribed fire, mowing, wetland and upland 

restorations, forest management). Recreational development pressures are high in the area. An 

expansion of agricultural activities could directly impact Yellow River habitats, and create many 

indirect impacts due to fragmentation, withdrawal and discharge of surface and ground waters, and 

construction of needed infrastructure. 
116

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 2: Yellow River Focus Area
117

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Many Federal, state, and local conservation organizations support stewardship and conservation of 

the natural resources in the Yellow River area. Several property owners have indicated an interest in 

selling their land and/or a conservation easement on their land to the Service. Many landowners 

within the 21,953-acre Yellow River Focus Area have contacted the Refuge in recent years in search of 

technical assistance in managing their land for wildlife. In the past 2 years, 121 landowners owning 

17,308 acres in the Yellow River Focus Area have received technical assistance from the Service. 

However, most of the area is in private ownership and unprotected from future development. 

However, an organized group of Yellow River property owners as well as several local units of 

government strongly oppose any public acquisition of land in the area (fee title and conservation 

easements) that would potentially restrict future cranberry bed expansion, residential development, 

and impact the areas tax base. 

1.6 Proposed Action

The Service’s proposed action in this EA is to develop and implement a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) for the Necedah NWR that best achieves the purpose of the Refuge; contributes to the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management, available science, legal mandates, and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning 

documents; and addresses the internal and external needs and issues identified during the scoping 

and public involvement process.

Future management of the Refuge aims to restore and conserve biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge and the Yellow River Focus Area, a 21,953-acre area located 

adjacent to the Refuge, for the benefit of listed species, waterfowl and other migratory birds, and 

native biological diversity. In addition, Refuge staff will be leaders in building mutually-beneficial 

relationships with the public and their conservation partners, and will facilitate, to the extent possible, 

quality wildlife-dependent environmental education, interpretation, and recreation experiences that 

further the public’s understanding and appreciation for the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and the role humankind plays in their stewardship. 

1.7 Scoping and Public Involvement

Scoping is the process of identifying opportunities and issues related to a proposed action. The Service 

publicly announced it was preparing a CCP for the Refuge in June 1997. Since that time, information 

about the planning project has been provided to the public through news releases, presentations, 

interviews, informational letters, and one-on-one briefings. Federal, state, local, and private entities 

were involved in the scoping process. More than 6,000 people were sent information on the Refuge 

CCP (e.g., letters, newsletters, draft CCPs), including landowners in the four townships surrounding 

the Refuge (information was obtained from Juneau and Wood county tax records) and landowners in 

the Yellow River Focus Area. Others involved were Wisconsin’s Congressional Delegation, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, elected officials representing Juneau and Wood counties, the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, local governments, representatives of national, state, and local 

conservation organizations, neighboring landowners, and other interested people. Public input was 

considered at all phases of the CCP planning process. The Service coordinated its scoping effort 

closely, and corresponded frequently with many of the aforementioned entities. Since June of 1997, 

more than 10 public meetings were held to gather public input. In addition, three draft CCPs/EAs 

were issued to a wide range of interests, including all of the libraries in the counties surrounding the 

Refuge. The first draft was released in August 1998. The second draft was released in July 2000. A 

third draft was released in October 2001. Comments received during the scoping and public 

involvement process covered a wide range of interests. 
118

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

In response to the Service’s proposed action to prepare and implement a CCP for the Refuge and 

from questions raised in conversations and correspondence with individuals and organizations within 

and outside the Service, the Service identified several issues that will be analyzed in this EA. They 

are:

# Service trust resources, namely, what effect will Refuge management actions have on listed 

species, waterfowl and other migratory birds, and biological diversity (internal issue)? 

# Refuge visitor services, namely, what effect will Refuge management actions have on the 

quality of visitor services provided at the Refuge, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation (internal/external 

issue)? 

# Habitat management; namely, what effect will Refuge habitat management actions have on 

the quantity and quality of habitats within the Refuge and the Refuge watershed, namely 

the wetlands, forests, and open landscapes (internal issue)? 

# The Yellow River Focus Area, namely, how will Refuge management actions affect the 

habitat in the Yellow River Focus Area, and how will those management actions impact 

private property rights and the areas tax base (external issue)?

1.8 Decision Framework

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Regional Director for the 

Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of the Service will use this EA and attached CCP to select one of 

three alternative actions (Chapter 2) and will also decide whether this action will have environmental 

impacts requiring that an Environmental Impact Statement be developed or if a Finding of No 

Significant Impact can be issued.
119

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

The purpose of this chapter is to describe two “Action” alternatives and one “No Action” alternative 

for the proposed action of developing and implementing the Necedah NWR CCP. It should be noted 

that in describing each alternative, specific attention was paid to the needs and significant issues 

identified through internal and external scoping.

2.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives

The following considerations apply to all future actions, regardless of the specific goals, objectives, 

strategies, and projects that will be used in pursuit of the vision for the Refuge. 

2.1.1 Archaeological and Cultural Resource Protection

Archaeological and cultural resources are important parts of the nation’s natural heritage. The 

Service is committed to protecting valuable records of human interactions with each other and the 

landscape. This is done in conjunction with its more widely recognized mission of protecting fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources. 

To date, archeological investigations have only addressed 2 percent of land within the Refuge. Surveys 

and other sources have identified 27 prehistoric and historic sites within the Refuge. Prehistoric 

mounds, including effigy mounds, have been reported near the Refuge, many of them near the Yellow 

River.

Indian tribes may have interest in the Refuge area in terms of traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites, as well as claims to human remains, funerary objects, and other cultural items. Modern 

tribes with possible prehistoric and historic connections to the Refuge area include the Menominee, 

the Winnebago or Ho-Chunk, the Potawatomi, the Sauk and Fox, the Kickapoo, the Miami, and 

Mascouten.

The Refuge Manager will provide a description of projects on the Refuge to the Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer, who will analyze the undertakings for potential effect on historic properties. The 

Regional Historic Preservation Officer will enter into consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and other parties as appropriate. No undertakings will proceed until the Section 

# A Description of Elements Common to all Alternatives

# A Description of Alternatives, including the No Action Alternative

# A Summary and Comparison of Alternatives
120

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106 process is completed. As such, the Refuge Manager will notify the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer early in the planning for all projects or activities potentially affecting archaeological and 

cultural resources on Refuge land. By 2019, in accordance with the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act, the Refuge will protect 100 percent of the known archaeological and cultural resources 

on the Refuge.

2.1.2 Hydrology and Drainage

It is Service policy not to impede the flow of waters from other lands, even if that flow passes through 

lands acquired by the Service. The Service will not cause any artificial increase of natural water levels, 

width, or flow of waters without ensuring that impacts would be limited to those lands in which the 

Service acquires an appropriate management interest. Site-level studies and detailed planning will be 

performed prior to the Service undertaking any management activity affecting drainage of private 

land. If the Service does inadvertently create a water-related problem for any private landowner 

(flooding, soil saturation, increase in water table height, etc.), the problem will be corrected by the 

Service at the Service’s expense. The Refuge will continue to maintain ditches and water control 

structures that influence water access and use downstream. The Refuge will also continue to 

document water rights and use to conserve water resources for the benefit of fish, wildlife, plants and 

public use of Refuge water-dependent resources.

2.1.3 Landowner Rights Adjacent to Refuge Lands

Service or other agency control of access, land use practices, water management practices, hunting, 

fishing, and general use next to any tracts owned by the Service is limited only to those lands in which 

the Service or other entities have acquired that ownership interest (the Service acquires land through 

purchase, donation, or other means of conveyance). Any landowners adjacent to lands owned by the 

Service retain all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private land ownership.

2.1.4 Service Land Acquisition Policy

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires lands and interests in lands consistent with legislation or 

other Congressional guidelines and Executive Orders, for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to 

provide wildlife-dependent public use for educational and recreational purposes. The Service policy is 

to acquire land only when other protective means, such as zoning or regulation, are not appropriate, 

available, or effective. When the Service acquires land, it acquires fee title (all property rights) only if 

lesser property interests (such as conservation easements, leases, or cooperative agreements) are not 

suitable to achieve resource objectives. 

It is Service policy to acquire the minimum interest necessary to reach project goals and objectives. 

Any Service acquisition of lands, regardless of the type (easement or fee-title purchase) will be from 

willing sellers only. Written offers to willing sellers will be based on a professional appraisal of the 

property using recent sales of comparable properties in the area. Landowners will in no way be 

coerced into selling their land or any interest in their land. The Service recognizes that every 

landowner within or adjacent to an existing or proposed National Wildlife Refuge has the following 

rights:

# The right to retain all privileges and responsibilities of private ownership.

# The right to sell their land to anyone of their choice.

# The right not to sell their land.

# The right to receive a fair market offer for any property sought for purchase by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

# The right to control access on their land.
121

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

# The right to be heard and to provide input on management plans for neighboring Refuge 

lands.

# The right to be informed on a regular basis about refuge management activities.

No instances of uneconomic remnants will occur as a result of the Service’s land acquisition program 

under any of the Action alternatives. Section 49 CFR Part 24.102 (k) prohibits the Federal 

Government from creating uneconomic remnants. If such a remnant were to occur, the Service would 

offer to purchase the remnant at market value, along with the portion of the property needed for the 

project. The Service would pay for necessary title evidence, mortgage prepayment penalties, 

mortgage releases, boundary surveys, recording fees, and similar expenses incidental to the transfer 

of title. It would not pay for fees charged by an attorney who was hired by the landowner.

The uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended 

(Uniform Act), provides for certain relocation benefits to home owners, businesses, and farm 

operators who choose to sell and relocate as a result of federal land acquisition. The law provides for 

benefits to eligible owners and tenants in the following areas:

# Reimbursement of reasonable moving and related expenses;

# Replacement housing payments under certain conditions;

# Relocation assistance services to help locate replacement housing, farm, or business 

properties;

# Reimbursement of certain necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in selling real 

property to the government.

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, as amended, provides for annual payments to 

counties or the lowest unit of government that collects and distributes taxes based on acreage and 

value of National Wildlife Refuge lands located within the county. The monies for these payments 

come from two sources: (1) net receipts from the sale of products from National Wildlife Refuge 

System lands (oil and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, etc.) and (2) annual Congressional 

appropriations. Annual Congressional appropriations, as authorized by a 1978 amendment, were 

intended to make up the difference between the net receipts from the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund 

and the total amount due to local units of government. Annual payments are calculated based on which 

of the following formulas as set out in the Act, provides the largest return: (1) $.75 per acre; (2) 25 

percent of the net receipts collected from refuge lands in the county; or (3) three-quarters of 1 percent 

of the appraised value. In Wisconsin, three-quarters of 1 percent of the appraised value always brings 

the greatest return to the taxing bodies. Using this method, lands are re-appraised approximately 

every 5 years to reflect current market values. 

2.1.5 Maintenance of Roads and Existing Right-of-Ways

State, county, and townships retain maintenance obligations for roads and their rights-of-way under 

their jurisdiction within Refuge boundaries. Some township roads may be suited for abandonment 

(but not necessarily closure) and their maintenance assumed by the Service. Any such abandonments 

would only be with the consent of the appropriate governing body. Existing rights-of-ways and terms 

of other easements will continue to be honored. New rights-of-ways and easements will be considered 

in relation to Refuge System regulations and likely impacts of the rights-of-way or easement to 

Refuge resources. 

The Refuge will cooperate with state, county and township officials in the maintenance of roads that 

cross the Refuge. Roadside mowing will be completed in accordance with State and local laws. 
122

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2.1.6 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to the principle that all citizens and communities are entitled to:

# Equal protection from environmental and occupational health or safety hazards; 

# Equal access to natural resources; and 

# Equal participation in the environmental and natural resource policy formulation process.

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898: “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations.” The purpose of this 

Order was to focus the attention of federal agencies on human environmental health and to address 

inequities that may occur in the distribution of costs/benefits, land use patterns, hazardous material 

transport or facility siting, allocation and consumption of resources, access to information, planning, 

and decision making, etc.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The 

developing environmental justice strategy of the Service extends this mission by seeking to ensure 

that all segments of the human population have equal access to America’s fish and wildlife resources, 

as well as equal access to information that will enable them to participate meaningfully in activities 

and policy shaping. 

Within the spirit and intent of Executive Order 12898, no minority or low income populations would be 

impacted by any Service action under any alternative. 

2.1.7 Timber Harvest

Timber harvest is an important tool used to accomplish Refuge ecological objectives. In recent years, 

the Refuge has conducted approximately two to four timber sales per year. Sales usually are between 

40 and 400 acres. Jack pine, red pine, aspen, and Northern pin oak (Hill’s oak) are the species with the 

greatest quantities harvested. Under all circumstances, the following guidelines will apply:

# Timber will be cut and removed from the Refuge by private wood contractors. 

# Archeological surveys will be done before any timber removal operations take place. The 

surveys will be funded by the timber sale and reflected in the bid price for the timber. When 

no other source of funding is available and it is imperative that the timber be cut, the Refuge 

will support the cost of the survey. Archaeological surveys are required if any part of the 

timber harvest operation will disrupt the soil to a depth of 6 inches or more. If haul roads 

and/or yarding areas are to be constructed, an archaeological survey will be required in 

those areas. 

# Refuge roads used for haul routes by contractors will be rehabilitated by grading and 4 

inches of gravel, at the completion of the logging operation. 

# The method for selecting the contractor for large sales over 500 cords shall be by sealed bid. 

# Whenever possible, the establishment of firebreaks will be written in as part of the timber 

sale. 

# All timber sales are designed to accomplish specific habitat objectives. Therefore, the sale 

price may be significantly lower for Refuge sales than comparative sales on private or other 

land.

# A timber sale appraisal report will be prepared in triplicate for each sale by Refuge staff for 

approval by the Refuge Manager. The report will clearly indicate the cutting area, amount of 

timber to be harvested, and species involved. The method of harvest, harvest objectives as 
123

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

related to wildlife habitat improvement, stumpage prices, scale provisions, method of 

payment, and other special requirements will also be included.

# Contractors are generally allowed 1 to 2 years to complete each sale. Most of the harvesting 

is done during the winter months when the ground is frozen to prevent damage to soil, 

vegetation, and archaeological resources. 

# No harvesting will be allowed in areas where Northern pin oak is present during the months 

of April through July when trees may be infected with the oak wilt fungus.

2.1.8 Fire

2.1.8.1 Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire has been a habitat management tool used on the Refuge since 1944. Refuge staff 

annually burn an average of 2,000 acres of Refuge land to enhance habitat for upland game, waterfowl, 

and endangered species. The periodic burning of savannas, grasslands, and sedge meadows reduces 

encroaching vegetation such as oak sprouts and willow. It also encourages the growth of species like 

blueberry, raspberry, and wild lupine (a plant necessary for the survival of the endangered Karner 

blue butterfly).

All prescribed burns are carried out by highly trained and qualified personnel who perform the 

operation under very precise plans. No burning takes place unless it meets the qualifications of the 

prescription for each unit. A prescription is a set of parameters that define the air temperature, fuel 

moisture, wind direction and velocity, soil moisture, relative humidity, and several other environmental 

factors under which a prescribed burn may be ignited. This insures that there is minimal chance the 

fire will escape the unit boundaries and that the fire will have the desired effect on the plant 

community. 

Prescribed burns will be conducted within or near Refuge development zones, sensitive resources, 

and boundary area to reduce the risk from wildfire damage. To the greatest extent possible, hazard 

reduction prescribed fires will only be used when they complement resource management objectives.

Burn frequency will vary from every 3 to 5 years or longer on established oak savanna units 

dependent on management objectives, historic fire frequency, and funding. As part of the prescribed 

fire program, a literature search will be conducted to determine the effects of fire on various plant and 

animal species, and a monitoring program will be instituted to verify that objectives are being 

achieved.

2.2 Description of Alternatives

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (Status Quo)

Under Alternative 1, management direction at the Refuge relative to the needs and significant issues 

identified during the scoping and public involvement process (Chapter 1) would proceed in accordance 

with guidance contained in the 1979 Refuge Master Plan and subsequent step-down management 

plans (e.g., forest management plan, fire management plan, marsh and water management plan, 

public use plan, etc.). 
124

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2.2.2 Service Trust Resources

2.2.2.1 Listed Species

This alternative would include:

# Establishing and maintaining one large population of Karner blue butterflies on the Refuge 

as stated in the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan (in this context “large population” 

refers to >6,000 second flight adults consisting of 25 sub-populations and dispersed over at 

least 10 square miles); 

# Providing technical assistance and staff support to the Whooping Crane Reintroduction 

program (an action that is covered by a separate EA prepared by the Service’s Green Bay 

Ecological Service’s Field Office); 

# Protecting and maintaining resident packs of Eastern timber wolves on public lands in 

central Wisconsin, in accordance with the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan; 

# Protecting Bald Eagles nesting on the Refuge from human disturbance; and 

# Continuing international management efforts for the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, 

including research, to help preclude the need for federal listing. Refuge staff currently 

provide landowners in the Yellow River area, Monroe County, LaCrosse, and Buffalo County 

with Eastern massasauga rattlesnake management support and surveys.

Specific management actions would include:

Karner Blue Butterflies

# Restrict all construction activities in Karner blue butterfly habitat. The only exception to 

this will be for the graveling or paving of two hiking trails (Cranberry Loop and Lupine 

Loop).

# All silviculture activities in occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat will be designed to avoid 

or minimize impacts to the butterflies. Conservation measure will be written into timber 

sale contracts when necessary to protect Karner blue butterfly habitat from timber 

operations. Slash and stumps will not be placed in occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat. 

Skid trails and hauling roads will be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to lupine and 

Karner blue butterflies.

# Refuge visitors will be advised to avoid disturbing lupine plants in occupied Karner blue 

butterfly areas.

Whooping Cranes

# Should an experimental population of Whooping Cranes establish themselves on or near the 

Refuge, manage select Refuge pools and associated habitats to support the population, as 

directed by the Whooping Crane Recovery Team. 

# Where Whooping Cranes exhibit territorial, breeding and/or nesting behavior, maintain or 

adjust pool levels to create optimum conditions.

# Preclude prescribed burning in or near a unit containing an active Whooping Crane nest 

site.

# Prohibit human and vehicular traffic in or near Whooping Crane nest sites. 

# Implement any additional Whooping Crane guidelines that may be developed for nest 

protection.

Eastern Timber Wolf

# All new Eastern timber wolf den and rendezvous sites verified by wildlife biologists as well 

as den and rendezvous sites used within the last 2 years will be protected through 
125

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

implementation of the “Management Policy for Wolf Den and Rendezvous Sites” (Wydeven 

and Schultz 1993).

# Preclude land use activities, including timber harvest, within 100 meters of a wolf den at any 

time of the year.

# Restrict human activity within 100 meters of a den to those activities specifically related to 

wolf research and which generally are done only when wolves are not active in the area.

# Maintain volunteer tracking efforts of wolves on the Refuge. 

# Continue to keep Refuge roads closed to public vehicular traffic and continue berming 

access roads upon completion of timber sales.

# Continue prohibiting coyote hunting and trapping year-round on the Refuge. 

# Collaborate with the Wisconsin DNR on wolf trapping and radio tracking.

# Issue an annual press release prior to gun deer season advising hunters of the coyote 

hunting closure.

Bald Eagles

# Enforce protective buffer zones around Bald Eagle nests in accordance with the Refuge’s 

“Water Management Plan” and the “Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan” (USFWS, 

1983), including a one-half-mile no fly zone for Air National Guard aircraft.

# Restrict prescribed burning and water level drawdowns within one-quarter mile of Bald 

Eagle nests. 

# Continue monitoring Bald Eagle nesting success on the Refuge throughout the life of the 

CCP.

Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake

# If the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake is listed as federally threatened or endangered, the 

Refuge will cooperate and support the Federal Recovery Team.

# Should the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake occur on the Refuge, the protective measures in 

“The Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake: A Handbook for Land Managers 2000" (Johnson et 

al. 2000) will be implemented.

# Continue to assist landowners in the Yellow River area, Monroe County, LaCrosse, and 

Buffalo County with Eastern massasauga rattlesnake management support and surveys, in 

accordance with “The Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake: A Handbook for Land Managers 

2000” (Johnson et al. 2000).

Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds

Under this alternative the Refuge would:

# Increase the breeding pair population of savanna species of concern (e.g., Red-headed 

Woodpeckers, Field Sparrow, Northern Flicker) on Refuge land through additional savanna 

habitat management, in accordance with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan, and guidelines developed by Sample and 

Mossman (1997). 

# Increase the breeding pair population of Black Terns on Refuge land to eight nesting pairs 

through additional wetland management (Region 3 priority species).

# Increase the breeding pair population of Goshawks on Refuge land (Region 3 priority 

species). In the past, the Refuge has supported one nesting pair of Goshawks in select red 

and white pine plantations.

Specific management actions are found in the “Habitat Management” section that follows.
126

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Native Biological Diversity 

Under this alternative, the Refuge would:

# Manage for increased biological diversity by restoring and managing additional savanna and 

wetland habitats (per guidance contained in the Refuge’s Forest Management Plan and 

Water Management Step-down Plans). 

# Continue to convert non-native habitat to native habitat on the Refuge.

# Actively control invasive and exotic species on Refuge land. 

# Continue to restore wetlands, grasslands, savannas, and forest land in the Yellow River 

Focus Area through the Refuge’s Partner’s for Fish and Wildlife Program.

2.2.3 Visitor Services

Under this Alternative the Refuge would:

# Maintain its wildlife observation, photography, fishing, education, interpretation, and 

outreach programs at 1999 levels. 

# Maintain small game and deer hunting programs at current levels, until studies are 

available that show the number of hunters that can safely hunt Refuge land. 

# Public use initiatives would focus primarily on updating existing signs, trails, piers and 

parking areas (per guidance contained in the 1979 Master Plan and public use plan). 

# Refuge staff would continue to conduct outreach and environmental education programs 

consistent with the 1979 public use plan. 

# The Refuge would enlarge its headquarters building to accommodate the additional needs of 

visitors, Refuge staff, and local and regional educators (per guidance contained in the 1979 

Refuge master plan and public use plan). Any major construction activities aimed at 

enlarging the existing Refuge headquarters building would be covered by future National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance at the time of construction. 

# Staffing patterns for this program would remain roughly the same.

2.2.4 Habitat Management

Under this alternative, the Refuge would: 

# Maintain the status quo in habitat management on the Refuge with the exception of 2,600 

acres of additional savanna, which would be restored by converting an equal amount of 

Refuge land currently in forest cover per guidance contained in the Refuge’s Forest 

Management Plan which currently serves as a guiding document for savanna restoration on 

the Refuge (Table 1). 

# Restore wetlands on the Refuge and within the Refuge’s Private Lands District in 

partnership with private landowners and other conservation organizations through the 

Refuge’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

# Continue to provide habitat restoration and management assistance to landowners in the 

Yellow River Focus Area through the Refuge’s Private Lands program. 

# Maintain a fire management program that supports habitat objectives and reduces damage 

associated with wildfires throughout the life of this CCP. Contain 100 percent of wildfires 

occurring on the Refuge before they cross Highway 80 moving east and Highway 21 moving 

south.
127

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

2.2.5 Yellow River Focus Area

Under this alternative, the Refuge would: 

# Intensify and concentrate the Refuge’s Partner’s for Fish and Wildlife private lands 

program in the Yellow River Focus Area, which would include developing Wildlife 

Management Agreements (Table 4) with landowners in the area. 

# Maintain working relationships with landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area. 

# Ensure landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area have viable options for restoring, 

enhancing, and conserving their land for the benefit of wildlife.

# Develop Memorandums of Understanding with Wood and Juneau counties to enhance 

communication, coordination, and collaboration in conserving Yellow River land for natural 

resources.

# Develop a land stewardship and natural history slide presentation for the Yellow River, to 

raise awareness of its unique ecological value and need for conservation (High Priority).

2.3 Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, management direction at the Refuge relative to the needs and significant issues 

identified during the scoping and public involvement process would proceed in accordance with 

guidance contained in the Refuge’s 1979 Master Plan.

2.3.1 Service Trust Resources

2.3.1.1 Listed Species

Under this Alternative the Refuge would continue protecting listed species and their habitat as 

described above in Alternative 1. However, under this Alternative the Refuge would not establish one 

large population of Karner blue butterflies on Refuge land through additional savanna habitat 

management. 

2.3.1.2 Waterfowl and other Migratory Birds

Under this alternative the Refuge would:

Table 1: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2019 / Alternative 1, Necedah NWR

Land Cover Type 2019 Acres Compared to 2000

Open Landscapes (grasslands and savannas) 6,300 + 2,600 acres (savanna)

Coniferous Forests 550 - 350 acres

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 8,000 - 2,000 acres

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 5,350 - 250 acres

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 10,500 Status Quo

Forested Wetlands 5,700 Status Quo

Lowland Shrubs 5,500 Status Quo

Open Water Areas 1,800 Status Quo
128

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

# Continue its focus on providing migratory habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds 

(feeding and resting) as prescribed in the 1979 Master Plan (mainly mid-migration habitat).

# Increase the breeding pair population of Black Terns on Refuge land to eight nesting pairs 

through additional wetland management (Region 3 priority species); and 

# Increase the breeding pair population of Goshawks on Refuge land (Region 3 priority 

species). In the past, the Refuge has supported one nesting pair of Goshawks in select red 

and white pine plantations. 

# Specific management actions are found in the “Habitat Management” section below.

2.3.1.3 Native Biological Diversity

Under this alternative the Refuge would:

# Continue to convert non-native habitat to native habitat on Refuge land.

# Actively control invasive and exotic species on Refuge land. 

2.3.2 Visitor Services

Under this alternative the Refuge would:

# Maintain its wildlife observation, photography, fishing, education, interpretation, and 

outreach programs at 1999 levels. Small game and deer hunting programs would be 

maintained until studies are complete that identify the number of hunters that can safely 

hunt on the Refuge. No new trails, observation towers, fishing piers, or major facilities 

would be developed. 

# Continue to conduct outreach and environmental education programs consistent with 

guidance contained in the1979 Master Plan. 

# Maintain the Refuge headquarters building as the primary visitor contact station. No 

additional classrooms, meeting space, or staff facilities would be developed under this 

Alternative. 

# Maintain present staffing patterns.

2.3.3 Habitat Management

Under this alternative the Refuge would:

# Maintain the status quo in habitat restoration and management on Refuge land (Table 2). 

However, some small wetlands may be restored within the Refuge’s Private Lands District 

(Figure 12 in the CCP). 

# Maintain a fire management program that supports habitat objectives and reduces damage 

associated with wildfires throughout the life of this CCP. Contain 100 percent of wildfires 

occurring on the Refuge before they cross Highway 80 moving east and Highway 21 moving 

south. 
129

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

2.3.4 The Yellow River Focus Area

Under this alternative, the Refuge would discontinue all of its efforts at conserving, restoring, and 

managing habitat in the Yellow River Focus Area. No easement or fee-title acquisition of land would 

occur under this alternative. The Refuge would not intensify and concentrate its Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program in the Yellow River Focus Area. The Refuge would not develop any additional 

Wildlife Management Agreements with landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area. 

2.4 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative 3, future management direction at the Refuge relative to the needs and significant 

issues identified during the scoping and public involvement process would be guided by the goals, 

objectives, strategies, and projects described in Chapter 4 of the CCP.

2.4.1 Service Trust Resources

2.4.1.1 Listed Species

This alternative would be the same as Alternative 1 regarding trust resources.

2.4.1.2 Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds

Under this alternative, the Refuge would:

# Increase the breeding pair population of waterfowl on Refuge land to 700 pairs (e.g., 

Mallard, Teal, and Pintail) through additional grassland habitat management, in accordance 

with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

# Eliminate Wood Duck houses on Refuge land in favor of natural nesting cavities (the Refuge 

would maintain existing Wood Duck houses until they become unusable). 

# Increase the breeding pair population of grassland species of concern (e.g., Dickcissel, 

Upland Sandpiper, Grasshopper Sparrow, Bobolink) on Refuge land through additional 

grassland habitat management, in accordance with the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan, and guidelines developed by 

Sample and Mossman (1997). 

# Increase the breeding pair population of savanna species of concern (e.g., Red-headed 

Woodpeckers, Field Sparrow, Northern Flicker) on Refuge land through additional savanna 

Table 2: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2017 / Alternative 2, Necedah NWR

Land Cover Type 2017 Acres Compared to 2000

Open Landscapes (grasslands, savanna, shrublands, old fields) 3,700 Status Quo

Coniferous Forests 900 Status Quo

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 10,000 Status Quo

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 5,600 Status Quo

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 10,500 Status Quo

Forested Wetlands 5,700 Status Quo

Lowland Shrubs 5,500 Status Quo

Open Water Areas 1,800 Status Quo
130

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

habitat management, in accordance with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan, and guidelines developed by Sample and 

Mossman (1997). 

# Increase the breeding pair population of Black Terns on Refuge land to eight nesting pairs 

through additional wetland management (Region 3 priority species); and 

# Increase the breeding pair population of Goshawks on Refuge land (Region 3 priority 

species). In the past, the Refuge has supported one nesting pair of Goshawks in select red 

and white pine plantations.

Specific management actions are found in the “Habitat Management” section that follows.

2.4.1.3 Native Biological Diversity

Under this alternative, the Refuge would:

# Manage for increased biological diversity by restoring and managing additional wetland, 

grassland, and savanna habitats on the Refuge and within the Yellow River Focus Area, 

including seasonal wetlands, wet meadows, native prairies, and riparian associations (see 

Table 3 in the “Habitat Management” section).

# Continue to convert non-native habitat to native habitat on the Refuge.

# Actively control invasive and exotic species on Refuge land. 

# Continue to restore wetlands, grasslands, savannas, and forest land in the Yellow River 

Focus Area through the Refuge’s Partner’s for Fish and Wildlife Program.

2.4.2 Visitor Services

Under this alternative, the Refuge would: 

# Expand its wildlife observation, photography, fishing, education, interpretation, and 

outreach programs by roughly 10-20 percent over 1999 estimates (measured in visitor usedays). 

# Small game and deer hunting programs would be maintained at current levels, until studies 

identify the number of hunters that can safely hunt Refuge land. 

# Several notable upgrades to facilities (Figure 3) and services would occur under this 

alternative to provide for increased use of the Refuge (see Chapter 5 in the CCP for a 

complete description of projects). These would include: 

G Project 20 – developing an observation tower at Carpenter Field to enhance wildlife 

viewing opportunities 

G Project 21 – developing and maintaining two additional off-road parking areas on the 

Refuge.

G Project 22 – developing a fishing pier at Harvey’s Pond to enhance Refuge fishing 

opportunities.

G Project 23 – completing the Ellen Allan Outdoor Learning Center to facilitate on-site 

outdoor learning opportunities.

G Project 25 – developing new signage that welcomes and orients visitors to the Necedah 

Wildlife Management Area.

G Project 26 – developing 5 additional miles of interpretive trails on the Refuge.

G Project 27 – designing and erecting new signs on the Refuge, including two interpretive 

kiosks and site interpretation signage.
131

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

G Project 29 – designing and building a new visitor center to serve as a first point of 

contact for Refuge visitors, office space for Refuge staff, and classrooms and meeting 

space for educators.

One of the proposed locations for the visitor center is an upland sight north of State Highway 21 and 

east of Headquarters Road (see Figure 18 in the CCP). The other site under consideration is located 

approximately 500 yards north-northwest of the existing office complex. This site includes the 

existing learning center, a converted garage. The current land cover at both sites is unrestored 

savanna, which would be restored in conjunction with construction of the visitor center. The 

restoration would benefit Service trust resources such as the Karner blue butterfly and migratory 

birds that use savannas and grasslands. This EA is intended to serve as the NEPA compliance 

document for this facility if it is constructed largely as described herein. The proposed center would 

have the following facilities, rooms, features:

Facility:

# The building would have a footprint of approximately 20,000 square feet, with additional 

square footage in the basement.

# Single story, above ground, universally accessible.

# Basement with walk-out entrance, universally accessible.

# Stone siding.

# Pond/recycling natural sewage system.

# Geothermal heating and cooling.

# Drilled well.

# Stone/tile flooring.

# Pine paneling harvested from Refuge Civilian Conservation Corps pine plantations.

# Parking area (approximately 35,000 sq. ft.) and would include space for buses, RVs, and 

vehicles with trailers.

Rooms: 

# Reception area with desk.

# Activity area.

# Auditorium with seating for 100-150.

# Conference room which can be divided into two rooms.

# Full kitchen.

# Gift shop.

# Public restrooms (six stalls each).

# Office spaces (four)

# Staff restrooms.

# Staff break room.

# Utility room (basement).

# Storage area (basement).

# Delivery area (basement).

Outdoor Features:

# Hiking and cross-country ski trails.

# Demonstration garden with interpretive signs.
132

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

# Landscaping with native flora.

# Bird feeders.

# Outdoor theater

# Picnic area.

# Porch/deck area

# Outdoor seating

# Project 30 – constructing one additional universally accessible fishing pier, hunting blind, 

and hard surface trail or boardwalk.

# Project 31 – developing universally accessible versions of brochures (braille) and/or videos 

(close-captioned).

# Project 38 – developing housing to accommodate Refuge volunteers and other stakeholders 

living outside the commuting area (in this case the Refuge would remodel the Annex 

building to serve as volunteer housing).

2.4.3 Habitat Management

Under this alternative, the Refuge would: 

# Maintain 23,500 acres of wetlands (e.g. emergent and wet meadow, forested, lowland shrub, 

open water) on Refuge land; maintain 12,500 acres of emergent wetland (e.g., palustrine) 

and wet meadow habitat (e.g., sedge meadows) on Refuge land to support nesting, resting, 

and feeding waterfowl (all types), associated bird species of concern (e.g., Black Terns, 

American Bittern, Henslow’s Sparrow, Sedge Wren), and to promote native biological 

diversity (Table 3). 

# Maintain 5,700 acres of forested wetland habitat on Refuge land to support forest-nesting 

waterfowl (e.g., Wood Ducks) and associated bird species of concern (e.g., American 

Woodcock, Veery, Northern Flicker) and to promote native biological diversity (Table 3 

summarizes all of the habitat changes.)

# Maintain 3,500 acres of lowland shrub habitat on Refuge land to support associated bird 

species of concern (e.g. Blue-winged Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler, Willow Flycatcher) 

and to promote native biological diversity. 

# Maintain 1,800 acres of open water habitat on Refuge land to support nesting, resting, and 

feeding waterfowl (all types), other associated bird species of concern (e.g., Common Loon, 

Black Tern) and to promote native biological diversity. 

# Establish and maintain 9,800 acres of open landscape habitat on Refuge land (e.g. 

grasslands and savannas). 

# Establish and maintain 6,200 acres of native grassland habitat on Refuge land (e.g., 

midgrass and tallgrass prairies characteristic of the central Wisconsin sand plain 

subsection) to support nesting waterfowl (e.g., Mallard, Teal, Pintail), other associated bird 

species of concern (e.g., Dickcissel, Upland Sandpipers, Grasshopper Sparrows, Bobolink), 

and to promote native biological diversity. 

# Restore and maintain 3,600 acres of native savanna habitat on Refuge land (e.g., oak 

savanna) to support Karner blue butterflies, associated bird species of concern (e.g., Redheaded Woodpeckers, Field Sparrows, Flicker), and to promote native biological diversity. 

# Maintain 10,400 acres of forest land (e.g., coniferous, mixed deciduous/coniferous, broad-leaf 

deciduous). Timber harvest will only occur in areas designated open landscape, except in 

pine plantations or for safety, operations, or fuel reduction purposes. 
133

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

# Maintain 550 acres of coniferous forest habitat on Refuge land to support associated bird 

species of concern (e.g., Northern Goshawks,) and to promote native biological diversity. 

# Maintain 4,500 acres of mixed deciduous and coniferous forest habitat on Refuge land to 

support associated bird species of concern (e.g., Pine Warblers, Scarlet Tanager, Whip-poorwill, Black-and-white Warbler) and to promote native biological diversity.

# Maintain 5,350 acres of broad-leaf deciduous forest habitat on Refuge land to support 

associated bird species of concern (e.g., Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Wood Thrush) and to promote 

native biological diversity. 

The following action items would apply:

Emergent Wetlands/Wet Meadows

# Restore and maintain two additional palustrine emergent wetland complexes 

(approximately 1,000 acres each) on the Refuge by converting 2,000 acres of lowland shrubs 

(Low Priority). 

# Manage palustrine emergent wetlands for dense annual and perennial vegetation. Burn, 

mow, and disk as necessary.

# By 2009, sub-divide Sprague-Mather Pool, the largest impoundment on the Refuge, into 

three units to enhance water management capability to provide moist soil food production 

and/or invertebrate availability for migrating waterfowl (High Priority).

# Beginning in 2005, provide stable water and emergent vegetation for Black Terns by leaving 

Pool 19 (east and west), Carter-Woggon Pool, Upper Rice Pool, and Rice Pool at “full pool” 

(except for maintenance purposes), in accordance with guidelines developed by Naugle et al. 

2000. 

# By 2005, develop internal guidelines for acceptable amounts of woody vegetation in existing 

Refuge pools. Control as necessary.

# By 2005, acquire and install staff water gauges in Refuge pools for accurate water level 

readings (High Priority).

# By 2006, install a shallow well and a solar-powered pump as a supplemental water source for 

the Ducks Unlimited Wetland Project (High Priority).

Table 3: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2019 / Alternative 3, Necedah NWR

Land Cover Type 2019 Acres Compared to 2000

Open Landscapes (grasslands and savannas) 9,800 + 2,600 acres savanna

+ 3,500 acres grassland

Coniferous Forests 550 - 350 acres

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 4,500 - 5,500 acres

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 5,350 - 250 acres

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 12,500 + 2,000 acres

Forested Wetlands 5,700 Status Quo

Lowland Shrubs 3,500 - 2,000 acres

Open Water Areas 1,800 Status Quo
134

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Forested Wetlands

# Maintain large blocks of forested wetland habitat with mature trees, sparse understory, and 

within one-half mile of water. Implement disturbance regimes (e.g., mechanical thinning, 

burning, mowing) to maintain the desired herbaceous understory (sparse), as necessary 

(High Priority).

Lowland Shrubs

# Establish and maintain large blocks of lowland shrub habitat with a range of young to 

mature shrubs and dense understory. Maintain hydrology and active wildfire suppression.

Open Water

# Maintain the current water management regime on Refuge pools, which includes leaving 

pools flooded at full-pool 2 out of 3 years (to setback woody vegetation). 

Grasslands

# Establish and maintain a mosaic of small (40 acres to 1,000 acres) and medium-sized (1,000 

to 5,000 acres) native grasslands comprised of short, medium, and tall height-density 

patches containing diverse structure (e.g., bare soil, stiff-stemmed forbs, sparse woody 

vegetation) to provide nesting, brood-rearing, and foraging habitat for grassland birds and 

to enhance biological diversity. The Refuge will focus on creating blocks of grassland habitat 

that are structurally open and free of major linear woody edges. In most cases, woody cover 

will represent less than 5 percent of the grasslands habitat.

# Convert 200 acres of existing non-native grasslands to native grasslands for the purpose of 

enhancing native biological diversity. The Refuge currently has roughly 945 acres of nonnative cool season grasses.

# Implement disturbance regimes (e.g., grazing, burning, mowing) on all Refuge grasslands to 

establish and maintain the desired herbaceous covers (e.g., composition, height/density), as 

necessary (High Priority).

Savannas

# Restore and maintain an additional 640 acres of oak and pine woodlands and sedge meadow 

wetlands on the Refuge distributed over at least a 10 square mile area by 2015, in 

accordance with the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan. 

# Implement disturbance regimes (e.g., mowing, burning) to establish and maintain 

herbaceous cover, as necessary (High Priority).

# Maintain a mature oak component in savanna restoration units to provide nesting cavities 

for Red-headed Woodpeckers.

# Enhance and maintain a warm-season grass component in savanna restoration units to 

provide nesting cover for Field Sparrows.

# By 2013, construct an additional 30 miles of firebreaks around savanna restoration units and 

along the Refuge’s eastern boundary (an area with concentrations of hazardous fuels) to 

allow for periodic fire (High Priority).

# By 2007, acquire a hydro-axe to maintain open landscape habitats for Karner blue 

butterflies and other savanna-dependent species (High Priority). Hydro-axe operation in 

Karner blue butterfly management units will be conducted between August 15 and April 15, 

and no more than one time per year. 

Coniferous Forests

# Maintain select red and white pine plantations as monotypic, even-aged stands to support 

nesting Goshawks, in accordance with Rosenfield et al. 1998.

# Within designated maintenance areas of the Refuge (Figure 17 in the CCP), employ 

approved Timber Stand Improvement techniques, such as proper thinning and harvest 
135

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

schedules, to transition monocultural stands (primarily red and white pine plantations) to 

mixed composition, uneven-aged stands. Treat stands at least once over the life of this CCP.

# Prepare and advertise for selective timber harvest on 350 acres (over a 15-year period) of 

Refuge coniferous forest land, in support of the Refuge’s savanna and grassland restoration 

efforts.

Mixed Deciduous/Coniferous Forests

# Maintain large mature stands of oak forest with a white pine component to provide nesting 

habitat for Scarlet Tanagers and Least Flycatchers.

# Maintain large mature stands of jack pine with an oak component for nesting Pine Warblers, 

Whip-poor-wills, and Black-and-white Warblers.

# Conserve 640 acres of mesic mixed oak/pine forest with interspersed sedge meadows free 

from active human manipulation to provide a control area (reference site) where 

successional changes can be monitored and compared to other managed areas. Wildfires will 

be suppressed in the area to protect adjacent landowners.

Broad-Leaf Deciduous Forests

# Maintain large mature stands of oak forest with a diverse, dense understory component, to 

provide nesting habitat for Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Chestnut-sided Warbler, and Wood 

Thrush. 

Fire Program

# Maintain a fire management program that supports habitat objectives and reduces damage 

associated with wildfires throughout the life of this CCP. Contain 100 percent of wildfires 

occurring on the Refuge before they cross Highway 80 moving east and Highway 21 moving 

south.

# By 2007, acquire an additional pump engine to increase the effectiveness of both prescribed 

burning and fire suppression (Medium Priority). 

# By 2007, construct a 40-foot by 70-foot storage building that can be heated to protect fire 

management vehicles from the weather (Medium Priority).

# Reduce the density of jack pine and remove slash from at least one unit with significant 

overmature and standing dead timber biannually with emphasis on the Refuge's eastern 

boundary to aid in fire control. All treated units will be within designated Maintenance 

Areas of the Refuge (Figure 17 in the CCP). 

Pest Management

# By 2005, develop an Integrated Pest Management step-down plan that will reduce 

populations of exotic and invasive species from current levels, restrict the distribution of 

pest plants (e.g., Leafy Spurge, Spotted Knapweed, Reed Canary Grass) to their current 

acreage, and reduce the impact pest plant species have on rare plant communities, 

throughout the life of this CCP.

# Beginning in 2006, complete a rare plant inventory, and inventory every 5 years thereafter 

(Medium Priority).

