Horicon

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

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

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................................... 1

The National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................................................ 1

Horicon Marsh ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................................................... 3

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................................... 3

Refuge Purposes .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Refuge Visions ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................ 3

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................................................. 6

Purpose and Need for Plan .................................................................................................................................. 6

History and Establishment .................................................................................................................................. 7

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................ 7

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................................................. 7

Legal Context ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................................................. 9

Internal Agency Scoping ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Open Houses ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

Focus Group Meeting ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ............................................................................................. 10

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................................................. 10

Habitat Management ................................................................................................................................. 10

Wildlife Management ................................................................................................................................ 11

Visitor Services .......................................................................................................................................... 11

State Highway 49 Issues ........................................................................................................................... 11

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Visibility of Horicon NWR as a National Resource ................................................................................... 11

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................... 11

Wildlife Management ................................................................................................................................ 11

Habitat Management ................................................................................................................................. 12

Visitor Services .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Administration and Logistics ..................................................................................................................... 12

Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP ............................................................. 13
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment .................................................................................................................. 14

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................................... 14

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Climate ....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Geology and Glaciation .............................................................................................................................. 17

Soils ............................................................................................................................................................ 18

Surface Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 19

Wilderness Review .................................................................................................................................... 21

Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................. 21

Social and Economic Context ..................................................................................................................... 22

Natural Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 27

Habitats ...................................................................................................................................................... 27

Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..................................................................................................... 31

Wildlife Species of Management Concern ................................................................................................ 31

Horicon NWR Current Refuge Programs: Where We Are Today ...................................................................... 31

Habitat Restoration .................................................................................................................................... 32

Habitat Restoration on the Refuge ............................................................................................................ 32

Habitat Management ................................................................................................................................. 33

Managing Water Impoundments and Moist Soil Units ............................................................................ 33

Mowing on Grasslands and Wet Meadows .............................................................................................. 36

Haying on Grasslands ................................................................................................................................ 36

Prescribed Fire on Uplands and Wetlands ................................................................................................. 36

Wildfire Preparedness ............................................................................................................................... 36

Controlling Invasive Plants ......................................................................................................................... 36

Habitat Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Aerial Infrared – GIS Technology .............................................................................................................. 38

Grassland Surveys ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Prescribed Burning ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Wildlife Monitoring and Research ............................................................................................................. 38

Surveys and Censuses ............................................................................................................................... 39

Studies and Investigations ......................................................................................................................... 40

Wildlife Management ................................................................................................................................ 41

Disease Monitoring and Control ................................................................................................................ 41

Nest Structures ........................................................................................................................................ 42

Predator and Exotic Wildlife Control ......................................................................................................... 42

Coordination Activities ............................................................................................................................... 43

Interagency Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 43

Public Recreation, Environmental Education and Outreach ...................................................................... 43

Hunting ....................................................................................................................................................... 44

 Fishing ....................................................................................................................................................... 46

Wildlife Observation .................................................................................................................................. 46

Wildlife Photography ................................................................................................................................. 46

Wildlife Interpretation ............................................................................................................................... 46

Environmental Education ........................................................................................................................... 46

Volunteer and Friends Contributions ......................................................................................................... 47
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Outreach ..................................................................................................................................................... 47

Archaeological and Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 47

Law Enforcement ....................................................................................................................................... 47

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................... 48

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 48

Climate ....................................................................................................................................................... 48

Topography and Soils ................................................................................................................................. 48

Surface Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 48

Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................. 48

Social and Economic Context ..................................................................................................................... 51

Natural Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 53

Habitats ...................................................................................................................................................... 53

Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................................... 56

Fox River NWR Current Refuge Programs: Where We Are Today ................................................................... 57

Habitat Management ................................................................................................................................. 57

Habitat Restoration .................................................................................................................................... 57

Wetland Restoration .................................................................................................................................. 57

Dry Prairie Restoration ............................................................................................................................... 58

Oak Savanna Restoration ........................................................................................................................... 58

Water Level Management ......................................................................................................................... 59

Moist Soil Management ............................................................................................................................ 59

Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................................................ 60

Haying ........................................................................................................................................................ 60

Controlling Invasive Plants ........................................................................................................................ 60

Vegetation Surveys .................................................................................................................................... 60

Vegetation and Habitat Surveys ............................................................................................................... 60

Wildlife Management ................................................................................................................................ 60

Wildlife Surveys and Censuses ................................................................................................................. 61

Nest Structures .......................................................................................................................................... 64

Pest, Predator, and Exotic Animal Control ................................................................................................. 65

Coordination Activities ............................................................................................................................... 65

Interagency Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 65

Partners, Volunteers and Cooperating Organizations ................................................................................ 65

Public Recreation, Environmental Education and Outreach ..................................................................... 66

Deer Hunting .............................................................................................................................................. 66

Law Enforcement ....................................................................................................................................... 66

Chapter 4: Refuge Management ................................................................................................................. 67

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................................... 67

Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ................................................................................... 67

Refuge Vision ............................................................................................................................................. 67

Goals, Objectives and Strategies ............................................................................................................... 67

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................... 79

Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ................................................................................... 79

A Vision for Fox River National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................... 79

Goals, Objectives and Strategies ............................................................................................................... 79
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................. 88

New and Existing Projects ................................................................................................................................ 88

Horicon NWR Operating Needs Projects .................................................................................................. 88

Fox River Refuge Operating Needs Projects ............................................................................................. 91

Future Staffing Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 92

Partnership Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 92

Step-down Management Plans ......................................................................................................................... 92

Archeological and Cultural Values .................................................................................................................... 92

Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 95

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact ...................................................................................... 97

Appendix B: Glossary ............................................................................................................................... 101

Appendix C: Species List ......................................................................................................................... 105

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations .......................................................................................... 123

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ............................................................................................... 125

Appendix F: Priority Refuge Operational and Maintenance Needs ................................................ 131

Appendix G: Wildlife Species of Management Concern, Horicon NWR ........................................ 133

Appendix H: Mailing List ......................................................................................................................... 143

Appendix I: List of Preparers ................................................................................................................. 147

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited ................................................................................ 151

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP ...................................................................... 157
Horicon

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Tables

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v

Table 1: Watershed Characteristics, Horicon Marsh, Horicon NWR ........................................................... 19

Table 2: Socioeconomic Characteristics Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties, Wisconsin .............................. 23

Table 3: Area of Land by Land-Use Class For Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties (thousands of acres) ....... 24

Table 4: Dodge County Employment and Industry Data ............................................................................... 25

Table 5: Fond du Lac County Employment and Industry Data ...................................................................... 26

Table 6: 1995 Recreation-related Expenditures (1995 $ in thousands) of Visitors to Horicon NWR .......... 26

Table 7: Mississippi Valley Canada Goose Population Estimates (1948-1990) ........................................... 27

Table 8: Furbearer Trapping Totals, 2000-2005, Horicon NWR ................................................................... 43

Table 9: Socioeconomic Characteristics, Marquette County, Wisconsin .................................................... 51

Table 10: Marquette County Employment and Industry Data ........................................................................ 52

Table 11: Summary of Spring 2004 Waterbird Surveys, Fox River NWR ....................................................... 61

Table 12: Marsh Birds Detected Per Point, Fox River NWR ........................................................................... 61

Table 13: Ten Most Common Bird Species Documented on Fox River NWR, Summer 2003 ........................ 62

Table 14: Bird Counts by Habitat Type, Fox River NWR ................................................................................. 62

Table 15: Frog and Toad Point Count Surveys, Fox River NWR ..................................................................... 63

Table 16: Sandhill Crane Survey Results, 1994-2005, Fox River NWR .......................................................... 63

Table 17: Long Lake Fish Population Survey, 2004, Fox River NWR .............................................................. 64

Table 18: Fox River and Backwaters Fish Population Survey, 2004, Fox River NWR .................................... 64

Table 19: Muir Creek Fish Population Survey, 2004, Fox River NWR ............................................................ 65

Table 20: Additional Staffing Required to Fully Implement the CCP by 2021, Horicon NWR ....................... 92

Table 21: Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Horicon NWR ................................................................ 94

Table 22: Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Fox River NWR ............................................................. 94
Horicon

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

List of Figures

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vi

Figure 1: Location of Horicon NWR, Dodge and Fond Du Lac Counties, Wisconsin ....................................... 4

Figure 2: Location of Fox River NWR, Marquette County, Wisconsin ............................................................ 5

Figure 3: Historic Vegetation of the Horicon Marsh (1850s) ........................................................................... 8

Figure 4: Southeast Wisconsin and Location of Horicon NWR ..................................................................... 15

Figure 5: Conservation Lands in Southeastern Wisconsin, Horicon NWR .................................................... 16

Figure 6: Location of Rock River Watershed, Horicon NWR ......................................................................... 20

Figure 7: Current Landcover of Horicon NWR (2006 Classification) ............................................................. 28

Figure 8: Impoundments, Horicon NWR ........................................................................................................ 34

Figure 9: Existing Visitor Facilities, Horicon NWR ........................................................................................ 45

Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Fox River NWR ............................................................................................... 49

Figure 11: Historic Vegetation of the Fox River NWR ..................................................................................... 50

Figure 12: Future Habitat Conditions of Horicon NWR ................................................................................... 72

Figure 13: Proposed Visitor Facilities, Horicon NWR ...................................................................................... 76

Figure 14: Future Vegetation Cover, Fox River NWR ....................................................................................... 81

Figure 15: Current and Proposed Visitor Facilities, Fox River National Wildlife Refuge ................................ 85

Figure 16: Current Staffing Chart, Horicon NWR ............................................................................................ 93
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Introduction

Twelve thousand years ago, glaciers created the 

shallow peat-filled marshland basin known as the 

“Little Everglades of the North,” or Horicon Marsh. 

In the beginning, the Horicon Marsh supported a 

vast array of wildlife and generations of native peoples. When early European settlers came to this 

land the Marsh began to undergo dynamic changes 

lasting to the present day. The waters and wet soils 

of the Marsh were alternately dammed, ditched, 

drained, and farmed. Competing human demands 

led to the Marsh being one of the most contested 

pieces of real estate in the history of Wisconsin. The 

battle was ultimately decided in favor of wildlife 

conservation. Today, the Horicon Marsh is a national 

treasure and a destination for hundreds of thousands of visitors.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges 

are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service). The USFWS is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It oversees the 

enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management 

and protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species Act, and the 

restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The 

Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge 

System.

The National Wildlife Refuge 

System

Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when 

President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican 

Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. 

Today, the system is a network of about 545 refuges 

and wetland management districts covering about 

95 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of 

these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states 

and several island territories. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the 

world’s largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat 

for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of 

international treaties for migratory bird conservation and other legislation, such as the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have 

Fox squirrel. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

been established to protect migratory waterfowl 

and their migratory flyways. Horicon NWR serves 

a dual purpose both as a critical nesting ground and 

as an important link in the Mississippi Flyway network of refuges that serve as rest stops and feeding 

stations for migrating ducks and geese. 

Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving 

endangered and threatened species. Among the 

most notable is Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in 

Texas, which provides winter habitat for the highly 

endangered Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida 

Panther NWR protects one of the nation’s most 

endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique 

recreational and educational opportunities for people. When human activities are compatible with 

wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places 

where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor 

centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, 

approximately 30 million people visited national 

wildlife refuges in 2004.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established several important 

mandates aimed at making the management of 

national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The preparation of Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

(CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and purposes of the individual refuges are carried 

out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

identify the archeological and cultural values of Refuge System lands.

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

are to:

# Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

# Develop and maintain a network of habitats for 

migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal 

populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life 

history needs of these species across their 

ranges.

# Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that 

are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 

Provide and enhance opportunities to 

participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

o b se r v a t i o n a n d p h o t o g r a ph y, a n d 

environmental education and interpretation). 

# Foster understanding and instill appreciation of 

the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

Horicon Marsh

Horicon Marsh is the largest freshwater cattail 

marsh in the United States, consisting of some 

32,000 acres. The marsh is 14 miles long and 3 to 5 

miles wide and has been classified as a palustrine 

system dominated by persistent emergent vegetation and floating vascular aquatic beds. The southern one-third of the marsh is managed by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR) while the northern two-thirds of the 

marsh is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

In 1991 the marsh was designated a "Wetland of 

International Importance" by the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty that obligates 45 

signatory nations to consider wetland conservation 

in land-use planning, wise use of wetlands, establish 

wetland reserves, and encourage wetland research 

and data exchange. Designated sites in the United 

States include Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia/Florida; Everglades National Park, 

Florida; and Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Complex, 

Maryland/Virginia, to name a few.

Lesser Yellowlegs. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

In 1997, Horicon Marsh was accepted as a Globally Important Bird Area in American Bird Conservancy’s United States Important Bird Areas 

program. The marsh received this recognition especially because more than 50 percent of the Mississippi Flyway Canada Geese migrate through the 

marsh during the fall and 2 percent of the flyway 

population of Mallards migrates through during the 

fall, with impressive numbers of other waterfowl. In 

the fall of 2004, the Horicon Marsh was recognized 

by the State as an Important Bird Area. 

Horicon National Wildlife 

Refuge

Horicon NWR is located 6 miles east of Waupun 

in southeastern Wisconsin (Figure 1). Current Refuge ownership consists of over 15,500 acres of 

marsh and 5,600 acres of associated upland habitat. 

Marsh habitat is seasonally to permanently flooded 

and dominated by cattail, river bulrush, common 

reed grass, sedges, and reed canary grass. Uplands 

include nearly 2,000 acres of woodlands and 3,600 

acres of grasslands.

Resource management at the Refuge involves 

using a variety of techniques to preserve and 

enhance habitats for wildlife, with programs both in 

marsh and upland management. Marsh management involves the manipulation of water levels to 

achieve a desired succession of wetland plant communities to meet the seasonal needs of wildlife populations. Upland management includes establishing 

and maintaining grasslands to provide nesting habitat for ducks, Sandhill Cranes, and various song 

birds. Management objectives include waterfowl 

production and migratory bird use, with Redhead 

ducks being emphasized. 

Fox River National Wildlife 

Refuge

The Fox River NWR, established in 1979, consists of 1,004 acres of land located 10 miles north of 

Portage, Wisconsin along State Highway F (Figure 

2). The Refuge is administered by staff at Horicon 

NWR, approximately 40 miles to the east.

The majority of the Refuge is shallow marsh, 

sedge meadow, fen, or wet prairie wetlands. Upland 

prairie and forest is also present on the Refuge. The 

matrix of wetland and upland habitat provides 

excellent habitat for both wetland and upland associated wildlife, such as ducks, Sandhill Cranes, herons, rails, songbirds, deer, turkey, and Bobwhite 

Quail. More than 300 cranes use the Refuge as a 

staging area during fall migration . 

Current management on the Refuge is focused on 

restoring historic upland habitats including oak 

savanna and open grasslands. The natural hydrology of the area is also being restored primarily 

through the filling of agricultural drainage ditches. 

Visitor facilities and opportunities are minimal but 

include two parking areas, signs, and an annual deer 

hunt.

Fox River NWR is located across the highway 

from a County Park named after John Muir, a 

famous conservationist in the 19th and early 20th 

centuries, who lived near the County Park and the 

Refuge during part of his boyhood years.

Refuge Purposes

Horicon NWR was established in 1941 under the 

authority of the Federal Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. The purpose of the Refuge is: “for 

use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds...”

Fox River NWR was established in 1977 under 

two legislative authorities:

“...for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources...” Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 

February 18, 1929, 16 U.S.C. 715d

Refuge Visions

The planning team considered the past vision 

statements and emerging issues and drafted the following vision statements as the desired future state 

of each Refuge:

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Horicon NWR will be beautiful, healthy, and 

support abundant and diverse native fish, 

wildlife, and plants for the enjoyment and 

thoughtful use of current and future 

generations. The Refuge’s hydrologic regime 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

Figure 1: Location of Horicon NWR, Dodge and Fond Du Lac Counties, Wisconsin
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

Figure 2: Location of Fox River NWR, Marquette County, Wisconsin
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

will include a functional Rock River riparian 

system, with clean water flowing into and out of 

the Refuge. The Refuge will be a place where 

people treasure an incredible resource that 

upholds the distinction of a Wetland of 

International Importance.

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge

Fox River NWR will consist of diverse, 

productive habitats and wildlife that provides 

conditions found historically (pre-European 

settlement) in the Upper Fox River watershed. 

Specifically, the Refuge consists of a mosaic of 

oak savanna, dry and wet prairie, fens, sedge 

meadow, and shallow marsh habitats managed 

to perpetuate a variety of native plant and 

wildlife species, namely those of priority to the 

Service.

Refuge staff, located at Horicon NWR, are a 

multi-disciplined team dedicated to providing 

quality habitat and wildlife management, as 

well as quality wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities compatible with Refuge purposes. 

Local communities and visitors value the 

Refuge for the personal, financial, and societal 

benefits it provides. A strong conservation ethic 

is promoted in the surrounding communities 

where both John Muir and Aldo Leopold were 

inspired by nature’s beauty, complexity, and 

value.

Purpose and Need for Plan

This CCP articulates the management direction 

for Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges for the next 15 years. Through the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP 

describes how the refuges also contribute to the 

overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Several legislative mandates within 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, namely 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and 

interpretation are priority public uses of 

refuges. We will facilitate these activities when 

they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill 

the refuges’ purpose or the mission of the 

Refuge System.

# Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed 

when determined appropriate and compatible 

with Refuge purposes and mission of the 

Refuge System.

The plan will guide the management of Horicon 

NWR and Fox River NWR by:

# Providing a clear statement of direction for the 

future management of each Refuge.

# Making a strong connection between Refuge 

activities and conservation activities that occur 

in the surrounding area.

# Providing Refuge neighbors, users, and the 

general public with an understanding of the 

Service’s land acquisition and management 

actions on and around the Refuge.

# Ensuring the Refuge actions and programs are 

consistent with the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System.

# Ensuring that Refuge management considers 

federal, state, and county plans.

# Ensuring that Refuge management considers 

the preservation of historic properties.

# Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge 

management.

# Providing a basis for the development of budget 

requests on the Refuge’s operational, 

maintenance, and capital improvement needs.

School visit to Horicon NWR.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

History and Establishment

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

When early European settlers came to this land 

they settled among the Indian villages and established their first modern settlement – the town of 

Horicon. In 1846, a dam was built on the Rock River 

to power a sawmill and to develop steamboat navigation. The dam created Lake Horicon, which at the 

time was considered to be the largest human-engineered lake in the world. At this time water levels in 

the marsh were raised by 9 feet, but after 23 years 

of disputes, the dam was removed and the marsh 

was returned to a haven for wildlife. 

The era that followed was one of hunting clubs 

and market hunting days, which lasted to the early 

1900s. At this time, other interests appeared to 

influence and dominate the marsh, most notably, 

moist-soil agriculture. Root crop cultivation soon 

became the incentive to drain the lands around the 

marsh, and within a short time, the entire marsh. 

Despite these efforts, attempts to farm the peat soil 

failed and left behind natural resource devastation 

that could have hardly been foreseen. 

In 1921, several conservation-minded individuals 

began a fight to restore the marsh, and 6 years later 

the state legislature passed the Horicon Marsh 

Wildlife Refuge Bill. This action provided for the 

construction of a dam to restore marshland water 

levels and permit the acquisition of lands in and 

around the marsh which led to the establishment of 

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge in 1941 (Figure 

3.). 

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge

Fox River NWR was authorized by the USFWS 

Director in 1978 under the Service’s Unique Wildlife 

Ecosystem Program for the purposes of protecting 

an area known as the Fox River Sandhill Crane 

Marsh from further drainage for agricultural purposes. The marsh was known as an important breeding and staging area for the Sandhill Crane. The 

following paragraphs recount the events leading up 

to establishment of the Refuge.

During the summer of 1978, Federal authorities 

documented activities on a marsh adjacent to 

County Road F that appeared to be in violation of 

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act. A court case (Civil No. 78-c-367) subsequently 

followed and determined that a substantial portion 

of the ditching and filling activities within the marsh 

boundaries were within the limits of Section 404 

jurisdiction. The U.S. Attorney agreed to prosecute 

the case. A preliminary injunction was filed on July 

28, 1978, in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of 

Wisconsin, that restrained the landowner from further ditching and filling activities.

Subsequently, the court issued a Consent Decree 

whereby the Service agreed to purchase the subject 

631-acre property after a specified amount of restoration. Fox River NWR was formally established 

during the spring of 1979 when the Service acquired 

the property to fulfill the Consent Decree.

Planning documents completed at the time of 

Refuge establishment recommended a Refuge 

boundary encompassing 1,043 acres, the minimum 

size needed to meet Service goals and objectives.

Legal Context

In addition to the executive order establishing 

the Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, 

executive orders, and regulations govern administration of Horicon NWR and Fox River 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.

Entrance sign at Fox River NWR. USFWS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

Figure 3: Historic Vegetation of the Horicon Marsh (1850s)
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

The CCP for Horicon NWR and Fox River NWR 

has been written with input and assistance from citizens, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and 

staff from state and local agencies. The participation 

of these stakeholders is vital and all of their ideas 

have been valuable in determining the future direction of the refuges. Refuge and Service planning 

staff are grateful to all of those who have contributed time, expertise and ideas throughout the comprehensive conservation planning process. We 

appreciated the enthusiasm and commitment 

expressed by many for the lands and living 

resources administered by Horicon NWR.

Internal Agency Scoping

The CCP planning process began in January 

2005 with a kickoff meeting between Refuge staff 

and regional planners from the Service’s office in 

the Twin Cities. The participants in this “internal 

scoping” exercise reviewed vision statements and 

goals, existing baseline resource data, planning documents and other refuge information for Horicon 

NWR and Fox River NWR. In addition, the group 

identified a preliminary list of issues, concerns and 

opportunities facing the refuges that would need to 

be addressed in the CCP. 

A list of required CCP elements such as maps, 

photos, and GIS data layers was also developed at 

this meeting and during subsequent e-mail and telephone communications. Concurrently, the group 

studied federal and state mandates plus applicable 

local ordinances, regulations, and plans for their relevance to this planning effort. Finally, the group 

agreed to a process and sequence for obtaining public input and a tentative schedule for completion of 

the CCP. A Public Involvement Plan was drafted 

and distributed to participants immediately after 

the meeting.

Internal scoping continued with a meeting at the 

Regional Office in Fort Snelling, Minnesota in 

March 2005. Staffers from Region 3, including 

supervisors, planners, and biologists covering wildlife/habitat and migratory birds joined the Horicon 

NWR Refuge Manager for a discussion on the 

issues, public response and a number of considerations related to the CCP.

Open Houses

Public input was encouraged and obtained using 

several methods, including open houses, written 

comments during a public scoping period, issuebased focus groups, and personal contacts.

Initial public scoping for the CCP for Horicon 

NWR and Fox River NWR began in March 2005 

with a series of open house events held in Montello 

(Fox River), Waupun and Mayville, Wisconsin. Turnout was light with approximately 25 people in total 

attending.

Prairie habitat, Horicon NWR. USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

Those interested in making written comments 

had until April 15, 2005 to submit them. Comments 

could be sent by U.S. mail, e-mail, or via the Horicon 

planning website on the Internet. Approximately 20 

comment forms and other written comments were 

submitted to the Refuge during the scoping process.

Focus Group Meeting

On June 1-2 (Horicon) and June 7 (Fox River), 

2005, all-day public focus group workshops were 

held to obtain more detailed input on the issues and 

opportunities identified in preliminary scoping and 

to begin development of alternatives. Twenty-eight 

people, representing Wisconsin DNR, Refuge staff, 

conservation organizations, neighboring communities, Refuge users, and other stakeholders attended 

these discussions.

Summary of Issues, Concerns 

and Opportunities

A large list of issues, concerns, and opportunities 

was generated during internal Refuge scoping, public open house sessions and workshops. The goals, 

objectives, and strategies in Chapter 4 are intended 

to address this list. The major issues addressed in 

the CCP are described as follows: 

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Habitat Management

Upland habitat restoration and management

The Refuge could restore areas to historic vegetation or create habitats that are lacking in the area. 

Possibilities include managing the Refuge’s east 

side as hardwoods mixed forest and the west side as 

grassland (historic vegetation). Or we could convert 

all uplands to native grassland on the entire Refuge 

since grasslands are lacking in area.

Invasive plant species

Habitat structure on the Refuge is threatened by 

invasive, non-native plant species such as reed 

canary grass and leafy spurge. Invasive plant species are often those introduced from Europe or Asia 

and they have no native biological controls in the 

United States. They are often early successional 

species adapted to disturbance, they move in 

quickly, and are difficult to control with traditional 

methods such as prescribed fire. 

Land Acquisition (authorized boundary and 

adjustments)

Several participants suggested that the Refuge 

and partners actively pursue land protection within 

the 1995 expansion boundary. Conservation measures within the expansion area will help to protect 

the Horicon Marsh.

Off-Refuge involvement and external threats (i.e. 

watershed protection) 

A large portion of the Interagency Workshop was 

spent discussing sedimentation and environmental 

contaminant issues related to the Marsh. All participants agreed that soil conservation measures in the 

upper watershed would go far in reducing these 

problems. However, increasing wetland conservation and encouraging new agricultural practices will 

be a huge task that will require innovative 

approaches to public and private partnerships.

A proposal for a wind energy facility adjacent to 

the Refuge, which could include up to 133 wind turbines to generate electricity, was also discussed during internal scoping. The primary concern was the 

potential impact to migratory birds and resident 

bats from striking the towers and turbines that 

would reach up to 389 feet above ground level.

Water Management:

The management of water levels is the key to 

maintaining a viable Marsh. However, the State portion of the marsh, Lake Sinnissippi, and other downstream waterbodies control how much water the 

Refuge can hold and release. The CCP should 

decide how the pools of Horicon NWR should be 

managed and could include filling ditches, improving dikes, and adding or removing water control 

structures. 

Refuge road, Horicon NWR
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

Wildlife Management

Migratory Birds

Analysis of data suggests that predation loss is 

high for waterfowl and other ground-nesting birds. 

The small ratio of uplands to wetland area may be a 

factor. The CCP should decide if the Refuge should 

be managed for birds in migration and accept a high 

nesting loss or if predator control is a viable option.

Carp Control

Carp are causing a lot of damage to the wetland 

habitat of the Horicon Marsh. Carp control measures include trapping/removal and periodic application of the pesticide Rotenone. However, despite 

control measures, carp populations remain too high.

Threatened and endangered species

People enjoy seeing Bald Eagles, which are the 

most conspicuous and spectacular listed species that 

occurs at Horicon NWR. It is highly probable that 

Whooping Cranes, recently re-introduced to Wisconsin, will expand their use of the Refuge. Indeed, 

one Whooping Crane has been using the Refuge for 

4 years in a row, while a second crane used the Refuge in 2004 for at least a few days.

Visitor Services

Deer hunting

Horicon NWR supports a number of hunts for 

white-tailed deer including archery, firearm, and 

special opportunities for hunters with disabilities. If 

the deer herd is above desirable population levels, it 

may cause increased habitat damage, deer/auto collisions and neighboring crop damage. In addition, 

chronic wasting disease is a new concern within the 

State. Increased hunting may be a necessary control measure for all of the above reasons.

Waterfowl hunting

Horicon NWR has been entirely closed to waterfowl hunting since 1966. In 1953, the perimeter of 

the Refuge was opened for goose hunting, with 

goose blinds set up on a 7-mile narrow strip. This 

was originally supposed to be an experiment, but it 

lasted until 1966. It was basically the precursor to 

the intensive hunting zone that occurs today on private land around the whole Refuge. Some hunters 

who use the State portion of the marsh have 

expressed an interest in hunting on the federal Refuge. However, many hunters also value the fact that 

the sanctuary status of the federal Refuge also 

holds migrating birds in the area for longer periods 

of time.

Upland game hunting

Additional upland game hunting opportunities 

were identified including longer seasons on squirrels, rabbits, and pheasants and a possible spring 

Wild Turkey hunt.

Fishing

Opportunity and demand for angling on Horicon 

NWR is limited due to shallow water, turbidity, and 

higher-quality fishing opportunities in the local 

area. The Refuge is closed to motorboat access. 

Some ice fishing may be feasible, especially if limited to specific sites, with no permanent shanties 

and no motorized access.

Wildlife observation

Horicon NWR receives 450,000 visitors a year 

with heavy visitation in the fall during waterfowl 

migration. Most of these visits are concentrated on 

the auto tour route, walking trails, and the floating 

boardwalk. The CCP would be the proper place to 

discuss new facilities or accommodation for visitors. 

State Highway 49 Issues

State Highway 49, a high-volume traffic roadway, 

bisects the northern edge of the Horicon Marsh. 

Many participants pointed out that wildlife road kill 

on Highway 49 is excessive. In addition, contaminants from Highway 49 include the potential for a 

toxic spill, road salts, grain spills and trash deposited along road.

Cultural Resources

As a federal conservation agency, the Service has 

a responsibility for the protection of the many 

known and undiscovered cultural resources located 

on Refuge lands.

Visibility of Horicon NWR as a National Resource

Horicon Marsh is recognized locally, nationally 

and internationally as a valuable natural resource, 

especially in light of its long, colorful history and 

designation as a wetland of international importance. However, some participants believed that 

more could be done to raise the stature of the Refuge, and perhaps funding levels, internally within 

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge

Wildlife Management

The Refuge was established for nesting Sandhill 

Cranes during a time when the species was declin-
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

ing throughout the Midwest. Crane numbers have 

increased significantly during the last 20 years. The 

reintroduction of Whooping Cranes to Wisconsin 

has created the likelihood that a nesting pair may 

establish on the Refuge. In fact, an individual 

Whooping Crane used the area in 2004.

Habitat Management

Historic habitat restoration

General Land Office surveys from 1832 suggest 

much of the landscape around the Refuge was historically dry prairie and oak savanna. The Refuge 

has been working to restore the uplands to these 

habitats.

Refuge inholdings and cooperative work with 

neighbors

The Refuge contains some small parcels of private lands within the authorized boundaries. A general desire was expressed to encourage cooperative 

work with landowners since we share habitats and 

wildlife.

Additional land conservation

Scoping participants wondered if there was a 

need for land protection outside existing approved 

boundaries. It was suggested that adjacent habitat 

could be restored or managed to complement Refuge goals.

Visitor Services

Deer Hunting

Currently the only public use allowed on the Refuge is deer hunting. Options discussed include more 

intensive antlerless harvests and total or periodic 

closures knowing that the chronic wasting disease 

concern may prevent the Refuge from decreasing 

the hunting pressure.

Additional hunting for small game and Wild 

Turkey

A few participants wanted to see more hunting 

opportunities on the Refuge. Law enforcement concerns and the relatively small size of uplands on the 

Refuge may preclude some hunts. The Refuge may 

be able to support a limited spring hunt for Wild 

Turkeys on the 250-300 acres of uplands available. 

Squirrel hunting on these acres is also a possibility.

Fishing access

Boat access for fishing is available along the Fox 

River. Many people have expressed interest in fishing on Long Lake. The 1-mile hike from the parking 

lot to the potential fishing spot is expected to limit 

the number of anglers. Boating access may need to 

be seasonally restricted to reduce disturbance of 

migratory birds, especially nesting Sandhill Cranes.

Potential Ice Age Trail crossing

The National Park Service has suggested that 

the Service establish a segment of the Wisconsin Ice 

Age State and National Trail through the Refuge. 

Trail location, maintenance, and restrictions on offroad vehicles are addressed in the CCP. 

On-site environmental education and 

interpretation

Participants suggested that the Refuge could do 

more with the local community and schools. Developing a cadre of teachers and volunteers who could 

lead field trips was mentioned as one strategy. 

Cultural Resources

As a federal conservation agency, the Service has 

a responsibility for the protection of the many 

known and undiscovered cultural resources located 

on Refuge lands.

Administration and Logistics

Refuge staffing and law enforcement

The Refuge has been administered by the Horicon NWR, located a 1-hour drive east of the Fox 

River NWR. This arrangement will probably continue due to funding constraints and the fact that 

the Refuge will be relatively low-maintenance after 

ongoing habitat restoration.

Visitors to Horicon NWR. USFWS
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

Preparation, Publishing, 

Finalization and 

Implementation of the CCP

The Horicon and Fox River NWR CCP was prepared by a team consisting of Refuge and Regional 

Office staff. The CCP was published in two phases 

and in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft Environmental 

Assessment, published as Appendix A in the Draft 

CCP, presented a range of alternatives for future 

management and identified the preferred alternative. The alternative that was selected has become 

the basis of the Final CCP. This document then 

becomes the source for guiding management on the 

Refuge over the coming 15-year period. It will guide 

the development of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas and it will 

underpin the annual budgeting process through 

submissions to the Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS) and Maintenance Management System 

(MMS). Most importantly, it lays out the general 

approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people 

at Horicon and Fox River Refuges that will direct 

day-to-day decision-making and actions.

The Draft CCP/EA was released for public 

review and comment on July 10, 2006. A Draft CCP/

EA or a summary of the document was sent to more 

than 600 individuals, organizations, and local, state, 

and federal agencies and elected officials. Open 

house events were held on August 9, 2006, at the 

Horicon NWR Headquarters and August 10, 2006, 

at Moundville Town Hall (Fox River) following 

release of the draft document. We received a total of 

35 comment letters and e-mails during the 45-day 

review period. Appendix K of the CCP summarizes 

these comments and our responses. Several of the 

comments resulted in changes in the CCP.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon National Wildlife 

Refuge

Introduction

Twelve thousand years ago, a colossal Ice Age 

glacier scraped and gouged out a trough that over 

the millennia has become a shallow, peat-filled 

marshland basin. It is known as Horicon Marsh, or 

the “Little Everglades of the North.” Since the 

Pleistocene Epoch – a frozen era that ended just a 

moment ago in the vast reaches of our planet’s 

geologic past – momentous changes have swept 

over the land. The climate warmed considerably, 

extinction claimed scores of North American 

megafauna such as mammoths and mastodons, and 

a newly arrived, potent force of nature and agent of 

ecological change – Homo sapiens – strode 

confidently across the continent.