Special Refuge Management Areas

# Restoration and management of the above mentioned habitats will be accomplished through 

the development of six special management areas on the Refuge. Figure 17 in the CCP 

represents a blueprint (long-term) for what the Refuge landscape might consist of within 

these special management areas. Table 6 in the CCP describes how these areas would be 

managed to achieve the Refuges wildlife, habitat, and people commitments. 

# Similarly, Figure 17 in the CCP is a map of the Refuge’s desired future habitat management 

condition (long-term). It combines ecological information (soils data) relative to what the 

Refuge can naturally support with other factors such as budgets and opportunities and 
136

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

issues identified by the Refuge and its stakeholders during the CCP scoping process. This 

information together was used to create a blueprint of what the Refuge landscape might 

look like in the future. Built into the desired future condition were several key management 

assumptions (Chapter 3 of the CCP). 

2.4.4 Yellow River Focus Area

Under Alternative 3 the Refuge would:

# Pursue long-term conservation and management of land within the Yellow River Focus 

Area. Over the next 15 years, roughly 3,000 acres of wetlands, uplands, and riparian areas 

could be conserved by the Service through technical assistance to Yellow River landowners, 

voluntary partnership agreements, conservation easements and fee acquisition programs 

(Table 4). The Service would acquire the minimum interest necessary to accomplish natural 

resource goals and only acquire land from willing sellers (see Table 4). Restoration and 

conservation would occur at a rate of approximately 250 acres/year assuming the presence 

of willing sellers and the availability of funds (best guess estimate). The Service would not 

request land acquisition money for the project until the year 2006.

# Continue developing Wildlife Management Agreements with willing landowners in the 

Yellow River area.

# Maintain working relationships with landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area. 

# Ensure landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area have several viable options for restoring, 

enhancing, and conserving their land for the benefit of wildlife. As previously mentioned, 

the Yellow River represents one of Wisconsin’s most diverse ecosystems. Therefore, 

landowners in the area often have several management options. The Service would work 

with landowners to identify management options and the suite of species that will benefit 

from each. Property owners with large blocks of closed canopy forest could maintain those 

large blocks for Cerulean Warblers, Red-shouldered Hawks, etc. The same landowner may 

also have sedge meadows that they wish to maintain as “open” for Sedge Wrens, Henslow’s 

Sparrows, or Eastern massasaugas. The brush on the same meadows could maintained for 

Blue-winged Warblers and Golden-winged Warblers and Willow Flycatchers and Alder 

Flycatchers. Whichever option property owners choose, the Service would assist them in 

that habitat management and in process to benefit a suite of rare or imperiled species.

# Develop Memorandums of Understanding with Wood and Juneau County to enhance 

communication, coordination, and collaboration in conserving Yellow River land for natural 

resources.

# Develop a land stewardship and natural history slide presentation for the Yellow River, to 

raise awareness of its unique ecological value and need for conservation (High Priority).

Fee-simple acquisition involves acquisition of most or all of the rights to a persons land. There is a 

total transfer of property with the formal conveyance of a title to the Federal government. While fee 

acquisition involves most of the rights to a property, certain rights may be withheld or not purchased, 

such as water rights, mineral rights, and use reservations. 

Conservation Easements involve the acquisition of certain rights that can be of value for the purpose 

of achieving fish and wildlife habitat objectives, usually by prohibiting or encouraging certain 

practices (right to drain a wetland or delay haying harvest). Easements become part of the title to the 

property and are usually permanent. If a landowner sells his or her property, the easement continues 

as part of the title. Based on conversations with landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area, this 

mechanism offers the most promise relative to landowner participation. 
137

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Cooperative Agreements/Wildlife Management Agreements are negotiated between the Service and 

other government agencies, conservation groups, or individuals. An agreement usually specifies a 

particular management action or activity the landowner will do, or not do, on his or her property. For 

example, a simple agreement would be for the landowner to agree to delay hayland mowing until after 

a certain date to allow ground nesting birds to hatch their young. More comprehensive agreements 

are possible for such things as wetland or upland restoration, or public access. Agreements are strictly 

voluntary on the part of the landowner and are not legally binding. As long as a landowner abides by 

the terms of the agreement, this conservation can be effective in meeting certain objectives. 

Unfortunately, because these agreements are voluntary and can be modified, they do not offer the 

Service or the American public perpetual conservation.

Lease Agreements are short-term agreements for full or specified use of the land in return for an 

annual rental payment that generally includes occupancy rights. For example, the Service could lease 

40 acres of grassland habitat to provide safe nesting for ground nesting birds. The landowner would 

not be able to hay or otherwise disturb the ground during the lease period. 

Table 4: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Tools

Fee Title - The acquisition of all land ownership rights

Conservation 

Easements -

The acquisition of part of the surface land ownership rights. Such easements 

are usually perpetual.

Jurisdictional

Transfer -

The transfer of surface management from one Federal agency to another.

Cooperative Agreement/Wildlife 

Management Agreement -

Short term agreements with landowners to accomplish specific management 

objectives. 

Lease - Short term or long term “rental” of land for management. This usually 

includes periodic payments to the landowner.

Donation - Gift of land or interest in land without monetary reimbursement.
138

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table 5: Summary and Comparison of Alternatives, Necedah NWR 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE 1 

(No Action) (Guidance 

contained in the 1979 

Master Plan and 

associated Step-down 

Management Plans)

ALTERNATIVE 2

(Guidance contained in the 

1979 Master Plan)

ALTERNATIVE 3 

(Preferred) (Guidance 

contained in the Refuge 

CCP)

1. Service Trust Resources

Listed Species Would continue protecting 

all listed species and their 

habitats, including 

restoration and 

management of their 

habitats. 

Would continue protecting 

all listed species and their 

habitats. However, the 

Refuge would not attempt to 

establish one large 

population of Karner blue 

butterflies on Refuge land 

through additional savanna 

habitat management.

Would continue protecting 

all listed species and their 

habitats, including 

restoration and 

management of their 

habitats. 

Waterfowl and other 

Migratory Birds

Would not increase 

waterfowl use and 

production. Would not 

increase grassland species 

of concern. Would increase 

savanna species of concern 

through additional savanna 

management.

Would not increase 

waterfowl use and 

production. Would not 

increase grassland species 

of concern. Would not 

increase savanna species of 

concern through additional 

savanna management.

Would increase waterfowl 

use and production through 

additional habitat 

management. Would 

increase grassland species 

of concern through 

additional grassland 

management. Would 

increase savanna species of 

concern through additional 

savanna management.

Biological Diversity Would manage for increased 

biological diversity only 

through savanna restoration 

efforts on Refuge land and 

through the Private Lands 

Program in the Yellow River 

Focus Area.

Would not manage for 

increased biological 

diversity on either Refuge 

land or land within the 

Yellow River Focus Area.

Would manage for increased 

biological diversity on both 

Refuge land and within the 

Yellow River Focus Area 

through additional wetland, 

grassland, and savanna 

habitat restoration.

2. Visitor Services

Refuge visitor services 

would remain at 1999 levels. 

No new trails, observation 

towers, fishing piers, or 

major facilities would be 

developed. Headquarters 

building would be enlarged 

to accommodate staff.

Refuge visitor services 

would remain at 1999 levels. 

No new trails, observation 

towers, fishing piers, or 

major facilities would be 

developed. Headquarters 

building would remain the 

same and would not be 

enlarged. 

Visitor Services would be 

expanded by roughly 20 

percent over 1999 levels. 

Many upgrades to existing 

facilities would occur. New 

headquarters building/

visitor center would be 

constructed.
139

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

3. Habitat Management

The Refuge would maintain 

the status quo in habitat 

management with the 

exception of 2,600 acres of 

new savanna. Forest land 

would be reduced by an 

equal amount (2,600 acres). 

No new grasslands or 

wetlands would be 

developed for nesting birds.

The Refuge would maintains 

the status quo in habitat 

management. No new 

wetlands, grasslands, or 

savannas would be restored 

and managed for nesting 

birds.

The Refuge would increase 

open landscape land on the 

Refuge (grasslands and 

savannas) by 6,100 acres. 

Emergent wetlands and wet 

meadows would increase by 

2,000 acres as well. 

Coniferous, broad-leaf, and 

mixed forests would 

decrease by 6,100 acres. 

Lowland shrubs would 

decrease by 2,000 acres (this 

habitat would be converted 

to emergent wetland/wet 

meadow habitat through 

alteration of the hydrology).

4. Yellow River Focus Area

5. Cultural 

Resources

The Refuge would continue 

private lands program in 

YRFA developing Wildlife 

Management Agreements 

with willing landowners; no 

easements or fee-title 

purchases of land.

The Refuge would 

discontinue private lands 

program in YRFA. No new 

Wildlife Management 

Agreements would be 

developed with willing 

landowners. No easement or 

fee-title purchases of land 

would occur.

The Refuge would purchase 

conservation easements and 

fee-title purchases from 

willing sellers. Wildlife 

Management Agreements 

would be developed with 

willing landowners.

5. Cultural Resources

By 2019, in accordance with 

the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act, 

the Refuge will protect 100 

percent of the known 

archaeological and cultural 

resources on the Refuge.

By 2019, in accordance with 

the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act, 

the Refuge will protect 100 

percent of the known 

archaeological and cultural 

resources on the Refuge.

By 2019, in accordance with 

the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act, 

the Refuge will protect 100 

percent of the known 

archaeological and cultural 

resources on the Refuge.

6. Fire Management

The Refuge will manage its 

fire program consistent with 

guidance contained in 

section 2.2.4. 

The Refuge will manage its 

fire program consistent with 

guidance contained in 

section 2.3.3.

The Refuge will manage its 

fire program consistent with 

guidance contained in 

section 2.4.3. 

Table 5: Summary and Comparison of Alternatives, Necedah NWR (Continued)

ACTION ALTERNATIVE 1 

(No Action) (Guidance 

contained in the 1979 

Master Plan and 

associated Step-down 

Management Plans)

ALTERNATIVE 2

(Guidance contained in the 

1979 Master Plan)

ALTERNATIVE 3 

(Preferred) (Guidance 

contained in the Refuge 

CCP)
140

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

This chapter describes physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments associated with the 

Refuge, the Castle Rock Watershed (Refuge Watershed), and the Yellow River Focus Area.

3.1 History of the Refuge

European settlement occurred on the Refuge during the decade of 1850 to 1860. The first of a long 

history of fires probably occurred during the decade of 1860 to 1870 along with increased settlement 

and land clearing operations. By the early 1880s lumber operations were in full swing. This was 

followed in 1893 by a disastrous fire which eliminated most of the remaining tamarack and spruce in 

the bogs. This fire also burned into the peat, probably for the first time. Following this fire the country 

became very prairie-like, with a few scattered oak and pine on the “islands.” The two prairie grouse, 

Sharp-tailed Grouse and Prairie Chickens, became abundant following this fire. Many of the former 

bog areas developed extensive stands of wire grass which were cut for commercial manufacture of 

carpets. Fires were common and widespread between 1893 and 1900.

Drainage and settlement proceeded in the decade of 1900-1910. In 1910 a fire burned large acreages of 

wild lands. Smartweed volunteered abundantly in crop fields and burns. By 1912 it was apparent that 

certain drainage ditches were inadequate, subjecting some fields to flooding. Drainage continued until 

about 1920, when the last drainage ditches were dug. Drainage had further reduced the tamarack and 

spruce areas and wire grass disappeared with elimination of surface water. It was replaced by farm 

weeds, goldenrod, bluejoint, woolgrass, sedges, willow, and increasing amounts of aspen and birch. 

Fire was common at this time. In 1920, a widespread fire covered much of the area. 

Agriculture depression beginning in 1920, excessive drainage district taxes, and drought resulted in 

the end of the agriculture period. By 1925, abandonment was common, with only a few farms left. 

Most of the abandoned land was invaded by aspen, birch, woolgrass, and upland herbs.

In the fall of 1930 the most extensive and severe fire in the history of the area occurred. It burned 

more than 300,000 acres and consumed huge holes in the peat. Most of the sand islands were denuded 

of their topsoil, and it almost completely eradicated all indications of previous settlement. Following 

the fire, some areas came directly into aspen, while others came into agricultural weeds and 

smartweed.

# A Description of the History of the Refuge

# A Description of the Physical Environment

# A Description of the Biological Environment

# A Description of the Socioeconomic Environment
141

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Abandonment of most of the farms allowed for the creation of the Refuge in 1939. The events leading 

up to its establishment date back to the early 1930s when the U.S. Government acquired 114,964 acres 

of land in Juneau, Wood, Monroe, and Jackson counties, Wisconsin, using the authority of the National 

Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. The purpose for 

these acquisitions was to assist farmers living within the area and to develop the area for wildlife. 

Creation of the Refuge led to wildfire suppression and large scale wetland restoration activities by the 

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Wetlands created by the CCC were actually not restorations as 

they created large, open-water impoundments where sedge meadows and tamarack bogs once 

occurred. Wildfire suppression activities had an equally significant effect as the areas prairie-like 

appearance began to disappear. Unsuppressed, succession began to create closed-canopy forests 

where they most likely had not occurred before. As the Refuge’s savannas were lost, both Prairie 

Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse disappeared. By 1960, all of the Refuge’s open-landscape savannas 

had been degraded. In that year, the Refuge began savanna restoration activities. 

3.2 Description of the Physical Environment

3.2.1 Archaeological and Cultural Values

Archaeological records show evidence of human occupation in Juneau County since the end of the last 

Ice Age when Paleo Indians hunted large prehistoric animals. Every subsequent cultural period for 

the past 10,000 years is represented. The land now known as the Refuge was probably used by several 

cultures since the Ice Age. The peat-covered lowlands around the extensive marsh and shallow river 

environment contained a wide variety of food resources. Slightly higher ground would have been 

suitable for resource-extraction activities, but the people likely located their larger camps and villages 

on elevated land forms not found within the Refuge.

Archaeological investigations have covered 2 percent of the Refuge. The surveys and other sources 

have identified 27 prehistoric and historic sites. The earliest evidence of people on the Refuge has 

been dated to the Middle Archaic period of 5,000 to 3,000 years ago. The rest of the identified sites are 

camps from the Woodland period of 3,000 to 250 years ago, and farmsteads and cemeteries from the 

period of Western culture settlement and occupation. Prehistoric mounds, including effigy mounds, 

are reported near the Refuge. An inventory of Yellow River archaeological values and previous 

archaeological work within the Yellow River Focus Area has not been completed. As of November 1, 

1998, the National Register of Historic Places contained seven properties in Juneau County and three 

properties in adjacent Jackson County. These properties include a bridge, houses, and prehistoric 

sites, including the Cranberry Creek Archaeological District 3 miles east of the Refuge.

Early 20th century fires burned across the Refuge area, destroying the peat so that now the sandy 

subsurface is exposed or shallowly covered with silt. The slight elevations that might have been used 

for resource extraction or temporary camps are virtually indistinguishable. In consultations with the 

Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer, the more efficient method of identifying archaeological 

sites would be to conduct a geomorphological investigation of the Refuge to determine where land 

forms exist that could have supported human use. The study conducted at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, 

could be a useful prototype.

Indian tribes may have interest in the Refuge area in terms of traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites, as well as claims to human remains, funerary objects, and other cultural items. During 

the early historic period in Wisconsin, Indian tribes were in a great state of flux, many tribes from the 

east having moved from their ancestral land and pushed the aborigines from Wisconsin to the south 

and west. Thus, connecting historic period tribes with their prehistoric cultural antecedents in 

Wisconsin is problematic. People of the Late Woodland Lakes phases may have become the 
142

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Menominee tribe. Evidence from archaeological excavations indicates that ancestors of the 

Winnebago had lived in eastern Wisconsin for hundreds of years; the Oneota of eastern Wisconsin 

may have been prehistoric Winnebago. In any event, historic records place Winnebago and 

Potawatomi in the area at the time of Western contact. The Refuge is within the area recognized by 

the Indian Claims Commission as being part of Menominee and Winnebago aboriginal territory. The 

Ioway spoke a Siouan language which likely links them to late prehistoric cultures of central and 

southern Wisconsin. To a limited extent the Illinois were indigenous tribes in southern Wisconsin, 

probably not as far north as the Refuge. By the 1600s, however, a variety of tribal groups were moving 

in and out of areas south of the Refuge and may have spent limited periods of time in areas adjacent to 

and within the vicinity. These tribes included the Sauk, Fox, Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Miami, and 

Mascouten.

3.2.2 Hydrology

Water plays an important part in the history of the Refuge. The sandy sediments and flat topography 

of the area are a result of Glacial Lake Wisconsin, a pre-historic lake that developed when a glacier 

blocked the Wisconsin River near Baraboo, Wisconsin. This extensive lake occupied large parts of 

Juneau and Adams counties, and parts of Wood, Portage, Waushara, Marquette, Columbia, Sauk, 

Richland, Vernon, Monroe and Jackson counties. Glacial Lake Wisconsin drained catastrophically 

about 13,000 years ago when the glaciers retreated. 

The Refuge is located in the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem (Ecosystem) which 

is one of eight hydrologically defined ecosystems that comprise the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of 

the Service. The Ecosystem is a large and ecologically diverse area that encompasses land in the 

states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. The Mississippi River bisects the 

Ecosystem east and west. Other major rivers include the Minnesota, Chippewa, Black, Wisconsin, 

Iowa, Rock, Skunk, Des Moines, and Illinois. 

Located in the Castle Rock watershed (8-Digit Hydrolologic Unit Code) (see Figure 5 and 6 in the 

CCP), the Refuge is supported by an important hydrological system comprised of natural and manmade waterways in which materials and energy are transferred. Some, such as the Yellow River and 

its tributaries, constitute an important ecological component to the Refuge by connecting biologically 

diverse food webs that provide important habitat features for wildlife. The Refuge, along with a series 

of other swampy basins such as Meadow Valley Flowage, Beaver Flowage, and numerous managed 

cranberry bogs, all contribute to the 7,800-square-mile Middle Wisconsin River Basin. The Castle 

Rock watershed drains 3,259 square miles, contains 27 rivers and streams, and has 3,358 total river 

miles.

On average, approximately 85 percent of the water entering the Refuge comes directly from 

precipitation, either as rain or snow (Table 6). Precipitation averages 32.6 inches annually. Streams 

that flow into the Refuge contribute about 13 percent of the water, while groundwater flow into the 

Refuge accounts for about 2 percent of the water, due largely to the interception of ground water by 

the extensive drainage networks surrounding the Refuge. Surface-water inflow to the Refuge 

includes: Remington Ditch (60 percent), Neal Lateral (15 percent, EBR-Spencer (11 percent), 

Meadow Valley (6 percent), and un-gauged (8 percent). 
143

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Of the water leaving the Refuge, about 62 percent is lost to evaporation from the pools or 

transpiration of water vapor back to the atmosphere from plants. Evaporation from open-water 

surfaces is estimated to be about 28 inches annually, as determined from a regional map of average 

annual lake evaporation (Kohler and others, 1959). Surface-water outflows from the Refuge, mostly 

through Rynearson Pools 1 (28 percent) and 2 (59 percent) and Suk-Cerney Pool (10 percent), 

constitute about 36 percent of the total outflows; groundwater flows out of the Refuge are about 2 

percent of the total annual outflows. This small amount of groundwater outflow, along with larger 

surface water outflows, demonstrates the efficiency of the extensive drainage network within the 

Refuge boundaries. A natural topographic fall of 50 feet occurs from north to south across the Refuge, 

or roughly 2-3 feet per mile. 

From recent groundwater modeling of the Refuge, annual recharge was estimated to be 9.5 inches. 

Hence, evapotranspiration was 32.6 inches (precipitation) minus 9.5 inches (groundwater recharge), or 

23.1 inches. This value agrees well with the findings of Weeks and Strangland (1971), who reported 

evapotranspiration values for nearby agricultural areas ranging from 15 to 20 inches per year, with 

higher rates expected in areas containing water-tolerant vegetation. Groundwater moves through the 

Refuge in a northwest to southeast direction traveling toward the Yellow River and Wisconsin River. 

Groundwater varies from 0 to 20 feet and is typically high in iron, with a pH of approximately 6.0, 

which is slightly acidic. Total dissolved solids and hardness are low. Groundwater recharge occurs 

primarily from percolation of precipitation through the loamy sands. 

Water control structures within the Refuge regulate drainage. Water contained within certain Refuge 

pools provide and impact water manipulation capability on other pools. Water is generally stored in 

Refuge pools during spring runoff and is used to refill pools that are drained and re-flooded during the 

course of the summer.

3.2.3 Physiography

The Refuge is located in the central plain province of Wisconsin within an area known as the Great 

Central Wisconsin Swamp, an extensive alluvial lake plain extending over 2,000 square miles. As 

stated previously, the Refuge is located in the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem 

(Service definition). Bailey’s Ecological Unit Classification System (Keys et al., 1995) defines this 

ecosystem as laurentian mixed forest, eastern broadleaf forest, lower Mississippi riverine forest, and 

prairie parkland. The Refuge is located in the eastern broadleaf forest province within the central 

Wisconsin sand plain subsection. 

Table 6: Summary of Water Sources and Sinks for Necedah NWR (May 1998 - April 1999)1

Water Sources Annual Flow (acre-ft.)

 Precipitation

 Surface Water Inflow

 Ground Water Inflow

118,700

19,600

2,300

Total Water In 140,600

Water Sinks Annual Flow (acre-ft.)

 Evapotranspiration Loss

 Surface Water Outflow

 Ground Water Outflow

85,400

51,500

2,700

Total Water Out 139,600

 Change in Storage (water inflow - water outflow)

 Percent of Water Inflow

1,000

0.7

1.U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, May 2000
144

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3.2.3.1 Historic Situation

Historically, land in and around the Refuge was once a vast peat bog with some low wooded islands 

and savannas. The higher sand ridges were occupied by mature stands of pines and other species (see 

Figure 8 in the CCP). The original land surveys of the area were conducted in 1853. While conducting 

the surveys, the surveyors recorded the soil quality, relief, and dominant timber types of the area. At 

nearly every survey point on the Refuge the land was described as “surface level, wet, and mostly 

swampy” with fairly open stands of “small, scattered “bastard pine” (jack pine) and tamarack.” 

Notable exceptions to this were the sand ridges that cross the area. On these ridges the surveyors 

described the area as surface rolling with low ridges. The vegetation on these ridges was described as 

“scattered jack pine and black oak” (presumably Hill's oak). On occasion, white pine, red pine, birch, 

and aspen were mentioned at some survey points, but in limited numbers. 

From this information it appears that the original landscape of the former lake bed of Glacial Lake 

Wisconsin, which the Refuge is part of, was wet and swampy and was dominated by jack pine and 

tamarack. This would be consistent with the name early pioneers gave to the area: “Great Central 

Wisconsin Swamp.” Sand ridges provided diversity to this monotypic, wet landscape. On these ridges 

grew scattered patches of jack pine and Hill's oak. It is difficult to say exactly what habitat types were 

represented on these sandy areas. Based on the number of sessile savanna species that are found in 

the area today, these areas were most likely dominated by savanna habitat.

3.2.3.2 Current Situation

As of 1994, the Refuge consists of roughly 43,700 acres of pine, oak, and aspen forests, grasslands and 

savannas, and wetlands and open water areas, all of which support a rich diversity of fish and wildlife. 

Table 7 is a summary of land cover types on the Refuge. Table 8 is a summary of land cover types 

found in the Refuge watershed (for comparison purposes).

Refuge forest communities (upland) include northern mesic forest (white and red pine, bigtooth 

aspen, trembling aspen, red maple) and mixed wet-mesic forest (jack pine, northern pin oak, red 

maple, trembling aspen, paper birch). Refuge forests provide excellent habitat for many neo-tropical 

migratory birds such as the Scarlet Tanager, Eastern Wood-pewee, and Ovenbird. Currently upland 

forests on the Refuge comprise roughly 16,500 acres. 

Refuge grasslands, savannas, fallow fields, and shrublands comprise open landscapes on the Refuge. 

Refuge grasslands include prairies, fallow fields, and meadows. Tree cover on the grasslands ranges 

from little to none. Plant cover is a mixture of sedges, grasses, and forbs that attract nesting 

Bobolinks, Vesper Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows, and Upland Sandpipers. Some common 

grassland species on the Refuge include big bluestem, little bluestem, Kentucky bluegrass, and a wide 

variety of other grasses, sedges and forbs. Blackberry and spirea are scattered in grassland areas as 

well. Willow-dogwood communities are invading old farm fields and wet meadows in places where 

disturbance is rare. Refuge grasslands provide important nesting habitat for many migratory birds 

including ducks, geese, and Sandhill Cranes, and also serve as grazing sites for white-tailed deer. 

Refuge savannas include northern pin oak, jack pine, warm season grasses, upland sedges, blueberry, 

goldenrod, and wild lupine. These savanna areas are also known as barrens because fire and tree 

diseases such as oak wilt are more common in the droughty, sandy soils. These disturbances keep the 

trees small and scattered. Oak savanna has been defined as having at least one tree per acre, but less 

than 50 percent cover. Wisconsin historically had over 4 million acres of barren habitat covering 12 

percent of the state. Today less than.14 percent remains. Refuge savannas support Eastern 

massasauga rattlesnakes, phlox moths, Blandings turtles, Karner blue butterflies, and over 110 

species of birds. Currently, open landscape lands on the Refuge comprise roughly 3,700 acres. 

Refuge wetlands include forested, non-forested, and open water wetlands. The majority of these occur 

within pools, streams, and ditches. Wetland plant species include pondweeds, spike rushes, elodea, 
145

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

coontail, milfoils, and duckweeds. Some Refuge pools are drawn down for part of the year to promote 

the production of high energy waterfowl foods such as millet, smartweed, chufa, beggar ticks, 

pigweed, sedges, and spikerush. Ditches and streams also provide additional wetland habitat, 

although to a lesser extent than Refuge pools.

Wet meadows and marsh edges consist of bur-reed, smartweeds, beggar’s ticks, bulrushes, blue-joint 

grass, and reed canary grass. Open sedge meadows comprise mixed sedges with invading jack pine, 

willow, and hardhack. Sedge meadows on the Refuge are home to northern harriers, sedge wrens, and 

sora rails.

Table 7: Land Cover Types, Necedah NWR1

Land Cover Type Acres

Open Landscapes (grasslands, savanna, shrublands, old fields) 3,700

Coniferous Forests 900

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 10,000

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 5,600

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 10,500

Forested Wetlands 5,700

Lowland Shrubs 5,500

Open Water Areas 1,800

Total 43,700

1.Data source: WISCLAND (1994)

Table 8: Land Cover Types Within the Watershed, Necedah NWR1

Land Cover Type Acres

Urban Areas 26,565 

Agricultural Land 510,395

Open Landscapes (grasslands, savanna, shrublands, old fields) 327,305

Coniferous Forests 118,188

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 163,507

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 431,145

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 128,974

Forested Wetlands 176,491

Lowland Shrubs 108,187

Open Water Areas 79,426

Total 2,070,183

1.Data source: WISCLAND (1994)
146

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Bottomland forested areas include jack pine, silver and red maple, green ash, northern pin and swamp 

white oak, river birch, and trembling aspen. Tamarack was historically present in these areas. 

Currently non-forested, forested, and open water wetlands comprise roughly 23,500 acres. 

3.2.4 The Yellow River Focus Area

The Yellow River is a 99-mile warm water stream that originates in Clark County, Wisconsin, and 

flows through Wood and Juneau counties before emptying into the Castle Rock Flowage. The 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) selected the upper Yellow River as a Priority 

Watershed in 1990. The Refuge and the DNR proposed a collaborative effort to conserve the Yellow 

River in 1994, with the DNR conserving the upper Yellow River and reaches below the Necedah dam. 

The Yellow River drains a portion of extinct Glacial Lake Wisconsin, which covered much of Central 

Wisconsin 10,000-12,000 years ago from approximately the current Black River on the west and the 

current channel of the Wisconsin River on the east. The Yellow River watershed is characterized by 

near level terrain and sandy soils, as is much of the Central Sands Ecological Landscape. This 

landscape historically was characterized by pine and pak barrens, wetlands, and dry to dry-mesic oak 

and pine forests. Currently the Yellow River is a meandering, low-gradient stream with many oxbow 

lakes, cut-off and running sloughs, and small ponds in the floodplain. The predominant plant 

community is floodplain forest (silver maple, green ash, swamp white oak, and river birch). Low sandy 

ridges support white oak, bur oak, shagbark hickory, black cherry, and white pine. Above all, the 

Yellow River boasts a rich and bountiful bottomland hardwood forest that has retained much of its 

wild character.

Many rare, uncommon, and declining animal species have been found in the Yellow River area in 

recent years. Many of these are sensitive to size, isolation, and quality of habitat. Species of Federal 

concern include the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, Blanding’s turtle, and Cerulean Warbler. The 

Red-shouldered Hawk, Acadian Flycatcher, Yellow-crowned Night Heron, Sedge Wren, Prothonotary 

Warbler, and Louisiana Waterthrush, each which falls within various state categories of concern, are 

found there also. An active Great Blue Heron rookery has been present since 1991. Other bird species 

present during the breeding season include several neotropical migrants which have shown significant 

population declines. These include the Veery, Wood Thrush, and Golden-winged Warbler. Waterfowl 

include the Mallard, Wood Duck, and Hooded Merganser. Woodcock, Wild Turkey, Ruffed Grouse, 

white-tailed deer, fox squirrel, and grey squirrel are common throughout much of the area.

Currently there are at least six Karner blue butterfly sites in the Yellow River Focus Area. Friendship 

and Plainfield sands soils, which support necessary habitat for the endangered Karner blue butterfly 

are found throughout the area. Those soil types offer potential restoration of oak savanna, habitat 

important to the butterfly. Table 9 is a summary of land cover types found in the Yellow River Focus 

Area.
147

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

3.3 Geology

The Refuge lies along the northeastern edge the Wisconsin Driftless Area. The topography of the 

Refuge is therefore not the result of glaciation, but of erosion and the inundation by Glacial Lake 

Wisconsin. The topography of the area is extremely flat with a few interspersed sandstone buttes and 

mesas which are outstanding landmarks in contrast to the general flatness of the terrain. The Refuge 

is underlain by a Precambrian Crystalline bedrock complex, the surface of which varies in elevation 

from approximately 860 Mean Sea Level at the north end of the Refuge to approximately 760 M.S.L. 

at the south end. The Precambrian bedrock is overlain by an estimated 30 to 100 feet stratum of late 

Cambrian sandstone. 

Soils on and around the Refuge represent three major soil associations consistent with central 

Wisconsin landscapes: Aus Gres loamy sands and Morocco silt loams, Plainfield and Nekoosa loamy 

sands, and muck and peat soils (see Figure 10 in the CCP). The dominant soil association is the 

Plainfield and Nekoosa loamy sands. Newson and Dawson peat soils are found in the impoundments, 

along drainage ditches, and in marshes. These soils are usually inundated and consist of partially 

decayed organic matter and mineral soils. 

3.4 Description of the Biological Environment

3.4.1 Listed Species

As stated in Chapter 2, Federally listed threatened or endangered species that use the Refuge and the 

adjacent Yellow River Area include the Bald Eagle, Eastern timber wolf, and Karner blue butterfly. 

The Yellow River Focus Area also supports the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, which is a candidate 

for federal listing.

State-listed threatened or endangered species that use the Refuge include the Bald Eagle, Redshouldered Hawk, Blanding’s turtle, Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and Trumpeter Swan. The 

Refuge also supports several state-listed species of plants. These include the prairie fameflower, small 

skullcap, oval-leaved milkweed, and wooly milkweed. 

Table 9: Land Cover Types in the Yellow River Focus Area1

Land Cover Type Acres

Open Landscapes (grasslands, savanna, shrublands, old fields) 2,593

Coniferous Forests 483 

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 1,329

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 3,909

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 1,847

Forested Wetlands 10,259

Lowland Shrubs 1,485

Open Water Areas 45

Total 21,953

1.Data Source: WISCLAND (1994)
148

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Bald Eagle

The Bald Eagle, America’s national symbol, experienced a drastic decline throughout the country 

from the 1950s into the early 1970s. This decline was caused by the bio-accumulation of organochlorine 

pesticides (DDT and dieldrin) in fish and habitat destruction. The use of pesticides which contained 

DDT or dieldrin were banned in 1972, and shortly there after the number of successful eagle nests 

increased steadily. Bald Eagles were listed as an endangered species in 1976. Due to successful 

conservation efforts, the Bald Eagle was recently upgrade to a threatened species. One occupied eagle 

nest currently occurs at the Refuge. 

Eastern Timber Wolf

Eastern timber wolves lived throughout Wisconsin prior to the 1830s. As settlers transformed native 

habitat into farmland, prey species declined and wolves began feeding on livestock. In 1865, the 

Wisconsin Legislature paid a $5.00 state bounty for every wolf killed. The wolf bounty was later 

increased to $20.00 for adults and $10.00 for pups to protect the dwindling deer herd. By 1960, few 

wolves remained throughout the lower 48 states and were declared extirpated from the State of 

Wisconsin.

In 1973, the wolf was listed as a federal endangered species and as a state endangered species in the 

State of Wisconsin. Between 1979-1986, studies showed that four to six wolf packs (15-25 animals) 

roamed two areas of northern Wisconsin. Since this period, wolf packs continue to increase 

throughout Wisconsin. Currently there are at least 66 confirmed wolf packs (248-259 animals) in 

northwestern and central Wisconsin and 11 established wolf packs in the central Wisconsin forest 

complex (Wydeven et al. 2000). Territories of four packs, Suk Cearney, Yellow River, Dead Creek, and 

South Bluff, may extend onto the Refuge. The Suk Cearney pack’s territory appears to be 

concentrated on the southern end of the Refuge. This pack has numbered as many as seven 

individuals at one time. Based on winter wolf track surveys, there may be two dens and/or rendezvous 

sites on the Refuge, although howling surveys have not detected wolf pups as of yet. For the most 

recent map of wolf pack distribution in Wisconsin, see the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources website at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/publications/wolf_progress_reports/ 

00wolfprogress /map99-00.gif. 

Karner Blue Butterfly

Karner blue butterflies have undoubtedly been long time residence of the Refuge property. As 

previously mentioned, savanna habitat was present on Refuge land at the time of the original land 

surveys. Karner blue butterflies most likely occurred on these savannas. However, definitive proof is 

lacking. The butterflies undoubtedly benefitted from the drainage and expanded burning that 

occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. Presently, Karner blue butterflies are known to occur in 

12 population complexes within the Refuge (see Table 10), which constitutes the world’s largest 

remaining population of Karner blue butterflies. The butterfly was listed as an endangered species in 

1993.

Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake

Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes have already disappeared from most of Wisconsin. Once 

widespread and plentiful in southern and western Wisconsin, the Eastern massasauga has been 

reduced to just five populations in the state. One of those populations is located next to the Refuge in 

the Yellow River. The Yellow River was long considered Wisconsin’s best massasauga population in 

terms of the species abundance. Evidence of this is found in bounty records indicating that bounty was 

paid on over 4,000 massasaugas between 1952 and 1972.

The Yellow River population produced 25 Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes in the 1990s. Nineteen of 

these snakes were neonates from two different clutches. Of the six adults, three were located during 

routine surveys and three were road-killed animals. No new snakes have been located in the Yellow 

River since 1995, despite intensive survey effort by the Refuge and Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources. The Eastern massasauga was listed as a state endangered species in 1975.
149

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

The Refuge is currently working with landowners on the Yellow River to conserve massasaugas 

through habitat improvements. Similar efforts are under way with landowners around three other 

massasauga populations. These populations are in LaCrosse, Monroe, and Buffalo counties. The 

Refuge is developing Candidate Conservation Agreements with landowners on all of these areas. 

Whooping Crane

Whooping Crane chicks were introduced at the Refuge in the summer of 2001 as part of a Whooping 

Crane reintroduction project to establish a migratory population in the eastern U.S. to contribute 

toward recovery of the species. The population has been designated as a non-essential population 

(NEP) in a rule making action finalized on June 26, 2001. The crane chicks were rearing in a pen 

situation and trained to follow ultralight aircraft in migration to a selected wintering site at 

Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge. Yearling cranes returned to the Refuge in the spring of 

2002. Annual Whooping Crane introduction, rearing, and release activities are expected to continue 

for a period of 10 years. 

Rare Plants

There may be rare species of plants that have not been identified on the Refuge, particularly those 

that may be living in remote locations. While several studies have been done on plant abundance and 

distribution, a comprehensive inventory of Refuge plants is needed. The Refuge and the Yellow River 

area have populations of several rare and declining plant species (or provide habitat that would 

support these species) that are described in Table 11.

Table 10: Karner Blue Butterfly Population Levels, Necedah NWR, 1993-20001

Complex

Name

Size

acres

Ref. # Year

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

South 

Rynearson

19.5 1 685 682 353 1,361 1,482 155 345 719

North 

Rynearson

14.3 5 211 314 838 521 179 0 0 146

Old Barrens 15.3 6 N/A 299 624 519 84 26 104 0

Goose Pool 27.4 9 160 215 501 865 282 1,249 3,861 1,952

East Sprague 27.9 10 278 536 1,263 3,896 993 669 844 955

East 

Rynearson

47.4 2 359 199 105 157 131 310 115 35

Cranberry 

Loop

28.9 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 298 153

Research/

Natural Area

13.6 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Clauson 

Burn

5.3 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Pool 19 35.8 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 660

Middle 

Refuge

21.5 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 171

1.All population estimates are derived from Pollard-Yates surveys. The software “Distance” was then used to convert survey results to population estimates.
150

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3.4.2 Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds

For centuries, birds have descended upon the Refuge area during their annual migrations between 

Central and South America and their northern U.S., Canadian, and Arctic breeding grounds. In total, 

more than 230 different species of birds have been observed on the Refuge since its inception. The 

Refuge has long been considered an important migratory stopover area for Mallards, Blue-winged 

Teal, Ring-necks, and Wood Ducks. Other migrant species that utilize the Refuge during spring, 

summer, or fall include: Canada, Snow, and White-fronted Geese; Sandhill Cranes; Woodcock; Snipe; 

Great Blue Herons; swans; egrets; Dickcissels; warblers; Brown Thrashers; several different species 

of sparrows; meadowlarks; Sora Rails; Black-crowned Night Herons; Bobolinks; bitterns; Redheaded Woodpeckers; and Red-tailed Hawks; just to name a few. During migrations, three species of 

geese, 10 species of dabbling ducks, nine species of diving ducks, and Trumpeter and Tundra Swans 

are commonly found in significant numbers on the Refuge. Waterfowl are most abundant in the fall, 

with fall counts of ducks averaging around 20,000. Resident bird species include Wild Turkeys, Ruffed 

Grouse, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Woodpeckers, and Nuthatches. 

In 1999, the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of the Service initiated a process to identify its top 

species priorities in terms of those in need of the greatest conservation attention in the Region. 

Appendix I includes a list of regional priority species that occur on the Refuge and/or the Yellow River 

Focus Area. In addition, the Refuge and the adjacent Yellow River area contain habitat that supports 

or historically supported several species of birds on the Service’s List of Migratory Nongame Birds of 

Management Concern. Appendix I contains those species as well. 

3.4.3 Native Biological Diversity

The Keystone Center, 1991, defines biological diversity as 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. Biological diversity can be considered at a minimum of four 

levels: genetic level, species level, ecosystem level, and landscape level. In order to manage the 

biological resources at the Refuge, it is necessary for the Refuge to work at the species, ecosystem, 

and landscape levels. Species are how we typically measure biological diversity and they historically 

represent the principal focus of wildlife managers.

3.4.4 Species Level Biological Diversity

The Refuge supports an assortment of mammals that contribute to the ecological, economic, and 

aesthetic value of central Wisconsin. Within the past 3 years, timber wolves are thought to have 

established two packs on Refuge land. Timber wolves are a top predator that play an important 

ecological role, as well as provide educational opportunities for Refuge visitors. Black bear and bobcat 

are also present in low numbers. 

White-tailed deer are very abundant and can be seen on the Refuge almost anywhere, and at anytime. 

Cottontail rabbits; snowshoe hare; gray, red, fox and flying squirrels; woodchucks; raccoon; skunks; 

red and gray fox; coyotes; muskrat; mink; otter; opossum; weasels; and badger are mid-sized 

mammals that serve as both predators and prey in Refuge plant and animal communities. Small 

mammalian residents include meadow voles, white-footed and deer mice, shrews, and moles. These 

small animals are a primary food source for many larger animals.

Reptiles and amphibians are important Refuge residents. Snake species include hog-nosed snakes, 

eastern garter snakes, smooth green snakes, northern water snakes, fox snakes, and eastern 

massasauga rattlesnakes. Five-lined skinks are a species of lizard that call the Refuge home. Painted, 

softshell, and snapping turtles can be seen in wetland environments; Blanding’s turtles are most 

frequently seen in upland savanna environments. Frog and toad species that inhabit the Refuge 

include leopard frogs, green frogs, wood frogs, grey tree frogs, spring peepers, and the American 
151

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

toad. Blue-spotted salamanders are fairly common and can be found in dark moist environments, such 

as under decaying logs or thick leaf litter.

Invertebrates are abundant on the Refuge and play an integral role in maintaining the ecological 

balance of several Refuge ecosystems. Wisconsin has approximately 20,000 species of insects – far 

more than any group of animals in the state. The Refuge is home to the world’s largest remaining 

population of the Federally listed Karner blue butterfly and also to the rare Leonard’s skipper. Other 

rare insects that use the Refuge include the phlox moth, frosted elfin butterfly, Persius dusky wing, 

ringed bog haunter dragonfly, and two species of tiger beetles. 

Table 11: Rare Plants Found on the Refuge and Within the Yellow River Focus Area1

Common Name Scientific Name State Status* Habitat/Location

Round-stemmed false 

foxglove

Agalinus gattingeri State threatened 

(Federal status 

assessment in progress)

Southern Juneau County in dry 

prairies and bedrock glades

Wooly milkweed Asclepias languinosa State threatened Dry savannas (oak barrens) in 

Juneau County, just south of 

Necedah Refuge

Brittle prickly pear Opuntia fragilis State threatened Dry, sandy habitats in 

neighboring Adams County; 

may occur in similar habitats in 

Juneau County

Dwarf bilberry Vaccinium cespitosum State endangered Sandy pine and oak savanna 

habitats, bracken grasslands

Sand violet Viola fimbrulata State endangered Sandy pine and oak savanna 

habitats

Pale false foxglove Agalinus skinneriana State endangered Dry savannas in Adams County

Tubercled or pale green 

orchid

Plantanthera flava var. 

herbiola

State threatened Wet prairies and sedge 

meadows in Juneau and Adams 

counties

Umbrella sedge Fuirena pumila State endangered Coastal plain species that 

inhabit peat and muck flats, wet 

sands, and fluctuating lake 

shores

Bald rush Psilocarya scirpoides State threatened Coastal plain species that 

inhabit peat and muck flats, wet 

sands, and fluctuating lake 

shores

Netted nut-rush Scleria reticularis State endangered Coastal plain species requiring 

recently desiccated mud or 

sand lake beds with fluctuating 

water

Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena State threatened Sedge meadows and tamarack 

bogs; has been documented in 

western Adams County. 