Horicon NWR was established for the protection 

and conservation of migratory waterfowl. It is 

located on the west branch of the Rock River in 

southeastern Wisconsin, 43 miles west of Lake 

Michigan and 65 miles northwest of Milwaukee 

(Figure 4). 

The Refuge comprises the northern two-thirds 

(21,400 acres) of the 32,000-acre Horicon Marsh; 

the Horicon Marsh State Wildlife Area, managed 

by the Wisconsin DNR for hunting, fishing, and 

other public use activities, occupies the southern 

third of the marsh (approximately 11,000 acres). 

See Figure 5. 

Horicon Marsh rests in the shallow peat-filled 

lake bed carved out by the Green Bay Lobe of the 

Wisconsin Glacier those thousands of years ago. 

The basin is 14 miles long and from 3 to 5 miles 

wide. The marsh is bounded on the east by the 

Niagara escarpment, a ridge climbing rather 

abruptly to an elevation of 1,100 feet, approximately 

250 feet above the marsh. The landscape west of the 

Refuge rises very gently and is dotted with many 

small prairie potholes and several shallow lakes. 

Features of the area’s Ice Age heritage abound 

in the surrounding landscape. Ice Age glaciation – 

in particular what is known as the Wisconsin 

Glaciation, from 80,000 to about 12,000 years ago – 

which reached as far south as Rock County south of 

the Refuge, left behind tell-tale evidence such as 

eskers, drumlins, moraines, and kettles (NPS, no 

date). 

Horicon Marsh is the largest freshwater cattail 

marsh in the United States, and up to one million 

Canada Geese visit the Refuge each fall, with a 

peak of 300,000 birds. The Refuge and marsh also 

provide habitat for many species of wetland birds 

including ducks, cranes, pelicans, herons and 

shorebirds.

Arial photograph shows Horicon NWR. USFWS
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

The ecological importance of Horicon Marsh is 

recognized not just nationally but internationally. 

In 1990, Horicon Marsh was designated a “Wetland 

of International Importance” by the Ramsar 

Convention, an intergovernmental treaty that 

obligates 45 signatory nations to consider wetland 

conservation through land use planning, wise use of 

wetlands, establishment of wetland reserves, and 

wetland research and data exchange. In 1997, the 

Horicon Marsh was named a Globally Important 

Bird Area in American Bird Conservancy’s United 

States Important Bird Areas program. The marsh 

received this recognition for several reasons, but 

especially because: 1) more than half of the 

Mississippi Flyway Canada Geese migrate through 

the marsh during the fall, and 2) 2 percent of the 

biogeographic population of Mallards migrates 

through during the fall, with impressive numbers of 

other waterfowl.

Climate

As would be expected from its location in the 

northern Midwest, deep in the heart of the 

continent and far from the moderating sea coasts, 

Horicon NWR’s climate is typically continental, 

with cold winters and warm summers. The Refuge 

has an average annual temperature of 46 degrees 

Fahrenheit. July is the warmest month with an 

average temperature of 73 degrees Fahrenheit. The 

coldest month is January with an average 

temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Figure 4: Southeast Wisconsin and Location of Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Figure 5: Conservation Lands in Southeastern Wisconsin, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

Annual precipitation is about 28 inches, with 

approximately 20 inches of this occurring between 

April and September, and falling as rain. Snowfall 

averages 34 inches annually. Freezing usually 

begins around October 1 and lasts until May 12, 

making the length of the growing season an 

average of 142 days. Wind speeds average about 

10.6 miles per hour throughout the year. March, 

April, and November have the highest wind speeds 

with an average of 12 miles per hour. Winds are 

normally from the south in the summer and the 

west in the winter (USFWS, 1995).

Geology and Glaciation

The Niagara Escarpment is a layer of bedrock 

that consists of limestone cliffs and talus slopes. It 

abuts the eastern edge of Horicon Marsh and 

extends further south; north of Horicon Marsh, it 

reaches into the town of Oakfield and continues all 

along the eastern shore of Lake Winnebago to 

Green Bay and Door County. Overall, the Niagara 

Escarpment extends for a distance of 230 miles in 

Wisconsin.

The escarpment continues beneath Lake 

Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and the State of 

Michigan, and reappears as a surface feature at 

Niagara Falls in New York. In other words, the 

same layer of rock that forms the gentle hills to the 

east of the marsh extends 500 miles to the east and 

is the same rock layer over which the Niagara River 

plunges at Niagara Falls. It has been said that 

residents of eastern Wisconsin live, work, and play 

on the backside of Niagara Falls. 

The escarpment, or “Ledge,” is up to 250 feet 

high, but the maximum thickness of this rock layer 

varies from 450 to 800 feet. The Ledge’s rock – 

dolomitic limestone – is more than 400 million years 

old. In comparison, the Appalachian Mountains are 

about 480 million years old and the Rockies about 

70 million. However, the Ledge can be considered 

even younger because it was reformed at its current 

location by the last glacier, which receded from this 

area about 12,000 years ago.

The durability of the Ledge is due to the erosionresistant sedimentary rocks that form it: limestones 

and dolomites laid down in the Silurian Period from 

443 to 417 million years ago. Dolomite, the main 

ingredient, was formed by calcium and magnesium 

carbonate [CaMg(CO3)2] deposited from 

decomposing shells and skeletons of primitive sea 

life that lived in a subtropical coral reef. At the 

time, this ancient inland sea’s basin covered all of 

what is now lower Michigan, Lake Michigan and 

eastern Wisconsin. 

A soft, impermeable layer called Maquoketa 

shale lies beneath the Ledge. It was formed during 

the Ordovician Period (about 480 million years ago) 

when thick deposits of mud were laid down from 

erosion in the Appalachian Mountains rising to the 

east as North America collided with Africa to form 

the supercontinent of Pangea. Today, this shale 

erodes quickly where it is exposed, allowing the 

dolomite to continually break off and form a new 

cliff face, the same process can be measured at 

Niagara Falls in miles per century. It is in part 

because of this relatively soft shale layer that 

Horicon Marsh was later formed by glacial action. 

It is also partly because of this impermeable 

shale bed that many crystal-clear springs form at 

the base of the Ledge. Fed by precipitation, water 

flows down slope at and beneath the surface of the 

Ledge through the dolomite, which is highly 

fractured into perpendicular horizontal and vertical 

joints. Springs form at the base of the Ledge where 

Breakneck Ledge, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

glaciers deposited drift consisting in part of 

impermeable clays. Water eventually drains into 

Horicon Marsh or Lake Winnebago.

Besides ancient marine life and the resulting 

upwarping, glacial ice also molded the Ledge. In 

some places successive glaciers obliterated it, 

making it a difficult landscape feature to trace in 

southern Wisconsin. In other places, glaciers 

created huge fissures and crevasses. The Ledge 

would certainly be higher and sharper without the 

impacts of glacial scouring and bulldozing (USFWS, 

no date-a).

Vast continental glaciers altered Wisconsin’s 

landscape many times during a series of glacial 

periods over at least the last one million years 

through four different Ice Ages. Named for the 

location of their most southerly advance, those Ice 

Ages are called the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoisan, 

and Wisconsin. The Horicon Marsh that we see 

today was most affected by the Wisconsin 

Glaciation, the most recent of the Ice Age advances. 

The Wisconsin Glaciation lasted from 80,000 

years ago to about 12,000 years ago, leaving behind 

a terminal moraine 900 miles in length throughout 

the state. The enormous glaciers, more than a mile 

thick in places, did not simply come and go, leaving 

no trace of their existence. Rather, they advanced 

and retreated gradually and on majestic scale, and 

in so doing shaped the landscape of today’s 

Wisconsin and the other Great Lakes states. The 

five Great Lakes themselves, also a product of the 

extensive glaciation, are visible from the moon. 

While not visible from the moon, other glacial 

features such as bogs, fens, lakes, marshes, 

erratics, moraines, kames, eskers, drumlins, 

potholes, and kettles, are quite evident to earthbound observers and serve as constant reminders of 

Horicon Marsh’s icy past. 

The Green Bay lobe of the Wisconsin Glaciation 

gripped eastern Wisconsin and scoured out Green 

Bay, the Fox River, Lake Winnebago, Horicon 

Marsh, and the Rock River basin reaching as far 

south as Janesville and Madison. As the glacier 

lobes receded, flowing meltwater pooled, forming 

large lakes where silt and clay collected. In the Fox 

River valley, Green Bay, and Lake Winnebago are 

small remnant depressions of one such huge lake, 

Glacial Lake Oshkosh (Attig et al., 2005). 

The glacier receded in stages, creating 

recessional moraines that mark a temporary, icy 

delay in their retreat. The City of Horicon on the 

south end of the Marsh is built on such a recessional 

moraine. For awhile, it acted as an earthen dam, 

holding back melting ice waters into Glacial Lake 

Horicon, 51 square miles in size, and five times 

larger than Lake Mendota. The headwaters of the 

Rock River formed near this lake. Rising glacial 

melt waters eventually wore a path over and down 

through the moraine. Over time, water flow broke 

through the dam, and water levels on the lake 

lowered, draining the lake. The lowering of the 

glacial lake level stopped abruptly, when the Rock 

River reached the hard Galena-Dolomite rock 

strata (layer) in its bed at Hustisford Rapids, 7 

miles downstream from Horicon Marsh. This solid 

rock strata has acted as a natural dam, maintaining 

a fairly constant level of water, north to the Fond 

du Lac County line. As crushed gravel, sand, fine 

silts and clays were deposited in the Glacial Lake 

Horicon basin, it evolved into the marsh it is today.

Today, Horicon Marsh is considered an extinct 

glacial lake. The manmade dam on the Rock River 

in the City of Horicon is located conveniently within 

the recessional moraine that once held back the 

meltwaters for Glacial Lake Horicon. The 

headquarters for the Horicon Marsh State Wildlife 

Area is built on a large drumlin (an elongated hill or 

ridge of glacial drift or till), with many more 

drumlins in a fan-shaped pattern to the south of the 

City of Horicon in Dodge and Jefferson Counties. 

Other moraines occur on the northeast and 

northwest corners of Horicon NWR. Glacial 

erratics – boulders carried away from their place of 

origin and deposited elsewhere as the glacier 

melted – dot the landscape and are especially 

noticeable after prescribed fires (USFWS, no dateb). 

Soils

The major factors in soil formation are parent 

material, climate, relief, topography, vegetation, 

and time. Soils in the Horicon NWR area are the 

result of atmospheric, chemical, and organic forces 

modifying the surface of the glacial deposits. The 

glacial deposits consist of unsorted sand, gravel, 

boulders, clay, fragments of local limestone and 

sandstone bedrock, and igneous and metamorphic 

rock from outside the region. Soils include those of 

a glacial deposit origin and vary between poorly 

drained peat and muck types, transition silty loam 

soils interspersed with sandy loam and clay, to 

excellent agricultural soils being intensively 

farmed. Topsoil depths range from 10 to 14 inches. 

Soil types around the Refuge include Houghton 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

muck and peat soils, which cover about 90 percent 

of the Refuge and other soils that cover upland 

areas and margins surrounding the marsh. Soil 

groups associated with the margins of the marsh 

include the following:

# Stoney land wet and maumee sandy loams – 

found around drainage ways and on foot slopes 

of moraines on the east side of the Refuge. They 

are very poorly drained sandy soils with 

rounded glacial stones 1 to 2 feet in diameter. 

Depth of groundwater is 0 to 3 feet.

# Pella – Virgil silt loams – transition soils located 

between the marsh and the uplands. They are 

gently sloping somewhat poorly drained silty 

loam soils underlain by sandy loam glacial till at 

depths of 3 to 4 feet. These soils have seasonally 

high groundwater table and may be inundated 

for short periods of time.

# LeRoy – Theresa silt loams – consisting of 

deep, gently sloping to steep, well-drained soils 

located in the upland areas. These soils are 

typical of the farmlands surrounding the 

Refuge. Groundwater on these soils is at a 

depth of 6 feet or greater.

# Beecher – Morley silt loams – prominent on the 

uplands along the central eastern border and 

the northern tip of the Refuge. These soils are 

poorly to well-drained, level to steep silt loams 

underlain by calcareous silty clay loam till. 

Depth to groundwater is 1 to 3 feet.

Surface Hydrology

Horicon Marsh is located in the headwater 

region of the Upper Rock River Watershed 

(Figure 6). The marsh occupies a long north-south 

trending valley excavated by glacial action, with 

steeply rising terrain of the Niagara escarpment to 

the east and gently rolling glacial deposits to the 

north and west. The Rock River rises less than 30 

miles north of the marsh and discharges into the 

Mississippi River at Rock Island, Illinois. The 

Upper Rock River Watershed drains a total of 266.5 

square miles (Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory, 1978-

1979). 

The principle source of runoff to the Refuge is 

the west branch of the Rock River, which drains a 

total of 110 square miles above the Refuge before it 

enters the Refuge 2 miles east of the City of 

Waupun. The portion of the river within the Refuge 

was historically channelized by a main ditch 

running along a north-south line that discharges to 

a main outlet near the City of Horicon. However, it 

has reverted back to a meandering river in all 

reaches on the Refuge except the last half-mile. 

Other sources of runoff to the Refuge include Plum 

Creek and Mill Creek, which enter the marsh from 

the west. These two streams and others entering 

from the west and northwest drain through gently 

rolling agricultural lands and have relatively gentle 

gradients ranging from 5 to 10 feet per mile. 

Uplands to the east of the Refuge are relatively 

steep agricultural lands. The above-mentioned 

sources of runoff combine to yield a total drainage 

area of approximately 208 square miles above the 

main dike outlet (Table 1). 

All watersheds in the Upper Rock River Basin 

are considered candidates for nonpoint source 

pollution control. The Wisconsin Water Quality 

Management Program – Areawide Water Quality 

Management Plan for the Upper Rock River Basin, 

Table 1: Watershed Characteristics, Horicon Marsh, Horicon NWR

Tributary Name Gage Number Drainage Area 

(Square Miles)

Slope

(Miles)

100-Year 

Discharge 

(CFS)

Plum Creek - 15.2 10.1 1000

Mill Creek - 21.7 7.4 1400

South Branch Rock River 5-4235 62.8 5.7 3950

West Branch Rock River

T14NR15E

5-4230 41.4 7.5 2630

West Branch Rock River

T12NR15E (Main Dike Outlet)1

- 208 5.0 860.7

1. Discharge is difficult to estimate at the main dike due to the amount of storage at Horicon Marsh. The approximate 100-

year stage is 1929 and is a statistical inference based on 25 years of Refuge stage records.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

Figure 6: Location of Rock River Watershed, Horicon NWR 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

1989 (Plan) outlines 11 management activities that 

should be undertaken to reduce water quality 

impacts from nonpoint sources. They are: 

# Nonpoint source water resource monitoring 

needs;

# Reduce cropland erosion in areas likely to be 

affecting water quality; 

# Reduce bank erosion on adversely impacted 

lakes and streams;

# Reduce the water quality impacts of livestock 

concentration areas including barnyards, 

feedlots, rest areas, and grazed woodlots, 

pastures, and streambanks; 

# Minimize the water quality impacts of 

construction site erosion and runoff; 

# Develop and carry out a program to control 

erosion along roadsides; 

# Minimize the impact of urban stormwater 

discharges on lake and stream water quality; 

# Reduce the impact of hydrologic modifications 

such as stream straightening and dams; 

# Give priority for nonpoint source monitoring 

and evaluation to priority watersheds and 

watersheds being considered for priority 

watershed selection; 

# Seek additional means of financing nonpoint 

source pollution abatement work; and 

# Counties in the basin should identify failing 

septic systems and require their replacement.

In the watershed upstream of Horicon Marsh, 

erosion and sedimentation associated with 

agricultural land uses are an issue for the Refuge 

because these sediments are transported 

downstream by the Rock River and deposited in the 

low-gradient, low-kinetic energy marsh.

Wilderness Review

As part of the CCP process, lands within the legislative boundaries of both Refuges were reviewed 

for wilderness suitability. No lands were found suitable for designation as Wilderness as defined by the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. With the possible exception 

of the Main Pool impoundment on Horicon NWR, 

the Refuges do not contain 5,000 contiguous roadless acres, nor do they have any units of sufficient 

size to make their preservation practicable as Wilderness. Lands acquired for both refuges have been 

substantially affected by humans, particularly 

through agriculture and transportation infrastructure.

Archeological and Cultural Values 

Land in the area of Horicon NWR and Fox River 

NWR was important to prehistoric peoples and to 

Euro-American settlers. Horicon Marsh has been 

an exceptionally rich resource for subsistence cultures since the glaciers left, and this long and heavy 

use by prehistoric people is recorded in the numerous archeological sites on and around the marsh. 

For Euro-Americans, the marsh and its outlet were 

important resources for commercial and light industrial development, and later for commercial and recreational hunting.

The cultures of the prehistoric and early historic 

periods at Horicon and Fox River refuges are basically the same although the Horicon Marsh area 

appears to have supported a larger amount of 

human use.

An archeological site near the Refuge in Fond du 

Lac County shows evidence of people during the 

late PaleoIndian period. The PaleoIndian period 

extends from 10000 B.C. to about 8000 B.C. and represents the culture of the earliest known peoples in 

Wisconsin. The evidence for these people is usually 

associated with mega-fauna (i.e., bison) kill and 

butchering sites. Any sites containing evidence of 

people from this period would be considered very 

important.

Several archeological sites on and near the Refuges contain evidence of people from the next cultural period, known as the Archaic, covering the 

period 8000 to 1000 B.C. These people appear to 

have been hunters and gatherers, making a seasonal 

round of subsistence resource locations. Late in the 

period (or early in the next cultural period) these 

people began burying their dead in natural mounds 

and commenced using pottery. Very little is known 

about this long and early culture, so intact sites containing Archaic period material could be very 

important. During the altithermal, a hot and dry 

period extending from 4700 to 3000 B.C., people 

appear to have clustered around the few remaining 

(and shrunken) bodies of water such as Horicon 

Marsh. But overall, populations grew substantially 

as the people exploited increasingly varried habitats.

The Woodland period extended from 1000 B.C. to 

A.D. 1600. Most archeological sites on and around 

the Refuges contain Woodland period components. 

The people of this culture are mostly identified by 

their burial mounds and by their use of pottery. 

Late in the period they began using the bow and 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

arrow; prior to that time “arrowheads” were spearpoints. Although hunting and gathering continued 

with its seasonal round of resource areas, they also 

had larger permanent seasonal villages and grew 

corn, beans, and squash in gardens.

The Mississippian culture centered in the St. 

Louis, Missouri, vicinity, covered the period A.D. 

1000 to 1600. Wisconsin was in the northern periphery and just two sites near Horicon NWR are 

reported to contain evidence of this late prehistoric 

culture.

European arrival in the Carribean and on the 

Atlantic coast introduced Western culture and 

resulted in severe disruption of the prehistoric cultures in Wisconsin long before the first European 

entered Wisconsin. European-introduced diseases 

spread ahead of Caucasian population advances and 

decimated the native populations with reports of up 

to 90% mortality. Horses and guns made some 

tribes powerful and led to westward movements of 

eastern tribes. The fur trade with Europeans further disrupted native cultures. These and many 

other events led to consolidation and disintegration 

and relocation of Indian tribes so that identifying 

historical tribal antecedents in the archeological 

record is almost impossible.

The historic period tribes encountered by Europeans in Wisconsin generally and in the Horicon 

NWR area specifically included the Winnebago 

(some of which are known as the Ho-Chunk) as well 

as the Potowatomi and Menominee. Other tribes 

within Wisconsin that may have visited the Refuge 

area include the Ottawa, Huron, Fox, Sauk, Miami, 

Mascouten, and Ojibwa. Historic tribal archeological sites are located on and near Horicon NWR.

For the historic period, human activities in each 

Refuge area were different.

The first Western culture settlement appears to 

have been in the town of Horicon vicinity. Joel 

Doolittle built the first cabin in 1845. The first dam 

at Horicon Marsh was probably built in 1845, 

replaced a year later by a higher dam that raised 

the marsh water level by nine feet, and led to further settlement and a sawmill, grist mill, blacksmith 

shop, stores, and the Horicon Hotel; the owners 

removed the dam in 1869. Other towns originating 

during this period included Burnett, Waupun, and 

Mayville. From the time of the first dam EuroAmericans manipulated Horicon Marsh water levels 

for floating logs downstream to St. Louis and other 

places in the 1850s; and farmers drained, ditched, 

and plowed the marsh commencing in the 1870s. 

Recreational hunting became important in the late 

19th and early 20th century as hunting clubs 

acquired land and built low head dams and hunting 

lodges. In 1930 another dam was built and water 

levels elevated for waterfowl habitat, then lowered 

for farming. Thus for the past 150 years the Horicon Marsh has been subjected to a variety manipulations to support commercial, recreational, and 

agricultural activities. 

The Fox River was part of one of the most important transportation routes, from the Great Lakes to 

the Mississippi River and to the Gulf of Mexico, during the 17th and 18th centuries. The first steam 

boat came up the Fox River in 1851. Nevertheless 

the Refuge area was agricultural until acquired by 

the FWS. Immediately east of the Refuge is Fountain Lake Farm, the John Muir Farmstead, that is 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The two Refuges have 16 completed cultural 

resources (archeological) studies. Based on these 

studies and information from the Wisconsin Historic 

Preservation Database and other sources, known 

and reported cultural resources on the two Refuges 

can be summarized.

Social and Economic Context

Most of Horicon NWR is located in Dodge 

County, Wisconsin, with a small portion in the north 

located in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Table 2

presents social and economic indicators of these two 

counties in comparison with the State of Wisconsin 

as a whole. 

Both Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties are 

characterized by a mixture of rural and urban 

areas, that is, small towns and villages surrounded 

Otter tracks, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

by predominantly agricultural countryside. The 

population densities of both counties roughly mirror 

that of Wisconsin as a whole (98 and 135 vs. 99 

persons per square mile, respectively), while the 

State of Wisconsin has slightly less population 

density than the USA as a whole (99 vs. 80). 

However, the USA’s figure is somewhat distorted 

by large, thinly populated Alaska. 

In 1990, 39 percent of Dodge County was 

classified by the Census Bureau as rural, and 61 

percent urban (USFWS, 1995). In the same year, 

Fond du Lac County was 35 percent rural and 65 

percent urban. 

The populations of both counties are growing 

relatively slowly at the present time, that is, 

growing more slowly than the state as well as the 

nation. Dodge County’s population grew by 2.5 

percent from 2000 to 2004, and by 12.2 percent in 

the 1990s, while Fond du Lac County’s population 

grew by 1.4 percent from 2000-2004 and 8 percent 

from 1990-2000.

Both counties have lower percentages of 

minorities than the state as a whole and the country 

at large, which is very typical of the more rural, 

northern states. Likewise, there are lower 

percentages of foreign born and persons who speak 

languages other than English at home. 