Beak grass Diarrhena americana State endangered Floodplain forest; may inhabit 

Yellow River bottoms, adjacent 

and east of Necedah Refuge

1.No federally-listed plants are likely to occur on the Refuge.
152

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Fish species are also important members of the Refuges biological community. They cycle nutrients in 

aquatic systems and serve as food sources for a variety of birds and mammals. Although many fish 

species are at a disadvantage due to the drainage of Refuge pools for waterbird management, many 

people travel to the Refuge for rewarding year-round fishing opportunities on Refuge pools and 

ditches. Muskellunge; northern pike; large mouth bass; yellow perch; black crappie; pumpkinseed; 

black, brown, and yellow bullhead are some common species sought by anglers. 

3.4.5 Ecosystem Level Biological Diversity

Ecosystems are defined as the interacting parts of the physical and biological worlds (Ricklefs 1990). 

There are three ecosystems of primary importance with respect to the Refuge: wetlands, forests, and 

open landscapes. Descriptions of these ecosystems are provided in Description of the Physical 

Environments section “Physiography”.

3.4.6 Landscape Level Biological Diversity

Landscape is defined as a number of interacting stands or ecosystems repeated in similar form over a 

kilometer wide area (Forman and Godron 1986). For convenience, we can think of it as a regional view 

of biological diversity. Until recently, there has been very little work, particularly in the Midwest, to 

protect biological diversity at the landscape scale. 

In order for the Refuge to exist as part of a functioning landscape, the Refuge will have to: 

# Conserve and restore ecosystems historically occurring in the landscape across a portion of 

the Refuge area.

# Arrange protected areas so that the arrangement of ecosystems mimics the natural 

organization.

# Work cooperatively with a broad array of partners to manage public and privately owned 

land in order to mimic natural processes, e.g., fire, flooding, succession, and providing 

connectivity to the matrix in which the Refuge occurs. 

The Refuge is promoting biological diversity at the species, ecosystem, and landscape level by using 

different management regimes. For example, locally some savannas are burned often while others 

haven't been burned in 8 years. Some savannas are mowed while others have never been mowed. The 

Refuge is contributing to Regional biological diversity by restoring and maintaining rare habitats 

including sedge meadows and savannas. Nationally, the Refuge is contributing to biological diversity 

by providing habitat for endangered species.

3.5 Description of the Socioeconomic Environment

In 1998, the Refuge contracted with Industrial Economics Inc. to complete an economic impact 

assessment to estimate the regional economic and national social welfare benefits of the Refuge. 

However, some of the data used to generate the economic report is associated with significant 

uncertainty, as well as dated. As a result, the estimates in the report should be interpreted with 

uncertainty in mind. Some of the values used to generate that report have been updated to reflect 

more current figures. Also, it should be noted that the report was not commissioned to support any of 

the action items contained in the CCP. It was prepared to facilitate a better understanding of the 

economic contribution national wildlife refuges in general have on local and regional economies.

Within the four-county region surrounding the Refuge (Wood, Juneau, Adams, and Monroe counties), 

agricultural activities constitute an important component of the economy. This sector includes both 

dairy farms and farms that grow row crops (e.g., sweet corn, potatoes, snap peas). Cranberry 
153

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

production is also important. It is considered a premium crop in that it commands a high price in the 

market. Cranberry beds, while representing a small percentage of the total land area, are scattered 

throughout the region. The total acreage of cranberry beds currently in Juneau and Wood counties 

alone is estimated to be 4,500. Because the region has large tracts of both private and public forest 

land, the timber industry is important to the economy as well. Wood County is the most populous and 

strongest economically of the four.

These four counties offer a variety of recreational activities on both public and private land. Along 

with the Refuge, there are several other public recreation areas. These include Sandhill Wildlife Area, 

Wood County Wildlife Area, and Meadow Valley Wildlife Area. Other recreational and camping areas 

nearby include Buckhorn State Park, Castle Rock, and Petenwell County Parks, which are adjacent to 

the Refuge. These offer substitute sites and opportunities to the Refuge for hunting, fishing, wildlife 

viewing, photography, and other recreational activities.

Commercial activities on the Refuge include timber harvesting and trapping for pelts. Several of the 

surrounding towns maintain roadways that pass through the Refuge. Funding for road maintenance 

on Federal property helps supplement the tax base used to fund road projects. The Refuge’s annual 

budget (> $1 million dollars in 2001) supports employee salaries, operation and maintenance, 

education, and improvement projects such as bridges, dams, and roads. 

Commercial and Refuge management economic activities on the Refuge include:

# The annual budget for staff salaries, maintenance, operations, small capital purchases and 

educational programs exceeded $1,000,000 in 2001. 

# Each year, sections of the Refuge are selected for timber harvesting to maintain quality 

habitat for plants and animals. In 1996-97, 3,237 cords of wood were harvested worth 

$155,758.

# Trapping is an important management tool used to reduce or prevent damage to Refuge 

roads, dikes, and water control structures. Trapping may also reduce predation on nesting 

birds. Trapping is also a recreational opportunity afforded by the Refuge. Trapped species 

include mink, beaver, muskrat, and raccoon. The annual average value of pelts taken 

between 1980 and1995 was $6,858.

# In addition to maintenance of land by the Refuge, certain roads within the boundary of the 

Refuge are maintained by the surrounding townships of Necedah, Finley, Cutler, 

Remington, and Kingston. These townships spend, on average, approximately $96,000 

annually for road maintenance, with a large part of this cost for snow removal.

Conclusions drawn from Refuge-dependent commercial and Refuge management economic activities 

include:

# Refuge spending contributes over $1 million and roughly 18 jobs to the regional economy.

# Refuge road maintenance and timber harvesting produce similar effects on the regional 

economy, accounting for approximately $150,000 each year. 

# Furbearer trapping plays a minor role in the overall regional economy, accounting for only 

$7,000 of regional output and less than one job.

# Refuge fire support to the Necedah Fire Department accounted for $9,500 in 2001 through 

Wildland Urban Interface Funding.

The Refuge also has an indirect economic impact on the local economy through recreational activities 

it supports. Among these are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, berry picking, 

and cross-country skiing. Although the Refuge charges no entrance fee, individuals who visit the 

Refuge and participate in these activities often purchase a variety of goods and services in the 
154

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

communities surrounding the Refuge (e.g., food, lodging, fuel, equipment). In 2000, Juneau County 

contributed $84 million to Wisconsin’s tourism industry (Wisconsin Department of Tourism). 

Some of the more popular recreational activities on the Refuge are:

# Hunting for both large (white-tailed deer) and small game species (grey, red, and fox 

squirrel; rabbit; snowshoe hare; ruffed grouse; waterfowl; wild turkey; and raccoon). In 

1996, an estimated 10,000 trips were made to the Refuge for the purpose of hunting.

# Fishing on Refuge waters, primarily for northern pike, bullheads, crappie, yellow perch, and 

sunfish. In 1996, approximately 7,000 trips were made to the Refuge for the purpose of 

fishing.

# Wildlife viewing accounted for over 106,000 trips to the Refuge in 1996.

# Blueberry, raspberry, and blackberry picking are popular during summer months.

Conclusions drawn from Refuge-dependent recreational activities include:

# Wildlife viewing has the greatest effect on the regional economy, accounting for between 

$1.9 million and $2.3 million of regional output and between 48 and 67 jobs.

# Recreational hunting has the second greatest effect on the regional economy, accounting for 

$250,000 and 6.8 jobs.

# Fishing produces the third greatest regional economic effects, accounting for $220,000 of 

regional output and 5.9 jobs.
155

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

This chapter evaluates three alternatives on the basis of environmental consequences or impacts 

relative to the issues identified in Chapter 1. The chapter is organized by issue. Environmental 

impacts are summarized in Table 15 on page 179

4.1 General Impact Analysis

4.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Under Alternative 1 and Alternative 3, the potential development of access roads, dikes, control 

structures, visitor parking areas, and reclamation of former building sites could lead to local and 

short-term negative impacts to plants, soil, and some wildlife species. Increased use of the Refuge 

may result in increased littering, noise, and vehicle traffic.

4.1.2 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity

The local, short-term uses of the environment under Alternatives 1 and Alternative 3 include habitat 

restoration and enhancement activities for the benefit of Service trust resources. Alternatives 1 and 3 

could also include the development of additional public use facilities to further the public’s 

understanding and appreciation of the natural world. The resulting long-term effect of these 

alternatives includes increased protection of threatened and endangered species, increased waterfowl 

and songbird production, and long-term recovery of a myriad of species dependent on quality wetland 

and grassland habitats. In addition, local and regional people will gain long-term opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation and education. 

4.1.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Funding and personnel commitments by the Service or other organizations under Alternatives 1 and 3 

would be unavailable for other programs. Fee-title acquisition of lands by the Service would make 

them “public lands” and preclude other use of these lands in accordance with individual desires. 

Traditional land uses may change since uses on Service lands must be shown to be compatible with the 

# General impact analysis

# A description of impacts associated with Service trust resources

# A description of impacts associated with visitor services

# A description of impacts associated with habitat management

# A description of impacts associated with the Yellow River Focus Area

# A summary of table of environmental impacts
156

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

purposes for which the land is acquired. Any lands purchased will lose their potential for future 

development by the private sector as long as they remain in public ownership. Structural 

improvements that are purchased with any land may be declared surplus to government needs and 

sold and/or demolished on site. Land that a new visitor center would be built on would no longer be 

available for hunting purposes or provide habitat for wildlife and plants.

4.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects (or impacts) are those effects on the environment resulting from incremental 

consequences of the alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, regardless of who undertakes these actions. However, accurately summarizing 

cumulative effects is difficult in that while one action increases or improves a resource in an area, 

other unrelated actions may decrease or degrade that resource in another area. 

Over many years the cumulative effects of wetland drainage, conversion of native prairies into crop 

land, and the clearing of bottomland forests and savannas have been severe on listed species, 

waterfowl and other migratory birds, and native biological diversity, both at the local, state, and 

national levels. 

The State of Wisconsin has lost over 53 percent of its original wetlands and 99 percent of its original 

prairies and oak savannas. Prior to European settlement, Wisconsin is estimated to have had 

approximately 10 million acres of wetlands and 4 million acres of savannas. Today less than 5 million 

acres of wetlands remain. Savannas have been reduced to less that 60,000 acres statewide. At the 

national level, of the estimated 221 million acres of wetland habitat present in the lower 48 states at 

the time of colonial America, only 103 million acres remain (47 percent). Draining, dredging, filling, 

leveling, and flooding have reduced wetlands to the point where 22 states have lost 50 percent or more 

of their original wetlands, and 10 states have lost 70 percent or more (Dahl, 1990). The consequences 

of this intensive conversion of wetlands, prairies, and oak savannas have been significant declines in 

migratory birds populations, water quality degradation in lakes, rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico, and 

probable increased flood frequency and intensity along mainstem rivers and their major tributaries.

The wide-scale loss of oak savanna and pine barren ecosystems across twelve states and the province 

of Ontario, Canada, has had a severe negative impact on the Karner blue butterfly. Over the past 

century, the number of Karner blue butterflies have declined by at least 99 percent. Over 90 percent of 

that decline has occurred in the last 15 years. Loss of habitat resulted in a rapid decline in Karner 

population numbers, and extirpation of large populations across its range. Today scattered 

populations are only found in portions of New Hampshire, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, 

and Minnesota. As a result, the Karner blue butterfly was proposed for federal listing on January 21, 

1992, and listed as endangered on December 14, 1992. Presently the Refuge is home to the world’s 

largest remaining population of the Federally listed Karner blue butterfly, supporting 12 population 

complexes. 

The long-term declines in early successional forests across the north-eastern and north-central 

United State has contributed to the decline of many bird species as well. Selective harvesting, fire 

suppression, urban sprawl, and cessation of agricultural abandonment contributed to the present 

imbalance in distribution of young forests (Oliver and Larson, 1999). 

The continent’s only migratory population of Whooping Cranes winters at Aransas National Wildlife 

Refuge on the Texas Gulf Coast and is vulnerable to a catastrophic event such as a major hurricane. In 

the summer of 2001, a population was introduced on the Refuge as part of an effort to establish a 

migratory population in the eastern U.S. and to contribute toward recovery of the species. 
157

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

The original tallgrass prairie, which extended from western Indiana to the eastern part of Kansas, 

Nebraska, and North and South Dakota and south to Oklahoma and Texas, has been virtually 

eliminated throughout its historic range. Recent surveys suggest that 82.6 to 99.9 percent declines in 

the acreage of tallgrass prairie have occurred in 12 states and one Canadian province since European 

settlement. Loss and fragmentation of prairie landscapes combined with changes in natural processes 

(e.g., fire suppression) have had negative consequences for many grassland plants and associated 

animals 

For years following the initial conversion of native Midwestern prairies, many prairie-dependent 

wildlife species remained relatively stable through their ability to colonize agricultural grasslands. 

However, 20th century agricultural grassland loss has followed a similar path of decline as native 

prairie loss in the 19th century. In many parts of the Midwest, agricultural grassland are at their 

lowest level in more than 100 years

Consequently, grassland-dependent birds have shown steeper, more consistent, and geographically 

more widespread declines (25-65 percent) than any other group of North American birds (Samson and 

Knopf 1994). Other grassland associated mammals, insects, and microorganisms are threatened with a 

similar fate. Currently there are 55 grassland species in the U.S. considered threatened or 

endangered (Samson and Knopf 1994). Species using the Refuge that are experiencing serious 

declines include the Bobolink, Henslow’s Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Savannah 

Sparrow, Lark Sparrow, Field Sparrow, Dickcissel, Eastern Meadowlark, and American Bittern 

(National Biological Survey 1995). The Grasshopper Sparrow and Dickcissel have declined over 80 

percent in Wisconsin since the mid-1960s. 

Alternatives 1 and 3 could reverse many of the above mentioned population declines (at least locally) 

for many bird species and Karner blue butterflies by restoring and managing additional savanna 

habitat. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the Refuge would be restoring approximately 

3,000 additional acres of savanna habitat, bringing its total savanna habitat to approximately 3,500 

acres. The 3,500 acres will be distributed between 35 sub-sites that are distributed over approximately 

15 square miles. Through these efforts the Refuge aims to insure a minimum Karner population of 

6,000 to 7,000 second flight adults and constitute a major step toward the recovery of that species. 

Restoration and preservation of additional savanna on the Refuge would also help reverse the longterm decline in early successional forests across the region. 

Alternative 3 would also result in the restoration and management of an additional 3,500 acres of 

grasslands on the Refuge for nesting waterfowl and other migratory birds, thus contributing to the 

recovery of many grassland-dependent species of regional concern. Alternative 2 would allow past 

trends to continue; and conditions at the local level for Karner blue butterflies, savanna and 

grassland-dependent birds, and native biological diversity would worsen. 

All of the alternatives described in this EA would contribute to the recovery of Bald Eagle, Whooping 

Crane, and gray wolf. Efforts to establish a migratory population of Whooping Cranes on or near the 

Refuge would not only restore the Whooping Crane to part of its historic range, but also provide a 

geographically distinct migratory population, leading toward the long-term recovery of that species. 

All of the alternatives described in Chapter 2 offer opportunities for additional actions relating to the 

conservation, restoration, and management of habitat for the benefit of Service trust resources 

independent of Service operations. These other actions, if initiated by other Federal agencies, the 

state, local communities, non-governmental organizations or private individuals, could be coordinated 

with the Service through cooperative agreements, mutual aid agreements, matching challenge grants, 

etc. or through technical assistance between cooperators. Typical cumulative actions that could be 

taken by these other entities include the acquisition of land in fee title, acquisition of conservation 

easements or access rights-of-way, protection of water quality, cleanup of contaminants, 

implementation of various agricultural management practices and techniques, management of private 

lands for wildlife and timber stand improvement through county and state programs, protection of 
158

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

endangered species through the Endangered Species Act and state laws and regulations, 

management of resource uses by the states and non-governmental organizations, management of nongame species by the state, predator and damage control by U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service and the state, implementation of grants through the Endangered 

Species Act, Federal Clean Water Act, Federal Reclamation Act and to the state through the Federal 

Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program and to private landowners through the Service's 

Partners for Wildlife program, to name a few. These cooperative actions are all possible, and the 

chances for initiating any of these cooperative actions by others may increase by the mere presence of 

the Refuge and Refuge staff in the area. 

In the final analysis, the integrity of the natural resource values encompassed within the state and 

country (all inclusive) will depend on actions taken by others. Refuge land, even with the acquisition of 

additional land in the Yellow River Focus Area, would exist only as a small portion of the total acreage 

within the state and nation.

Cumulative effects on property taxes paid to the local taxing bodies (townships, county, school 

districts) by the Service and others would likely be neutral, since the taxing bodies have discretion in 

adjusting their revenue stream in order to account for their expenses. While the Service does not pay 

taxes, it does make an annual Refuge Revenue Sharing payment (see Chapter 2 “Elements Common 

to all Alternatives”) to the townships where Service-owned land is present. Since these payments are 

based on land value, an acre of land valued at $1,000.00 would generate a $7.50 payment each year, or 

$7,500.00 per million of land value (at full entitlement). In Juneau County, Refuge Revenue Sharing 

payments at full entitlement are roughly 32 percent of what taxes would be if lands had remained in 

private ownership (based on personnel communication with Juneau County, Wisconsin). Alternative 3 

below provides additional analysis/clarification of Refuge Revenue Sharing.

Further, the presence of a national wildlife refuge is often considered an asset to an area contributing 

to the quality of life. Not only does it offer public recreation potential and greatly enhance the 

educational opportunities of the local schools, it serves as an attraction for people looking to relocate 

from urban areas. Therefore it can be expected that as more people relocate to the two counties (due 

in part to the presence of the Refuge), taxable real estate such as new homes, cabins, and other land 

improvements will increase, thereby increasing the local private property tax base. 

As natural habitats in the area are destroyed and fragmented into smaller parcels by new 

development activities, acquisition and management of land in the Yellow River Focus Area will 

represent a compensating factor to make up for the loss. Long-term environmental benefits would be 

gained from habitat conservation and enhancement resulting from Service activities in this area. 

Biodiversity, including numbers and variety of non-game species, would be enhanced. Threatened and 

endangered species would benefit from specific management actions and monitoring programs. As 

more of the area becomes conserved and managed, the more important and recognized it will become 

for natural resource values and as a special place for people to find enjoyment and educational 

benefits.

The trend in demand for wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., wildlife observation) is expected to 

continue into the foreseeable future, due in part to the increasing population of retirement-age 

Americans. As the number of visitors to the Refuge area increases, private enterprises would be likely 

to develop support facilities and services such as campgrounds, motels, restaurants, sporting goods 

stores, etc. to meet the increased demand. Increased visits to the Refuge could result in additional onsite facilities such as a visitor center, parking areas, trails, observation towers, etc. These new facilities 

both on- and off-site could reduce available habitat and create localized damage to vegetation, soil 

compaction and erosion, while increasing the chance of wildlife disturbance and disturbance to other 

visitors. These potential negative effects could be minimized through careful planning and 

management. Popular activities on site specific areas could be controlled to reduce impacts through 

proper design, site selection and construction technique or by restructuring participation through 
159

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

registration and fee systems. Although control of development would be exercised on Refuge land, offsite development would be controlled by other state and Federal regulations such as the Clean Water 

Act.

Restoration of the relatively small amount of crop land found in the Yellow River Focus Area to 

wildlife habitat would have minimal effects on total county employment, population, and the 

unemployment rate. Willing seller landowners would be appropriately compensated, while their 

employees, suppliers and brokers could experience some income reduction. Cumulative loss of crop 

land in the two-county area (due to such things as road construction, commercial and residential 

development, and other factors) would not jeopardize the agriculture infrastructure in the area.

4.2.1 Listed Species

Federally listed threatened or endangered species that use the Refuge include the Bald Eagle, 

Eastern timber wolf, and Karner blue butterfly. The Yellow River Focus Area supports a small 

population of Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes, which is a candidate for federal listing. The Refuge is 

currently a re-introduction site for an experimental population of Whooping Cranes. Under all 

alternatives, the Service is required by law to accommodate the needs of threatened and endangered 

species. Thus the following section would apply to all alternatives. 

4.2.1.1 Bald Eagles

One occupied Bald Eagle nest currently occurs at the Refuge. However, numerous migrating Bald 

Eagles utilize Refuge habitats for resting and feeding.

Potential Impacts to Bald Eagles 

Water Level Management: Current management practices on dozens of water impoundments on the 

Refuge provide Bald Eagles with a constant, year-round food source. Eagles feed primarily on fish 

but are known to prey on muskrats, waterfowl, American coots, and even white-tailed deer fawns. The 

Refuge manages most of its large water impoundments for moist soil plant production and to lower 

rough fish populations. This is accomplished by draining these pools every third year. During 

undrained years, water on these pools is held as high as possible. The Refuge staggers management of 

these pools so the northern and southern end of the Refuge have at least one large drained pool per 

year. Management of this type is conducted to provide food for waterfowl migrating south during the 

fall. As a consequence, fish populations are reduced, which reduces the areas appeal for nesting Bald 

Eagles. However, these management practices simultaneously make the large water impoundments 

attractive for migrating Bald Eagles during the fall.

Aircraft Activity: Currently eagles on the Refuge face sporadic flights of both fixed and rotary-wing 

military aircraft. These aircraft are usually participating in training at Hardwood Bombing Range or 

Fort McCoy. Eagles don’t currently nest in close proximity to any proposed Whooping Crane release 

sites. If eagles nest by one of these sites and Whooping Cranes are reintroduced, they would be 

exposed to daily ultra-light aircraft activity during Whooping Crane fledging.

Refuge Staff Activities: Refuge staff sometimes need to approach the eagle nest to perform other 

activities such as wildfire suppression, water level management, or other endangered species surveys. 

Too much activity around the nest could cause desertion.

Prescribed Burn Activities: At this time the Refuge’s only active eagle nest is located in a prescribed 

burn unit. Prescribed burning during nesting could cause nest desertion. 

Water Level Management Next to an Active Nest: The Refuge’s only active eagle nest is located near 

a large water impoundment. Drainage of this pool could result in take by causing nest desertion or 

making food for the eaglets more difficult to obtain.
160

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Access by the Public: The Refuge’s only active eagle nest is located near a hiking trail in an area open 

to blueberry picking. Activity near the nest by the public could result in its abandonment.

Measures to Reduce Impacts on Bald Eagles

In regard to all forms of disturbance, with the exception of overhead flights by the Air National Guard 

and ultra-light aircraft activity associated with Whooping Crane releases, the “Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines” (USFWS undated) will be incorporated on the Refuge. 

In regard to overhead flights by the Air National Guard (ANG), locations of active nests will be 

provided to the ANG. As in the past, the ANG will provide these locations to their pilots and a half 

mile no-fly zone will be established around and above each active nest. If a pair of eagles should nest 

near a Whooping Crane release site, ultra-light aircraft activity will continue. However, the pilots will 

be notified of the eagle nest and required to maintain a half-mile flight distance from the nest. 

While active, no prescribed burns or water level draw-downs will occur within one-quarter mile of the 

nest. “Active nests” will include all site used within the two previous years. As eagles nest in oaks on 

the Refuge, their nest trees are unaffected by prescribed fires. As the conservation measures outlined 

above meet or exceed those outlined in the Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, all of these 

disturbances will have no effect on Bald Eagles.

Monitoring Bald Eagles

Bald Eagle nests will be observed to document activity. Once a nest is deemed active, personnel will 

periodically observe the nest to determine if it was successful and how many young fledged. 

4.2.1.2 Timber Wolves

Potential Impacts on Timber Wolves 

Land Conversion: Early successional forests provide the maximum prey base for Eastern timber 

wolves (USFWS 1992). Converting forested land to grassland could therefore reduce the prey 

available for wolves. 

Public Access: Currently turkey hunters have nearly total access to all of the Refuge. Since wolf pups 

are born between early and mid-April, excessive activity around a den site could cause abandonment. 

As pups grow, the den site is abandoned and a rendezvous site is used (WIWP 1999). During this time 

(July 1st), almost the entire Refuge is open to berry pickers. Again, excessive disturbance around a 

rendezvous site could lead to abandonment.

Prescribed Burning: The Refuge has the ability to prescribe burn several thousand acres in a day. 

Prescribed burns of this size can overcome wildlife. Therefore, burning around den or rendezvous 

sites could result in wolf pup mortality. 

Refuge Activities: Throughout the year, staff from the Refuge visit most of the property while 

conducting various activities. Excessive disturbance around a den or rendezvous site could lead to 

abandonment.

Hunting: The greatest perceived threat to wolves in Wisconsin is the 9-day gun deer season. During 

the gun deer season, all of the 600,000 hunters who possess a small game license are eligible to shoot 

coyotes while deer hunting in most of the state. The Refuge is an exception. However, most gun deer 

hunters on the Refuge are not from the area and may not know that coyote hunting is prohibited on 

the Refuge. Therefore, opening up nearly 100 percent of the Refuge to gun deer hunting has resulted 

in wolf mortality in the past and may continue to do so. 

Measures to Reduce Impacts on Timber Wolves

Human-caused mortality is a major factor in many wolf populations. Hunters and residents within 

occupied wolf range have greater potential to directly impact wolf populations than the general public 
161

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

(Tucker and Pletscher 1989). Reduction of these contacts has been achieved on most of the Refuge by 

gating-off interior roads. The policy of maintaining gates on interior roads and berming access roads 

upon completion of timber sales will be continued. 

Coyote hunting and trapping on the Refuge are prohibited and will remain closed year-round. In an 

effort to inform hunters about this closure, the Refuge will issue press releases yearly prior to the gun 

deer season. The Refuge will also post signs reminding hunters of the closure. The closure has been 

posted in the Federal Register and is printed in all of the Refuge’s hunting pamphlets, which are 

available in leaflet boxes throughout the property.

Possibly the most critical portion of timber wolf habitat are den and rendezvous sites (Wydeven and 

Schultz 1993). Wolf packs usually use one or two dens per year with movement to a new den site 

associated with disturbance. After the denning period, the alpha female moves the litter to a home 

site(s) or activity site(s) called a ‘rendezvous site.’ The potential for wolf populations to increase and 

expand is directly related to pup survival. Therefore, all actively used wolf home sites (den and 

rendezvous sites) verified by a wildlife biologist and used within the last 2 years will be protected. 

Active den and rendezvous sites will be protected by following guidelines established in the Wisconsin 

Wolf Management Plan (1999), which requires all disturbances within 100 meters of a den or 

rendezvous site be eliminated. The only exceptions to this will be activities associated with proposed 

Whooping Crane releases and for safety reasons such as dam operations on large water 

impoundments and wildfire suppression. The Refuge will meet or exceed guidelines established in 

Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan, and there will be no effect on wolves.

Monitoring Timber Wolves 

Personnel will continue to track wolf distribution and will conduct winter tracking surveys. Personnel 

will conduct howling surveys in late May or early June to monitor pack production and aerial 

monitoring of radio collared wolves to determine pack territory and obtain dispersing information.

4.2.1.3 Karner Blue Butterflies

Potential Impacts on Karner Blue Butterflies

Wildfire Suppression: Wildfire is one of the driving forces in savanna creation and maintenance. Both 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aggressively 

control all wildfires on the project lands for financial and legal reasons. Wildfire suppression is 

mandatory for these reasons, but has a very negative effect on Karner blue butterfly habitat. In an 

effort to mitigate the effects of wildfire suppression, the Refuge will conduct prescribed burns. As the 

purpose of these burns will be to mimic the effects of wildfires, some units will be burned in 

consecutive years if succession is threatening a Karner blue butterfly population.

Prescribed Fire: Prescribed fire is currently used on the project lands to maintain KBB habitat. 

Surveys on the Refuge show a strong positive correlation between the frequency of prescribed 

burning and Karner blue butterfly densities. The Refuge tested the effects of burning on Karner blue 

butterfly habitat with a study design that incorporated both replicates and control sites (King in litt 

b). No other research of this quality exists. This work concluded that wild lupine as well as nectar 

sources (Karner blue butterfly habitat) were unaffected by the treatments. Again, the effects of 

burning of KBB populations was tested with a study design that incorporated both replicates and 

controls. Again, prescribed burning had no short (1 year) or long-term (2 or 3 years) detectable effect 

on KBB populations (King in litt b). Although all evidence indicates that Karner blue butterflies 

survive fire as adults and eggs (King in litt a; King in litt b), it is conceivable that individual butterflies 

could be lost during prescribed burning operations.

Mowing: Similar to prescribed burning, controlled and replicated experiments have demonstrated 

that mowing has no detectable effect on butterfly habitat or populations (King in litt b). However, it is 

conceivable that an individual butterflies could be killed by mowing. 
162

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Refuge Activities: Silviculture practices are the only other Refuge activities that have the potential to 

impact Karner blue butterflies. Land conversion through tree plantings is often cited as negatively 

affecting butterfly population, however the Refuge doesn’t plant trees. Timber sales aimed at 

controlling disease and pest outbreaks like oak wilt, jack pine budworm, and two-lined chestnut borer 

for silvicultural purposes have a negative impact on Karner blue butterflies because these are natural 

precesses that help to create and maintain butterfly habitat.

Foot Travel: Foot travel through Karner blue butterfly habitat on existing trails could have negative 

impacts on butterflies if eggs or larvae are stepped on. Maintenance of existing trails is accomplished 

by annual mowing, which could conceivably result in the loss of an individual butterfly, although this 

would be very unlikely. Establishment of more trails on the Refuge could result in the take of 

butterflies if wild lupine plants are destroyed.

White-tailed Deer: White-tailed deer browse on savanna plants, including wild lupine, has been high 

on the Refuge. The Refuge surveyed the number of browsed and unbrowsed lupine flower stems on 

one Karner blue butterfly site in the spring of 1994 and found that 85 percent of all wild lupine stems 

were browsed. 

Succession: If unchecked, succession will destroy butterfly habitat and eliminate populations. 

Currently three Karner blue butterfly populations are located on unmanaged tracts of land and face 

certain extirpation unless some form of disturbance or disturbances are returned to the landscape.

Measures to Reduce Impacts on Karner Blue Butterflies 

The effects of each potential impact of land management activities on Karner blue butterfly 

population on the project lands will not be monitored. Instead, the effects of all potential impacts will 

be mitigated by restoring and maintaining enough habitat to restore one large Karner blue butterfly 

population on the Refuge. The Refuge will be restoring approximately 3,000 additional acres of 

savanna, which will bring its total savanna habitat to approximately 3,500 acres. The 3,500 acres will 

be distributed between 35 sub-sites that will be distributed over approximately15 square miles. 

Enough savanna habitat will be restored and managed on the Refuge to insure a minimum population 

of 6,000 to 7,000 second flight adults. 

In regard to all outlined activities that have the potential to effect existing Karner blue butterfly 

populations, the Refuge will incorporate the terms set forth in the Biological Opinion prepared for the 

Refuge CCP. Specifically, the Refuge will incorporate the following conservation measures:

Foot travel: The public will be encouraged to restrict foot travel to existing trails through occupied 

Karner blue butterfly habitat. Blueberry pickers will be allowed to travel throughout occupied 

butterfly habitat as the blueberries they seek are also distributed throughout the savannas. The 

Refuge staff will keep foot travel activities to a minimum while on occupied Karner blue butterfly 

habitat. Netting, handling, and marking butterflies will also be kept to minimum.

Untreated Land: The Refuge will leave at least one untreated Karner blue butterfly site on the 

southern end (south of Hanson Road) of the Refuge in any given year. Likewise, one untreated Karner 

blue butterfly unit will be left on the north end of the Refuge in any given year. All other units can be 

treated (mowed or burned) in a given year. Recently published Karner blue butterfly dispersal 

research on the Refuge (King 1998) demonstrates that leaving one untreated unit on the southern 

portion of the Refuge and one on the north will provide “refugia” for the entire Refuge. The dispersal 

ability of the Karner blue butterfly makes the refugia approach work for the Refuge. Within the open 

landscapes of the Refuge, 10 percent of all Karner blue butterflies with multiple captures were shown 

to travel at least 1.4 miles during the second flight of 1995. One individual, a female, traveled at least 

4.1 miles during the same flight (King 1998). 
163

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

As previously stated, research on the Refuge has shown that butterfly populations are unaffected by 

burning or mowing. Therefore, even if we conservatively assume that mowing or burning result in 

take of some individual Karner blue butterfly eggs or larvae, research on the Refuge has 

demonstrated that this take has no effect at the population level. In that respect, leaving refugias on 

the Refuge will be a back-up plan should the effects of burning or mowing differ dramatically from the 

past. The Refuge will take the same approach when mitigating the effects of succession. If succession 

is threatening a population, that unit will be burned or mowed repeatedly, in consecutive years, until 

the threat of succession is removed. As burning and mowing have no effect on Karner blue butterfly 

populations (King in litt a, King in litt b) these conservation measures will pose no threat to butterfly 

populations even if we conservatively assume that some individual Karner blue butterflies could be 

affected. In fact, most of the Refuge’s best Karner blue butterfly sites, in regard to density, have a 

history of being burned in two or more consecutive years.

Mowing: For Karner blue butterfly areas that are mowed, including trails, blade height will be at least 

8 inches from the ground. Mowing will not occur between April 15 and August 15 when butterfly 

larvae may be present.

By implementing the conservation measures listed above, Necedah NWR will be effectively 

eliminating all Karner blue butterfly take. In the cases of burning and mowing, the Refuge will be 

conservatively assuming take of individual butterfly eggs or larvae can occur, although there is no 

support for this in peer reviewed literature. However, the potential effects of that take will not be 

mitigated as, if they occur, they have been shown to have absolutely no effect on Karner blue butterfly 

populations (King in litt a). 

Monitoring Karner Blue Butterflies

The Refuge will monitor all Karner blue butterfly populations on the Refuge with Pollard-Yates type 

surveys during only the butterflies’ second flight each year. Surveys will be conducted only on the 

dedicated savanna sites and only during the second flight. The surveys will be done on each site three 

times during the second flight. Spacing of 7 days will be used between subsequent surveys on each 

site. Spacing of 7 days will be used between counts because mark-release-recapture research at the 

Refuge has shown that the risk of counting the same butterfly on subsequent surveys is reduced to 5 

percent with this spacing (King 1998). Assuming that each Karner blue butterfly counted is a separate 

individual is useful because a sum of all the counts on a unit as opposed to a mean can be used. The 

number of butterflies annually counted on the units will then be used to show trends on the Refuge, 

which will be used to demonstrate that the Refuge is still meeting the criteria for a large population.

4.2.1.4 Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake

Potential Impacts on the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnakes

Wetland Drainage: Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes hibernate below the water-line. They therefore 

require high, stable water levels in the winter. Drainage of a wetland could eliminate an area as 

suitable habitat for hibernating Eastern massasauga Rattlesnakes.

Prescribed Burning: Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes have been burned during prescribed burn 

operations on other National Wildlife Refuges. Burning after snakes emerge from hibernation can 

result in mortality.

Mowing: Mowing while Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes are active can result in mortality. This 

mortality can be hard on populations as gravid females often seek-out areas that are both dry and 

warm. Mowing these areas at the wrong time can eliminate gravid females as well as her young.

Succession: Massasauga require open landscapes. In closed canopy forests they loose basking 

opportunities, which are particularly critical for gravid females. As trees grow-up, they also provide 

perches for raptors that have been shown to substantially affect massasauga populations. Succession 

has degraded habitat both on the Refuge and the Yellow River area.
164

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Measures to Reduce Impacts on Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnakes 

The Refuge will not be conducting any massasauga-related activities on the Refuge proper. In regard 

to the Wildlife Management Agreements with landowners, the Refuge will incorporate methodology 

outlined in “The Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake: A Handbook for Land Managers: 2000” (Johnson 

et al. 2000). By following this handbook, the Refuge will be eliminating all take of Eastern massasauga 

rattlesnakes.

Monitoring Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnakes 

The Refuge will conduct massasauga surveys for all the Candidate Conservation Agreements it is 

working on. The Refuge will survey Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes with the methodology set forth 

in the “Recommended Standard Survey Protocol for the Eastern Massasauga, Sistrurus catenatus 

catenatus” (Capser et al. 2001).

4.2.1.5 Whooping Cranes

Whooping Crane chicks were introduced at the Refuge in the summer of 2001as part of a Whooping 

Crane reintroduction project to establish a migratory population in the eastern U.S. to contribute 

toward recovery of the species. The population has been designated as a non-essential population 

(NEP) in a rule making action finalized on June 26, 2001. The crane chicks are being reared in a pen 

situation and trained to follow ultra light aircraft in migration to a selected wintering site at 

Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge. Annual Whooping Crane introduction, rearing, and release 

activities are expected to continue for a period of 10 years. 

The introduction project itself is covered by a separate EA and separate Biological Opinion prepared 

by the Service’s Green Bay Ecological Service’s Field Office.

4.2.2 Maintenance of Roads and Existing Right-Of-Ways

State, county, and townships retain maintenance obligations for roads and their rights-of-way under 

their jurisdiction within Refuge boundaries. Some township roads may be suited for abandonment 

(but not necessarily closure) and their maintenance assumed by the Service. Any such abandonments 

would only be with the consent of the appropriate governing body. Existing rights-of-ways and terms 

of other easements will continue to be honored. New rights-of-ways and easements will be considered 

in relation to Refuge System regulations and likely impacts of the rights-of-way or easement to 

Refuge resources. 

The Refuge would cooperate with state, county and township officials in the maintenance of roads that 

cross the Refuge. Roadside mowing would be completed in accordance with State and local laws. 

4.2.3 Cultural Resources

Under all alternatives, the Service will take into consideration impacts on historic properties and 

other cultural resources from Refuge undertakings (e.g., activities, projects, and uses). Nevertheless, 

some loss could still occur. Any development (e.g., dikes, roads, buildings, etc.) would only be carried 

out after a thorough review or survey of possible cultural resources likely to be disturbed, and plans 

for avoidance or minimizing impacts are in place. The Service will inform state Historic Preservation 

Officers of any acquisition of lands and structures. Structures considered to meet the criteria for the 

National Register will be maintained until the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer can 

complete an evaluation and appropriate mitigation is accomplished. Buildings and other structures 

will be maintained until the Service can consider how the historic property can be retained and used 

for Refuge purposes.

A description of undertakings for all Refuge lands would be provided by the Refuge Manager to the 

Regional Historic Preservation Officer who will analyze the undertaking for potential effects on 

historic properties. The Refuge Manager will inform the Regional Historic Preservation Officer of 
165

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

each undertaking during early planning. The Regional Historic Preservation Officer will enter into 

consultation with state Historic Preservation Officers and other parties as appropriate. No 

undertakings will proceed until the Section 106 process is complete. Also, the Refuge Manager will, 

with the assistance of the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer, develop a program for 

conducting Section 110 inventory surveys, and will attempt to obtain funding for those surveys. The 

Refuge Manager will similarly involve the Regional Historic Preservation in other cultural resources 

issues on the Refuge.

4.2.4 Environmental Justice

Within the spirit and intent of Executive Order 12898, no minority or low income populations would be 

impacted by any Service action under any alternative. 

4.2.5 Climate Change 

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperature commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related 

impact to be considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration 

Research and Development” (U.S. DOE, 1999) defines carbon sequestration as A...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts are effective 

both in preventing carbon emission and acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon 

monoxide. The Department of Energy report’s conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is 

important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the 

terrestrial biosphere. Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long range plan for 

national wildlife refuges. The actions proposed in this CCP would conserve or restore land and water, 

and would enhance carbon sequestration. This will contribute positively toward efforts to mitigate 

human-induced global climate changes.

4.3 Impacts Associated with Service Trust Resources

4.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under Alternative 1, the Refuge would continue to operate under the 1979 Master Plan and 

subsequent step-down management plans (maintains the status quo in management). The Refuge’s 

Forest Management and Fire Management plans articulate future open landscape developments, 

which would benefit some Service trust resources (see Habitat Management section below). However, 

Alternative 1 does not provide the Refuge a future vision, prioritize management activities Refugewide, or hold the Refuge accountable for management results through a monitoring and evaluation 

program. With less coordination among the conservation organizations, this alternative would 

probably result in less efficient conservation efforts of Service trust resources on the Refuge and 

within the Yellow River Focus Area. In the meantime, opportunities to work at the landscape scale for 

the benefit of Service trust resource in the Yellow River Focus Area would rapidly disappear.

4.3.1.1 Listed Species

Alternative 1 would have a positive impact on threatened and endangered species that utilize Refuge 

open landscape lands. Protection of federally-listed species on the Refuge would continue under 

existing laws and regulations. This alternative might not, however, focus Service restoration and 

habitat management activities to benefit both federally and state-listed species. 
166

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Since the Refuge’s Forest Management Plan and Fire Management Plan articulate restoration and 

conservation of additional open landscape habitats on the Refuge, local populations of Karner blue 

butterflies would likely increase over the long-term. However, management actions aimed at restoring 

and maintaining open landscape habitat (mowing, burning, hydro-axing) could impact individual 

Karner blue butterflies and Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes (see section 1.5 above). However, over 

the long-term, these populations would benefit from the net gain in savanna habitat that would be 

restored and conserved. 

Nesting Bald Eagles on the Refuge would be afforded protection from human disturbance consistent 

with the Service’s Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS undated). 

Refuge habitat would be managed to support Whooping Cranes and Eastern timber wolves, which 

would benefit their populations over the long-term. A separate EA has been prepared to evaluate the 

re-introduction of an experimental population of Whooping Cranes on the Refuge. The “General 

Impact Analysis” section above provides additional detail relative to potential impacts to listed 

species, including Eastern timber wolves.

4.3.1.2 Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds

Under this alternative, the Refuge would not produce any major change in waterfowl production or 

use at the Refuge, since there would not be an appreciable increase in nesting, resting, or feeding 

habitats (grasslands and wetlands) in the immediate area, or the quality of existing Refuge habitats 

would not improve appreciably (see “Habitat Management” section below). In the long-term, local 

waterfowl populations could decline as existing wetland habitats degrade and other natural and 

anthropogenic forces take their toll. 

Alternative 1 would benefit savanna species of concern (Red-headed Woodpeckers, Bobolinks, etc.) 

through additional savanna habitat management on the Refuge. However, other species on the 

Refuge, such as those associated with mature closed-canopy upland forests (Scarlet Tanagers, Wood 

Thrushes, Eastern Wood Peewees) would probably experience local declines as those forests are 

converted to open landscape lands. However, the landscape surrounding the Refuge provides an 

abundance of mature closed-canopy forest habitat (see Table 7 in Chapter 3) and those bird species 

would be expected to relocate into those adjacent habitats. Further, conversion of closed-canopy 

forests to savanna landscapes would occur gradually over an extended period of time (>15 years).

Grassland bird species of concern would probably continue to decline on the Refuge as the Refuge 

would not make restoration and conservation of additional grasslands a priority under this 

alternative. 

Many bird species considered priority conservation species by the Service and the state, and which 

are found in the forested wetlands and associated habitats in the Yellow River Focus Area (Cerulean 

Warbler, Red-shouldered Hawk, Acadian Flycatcher, Yellow-crowned Night Heron, Sedge Wren, 

Prothonotary Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush) would not be afforded any habitat conservation under 

this alternative. As the area develops and degrades due to lack of habitat management actions, many 

of these species would likely decline.