Educational attainment is lower in both Dodge 

and Fond du Lac Counties than in Wisconsin 

overall, with much lower percentages of college 

graduates in the two counties than in the state. 

However, this is very representative of rural areas 

around the country and is a reflection of the labor 

market and kinds of jobs available in rural vs. urban 

areas. In spite of having fewer college graduates in 

their midst, the median household incomes of both 

counties exceed the state’s median household 

income, which is unusual for areas without large 

towns or cities. 

Table 2: Socioeconomic Characteristics Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties, Wisconsin

Characteristic Dodge County Fond du Lac County Wisconsin

Population, 2004 estimate 88,057 98,663 5,509,026

Population, % change, 2000-2004 2.5% 1.4% 2.7%

Population, 2000 85,897 97,296 5,363,675

Population, % change, 1990-2000 12.2% 8.0% 9.6%

Land Area, 2000 (square miles) 882 723 54,310

Persons per square mile (population density), 

2000

97.4 134.6 98.8

White persons, %, 2000 95.3% 96.2 88.9%

Non-Hispanic white persons, %, 2000 93.8% 95.1% 87.3%

Black or African American persons, %, 2000 2.5% 0.9% 5.7%

American Indian persons, %, 2000 0.4% 0.4% 0.9%

Asian persons, %, 2000 0.3% 0.9% 1.7%

Persons of Latino or Hispanic origin, %, 2000 2.5% 2.0% 3.6%

Language other than English spoken at home, 

%, 2000

4.6% 4.8% 7.3%

Foreign born persons, %, 2000 1.6% 2.0% 3.6%

High school graduates, % of persons age 25+, 

2000

82.3% 84.2% 85.1%

Bachelor’s degree or higher, % of persons 

25+, 2000

13.2% 16.9% 22.4%

Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 11,344 12,799 790,917

Median household income, 1999 $45,190 $45,578 $43,791

Per capita money income, 1999 $19,574 $20,022 $21,271

Persons below poverty, %, 1999 5.3% 5.8% 8.7%

Sources: USCB, 2005a; USCB, 2005b; USCB, 2005c
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

It is of note that both counties have more than 

10,000 residents with at least one disability, which 

underscores the importance of Horicon NWR 

having accessible facilities. 

Several geographic features are important to the 

local economy. Mineral resources are extracted and 

sold, the high quality soil contributes to the success 

of agriculture, and the climate affords opportunities 

for many economic activities and causes limitations 

for others. The surrounding landscape consists of 

gently rolling hills, flat agricultural land, drained 

and cropped wetlands, and patches of deciduous 

forest. Upland sites are dominated by agriculture, 

especially dairy farming, and contain nine 

communities with populations from approximately 

200 to more than 8,000 people. Little of the native 

forest cover remains in the two-county area. The 

main forest species are oak, elm, maple, and other 

hardwoods. There is limited economic potential 

from the remaining woodlots since they tend to be 

small and widely scattered. Many contain 

residential development and some are located on 

public lands (USFWS, 1995). 

Table 3 shows the area of land by land-use class 

for Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties.

Table 4 on page 25 and Table 5 on page 26

provide employment and industry data for Dodge 

and Fond du Lac Counties. 

The relatively small portion of the overall 

workforce in the two counties directly involved in 

farming and agriculture belies the importance of 

farming in the landscape economy of the two 

counties. For example, in Dodge County agriculture 

includes hundreds of family-owned farms and 

related businesses and industries that provide 

equipment, services and other products farmers 

need to process, market and deliver food and fiber 

to consumers. The production, sales and processing 

of farm products generates employment, economic 

activity, income and tax revenue in the county 

(UWE, 2004a). 

The University of Wisconsin estimates that 

agriculture provides 9,508 jobs in Dodge County – 

almost 20 percent of Dodge County’s workforce of 

48,463 people. These jobs are quite diverse, 

including farm owners, on-farm employees, 

veterinarians, crop and livestock consultants, feed 

and fuel suppliers, food processors, farm machinery 

manufacturers and dealers, barn builders and 

agricultural lenders. Every job in agriculture 

generates an additional 0.9 job in Dodge County 

due to the multiplier effect. In addition, agriculture 

generates over $1.4 billion in economic activity, 

accounting for about 28 percent of Dodge County’s 

total economic activity. Moreover, every dollar of 

sales of agricultural products generates an 

additional $0.39 of economic activity in other parts 

of the Dodge County economy (UWE, 2004a). 

Several mining operations are located in the 

general vicinity of Horicon NWR. Products include 

limestone, stone, sand, and gravel. Markets for 

these products tend to be limited by the distance to 

which it is economically feasible to transport the 

desired materials. The majority of the materials 

mined are used for local road construction and 

maintenance projects, other construction activities, 

Table 3: Area of Land by Land-Use Class For Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties (thousands of 

acres)1

County Forest Cropland Pasture Wetland2 Total

Dodge 27.8 438.6 25.2 111.2 581.3

Fond du Lac 35.1 342.9 37.9 69.6 489.5

1. USFWS, 1995; Timber Resources of Wisconsin’s Southeast Survey Unit, USDA, 1983

2. USFWS, 1995; Wisconsin Wetland Inventory

Woodsedge, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

and concrete manufacturing. Employment in this 

industry has remained small, but has grown in 

recent years (USFWS, 1995). 

As the tables indicate, manufacturing is the 

largest source of employment in the Horicon NWR 

area. Products include machinery, metal products, 

commercial printing, canned vegetables, automobile 

products, dairy products, and chemicals, to name a 

few. More than 75 percent of the manufacturing 

jobs in Dodge County are in three industries. 

Employment in these three industries has 

increased faster than the county average, indicating 

employment has become more concentrated and 

less diverse. 

Horicon NWR was one of the sample refuges 

investigated in a national study of the economic 

benefits to local communities of national wildlife 

refuge visitation (Laughland and Caudill, 1997). 

This study found that that in 1995, resident and 

non-resident visitors to Horicon NWR spent about 

$1.9 million in the Refuge (Table 6). When this 

spending had cycled through the economy, the 

Refuge had generated $1.53 million in final demand, 

$616,000 in employee compensation, and 44 jobs. 

Table 4: Dodge County Employment and Industry Data

Occupation Number Percentage

Employed civilian population 16 years and over 43,197 100.0

Occupation

Management, professional, and related occupations 10,911 25.3

Service occupations 5,979 13.8

Sales and office occupations 9,298 21.5

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 660 1.5

Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 4,158 9.6

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 12,191 28.2

Industry

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 2,148 5.0

Construction 2,840 6.6

Manufacturing 14,359 33.2

Wholesale trade 1,142 2.6

Retail trade 4,668 10.8

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1,584 3.7

Information 792 1.8

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 1,523 3.5

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste 

management services

1,691 3.9

Educational, health and social services 6,929 16.0

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 2,235 5.2

Other services (except public administration) 1,555 3.6

Public administration 1,731 4.0

Class of Worker

Private wage and salary workers 35,568 82.3

Government workers 4,339 10.0

Self-employed workers in own not incorporated business 3,099 7.2

Unpaid family workers 191 0.4

Source: USCB, 2000a
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

Table 5: Fond du Lac County Employment and Industry Data

Occupation Number Percentage

Employed civilian population 16 years and over 51,374 100.0

Occupation

Management, professional, and related occupations 13,526 26.3

Service occupations 7,750 15.1

Sales and office occupations 11,625 22.6

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 638 1.2

Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 4,837 9.4

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 12,998 25.3

Industry

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 2,148 4.2

Construction 3,325 6.5

Manufacturing 13,935 27.1

Wholesale trade 1,365 2.7

Retail trade 5,863 11.4

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 2,539 4.9

Information 773 1.5

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 2,120 4.1

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste 

management services

2,495 4.9

Educational, health and social services 8,930 17.4

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 3,250 6.3

Other services (except public administration) 2,307 4.5

Public administration 2,324 4.5

Class of Worker

Private wage and salary workers 42,762 83.2

Government workers 5,483 10.7

Self-employed workers in own not incorporated business 2,949 5.7

Unpaid family workers 180 0.4

Source: USCB, 2000b

Table 6: 1995 Recreation-related Expenditures (1995 $ in thousands) of Visitors to Horicon NWR

Activity Resident Non-resident Total

Non-consumptive $70.8 $1,772.9 $1,843.7

Hunting $11.9 $37.3 $49.2

Fishing $1.5 --- $1.5

Total $84.2 $1,810.2 $1,894.4

Source: Laughland and Caudill, 1997
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

The study concluded that Horicon NWR had a 

net economic value of $1,840,200. Every dollar of 

budget expenditure at the Refuge generated 

economic effects of $10.12. While the Refuge is a 

small part of the regional economy, Horicon NWR 

and the marsh it protects help define the region’s 

character and maintain its quality of life, and thus 

are important for the promotion of a diverse 

regional economy (Laughland and Caudill, 1997). 

Natural Resources

Habitats

Horicon NWR includes over 15,500 acres of 

marsh and 5,600 acres of associated upland habitat 

(Figure 7). Marsh habitat is seasonally to 

permanently flooded and dominated by cattail, river 

bulrush, common reed grass (phragmites), sedges, 

and reed canary grass. Uplands include nearly 

3,600 acres of grasslands and 2,000 acres of 

woodlands (USFWS, 1995). 

Of the nearly 16,000 acres of wetlands on the 

Refuge, approximately 3,000 acres are seasonally 

flooded (Type I) basins, 12,000 acres are deep (Type 

IV) freshwater marshes, and 1,000 acres are subimpoundments. Roughly half of the Refuge consists 

of dense stands of cattails, either in solid stand or 

mixed with other species. Other species include 

soft-stemmed bulrush, hard-stemmed bulrush, 

slender bulrush, river bulrush, burreed, various 

sedges, smartweeds, chufas, pigweeds, millets, and 

sagittaria. There are approximately 2,000 acres of 

moist soil plants found in and around the edges of 

the water areas during drawdown condition. These 

include chufas, smartweeds, pigweeds, etc. About 

half of the aquatic areas consist of fairly deep lakes, 

ditches, and other water areas in which stands of 

submersed aquatics are found. These include 

various pondweeds, coontail, elodea, duckweeds, 

and milfoil (USFWS, 1995). 

Grasslands consist of approximately 57 percent 

introduced grasslands, 24 percent forbs, 17 percent 

are native grasslands, and 3 percent are wet 

meadows. Woodlands are willow-dominated (55 

percent), mixed hardwoods (22 percent), aspendominated (12 percent), willow-cattail (8 percent), 

and oak savanna (3 percent). From these figures, it 

is evident that almost two-thirds (63 percent) of the 

Refuge’s woodlands are lowland or bottomland and 

a little more than one-third (37 percent) are upland 

woodlands. 

Resource management at the Refuge involves 

using a variety of techniques to preserve and 

enhance habitats for wildlife, with programs both in 

marsh and upland management. Marsh 

management involves the manipulation of water 

levels to achieve a desired succession of wetland 

plant communities to meet the seasonal needs of 

wildlife populations. Upland management includes 

establishing and maintaining grasslands to provide 

nesting habitat for ducks, Sandhill Cranes, and 

various song birds. Management objectives include 

waterfowl production and migratory bird use, with 

Redhead ducks being emphasized.

Wildlife

Waterfowl

Horicon Marsh is a major migratory stop-over 

point for waterfowl (ducks, geese, and swans) of the 

Mississippi Flyway, with use-days reaching six to 

12 million annually. Waterfowl production averages 

about 3,000 ducklings per year. 