4.3.1.3 Native Biological Diversity

Under Alternative 1, we anticipate increased biological diversity on the Refuge from additional 

savanna restoration and management efforts per guidance contained in the Refuge’s Forest 

Management Plan and Fire Management Plan. This would include increased numbers of many game 

species also, including Turkey and Sharp-tail Grouse, as well as small mammals, invertebrates, 

reptiles, and amphibians. However, since the Refuge would not take an active role in restoring and 

conserving habitats in the Yellow River Focus Area aside from its private lands effort, we anticipate 

that the quantity and quality of wetlands, bottomland forests, and open landscapes in the area would 
167

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

continue to decline due to lack of habitat management and development, as well as wildlife species 

richness and abundance. 

4.3.2 Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 management actions relative to the significant issues identified during scoping 

would follow guidance contained in the 1979 Refuge Master Plan. 

Significant changes have occurred in the art and science of natural resource management since the 

writing of the 1979 Master Plan. The Service’s “ecosystem approach” is an example of the 

implementation of a new management paradigm, as is the development of regional resource 

conservation priority species (see CCP chapter 2). Waterfowl, migratory birds, and listed species 

would not benefit from this new knowledge if the Refuge continued to be guided by an outdated plan 

and information. Also, the status of Service trust resources has changed since the writing of the 1979 

Master Plan due to successful conservation strategies (e.g., the recovery of the Bald Eagle), and 

unsuccessful conservation strategies (e.g., the declining status of many grassland-dependent bird 

populations across the region). The 1979 Master Plan does not take into account these or many other 

changes, and would not enable the Refuge to adequately address Service trust resource needs. In 

addition, with less coordination among the Service and the conservation community, this alternative 

would result in less efficient conservation efforts of Service trust resources. In the meantime, like 

Alternative 1, opportunities to work at the landscape scale in the Yellow River Focus Area for the 

benefit of Service trust resources would rapidly disappear as development and other anthropogenic 

forces take their toll.

4.3.2.1 Listed Species

Alternative 2 would have little or no direct impact on threatened and endangered species that utilize 

the Refuge, with the exception of Karner blue butterflies. Protection of federally-listed species on the 

Refuge would continue under existing laws and regulations. This alternative might not, however, focus 

Service restoration and habitat management activities to benefit both Federally and state-listed 

species. Since no major effort would be made to restore and conserve additional open landscape 

habitats on the Refuge or Yellow River Focus Area, local populations of Karner blue butterflies would 

likely remain the same. 

Under certain circumstances, management action aimed at restoring and maintaining habitats for 

listed species, such as mowing, burning, and hydro-axing, may have short-term adverse effects on 

some listed species the Refuge is trying to benefit (Karner blue butterflies and Eastern massasauga 

rattlesnakes) (see section 1.5 above). 

Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes would likely decline over the long-term as development encroaches 

the Yellow River Area. 

Nesting Bald Eagles on the Refuge would still be afforded protection from human disturbance 

consistent with the Service’s Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS undated). 

The Refuge would manage habitat to support Whooping Cranes and Eastern timber wolves, which 

would benefit their populations over the long-term (a separate EA and separate Biological Opinion 

was prepared by the Service’s Green Bay Ecological Service’s Field Office to cover re-introduction 

and management of Whooping Cranes). 

4.3.2.2 Waterfowl and other Migratory Birds

Alternative 2, like Alternative 1, would result in no direct change in waterfowl production or use at the 

Refuge since there would not be an appreciable increase in nesting, resting, or feeding habitats (see 

“Habitat Management” section below) within the Refuge or the Yellow River Focus Area, or the 

quality of existing Refuge and Yellow River Focus Area habitats would not improve appreciably. In the 
168

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

long-term, local waterfowl populations could decline as existing wetland habitats degrade and other 

natural and anthropogenic forces take their toll. 

Similarly, Alternative 2 would result in no direct change in migratory bird production or use at the 

Refuge since there would not be an appreciable increase in nesting, resting, or feeding habitats within 

the Refuge, nor would the quality of existing habitats improve appreciably. In the long-term, local 

wetland and grassland-dependent migratory bird populations would likely decline as existing habitats 

degrade and predation, artificially heightened by fragmented landscapes, continues to take its toll on 

nesting females and their young. 

Many bird species considered priority conservation species by the Service and the state, and which 

are found in the forested wetlands and associated habitats in the Yellow River Focus Area (Cerulean 

Warbler, Red-shouldered Hawk, Acadian Flycatcher, Yellow-crowned Night Heron, Sedge Wren, 

Prothonotary Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush) would not be afforded any habitat restoration or 

conservation under this alternative. As the area develops and degrades due to lack of habitat 

management and conservation, many of these species would likely decline.

4.3.2.3 Native Biological Diversity

Under Alternative 2, no effort would be made to manage for increased biological diversity on either 

Refuge land or land within the Yellow River Focus Area by the Refuge (i.e. no new wetlands, savannas, 

or grasslands restored). Over the long-term, species richness and abundance on the both the Refuge 

and within the Yellow River Focus Area would be expected to decline. No additional open landscape 

land (grasslands/savannas) would be developed on the Refuge or within the Yellow River Focus Area. 

No new wetlands would be restored and managed on the Refuge. Some small increases of wetland 

habitat could occur in the Yellow River Focus Area through other non-Service programs. 

4.3.3 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would have the greatest positive impact on Service trust resources.

4.3.3.1 Listed Species

Alternative 3 would have the greatest benefit to listed species by restoring, conserving, and managing 

additional wetland and open landscape habitats on the Refuge and within the Yellow River Focus Area 

(see “Habitat Management” section below). 

Under certain circumstances, management action aimed at restoring and maintaining habitats for 

listed species, such as mowing, burning, and hydro-axing, may have short-term adverse effects on 

some listed species the Refuge is trying to benefit (Karner blue butterflies and Eastern massasauga 

rattlesnakes). 

Through additional savanna habitat management, local populations of Karner blue butterflies would 

likely increase over the long-term. 

Local populations of massasauga rattlesnakes would likely increase as additional habitat is restored 

and conserved in the Yellow River Area. 

Nesting Bald Eagles on the Refuge would still be afforded protection from human disturbance 

consistent with the Service’s Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.

Refuge habitat would be managed to support Whooping Cranes and Eastern timber wolves, which 

would benefit their populations over the long-term (a separate environmental assessment (EA) was 

prepared by the Service’s Green Bay Ecological Service’s Field Office to cover re-introduction and 

management of Whooping Cranes). 
169

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

4.3.3.2 Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds

Alternative 3 would increase waterfowl production (primarily Mallards, Teal, and Pintails) and use at 

the Refuge by increasing the quantity and quality of nesting, resting, and feeding habitats available to 

local and migratory populations (see “Habitat Management” section below and attached CCP). As 

more grasslands are established, nesting success would increase as birds disperse their nests over a 

larger area, thus creating a larger area that predators must search. Additional resting and feeding 

habitats (wetlands) would also disperse staging birds over a larger area and decrease the chance of 

catastrophic accident or disease, such as avian botulism. Additional feeding habitats on the Refuge 

would help ensure that migrating ducks arrive on their northern breeding grounds in better 

reproductive condition.

Alternative 3 would benefit other migratory bird species also by providing additional nesting, resting, 

and feeding habitats (wetlands, grasslands, and savannas). Several species of special management 

concern would benefit directly. These include the American Bittern, Upland Sandpiper, Least Bittern, 

Black Tern, Red-shouldered Hawk, Northern Harrier, Dickcissel, Short-eared Owl, Sedge Wren, 

Loggerhead Shrike, Grasshopper Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow, Field Sparrow, 

Bobolink, and Eastern Meadowlark.

However, other species on the Refuge, such as those associated with mature closed-canopy upland 

forests (Scarlet Tanagers, Wood Thrushes, Eastern Wood Peewees) could experience declines on the 

Refuge as those forests are converted to open landscape lands. However, the landscape surrounding 

the Refuge provides an abundance of mature closed-canopy forest habitat (see Table 7 in Chapter 3) 

and those bird species could relocate into those adjacent habitats. Further, conversion of forest land to 

open landscape habitat would occur over an extended period of time (>15 years). 

Restoration, conservation, and management of riparian areas, wetlands, wet prairies, sedge meadows, 

and associated grasslands on the Refuge and in the Yellow River Focus Area would create and 

conserve habitats essential for many nesting and migrating songbirds, and should contribute to the 

long-term recovery of some neotropical migrant populations (Cerulean Warbler, Red-shouldered 

Hawk, Acadian Flycatcher, Yellow-crowned Night Heron, Sedge Wren, Prothonotary Warbler, 

Louisiana Waterthrush).

4.3.3.3 Native Biological Diversity

Alternative 3 would increase and conserve biological diversity by restoring and conserving additional 

diverse habitats on the Refuge and within the Yellow River Focus Area, including seasonal wetlands, 

wet meadows, native prairies, and riparian associations. Once restored, these areas could create a 

number of interconnected habitat niches for indigenous and migrant wildlife that currently do not 

exist at the Refuge, thus increasing the overall biological diversity of the Refuge and surrounding 

area. This would include increased numbers of many game species also, including Turkey and Sharptail Grouse. In particular, this alternative would focuses the restoration of large, native grassland 

blocks, and the management of the surrounding landscape that will establish a favorable landscape for 

the management of area-sensitive grassland birds. Moreover, Alternative 3 would attempt to restore 

the links (i.e. suitable matrix) between the historic wetlands, prairies, and oak savanna ecosystems 

found on the Refuge, which would also contribute to enhanced biological diversity.

Since this alternative emphasizes the greatest habitat conservation, restoration and enhancement, it 

would also result in the greatest benefit to resident wildlife, such as those species that help sustain 

natural biological systems that support Service trust resources like muskrat, raccoon, mink, weasel, 

reptiles, river otter, amphibians and reptiles. In addition, as water quality improves from habitat 

treatments in the Yellow River Watershed, important resident game fish populations would be 

expected to increase in proportion to the amount of quality habitat made available on the Refuge, thus 

increasing the food supply for many fish-eating wildlife. 
170

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4.4 Impacts Associated with Visitor Services

4.4.1 Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, the 1979 Master Plan and associated step-down plans (e.g., public use, sign, law 

enforcement plan, etc.) would be used to guide visitor services on the Refuge. Visitation at the Refuge 

would continue to increase due to recent Refuge developments (Whopping Crane project, savanna 

restorations) while the quality of visits would probably decline due to lack of adequate infrastructure. 

Increased visitation could generate the development of additional on-site facilities, such as 

improvements to visitor facilities, parking areas, trails, observation towers, etc. These new facilities 

and infrastructure could reduce available habitat and create localized damage to vegetation, soil 

compaction and erosion, while increasing the chance of wildlife disturbance and disturbance to other 

visitors. These potential negative effects would be minimized through careful planning and 

management. Popular activities on site-specific areas could be controlled to reduce impacts through 

proper design, site selection and construction technique.

One feature of this alternative would include expanding the current Refuge headquarters building 

(per guidance contained in the 1979 Master Plan and public use plan), which would help accommodate 

large groups of visitors that have been drawn to the Refuge by the Whooping Crane and savanna 

restoration projects. It would not however provide for the larger-scale visitation and use changes 

(more people coming to the Refuge, and the trend in more people coming to see wildlife rather than 

harvest related reasons) that Refuge staff and stakeholders feel are necessary for accomplishing the 

Refuge’s mission, as well as accommodating the desires of local towns, townships, and counties in 

making the Refuge a regional attraction for outdoor enthusiasts. The land area that would be used for 

the current headquarters expansion is not an area currently used by large numbers of refuge visitors 

(e.g., hunters, bird watchers, anglers). There are no federally-listed species or Region 3 conservation 

priority species located in the area. There are no sensitive habitats located in the area. There are no 

known cultural or archaeological resources located in the area. Thus, adverse impacts to current 

Refuge uses (such as hunting) and habitat and other resources would be minimal. 

Relative to staffing patterns, the Refuge currently supports two part-time Park Ranger positions 

devoted to visitor services. In the past this has been insufficient to handle the number of requests for 

Refuge programs. With the popularity of the Refuge’s savanna restoration and the Whooping Crane 

project growing each day, staff shortages will continue to get worse. Alternative 1 would provide no 

new staff for the visitor services program. Volunteers would be emphasized to help with the additional 

workload associated with the Whooping Crane project. If this effort fails, some staff and resources 

may need to be redirected from current activities.

4.4.2 Alternative 2 

Refuge visitation has increased yearly since the development of the 1979 Master Plan. Again, the 

reasons that people come to the Refuge have also changed. Uses like wildlife observation and 

relaxation are surpassing hunting and fishing as the most common reasons for visitors to come to the 

Refuge and Refuge area. The Refuge also has additional attractions, such as examples of globally rare 

savannas, the federally listed Karner blue butterfly and, potentially, the Whooping Crane, one of the 

rarest birds in the world. 

Under Alternative 2, the Refuge’s visitor services program would remain roughly status quo. No 

additional emphasis would be placed on providing quality wildlife-dependent public uses of the 

Refuge. Visitation would probably continue to increase due to recent Refuge developments (Whopping 

Crane project, savanna restoration). The Refuge would not attempt to either enlarge the existing 

Refuge headquarters building (per guidance contained in the Master Plan) or build a new visitor 
171

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

center (Alternative 3). Without additional infrastructure, the quality of Refuge visits would probably 

decline.

Relative to staffing patterns, the Refuge currently supports two part-time Park Ranger positions 

devoted to visitor services. In the past this has been insufficient to handle the number of requests for 

Refuge programs. With the popularity of the Refuge’s savanna restoration and the Whooping Crane 

project growing each day, staff shortages will continue to get worse. Like alternative 1, Alternative 2 

would provide no new staff for the visitor services program. Volunteers would be emphasized to help 

with the additional workload associated with the Whooping Crane project. If this effort fails, some 

staff and resources may need to be redirected from current activities.

4.4.3 Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, the Refuge has outlined its goals for public education and recreation and specific 

objectives, strategies, and projects that would support the Refuge in meeting those goals (see 

attached CCP). The CCP incorporates visitor services with other Refuge work, such as Service trust 

resource management, into one cohesive management planning effort. While Alternative 2 would 

allow for updated step-down plans, it does not provide for strategic implementation of all Refuge 

programs to achieve the Refuge’s purpose and vision. 

Alternative 3 also recognizes substantial changes in visitor numbers and use patterns brought on by 

demographic shifts (more people are using refuges for wildlife viewing and relaxation, fewer users are 

hunting and fishing) and new initiatives and projects such as savanna restoration and the 

reintroduction of whooping cranes on the Refuge. These new initiatives and projects could reduce 

available habitat and create localized damage to vegetation, soil compaction and erosion, while 

increasing the chance of wildlife disturbance and disturbance to other visitors. However, these 

potential negative effects would be short-term and be minimized through careful planning and 

management. Popular activities on site specific areas could be controlled to reduce impacts through 

proper design, site selection and construction techniques.

One of the projects called for under this alternative is the construction of a new visitor center. There 

are two areas under consideration for locating the visitor center (Figure 18 in the CCP). The site near 

Highway 21 is not currently used by large numbers of refuge visitors (e.g., hunters, bird watchers, 

anglers). The second site is in the vicinity of the current learning center. There are no federally-listed 

species or Region 3 priority species located in either proposed area. There are no sensitive habitats 

located in the areas. There are no known cultural or archaeological resources located in the areas. 

Thus, adverse impacts to current Refuge uses (such as hunting) and habitat and other resources 

would be minimal.

There are several notable positive impacts associated with a new visitor center at the Refuge. Having 

a facility located on state highway 21 will increase the Refuge’s profile in the local community, and for 

users of one of Wisconsin’s most traveled east-west travel corridors. The current main office is 3 miles 

north of State Highway 21. The Highway 21 site would have greater accessibility than the current 

Refuge main office. However, the second site under consideration, near the existing learning center, 

would be only about 500 yards from the existing office complex. The expanded facilities and proximity 

to wetlands and other diverse habitats would provide environmental education and interpretive 

opportunities not available at the Highway 21 site. Either visitor center site would also allow the 

Refuge to be more effective at transmitting Service messages to a broader group of stakeholders, 

through quality education and interpretation programs.

Several factors have been considered to minimize the impact of the facility and parking area on the 

environment. The visitor center would be constructed to blend in with the surrounding landscape (low 

profile and natural siding materials). Sewage treatment and heating and cooling systems have been 

chosen to minimize environmental impacts. Parking lot lights would be light-sensing to save 
172

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

electricity. Native vegetation would be used for all landscaping to provide habitat for Service trust 

species, minimize runoff from the parking area, and to serve as an interpretive tool for visitors. 

Finally, recreational and interpretive opportunities at either proposed site would give the Service the 

largest increase in public exposure with the least impact on Service trust resources by concentrating 

the increased visitation on the periphery of the Refuge or in areas already disturbed. The Refuge 

would work with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to provide for a safe entrance and exit 

from State Highway 21 to the visitor center due to increased visitation regardless of which site is 

chosen.

Relative to staffing patterns, the Refuge currently supports two part-time Park Ranger positions 

devoted to visitor services. In the past this has been insufficient to handle the number of requests for 

Refuge programs. With the popularity of the Refuge’s savanna restoration and the Whooping Crane 

project growing each day, staff shortages will continue to get worse. Alternative 3 calls for three fulltime Park Rangers, one whose position would be dedicated solely to law enforcement. These positions, 

along with increased funding and the help of Refuge volunteers, would be adequate to meet the 

Refuge’s visitor service responsibilities. The Refuge anticipates increased funding as a result of the 

Whooping Crane project, and has already requested additional funding for staff and equipment. If 

these efforts fail, some staff and resources may need to be redirected from current activities.

4.5 Impacts Associated with Habitat Management

4.5.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Table 12 details the types and amounts of habitats the Refuge would manage by 2015 under 

Alternative 1, based on guidance contained in the 1979 Master Plan and subsequent step-down plans. 

No additional habitat management would occur in the Yellow River Focus Area aside from some 

private lands activities associated with the Refuge’s Partners for Wildlife private lands program. 

4.5.1.1 General Considerations

No forest land considered “old growth” would be adversely impacted by the Refuge’s open landscape 

restoration efforts. No “critical habitat” would be adversely impacted by this alternative. This 

alternative would not lead to increased runoff or erosion, nor would it contribute to increased 

sedimentation in Refuge pools or waterways. Existing forest habitats would not be unduly 

fragmented by timber harvest activities. 

Table 12: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2015, Alternative 1, Necedah NWR

Land Cover Type Acres Acre Gain/Loss 

Compared to 2000

Open Landscapes (grasslands, savanna, shrublands, old fields) 6,300 + 2,600 (savanna)

Coniferous Forests 550 - 350

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 8,000 - 2,000

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 5,350 - 250

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 10,500 Status Quo

Forested Wetlands 5,700 Status Quo

Lowland Shrubs 5,500 Status Quo

Open Water Areas 1,800 Status Quo
173

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

The use of prescribed fire as a habitat management tool would be governed by the guidelines and 

provisions contained in the Refuge’s prescribed burn plan. Impacts associated with the use of fire as a 

management tool on the Refuge are common to all alternatives and are discussed in the “General 

Impact Analysis” section found above and the Refuges Fire Management Plan. 

Specific impacts to Service trust resources (including native biological diversity), visitor services, and 

the Yellow River Focus Area due to habitat management activities associated with Alternative 1 are 

discussed in those sections. 

4.5.2 Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, through guidance contained in the 1979 Master Plan, the Refuge would manage 

the habitat types and amounts described in Table 13 by 2015. The Refuge’s savanna restoration 

program, which began in the early 1990s, would be discontinued. Habitats would be maintained in 

proportion to what is there presently. Timber harvest as a tool in habitat restoration and 

establishment (savanna and grasslands) would cease. The Service would not pursue additional habitat 

management in the Yellow River Focus Area.

4.5.2.1 General Considerations

No forest land considered “old growth” would be adversely impacted by the Refuge’s open landscape 

restoration efforts. No “critical habitat”” would be adversely impacted by this alternative. This 

alternative would not lead to increased runoff or erosion, nor would it contribute to increased 

sedimentation in Refuge pools or waterways. Existing forest habitats would not be unduly 

fragmented by timber harvest activities. 

The use of prescribed fire as a habitat management tool would be governed by the guidelines and 

provisions contained in the Refuge’s prescribed burn plan. Impacts associated with the use of fire as a 

management tool on the Refuge are common to all alternatives and are discussed in the “General 

Impact Analysis” section found above and the Refuges Fire Management Plan. 

Specific impacts to Service trust resources (including native biological diversity), visitor services, and 

the Yellow River Focus Area due to habitat management activities for Alternative 2 are discussed in 

those sections. 

4.5.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

Table 14 describes the types and amounts of habitats the Refuge would manage under Alternative 3 

by 2015, based on guidance contained in the Refuge CCP. 

Table 13: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2015, Alternative 2, Necedah NWR

Land Cover Type 2015 Acres Acre Gain/Loss 

Compared to 2000

Open Landscapes (grasslands, savanna, shrublands, old fields) 3,700 Status Quo

Coniferous Forests 900 Status Quo

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 10,000 Status Quo

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 5,600 Status Quo

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 10,500 Status Quo

Forested Wetlands 5,700 Status Quo

Lowland Shrubs 5,500 Status Quo

Open Water Areas 1,800 Status Quo
174

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4.5.3.1 General Considerations

No forest land considered “old growth” would be adversely impacted by the Refuges open landscape 

restoration efforts. No “critical habitat” would be adversely impacted by this alternative. This 

alternative would not lead to increased runoff or erosion, nor would it contribute to increased 

sedimentation in Refuge pools or waterways. Existing forest habitats would not be unduly 

fragmented by timber harvest activities. 

The use of prescribed fire as a habitat management tool would be governed by the guidelines and 

provisions contained in the Refuge’s prescribed burn plan. Impacts associated with the use of fire as a 

management tool on the Refuge are common to all alternatives and are discussed in the “General 

Impact Analysis” section found above and the Refuges Fire Management Plan.

Specific impacts to Service trust resources (including native biological diversity), visitor services, and 

the Yellow River Focus Area due to habitat management activities for Alternative 3 are discussed in 

those sections.

4.6 Impacts Associated with the Yellow River Focus Area

4.6.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under Alternative 1, the Refuge would only intensify and concentrate its private lands program in the 

Yellow River Focus Area. The Service would not seek to acquire any realty interests by fee-title or 

conservation easements in land and water in the Yellow River Focus Area. The Service would continue 

to develop Wildlife Management Agreements with landowners in the area. 

At the time of printing the draft CCP, of the 230 landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area, 121 had 

signed up with the Service for technical assistance. Of those, 16 landowners owning 1,233 acres have 

signed Wildlife Management Agreements. Restoration work accomplished as of mid 2002 includes: 

three sedge meadow restorations (62 acres), three wetland restorations (33 acres), one bottomland 

hardwood restoration (54 acres) and six savanna/prairie restorations (135 acres). All work was 

performed by landowners and Refuge Private Lands personnel. These efforts, however, offer very 

little long-term conservation of habitats, as most are short-term in nature. 

4.6.1.1 Habitat Considerations

Under this alternative, we would expect small increases in wetland and upland habitats to be restored 

in the Yellow River Focus Area through existing USDA, county, and the Service’s Partners for Wildlife 

Table 14: Habitat Types on the Refuge by 2015, Alternative 3, Necedah NWR

Land Cover Type Acres Acre Gain/Loss 

Compared to 2000

Open Landscapes (grasslands and savannas) 9,800 + 2,600 acres savanna

+ 3,500 acres grassland

Coniferous Forests 550 - 350 acres

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 4,500 - 5,500 acres

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 5,350 - 250 acres

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 12,500 + 2,000 acres

Forested Wetlands 5,700 Status Quo

Lowland Shrubs 3,500 - 2,000 acres

Open Water Areas 1,800 Status Quo
175

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

private lands program. Currently these programs offer restoration to small tracts of habitat scattered 

throughout large geographic areas (as opposed to larger single blocks). Similar increases in habitat 

could be realized through the Refuge’s Partner for Wildlife program.

However, many of the existing wetland and upland habitats in the area could be impacted by the lack 

of a central management plan for the area, which may lead to increased residential development in 

undesirable locations or proportions, unmonitored water quality changes, declines in quality 

recreational and aesthetic experiences, and declines in the overall value of the Yellow River to local 

communities. Waterfowl, sandhill crane, other waterbirds, songbirds, fish, and many resident wildlife 

species would likely decrease over time as habitat degradation occurred. Unique plant communities 

could be degraded or lost due to conversion of additional wetlands to agricultural lands, namely 

cranberry production. Archeological resources would be offered little protection and subject to loss. 

Public use opportunities would be limited to private landowners, others with permission from 

landowners, and the general public on the public lands in the area. 

Many areas of bottomland forest not considered wetlands under the Swampbuster provisions of the 

Food Security Act could eventually be cleared and put into other uses not beneficial to wildlife. The 

many water quality and wildlife habitat benefits associated with these areas would be lost. Although 

many current landowners in the area demonstrate a laudable conservation ethic, lack of a Service 

presence could result in timber harvest decisions on un-managed woodlands that are based primarily 

on maximizing short-term income. Continued high-grading of timber could further reduce tree species 

diversity, and the heavy mast component (oaks) of the forest community could be reduced, thus 

reducing food for waterfowl. Emergent, scrub-shrub and open water wetlands would continue to 

receive limited conservation afforded by present regulatory processes.

4.6.1.2 Land Acquisition and Property Taxes

Under Alternative 1 the Refuge would only intensify and concentrate its private lands program in the 

Yellow River Focus Area. The Service would not acquire any realty interests (e.g., fee-title or 

conservation easements) in land and water in the Yellow River Focus Area. No land would be removed 

from the tax rolls. No Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments would be made to the affected townships, 

since no additional land would be removed from the tax rolls.

4.6.2 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would not provide staff and funding to provide a leadership role in facilitating pro-active 

conservation approaches in the area. This would mean the Service would not intensify and concentrate 

its private lands efforts in the area or seek to acquire realty interests in lands and waters. All efforts 

aimed at developing Wildlife Management Agreements with landowners in the Yellow River Focus 

Area would cease. Efforts at conserving the habitat work accomplished to-date through the Refuge’s 

Partners for Wildlife program would be abandonned.

4.6.2.1 Habitat Considerations

Like Alternative 1, small increases in wetland and upland habitats would be restored in the Yellow 

River Focus Area through existing USDA and county programs. Again, most of these programs 

restore small tracts of habitat scattered throughout large geographic areas (as opposed to larger 

single blocks). While important habitat for migratory birds and other diverse wildlife would be 

restored, there is no provision for the conservation of a large, regionally important landscape such as 

the Yellow River Focus Area.

Again, many of the existing wetland and upland habitats in the area could be impacted by the lack of a 

central management plan for the area, which may lead to increased residential development in 

undesirable locations or proportions, unmonitored water quality changes, declines in quality 

recreational and aesthetic experiences, and declines in the overall value of the Yellow River to local 

communities. Waterfowl, Sandhill Crane, other waterbirds, songbirds, fish, and many resident wildlife 
176

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

species would likely decrease over time as habitat degradation occurred. Unique plant communities 

could be degraded or lost due to conversion of additional wetlands to agricultural lands, namely 

cranberry production. Archeological resources would be offered little protection and subject to loss. 

Public use opportunities would be limited to private landowners, others with permission from 

landowners, and the general public on the public lands in the area. 

Like Alternative 1, many areas of bottomland forest not considered wetlands under the Swampbuster 

provisions of the Food Security Act could eventually be cleared and put into other uses not beneficial 

to wildlife. The many water quality and wildlife habitat benefits associated with these areas would be 

lost. Timber harvest decisions on un-managed woodlands could likely be based primarily on 

maximizing short-term income (again, given current landowners’ conservation ethic, this is possible 

but not necessarily certain). Continued high-grading of timber could further reduce tree species 

diversity, and the heavy mast component (oaks) of the forest community could be reduced, thus 

reducing food for waterfowl. Emergent, scrub-shrub and open water wetlands would continue to 

receive limited conservation afforded by present regulatory processes. 

4.6.2.2 Land Acquisition and Property Taxes

Under Alternative 2, the Service would not seek to acquire any realty interests (fee-title or 

conservation easements) in land and water in the Yellow River Focus Area. No land would be removed 

from the tax rolls. Therefore, no Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments would be made to the affected 

townships.

4.6.3 Alternative 3

Implementation of the CPP would provide the Refuge with additional tools to restore and conserve 

the Yellow River Focus Area in a way that supports Service trust resources and the diverse group of 

stakeholders owning land in the area (willing sellers only). The Refuge would continue to employ a 

private lands biologist devoted to working in the Yellow River Focus Area. A staff person dedicated to 

the Yellow River Focus Area conservation effort would provide the attention and continuity necessary 

to maintain stakeholder trust and allow for wetland and prairie restorations to continue in other areas 

of the 12-county Private Lands District. 

4.6.3.1 Habitat Considerations

Like Alternatives 1 and 2, small increases in wetland and upland habitats would be restored in the 

Yellow River Focus Area through existing USDA and county programs. Again, most of these 

programs restore small tracts of habitat scattered throughout large geographic areas (as opposed to 

larger single blocks). Under Alternative 3, like Alternative 1, Refuge private lands staff will continue 

providing landowners technical and funding assistance to manage fish, wildlife, and plants on their 

land and seek to augment other non-Service conservation efforts. 

As of September 2000, of the 230 landowners in the Yellow River Focus Area, 121 had signed up with 

the Service for technical assistance. Of those, 16 landowners owning 1,233 acres have signed Wildlife 

Management Agreements. Restoration work accomplished to date includes: three sedge meadow 

restorations (62 acres), three wetland restorations (33 acres), one bottomland hardwood restoration 

(54 acres) and six savanna/prairie restorations (135 acres). All work was performed by landowners and 

Refuge Private Lands personnel. Refuge private lands staff will continue providing landowners 

technical and funding assistance to manage fish, wildlife, and plants on their land, and seek to 

augment these other non-Service conservation efforts. In addition, under this alternative the Service 

would seek to conserve these and other areas by offering to purchase a realty interest in properties 

with high natural resource values (willing seller only).

4.6.3.2 Land Acquisition and Property Taxes

Alternative 3 would expand the Refuges private lands conservation effort by offering conservation 

easements and fee title purchases to willing landowners, further conserving the restoration work done 
177

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

through the Refuge’s Wildlife Management Agreements and other non-Service programs. While the 

Yellow River Focus Area program emphasizes conservation of quality wildlife habitat in private 

ownership, land acquisition by the Service could involve approximately 3,750 acres (250 acres/year) 

over the next 15 years (based on a future funding scenario and the presence of willing sellers). In 

reality, this figure could be more or less given the uncertainty of future funding scenarios and the 

presence of willing participants. All lands acquired by the Service would be administered and 

managed by the National Wildlife Refuge System, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. Tracts in which 

less than fee-title agreements are negotiated would remain in private ownership. All restoration and 

conservation would be carried out on a tract-by-tract basis as participants and fiscal resources become 

available over a 15-year time period. Funding for land acquisition would be from the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund (proceeds from the sale of Federal duck stamps) using the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund using the authority of 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Participation with the Service in any aspect of the Yellow River 

Focus Area is voluntary, and all land acquisition would be from willing sellers only.

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of June 15, 1935, as amended, provides for annual payments to 

counties or the lowest unit of government that collects and distributes taxes based on acreage and 

value of National Wildlife Refuge lands located within the county. The monies for these payments 

come from two sources: (1) net receipts from the sale of products from National Wildlife Refuge 

System lands (oil and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, etc.) and (2) annual Congressional 

appropriations. Annual Congressional appropriations, as authorized by a 1978 amendment, were 

intended to make up the difference between the net receipts from the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund 

and the total amount due to local units of government. 

Payments to the counties are calculated based on whichever of the following formulas as set out in the 

Act provides the largest return: (1) $.75 per acre; (2) 25 percent of the net receipts collected from 

refuge lands in the county; or (3) three-quarters of 1 percent of the appraised value. In the state of 

Wisconsin, three-quarters of 1 percent of the appraised value always brings the greatest return to the 

taxing bodies. Using this method, lands are re-appraised every 5 years to reflect current market 

values. 

According to the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, which authorizes the Service to make these payments:

“Each county which receives payments....shall distribute, under guidelines established by the 

Secretary, such payments on a proportional basis to those units of local government (including, 

but not limited to, school districts and the county itself in appropriate cases) which have incurred 

the loss or reduction in real property tax revenues by reason of existence of such area.” 

In essence, the Act directs the counties or lowest unit of government that collects and distributes 

taxes to distribute Refuge Revenue Sharing payments in the same proportion as it would for tax 

monies received. 

Evaluating the environmental consequences for Alternative 3 is complicated by the Service’s willingseller-only acquisition policy. Because the Service would be buying land from willing sellers only 

(easements and fee-tile acquisitions), and nearly all of the land in the Yellow River Focus Area is in 

private ownership, there is no reliable way to predict when or where particular land parcels might be 

purchased. However, in the spring of 2001 Refuge staff and regional office personnel held a public 

meeting at the Town of Necedah town hall to discuss the Yellow River Focus Area project. The 

following analysis of potential tax implications to the Town of Necedah was prepared for that meeting 

using the following assumptions. 
178

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Town of Necedah

Total Assessments $82,170,792

Tax Rate $23.50 per $1,000 assessed value

Total Revenue Received $1,931,013

The assessment makes the following three assumptions:

# The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires 250 acres of land in fee-title in the Town of 

Necedah.

# The value of the land is $1,000 per acre (estimated).

# The total valuation of the land is $250,000 (250 acres X $1,000 per acre).

Based on the above assumptions, the total amount of lost property tax revenue as a result of the 

Service’s hypothetical purchase of 250 acres would equal $5,875 per year ($250,000 / $1,000 x $23.50) 

After the land was acquired, the Service would make a Refuge Revenue Sharing payment to the Town 

of Necedah. The Service’s Refuge Revenue Sharing payment (at 100 percent) would be $1,875 per 

year ($250,000 x .0075).

The Service’s Refuge Revenue Sharing payment to the Town of Necedah at 53 percent of entitlement 

would be $993.75 per year.

The difference between the taxes on the 250 acres used in this example (had they remained in private 

ownership) and the Service’s Refuge Revenue Sharing payment would be $5,875 (taxes) - $993 

(revenue sharing payment) = $4,882 per year.

The amount of revenue lost as a percentage of total revenue received by the Town of Necedah ($4,882/

$1,931,013) would equal .25 percent (one-quarter of 1 percent).

Since roughly 60 percent of the tax revenue received by the Town goes to the school district, and the 

state makes up any shortfall in school funding due to public land ownership, the actual loss would be 

$1,952 (.4 x $4,882)(the state would pay the other $2,929 to the school district).

The amount of tax revenue lost after the state payment to the school district (expressed as a fraction 

of total tax revenues) would be .10 or one-tenth of 1 percent ($1,952/$1,931,013).

Lastly, for comparison purposes and using the above analysis, if someone is currently paying roughly 

$1,000 in property taxes for living in the Town of Necedah, they could expect their taxes to increase by 

roughly $1.00 as a result of Service fee-title acquisition of land in the Yellow River Focus Area (for 

every 250 acres valued at $1,000 per acre).

Since the draft CCP was written, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue prepared an analysis of the 

potential tax impacts on local taxes due to hypothetical Service fee acquisition in the Yellow River 

Focus Area. The analysis considered the impact on the municipal, school district, and county taxes due 

to the hypothetical purchases of lands of varying acreages by the Service in eight different taxing 

authorities in Wood and Juneau counties. The Department of Revenue assumed that the Service 

revenue sharing payment would equate to .75 percent of the fair market value and that the Service 

would pay 51 percent of the full Refuge Revenue Sharing entitlement. The calculated tax impact 

ranged from a decrease of $.09 to an increase of $.17 in taxes for an average residential parcel. 
179

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Table 15: Summary of Environmental Impacts, Necedah NWR 

ISSUE ALTERNATIVE 1

(Guidance contained in the 

1979 Master Plan and 

associated Step-down 

Management Plans)

ALTERNATIVE 2

(Guidance contained in the 

1979 Master Plan)

ALTERNATIVE 3

(Guidance contained in the 

Refuge CCP)

1. Service Trust Resources

Listed Species Populations of listed species 

on the Refuge would likely 

remain the same or increase 

slightly. Eastern 

massasauga rattlesnakes in 

the Yellow River Focus Area 

(YRFA) may decline as 

development encroaches the 

area.

Populations of listed species 

on the Refuge would likely 

remain the same or increase 

slightly. Eastern 

massasauga rattlesnakes in 

the YRFA may decline as 

development encroaches the 

area. 

Populations of all listed 

species on the Refuge and in 

the YRFA would likely 

increase. This alternative 

would have the greatest 

contribution to listed 

species.

Waterfowl and other 

Migratory Birds

Would not increase 

waterfowl use and 

production. Would not 

increase grassland species 

of concern. Would increase 

savanna species of concern 

through additional savanna 

management.

Would not increase 

waterfowl use and 

production. Would not 

increase grassland species 

of concern. Would not 

increase savanna species of 

concern through additional 

savanna management. Local 

populations in the YRFA 

would likely decline.

Would increase waterfowl 

use and production at the 

Refuge through additional 

habitat management. Would 

increase grassland species 

of concern through 

additional grassland 

management. Would 

increase savanna species of 

concern through additional 

savanna management.

Biological Diversity Would increase native 

biological diversity on 

Refuge land through 

savanna restoration efforts 

and in the YRFA through 

the Refuge’s Private Lands 

Program.

Would not increase native 

biological diversity on either 

Refuge land or land within 

the Yellow River Focus 

Area.

Would increase native 

biological diversity on both 

Refuge land and land within 

the YRFA.

2. Visitor Services

The quality of Refuge visits 

would likely decline as 

visitation increases due to 

recent developments 

(e.g., Whooping Crane 

introduction).

The quality of Refuge visits 

would likely decline as 

visitation increases due to 

recent developments 

(e.g., Whooping Crane 

introduction).

Many upgrades to existing 

facilities would occur. The 

quality of Refuge visits 

would improve most.

3. Habitat Management

Would restore native 

savanna and contribute to 

the recovery of early 

successional forests.

Could lead to further 

degradation of forest land 

(over mature closed-canopy 

forests). 

Would restore native 

savanna and contribute to 

the recovery of early 

successional forests. Would 

establish native prairies and 

contribute to the recovery of 

those ecosystems as well.

Fire Management Would be safely done Would be safely done. Would be safely done.
180

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Yellow River Focus Area

No impact to private 

property rights. No impact 

to taxes. Most likely would 

lead to further degradation 

of the natural resources.

No impact to private 

property rights. No impact 

to taxes. Most likely would 

lead to further degradation 

of the natural resources.

No impact to private 

property rights. Could 

result in reduced tax 

revenues as land is 

purchased in fee-title. Would 

conserve existing and 

restorable natural resources 

in the area.

Table 15: Summary of Environmental Impacts, Necedah NWR (Continued)

ISSUE ALTERNATIVE 1

(Guidance contained in the 

1979 Master Plan and 

associated Step-down 

Management Plans)

ALTERNATIVE 2

(Guidance contained in the 

1979 Master Plan)

ALTERNATIVE 3

(Guidance contained in the 

Refuge CCP)
181

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Chapter 5: List of Preparers

Gabe DeAlessio Biologist/GIS, Division of Conservation Planning, Great Lakes/Big 

Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for GIS 

mapping.

Jeff Gosse Regional National Environmental Policy Act Coordinator, Great 

Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 

Responsible for environmental assessment review and editing and 

NEPA compliance.

Jane Hodgins Technical Writer/Editor, Great Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, 

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for CCP/environmental 

assessment review and editing.

Sean Killen Cartographer, Great Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, 

Minnesota. Responsible for GIS development and maps.

Richard King Biologist, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Necedah, Wisconsin. 

Responsible for CCP/environmental assessment preparation and 

review.

Jane Lardy Nelson Editorial Assistant, Division of Conservation Planning, Great 

Lakes/Big Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 

Responsible for production assistance and review.

Thomas Larson Chief, Division of Conservation Planning, Great Lakes-Big Rivers 

Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for CCP/

environmental assessment review.

Thomas Magnuson Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Great Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, 

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for project coordination and 

CCP/environmental assessment preparation and review and editing.

Mary Mitchell Regional GIS Coordinator, Great Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, 

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for GIS development.

Rebecca Power Park Ranger, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Necedah, 

Wisconsin. Responsible for public involvement, CCP/environmental 

assessment preparation and review and editing.
182

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Claudia Wondra Former Editorial Assistant, Ascertainment and Planning, Great 

Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 

Responsible for CCP/environmental assessment review and editing.

Larry Wargowsky Refuge Manager, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Necedah, 

Wisconsin. Responsible for CCP/environmental assessment review 

and editing.
183

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination 

with the Public

The Service used a highly participatory planning process to develop the Necedah National Wildlife 

Refuge CCP and associated EA. Throughout the planning process, the Service initiated outreach to 

diverse stakeholders, including representatives from other Federal and state agencies, county and 

township governments, local drainage districts, special interest groups such as birders, hunters, and 

anglers, industry and non-profit organizations, landowners living adjacent to the Refuge and within 

the Yellow River Area, Refuge visitors, and Service employees. 

Information about the CCP was provided to stakeholders and the general public through news 

releases, presentations, interviews, informational letters, newsletters, public meetings, briefings, and 

the Internet. Questionnaires, focus groups, public meetings, and one-on-one discussions were used to 

gather input from Refuge visitors, neighbors, and other stakeholders. A geographic information 

system was developed to aid in the analysis and transfer of information. 

The following table (Table 16) is a summary of opportunities afforded the public in the Refuge’s 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) process. This summary covers the majority of formal 

outreach efforts by the Service and the Refuge. A number of informal outreach efforts, particularly in 

the Juneau County and Wood County area, occurred throughout the CCP process and are not 

documented here. These efforts include contacts with Refuge visitors (approximately 5,000 Refuge 

hunters responded to a questionnaire), informing local service organizations and county boards at 

regularly scheduled meetings, and informing/updating other agencies at meetings scheduled for 

purposes other than to discuss the Refuge CCP.
184

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table 16: Summary of Opportunities for Public Involvement in the CCP Process, Necedah

NWR 

Date Action or Event Message

January 1997 Juneau/Adams County interagency 

meeting

Informed local, state, and federal 

resource management personnel 

about the upcoming Refuge 

planning process

February 1997 Refuge staff met with 

representatives of the Wisconsin 

Bowhunters Association, the 

Wisconsin Muzzleloaders 

Association, and the Wisconsin 

Traditional Archers Association, at 

their request 

Discussed the future of special 

hunts and game management on 

the Refuge

March 1997 Press release Happy birthday Necedah Refuge 

and call for input into CCP

March 1997 Letter to the editor - Juneau 

County Star Times

Refuge asks for help planning the 

future of the Refuge

April 1997 Press release Publicizing National Wildlife Week 

and opportunities to comment on 

the CCP

April 1997 National Wildlife Week Open 

House

Request public input into Refuge 

and Yellow River planning efforts

April 1997 Press release Publicize International Migratory 

Bird Day events and requesting 

input into the Refuge CCP

May 1997 Refuge staff meet with local 

drainage district personnel at 

Refuge

Scoping of issues/opportunity for 

input into CCP

May 1997 International Migratory Bird Day 

Open House 

Request public input into the 

Refuge CCP and Yellow River 

planning efforts

June 1997 Mailing to property owners within 

a 4-township area, plus over 90 

groups with an interest in 

conservation issues (to approx. 

4,200 people and groups) 

The Refuge wants your input on 

the future of Refuge management.

June 1997 Refuge public scoping meetings/

open houses (2)

CCP and CCP process. Public 

input is important

June 1997 Press coverage - Juneau County 

Star Times

Refuge seeks citizen input

July 1997 Interview - Tomah Tribune CCP process

July 1997 Interview - WKTY AM 580 (La 

Crosse)

CCP process

October 1997 Press release National Wildlife Refuge Week 

Open House and CCP input 

opportunity

October 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Week 

Open House

Request public input into Refuge 

and Yellow River planning efforts
185

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

January 1998 Juneau/Adams County interagency 

meeting

Informed local, state, and federal 

resource management personnel 

about the ongoing Refuge CCP 

planning process

June 1998 Central Wisconsin Basin 

Partnership (CWBP) meeting

First proposal to adopt the Yellow 

River as a CWBP project; the 

Yellow River project was 

subsequently adopted, and the 

project was discussed quarterly at 

meetings thereafter

September 1998 Release of the first draft CCP with 

cover letter requesting and 

outlining ways to comment

September 1998 Press coverage - Tomah MonitorHeraldWaterfowl hunters criticize Refuge 

conservation plan and deadline for 

written comments

September 1998 Letter to the editor - Tomah 

Monitor-Herald

Response to Tomah MonitorHerald press coverage

January 1999 Juneau/Adams County interagency 

meeting

Informed local, state, and federal 

resource management personnel 

about the ongoing Refuge planning 

process

April 1999 Newsletter to 800+ Refuge mailing 

list

Informed public of CCP availability 

- postage-paid request for a copy of 

the CCP was included

April 1999 National Wildlife Week Open 

House

Yellow River slide show about area 

and project

July 1999 Newsletter to 800+ Refuge mailing 

list and at local outlets such as 

libraries and local businesses

CCP update

August 1999 Contact letter to Yellow River 

landowners

Informing landowners about the 

Yellow River Focus Area project 

and resource management services 

offered by the Refuge

October 1999 Press release and newsletter to 

800+ refuge mailing list and at 

local outlets such as libraries and 

local businesses

Requesting historic pictures of the 

Yellow River area for the Yellow 

River Focus Area project

December 1999 Press coverage - Juneau County 

Star Times

Yellow River Focus Area project 

creates new partnerships

January 2000 Newsletter to 800+ Refuge mailing 

list and at local outlets such as 

libraries and local businesses

CCP update

March 2000 Newsletter to 800+ Refuge mailing 

list and at local outlets such as 

libraries and local businesses

Advertising Yellow River 

landowner meetings

Table 16: Summary of Opportunities for Public Involvement in the CCP Process, Necedah

NWR (Continued)

Date Action or Event Message
186

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

March 2000 Refuge-hosted Yellow River 

landowner forum 

Discussion about landowner’s 

perspective on the issues and 

information needs in the Yellow 

River

March 2000 Letter to Yellow River landowners Summarizing results of first 

landowner forum and written 

assurance that participation with 

the Service in the Yellow River is 

voluntary and that the Service will 

not use eminent domain

April 2000 Refuge-hosted Yellow River 

landowner forum

Tally of responses collected at last 

meeting, plus “experts” that could 

address landowners’s questions 

from last meeting

July 2000 Release of revised CCP draft

August 2000 Mailing to property owners within 

a 4-township area, plus over 90 

groups with an interest in 

conservation issues (to approx. 

4,200 people and groups) 

The Refuge wants your input on 

the final draft CCP and what comes 

after the plan’s approval

August 2000 Press release Refuge invites comments on 

revised plan

September 2000 Press release Draft plan release and publicizing 

two public meetings

September 2000 Two public meetings Inviting public comments and 

answering questions about the 

draft CCP

February 2001 Press release Midwest private landowners to 

receive grants for conservation 

actions (Yellow River landowners 

were recipients of these grants)

March 2001 Juneau/Adams County interagency 

meeting

Informed local, state, and federal 

resource management personnel 

about the ongoing Refuge planning 

process

March 2001 Letter to the editor - Juneau 

County Star Times

Necedah NWR staff explain Town 

of Necedah referendum regarding 

the Yellow River Focus Area

March 2001 Press coverage - Juneau County 

Star Times

Yellow River referendum to go 

before Town of Necedah voters; 

two informational meetings 

scheduled at the Necedah Town 

Hall

March 2001 Four public meetings on Yellow 

River Focus Area; two hosted by 

the Town of Necedah, two hosted 

by the Refuge

Discussion and questions about the 

Yellow River Focus Area

Table 16: Summary of Opportunities for Public Involvement in the CCP Process, Necedah

NWR (Continued)

Date Action or Event Message
187

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

April 2001 Two public meetings - Armenia 

Town Hall and Finley Town Hall

Discussion and questions about the 

Yellow River Focus Area

June 2001 Letter to Yellow River landowners Reiterating the scope of the Yellow 

River Focus Area project and 

written assurance that 

participation in the project is 

voluntary and that the Service will 

not use eminent domain

August 2001 Booth at Ducks Unlimited Great 

Outdoors Festival in Oshkosh

Refuge staff explained CCP and 

YRFA as well as distributed fact 

sheets and brochures.

August 2001 Meeting with Wood County 

Conservation Staff

Discussion of various natural 

resource management efforts in 

Wood County including the YRFA

September 2001 Booth at Necedah Whooping Crane 

Festival

Refuge staff explained CCP and 

Yellow River FA and handed out 

fact sheets and brochure.

October 2001 Central Wisconsin Basin 

Partnership Meeting

Discussion of YRFA with partners 

and the Wisconsin Cranberry 

Growers Association.

November 2001 Adams County Holiday Fair Refuge staff explained CCP and 

Yellow River FA and handed out 

fact sheets and brochure and 

mentioned new comment period.

November 2001 Juneau County Board Meeting Reminded Board of new comment 

period.

November 2001 Dexter Town Hall Meeting Discussed the Refuge and the 

YRFA project

December 2001 Wisconsin Land and Water 

Conservation Association 

Conference

Provided an overview of the CCP.

December 2001 Juneau County - Land, Forestry, 

Parks & Zoning Committee

Discussed potential land 

acquisition and conservation 

easements in the YRFA

December 2001 Service staff meet with Town 

Chairman

Discussed Refuge CCP and 

Revenue Sharing Payments

December 2001 Service staff meet with State 

Representative Albers, Lipport, 

and Schultz

Discussed CCP and the YRFA 

project

Table 16: Summary of Opportunities for Public Involvement in the CCP Process, Necedah

NWR (Continued)

Date Action or Event Message
188

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 7: Glossary

Alluvial Of and/or relating to river and stream deposits

Amphibian A class of carnivorous, ectotherms (body temperature regulated by 

outside heat sources) whose living members have a moist, glandular 

skin that is permeable to water and gases. Most amphibians have a 

well-defined aquatic, larval stage in their life cycle and then undergo 

metamorphosis into adults. Depending on the species, adults may 

occupy aquatic or terrestrial habitats. Frogs, toads, and salamanders 

are examples. 

Biological Diversity The variety of life forms and processes, including the complete 

natural complex of species, communities, genes, and ecological 

functions.

Biological Integrity Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, 

and community levels consistent with natural conditions, including 

the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and 

communities.

Biomass The weight of all life in a specified unit of environment or an 

expression of the total mass or weight of a given population, both 

plant and animal.

Bloom A readily visible concentrated growth or aggregation of plankton 

(plant and animal).

Community All the groups of organisms living together in the same area, usually 

interacting or depending on each other for existence.

Cumulative Effects Those effects on the environment that result from the incremental 

effect of the action when added to the past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant 

actions taking place over a period of time.

Dissolved Oxygen Amount of oxygen dissolved in water.

Drainage Basin An area mostly bound by ridges or other similar topographic 

features, encompassing part, most, or all of a watershed.
189

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Ecology The study of the relations between organisms and the totality of the 

biological and physical factors affecting them or influenced by them.

Ecological Integrity The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, 

and environmental health; the replication of natural conditions.

Ecosystem An ecological system; the interaction of living organisms and the 

nonliving environment producing an exchange of materials between 

the living and nonliving.

Ecosystem Approach A strategy or plan to manage ecosystems to provide for all 

associated organisms, as opposed to a strategy or plan for managing 

individual or clusters of species. 

Ecosystem Management Management of an ecosystem that includes all ecological, social, and 

economic components which make up the whole of the system.

Effects Effects, impacts, and consequences, as used in the environmental 

assessment, are synonymous. Effects may be direct, indirect, or 

cumulative.

Endangered Species Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered 

Species Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and published in the Federal 

Register.

Environmental Analysis An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short-term 

and long-term environmental effects, incorporating physical, 

biological, economic, and social considerations. 

Environmental Assessment A systematic analysis of site-specific or programmatic activities 

used to determine whether such activities have a significant effect on 

the quality of the physical, biological, and human environment and 

whether a formal environmental impact statement is required; and 

to aid an agency's compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act when no environmental impact statement is necessary.

Environmental Health Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment 

consistent with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic 

processes that shape the environment.

Eutrophication The intentional or unintentional enrichment of water.

Fauna All the animals of a particular region or a particular era.

Flora All the plants of a particular region or a particular era.

Food Chain The dependence of organisms upon others in a series of food. The 

chain begins with plants or scavenging organisms and ends with the 

largest carnivores.

Goals Broad statements of direction; end results or positions to be 

achieved.
190

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Hardness A measurement of the content of dissolved calcium and magnesium 

in water.

Hydrology The science of water in the hydrological cycle, the sun-driven 

movement of water between aquatic and terrestrial environments 

and the atmosphere, including evapostranspiration, condensation, 

precipitation, and runoff.

Impoundment A natural or artificial body of water that is held back by a dam.

Interdisciplinary Team A group of individuals with varying areas of expertise assembled to 

solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of 

recognition that no one scientific discipline is sufficiently broad 

enough to adequately analyze the problem and propose action.

Invertebrate An animal without a backbone or internal bony skeleton. Insects, 

crustaceans, worms, corals, and molluscs are examples.

Mesic Describing an environment having moderate rainfall and 

moderately moist, well-drained soils. Mesic plants are those that 

require moisture.

Monitoring A process of collecting information to evaluate if an objective and/or 

anticipated or assumed results of a management plan are being 

realized (effectiveness monitoring) or if implementation is 

proceeding as planned (implementation monitoring).

National Environmental

Policy Act An Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1969 to declare a national 

policy that encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between 

humankind and the environment, promotes efforts that prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate 

the health and welfare of humanity, enriches the understanding of 

the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 

nation, and establishes a Council on Environmental Quality.

Natural Conditions Conditions thought to exist from the end of the Medieval Warm 

Period to the advent of the industrial era (app. 950AD to 1800AD), 

based upon scientific study and sound professional judgement.

Objectives Intermediate-term targets necessary for the satisfaction of Refuge 

goals; quantifiable measures that serve as indicators against which 

attainment, or progress toward attainment, of goals can be 

measured. 

pH A measure of the relative concentration of hydrogen ions in a 

solution; indicating the acidity or alkalinity of the solution. A pH 

value of 7 indicates a neutral solution; values that are greater than 7 

are basic, and those below 7 are acidic. Vinegar has a pH of 3; ocean 

water has a pH of approximately 8.

Reptile A class of vertebrates whose skin is dry, lacking in glands, and 

covered with scales. Claws are present and skull, limb bones, 

vertebrae, muscles, and so forth are stronger and more advanced 
191

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

than those of amphibians. Egg fertilization is internal, there is no 

larval stage, and eggs have a protective, hard shell.

Riparian Area A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent 

upland areas that directly affects it. This includes floodplain, and 

associated woodland, rangeland, or other related upland areas. 

Pertaining to the banks of streams, lakes, wetlands, or tidewater.

Riparian Zones Terrestrial areas where the vegetation complex and micro-climate 

conditions are products of the combined presence and influence of 

perennial and/or intermittent water, associated high water tables, 

and soils that exhibit some wetness characteristics. Normally used to 

refer to the zone within which plants grow rooted in the water table 

of rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, springs, marshes, seeps, 

bogs, and wet meadows.

Savanna A community that was historically bordered by the prairies of the 

west and the deciduous forests of the east. It is a community type 

that falls in the middle of a continuum from prairie to forest. 

Savannas characteristically have less than 50 percent tree crown 

cover.

Sedge A grass-like plant, usually having a three-sided stem and clearly 

three-ranked leaves. The pistil, a female flower part, is surrounded 

by a sac-like or flask-shaped structure called the peryginium. 

Sedimentation The settling-out or deposition of suspended materials.

Sensitive Species Those plant or animal species for which population viability is a 

concern as evidence by a significant current or potential downward 

trend in population numbers, distribution, density, or habitat 

capability.

Species Richness The number of different species in a given area.

Stakeholder Any group or individual who is affected by or who can affect the 

future of the Refuge.

Step-Down Management Plans Tactical plans that describe in detail specific strategies and 

implementation schedules for management functions (e.g., habitat 

management, public use, fire, safety, etc.).

Strategic Framework A pattern of purposes, policies, programs, actions, decisions, or 

resource allocations that describe what the Refuge is, what it does, 

and why it does it.

Strategies Step-down approaches that could be used to meet Refuge goals and 

objectives; provide direction for defining and coordinating 

operational tasks to effectively perform the Refuge’s purpose.

Succession A gradual change from one community to another and characterized 

by a progressive change in species structure, an increase in biomass 
192

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and organic matter accumulation, and a gradual balance between 

community production and community respiration.

Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species 

throughout all or a significant portion of their range within the 

foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in 

the Federal Register.

Total Dissolved Solids A measure of the total quantity of dissolved substances contained in 

water or effluent, including organic matter, minerals, and other 

inorganic substances.

Viable Population A viable population is one which has such numbers and distribution 

of reproductive individuals as to provide a high likelihood that a 

species will continue to exist and be well-distributed throughout its 

range.

Warm Season Grasses A grass that grows most during the warmest seasons of the year.

Watershed The drainage basin contributing water, organic matter, dissolved 

nutrients, and sediments to a water body.

Watershed Analysis A systematic procedure for characterizing watershed and ecological 

processes to meet specific management and social objectives. 

Watershed analysis is a stratum of ecosystem management planning 

applied to watersheds.

Watershed Restoration Actions taken to improve the current conditions of a watershed to 

restore degraded habitat, and to provide long-term protection to 

natural resources, including riparian, terrestrial, and aquatic 

resources.

Watershed Treatments Specific actions or tools to satisfy the goals and objectives of a 

watershed project. These may include establishing permanent 

vegetation on sensitive areas within the watershed (riparian buffers, 

stream bank stabilization, erosion-prone areas); establishing 

permanent wildlife habitat for dependent species (warm/cool season 

grasses, wetlands, sediment retention, erosion, or water control 

structure basins, field/farmstead windbreaks, shelter rows, and 

winter food plots); and encouraging Best Management Practices 

(BMP's) on agricultural lands (strip-cropping systems, terraces, 

diversions, contour farming, cropland protective cover, conservation 

tillage, feedlot and manure management).
193

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Chapter 8: References and Selected Readings

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washingtion, D.C. 21pp.

Forman, R. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 619pp.

Keys, Jr., J., et al. 1995. Ecological units of the eastern United States - first approximation (map and 

booklet of map tables), Atlanta, Ga.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Keystone Center. 1991. Final consensus report of the Keystone policy dialogue on biological diversity 

on Federal lands. The Keystone Center, Keystone, Colorado, 96 pp.

Kohler, M.A., T.J. Nordenson, and D.R. Baker, 1959. Evaporation maps for the United States: US 

Weather Bureau Tech. Paper 37. 

Malloy, Sarah J., Robert E. Unsworth, and Edward A. Blomdahl, March 1998. “Economic Assessment 

for the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.” Industrial Economics, 

Inc. 

Naugle, D. F., K. F. Higgins, M. E. Estey, R. R. Johnson and S. M. Nusser 2000. Local and landscapelevel factors influencing black tern habitat suitability. Journal and Wildlife Management 64: 253-260.

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 1994. Forest Management Plan. Unpublished.

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 1994. Oak Barrens Restoration Plan. Unpublished. 

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 1979. Refuge Master Plan. Unpublished.

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 1998. Economic Impact Assessment for the Necedah National 

Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Unpublished.

Noss, R.F. and L. D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, Networks, and MUMs: preserving diversity at all scales. 

Environmental Management 10(3): 299-309.

Nuzzo, V.A. 1986. Extent and status of mid-west oak savanna: pre-settlement and 1985. Natural Areas 

Journal 6(2): 6-36.

Oliver, C.D., and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New 

York.
194

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Peterjohn, B.G., J.R. Saur, and W.A. Link. 1994. The 1992 and 1993 summary of the North American 

Breeding Bird Survey. Bird Populations 2: 46-61

Rosenfield, R. N., J. Bielefeldt, D. R. Trexel, and T. Doolittle. 1998. Breeding distribution and nest-site 

habitat of northern goshawks in Wisconsin. Journal of Raptor Research 32: 189-194.

Sample, D.W., and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing Habitat for Grassland Birds: A Guide for 

Wisconsin. Wisconsin DNR Publication. 154 pp.

Samson, F.B., and F.L. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. BioScience 44:418-421.

Tucker, P. and D. H. Pletscher, 1989. Attitudes of hunters and residents towards wolves in 

northwestern Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 17(4):509-514.

U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, Washington D.C., May 2002.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Twin Cities, 

Minnesota. 73pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Technical/

Agency Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet. FS-068-00. May 2000.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan. Madison, 

Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2001. An Assessment of Potential Tax Impacts Due to Service Fee 

Acquisition of Land in the Yellow River Focus Area. Unpublished.

Wydeven, A. P. and R. N. Schultz, 1993 and Addendum, 1995. Management policy for wolf den and 

rendevous sites background information. Unpul. Report Wis. DNR.
195

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

197

Appendix B: Glossary

Glossary

Alluvial Of and/or relating to river and stream deposits

Amphibian A class of carnivorous, ectotherms (body temperature regulated by 

outside heat sources) whose living members have a moist, glandular 

skin that is permeable to water and gases. Most amphibians have a 

well-defined aquatic, larval stage in their life cycle and then undergo 

metamorphosis into adults. Depending on the species, adults may 

occupy aquatic or terrestrial habitats. Frogs, toads, and salamanders 

are examples. 

Biological Diversity The variety of life forms and processes, including the complete 

natural complex of species, communities, genes, and ecological 

functions.

Biological Integrity Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, 

and community levels consistent with natural conditions, including 

the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and 

communities.

Community All the groups of organisms living together in the same area, usually 

interacting or depending on each other for existence.

Cumulative Effects Those effects on the environment that result from the incremental 

effect of the action when added to the past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant 

actions taking place over a period of time.

Drainage Basin An area mostly bound by ridges or other similar topographic 

features, encompassing part, most, or all of a watershed.

Ecology The study of the relations between organisms and the totality of the 

biological and physical factors affecting them or influenced by them.

Ecological Integrity The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, 

and environmental health; the replication of natural conditions.

Ecosystem An ecological system; the interaction of living organisms and the 

nonliving environment producing an exchange of materials between 

the living and nonliving.

Ecosystem Approach A strategy or plan to manage ecosystems to provide for all 

associated organisms, as opposed to a strategy or plan for managing 

individual or clusters of species. 

Ecosystem Management Management of an ecosystem that includes all ecological, social, and 

economic components which make up the whole of the system.
198

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Effects Effects, impacts, and consequences, as used in the environmental 

assessment, are synonymous. Effects may be direct, indirect, or 

cumulative.

Endangered Species Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered 

Species Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and published in the Federal 

Register.

Environmental Analysis An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short-term 

and long-term environmental effects, incorporating physical, 

biological, economic, and social considerations. 

Environmental Assessment A systematic analysis of site-specific or programmatic activities 

used to determine whether such activities have a significant effect on 

the quality of the physical, biological, and human environment and 

whether a formal environmental impact statement is required; and 

to aid an agency's compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act when no environmental impact statement is necessary.

Environmental Health Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment 

consistent with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic 

processes that shape the environment.

Eutrophication The intentional or unintentional enrichment of water.

Fauna All the animals of a particular region or a particular era.

Flora All the plants of a particular region or a particular era.

Food Chain The dependence of organisms upon others in a series of food. The 

chain begins with plants or scavenging organisms and ends with the 

largest carnivores.

Goals Broad statements of direction; end results or positions to be 

achieved.

Hydrology The science of water in the hydrological cycle, the sun-driven 

movement of water between aquatic and terrestrial environments 

and the atmosphere, including evapostranspiration, condensation, 

precipitation, and runoff.

Impoundment A natural or artificial body of water that is held back by a dam.

Interdisciplinary Team A group of individuals with varying areas of expertise assembled to 

solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of 

recognition that no one scientific discipline is sufficiently broad 

enough to adequately analyze the problem and propose action.

Invertebrate An animal without a backbone or internal bony skeleton. Insects, 

crustaceans, worms, corals, and molluscs are examples.
199

Appendix B: Glossary

Mesic Describing an environment having moderate rainfall and 

moderately moist, well-drained soils. Mesic plants are those that 

require moisture.

Monitoring A process of collecting information to evaluate if an objective and/or 

anticipated or assumed results of a management plan are being 

realized (effectiveness monitoring) or if implementation is 

proceeding as planned (implementation monitoring).

National Environmental

Policy Act An Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1969 to declare a national 

policy that encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between 

humankind and the environment, promotes efforts that prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate 

the health and welfare of humanity, enriches the understanding of 

the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 

nation, and establishes a Council on Environmental Quality.

Natural Conditions Conditions thought to exist from the end of the Medieval Warm 

Period to the advent of the industrial era (app. 950AD to 1800AD), 

based upon scientific study and sound professional judgement.

Objectives Intermediate-term targets necessary for the satisfaction of Refuge 

goals; quantifiable measures that serve as indicators against which 

attainment, or progress toward attainment, of goals can be 

measured. 

pH A measure of the relative concentration of hydrogen ions in a 

solution; indicating the acidity or alkalinity of the solution. A pH 

value of 7 indicates a neutral solution; values that are greater than 7 

are basic, and those below 7 are acidic. Vinegar has a pH of 3; ocean 

water has a pH of approximately 8.

Reptile A class of vertebrates whose skin is dry, lacking in glands, and 

covered with scales. Claws are present and skull, limb bones, 

vertebrae, muscles, and so forth are stronger and more advanced 

than those of amphibians. Egg fertilization is internal, there is no 

larval stage, and eggs have a protective, hard shell.

Riparian Area A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent 

upland areas that directly affects it. This includes floodplain, and 

associated woodland, rangeland, or other related upland areas. 

Pertaining to the banks of streams, lakes, wetlands, or tidewater.

Riparian Zones Terrestrial areas where the vegetation complex and micro-climate 

conditions are products of the combined presence and influence of 

perennial and/or intermittent water, associated high water tables, 

and soils that exhibit some wetness characteristics. Normally used to 

refer to the zone within which plants grow rooted in the water table 

of rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, springs, marshes, seeps, 

bogs, and wet meadows.

Savanna A community that was historically bordered by the prairies of the 

west and the deciduous forests of the east. It is a community type 
200

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

that falls in the middle of a continuum from prairie to forest. 

Savannas characteristically have less than 50 percent tree crown 

cover.

Sedge A grass-like plant, usually having a three-sided stem and clearly 

three-ranked leaves. The pistil, a female flower part, is surrounded 

by a sac-like or flask-shaped structure called the peryginium. 

Sedimentation The settling-out or deposition of suspended materials.

Sensitive Species Those plant or animal species for which population viability is a 

concern as evidence by a significant current or potential downward 

trend in population numbers, distribution, density, or habitat 

capability.

Species Richness The number of different species in a given area.

Stakeholder Any group or individual who is affected by or who can affect the 

future of the Refuge.

Step-Down Management Plans Tactical plans that describe in detail specific strategies and 

implementation schedules for management functions (e.g., habitat 

management, public use, fire, safety, etc.

Strategic Framework A pattern of purposes, policies, programs, actions, decisions, or 

resource allocations that describe what the Refuge is, what it does, 

and why it does it.

Strategies Step-down approaches that could be used to meet Refuge goals and 

objectives; provide direction for defining and coordinating 

operational tasks to effectively perform the Refuge’s purpose.

Succession A gradual change from one community to another and characterized 

by a progressive change in species structure, an increase in biomass 

and organic matter accumulation, and a gradual balance between 

community production and community respiration.

Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species 

throughout all or a significant portion of their range within the 

foreseeable future. A plant or animal identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in 

the Federal Register.

Viable Population A viable population is one which has such numbers and distribution 

of reproductive individuals as to provide a high likelihood that a 

species will continue to exist and be well-distributed throughout its 

range.

Warm Season Grasses A grass that grows most during the warmest seasons of the year.

Watershed The drainage basin contributing water, organic matter, dissolved 

nutrients, and sediments to a water body.
201

Appendix B: Glossary

Watershed Analysis A systematic procedure for characterizing watershed and ecological 

processes to meet specific management and social objectives. 

Watershed analysis is a stratum of ecosystem management planning 

applied to watersheds.

Watershed Restoration Actions taken to improve the current conditions of a watershed to 

restore degraded habitat, and to provide long-term protection to 

natural resources, including riparian, terrestrial, and aquatic 

resources.

Watershed Treatments Specific actions or tools to satisfy the goals and objectives of a 

watershed project. These may include establishing permanent 

vegetation on sensitive areas within the watershed (riparian buffers, 

stream bank stabilization, erosion-prone areas); establishing 

permanent wildlife habitat for dependent species (warm/cool season 

grasses, wetlands, sediment retention, erosion, or water control 

structure basins, field/farmstead windbreaks, shelter rows, and 

winter food plots); and encouraging Best Management Practices 

(BMP's) on agricultural lands (strip-cropping systems, terraces, 

diversions, contour farming, cropland protective cover, conservation 

tillage, feedlot and manure management).

203

Appendix C: Species List

Appendix C: Species List

205

Appendix C: Species List

Species List

Bird List, Necedah NWR 

Common loon Pied-billed grebe Double-crested cormorant

American bittern Green heron Least Bittern

Great blue heron Great egret Black-crowned night-heron

Tundra swan Trumpeter swan Greater white-fronted 

goose

Snow goose Canada goose Wood duck

Green-winged teal American black duck Mallard

Northern pintail Blue-winged teal Northern shoveler

Gadwall American wigeon Canvasback

Redhead Ring-necked duck Lesser scaup

Greater scaup Common goldeneye Bufflehead

Hooded merganser Red-breasted merganser Common merganser

Ruddy duck Turkey vulture Osprey

Northern harrier Sharp-shinned hawk Cooper’s hawk

Northern goshawk Red-shouldered hawk Broad-winged hawk

Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Golden eagle

Bald eagle American kestrel Merlin

Perigrine falcon Ring-necked pheasant Ruffed grouse

Northern bobwhite Wild turkey King rail

Virginia rail Sora American coot

Sandhill crane Whooping crane Black-bellied plover

Lesser golden plover Semipalmated plover Killdeer

Greater yellowlegs Lesser yellowlegs Solitary sandpiper

Spotted sandpiper Semipalmated sandpiper Least sandpiper

Baird’s sandpiper Pectoral sandpiper Western sandpiper

Dunlin Stilt sandpiper Short-billed dowitcher

Long-billed dowitcher Common snipe American woodcock

Wilson’s phalarope Bonaparte’s gull Ring-billed gull

Herring gull Caspian tern Common tern

Forster’s tern Black tern Rock dove
206

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Mourning dove Black-billed cuckoo Yellow-billed cuckoo

Eastern screech owl Great horned owl Snowy owl

Barred owl Great gray owl Long-eared owl

Short-eared owl Northern saw-whet owl Common nighthawk

Whip-poor-will Chimney swift Ruby-throated 

hummingbird

Belted kingfisher Red-headed woodpecker Red-bellied woodpecker

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Downy woodpecker Hairy woodpecker

Northern flicker Pilieated woodpecker Olive-sided flycatcher

Eastern wood-pewee Alder flycatcher Willow flycatcher

Least flycatcher Eastern phoebe Great crested flycatcher

Eastern kingbird Horned lark Purple martin

Tree swallow Northern rough-winged 

swallow

Bank swallow

Cliff swallow Barn swallow Blue jay 

American crow Common raven Black-capped chickadee

Tufted titmouse Red-breasted nuthatch White-breasted nuthatch

Brown creeper House wren Winter wren

Sedge wren Marsh wren Golden-crowned kinglet

Ruby-crowned kinglet Blue-gray gnatcatcher Eastern bluebird

Veery Swainson’s thrush Wood thrush

American robin Gray catbird Brown thrasher

Bohemian waxwing Cedar waxwing Northern shrike

European starling Solitary vireo Yellow-throated vireo

Warbling vireo Red-eyed vireo Blue-winged warbler

Golden-winged warbler Tennessee warbler Nashville warbler

Yellow warbler Chestnut-sided warbler Yellow-rumped warbler

Black-throated blue 

warbler

Blackburnian warbler Pine warbler

Palm warbler American redstart Ovenbird

Common yellowthroat Scarlet tanager Northern cardinal

Rose-breasted grosbeak Indigo bunting Dickcissel

Eastern towhee American tree sparrow Chipping sparrow

Clay-colored sparrow Field sparrow Vesper sparrow

Bird List, Necedah NWR (Continued)
207

Appendix C: Species List

Henslow’s sparrow Savannah sparrow Fox sparrow

Song sparrow Swamp sparrow White-throated sparrow

White-crowned sparrow Dark-eyed junco Snow bunting

Bobolink Red-winged blackbird Eastern meadowlark

Western meadowlark Rusty blackbird Brewer’s blackbird

Common grackle Brown-headed cowbird Northern oriole

Purple finch American goldfinch House sparrow

Plant List, Necedah NWR 

Scientific Name Common Name

Acer rubrum red maple

Achillea millefolium common yarrow

Amelanchier sp. serviceberry

Andropogon gerardii big bluestem

Antennaria neglecta field-pussytoes

Apocynum 

androsaemifolium

spreading dogbane

Arabis lyrata sand cress

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi bearberry

Aronia melanocarpa black chokeberry

Aster macrophyllus big-leaved aster

Baptisia lactea milky white indigio

Betula papyrifera white birch

Botrychium dissectum lace-frond grape-fern

Calamagrostis canadensis bluejoint

Calystegia spithamaea low bindweed

Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge

Carex sp. sedge

Celastrus scandens American bittersweet

Chimaphila umbellata prince's pine

Comandra umbellata bastard toad-flax

Comptonia peregrina sweet fern

Bird List, Necedah NWR (Continued)
208

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Conyza canadensis horseweed

Coreopsis palmata finger-tickseed

Cornus sp. dogwood

Corylus cornuta beaked hazel-nut

Crepis sp. hawk's beard

Cyperus sp. flatsedge

Danthonia spicata poverty-oatgrass

Epigaea repens trailing arbutus

Erigeron annuus annual fleabane

Euphorbia corollata flowering spurge

Fragaria virginiana thick-leaved wild strawberry

Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash

Galium boreale northern bedstraw

Gaultheria procumbens wintergreen

Gaylussacia baccata black huckleberry

Gnaphalium obtusifolium fragrant cudweed

Helianthemum canadense frostweed

Helianthus divaricatus 

divaricate

sunflower

Hieracium aurantiacum orange-red king-devil

Hieracium caespitosum yellow king-devil

Hieracium floribundum glaucous hawkweed

Hieracium kalmii Canada hawkweed

Ilex verticillata winterberry

Koeleria pyramidata junegrass

Krigia biflora orange dwarf dandelion

Lactuca Canadensis Canada wildlettuce

Lespedeza capitata bush-clover

Liatris aspera lacerate blazing star

Lilium philadelphicum wood-lily

Lonicera dioica wild honeysuckle

Lupinus perennis sundial-lupine

Plant List, Necedah NWR (Continued)

Scientific Name Common Name
209

Appendix C: Species List

Lycopodium lucidulum shining clubmoss

Lycopodium sp. clubmoss

Lysimachia ciliata fringed loosestrife

Lysimachia lanceolata lance-leaved loosestrife

Lysimachia quadrifolia whorled loosestrife

Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower

Melampyrum lineare cow-wheat

Panicum sp. panic-grass

Pedicularis canadensis forest-lousewort

Phlox glaberrima smooth phlox

Physalis virginiana Virginia ground-cherry

Pinus banksiana jack-pine

Pinus resinosa red pine

Pinus strobus white pine

Poa compressa Canada bluegrass

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass

Polygala polygama bitter milkwort

Polygonatum biflorum Solomon's seal

Populus grandidentata big-toothed aspen

Populus tremuloides quaking aspen

Potentilla norvegica strawberry-weed

Potentilla simplex old-field five-fingers

Prunus serotina wild black cherry

Prunus virginiana choke-cherry

Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern

Pyrola secunda one-sided shinleaf

Pyrus ioensis prairie crab-apple

Quercus alba white oak

Quercus ellipsoidalis northern pin oak

Quercus rubra northern red oak

Quercus velutina black oak

Rosa carolina pasture-rose

Plant List, Necedah NWR (Continued)

Scientific Name Common Name
210

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Rubus hispidus swamp-dewberry

Rubus allegheniensis common blackberry

Rubus flagellaris northern dewberry

Rubus idaeus red raspberry

Rubus occidentalis black raspberry

Rubus sp. bramble

Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan

Rumex acetosella red sorrel

Salix sp. willow

Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem

Smilacina racemosa false spikenard

Smilacina stellata no common name

Solidago juncea early goldenrod

Solidago nemoralis gray goldenrod

Sorghastrum nutans indian grass

Spartina pectinata prairie cord-grass

Spiraea alba meadowsweet

Streptopus roseus twisted stalk

Taraxacum officinale common dandelion

Toxicodendron radicans common poison-ivy

Trientalis borealis starflower

Uvularia grandiflora bellwort

Vaccinium angustifolium commonlowbush-blueberry

Vaccinium myrtilloides velvetleaf-blueberry

Vaccinium pallidum hillside-blueberry

Verbascum thapsus common mullein

Viola pedata bird's-foot violet

Viola sagittata arrowhead-violet

Plant List, Necedah NWR (Continued)

Scientific Name Common Name
211

Appendix C: Species List

Mammal List

Virginia Opossum

Big brown bat

Little brown bat

Coyote

Red fox

Gray fox

Gray wolf

Black bear

Common raccoon

Northern river otter

American Mink

American badger

Long-tailed weasel

Least weasel

Fisher

Ermine

Striped skunk

Bobcat

Southern flying squirrel

Northern flying squirrel

Eastern gray squirrel

Eastern fox squirrel

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel

Red squirrel

Chipmunk

Woodchuck

Muskrat

White-footed Mouse

Deer Mouse

Meadow Vole

Meadow Jumping Mouse

Southern Red-backed Vole

Northern Short-tailed Shrew

Masked Shrew

Arctic Shrew

American beaver

Common porcupine

White-tailed deer

Snowshoe hare

Eastern cottontail
212

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Herptile List

Blue-spotted salamander

Central newt

Mudpuppy

Eastern American toad

Western chorus frog

Northern spring peeper

Eastern gray treefrog

Bullfrog

Green frog

Northern leopard frog

Wood frog

Common snapping turtle

Blanding’s turtle

Western painted turtle

Midland painted turtle

Midland smooth softshell turtle

Five-lined skink

Eastern hognose snake

Smooth green snake

Western fox snake

Eastern garter snake

Northern water snake
213

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

215

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

Compatibility Determinations

The names and dates of compatibility determinations that were approved through the comprehensive 

conservation planning process:

# Wildlife Observation and Photography (including the means of access, such as hiking, 

snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing) / 2002

# Interpretation and Environmental Education / 2002

# Hunting / 2002

# Fishing / 2002

# Forest Management / 2002

# Trapping / 2002

# Wild Edible Berry Picking / 2002

# Interim Compatibility Determination / 2000

217

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

219

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Appendix E / Compliance Requirements

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403): Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the United 

States.

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.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a Federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, Federal or non Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, 

or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended: Requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted whenever water is to be impounded, diverted or 

modified under a Federal permit or license. The Service and State agency recommend measures to 

prevent the loss of biological resources, or to mitigate or compensate for the damage. The project 

proponent must take biological resource values into account and adopt justifiable protection measures 

to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A 1958 amendment added provisions to recognize the vital 

contribution of wildlife resources to the Nation and to require equal consideration and coordination of 

wildlife conservation with other water resources development programs. It also authorized the 

Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of lands and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), as amended: Declares it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. 

Provides procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended: Requires revenue sharing provisions to all fee-title 

ownerships that are administered solely or primarily by the Secretary through the Service.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (1948): Provides that upon 

a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if 

the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation 

purposes.

Federal Records Act (1950): Directs 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 Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges.

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.
220

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Wilderness Act (1964), as amended: Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 years, to review 

every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within 

National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems and to recommend to the President the 

suitability of each such area or island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, 

with final decisions made by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and 

recommend suitable areas in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus Federal 

land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several 

authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966), as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration Act): Defines 

the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a refuge 

provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was established. The 

Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the 

legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining compatibility; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for managing 

and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the 

year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended: Establishes as policy that the Federal 

Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the nation's prehistoric and historic 

resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities 

to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of 

any major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (1970), as amended: 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or farms to 

the Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property.

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of endangered and threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to physical accessibility 

for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal government to ensure that anybody can 

participate in any program.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major 

wetland modifications.
221

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as amended (Public Law 95-87) (SMCRA): 

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the coal 

industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each Federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to reduce 

the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by the floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies to (1) minimize destruction, 

loss, or degradation of wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands when a practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs): Directs the Service to send 

copies of the Environmental Assessment to State Planning Agencies for review.

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.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978): Improves the administration of fish and wildlife programs 

and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary to 

accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also 

authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer 

program.

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.

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981), as amended: Minimizes the extent to which Federal 

programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural 

uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and 

offsets or prevents the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential 

habitats. 

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.

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.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and 

services.

Executive Order 12898 (1994): Establishes environmental justice as a Federal government priority 

and directs all Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission. Environmental 

justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards.
222

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

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 System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs Federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997): Considered the “Organic Act of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of the System, designates priority wildlifedependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act (1998): 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community 

partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

National Trails System Act: Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior and thus the Service 

to protect the historic and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail 

sites. 

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-554): In December 

2002, Congress required federal agencies to publish their own guidelines for ensuring and maximizing 

the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the public (44 

U.S.C. 3502). The amended language is included in Section 515(a). The Office of Budget and 

Management (OMB) directed agencies to develop their own guidelines to address the requirements of 

the law. The Department of the Interior instructed bureaus to prepare separate guidelines on how 

they would apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed “Information Quality 

Guidelines” to address the law.
223

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS)

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management 

System (MMS)

225

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS)

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS)

Annual Project Funding Needs 

Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017High Priority Projects38. Remodel Annex Building 51,0003. Install staff water gauges 75,0004. Install well & solar pump 80,0002. Sub-divide Sprague-Mather Pool 292,250 292,250 292,250 292,22513. Survey/post easements 112,500 112,500 112,500 112,50033. New drinking water system 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666 2,666

5. Disturbance regimes 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,066 30,0667. Acquire hydro-axe 201,00019. Complete mapping 51,500 51,500 51,50023. Ellen Allen Learning Center 12,00012. Develop media presentations 5,00026. Develop trails 55,00011. Acquire voluntary agreements 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000

27. Design/erect 100 signs 66,000 66,0006. 30 miles of firebreaks 17,777 17,777 17,777 17,777 17,777 17,777 17,777 17,777 17,77730. Accessible blind and trails 40,000 40,00029. Design/build visitor center 3,000,000Cost of High Priority Projects $301,509 $957,759 $1,023,759 $3,801,259 $592,759 $340,509 $300,509 $300,509 $300,509 $282,732 $282,732 $282,732 $282,732

Number of Projects 7 10 9 10 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
226

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Medium Priority Projects 15. Monitor easements 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 8. Acquire pump engine 108,000 39. Complete volunteer kit 10,000 18. 2 sedge meadow studies 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 24. Design/print nature guide 10,000 22. Develop Fishing Pier 15,000 10. Rare plant inventory 5,000 5,000 5,000

20. Develop Observation Tower 30,0009. Construct storage building (fire) 100,00014. Implement active mgnt. 13,333 13,333 13,333 13,333 13,333 13,333 13,333 13,333 13,33317. Research/Doc. water rights 129,000 129,00031. Accessible brochures/videos 17,500 17,50028. Jr. Duck Stamp contest 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,00034. Construct storage building 60,00035. Update security system 57,00032. New containment facilities 105,00036. Hire FT Pr. Lands employee 35,666 35,666 35,666 35,666 35,666 35,666 35,666 35,666 35,666 35,666 35,666 35,66616. Archaeologist survey 250,000 250,00037. Hire FT Wage Gr. employee 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 Cost of Medium Priority Projects $10,000 $481,166 $754,499 $419,999 $152,499 $134,999 $139,999 $134,999 $134,999 $134,999 $134,999 $126,666 $121,666

Number of Projects 2 11 12 8 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 4

Annual Project Funding Needs (Continued)

Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
227

Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS)

Low Priority Projects21. Create 2 parking areas 5,0001. Restore 2 wet. complexes 40,500 40,500 40,500 40,50025. Develop/install signage 10,000 10,000Cost of Low Priority Projects $10,000 $40,500 $5,000 0 $50,500 0 0 $40,500 0 0$ 40,500 0 0Number of Low Priority Projects 1110200100100Grand Total Costs $321,509 $1,479,425 $1,783,258 $4,221,258 $795,758 $475,508 $440,508 $476,008 $435,508 $417,731 $458,231 $409,398 $404,398Grand Total Number of Years 10 22 22 18 13 10 10 9 9 8 9 8 7Total Cost All Years

Annual Project Funding Needs (Continued)

Projects 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

229

Appendix G: Mailing List

Appendix G: Mailing List

231

Appendix G: Mailing List

Mailing List

Elected Officials

Governor Jim Doyle

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold

U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind

U.S. Rep. David Obey

U.S. Rep. Tom Petri

State Sen. Julie Lassa (District 24)

State Sen. Dale Schultz (District 17)

State Sen. Ron Brown (District 31)

State Sen. Robert Welch (District 14)

State Rep. Marlin Schneider (District 72)

State Rep. Sheryl Albers (District 50)

State Rep. Amy Sue Vruwink (District 70)

State Rep. Louis Molepske, Jr. (District 71)

State Rep. Luther Olsen (District 41)

State Rep. J.A. Hines (District 42)

State Rep. DuWayne Johnsrud (District 96)

State Rep. Terry Musser (District 92)

State Rep. Robin Kreibich (District 93)

State Rep. Jeffrey Wood (District 67)

State Rep. Mary Williams (District 87)

State Rep. Gary Sherman (District 74)

State Rep. Dan Meyer (District 34)

State Rep. Donald Friske (District 35)

State Rep. Jerry Petrowski (District 86)

Local Communities

Town of Cutler

Town of Necedah

Town of Finley

Town of Armenia

Town of Germantown

State Agencies

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point

Federal Agencies

USDA, NRCS, Richland Center

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Green Bay Ecological Services Office

Businesses

Pacific Railroad

Georgia Pacific

A&C LTD.