The marsh annually attracts Mississippi Valley 

Population (MVP) Canada Geese during their 

travels between Hudson Bay and southern Illinois/

western Kentucky (Table 7). The geese are on the 

marsh from late February to mid-April and from 

mid-September until freeze-up, with peak numbers 

Table 7: Mississippi Valley Canada Goose 

Population Estimates (1948-1990)

Year Horicon Marsh Mississippi Valley 

Population

1948 2,000 170,000

1958 51,000 214,000

1974 214,000 304,000

1984 121,000 477,000

1987 236,000 725,000

1990 199,000 1,300,000 Canada Goose, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Figure 7: Current Landcover of Horicon NWR (2006 Classification)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

in mid-October. The marsh is an important staging 

area which fuels their journey north and furnishes 

energy for reproduction. 

Up to 1 million Canada Geese migrate through 

the Refuge each fall. On a peak fall day, there could 

be as many as 300,000 geese in the area. Most of 

the Canada Geese that stop at Horicon Marsh fly to 

their winter range in the area where the Ohio River 

joins the Mississippi River, about 450 miles away. 

The rest of the Mississippi Valley population of 

Canada Geese that migrate through Michigan, 

Ohio, and Indiana join these birds on the wintering 

grounds located in southern Illinois, western 

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri. From about 

the middle of March until the end of April the birds 

pass through Horicon Marsh once more to rest and 

fatten up for the flight to the nesting grounds near 

Hudson Bay in Canada (USFWS, no date-d).

The geese eat about a half-pound of food per day 

per bird when they are at Horicon NWR. They are 

grazers – they like soft shoots, leaves, and buds 

from meadow plants, grasses, wild rice, and 

cultivated crops. Goslings eat many insects as a 

supply of protein for rapid body growth. They also 

eat grain and other seed crops where they can find 

them. When geese are present for long periods of 

time in extremely large numbers they can cause a 

severe problem for some land owners. Geese will 

feed on the very same crops farmers in east-central 

Wisconsin grow – corn, alfalfa, and winter wheat. 

Assistance to farmers is provided by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and the State of 

Wisconsin through a program that charges a surtax 

on hunting licenses. The surtax is used to partially 

pay land owners for damage caused by geese. This 

program is administered by county governments.

Mallards are the principle species of ducks using 

the area, but Green-winged and Blue-winged Teal, 

American Wigeon, Redheads, Northern Pintails, 

Gadwalls, Wood Ducks, scaup, and Ruddy Ducks 

are also abundant, with peak duck numbers 

traditionally reaching 60,000. The marsh is 

especially important to Redheads, which have 

experienced a population decline nationwide. The 

marsh is the largest nesting area for Redhead 

Ducks east of the Mississippi River, with estimated 

2,000-3,000 birds using the marsh for this purpose. 

Historically, a majority of the continent’s 

Canvasback population used the region during 

nesting or migration (Kahl, 1985).

Marsh Birds

For centuries, marsh birds in particular have 

descended upon food-rich wetland stopover sites 

during their annual migration between Central and 

South America and their northern U.S., Canadian 

and Arctic breeding grounds. Horicon Marsh has 

provided an important link in their journey. 

Common marsh and water birds on the Refuge 

include the Pied-billed Grebe, American Bittern, 

Great Blue Herons, Black-crowned Night Herons, 

Great Egrets, Common Moorhen, Sora and Virginia 

Rails, and Sandhill Cranes. Tremendous numbers 

of shorebirds use low water pools with counts of a 

single species typically numbering over 5,000 

(USFWS, 1995).

Other Birds

Horicon NWR has documented 267 species of 

birds on the Refuge (see Appendix C for a complete 

list), including resident, migratory, and accidental 

species (USFWS, no date-e). Of the 267 species 

recorded on the Refuge, 223 are expected to be 

present while 44 birds are listed as “accidental,” 

meaning they are not normally expected to be 

present. Many birds are present for less than all 

four seasons, and they may be abundant, common, 

uncommon, or rare.

Although most famous as a fall stopover for 

hundreds of thousands of interior Canada Geese, 

the vitality and versatility of the marsh is much 

better represented by the diversity of birds that use 

the Refuge and the marsh. An equal number of 

birds use the marsh in the spring as in fall, and 

some species are partial to grassland or upland 

habitats. 

Mammals

The marsh supports an array of resident 

mammals including white-tailed deer, woodchucks, 

red fox, squirrels, raccoons, muskrat, skunk, mink, 

otter, opossum, and coyote. Mammals tend to be 

most abundant in and around the wetland habitat 

due to the abundant food and cover available. 

Muskrats play an important role in striking a 

balance between the stands of cattail and the open 

water zones. 

Upland mammals of Horicon NWR, and their 

abundance (abundant, common, or uncommon), 

include the following: 

# Opossum – common 

# Eastern Cottontail Rabbit – common
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

# Meadow Vole – abundant 

# Field mice – abundant 

# 13-Lined Ground Squirrel – common 

# Eastern Chipmunk – common 

# Eastern Gray Squirrel – common 

# Fox Squirrel – uncommon 

# Woodchuck – common 

# Little Brown Bat – common 

# Big Brown Bat – common 

# Striped Skunk – common 

# Red Fox – common 

# Coyote – common 

# White-tailed Deer – common 

# Raccoon – abundant 

Lowland mammals at Horicon NWR include the 

following:

# Muskrat – abundant 

# Beaver – uncommon 

# River Otter – uncommon 

# Mink – common 

Fish

At one time Horicon Marsh supported a 

population of game fish that included northern pike, 

crappie, bluegill, and bass. However, due to habitat 

degradation associated with turbidity and filling in 

of the marsh, game fish populations have 

dramatically declined. 

Carp populations have become a serious problem 

in the marsh due to their high number, aquatic 

plant diet, and habit of markedly increasing water 

turbidity during feeding. Carp are extremely 

prolific, spawning semi-annually, with females 

producing as many as 60,000 eggs per pound of fish. 

They retard the growth of aquatic vegetation by 

consuming it and by roiling the water so that 

increased turbidity reduces photosynthetic 

efficiency, which is essential for wetland food 

chains. Current management strategies at 

controlling carp include physical removal, water 

level manipulation, chemical eradication, and 

stocking of predators, especially northern pike 

(USFWS, 1995).

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Amphibians and reptiles are two natural and 

distinct classes of vertebrates common to the area. 

Several species of turtles and snakes are found in 

the area. Salamanders, newts, toads, and frogs 

depend on quality wetland habitat for their survival. 

Amphibians recorded at Horicon NWR include 

the following:

# Western Chorus Frog – uncommon 

# Leopard Frog – common

# American Toad – abundant 

# Spring Peeper 

# Eastern Gray Treefrog 

# Bullfrog 

# Green Frog 

# Wood Frog 

# Tiger Salamander 

Reptiles recorded at Horicon NWR include the 

following:

# Painted Turtle – common 

# Snapping Turtle – common

# Red-Bellied Snake – common 

# Garter Snake – common 

# Milk Snake – rare 

Threatened and Endangered Species

At present, the only Federally-listed threatened 

or endangered wildlife species that uses the marsh 

is the Bald Eagle. Bald Eagles were placed on the 

Federal Endangered Species list in 1973, and are 

protected by both state and federal laws. Since 

Snapping turtle, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

Wisconsin’s eagle population was higher and more 

stable than that of most other states, the federal 

government listed the state’s eagles as "threatened" 

in 1978. In 1991, 414 active Bald Eagle territories 

were located, exceeding the recovery goal of 360. 

The formerly listed Peregrine Falcon has also 

been observed at Horicon NWR (listed as “rare” in 

spring, fall, and winter), but in a conservation 

success story, it was de-listed in 1999 due to 

continent-wide improvements in the status of 

peregrine populations, from 324 breeding pairs in 

1975 to 2,000-3,000 breeding pairs by the late 1990s 

(USFWS, no date-f).

State-listed endangered species at Horicon NWR 

include the Osprey, Forster’s Tern, and Barn Owl.

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Several migratory bird conservation plans have 

been published over the last decade that can be 

used to help guide management decisions for the 

refuges. Bird conservation planning efforts have 

evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation 

to a more regional, even inter-continental, 

landscape-oriented perspective. Several transnational migratory bird conservation initiatives 

have emerged to help guide the planning and 

implementation process. The regional plans 

relevant to Horicon NWR and Fox River NWR are:

# The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint 

Venture Implementation Plan of the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan;

# The Partners in Flight Boreal Hardwood 

Transition [land] Bird Conservation Plan;

# The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan; and

# The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan.

All four conservation plans will be integrated 

under the umbrella of the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative (NABCI) in the Prairie 

Potholes, Eastern Tallgrass and Prairie Hardwood 

Transition Bird Conservation Regions (BCR 11, 22 

and 23). Each of the bird conservation initiatives 

has a process for designating priority species, 

modeled to a large extent on the Partners in Flight 

method of computing scores based on independent 

assessments of global relative abundance, breeding 

and wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats, 

area importance, and population trend. These 

scores are often used by agencies in developing lists 

of priority bird species. The Service based its 2001 

list of Non-game Birds of Conservation Concern 

primarily on the Partners in Flight, shorebird, and 

waterbird status assessment scores.

Wildlife Species of Management 

Concern

Appendix G summarizes information on the 

status and current habitat use of important wildlife 

species found on lands administered by Horicon 

NWR. Individual species, or species groups, were 

chosen because they are listed as Regional 

Resource Conservation Priorities or State-listed 

threatened or endangered species. Other species 

are listed due to their importance for economic or 

recreational reasons, because the Refuge or its 

partners monitor or survey them, or for their status 

as an overabundant or invasive species.

Horicon NWR Current Refuge 

Programs: Where We Are 

Today

Consistent with its authorizing legislation, Horicon NWR conducts a broad array of wildlife management activities on the Refuge. Horicon NWR’s 

Master Plan, completed in 1978, developed a list of 

planned activities consistent with the purpose of the 

Refuge: 

# Waterfowl Production – Diver and dabbler 

ducks

Great Egret, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

# Waterfowl Maintenance – Diver and dabbler 

ducks, geese

# Environmental Preservation

# Special Recognition Species – marsh birds, 

shorebirds, and raptors

# Threatened Species Maintenance – Bald Eagle, 

Osprey, Cormorant

# Wildlife/Wildlands Observation

# Wildlife Trails (non-motorized)

# Tour Routes (motorized)

# Interpretive Center

# Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations

# Environmental Education

# Hunting – Migratory waterfowl, coot, big game, 

upland game

# Fishing

In the quarter-century since publication of the 

Master Plan, Refuge management has made significant progress in implementing these planned activities and products. Refuge planning and 

management, however, are a continual work in process that evolves over time depending on feedback 

and monitoring as well as changing values, needs, 

and priorities in wildlife management at the Refuge, 

regional, and national scale. Hence the value of a 

new plan – this CCP – which updates and modifies 

Horicon NWR’s management emphasis.

This section summarizes current management 

programs, operations, and facilities at Horicon 

NWR. It also describes the participation and cooperation of Refuge staff and management activities 

with our partnering agencies and stakeholders in 

the wider community on efforts to balance competing demands for natural resources, wildlife, and protection from environmental hazards like flooding. 

Habitat Restoration

Many of the current management efforts on the 

Refuge focus on restoring valuable wildlife habitats 

that have declined regionally since the advent of 

intensive habitat modification and destruction 

wrought by Euro-American settlement, agricultural 

development and drainage projects. Horicon NWR 

staff carries out wetland and upland habitat restoration projects on the Refuge.