C&B Investments
232

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Castle Rock Estates

Castle Rock Gardens

Castle Rock Lake

Circle Z Corporation

Coltec Industries Inc.

Cranberry Creek

Creative Builders Inc.

Cutler Cranberry

Dairyland Power

Doe Haven Acres

Duckcreek Lodge

First National Bank

For My God and My Country

General Telephone

GMS Builders & Lumber

H&H Cranberries, LLC

H.M. Lake LLC

H.M.S. Company

Half Moon Bay

Halo Rentals Inc.

Hatch Cranberry

JaJo, LLC

Krause Excavating

McKeough Land

Meadow Valley Log Homes

Merz, Inc.

Nekoosa Corporation

Nekoosa Papers Inc.

Northland Cranberries

O’Dells Bay Community

O’Dells Bay Sanitary

Okray Family Farms

Petenwell Corporation

Port Tack, LTD.

Potts and Sonnenburg

Rettop Real Estate Co.

River City Developers

Saks Paint Stores, Inc.

Timberlands, Inc.

TR Development, LLC

TT Dye of Illinois, Inc.

Whitetail Corporation

Wisconsin Land Company

Wisconsin River Power

Wisconsin Weapons, Inc.

Non-governmental Organizations

Defenders of Wildlife

National Wildlife Refuge Association

PEER Refuge Keeper

Sierra Club, Midwest Office

Wolf Haven International

Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
233

Appendix G: Mailing List

Wisconsin Waterfowl Association

Wisconsin Society for Ornithology

Wisconsin Sharp-tailed Grouse Society

Wisconsin Muzzleloaders Association

Wisconsin Falconers Association

Wisconsin Wildlife Society

Wildlife Forever

Wildlive Conservation Society

Wild Turkey Federation

Whitetails Unlimited

Wetlands for Wildlife

Wildlife Society

Trumpeter Swan Society

Ruffed Grouse Society

River Otter Alliance

The Nature Conservancy

Fund for Animals

Forest History Society

Canvasback Society

Tall Timbers Research

Society of American Foresters

Society for Ecological Restoration

River Network

River Federation

Quail Unlimited

Professional Bowhunters

Prairie Grouse Technical Council

Outdoors Forever

North American Loon Fund

North American Bear Society

New Lisbon Sportsman’s Club

National Wildlife Federation

National Wild Turkey Federation

National Trust for Historic Preservation

National Trappers Association

National Rifle Association

National Muzzleloaders Association

National Hunters Association

National Foundation to Protect Eagles

National Audubon Society

International Wilderness

International Osprey Foundation

International Crane Foundation

Hawkwatch International

Greenpeace

Great Bear Foundation

Game Conservation International

Friends of the River

Friends of the Earth

Friends of Animals

Foundation of NA Big Game

Fort McCoy Rod & Gun Club

Environmental Defense Fund

Entomology Society of America
234

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Earth Island Institute

Earth Foundation

Ducks Unlimited 

Defenders of Wildlife

Cooper Ornithogogical Society

Conservation International

Citizens NR Association of Wisconsin

Camp Douglas Sportsman’s Club

Association of Field Ornithologists

American Water Resources

American Fisheries Society

American Conservation Association

American Bass Association

Illinois Outdoor Men’s 

Istrouma Area Council

Mauston School

Yellow River Property Owners Association

Yellow River Rod & Gun Club

Gateway Area Boy Scouts Council

Society of Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus

Tribes

News Media

Adams County Times

Banner Journal & Shopper

Chicago Tribune

Country Today

Dunn County News

Green Bay Press Gazette

Juneau County Star Times

LaCrosse Tribune

Leader-Telegram, Eau Claire

Madison Newspapers

Marshfield News Herald

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Portage Daily Register

Sparta Herald

Minneapolis Star Tribune

Stevens Point Journal

The Daily Journal

Tomah Journal

WBOG Radio

WEAU-TV13

Wisconsin Outdoor News

Wisconsin State Journal

Libraries

Kendall Public Library

Adams County Library

Elroy Public Library

New Lisbon Public Library

Hatch Public Library
235

Appendix G: Mailing List

Necedah Memorial Library

Wonewoc Public Library

University Library, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Portage Public Library

Madison Public Library 

McMillan Memorial Library

237

Appendix H: List of Preparers

Appendix H: List of Preparers

239

Appendix H: List of Preparers

List of Preparers

Gabe DeAlessio Biologist/GIS, Division of Conservation Planning, Great Lakes/Big 

Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for 

GIS mapping.

Jeff Gosse Regional National Environmental Policy Act Coordinator, Great 

Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.

Responsible for environmental assessment review and editing and 

NEPA compliance.

Jane Hodgins Technical Writer/Editor, Great Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, 

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for CCP/environmental 

assessment review and editing.

Sean Killen Cartographer, Great Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, 

Minnesota. Responsible for GIS development and maps.

Richard King Biologist, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Necedah, Wisconsin.

Responsible for CCP/environmental assessment preparation and 

review.

Jane Lardy Nelson Editorial Assistant, Division of Conservation Planning, Great 

Lakes/Big Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.

Responsible for production assistance and review.

Thomas Larson Chief, Division of Conservation Planning, Great Lakes-Big Rivers 

Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for CCP/

environmental assessment review.

Thomas Magnuson Formerly a planner within the Division of Conservation Planning; 

currently Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Great Lakes-Big Rivers 

Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for project 

coordination and CCP/environmental assessment preparation and 

review and editing.

Mary Mitchell Regional GIS Coordinator, Great Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, 

Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Responsible for GIS development.

Rebecca Power Park Ranger, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Necedah, 

Wisconsin. Responsible for public involvement, CCP/environmental 

assessment preparation and review and editing.

Larry Wargowsky Refuge Manager, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Necedah, 

Wisconsin. Responsible for CCP/environmental assessment review 

and editing.

Claudia Wondra Former Editorial Assistant, Ascertainment and Planning, Great 

Lakes-Big Rivers Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.

Responsible for CCP/environmental assessment review and editing.

241

Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species

Appendix I: Resource Conservation 

Priority Species

243

Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species

Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Resource Conservation Species, Region 3

Common Name Scientific Name Class

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Birds

Hellbender Cryptobranchus allenganiensis Amphibians

Gray bat Myotis grisescens Mammals

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Mammals

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Birds

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis Birds

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Birds

Canada goose - Migrant 

population

Branta canadensis Birds

Canada goose - Eastern Prairie 

population

Branta canadensis Birds

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator Birds

Wood duck Aix sponsa Birds

American black duck Anas rubripes Birds

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Birds

Blue-winged teal Anas discors Birds

Canvasback Aythya valisineria Birds

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Birds

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Birds

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Birds

Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Birds

Black rail Laterallus jamaicensis Birds

Piping plover - Great Lakes 

Population

Charadrius melodus Birds

American woodcock Scolopax minor Birds

Common tern - Great Lakes 

population

Sterna hirundo Birds

Least tern - Interior population Sterna antillarum Birds

Black tern Chlidonias niger Birds

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Birds

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis Birds
244

Necedah NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina Birds

Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Birds

Kirtland's warbler Dendroica kirtlandii Birds

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea Birds

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Birds

Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Birds

Dickcissel Spiza americana Birds

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Birds

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna Birds

Copperbelly watersnake - 

Northern pop.

Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Reptiles

Copperbelly watersnake - 

Southern pop.

Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Reptiles

Lake Erie watersnake Nerodia sepedon insularum Reptiles

Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus catenatus Reptiles

Lean lake trout - Great Lakes 

population

Salvelinus namaycush Fish

Deepwater lake trout - Lakes MI 

& Huron

Salvelinus namaycush Fish

Brook trout - Great Lakes 

population

Salvelinus fontinalis Fish

Brook trout - Inland population Salvelinus fontinalis Fish

Chinook salmon - Great Lakes 

population

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Fish

Coho salmon - Great Lakes 

population

Oncorhynchus kisutch Fish

Lake whitefish - 1836 Ceded 

Territory &

Coregonus clupeaformis Fish

Kiyi - Great Lakes population Coregonus kiyi Fish

Shortjaw cisco - Great Lakes 

population

Coregonus zenithicus Fish

Rainbow trout - Lake Taneycomo 

pop.

Oncorhunchus mykiss Fish

Lake sturgeon - Great Lakes 

population

Acipenser fulvescens Fish

Lake sturgeon - Inland 

population

Acipenser fulvescens Fish

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Resource Conservation Species, Region 3

Common Name Scientific Name Class
245

Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Fish

Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Fish

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Fish

Walleye - 1836, 1837, 1842 Ceded 

Territory Pop.

Stizostedion vitreum Fish

Yellow perch - Great Lakes 

population

Perca flavescens Fish

Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus Fish

Western silvery minnow Hybognathus argyritis Fish

Arkansas darter Etheostoma cragini Fish

Crystal darter Ammocrypta asprella Fish

Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida Fish

Longhead darter Percina macrocephala Fish

Niangua darter Etheostoma nianguae Fish

Spotted darter Etheostoma maculatum Fish

Muskellunge - 1836, 1842 Ceded 

Territory Pop.

Esox masquinongy Fish

Neosho madtom Noturus placidus Fish

Scioto madtom Noturus trautmani Fish

Ozark cavefish Amblyopsis rosae Fish

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus Fish

Sturgeon chub Hybopsis gelida Fish

Sicklefin chub Hybopsis meeki Fish

Flathead chub Hybopsis gracilis Fish

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Fish

Eurasian ruffe Gymnocephalus cernuus Fish

Round goby Neogobius melanostomus Fish

Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Fish

Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella Fish

Black sandshell Ligumia recta Mussels

Clubshell Pleurobema clava Mussels

Curtis' pearlymussel Epioblasma florentina curtisii Mussels

Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata Mussels

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Resource Conservation Species, Region 3

Common Name Scientific Name Class
246

Necedah NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Mussels

Fat pocketbook Potamilus capax Mussels

Higgins' eye pearlymussel Lampsilis higginsi Mussels

Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula Mussels

Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra Mussels

Northern riffleshell Epioblasma rangiana Mussels

Pimpleback Quadrula metanevra Mussels

Pink mucket pearlymussel Lampsilis abrupta Mussels

Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa Mussels

Purple cat's paw pearlymussel Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Mussels

Rabbit's foot Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica Mussels

Rock pocketbook Arcidens confragosus Mussels

Rough pigtoe Pleurobema plenum Mussels

Round pigtoe Pleurobema coccineum Mussels

Salamander mussel Simpsonaias ambigua Mussels

Scaleshell mussel Leptodea leptodon Mussels

Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus Mussels

Slippershell Alasmidonta viridis Mussels

Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra Mussels

Spectaclecase Cumberlandi mondonta Mussels

Threeridge Amblema plicata Mussels

Washboard Megalonaias nervosa Mussels

White cat's paw pearlymussel Epioblasma obliquata Mussels

Winged mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Mussels

Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea Mussels

Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha Mussels

Iowa Pleistocene snail Discus macclintocki Snails

Tumbling creek cavesnail Antrobia culveri Snails

Briarton pleistocene vertigo Vertigo brierensis Snails

Karner blue butterfly Lycaeides melissa samuelis Insects

Mitchell's satyr butterfly Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Insects

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Resource Conservation Species, Region 3

Common Name Scientific Name Class
247

Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species

Hungerford's crawling water 

beetle

Brychius hungerfordi spangler Insects

Wabash belted skimmer Macaromia wabashensis Insects

Hine's emerald dragonfly Somatochlora hineana Insects

Pseudoscorpion (no common 

name)

Apochthonous hobbsi Arachnids

Illinois cave amphipod Gammarus acherodytes Crustaceans

Big Creek crayfish Orconectes peruncus Crustaceans

Bristly Cave crayfish Cambarus setosus Crustaceans

Coldwater crayfish Orconectes eupunctus Crustaceans

Belted crayfish Orconectes harrisoni Crustaceans

Crayfish (O. illinoisensis) Orconectes illinoisensis Crustaceans

Crayfish (O. neglectus 

chaenodactylus)

Orconectes neglectus 

chaenodactylus

Crustaceans

William's crayfish Orconectes williamsi Crustaceans

Crayfish (O. inermis testii) Orconectes inermis testii Crustaceans

Crayfish (O. kentuckiensis) Orconectes kentuckiensis Crustaceans

Crayfish (O. sloanii) Orconectes sloanii Crustaceans

Crayfish (O. stannardi) Orconectes stannardi Crustaceans

Indiana crayfish Orconectes indianensis Crustaceans

Mammoth Spring crayfish Orconectes marchandi Crustaceans

St. Francis River crayfish Orconectes quadruncus Crustaceans

Rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus Crustaceans

Decurrent false aster Boltonia decurrens Plants

Dwarf lake iris Iris lacustris Plants

Eastern prairie fringed orchid Platanthera leucophaea Plants

Fassett's locoweed Oxytropis campetris var. chartac Plants

Glade (Darlington's) spurge Eurphorbia purpurea Plants

Hall's bulrush Schoenoplectus hallii Plants

Hill's thistle Cirsium hillii Plants

Houghton's goldenrod Solidgo houghtonii Plants

Lakeside daisy Hymenoxys acaulis var. glabra Plants

Leedy's roseroot Sedum integrifolium ssp.leedyi Plants

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Resource Conservation Species, Region 3

Common Name Scientific Name Class
248

Necedah NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Mead's milkweed Asclepias meadii Plants

Michigan monkey-flower Mimulus galbratus var. 

michigane

Plants

Minnesota trout lily Erythronium propullans Plants

Missouri bladderpod Lesquerella filiformis Plants

Northern wild monkshood Aconitum noveboracense Plants

Pale false foxglove Agalinus skinneriana Plants

Pitcher's thistle Cirsium pitcheri Plants

Prairie bush-clover Lespedeza leptostachya Plants

Running buffalo clover Trifollium stoloniferum Plants

Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara Plants

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinis anatum Birds

Common loon Gavia immer Birds

Northern pintail Anas acuta Birds

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Birds

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Birds

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Birds

Barn owl Tyto alba Birds

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Birds

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Birds

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Birds

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Birds

Bell's vireo Vireo bellii Birds

Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii Birds

Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus Birds

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor Birds

Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorus Birds

Swainson's warbler Limnothylpis swainsonii Birds

Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Birds

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla Birds

Ozark big-eared bat

Plecotus townsendii lingens Mammals

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Resource Conservation Species, Region 3

Common Name Scientific Name Class
249

Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Mammals

Gray wolf Canis lupus Mammals

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Birds

Swainson's hawk Buteo swansonii Birds

King rail Rallus elegans Birds

Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus Birds

Whooping crane - Eastern 

population

Grus americana Birds

Piping plover - Northern Great 

Plains Population

Charadrius melodus Birds

Greater yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Birds

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Birds

Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica Birds

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa Birds

Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus Birds

Buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis Birds

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Birds

Wilson''s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Birds

Forster's tern Sterna fosteri Birds

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthlamus Birds

Long-eared owl Tyto alba Birds

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis Birds

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus Birds

Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens Birds

Cape May warbler Dendroica tigrina Birds

Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens Birds

Prothonotary warbler Protonaria citrea Birds

Louisiana waterthrush Seiurus motacilla Birds

Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus Birds

Connecticut warbler Oporornis agilis Birds

Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis Birds

Le Conte's sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Birds

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Resource Conservation Species, Region 3

Common Name Scientific Name Class
250

Necedah NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Nelson's sharp-tailed sparrow Ammodramus nelsonii Birds

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Birds

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Birds

Orchard oriole Icterus spurius Birds

Ozark hellbender Cryptobranchus allenganiensis Amphibians

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus horridus Reptiles

Logperch (P. evermanni) Percina evermanni Fish

Logperch (P. manitou) Percina manitou Fish

Northern cavefish Amblyopsis spelaea Fish

Topeka shiner Notropis topeka Fish

Western fanshell Cyprogenia aberti Mussels

Tubercled-blossom pearlymussel Epioblasma torulosa torulosa Mussels

Cracking pearlymussel Hemistena lata Mussels

Neosho mucket Lampsilis rafinesqueana Mussels

Ring pink mussel (=golf stick) Obovaria retusa Mussels

White wartyback mussel Plethobasus cicatricosus Mussels

Orange-foot pimpleback Plethobasus cooperianus Mussels

Midwest pleistocene vertigo Vertigo hubrichti hubrichti Snails

Occult vertigo Vertigo hubrichti variabilis Snails

Iowa pleistocene vertigo Vertigo iowaensis n. sp. Snails

Bluff vertigo Vertigo meramecensis Snails

Snail (V.bollesiana) Vertigo bollesiana Snails

Snail (V. cristata) Vertigo cristata Snails

Snail (V. morsei) Vertigo morsei Snails

Snail (V. paradoxa) Vertigo paradoxa Snails

Dakota skipper Hesperia dacotae Insects

Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe Insects

Powesheik skipper Oarisma powesheik Insects

Short's bladderpod Lesquerella globosa Plants

Virginia sneezeweed Helenium virginicum Plants

Cliff cudweed (Rock catfoot) Pseudognaphalium saxicola Plants

Short's goldenrod Solidago shortii Plants

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Resource Conservation Species, Region 3

Common Name Scientific Name Class
251

Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species

Geocarpon (no common name) Geodarpon minimum Plants

Virnigia spirea spiraea virginiana Plants

Price's potato-bean Apios priceana Plants

Leafy prairie clover Dalea foliosa Plants

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Plants

Small whorled pagonia Isotria medeoloides Plants

Earleaf foxglove Agalinus auriculata Plants

Roundstem foxglove Agalinis gattingeri Plants

American hart's-tongue fern Asplenium scolopendrium ver. 

americanum

Plants

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Resource Conservation Species, Region 3

Common Name Scientific Name Class

253

Appendix J: References

Appendix J: References

255

Appendix J: References

References

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washingtion, D.C. 21pp.

Forman, R. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 619pp.

Justis, R.T., R. Judd, and D. Stephens. 1985. Strategic Management and Policy. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 

New Jersey. 641 pp.

Keys, Jr., J., et al. 1995. Ecological units of the eastern United States - first approximation (map and 

booklet of map tables), Atlanta, Ga.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Kohler, M.A., T.J. Nordenson, and D.R. Baker, 1959. Evaporation maps for the United States: US 

Weather Bureau Tech. Paper 37. 

National Wetlands Policy Forum. 1988. Protecting America's wetlands: and action agenda. The 

Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 69pp.

Naugle, D. F., K. F. Higgins, M. E. Estey, R. R. Johnson and S. M. Nusser 2000. Local and landscapelevel factors influencing black tern habitat suitability. Journal and Wildlife Management 64: 253-260.

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 1994. Forest Management Plan. Unpublished.

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 1994. Oak Barrens Restoration Plan. Unpublished. 

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 1979. Refuge Master Plan. Unpublished.

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 1998. Economic Impact Assessment for the Necedah National 

Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Unpublished.

Nuzzo, V.A. 1986. Extent and status of mid-west oak savanna: pre-settlement and 1985. Natural Areas 

Journal 6(2): 6-36.

Oliver, C.D., and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New 

York.

Rosenfield, R. N., J. Bielefeldt, D. R. Trexel, and T. Doolittle. 1998. Breeding distribution and nest-site 

habitat of northern goshawks in Wisconsin. Journal of Raptor Research 32: 189-194.

Sample, D.W., and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing Habitat for Grassland Birds: A Guide for 

Wisconsin. Wisconsin DNR Publication. 154 pp.

Samson, F.B., and F.L. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. BioScience 44:418-421.

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet. FS-068-00. May 2000.

Weeks, E.P., and H.G. Strangland, 1971, Effects of irrigation on streamflow in the Central Sand Plains 

of Wisconsin: US Geological Survey Open-file Report. 113 p. 
256

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Wydeven, A. P. and R. N. Schultz, 1993 and Addendum, 1995. Management policy for wolf den and 

rendevous sites background information. Unpul. Report Wis. DNR.

Selected Readings:

Blaustein, A.R., D. B. Wake, and W. P. Sousa. 1994. Amphibian declines: judging stability, persistence, 

and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conservation Biology 8(1): 60-71.

Broderson, W. D. 1991. From the surface down, an introduction to soil surveys for agronomic use. Soil 

Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C, 26 pp.

Cowling, R.M., and W.J. Bond. 1991. How small can reserves be? An empirical approach in Cape 

Fynbos. Biological Conservation. 58:243-256.

Dahl, T.E., C.E. Johnson. 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid1970's to mid-1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 28 

pp.

Gladwin, D. A., D. A. Asherin, and K. M. Manci. 1987. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic boom on fish 

and wildlife: results of survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species and ecological 

services field offices, refuges, hatcheries, and research centers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Ecol. Res. Cent. NERC-88/30).

Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on mid-western grassland bird communities. 

Ecological Applications 4(3): 461-471.

Holmes, R.R., Jr. 1997. Suspended-sediment budget for the Kankakee River basin, 1993-95. U.S. 

Geological Surv., Water-Resources Investigations Rept. 97-120. 8pp.

Johns, D. and M. Soule. 1995. Getting from here to there: an outline of the wild lands reserve design 

process. Wild Earth 5(4): 32-46.

Leach, M.K. and L. Ross, 1995. Midwest oak ecosystems recovery plan: a call to action. Midwest Oak 

Savanna and Woodland Ecosystems Conference. Springfield, Missouri.

Missouri Dept. of Conservation. 1994. Missouri Department of Conservation launches public-private 

partnership to restore landscape aspect of grassland habitat. Habitat Restoration Newsletter 1(2): 4.

Myers, N. 1996. Two key challenges for biodiversity: discontinuities and synergisms. Biodiversity and 

Conservation 5(9): 1025-1034.

O'Connell, M.A. and R. F. Noss. 1992. Private land management for biodiversity conservation. 

Environmental Management 16(4): 435-450.

Office of Migratory Bird Mgt. 1995. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United 

States: the 1995 list. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Pressey, R. L., I. R. Johnson, and P. D. Wilson. 1994. Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of 

the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 242-262.

Ricklefs, R.E. 1990. Ecology. W. H. Freeman and Company. New York.
257

Appendix J: References

Thiel, R. P., 1993. Eastern Timber Wolf. Life Tracks. Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resource and Bureau of Endangered Resources. Publ-500 93REV.

Tiner, R. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Publication.

259

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

Appendix K: Summary and Response to 

Public Comments

261

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

Summary and Response to Public Comments

General Comments and Questions

We received a tremendous number of comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. In 

this document, the comments and our responses are summarized. A complete list of questions and 

responses is available online at http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/necedah/index.html.

Several people wrote letters supporting Alternative 3, the preferred alternative. Their comments 

included the following:

# We support Alternative 3 because it provides the most ecological and economic benefits to 

the region; it is a balanced approach to resource management.

# I support Alternative 3 because it is clear that this is the environmentally-appropriate 

planning direction for the Refuge.

# I support Alternative 3 because National Wildlife Refuge belongs to everybody and the 

measures outlined in this alternative will improve habitat and biological diversity.

# I support Alternative 3 because it will provide a high quality of life for all.

# I support Alternative 3 because it expands conservation efforts on private land which Aldo 

Leopold deemed necessary more than 50 years ago.

# I support Alternative 3 because it correctly identifies the importance of private landowners, 

maintains a strong emphasis on retaining land in private ownership, and includes working 

with private landowners as a priority.

# I support Alternative 3 because the Refuge should be able to continue and grow in its 

achievements.

# We support Alternative 3 for this extremely valuable and biologically-rich region. The 

people of Wisconsin and the entire United States place a high value on these ecologically 

critical lands. Only through adoption of Alterative 3 can a full range of positive actions be 

taken to benefit these lands and waters to the greatest extent possible.

# I support Alternative 3 because it is the only option that suits the needs of the Refuge, the 

natural community, and the strong conservation goals of both the state and the Necedah 

area.

# We support Alternative 3 as it best addresses needs of wildlife while including the well-being 

of landowners surrounding the Refuge.

# I own property next to the Refuge and support Alternative 3, as I would like to see the 

Refuge increase both habitat and production of waterfowl.

# We support Alternative 3 because it not only addresses the concerns and environment for 

today, but also looks to the long-term benefits for our natural resources and provides 

conservation opportunities for private landowners.

# I support Alternative 3 because the Refuge is a rare jewel and deserves protection.

# I support Alternative 3 because the more wildlife areas we have, the better.

# I support Alternative 3 because it represents the best choice for responsible stewards of our 

Nation=s natural resources to pursue. 

# My wife and I have been very pleased that the Fish and Wildlife Service is working with us 

to provide wildflower vegetation on our farmland. This fits with our goal to be good stewards 

on our farmland. What a great opportunity for us, and now the FWS is able to expand its 

effectiveness well beyond the boundaries of the Necedah NWR. Win-Win. I am also pleased 
262

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

to see that you will be expanding services to visitors at the refuge. Thanks for all of your 

efforts. Our grandchildren will thank you as well!

Some comments suggested that the planning process had been inadequate and that the Service should 

start over. One writer suggested that instead of preparing a CCP, the Service set up a panel of local 

people to find ways to prevent the degradation of sensitive land without purchasing land. Acquiring 

land is just one element of the Refuge’s proposal to conserve land in the Yellow River Area; the 

Refuge is very interested in assisting private landowners with projects on their property. The Refuge 

is mandated by Congress to prepare a CCP, and this process has included many opportunities for 

people to voice their ideas on how sensitive land can be conserved.

 Another writer suggested that the Service “return to the drawing board” and improve its research 

tactics, cross-reference statistics, “really involve the public,” work more closely with non-profits, and 

“...prepare a plan that demonstrates a real working knowledge of the culture, people, economy and 

habitat of the Juneau and Wood County areas.”

The Refuge began work on this comprehensive conservation plan in 1997. Many people from Wood 

and Juneau counties have contributed their time to reviewing the document. We feel that it would be 

irresponsible to abandon this effort. Our efforts to involve people have included scoping meetings at 

the beginning of the planning process, project updates, open houses, public meetings, informational 

meetings, one-on-one meetings, and news releases to local newspapers, television stations and radio 

stations. 

Most of the criticism this comprehensive conservation has drawn has focused on the proposal to 

expand the Refuge into the Yellow River Focus Area. The comprehensive conservation plan outlines 

direction for Refuge management for the next 15 years. While some comments have opposed 

expanding the Refuge, we do not believe that comments about the course we are setting for wildlife 

and habitat warrant throwing out a document that incorporates comments received from a broad 

range of people over the course of several years.

Another writer criticized the draft CCP for failing to clarify whether the 150,000 visitors cited in the 

document includes all activities, Refuge staff and researchers, students, and WCC crews. The writer 

also states that the draft CCP does not state which activities the figure applies to. The figure refers to 

all public visits for consumptive (hunting and fishing, for example) and non-consumptive uses (bird 

watching and hiking, for example). It does not include Refuge staff, volunteers, or WCC crews. This 

point was clarified in the final CCP.

Data included in the draft CCP was criticized by some reviewers. One individual said that budget 

information conflicted, noting that number of parking spaces described for a proposed visitor center 

would barely cover staff parking needs. The writer describes the costs for the proposed visitor center 

as exorbitant and unsupported. Refuge staff would continue to park private vehicles at the 

Headquarters building, which has ample parking for staff and Refuge vehicles. Costs for the 

maintenance shop were less than what had been outlined in the draft plan, in part because a smaller 

building was built than originally planned. The Service is required to meet a variety of mandates, 

including the Americans with Disabilities Act, which can make buildings more expensive. 

Some reviewers described discrepancies between acreages provided both in figures and text. We have 

attempted to present acreages more clearly in the final CCP.

Another writer questions how the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States may 

impact future Refuge budgets. Refuge funding depends on congressional appropriations, and we can 

never be certain of what funding will occur in the future. As a long-term guide to Refuge management, 

the CCP has to make some assumptions about funding, however. The funding we describe are based 

on our experience with the budget process. It is important to note that CCPs are intended to guide 
263

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

management of a refuge, but they do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational 

maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. 

A reviewer said that the Planning Team used dated numbers for in reporting cord wood harvested 

from the Refuge. The length of time involved in preparing the Necedah NWR CCP has made some 

numbers out of date before the plan was completed. Because timber harvest is done to restore and 

manage wildlife habitat, not for economic reasons, we have not updated this figure.

Some reviewers said that the management alternatives did not address the Refuge’s status in terms of 

complying with statutory mandates. Complying with the law was assumed in all three alternatives 

considered.

The Refuge’s compliance with the 1979 Archaeological Resources Act was noted by one reviewer. The 

writer questioned why a schedule for step-down plans addressing this issue was not identified in the 

draft CCP. The revised draft CCP included language addressing this (Objective 5.3.4: “By 2017, in 

accordance with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Act, protect 100 percent of the known 

archaeological and cultural resources on the Refuge.” Strategies under that objective relate to 

developing a step-down plan to fulfill requirements of the Archaeological and Cultural Preservation 

Act.

One person said that the Service provided too little time for review of the draft CCP. Two alternatives 

were based on another document, the 1979 Master Plan, and review of that document was critical to 

understanding the CCP, the reviewer said. The original 30-day public review period was expanded by 

60 days, which we felt was adequate time to review additional documents. Summary information from 

the 1979 Master Plan was provided in the draft CCP, which was intended to reduce the need to review 

the Master Plan.

One reviewer asked for additional information on mitigation of smoke issues and the budget for 

prescribed burns. The reviewer noted that the budget for prescribed fires had increased, and yet the 

Refuge would perform the burns with staff. First, smoke mitigation includes but is not limited to 

transport wind direction, atmospheric conditions, temperature, humidity, fuel moisture, time of day 

and other factors that relate to how much smoke is created and which direction it moves. Essentially, 

we try to perform prescribed burns when conditions offer the least potential for heavy smoke. 

Secondly, federal burning requirements have changed over the years in response to concerns about 

safety. It takes roughly twice the number of people to conduct a burn, and the Refuge hires burn 

specialists from other federal agencies to assist at Necedah NWR. These individuals are paid by the 

Refuge or by their employing agency under a cooperative agreement contract. The federal 

government has very specific training and physical testing procedures, and for that reason we are not 

able to call in local fire department personnel. However, individuals who have the minimum 

requirements can be hired to help conduct prescribed burns. In addition to personnel costs, we also 

have equipment needs. The Refuge’s newest piece of equipment is a 1992 pickup with a 200-gallon 

water tank. Most of the equipment is of 1960s vintage. Seventy percent of the equipment is military 

surplus because that is all the Refuge has been able to afford. 

Another reviewer questioned how satisfied private landowners have been with the Service’s technical 

assistance. We have not conducted scientific surveys of landowners. Anecdotally, personal contacts 

indicate that landowners are satisfied with the assistance they receive. 

Land Acquisition Comments and Questions

Many questions related to the impacts of land acquisition by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. For 

instance, one writer asked if drainage on his or her property would change as a result of wetland 
264

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

restoration. Service staff work with adjacent landowners and drainage districts to ensure that existing 

drainage facilities or patterns are not negatively impacted by Refuge activities. Like all landowners, 

the Service is legally prohibited from creating changes in drainage that would negatively impact 

another landowner.

An individual questioned whether the Drainage District would retain right of access if the Refuge 

acquired property with an active drainage district for maintenance of drainage ditches, tile and 

outlets. Like any landowner, the Service is subject to any outstanding rights (easements) on any of the 

land it acquires.

A reviewer questioned what kind of uses would be deemed compatible on new Refuge lands if they 

were acquired in the Yellow River Focus Area. It is difficult to anticipate what wildlife-dependent 

activities would be available without knowing how much land the Service might acquire in the area or 

when land might be acquired. In general, priority wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and wildlife photography, environmental education and environmental 

interpretation would be considered as the Service acquired enough land to support those activities.

An individual who was considering buying land in the Yellow River Focus Area questioned whether the 

Service’s possible acquisition of land would impact his or her use of the land, such as building a house 

or one day selling the land. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service cannot have any effect on what you do 

with your land, so there would be no implications for building a home or selling the land. Your use of 

your land would be the same with or without the Service as a neighbor.

Another reviewer asked how the Service’s ownership of land would affect the local real property tax 

situation. Because the Service is a federal agency, lands it owns are removed from the tax rolls. 

However, under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, the county or other local unit of 

government receives an annual revenue sharing payment to help off-set the loss of taxes. It is difficult 

to predict how land acquisition within the Yellow River Focus Area would affect property taxes 

because the Service would be buying from willing sellers only and we cannot predict where land might 

become available. 

Public Involvement Comments and Questions

The Refuge received one comment asking for information on how the Service involved the public in 

the development of the Necedah NWR CCP. Public participation is a vital part of refuge planning and 

the Service has worked hard to ensure inclusive public participation in this proposal (see Chapter 6, 

Table 17). Federal, state, local, and private entities were involved in the CCP/EA development 

process. These include Wisconsin’s Congressional Delegations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

U.S. Department of Interior, Federal legislative members representing the counties involved, the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, representatives from county, township, and other local 

governments, representatives of national, state, and local conservation organizations, landowners, and 

other interested groups and citizens. Information about the project was provided to stakeholders and 

the general public through news releases, presentations, interviews, informational letters, public 

meetings, briefings, and the Internet. Questionnaires, focus groups, and one-on-one discussions were 

used to gather input. The Service hosted public scoping meetings at the Refuge and the Necedah 

Town Hall to exchange information on the refuge proposal. Informational meetings continued over the 

next 3 years at the request of the general public, government agencies, conservation organizations, 

and Congressional staff.

One individual said that “statements contained in the CCP vastly over-state the involvement of units 

of government and the general public in the preparation of the CCP.” The individual expressed the 

belief that affected landowners in the Refuge area had little contact from Refuge staff during the 

planning process, that input by people opposed to Refuge projects or expansion was severely limited, 
265

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

and that a breakdown in mediation between the Refuge and landowners indicated that “the refuge 

does not adhere to policy #96-09.” The number of open houses, public meetings, presentations to 

groups, and project updates suggests that Refuge staff made every effort to involve the public in this 

planning process. Two draft CCPs were issued and we asked for comments on both documents and 

made revisions to the document based on those comments. We did not agree with every comment and 

did not base every decision on those comments, however. It is important to distinguish between 

involving and informing the public and reaching total consensus with everyone on every issue 

discussed in the CCP. 

An individual submitted a comment criticizing the Refuge’s partnering and communication with state 

and local agencies. Specifically, the individual suggested that the Refuge was not working with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and FSA, legislators, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources and local drainage ditches, specifically the Little Yellow River 

Drainage District. Another writer suggested that the Refuge had not sufficiently involved key players 

and deliberately ignored others. 

The planning process afforded numerous opportunities to participate, and no one was ever 

“intentionally ignored” in this planning process. Partnerships are a way of doing business and the 

Refuge has worked hard over the years to identify and perpetuate partnerships that enhance the 

Service and Refuge mission. The Refuge has many active partnerships. The Refuge works with the 

local drainage board on issues of drainage on and off the Refuge. We have not worked with the Little 

Yellow River Drainage District because neither the Refuge nor any private lands north of the Refuge 

are in the drainage District. Refuge staff have working relationships with the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service on issues of wetland determination, wetland restoration, swamp buster 

mitigation restorations, and more recently the Wetland Reserve Program since implementation of the 

1985 Farm Bill began in 1987. Up to this point, only one Juneau County property has been accepted 

into the Wetland Reserve Program, but several properties have been evaluated. While not required by 

the Federal Farm Bill, local agencies, such as Farm Service Agency and the Wisconsin DNR, are 

frequently consulted in the evaluation process, though not in every case. An example of Refuge 

partnership is one involving our Partners for Wildlife Private Lands Program and the Hurley 

property in Juneau County near Lyndon Station. Several wetlands were restored on this tribal 

property through partnership efforts with Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Wisconsin 

DNR, with financial contributors being the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wisconsin Waterfowl 

Association, a local heavy equipment contractor, and the Ho-Chunk Nation. At a recognition event 

held on August 31, 2001, State Senator Shultz, who was a keynote speaker at the event, praised the 

partnership. The Refuge works closely with members of the Ho-Chunk Nation on issues of 

archaeological and cultural resource protection. 

Wildlife Comments and Questions

In addition to questions about the CCP and criticism of the document, the Service also received 

several comments supporting the selection of Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. Comments 

included:

# I support Alternative 3 because the Refuge is one of the few remaining places people can 

observe wildlife in a natural state.

# I support Alternative 3 because it allows the Refuge to continue conserving red-shouldered 

hawks and whooping cranes.

# I support Alternative 3 because it allows the Refuge to conserve threatened and endangered 

species while protecting thousands of acres of habitat.

# I support Alternative 3 because it is biologically sound and will result in positive gains for 

the wildlife resources found there, especially the eastern massasaugas.
266

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

# I support Alternative 3 because southern Wisconsin is rapidly losing habitat for wildlife and 

we need to protect what habitat we can in central Wisconsin.

# Numerous people commented on the Refuges whooping crane project and its success. The 

whooping crane project is a fantastic project which spans our beautiful country. Keep up the 

good work, you get an “A” on your report from this taxpayer.

# I support Alternative 3 because it is the most favorable for wildlife and provides for new 

ways to work creatively with adjacent landowners.

# I support Alternative 3 because the whooping crane is still very much endangered and this 

alternative outlines measures to recover this species.

# I support Alternative 3 because it offers local communities the greatest benefit while it 

creates a very reasonable land management plan, which will protect endemic and treasured 

species.

# I support Alternative 3, as it is essential to protect and conserve the gray wolf, whooping 

crane, bald eagle, and migratory birds that are holding on to survival in this rich ecosystem.

# I support Alternative 3 because it will provide immeasurable benefits for our nation’s 

wildlife.

# I support Alternative 3 of the draft CCP as it favors endangered and threatened species as 

well as recovers hundreds of thousands of acres of wild lands.

# I support Alternative 3 because it will benefit wildlife and allow the environment to recover 

from human abuse.

# We support Alternative 3 because it allows for protection of endangered and threatened 

species, proper management of waterfowl and other migratory birds, and management of 

biological diversity while allowing public enjoyment of the property.

In other comments, an individual urged the Refuge to evaluate the effects of roadways within the 

Refuge, particularly road kills occurring State Highway 80. The Refuge has gated several roads that it 

maintains and in the CCP reaffirms its commitment to keeping those roads closed. However, township 

and state roads will remain open to the public as the Refuge has no jurisdiction over them. Per 

Refuge-specific regulations, the speed limit is 35 miles per hour within the Refuge.

One reviewer questioned why the CCP included an objective to thin some pine plantations even 

though another objective is to increase the breeding population of Goshawks. The Refuge has 

documented one Goshawk nest, and this nest occurred in a pine plantation. The Refuge has proposed 

to conduct “Minimal” management activities on nearly 10,000 acres, and several pine plantations occur 

within these areas that could benefit Goshawks. Thinnings are proposed on the remaining pine 

plantations to mimic the natural thinning that is already occurring. All pine plantations will be 

surveyed for active Goshawk nests prior to thinning.

Several stakeholders recommended strengthening the Refuge’s pest management strategy, saying 

that the Refuge should strive to reduce or eliminate pest species rather than reducing these species to 

current (2002) levels. Reviewers said that the Refuge should use pesticides only as a last resort. The 

Refuge seeks to maintain pest species at 2002 levels because pest species are currently at manageable 

levels. In general, the Refuge uses pesticides for only one species, spotted knapweed. In 2001, 

pesticides were used to eliminate a small (<one-quarter acre) patch of leafy spurge that was 

discovered on the Refuge.

The Refuge was urged to increase the buffer zones around wolf dens designed to protect this species. 

In an effort to protect wolf dens, we have incorporated wolf management guidelines used by the 

Wisconsin DNR.
267

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

Some reviewers questioned whether expansion of the Hardwood Bombing Range could have negative 

connotations on Refuge wildlife and whether expansion would occur. In the CCP, the Refuge stated 

that increased military aircraft activity could negatively affect staging waterfowl and nesting Bald 

Eagles. This has been documented in scientific literature (see Gladwin, D. A., D. A. Asherin, and K. M. 

Manci. 1987. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic boom on fish and wildlife: results of survey of U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service endangered species and ecological services field offices, refuges, hatcheries, and 

research centers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecol. Res. Cent. NERC-88/30). Regarding 

the likelihood of expansion to aircraft activity, in February 2002 the Secretary of the Air Force signed 

a Record of Decision authorizing the expansion of the Hardwood Bombing Range by over 7,000 acres. 

One writer noted that “...conservation of rare and threatened resources should be among the highest 

priorities for Necedah NWR. The highest priority should be placed on securing high quality natural 

areas through appropriate management, work with private landowners or when that is not possible 

fee title acquisition.” In recent years the Refuge has placed more emphasis on conservation of listed 

species and their habitats. The Refuge’s savanna restoration efforts are one good example. Work in 

the Yellow River Area would benefit the Karner blue butterfly and eastern Massassauga. 

An individual asked for a description of the Service’s policy regarding crop damage resulting from 

increases in wildlife populations and asked whether the Service intends to make wildlife food plots 

part of its management plan. Service policy is to use tools such as hunting, lure crops, and habitat 

manipulation to assure that wildlife, particularly local Canada Geese, do not cause depredation 

problems on neighboring farmland. While the development of wildlife food plots is not a primary 

objective of this Refuge, it does remain an option, depending on the site, type of wildlife, and type of 

food plot. Service policy is to use the most natural means available to meet wildlife objectives. The 

Service currently uses water-level management on Refuge pools to produce moist soil food for 

waterfowl and wading birds. This is a more efficient natural food source than food plot row crops and 

is available for a longer period of time. It also does not add fertilizers and pesticides into the 

environment. If a localized depredation problem were to arise, the Service, working in concert with 

the USDA Animal Damage Control Division, would be available to assist in developing a damage 

abatement program specific to the problem. 

Several stakeholders wanted the Refuge to manage ecosystems and ecosystem processes, such as fire, 

to conserve a wide suite of species rather than focusing on single-species management. Stakeholders 

saw species protection as the primary goal for managing ecosystems, however, they understood the 

efficiency of an “umbrella” approach that benefits many species with a single management strategy. 

The “Ecosystem Approach” is a new standard for the National Wildlife Refuge System. While we 

have mimicked ecosystem processes by using management tools such as fire and timber harvest for 

many years, we are now using them in more informed and focused ways. We will continue to refine this 

approach over the next 15 years by incorporating results from research and monitoring into Refuge 

management decisions.

One comment stated that the general public was unhappy to learn about the Refuge’s eastern 

massassauga rattlesnake study after snakes had already been placed on the Refuge. The writer 

perceived a conflict between a CCP statement that the Refuge will not be conducting any 

Massassauga-related activities on the Refuge proper and references to the methodology that is to be 

incorporated for reintroduction (See Handbook for Land Managers: 2000; “eliminate all take of 

eastern Massassauga rattlesnake,” p.68). The CCP does not state that any methodology will be used 

for reintroducing eastern Massassauga rattlesnakes, on the Refuge or within the Yellow River area. 

The CCP states: “Should the eastern Massassauga rattlesnake occur on the Refuge, the protective 

measures in ‘The Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake: A Handbook for Land Managers 2000’ will be 

implemented”, and “Continue to assist landowners in the Yellow River area, Monroe County, 

LaCrosse, and Buffalo County with Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake management support and 

surveys, in accordance with ‘The Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake: A Handbook for Land 

Managers’”. The handbook referred to here would be used should eastern massasauga rattlesnakes 
268

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

re-colonize the Refuge from the Yellow River, where a wild population currently exists. As a candidate 

species for federal listing, managing eastern massasauga, if they occur on federal property, is part of 

the Service’s mission and is mandated by federal law. There are no plans to re-introduce massasauga 

rattlesnakes on the Refuge or in the Yellow River Area, or to restrict private land use due the 

presence of massasauga snakes.

A reviewer perceived the CCP as including little active management of mammals on the refuge and 

said the only management of invertebrates deals with the Karner blue butterfly. Very little active 

management of mammals occurs on the Refuge. Managing habitat has proven to be the most effective 

way of managing wildlife, and thus most of the focus is placed on management of habitats, not 

indigenous species. However, certain game species and small mammals are regulated through hunting 

and trapping programs. 

One comment stated that the CCP fails to address or outline wildlife management problems currently 

faced on the Refuge. The individual said that a great deal of on-Refuge work is incomplete and there 

appears to be intentional disregard for several statutory mandates. In the CCP, see Chapter 2 

“Planning Process” and the appended Environmental Assessment, Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need for 

Action.” In these sections we discussed the relevant issues currently facing the Refuge, especially in 

the areas of Service trust resources, habitat, public use, and the Yellow River Focus Area. If there are 

problems we may have overlooked, then we hope you will bring those to our attention at your earliest 

convenience. These has been no intentional or unintentional disregard for any statutory mandate. 

One writer stated that massasaugas became abundant in the Yellow River only after intensive logging 

efforts were begun and, therefore, the decline of this species in the Yellow River was due to changes in 

logging practices. Extensive logging creates ideal habitat for eastern massasaugas as food sources 

and protection from avian predators become abundant. However, there are many natural disturbances 

that also contribute to creating and/or maintaining massasauga habitat including herbivory, wildfires, 

insect outbreaks, disease outbreaks, extreme flooding events, etc. As these disturbances have always 

been part of the Yellow River landscape (controlled only recently by humans) we can assume that 

eastern massasaugas have always been part of that landscape as well.

A writer stated that expanded turkey populations will result in high predation rates of eastern 

massasaugas, thereby thwarting potential recovery efforts. Turkeys will opportunistically kill snakes. 

This does not preclude eastern massasauga recovery but emphasizes the importance of including 

woody plant cover in the massasaugas habitat to prevent predation from avian and land-based 

predators.

A writer stated that woodpecker populations have not changed in the Yellow River and suggested that 

Refuge personnel may have missed them. A wealth of data demonstrates that some species, including 

the Red-headed Woodpecker and Cerulean and Prothonotary Warblers, have seen dramatic 

population declines across North America. The Refuge assumes that given their low abundance in the 

Yellow River area today, these rare species have declined there as well.

Habitat Comments and Questions

Several stakeholders commented that they support Alternative 3 because it provides ecological and 

economic benefits. Comments supporting Alternative 3 noted modifications that reviewers would like 

made to the alternative, including 1) Eliminate any cap on fee-title acquisition of land in the Yellow 

River Focus Area, 2) adequately protect species such as Goshawks and Red-shouldered Hawks 

needing interior forests conditions, 3) begin study to address road-kill along Highway 80, 4) expand 

the size of reference areas, 5) increase the proportion of forest lands in old-growth conditions, and 6) 

identify roads for elimination to increase security habitat for sensitive species. Comments also 

included:
269

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

# The Refuge and other public properties form the largest wild land complex in the Upper 

Midwest. The presence of active wolf packs attests to the area’s remote qualities. I support 

Alternative 3 because it provides the most ecological and economic benefits to this region.

# I support Alternative 3 because it outlines efforts to restore early succession habitats. 

Earlier disappearance of these habitats on the Refuge caused the loss of both prairie 

chickens and sharp-tailed grouse in the area.

# I support Alternative 3 because wetlands do not have adequate protection and entire 

ecosystems are threatened.

# I support Alternative 3 because it provides for landscape level management and 

conservation of critical habitat and other means of ensuring long-term commitment to 

protection for this important area.

# I support Alternative 3 because the Necedah Refuge deserves adequate protection.

# We support Alternative 3 because it allows the Refuge to move forward with plans such as 

savanna restoration, which will greatly improve the Refuge for future generations.

# I support Alternative 3 because the work the Refuge conducts is extremely important as 

loss of wildlife habitat in the Nation is continuous. 

# I support Alternative 3 because wilderness habitat is priceless and wonderful and important 

for our future.

A reviewer questioned why are no floral or faunal surveys were conducted for timber harvest. The 

Refuge currently conducts pre-harvest vegetation, songbird, and Karner blue butterfly surveys on all 

of its savanna restorations. Thinning type timber harvest are assumed to not change species 

composition and are therefore not surveyed. Timber harvests designed to reduce fuel loads in high 

fire hazard areas are not surveyed as the sales are conducted for safety purposes which has a higher 

priority than species composition. The Refuge will be conducting precut songbird surveys in all the 

habitats being converted to open landscape per the CCP and forest management plan.

Some reviewers encouraged the Refuge to eliminate non-native cool season grasslands. The Refuge is 

taking a proactive approach to suppression or elimination of cool season grasslands. The CCP outlines 

open landscape and savanna restoration activities which will eliminate several thousand acres of cool 

season grasses. The Refuge’s extensive prescribed burn program targets cool season grasses by 

burning in the spring after cool season grasses have emerged but the warm season grasses are still 

dormant.

Although several stakeholders commented that they support Alternative 3 because it provides 

ecological and economic benefits, they suggested modifications to the alternative: 1) Eliminate any cap 

on fee-title acquisition of land in the Yellow River Focus Area; 2) adequately protect species such as 

Goshawks and Red-shouldered Hawks needing interior forests conditions; 3) begin study to address 

road-kill along Highway 80; 4) expand the size of reference areas; 5) increase the proportion of forest 

lands in old-growth conditions; and 6) identify roads for elimination to increase security habitat for 

sensitive species. Regarding the suggestion that we eliminate any cap on fee-title acquisition in the 

Yellow River Focus Area, we believe that the most successful conservation efforts are those that have 

the support of the local community. While many people within the Yellow River Focus Area support 

the Refuge’s work there, others have voiced concern about federal land acquisition and involvement in 

the area. We believe we could accomplish more for conservation without the cap in the short-term, but 

ultimately we would like to have a positive working relationship with landowners in the Yellow River 

area. At this time, a cap on land acquisition seems like a good start to building this relationship. 

Alternative 3 supports Goshawk and Red-shouldered Hawk protection, and we have identified a 

couple of roadway spurs on the Refuge that could be closed because they are not necessary for either 
270

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

local access or emergency response vehicles. The suggestion that the Refuge begin a study to address 

road-kill along Highway 80 is a good one and we will make a note of it.

A writer encouraged the Refuge to increase the amount of “old growth” forests on the property. In the 

CCP, the Refuge committed to “minimal” management on 10,085 acres. Within these areas, old growth 

forests will continue to develop. Therefore, the Refuge went from 0 to 10,085 acres of area designated 

as “old growth areas” as a result of the CCP.

An individual stated that the Refuge has no reason to consider neighboring cranberry marshes a 

threat to the Refuge. The Refuge maintains that the cranberry industry uses a variety of pesticides 

that pose threats to wildlife and water quality. Although none of these pesticides have been shown to 

adversely impact water quality or wildlife on the Refuge, the vectors for contamination currently 

exist.

One writer took issue with a statement in the CCP concerning partnerships. “The CCP states that in 

the 12-county area, containing 400 basins and in ‘partnership’ with the Refuge, resulted in the 

protected status of only 1,824 acres since 1986, with apparently 25 restorations per year. That same 

page states that in 11 of 17 counties, 41 easements are now in place, conserving 2,475 acres with 418 

acres currently under review. It is not clear – as no map of the acreages is provided – to show whether 

these acreages now under some conservation are one and the same. Furthermore, the document fails 

to explain how having one additional staff will achieve the goal of restoring 15 acres of wetland per 

year and 60 acres of grassland within the 12-county area, and 250 acres per year of easements and 

land acquisition towards the stated 2017 target goal of 3,750 acres, when their current capabilities 

with existing staff managed to accomplish only 25 restorations per year, and no clarification is 

provided as to the type of restoration accomplished.” 

The comment refers to the Refuge’s Partner for Wildlife program. It should be noted that no mention 

is made on the pages in question regarding “protected status” as all lands restored through that 

program remain in private ownership. The 41 Conservation Easements totaling 2,475 acres refers to 

easements that were transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Farmers Home 

Administration. Those lands (which also remain in private ownership) are encumbered with perpetual 

easements. However, the 400 basins the writer referred to are wetland restorations on private land 

and are not under any long-term easement, but only a 10-year cost/share (handshake) agreement.

A writer stated that “Specific mention is made of cranberry bog acreage and expansion of cranberry 

bogs are stated as a threat. However, prices of cranberries have been at all time lows, with the federal 

government even providing subsidies in the last year. Thus, the 4 percent expansion per year figure 

used in the IEc model is highly unlikely, and, in fact, unfounded.” The projection used by Industrial 

Economics Inc. was made at a point in time (mid-1990s) when the industry was still expanding, and 

expectations were for a continuation of that growth. We are aware of the recent contraction in that 

industry.

A reviewer noted that a comprehensive inventory is needed as there may be rare species of plants that 

have not been identified. The writer suggested that that work should be a priority for Refuge staff. 

Part of what goes into the planning effort is weighing the risk to the resources the Service is 

mandated to conserve. Because wildlife species such as the Red-shouldered Hawk and the gray wolf 

(both which use the Yellow River Area) are area-dependent and sensitive to habitat fragmentation, 

and because working with private landowners takes more time than working on Service land, we felt 

that Service involvement with private landowners in the Yellow River was a high priority. Staff 

funding for Yellow River Focus Area technical assistance is a separate fund account and cannot be 

used for funding staff work on the Refuge proper.

An individual said that an emphasis on specific types of habitat management is absent in step down 

management plans, which the individual said emphasize bricks and mortar and land acquisition, 
271

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

including a main office, visitor information system, and housing to accommodate overnight guests. 

Comprehensive conservation plans are designed to be strategic in nature. Step-down management 

plans are the planning mechanism the National Wildlife Refuge System uses to get at the details of 

day-to-day management. However, the Refuge CCP provides a much higher level of detail than most 

CCPs. Specific habitat management is not absent as the CCP addresses oak savanna restoration, 

water level management, sedge meadow management, and forest management.

One reviewer criticized the CCP for not containing sufficient information backing up references to air, 

noise, and water pollution, all things which are viewed as ongoing threats. The writer also noted that 

descriptions such as “large block” were not defined. Potential expansion of the Hardwood Bombing 

Range was one of the threats identified in the draft CCP. Since the writing of the draft CCP, that 

threat has been realized with the recent approval by the Secretary of the Air Force for an additional 

7,000 acres to be added to that range. Threats to Refuge water quality (and associated aquatic 

habitats) from potential agricultural runoff remain. This includes former areas of forest land 

converted to pivot-irrigation agricultural land for potatoes, sweet corn, and sweet peas. This also 

includes land converted for cranberry bed establishment. Table 8 in the draft EA states that 510,395 

acres of agricultural land are present in the Castle Rock Watershed, in which the Refuge is located. 

The CCP states that “many of the large natural areas around the Refuge....” Defining “large blocks” 

can be accomplished, although the definition is only pertinent to the type of habitat being defined and 

species likely to benefit. For instance, in Chapter 4 of the CCP, one of the grassland strategies states: 

“establish and maintain a mosaic of small (40 to 1,000 acres) and medium-sized (1,000 to 5,000 acres) 

native grasslands comprised of short, medium, and tall height-density patches containing diverse 

structure to provide nesting, brood-rearing, and foraging habitat for grassland birds...”

A reviewer expressed concern that bird and other wildlife populations may be carriers of oak wilt 

disease and that Refuge policies may endanger the health of oak stand timber stands on private lands. 

Red oak stands on private land are not at greater risk due to Refuge policies. The fungus is widespread in the state and increases in risk result from individual trees being weakened or damaged. The 

Refuge policy states that timber sales will not be conducted during times that would spread oak wilt. 

The opposite may occur as adjacent private landowners unknowingly trim or cut oak wilt-infested 

trees in April through June. This activity may result in its spread to the Refuge and neighboring 

properties.

An individual reviewing the Draft CCP was concerned about prescribed fire being used on the Refuge 

and the potential for fire to escape onto his land. In our policies governing the use of prescribed fire, 

the Service makes every effort to assure the safety of neighboring properties. The Refuge has 

conducted prescribed burns for more than 40 years. In that time, more than 100 prescribed burns 

have been conducted safely with none ever escaping to private property.

Economic Comments and Questions

Comments in support of Alternative 3 included:

# I support Alternative 3 because the Refuge is an important part of Juneau County=s tourist 

industry and deserves our support to continue to develop.

# I support Alternative 3 because it will benefit my business and is the reason I chose to locate 

my business in close proximity to the Refuge.

# I support Alternative 3 because it provides the most ecological and economic benefits to the 

region and beyond and provides a balanced approach to resource management on the 

Refuge and in the Yellow River Focus Area.

One reviewer said that timber harvest data used in the CCP is vague. “The only notation supplied is 

40-400 acres per year / 2-4 sales per year. Given annual issuance of permits and contracts in this 
272

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

regard, more specific data should be disclosed, and would lend some credibility on at least one issue 

related to economic impact.” The discussion of timber harvest is in reference to savanna restoration, 

not economic gains or losses associated with Refuge timber harvest activities. The Service prefaced 

the discussion of social and economic resources with the following statement: “Some of the data used 

to generate the economic report is associated with uncertainty. As a result, the estimates in the report 

should be interpreted with uncertainty in mind.” More detailed information is available to the public 

upon request, and is also available in our Forest Management Plan, a CCP step-down plan. The CCP 

is not designed to contain this level of detail. Additional data could easily be provided if it is a genuine 

concern. The Refuge has the number of sales, acreage figures, cruising tallies, and monetary bid 

information available. 

A reviewer criticized the numbers used in evaluation of economic impact, specifically referencing the 

use of visitor use days as opposed to population figures for the Village of Necedah. The CCP states the 

“Village of Necedah and surrounding area” total about 3,000 permanent residents. There is no 

correlation between the number of permanent residents/seasonal occupants and the 106,000 visitors 

days used in the economic impact assessment. 

An individual questioned why a staffing chart totaled 11.55 positions currently, but that an economic 

indicator of 18 positions is used to calculate contributions to the local economy. The reviewer 

questioned which number is correct. These are two different numbers. The chart refers to the 11.55 

staff positions currently employed at the Refuge. The number in the Economic Impact Assessment 

refers the number of “jobs” generated by Refuge-related commercial and management economic 

activities (total 18). These are jobs in the community, not at the Refuge.

An individual stated that no assumptions were made as to the negative economic impact on the local 

hotel industry, despite the high priority 2002 objective of remodeling the annex for the purpose of 

housing. Nor is it clear as to whether the annex project is the same as the 2004 volunteer housing 

project, carrying an expenditure of $51,000. We believe there would be no negative impact to the local 

hotel industry. The number of student volunteers is very low (fewer than five) and only occur during 

the summer months. It has proven nearly impossible to recruit student volunteers to the Refuge 

without being able to provide housing. These students, even if housed in Refuge housing, would still be 

purchasing food, gas, and other needed items in the local communities.

A reviewer was critical of the data included in the CCP. “Estimates and ‘factual’ information in the 

CCP may be inaccurate. The document is rife with different statistics for the same subject matter. The 

CCP lacks explanations as to how estimates were derived and as presented, calling into question the 

credibility of the economic impact assessments. Some numbers supplied are antiquated or averaged – 

more recent information should be available and factored into calculations. Furthermore, some 

numbers appear to be gross exaggerations. As a result, it is our fear that much of information results 

in conclusions which are misleading. All of this makes reading the CCP very difficult, confusing, 

conflicting and perplexing – entirely unacceptable for a federal agency with plenty of staff to research 

and cross-reference information.” It is difficult to respond to this comment without reference to 

specific numbers that the writer is questioning. The Economic Impact Assessment was an unbiased 

report prepared by Industrial Economics Inc., located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We have made 

every effort to use the most current data available in the preparation of the Refuge CCP, including this 

report. 

Welfare value estimates (IEc study page 5-5) indicate that each Wisconsin citizen over the age of 18 is 

willing to contribute $17 annually toward the existence of the NWR. An annual state parks sticker is 

approximately this much, but not anywhere near every resident over the age of 18 purchases a pass. 

Regardless, the 18-years and older principle was not applied to the refuge visitor numbers. Rather, 

the IEc model used 106,835 annual trips, then applying a societal value of $21 lower-bound and $31 

upper-bound number to calculate the annual estimated values of $2.2 million to $3.3 million of societal 

contributions. Were we to pose in a survey of 18-year old constituents whether they would willingly 
273

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

each contribute $17 per years toward Eagle protection statewide, we predict that more than half of 

responders would decline to willingly contribute this suggested amount. Were a similar questioned 

posed to those that fish as to whether they willingly would contribute $17 annually, we think the 

response would again be “no,” and if given the opportunity to state a willing contribution, the number 

would be even smaller, given the limited fishing opportunities on the refuge and our state’s 

unfortunate tax climate. Were a similar question posed to sportsmen in the hunt for waterfowl and 

migratory birds, giving them a range of $14 to $47 per trip of willing contribution for maintenance of 

the refuge, again, we believe the response would be similar. We do not contest the figures that big 

game sportsmen may well be willing to contribute somewhere between $35 and $45 per annual trip or 

that small game hunters may well be willing to contribute $21 to $55 per annual trip to the refuge 

(page 5-11), if nearer the lower end than the upper end of the range. Regardless, using national or 

statewide averages does not produce accurate data, given Juneau County’s current economic 

situation. What assumptions were made to calculate the number of visits by those fishing, hunting, 

photographing since no permits are issued for those activities? Permits are issued for trapping, timber 

removal, biological research and specimen collecting, commercial photography, and special access for 

disabled. Why was not this available data not supplied to IEc as it conducted its study? How many 

permits were issued in recent years in each for each of the permits noted? The CCP and associated 

study provides no data in this regard. 

Assumptions and methodology provide the backbone of economic effects research. The Refuge 

provided the Industrial Economics economists the best available information at the time the study 

was prepared. The assumptions made by Industrial Economics relating to social welfare benefits were 

derived from studies conducted across the country. The above statement that “Welfare value 

estimates (IEc study page 5-5) indicate that each Wisconsin citizen over the age of 18 is willing to 

contribute $17 annually towards the existence of the NWR” is taken out of context. Page 5.5 contains a 

discussion of research relating to activity day values. Page 5-15 contains a discussion of “Value of 

Endangered Species” and summarizes research conducted by Boyle and Bishop (1987) in the State of 

Wisconsin. This research estimated an annual willingness to pay of $17 for Bald Eagle preservation by 

Wisconsin households. 

As far as permits issued for special uses on the Refuge, we can provide the following:

Special access for the disabled: 2001 = 9; 2000 = 8; 1999 = 4; 1998 = 3.

Commercial photography: 2001 = 19; 200 = 1; 1999 = 0; 1998 = 0.

Specimen Collection: 2001 = 2; 2000 = 3; 1999 = 2; 1998 = 2.

Biological Research: 2001 = 10; 2000 = 0; 1999 = 2; 1998 = 7

Timber Removal: 2001 = 38; 2000 = 31; 1999 = 39; 1998 = 27

Trapping: 2001 = 6; 2000 = 6; 1999 = 6; 1998 = 6.

A reviewer questioned the relationship between Necedah NWR and the local units of government in 

relation to the comprehensive planning process, saying that the CCP did not specify the obligation of 

local units of government to devise their own local plans or mention the refuge’s intended 

participation in local planning processes. The Refuge has not been invited to participate in any local 

planning effort. The Refuge is however, involved with the State of Wisconsin in management planning 

for Meadow Valley and other areas through the Central Wisconsin Basin Partnership. If requested, 

the Refuge will provide support to the local units of government in their respective comprehensive 

planning process. 

A reviewer offered sharp criticism of the Industrial Economic study prepared as part of the planning 

process, saying that the report is “fatally flawed” because inadequate information was provided. Data 

provided by the Refuge, such as visitation numbers, are unsupported, according to the reviewer. “Data 

supplied is not relevant, current, or credible, given the sources in combination with Juneau County’s 
274

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

depressed economy and significant number of layoffs occurring in the last 8 months, the value of land 

being substantially higher than figures used in the model, the use of national data in the model, the 

use of antiquated 1994 data from BLS, BEA, OMB/SIC, and the use of a survey developed by FWS 

which uses national data (National Survey of Fishing Hunting Wildlife Associated Recreation - 1991),” 

according to the reviewer. The Service feels the report prepared by Industrial Economic was 

adequate for this application. Again, the Refuge (and Industrial Economics) used the best information 

available when completing the Economic Impact Assessment, CCP, and EA. The Economic Impact 

Assessment was completed in 1998, so some of the data used to generate the report is now outdated. 

One reviewer stated that the economic impact and how it was calculated (what multipliers were used 

and why) needs to use current information and, rather than a regional approach, should provide 

information specific to Juneau County and Wood County. The reviewer also asked for clarification as 

to specific segments of the local economy that will benefit and more exact information as to negative 

impacts is also needed. The economic study was developed to better understand the economic 

contributions the Refuge makes to the local and regional economy. We feel Industrial Economics Inc. 

provided the Refuge with an adequate product for the intended purpose. 

Public Use Comments and Questions

Comments related to public use supporting Alternative 3 included:

# My family supports Alternative 3 because it allows for construction of a visitor center, 

restoration of two new wetlands complexes, restoration of savannas and grasslands that will 

benefit numerous species like the red-headed woodpecker, recovery of endangered species 

like the Karner blue butterfly and whooping crane, provision of resources to residents in the 

Yellow River to help them conserve wild turkeys, white-tailed deer, cerulean warblers 

Karner blue butterflies, and red-shouldered hawks.

# I support Alternative 3 as it provides education opportunities for the kids of the future and 

the people of Wisconsin.

# We support Alternative 3 as it provides the greatest number of benefits to these people 

interested in recreational activities such as hunting, trapping, fishing, and birding.

# I deer hunt on the Refuge but also enjoy walking through the savannas. I support 

Alternative 3 because it will increase the savannas while allowing for purchase of 

conservation easements from willing sellers.

# I have been taking students to the refuge for 17 years now, it is an essential part of my 

conservation class. I see dedicated refuge professionals both paid and volunteer do great 

things for conservation with nothing more than determination and some left over ex-Army 

engineer equipment. In the scope of things in this nation their budget is a pittance, but the 

rewards are unmeasurable.

# I support Alternative 3 because it insures that, like me, my children and grandchildren will 

see their first porcupine, trumpeter swan, and pileated woodpecker on the Refuge.

Several hunters felt that deer numbers were lower than they had been in the past and many hunters 

expressed a desire for more deer, although the same hunters sometimes wanted both more deer and 

bigger bucks. The Refuge is currently part of the State’s Deer Management Unit 56 with harvest 

goals set by the Wisconsin DNR. While the Refuge manages open landscapes and forested areas for a 

variety of wildlife species, including white-tailed deer, it cannot reliably manipulate deer numbers 

unless it is managed as a separate management unit. 
275

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

Many stakeholders felt the Refuge needed to be more active in promoting its programs and presence. 

More outreach, educational programs and better signs directing people to the Refuge were some 

suggestions. The Refuge would very much like to be more active in promoting its programs and 

presence. The CCP lists several objectives under Public Recreation and Education that address the 

need for clearer, up-to-date signs. Increased funding for staff in this area would greatly improve this 

program. Present management has greatly elevated this program area at the Refuge in recent years.

Many stakeholders expressed a desire for more fishing opportunities, more full-pool management, 

and fish stocking programs to enhance fishing success rates. As part of this CCP, the Refuge plans to 

work closely with state and Service fishery biologists to enhance fish stocks for recreational fishing 

and food for wildlife. The Refuge currently hosts an annual celebration of National Fishing Day, which 

usually includes fishing workshops, a fishing contest, and a demonstration of fishing techniques. The 

Refuge plans to enhance fishing opportunities at Harvey’s Pond that will include an accessible fishing 

pier and a trail around the pond with benches for relaxation. 

Several stakeholders expressed concern about Refuge savanna restoration efforts, namely, how that 

program might impact the quality of their goose hunting. This issue was relative to the Refuge’s intent 

to restore savanna habitat near Suk Cerney Pool. Several meetings occurred with these stakeholders 

and the issue was resolved when the Refuge agreed to delay savanna restoration efforts in this area 

for at least 10 years. 

One reviewer noted that the CCP described a need for $57,000 of security-related expenses in 2002 

and suggested that it indicated that Refuge staff expect trouble in the future. The reviewer said that if 

true partnerships were established with neighboring landowners, users/visitors, as well as with 

county and township officials, such improvements would not be deemed so immediate, nor would such 

a sizeable expenditure be required. Security-related expenditures are in no way a reflection of how the 

Refuge perceives relationships within the community. The $57,000 referred to here is designated to 

replace and improve the outdated alarm system in the office buildings and provide new security 

systems for five buildings. We think that we owe it to taxpayers to protect Refuge property and 

maintain facilities that are secure. A vehicle break-in resulting in the loss of tools and supplies valued 

at over $1,500 occurred on November 6, 2001. There were nearly 200 cases of violations against 

natural resources and property documented in the most recent Refuge Annual Law Enforcement 

Report submitted to our Washington Office. 

A reviewer said that information as to how estimates used in the environmental impact study were 

derived would provide credibility as to the economic impact. The example cited concerned the CCPs 

estimate of 10,000 hunting trips in 1996 and 10,500 in 1999. The reviewer questioned what percentage 

of hunter/sportsmen are primarily within driving distance (e.g. local residents), or what percentage of 

hunters drove a significant distance, with an overnight stay in the area, thereby actually contributing 

to the local economy. Informal surveys of hunters by Refuge staff indicates that a large percentage of 

them come from outside the local area (mostly from the Madison and Milwaukee area). In 1998 the 

Refuge distributed approximately 5,000 “windshield” questionnaires to deer hunters on the Refuge. 

Hunters were asked which zip code did they reside in. The majority of the responses came from the 

Madison and Milwaukee area. It should be noted that the questionnaire was for informational 

purposes only.

A reviewer questioned the CCP’s estimate of fishing trip numbers at 7,000 in 1996, saying that 

numbers for 1999 state half the 1996 amount of fishing visits – 3,500. The reviewer asks for an 

explanation of why a significant reduction occurred in only a 3-year period and how the number of 

visits was determined. The Refuge annually performs a vehicle survey during gun deer season to 

determine numbers of hunters. The Refuge also has collected data on numbers of out-of-state hunters 

in recent years. This lends a greater degree of accuracy to hunter number estimates than for fishing. 

Different survey methodology can account for the difference in Refuge fishing use numbers. The 

current system is thought to be more accurate than the previous system. The Economic Impact 
276

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Assessment notes “Caveats on the Activity Data.” Again, the Service used the best available 

information available to prepare the draft and final CCP and associated documents.

Another reviewer noted discrepancies in the estimated visitor numbers in different places within the 

CCP and quesitons the assertion that visitors result in economic benefit to the community. The 

reviewer offers the CCP’s estimate that 20,000 visitors came in 1999 to take photographs as an 

example. The 20,000 figure used in the document pertains just for photographers and refers to visits, 

not visitors. The majority of these visits were not of the K-12 age group. The sentence reads “almost 

20,000 visits were made....” The remaining 96,000 visits were from wildlife observers. According to the 

Wisconsin Department of Tourism, in the year 2000 Juneau County contributed $84 million dollars to 

Wisconsin’s multi-billion dollar tourism industry. We feel the Refuge contribution of $2.3 million (as 

stated in the Economic Impact Assessment) is a conservative estimate.

A reviewer questioned the numbers used in describing the economic benefits of trapping on the 

Refuge. Trapping is rarely seen as an economic activity anymore, but rather a recreational activity 

that has wildlife management benefits. We believe the $1,000 figure stated in the CCP is adequate for 

the intended purpose. Some full-time trappers have reported taking in excess of 100 muskrats daily.

An individual questioned whether Refuge facilities meet Service standards and asked for clarification 

on improvements proposed in the CCP. The reviewer questioned how the Refuge is going to address 

special needs and how the type and location of accommodations for disabled people were determined. 

The Refuge currently has one universally accessible fishing pier and one universally accessible 

waterfowl blind. We also provide vehicle gate access for class A/B deer hunters. Our office meets all 

accessibility requirements. We are planning one additional fishing pier at Harvey’s Pond for the 

disabled. The pier has been funded and installed at a cost of $15K. Trail work, signing, and parking is 

yet to be developed with the remaining projected budget. 

The CCP states that a press release will be issued annually prior to deer season regarding coyote 

closure, and a reviewer stated that prior to deer season neither the local radio station nor the local 

newspaper had received a public service announcement. An article was published the opening day of 

gun deer season (2001). Please understand, the Refuge has no control over when (or if) the local media 

chooses to print an item received from the Refuge. Also, objectives and strategies in the CCP are not 

necessarily effective until the CCP is approved, and it had not been approved in 2001. 

A reviewer questioned the location of future parking areas identified in the CCP and who would 

benefit from the parking areas. The parking area will accommodate mostly deer hunters using the 

Refuge as well as small game hunters. However, berry pickers and birders will also benefit. 

A reviewer asked whether determining appropriate deer hunter use/day numbers means that the 

Refuge intends to limit hunter opportunities in the future. It might, if hunting conditions pose a safety 

issue. Twenty percent of the Refuge is open to all small game, waterfowl, and deer hunting (except 

October Zone T, if applicable). The remaining 80 percent, except for a 2-square-mile safety zone 

around the office complex, is open for gun deer, late archery deer, and late small game. The entire 

Refuge is open for spring turkey season, except for a 2-mile safety zone. Refuge hunting opportunities 

have increased in recent years, both for big game and small game hunting.

An individual questions the IEc study’s statement on deer, turkey, grouse populations related to large 

block timber cuttings and asks for specific numbers on the amount of acreage now in timber that 

would no longer exist. The CCP states that by 2017, the Refuge will maintain 10,400 acres of forest 

land (all types); the Refuge currently has roughly 16,500 acres. We do not agree with Industrial 

Economics statement that deer and turkey populations, as well as hunter/visitor numbers, will 

decrease as a result of forest land being converted to open landscapes (i.e., savanna). 
277

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

A reviewer questions a statement in the CCP regarding abandonment of some township roads, subject 

to the township’s approval, and whether this would mean less access for physically disabled people, 

local residents and emergency vehicles. The only roads that may be abandoned in the foreseeable 

future are a couple of dead end spurs, which end at a Refuge gate or wetland site.

Yellow River Focus Area

The Service received several comments supporting conservation work within the Yellow River Focus 

Area. Comments included:

# I support Alternative 3 because it allows for full utilization of the Refuge and Yellow River. 

Also, Alternative 3 allows the Refuge to secure lands from willing sellers, which is needed, 

as the Yellow River is one of the few remaining high-quality northern floodplain forests in 

Wisconsin.

# I support Alternative 3 because it insures protection of the environment, which should be 

our main goal with rapid population growth.

# I support Alternative 3 because it insures protection of the Yellow River and Refuge for 

future generations.

# We support Alternative 3 because it demonstrates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 

commitment to cooperatively work with private and state landowners to maximize 

conservation objectives while also helping to meet quality of life and economic needs of 

surrounding communities.

# We support Alternative 3 because it would increase the opportunities to work with private 

landowners to pursue voluntary conservation practices.

# I am a landowner in the Yellow River Focus Area and along with my husband, support 

Alternative 3 because the resources Refuge staff have provided us.

# We support Alternative 3 because it allows the Refuge to continue and expand work in the 

Yellow River Focus Area.

# I support Alternative 3 because it helps surrounding landowners protect the area.

# I support Alternative 3 because it best serves the needs of local wildlife and preservation 

and health of the Yellow River.

# We support Alternative 3 because it would increase the opportunities to work with private 

landowners to pursue voluntary conservation practices.

# I support Alternative 3 because I own land in the Yellow River Focus Area and this 

alternative reaffirms landowner rights. This alternative gives us the opportunity to work 

with whichever government agency we chose to enhance our land which is our right.

# We support Alternative 3 because it proposes a unique private/public voluntary partnership 

program to work with landowners along the biologically critical Yellow River.

# I support Alternative 3 because it allows the Refuge to acquire additional properties from 

willing sellers, which will enhance the ability of the Refuge to accomplish its mission. I also 

believe this will benefit the remaining privately held property in central Wisconsin.

# I am aware of the continuing work with private landowners and the state to protect and 

restore Yellow River habitats. This, together with the savanna restoration, in my opinion, 

are the appropriate focal points for the immediate future.

# We support Alternative 3 because the approach that is being taken appears to be an 

excellent project that will enhance the Yellow River Focus Area, the Refuge and 

surrounding community.

# I support Alternative 3 because it focuses attention on the Yellow River, which deserves as 

much protection as a large river like the Mississippi.
278

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

# I support Alternative 3 because I believe that voluntary, community-based land 

conservation, including purchase of conservation easements, holds the greatest potential for 

both achieving conservation objectives and preserving the rights of property owners.

# I support Alternative 3 because it insures long-term protection of trumpeter swans and 

fosters important relationships with local land owners in the Yellow River watershed, and 

such relationships are critical from landscape perspective to providing important breeding 

habitat for neotropical migratory birds.

# We support Alternative 3 because it supports protection of significant resources found 

within the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge and the Yellow River Focus Area.

# I support Alterative 3 because it provides for maintenance and restoration of wetlands and 

acquisition of conservation easements to create a local network of wildlife habitat.

# My strong personal opinion is that the overall good afforded to the citizens of our community 

by having professionally managed/preserved Yellow River Basin far outweighs the potential 

loss of tax revenue to the townships and the county. The Yellow River and adjoining forest 

has an intangible value, not the least of which is its ability to enhance the quality of our lives 

within Juneau County.

# I support Alternative 3, which would permit interaction with private landowners in the 

Yellow River in a voluntary manner.

# I support Alternative 3 because I am a landowner in the Yellow River Focus Area and I 

appreciate the Refuge helping me to clear brush from my property which I can=t do because 

I am too old, as is my equipment. 

# I support Alternative 3 because I am a landowner in the Yellow River and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service restored my prairie at no expense when I didn=t have the means myself.

# I am especially excited about the proposed assistance to be provided to private landowners 

in the Yellow River Focus Area. We need to expand efforts like this to gain more 

conservation initiatives through voluntary efforts on privately owned lands. As Aldo 

Leopold pointed out over 50 years ago, we cannot expect government to set aside enough 

lands to meet future needs. Efforts like this, to work with willing landowners to benefit 

habitat on private lands is the key to future conservation success.

# I support Alternative 3 because without it, much of the habitat within and adjoining the 

Refuge will be lost forever.

# We strongly support your efforts to protect land along the Yellow River Focus Area through 

conservation easements. We also encourage you to boost your public outreach and education 

efforts to help explain the advantages of such efforts.

# I believe you=re on the right track. Protection of small rivers is, in my opinion, just as 

important as protecting the Mississippi. In fact, I don=t think it=s possible to protect the 

Mississippi without guarding tributaries such as the Yellow.

A reviewer asked for a definition of the term “focus area.” The Yellow River Focus Area is just a term 

the Refuge uses to describe a 21,953-acre area that encompasses a portion of the lower Yellow River 

that runs parallel to the Refuge to its east. It is an area where the Refuge would like to work with 

landowners through cooperative agreements, easements, and acquisition to conserve and restore 

some of the wildlife and habitat associated with the area, such as neotropical song birds that rely on 

the bottomland forests. It is not a Refuge boundary and is not an official term. “Study area”, “area of 

interest”, and “area of opportunity” are other terms often used to describe similar areas of interest to 

the Service.

A reviewer questioned where would the Service get the money for land acquisition in the Yellow River 

Focus Area. Typically, money to acquire land for national wildlife refuges comes from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund derives its money primarily from 
279

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

the sale of products on federal land, such as offshore oil and gas leases. However, people often donate 

land to the Service, or money could come in the form of a grant.

Another comment asked whether the Yellow River Focus Area is associated in any way with the 

Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy has not been involved in any way with the Yellow 

River Focus Area project.

A reviewer questioned whether he or she would ever be forced to sell land if it were within the Yellow 

River Focus Area. All habitat conservation, restoration, and management performed in the Yellow 

River Focus Area by Necedah NWR would be on a voluntary basis. No one will ever be forced to sell 

their land. From its initiation, landowner participation in all conservation opportunities has been, and 

always will be, completely voluntary. If a landowner decides to sell land, he or she may sell to 

whomever they choose.

Another reviewer questioned whether land owned in or around The Yellow River Focus Area or in an 

area that the Service says has high natural resource value would ever be condemned. Service policy is 

to acquire land only from willing sellers. While the Service has authority to condemn property, it 

doesn’t use it except to clear title or conserve critically imperiled endangered species (which are rare). 

The latter is not the case in with this project. Condemnation was used in less than 1 percent of all 

transactions. In fact, we were directed by Congress to use it in one of the few cases on record. 

Landowners within the Yellow River Area retain all of their rights, privileges, and responsibilities of 

private land ownership regardless whether it is a Service focus area or not. The presence of Refuge 

lands in the Yellow River Focus Area Basin would not afford the Service any authority to impose 

restrictions on any private lands. Service control of access, land use practices, water management 

practices, hunting, fishing, and general use is limited only to those lands in which the Service 

purchases an appropriate realty interest. 

An individual questioned whether his or her rights as a property owner would be infringed upon as a 

result of being in a the Yellow River Focus Area. Private landowners retain all the rights, privileges, 

and responsibilities of private land ownership, including the right of access, control of trespass, and 

right to sell or not to sell. 

The Service was urged to increase the amount of fee-title acquisitions from willing sellers in the 

Yellow River Focus Area beyond 250 acres per year as this unnecessarily constrains the ability to 

purchase large parcels should become available. On the other hand, some stakeholders would like to 

see the Refuge decrease the proposed fee-title acquisition to zero acres. In an effort to strike a balance 

among all interested parties, the Refuge decided on 250 acres. In the Environmental Assessment 

(section 4.6.3.2) it states: “In reality, this figure could be more or less given the uncertainty of future 

funding scenarios and the presence of willing sellers.” The Service supports the right of every 

property owner to make his or her own decision about land acquisition.

An individual encouraged the Refuge to work with private land owners to conserve large, forested 

stands in the Yellow River Focus Area to benefit Red-shouldered Hawks. The Refuge encourages 

landowners to conserve intact bottomland hardwood forest with the exception of areas that hold opencanopy species of concern such as the Golden-winged and Blue-winged Warblers and the eastern 

massasauga.

A reviewer questioned whether or not it is a conflict of interest if Service employees own land within a 

Service Focus Area, and whether or not he or she would have inside information regarding the 

availability of grants or programs and whether he or she would receive a better price if they sold land. 

It is not a conflict of interest for a Service employee to own land in an area proposed for habitat 

conservation, restoration, and management by the Service. While he or she may be better informed 

about the existence of the Service’s private lands programs, the individual would not have any inside 
280

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

information on grants or programs that are available to landowners, nor would he or she have any 

better access to such programs. If the individual chooses to sell land to the Service, he or she would 

not get a higher dollar value for his property. The Service is legally mandated to pay fair market value 

for any land acquired, which means that we cannot pay anyone less than fair market value and we 

cannot pay anyone more than fair market value. 

Some people are concerned that the presence of Service employees and researchers with other 

agencies might increase their legal liability. The Service is not aware of any circumstance where 

insurance premiums were ever increased as a result of private land being associated with a Service 

focus area or private land being located adjacent to a national wildlife refuge.

One reviewer questioned a reference to the Yellow River Focus Area containing 21,952 acres, noting 

that the number supplied to IEc (the Massachusetts firm which conducted the 1998 study) was 18,100 

acres and a total of acreage of the Yellow River Focus Area using map numbers is 21,550, a differential 

of 402 acres. The reviewer questioned how the same document can contain three different numbers for 

the same focus area. The correct number is 21,953 acres. Industrial Economics was given the 18,100 

acre figure in 1996 before any planning began. Acreage figures were initially derived using Plat Book 

Maps and later using Geographic Information System (GIS) data supplied through the Wisconsin 

GAP project. Similarly, no surveys on individual tracts has been done to verify acreage.

A reviewer took issue with the use of a $1,000 per acre estimate and a weighted assessment ratio used 

in estimating appraisals as part the discussion of tax implications and noted increases in assessed 

values in various locations in Wisconsin. The analysis was prepared to illustrate potential tax 

implications. The $1,000 per acre figure used in the analysis was out of convenience. We feel it is a fair 

estimate for the diverse lands (and associated land values) for the Yellow River Area. 

An individual disagreed with the Environmental Assessment’s analysis of the impact of land 

acquisition by the Refuge on county tax revenues. The EA described land acquisition as having a 

neutral effect on tax revenues, and the writer stated that: “To suggest that impact of federal land 

acquisition is revenue neutral is a gross misrepresentation. In fact, units of government reliant on 

their tax base would almost certainly experience a negative impact if the federal government 

purchased additional land in the YRFA. The fact that the CCP attempts to lead readers to believe that 

would not be the case is inexcusable.” In the fall of 2001, an analysis was conducted by the Wisconsin 

Department of Revenue to estimate tax impacts associated with the Yellow River Focus Area project. 

According to that study, acquisition of land by the Service in the Yellow River Focus Area would result 

in a very minimal increase in property taxes for individual landowners in some local municipalities. In 

others, taxes would actually decrease as a result of Service acquisition. Details of this analysis will be 

provided in the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

In another comment, a reviewer differed with population projections and how they were reported in 

the CCP and EA. The reviewer also disagreed with housing trends reported in the plan. In the years 

1998-2000, the Township of Necedah approved 40, 42, and 47 new sanitary system permits. These 

numbers were far higher than any of the other townships in the county.

An individual disagreed with the Service’s characterization of land within the Yellow River Focus Area 

as being unprotected from future development, and said that the plan failed to note the number of 

properties subject to zoning, ordinance and conservation program protections. The writer estimated 

that 31 percent of the 21,550-acre focus area, or 6,680 acres, could be called “at risk,” and noted that 

that number is higher than the Service’s target goal of projected conserved YRFA acreage of 3,750 

acres and still leaves considerable acreage at risk. The 3,750 acre per year estimate is based on a 

potential future funding scenario accommodating up to 250 acres per year (best guess estimate). 

Further, there are other areas in the Yellow River Focus Area currently under varying degrees of 

conservation. While the Service applauds private efforts to conserve land, we recognize that some 

conservation programs do not afford permanent conservation of habitat. 
281

Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments

An individual asked for information on how the public and landowners might have input into the 

review and revision of Refuge step-down plans, and expressed interest in planning concerning the 

eastern massasauga rattlesnake. The writer is concerned that landowners who killed a massasauga to 

protect themselves or family members would be breaking federal law. We are prohibited from 

establishing committees to gather input on step-down management plans by the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. While we cannot put you on a committee to develop Refuge management plans, we do 

invite you to share your concerns with Refuge staff. Regarding your question on eastern massasauga 

rattlesnakes and laws protecting them, the species is protected by state law presently, not federal law. 

The eastern massasauga is listed as an endangered species by the State of Wisconsin. If the 

massasauga were to become federally-listed, it would become one of the trust species for which the 

Service has management responsibilities. We would also like to point out that occurrence of the 

species is very rare. One sub-adult eastern massasauga rattlesnake was found on Refuge land east of 

Highway 80 in 1993, and they are found in very low numbers within the Yellow River Focus Area. 

A reviewer questioned how the FWS intends to address tamarack tanic acid discoloration of the 

Yellow River and associated pH problems in the groundwater. The writer also questions how the 

Service would address invasive species control without help from the WCC. The Service is not aware 

of pH data being available for the Yellow River, so we are unable to assess whether there might be 

impacts for fish populations. The WCC, which assists the Refuge with invasive species control (i.e. 

leafy spurge) for less than one day a year, is not a major part of the Refuge’s invasive species control 

program. Refuge staff will be able to make up for the loss of WCC assistance.

Another person questioned several statements in the CCP and EA: In reference to statements 

regarding technical assistance provided and additional land being conserved, what management 

techniques have been implemented that were not previously available, or what changes have private 

landowners made that will enhance wildlife habitat; in reference to a statement in the CCP and EA to 

the effect that conservation easements and acquisition can begin following CCP approval, does that 

mean that publication of the document will commence the start of the acquisition process regardless of 

public input; which of the Refuge’s goals and objectives can be achieved without acquiring land; and 

can objectives to increase breeding pairs of waterfowl be achieved without acquiring land in the Yellow 

River Focus Area.

References in the CCP to technical assistance provided to private landowners illustrates our desire to 

work with private landowners and our belief that private landowners can make a valuable contribution 

to conservation. Their efforts will not contribute to Refuge visitor opportunities. Technical assistance 

helps landowners provide fish and wildlife species with the habitat they need to feed, breed and raise 

young. This may involve reducing chemical runoff into water, setting land aside from agricultural uses, 

planting native grass species, installing nesting boxes or a whole host of other techniques. Regarding 

the question on what publication of the CCP means to land acquisition, completion of the CCP does 

means that the Service is adopting the preferred alternative. Adopting the CCP in no way launches 

the acquisition process, however. It means that if a landowner is interested in pursuing a conservation 

easement or selling land, the Refuge is authorized to talk to that landowner. Approval of the CCP in no 

way guarantees that the Refuge will have the funds to buy land even if there are willing landowners. 

Individuals who do not want to sell land to or work with the Service are not obliged to, and their use of 

their land will not be affected by the Refuge. We have heard both positive and negative comments 

about acquiring land in the Yellow River Focus Area, and we have considered all of the comments. The 

Refuge’s goals and objectives were written for the Refuge, not the Yellow River Focus Area. With the 

exception of Objective 4.2, which relates to conservation within the Yellow River Focus Area, all of the 

objectives can be achieved without acquisition in the Yellow River Focus Area. Certainly the waterfowl 

breeding pairs objectives concern the Refuge, not the Yellow River Focus Area.

A reviewer questioned whether the Refuge would qualify for Wilderness designation if acquisition 

within the Yellow River Focus Area occurred. Even if land were acquired from willing sellers in the 
282

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Yellow River Focus Area, Refuge ownership would not contain 5,000 contiguous roadless acres and 

therefore would not qualify for Wilderness designation.

An individual criticized the CCP’s lack of detail on step-down management plans, and wildlifedependent recreational activities and questions how measures or types of actions proposed would 

result in improved water quality, improved habitat, greater user satisfaction, etc. Our intent has been 

to be as specific as possible in the CCP. However, the Yellow River Focus Area involves land we do not 

own, which makes it impossible to provide detailed information on wildlife-dependent recreation, 

habitat improvement or water quality. To provide this level of detail, we would need to know which 

land would be purchased, how much land would be purchased, and when it would be purchased. The 

Service is committed to working with willing sellers only when we acquire land for the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, which means that we buy land only when the seller is ready to sell. We cannot 

predict where land might be purchased or how much land might be purchased. In general, we believe 

that water quality will benefit in the long-term by habitat conservation. Any land acquired by the 

Service will be evaluated for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and environmental interpretation.
283

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River 

Focus Area Land Protection Plan

285

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

Land Protection Plan 

Revised March 2003

Introduction

In late 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) initiated a planning process aimed at 

evaluating the feasibility of restoring and conserving approximately 21,953 acres of land located 

directly adjacent to the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). An expansion of 14,684 acres in 

the currently authorized Refuge boundaries is proposed under this plan to facilitate habitat 

restoration and conservation in a part of the Yellow River Focus Area (Figure 1). The planning 

process, which was done in association with the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan, included 

a thorough review of opportunities and issues related to fish and wildlife resource management by the 

Service in that area, as well as an assessment of roles the Service might take in achieving its mission, 

that of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and resource objectives for the Great Lakes/Big Rivers 

Region. The planning process was initiated in response to the declining status of numerous Service 

trust resources in the area and interest among diverse stakeholders within the area and the region.

The Yellow River Focus Area (Figure 1) spans roughly 25 miles north and south by 2-3 miles east and 

west. The project represents a unique opportunity for the Service to conserve rare and declining 

bottomland forest and adjacent upland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, threatened and 

endangered species, public recreation, and environmental education. Many rare, uncommon, and 

declining species of animals have been documented in the Yellow River Focus Area in recent years. 

Many of them are sensitive to size, isolation, context, and quality of habitat. These include the Eastern 

Massassauga rattlesnake, Blanding’s turtle, Red-shouldered Hawk, Cerulean Warbler, Acadian 

Flycatcher, Yellow-crowned Night-heron, Prothonotary Warbler, and Louisiana Waterthrush. Several 

neo-tropical migrants that are suspected of or exhibiting extensive population declines that use the 

area include the Veery, Wood Thrush, Sedge Wren, Blue-winged Warbler, and Golden-winged Warbler. 

Waterfowl species include Mallard, Wood Duck, and Hooded Merganser. Bald Eagles utilize the area 

year-round and at least one active nest has been documented. Great Blue Heron rookeries are found 

in the Yellow River Area as well as extensive Wood Duck nesting. Federally listed endangered Karner 

blue butterflies are also found on Friendship and Plainfield soils throughout the area. These soil types 

offer potential for expansion of oak savanna and the restoration of essential Karner blue butterfly 

habitat. The Focus Area is referenced several times in the Draft Karner Blue Recovery Plan (see 

http://midwest.fws.gov/Endangered/insects /kbb/kbb-rplan.html).

Federal, state, and local conservation organizations strongly support stewardship and conservation of 

the Yellow River Focus Area (see attached letters). The Yellow River Focus Area project was 

developed out of the Central Wisconsin Basin Partnership (Partnership), which is a Partnership 

coordinated by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that includes federal and 

state agencies, private conservation organizations, business and industry groups, university faculty, 

and others committed to conserving the Wisconsin River Basin. The Yellow River is a high priority 

Partnership project that includes the Upper Yellow River (a State of Wisconsin Priority Watershed 

project that emphasizes U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs and private partners), the 

Middle Yellow River (the Refuge’s Yellow River Focus Area project that emphasizes private 

partnerships, easements, and land acquisition) and the Lower Yellow River (a Wisconsin DNR Focus 

Area). The Yellow River Focus area is referenced multiple times in the Karner Blue Butterfly 

Recovery Plan.

Threats To and Status of the Resource

The need for additional wildlife habitat conservation, restoration and management in the Yellow River 

Focus Area has been made clear by the declining status of numerous grassland, savanna, and wetland 
286

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Figure 1: The Yellow River Focus Area
287

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

dependent species of birds and numerous studies that have demonstrated that habitat loss or 

degradation is a common causal factor in many of those declines.

Of the estimated 221 million acres of wetland habitat present in the lower 48 states at the time of 

colonial America, only 103 million acres remain (47 percent). Draining, dredging, filling, leveling, and 

flooding have reduced wetlands by 50 percent or more in 22 states, and 10 states have lost 70 percent 

or more (Dahl 1990). Prior to European settlement, Wisconsin had approximately 10 million acres of 

wetlands. Currently less than 47 percent remain.

In recent years, many plant and animal species associated with Midwestern grasslands have 

experienced serious declines, primarily due to habitat loss and alteration of natural structure and 

function (e.g., predation, exotic species, fire suppression, habitat fragmentation, drainage/flooding). 

The original tallgrass prairie, which extended from western Indiana to the eastern part of Kansas, 

Nebraska, and North and South Dakota and south to Oklahoma and Texas, has been virtually 

eliminated throughout its historic range. Recent surveys suggest that 82.6 to 99.9 percent declines in 

the acreage of tallgrass prairie have occurred in 12 states and one Canadian province since European 

settlement. The State of Wisconsin has lost over 99 percent of its original prairies. For years following 

the initial conversion of native Midwestern prairies, many prairie-dependent wildlife remained 

relatively stable through their ability to colonize agricultural grasslands. However, 20th century 

agricultural grassland loss has followed a similar path of decline as native prairie loss in the 19th 

century. In many parts of the Midwest, agricultural grasslands are at their lowest level in more than 

100 years. 

Similarly, oak savanna, which covered approximately 27-32 million acres of the Midwest prior to 

European settlement (Nuzzo 1985), has become one of the nation’s most endangered ecosystems 

(Noss et al. 1995). Nationwide, over 99 percent of our original savanna has been lost, and Midwestern 

oak savannas are among the rarest ecosystems in the nation. Historically, Wisconsin had roughly 4 

million acres of savannas. Today, less than 60,000 acres remain, and much of what remains is highly 

degraded and of limited value for wildlife. Nuzzo (1985) found that by 1985 only 113 sites (2,607 acres) 

of quality oak savanna remained across the Midwest. Development has destroyed, fragmented, and 

disrupted the natural processes needed to maintain quality oak savanna ecosystems. 

The wide-scale loss of oak savanna and pine barren ecosystems across 12 states and the province of 

Ontario, Canada, has had severe negative impacts on Karner blue butterflies (Karner Blue Butterfly 

Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 1999). As a result, the Karner blue 

butterfly was proposed for federal listing on January 21, 1992, and listed as endangered on December 

14, 1992. Today scattered populations are only found in portions of New Hampshire, New York, 

Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Minnesota. The Refuge is home to the world’s largest remaining 

population of Karner blue butterflies, providing habitat for 12 population complexes. No critical 

habitat has been designated for this species. The long-term effect of these landscape-scale losses of 

important ecosystems has yet to be determined. 

The long-term declines in early successional forests across the north-eastern and north-central 

United State has contributed to the decline of many bird species. Selective harvesting, fire 

suppression, urban sprawl, and cessation of agricultural abandonment contributed to the present 

imbalance in distribution of young forests (Oliver and Larson, 1999). 

While rich in biological diversity, the Yellow River Area is experiencing degradation, primarily due to 

rural development and lack of habitat management. The Yellow River Area would benefit from habitat 

conservation and management practices designed to sustain it’s ecological value, namely conservation 

of habitat through financial incentives to landowners, prescribed fire, mowing, wetland and upland 

restorations, forest management. Recreational development pressures are high in the area. An 

expansion of agricultural activities could directly impact Yellow River habitats, and create many 

indirect impacts due to fragmentation, withdrawal and discharge of surface and ground waters, and 
288

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

construction of infrastructure. Of late, a new round of human-induced change threatens many 

remaining ecosystems in the Yellow River Focus Area. In a trend called “rurbanization,” rural areas 

containing quality wildlife habitat are being converted to a more densely developed state. In recent 

years, the population surrounding the Refuge has expanded, while the size of the undeveloped land 

base continues to shrink, leaving many natural areas as scattered fragments of increased importance 

for scientific study, education, and conservation of natural ecological processes. According to the U.S. 

Census, the Town of Necedah and the Town of Finley grew by 34 percent and 27 percent, respectively, 

between 1990 and 2000. As a result, many of the large natural areas around the Refuge (and in the 

Yellow River Area) are at risk of being fragmented through housing development, driveways, etc., 

which diminishes the value of these areas for area-sensitive wildlife like the Bobolink, Prairie Chicken, 

and many large mammals. Habitat size, shape, and amount and type of edge are important factors in 

the reproductive success of many grassland birds. It is this type of development that particularly 

threatens the remaining oak savanna habitat in this region. Without management, most areas will 

continue to degrade due to their size, isolation, absence of natural processes such as fire and 

hydrologic cycle maintenance, and inadequate buffers protecting them from surrounding agricultural 

and urban land uses. It also places greater demands on the Refuge and its partners in terms of 

safeguarding Refuge ecosystem structure and function for the benefit of Service trust resources. 

The Yellow River Focus Area provides a unique opportunity for the Service to conserve rare and 

declining bottomland forest and adjacent upland habitat for the benefit of listed species, waterfowl 

and other migratory birds, and native biological diversity. According to Wisconsin’s Statewide Natural 

Area Inventory, extensive field reconnaissance by the Refuge and other sources, the Yellow River 

Area represents one of the few remaining quality bottomland hardwood forest ecosystems in the 

Midwest. Silver maple, swamp white oak, green ash, and river birch dominate the floodplain, while the 

lower sandy ridges, slightly higher than the flood plain, support white oak, bur oak, shagbark hickory, 

basswood, and white pine. The highest of these areas were once oak and pine savannas, one of North 

America’s most endangered habitats, with only .02 percent of its pre-settlement acreage remaining. 

The shrub spectrum within the area varies in density from sparse to impenetrable, and includes 

buttonbush, dogwoods, prickly ash, winterberry, and wild grapes. The herbaceous layer of the 

forested areas support wood nettle, coneflowers, ferns, and many sedges. Aggressive non-native 

species are currently not an issue within the area. Table 1 summarizes land cover types found within 

the Yellow River Focus Area. 

Table 1: Current Land Cover Types in the Yellow River Focus Area

Land Cover Type Acres

Open Landscapes (grasslands, savannas, shrub land, old fields, 

agricultural lands) 

2,593

Coniferous Forests 483

Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 1,329

Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 3,909

Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 1,847 

Forested Wetlands 10,259 

Lowland Shrubs 1,485

Open Water Areas 45

Total all cover types in the Yellow River Focus Area 21,953
289

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

Many Federal, state, and local conservation organizations support stewardship and conservation of 

the natural resources in the Yellow River area. Several property owners have indicated an interest in 

selling their land and/or a conservation easement on their land to the Service. Many landowners 

within the 21,953-acre Yellow River Focus Area have contacted the Refuge in recent years in search of 

technical assistance in managing their land for wildlife. The Refuge strives to accommodate these 

landowners through its Partners for Wildlife Program and by facilitating technical assistance through 

partnerships with other government and non-government entities. 

Proposed Action

The Service is proposing to facilitate the restoration, conservation, and management of up to 21,953 

acres of land within the Yellow River Focus Area. Of the total acreage, 3,135 acres are in public 

ownership already. The Service would work with landowners and governmental agencies in the 

northern 4,748-acre portion of the Focus Area (Figure 2) through voluntary partnerships to 

accomplish the conservation goals. In the 17,234 acre southern portion (Figure 2), the Service’s first 

priority would also be to work with landowners and agencies through voluntary partnerships to 

conserve and restore habitats. However, if private landowners in the southern portion were only 

interested in selling an easement or fee-title to their land, the Service would consider acquisition 

there, depending upon the tract’s priority and the availability of funds. There are 14,684 acres of 

private land in the southern portion, amounting to 67 percent of the entire 21,953 acre focus area.

Protection Alternatives

This section outlines and evaluates three strategic alternatives for the restoration and conservation of 

approximately 21,953 acres of wetland, upland, and riparian habitats within the Yellow River Focus 

Area. See the Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Environmental Assessment for a 

more detailed description of the alternatives.

Alternative 1& 2:

Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the Service would not seek realty interests in land and water within the 

Yellow River Focus Area. The Refuge would continue to offer landowners support through the 

Refuge’s Partners for Wildlife program. The wetlands, uplands, plants, wildlife, and people of the area 

would continue to be impacted by the lack of a central management plan for the area, which may lead 

to residential and agricultural development in undesirable locations or proportions, unmonitored 

water quality changes, declines in quality recreational and aesthetic experiences, and declines in the 

economic value of the Yellow River to local communities. Waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes, other 

waterbirds, songbirds, fish, and many resident wildlife species would likely decrease over time as 

habitat degradation occurred. Unique plant communities could be degraded or lost due to conversion 

of additional wetlands to agricultural lands, namely cranberry production. Archeological resources 

would be offered little conservation and subject to loss. Public use opportunities would be limited to 

private landowners, others with permission from landowners, and the general public on the public 

lands in the area. 

Alternative 3: (Preferred)

Under this alternative, the Service would seek to partner in habitat restoration and conservation 

efforts with the public land managers and with the private landowners within the Partnership Area 1 

portion of the Focus Area (northern portion of the Focus Area). Land acquisition by the Service is not 

an option in this area but the Service would be able to provide technical assistance and possibly 

financial assistance through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Within that portion of the 

Focus Area designated as Partnership Area 2 (southern portion of the Focus Area), the Service could 

also provide technical and financial assistance through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. 

However, the Service would also facilitate the conservation of approximately 250 acres per year from 

willing sellers using outreach and technical assistance, cooperative management agreements, 

conservation easements and fee-title purchase of land (and/or donations from private parties) or a 
290

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

combination of all methods, depending on site, circumstances, and landowner interests. The estimate 

of 250 acres per year is based upon historical land acquisition funding levels in Region 3 of the U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service, which includes Wisconsin. Only the private ownerships in the area would be 

eligible for Service acquisition and then only if the landowner was interested. 

In addition, the Service would seek to partner with the public agencies holding 3,134 acres of land 

within the entire Focus Area, however, acquisition of easements or fee-interest would not be an option 

on those lands. This alternative would lead to additional restoration and conservation of wetlands, 

uplands, and riparian habitats for the benefit of trust resources (assuming adequate funding). Any 

acquisition of lands would be from willing sellers only, regardless of the type of interest. The Service 

would only acquire the minimum interest necessary to reach management objectives for this area. 

Areas acquired in fee-title through donation or purchase would be owned by the Service and managed 

as units of the National Wildlife Refuge System – Necedah NWR. Tracts in which an easement or 

lease is negotiated would remain in private ownership. Under any acquisition scenario, administration 

and management of the tracts would be done by the staff at Necedah NWR. This alternative would be 

carried out on a tract-by-tract basis as land and funding become available over an undetermined 

period of time.

Alternative Conservation Tools

The alternative conservation tools proposed for the Yellow River Focus Area are fee acquisition, 

conservation easements, wildlife management agreements, and private lands extension agreements. 

Other acquisition methods that could be utilized by the Service include donations, partial donations, or 

transfers.

Wildlife Management Agreements

These agreements are negotiated between the Refuge Manager and a landowner and specify a 

particular management action the landowner will do, or not do, with his or her property. For example, 

a simple agreement would be for the landowner to agree to delay hayland mowing until after a certain 

date to allow ground nesting birds to hatch their young. More comprehensive agreements are possible 

for such things as wetland or upland restoration, or public access. These agreements are strictly 

voluntary on the part of the landowner and are voided if the property is sold.

As long as a landowner abides by the terms of the agreement, this conservation can be effective in 

meeting certain conservation objectives. Unfortunately, because these agreements are voluntary and 

temporary, there is no long-term assurance the terms will continue to be met.

Direct Service costs for this alternative are generally low, but can add up to near fee or easement costs 

if the agreement is for several years. Staff time and administrative costs are relatively high since 

agreements must be monitored yearly and renegotiated when land ownership changes. 

Leases

Under a lease agreement, the Service would negotiate with a landowner to receive use of the land or 

for some maintenance of the land in a given condition. Generally, the landowner would receive an 

annual lease payment. For example, the Service could lease 40 acres of grassland habitat to provide 

safe nesting for ground nesting birds. The landowner would not be able to hay or otherwise disturb 

the ground during the lease period.

Cost effectiveness of leases would vary depending on the length and payment terms of the lease. In 

many cases, the cost of a lease rapidly approaches the cost of outright purchase in a few years. Also, 

leases do not offer the long-term conservation of habitat, and are more complex for the Service to 

administer than fee or easement because of the monitoring, coordination, and administration 

requirements.
291

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

Conservation Easements

With a conservation easement, the Service in effect purchases a specific interest from a private 

landowner. For example, the Service may purchase a wetland easement that protects a wetland from 

draining, filling, and burning. The landowner gives up his or her right to drain, fill, and burn, but no 

other land rights. The wetland may still be cropped, or hayed, as natural conditions allow.

An easement that is commonly used on refuges is a conservation or non-development easement. 

Typically, a landowner would agree to refrain from commercial, industrial, or residential development 

or other major alteration of habitat. The landowner may continue to use the land as before the 

easement and retains rights such as hunting, control of trespass, etc. 

Easements are voluntary and purchased only from willing sellers. Payments for conservation 

easements are generally based on a percentage of the appraised value of the land and varies according 

to the use restrictions imposed. Easements are most often perpetual and compensation is a one-time, 

up-front payment.

Easements can be useful when existing land uses on a tract within a refuge boundary are partially 

compatible with refuge purposes, and when the landowner desires to use the land for some compatible 

purpose. Examples of land uses that are normally restricted under terms of a conservation include:

# Development rights, both agricultural, commercial and residential.

# Alteration of natural topography.

# Uses negatively affecting the maintenance of plant and wildlife communities.

# Excessive public access and use; and

# Alteration of natural water level.

Depending on the type of easement, this option may be cost effective in meeting certain Refuge 

management purposes. If the easement is not perpetual, long-term resource conservation is not 

guaranteed. However, some easements may cost the Service so much (occasionally greater than 75 

percent of fee value), that cost efficiency is compromised. 

Easements are more difficult to manage than fee title transactions because of the monitoring, 

coordination, and administrative requirements. If a landowner fails to honor the easement contract, 

the Service must take steps to re-establish the terms of the contract.

In the short run, easements have more impact on the tax base of local municipalities than cooperative 

management agreements and leases. However, they have less impact in the short run on the tax base 

than fee-title acquisition. In the long run, Service acquisition of interest in Yellow River lands may be 

beneficial to the tax base of local municipalities because of increased desirability of land, increased 

access to land management services, and increased recreational opportunities.

Fee-Title Acquisition

A fee-title acquisition of land assures permanent conservation of resources and complete control of 

lands necessary for things such as wetland development and water level control. All rights of 

ownership are transferred to the Service in fee title acquisition. Land is purchased only from willing 

sellers with offers based on fair market value appraisals. Some fee title acquisitions are accomplished 

through donation or exchange. Although initially the most costly for the Service, in the long run it is 

easier to manage and plan for because the Service has complete control. Staff time is saved by not 

having to renegotiate terms for less-than-fee title arrangements.

There are approximately 3,135 acres in public ownership in the Focus Area. The overall cost of the 

project if all private lands within Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative (14,684 acres) were acquired 
292

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

would be in the vicinity of $14,684,000 based upon an average cost per acre of about $1,000. The reality 

is that much of the area would not be acquired. Many of the landowners are interested in conserving 

or improving habitat themselves, reducing the need to acquire the land. Others are probably not 

interested in selling.

In the short run, fee-title acquisition will have the greatest impact on the tax base of local 

municipalities of any alternative conservation tools. In the long run, Service acquisition of interest in 

Yellow River lands may be beneficial to the tax base of local municipalities because of increased 

desirability of land, increased access to land management services, and increased recreational 

opportunities.

It should be noted that lands acquired within the Focus Area would involve low operations and 

maintenance costs. Private landowner agreements have already begun the work of conserving or 

restoring habitats. Much of the management would be passive, low cost in nature, ensuring that 

development or other disruptive land use practices do not destroy the wildlife value of the area.

Coordination and Consultation

The Service publicly announced it was preparing a CCP for the Refuge in June 1997. Since that time, 

information about the planning project, as well as the Service’s intent to evaluate the feasibility of 

restoring and conserving additional habitat in the Yellow River Focus Area, has been provided to the 

public through news-releases, presentations, interviews, informational letters, and one-on-one 

briefings. Federal, state, local, and private entities were involved in the scoping process. More than 

6,000 people were sent information on the Refuge CCP. This includes Wisconsin’s Congressional 

Delegation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, elected officials representing Juneau and Wood 

counties, Wisconsin DNR personnel, local governments, representatives of national, state, and local 

conservation organizations, neighboring landowners, and other interested publics. Public input was 

considered at all phases of the CCP planning process. All landowners within the Yellow River Focus 

Area were contacted. The Service held several meetings with Yellow River Focus Area landowners to 

discuss conservation strategies. The Service has met with nearly every landowner one-on-one in the 

project area. To date, 121 landowners collectively owning 17,308 acres have requested technical from 

the Service. Of these, 16 have signed long-term wildlife management agreements encompassing 1,233 

acres of land in the Yellow River Focus Area. The Service coordinated its scoping effort closely, and 

corresponded frequently with many of the aforementioned entities, including Yellow River Focus Area 

landowners. 

Sociocultural Impacts

Restoration, conservation, and management of additional lands by the Service in the Yellow River 

Focus Area will affect to some degree the current lifestyles of individuals in and around the proposed 

project area, and the communities in the area. Landowners who choose to sell their land to the Service 

will be most affected. Owners of homes or farms who relocate will be reimbursed for moving expenses. 

Renters also receive certain relocation benefits, including assistance in finding suitable alternate 

housing that is affordable. Under certain conditions, some homeowners may be able to reserve a “life 

estate” on their homes, meaning they could remain in their homes for the rest of their lives after 

selling to the Service. This type of reservation does, however, reduce the amount paid for their homes. 

Other landowners who negotiate easements or other less-than-fee transactions may have to change 

certain land management practices in-line with conditions of the easement.

All land transactions will be purely voluntary in keeping with Service policy to purchase lands or 

rights only from willing sellers. The property rights of landowners who choose not to sell their land 

will not be directly affected by purchases around them since they will retain all right of 

landownership. The Service will always take into account the interests of adjacent landowners when 

managing acquired land.
293

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

Use of the Refuge and surrounding area will probably increase over current levels. This increased 

use, and thus traffic, may make some landowners uncomfortable. Lands in which the Service acquires 

a fee interest will eventually be open to public hunting, fishing, hiking, photography, canoeing, and 

other compatible refuge uses. 

A comprehensive resource, facility, and public use management plan will be completed after a 

sufficient land base has been acquired in the area by the Service. This plan will be written with full 

input from the landowners and the general public to meet their needs and address their concerns.

Summary of Proposed Action

As described earlier, the Service proposes to restore and conserve up to 21,953 acres of wetlands, 

uplands, and riparian habitats within the Yellow River Focus Area. Of this acreage, the conservation 

and restoration efforts on the approximately 7,298 acres held by private landowners in the north and 

public agencies throughout the Focus Area would be through voluntary technical assistance 

programs. On the approximately 14,684 acres of private land in the southern portion of the Focus Area 

(Partner Area 2), the Service would seek habitat restoration and conservation on a voluntary basis 

from landowners through technical assistance, and where it was the landowners preference, by 

acquiring fee title or conservation easements.

The following is a ranked list of priorities for conserving lands in the Yellow River Focus Area. Service 

acquisition of fee or easement interests in lands would be available only to interested landowners in 

the southern portion of the area (Partner Area 2, Figure 3). This list will guide Service in choosing 

when and where to use the various available conservation tools. The list includes criteria that would 

rank the priority of a parcel of land considered for fee title purchase in the southern portion of the 

Focus Area, although other conservation tools would always be considered first. 

This list will assure that the limited resources available to the Service and its partners are used in 

ways that efficiently and effectively promote desired outcomes in the Yellow River. It is also reflective 

of the Service’s commitment to communicate clearly to Yellow River stakeholders and to be consistent 

and equitable in its interactions with Yellow River landowners.

High Priority Land: 

# Eastern Massassauga rattlesnake documented on parcel during most recent survey.

# Karner blue butterflies documented on parcel during most recent survey.

# Other federal or state listed species documented on parcel during most recent survey.

# Existing eastern massasauga habitat within 1 mile of a recent documented sightings (within 

the past 20 years) or existing populations.

# Existing Karner blue butterfly habitat within 1 mile in open landscape, or within 1/8 mile 

without open canopy corridor, of existing populations or recent documented sightings 

(within the past 5 years).

# Bottomland habitat associated with Algansee-Glendora soils.

Medium Priority Land:

# Restorable eastern massasauga habitat within 1 mile of recent documented sightings (within 

the past 20 years) or existing populations.

# Restorable Karner blue butterfly habitat within 1 mile in open landscape, or 1/8 mile without 

open canopy corridor, of existing populations or recent documented sightings (within the 

past 5 years).

# Existing eastern massasauga habitat 1-3 miles from recent documented sightings (within 

the past 20 years) or existing populations.
294

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

# Natural heritage elements that are not covered by previously listed categories (e.g. federal 

or state listing), but have a global ranking of G3 or higher and/or with a state ranking of S3 

or higher.

# Opportunities to manage habitat blocks greater than 160 acres in size.

# Opportunities to manage habitat blocks with contiguous upland and wetland habitat.

Low Priority Land:

# Opportunities to manage habitat blocks greater than 80 contiguous acres, but less than 160 

contiguous acres.

# Other quality fish and wildlife habitats or community types.

While the future condition of the lands in the Focus Area are unknown and recognizing that changes in 

land use or species occurrence could change the conservation priorities, the tracts within the Focus 

Area have been prioritized for conservation on the following maps (Figure 2) and in the attached table 

(Table 2). The Focus Area acreage in Table 2 is 21,982 compared to the 21,953 acres that is used 

elsewhere in this document. Acreage in Table 2 is calculated via the ArcView Geographic Information 

System program and includes roads that would be excluded from the actual ownership acreage.

There are 319 tracts total in the Focus Area, of which 301 are privately owned. There are 

approximately 261 individual private owners, some of which are corporate. Eighteen of the tracts are 

owned by a village, county, or the State of Wisconsin. There is no intention to purchase the publicly 

owned property. There are approximately 3,135 acres in public ownership and approximately 18,847 

acres in private ownership. Of the private ownership, 14,684 acres in Partner Area 2 would be eligible 

for Service acquisition, and then only from willing sellers.

Conservation of any tract in the Focus Area would first be sought by working with the landowners to 

achieve conservation goals they are interested in and that are consistent with Service interests. If a 

landowner in the southern portion of the Focus Area is interested in other options, such as an 

easement or in selling fee rights to the property, the Service would base its decision of whether to 

acquire an interest in the land upon the availability of funds and the priority of the tract for 

conservation. Assistance to landowners for conservation work on their property will be provided 

through the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and through any other programs that 

may be available in the future.
295

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

Figure 2: Land Status and Conservation Options, Yellow River Focus Area, Necedah NWR
296

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?

2 Wood County FCL 71.97 higher NO

3 Private 435.91 higher NO

4 Private 7.32 higher NO

5 Private 4.03 lower NO

6 Private 39.86 higher NO

7 Private 116.82 lower NO

8 Private 81.50 lower NO

10 Private 148.40 lower NO

11 Private 114.06 higher NO

12 Private 38.15 medium NO

13 Private 77.14 lower NO

14 Private 37.52 lower NO

15 Private 96.08 lower NO

16 Private 37.95 higher NO

17 Private 18.72 lower NO

18 Private 48.18 higher NO

19 Private 141.83 lower NO

21 Private 21.78 higher NO

22 Wood County FCL 43.81 higher NO

23 Private 75.17 lower NO

24 Private 20.78 lower NO

25 Private 22.76 lower NO

26 Private 44.38 higher NO

27 Wood County FCL 149.90 higher NO

28 Private 20.35 lower NO

30 Private 81.47 higher NO

31 Private 11.56 lower NO

32 J. T. School District #1 141.29 higher NO

33 Private 36.16 lower NO

34 Private 11.38 lower NO

35 Private 103.93 higher NO

36 Private 32.90 higher NO

38 State of WI/Conservation Com 177.26 higher NO

39 Private 44.70 lower NO
297

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

40 Private 37.41 higher NO

41 Private 34.57 higher NO

42 Private 74.15 lower NO

43 Private 23.40 lower NO

44 Private 37.68 higher NO

45 Private 3.83 lower NO

46 Private 247.37 lower NO

51 Private 500.50 lower NO

52 Private 8.97 lower NO

53 Private 8.36 lower NO

54 Private 42.56 higher NO

55 Private 100.14 higher NO

57 Private 118.66 higher NO

58 Private 100.61 lower NO

60 Private 228.10 higher NO

61 Private 42.94 higher NO

62 Private 77.18 lower NO

63 Private 153.79 lower NO

64 Private 10.15 higher YES

65 Private 12.39 higher NO

66 Private 47.22 higher YES

67 Private 91.64 higher YES

68 Private 93.02 higher YES

69 Private 133.98 higher YES

70 Private 80.67 higher YES

71 Juneau County Forest Crop 84.39 higher NO

72 Private 85.05 higher NO

73 Private 172.55 higher Yes

74 Private 79.64 higher Yes

75 Private 5.57 higher Yes

76 Private 29.72 higher Yes

77 Juneau County (Tax Deed) 44.86 higher No

78 Private 22.59 higher Yes

79 Private 10.53 higher Yes

80 Private 16.93 higher Yes

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?
298

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81 Private 9.58 higher Yes

82 Private 4.92 higher Yes

83 Private 2.85 higher Yes

84 Private 2.85 higher Yes

85 Private 6.39 higher Yes

86 Private 174.30 higher Yes

87 Private 40.74 higher Yes

88 Private 42.98 higher Yes

89 Private 8.14 higher Yes

90 Private 193.13 higher Yes

91 Private 1.46 higher Yes

92 Private 46.26 higher Yes

93 Private 0.90 higher Yes

94 Private 83.69 higher Yes

95 Private 68.42 higher Yes

96 Private 84.75 higher Yes

97 Private 85.06 higher Yes

98 Private 80.05 higher Yes

99 Private 85.57 higher Yes

100 Juneau County Forest Crop 305.34 higher No

102 Private 1.83 higher Yes

103 Private 18.61 higher Yes

104 Private 21.19 higher Yes

105 Private 38.84 higher Yes

106 Private 79.25 higher Yes

107 Private 224.02 higher Yes

108 Private 117.97 higher Yes

109 Juneau County (Tax Deed) 39.73 higher No

110 Private 42.08 higher Yes

111 Private 38.42 higher Yes

112 Private 40.57 higher Yes

113 Private 40.54 higher Yes

114 Private 253.42 higher Yes

115 Private 3.75 higher Yes

117 Private 43.17 higher Yes

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?
299

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

119 Private 77.40 higher Yes

120 Private 122.17 higher Yes

121 Juneau County Forest Crop 38.28 higher No

122 Private 39.48 higher Yes

123 Private 11.66 higher Yes

124 Private 61.11 higher Yes

125 Private 28.11 higher Yes

126 Private 92.19 higher Yes

127 Private 20.79 higher Yes

128 Private 6.42 higher Yes

129 Private 118.58 higher Yes

130 Private 200.33 higher Yes

131 Private 5.42 higher Yes

133 Private 3.89 higher Yes

134 Private 10.55 higher Yes

135 Private 18.92 higher Yes

136 Private 25.74 higher Yes

137 Private 57.78 higher Yes

138 Private 39.37 higher Yes

139 Private 2.60 higher Yes

141 Private 140.77 higher Yes

142 Private 12.94 higher Yes

143 Private 39.53 higher Yes

144 Private 83.78 higher Yes

145 Private 35.28 higher Yes

146 Private 3.10 higher Yes

147 Private 39.17 higher Yes

148 Private 27.37 higher Yes

149 Private 88.53 higher Yes

151 Private 81.32 higher Yes

155 Private 85.41 higher Yes

157 Private 35.92 higher Yes

158 Private 1.88 higher Yes

159 Private 76.25 higher Yes

160 Private 160.94 lower Yes

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?
300

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162 Private 166.55 higher Yes

163 Private 83.33 higher Yes

164 Private 74.06 higher Yes

165 Private 11.09 higher Yes

166 Private 39.38 higher Yes

167 Private 36.85 lower Yes

169 Private 20.68 higher Yes

170 Private 36.73 higher Yes

171 Private 38.94 higher Yes

172 Private 29.63 higher Yes

173 Private 86.23 higher Yes

174 Private 40.14 higher Yes

175 Private 18.31 higher Yes

176 Private 18.46 higher Yes

177 Private 12.96 higher Yes

178 Private 22.79 higher Yes

179 Private 20.47 higher Yes

180 Private 102.74 higher Yes

181 Private 13.46 higher Yes

182 Private 94.50 higher Yes

183 Private 39.30 higher Yes

184 Private 28.51 higher Yes

185 Private 39.57 higher Yes

186 Private 21.11 higher Yes

187 Private 9.36 higher Yes

188 Private 71.11 higher Yes

189 Private 2.38 higher Yes

190 Private 80.69 higher Yes

191 Private 69.12 higher Yes

192 Private 34.96 higher Yes

193 Private 85.45 higher Yes

194 Private 129.26 higher Yes

195 Private 61.67 higher Yes

196 Private 126.20 higher Yes

197 Private 106.15 higher Yes

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?
301

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

198 Private 128.03 higher Yes

199 Private 6.43 higher Yes

200 Private 6.48 higher Yes

201 Private 21.58 higher Yes

202 Private 58.52 higher Yes

203 Private 148.09 higher Yes

205 Private 1.25 higher Yes

207 Private 9.64 lower Yes

208 Private 70.87 higher Yes

210 Private 33.16 higher Yes

211 Private 6.04 higher Yes

212 Private 37.79 lower Yes

213 Private 8.34 lower Yes

214 Private 0.63 lower Yes

215 Private 1.07 lower Yes

216 Private 0.58 lower Yes

217 Private 135.83 higher Yes

218 Private 46.51 lower Yes

220 Private 46.06 higher Yes

221 Private 70.32 lower Yes

222 Private 0.99 lower Yes

223 Private 2.56 lower Yes

224 Private 0.96 lower Yes

232 Private 145.96 higher Yes

233 Private 75.85 lower Yes

234 Private 34.91 higher NO

235 Private 14.69 higher NO

236 Private 25.51 lower NO

237 Private 10.51 higher NO

238 Private 9.96 higher NO

239 Private 12.77 higher NO

240 Private 40.79 higher Yes

241 Private 181.41 higher Yes

242 Private 43.11 higher Yes

243 Private 379.20 higher Yes

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?
302

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

244 Juneau County Forest Crop 1,436.97 higher No

245 Private 707.79 higher Yes

247 Juneau County Forest Crop 40.04 higher No

248 Private 36.58 higher Yes

249 Private 45.14 higher Yes

250 Juneau County Forest Crop 41.05 higher No

251 Juneau County Forest Crop 41.26 higher No

252 Private 43.85 higher Yes

254 Private 26.75 higher Yes

255 Juneau County (Tax Deed) 38.45 higher No

256 Private 78.19 higher Yes

257 Private 158.74 higher Yes

258 Private 118.36 higher Yes

259 Private 81.30 higher Yes

260 Private 55.66 higher Yes

261 Private 40.40 higher Yes

262 Private 29.37 higher Yes

263 Private 8.51 higher Yes

264 Private 10.98 higher Yes

265 Private 11.58 higher Yes

266 Private 17.35 higher Yes

268 Private 40.44 higher Yes

269 Private 38.22 higher Yes

270 Private 42.13 higher Yes

271 Private 75.80 higher Yes

272 Private 159.73 higher Yes

273 Private 18.94 higher Yes

274 Private 1.02 higher Yes

275 Private 117.36 higher Yes

276 Private 304.03 higher Yes

277 Private 52.83 higher Yes

278 Private 118.44 higher Yes

279 Private 161.29 higher Yes

280 Private 76.20 higher Yes

281 Private 163.97 higher Yes

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?
303

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

282 Private 77.33 higher Yes

283 Private 44.32 higher Yes

284 Private 79.95 higher Yes

285 Private 226.49 higher Yes

286 Private 40.54 higher Yes

287 Private 7.27 higher Yes

288 Private 18.57 lower Yes

289 Private 4.53 lower Yes

290 Private 50.54 higher Yes

291 Village of Necedah 159.88 higher No

292 Private 42.60 higher Yes

293 Private 24.78 lower Yes

294 Private 2.46 higher Yes

295 Private 2.15 lower Yes

296 Private 5.59 higher Yes

297 Private 90.70 higher Yes

298 Private 5.93 lower Yes

299 Private 58.83 higher Yes

300 Private 70.01 higher Yes

301 Private 76.90 higher Yes

302 State of WI, Dept. of Nat. 

Resources

119.71 higher No

303 Private 4.88 higher Yes

304 Private 24.62 lower Yes

305 Private 4.45 higher Yes

306 Private 109.36 higher Yes

307 Private 142.06 higher Yes

308 Private 25.25 higher Yes

309 Private 61.14 higher Yes

310 Private 58.71 higher Yes

311 Private 20.96 higher Yes

312 Private 39.34 higher Yes

313 Private 22.50 higher Yes

314 Private 9.94 higher Yes

315 Private 33.45 higher Yes

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?
304

Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

316 Private 160.85 higher Yes

317 Private 40.96 higher Yes

318 Private 44.78 higher Yes

319 Private 36.67 higher Yes

320 Private 11.18 lower Yes

321 Private 3.42 lower Yes

322 Private 190.62 lower Yes

323 Private 27.72 higher Yes

324 Private 22.15 higher Yes

325 Private 201.08 higher Yes

326 Private 9.38 lower Yes

327 Private 79.44 higher Yes

328 Private 3.91 lower Yes

329 Private 2.78 higher Yes

330 Private 14.03 medium Yes

331 Private 116.69 higher Yes

332 Private 8.45 lower Yes

333 Private 123.24 higher Yes

334 Private 78.24 higher Yes

335 Private 37.66 higher Yes

336 Private 38.35 higher Yes

337 Private 40.39 higher Yes

338 Private 40.70 higher Yes

339 Private 182.06 medium Yes

340 Private 123.89 higher Yes

341 Private 51.23 higher Yes

342 Private 1.71 higher Yes

343 Private 10.83 medium Yes

344 Juneau County Community 

Forest

160.44 higher No

345 Private 20.70 higher Yes

346 Private 14.05 medium Yes

347 Private 38.51 higher Yes

348 Private 40.29 higher Yes

349 Private 58.81 lower Yes

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?
305

Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan

References:

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 21pp.

Noss et al. 1995

Nuzzo, V.A. 1986. Extent and status of mid-west oak savanna: pre-settlement and 1985. Natural Areas 

Journal 6(2): 6-36.

Oliver, C.D., and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New 

York.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Technical/

Agency Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

350 Private 15.93 medium Yes

351 Private 5.24 lower Yes

352 Private 38.54 lower Yes

353 Private 108.38 higher Yes

354 Private 41.73 higher Yes

355 Private 122.16 higher Yes

356 Private 82.28 higher Yes

Total Acres: 21,982.22

Total Tracts: 319

Total # Private Tracts: 301

Total # of Publicly Owned Tracts: 18

Total Acres Privately Owned: 18,847.59

Total Acres Publicly Owned: 3,134.63

Total Acres where Acquisition is an Option: 14,683.9

Total Acres where Acquisition is Not an 

Option

7,298.32

Table 2: Yellow River Focus Area Tracts, Ownership, Acreage and Priority 

Parcel 

No.

Owners Acres Priority Is Acquisition 

an Option?