Habitat Restoration on the Refuge

Habitat restoration efforts at Horicon NWR 

focus on both upland and wetland habitats. Within 

the last year, upland habitat restoration has focused 

on improving the quality and quantity of oak 

savanna habitats. Brush and other tree species have 

choked out oak savanna habitat. Several methods 

are used to remove the brush and other trees to 

allow for the resurgence of oaks. Refuge staff issue 

firewood-cutting permits to remove larger trees 

that have encroached on the historic oak savannah 

openings. Staff and contractors will also remove 

larger trees. Staff will use specialized equipment to 

mow brushy areas to reclaim the grass component 

of the oak savannah habitat. Staff will also be experimenting with particularly hot prescribed burns as a 

means of restoring and maintaining oak savanna. 

Efforts are also under way to restore native prairie grasslands on the Refuge. Restoration typically 

involves treatment of degraded grasslands, those 

that have become dominated by non-native, invasive, or woody species like willows. Fields with nonnative or invasive species are sprayed with the herbicides Round-Up and 2-4D. The area is then 

burned to provide good seed-to-ground contact. The 

seed mix includes 21 forb species and five grass species, all Wisconsin Genotype. The seedings are usually initiated in late fall or early winter, dependant 

Black-eyed Susan, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

on a light snow cover. A seed blower attached to the 

hitch of a vehicle is used to plant the seed. Fields 

invaded by small woody vegetation are mowed using 

a Fecon mower. Most upland fields on the Refuge 

have been invaded and dominated with reed canary 

grass, sweet clover or wild parsnip. 

Although native to North America, reed canary 

grass has hybridized with introduced European 

strains to create a highly aggressive and invasive 

strain that is spreading at the expense of other 

native species. Reed canary grass is flood-tolerant, 

resistant to burning, a prolific seed producer, 

spreads rapidly through rhizomes, and quickly 

forms monocultures in wet meadows by shading out 

native grasses and forbs. Control requires aggressive measures. Horicon NWR is experimenting with 

using grazing as a tool to reduce the amount of reed 

canary grass. This is a form of adaptive management, and in the spirit of adaptive management, we 

are always experimenting with different methods to 

enhance native grasslands.

 Managed impoundments give opportunities to 

restore wetland habitat to more desirable conditions. Currently, a project is under way removing 

the functionality of ditches in the Main Pool of the 

Refuge. By creating long ditch plugs in several 

areas of the ditch, staff are trying to reestablish 

sheet flow of water and prevent ground and surface 

water flow from being transported down the 

ditches. 

Habitat Management

As our knowledge and understanding of wildlife 

ecology evolves over time, and as circumstances and 

values “on the ground” change, the direction of wildlife management tends to change as well. Two examples of changing philosophies and approaches are 

evident at Horicon NWR and many other national 

wildlife refuges, with regard to the “edge effect” 

and the value of diverse warm season seed mix for 

wildlife. The conventional wisdom among wildlife 

managers in the late 1970s and early 1980s was that 

it was valuable to maximize edges between different 

vegetation communities. The justification was that 

since wildlife species that depend on one or the 

other, or both, of two adjoining habitats could occur 

near the edge between the two habitats, these edges 

tend to have higher species diversity than locations 

set deep within any one habitat type. Thus, increasing the length of edges was deemed desirable.

Twenty-five years later, however, as more information became available from long-term studies, 

biologists now believe that the advance of civilization has whittled away large contiguous blocks of 

habitat, and the species that depend on them are in 

jeopardy. Biological diversity is best served by 

reducing fragmentation and increasing the areas of 

habitat blocks, as well as by increasing the connectivity between blocks of similar habitat, so that 

organisms may move along these corridors and 

maintain genetic fitness and variability, and thus 

population viability.

Similarly, for decades wildlife biologists (particularly waterfowl managers) encouraged the planting 

of dense nesting cover for waterfowl nesting. This 

method of seeding planted a very thick stand of 

warm season grass, usually only one or two species 

with little forb diversity. However, by the late 1990s, 

wildlife biologists generally and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service specifically were adopting more 

holistic approaches to wildlife management. They 

realized that these plantings were too thick for nesting and that waterfowl preferred a diverse structure of forbs and grasses for nesting.

In recent years, the management philosophy at 

Horicon NWR, paralleling that of other refuges 

around the country, has become more oriented 

toward fostering or simulating natural processes 

(like wildland fire) to achieve desired landscapes 

and to restore scarce habitats that were prevalent 

prior to Euro-American settlement in the region. 

Given the highly manipulated environments in 

which Horicon NWR and most other refuges occur, 

this often means actively intervening in natural 

plant community succession and hydrologic processes rather than passively allowing nature to “run 

its course.” In order for the Refuge to effectively 

pursue its purpose and meet the expectations of the 

American public, Refuge staff actively manage the 

various habitats through a variety of techniques and 

procedures discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Managing Water Impoundments and Moist Soil 

Units

Horicon NWR’s water management program is 

very complex and involves 17 impoundments 

(Figure 8). Pools are frozen for about 4 months of 

the year, from December to April. During periods of 

“ice-out,” May to November, water management not 

only must balance competing considerations of wildlife and habitats on the Refuge itself, but it must 

deal with the requests of off-Refuge neighbors 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

Figure 8: Impoundments, Horicon NWR

Black-eyed Susan, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

downstream as well as other township, county, state, 

watershed, and flood control agencies. Regulating 

water levels – whether at maximum pool levels or in 

drawdown (emptying pools almost entirely of water) 

– is a vital management tool for waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. Over the years, water management has been further complicated by increased 

land clearing and development on private lands 

upstream of the Refuge, which increase nutrient 

and sediment transport onto the Refuge. Within the 

last 2 years, the Refuge has experienced severe 

flooding, which results in rapid pool level increase, 

or “bounce,” of 2 to 3 feet. Bounces during the 

breeding season negatively affect nesting efforts of 

many species. For instance, the flood that began in 

May of 2004 essentially wiped out a production year 

for many species. Managers must be cognizant of 

conditions throughout the watershed, exercise good 

judgment, and at times be willing to deviate temporarily from Refuge objectives when downstream cities and towns are experiencing extreme flooding 

events.

Horicon NWR’s Marsh and Water Management 

Plan (1993) guides management of the Refuge’s 

marshes, open water, water levels and discharges. 

The plan states that production and maintenance of 

waterfowl are the primary objectives at Horicon 

NWR, and that to fully achieve these objectives, a 

diversity of habitats must be provided to meet the 

life history requirements of waterfowl for nesting, 

brood rearing, and migration. The presence or 

absence of water, its depth, and the seasonal timing 

of water depth fluctuations are all manipulated to 

produce various stages of marsh habitats on which 

different water-dependent birds rely.

An annual marsh and water management plan is 

written every winter. This plan summarizes operations during the previous year, describes major 

water management problems, and documents construction and rehabilitation projects. It also identifies proposed pool elevations for the upcoming years 

along with stated objectives for each management 

unit. Main Pool, by far the largest on the Refuge, 

serves as an example. Its spillway elevation is 858 

feet above mean sea level (MSL), its drawdown elevation is 851 feet MSL, it was last drawn down in 

1999 and 2005. Objectives were to maintain and 

reestablish hardstem bulrush and limit the increase 

of cattails by flooding out new plants.

Refuge management is continually adjusting 

scheduled water manipulation in response to the 

vagaries of the weather or maintenance of water 

control structures. For instance, in 2004 a leak in the 

culvert leading to the pump house in the Potato 

impoundment was discovered. Potato then had to be 

drained to fix the problem, resulting in an unexpected drawdown. Continual maintenance and 

repair of aging water control facilities such as gates, 

pilings, gauges, dikes, bridges, riprap, and channels 

are necessary to keep facilities and controls operable, and thus to meet water and marsh habitat management objectives.

Annual outflows have a wide range of fluctuation 

at Horicon NWR, depending on precipitation. Outflow can range from 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) 

discharge from the Refuge into the Rock River during dry years to over 1,000 cfs in wet years with one 

or more large storms.

There have been persistent flooding problems 

within the watershed, downstream of the Refuge, 

and on the Refuge itself. Possible solutions have 

been investigated and explored for a number of 

years. One possibility is that the current water control structure for Main Pool would be enlarged or 

several new ones installed along Main Dike Road in 

conjunction with a new emergency spillway. During 

flood events, water from Refuge pools and the Rock 

River could theoretically be discharged faster after 

the flood peak, to the benefit of the Refuge and its 

marsh habitats and agricultural areas immediately 

downstream of the Refuge. It would also allow more 

flexibility in managing water on the Main Pool 

impoundment. At present, this proposal has 

advanced beyond the concept stage and is currently 

in the developmental stage.

Moist Soil management on the Refuge is conducted annually. The I-5 impoundment has been 

drawn down for several years during spring and 

summer to promote emergent vegetation. During 

the fall and winter of 1997 to 1999 all the emergent 

vegetation was wiped out due to reflooding of the 

Marsh, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

unit. In 2000, the unit was drawn down for the fall 

and winter as well, in hopes of sustaining an emergent vegetation cover and compacting the very deep 

mud layer that may have been the cause of the vegetation decline after reflooding.

Mowing on Grasslands and Wet Meadows

Mowing is used in grasslands and certain wetlands like sedge meadow to cut willows and prevent 

their encroachment. If left alone, hardy, aggressive 

willows would invade and dominate nearly all wetland areas on the Refuge except for the cattail 

marsh areas. Mowing maintains a mosaic of willow 

age classes, ensuring winter browse for deer. It also 

reduces the willow canopy layer and improves the 

understory of sedges and grasses that foster deeper 

penetration of fire into willow stands. Increased willow control and better cover for nesting marsh and 

upland birds that use these areas are the ultimate 

result of this mowing. Typically, about 100 acres a 

year are mowed on the Refuge.

Haying on Grasslands

The Refuge has a small haying program with 

three benefits:

# Reduces seed source of reed canary grass.

# Reduces thick litter layer that inhibits nesting.

# It attracts visually impressive birds like 

Sandhill Cranes, and concentrations of 

waterfowl to areas where they can be observed 

by the public.

In a typical year, 30 to 40 acres of reed canary 

grass is hayed and removed from the Refuge, providing grazing areas for waterfowl and other animals.

Prescribed Fire on Uplands and Wetlands

Fires were once a natural disturbance that 

helped maintain upland prairies and lowland 

marshes by decreasing the presence of harmful 

invading plants. Today prescribed fires are used to 

setback woody and herbaceous plants that invade 

prairies and wetlands. The suppression of fire that 

naturally occurred prior to European settlement 

allows undesirable fire intolerant species to exist 

where they otherwise would not have. Many native 

species of plants and trees are fire resistant, while 

others require fire to exist. By using prescribed fire 

as a management tool we can mimic a natural ecosystem function helping to maintain the habitat 

characteristics which our local plants and animals 

have evolved from.

Today prescribed fire is one of Horicon NWR’s 

most useful tools for maintaining prairie and marsh 

vegetative characteristics. Since many upland birds 

and waterfowl require open areas for nesting, prescribed fire helps maintain habitat necessary for 

migratory species. By choosing burn units based on 

needs of the wildlife habitat we can maintain a combination of prairie, savanna, marsh, sedge meadow 

and woodland habitats required by native wildlife 

species.

Prescribed fires can help reduce the danger of 

uncontrolled wildfires by reducing the buildup of 

hazardous fuel loads in and around the Refuge.

Horicon NWR has a fire management plan that 

facilitates prescribed burns in the spring and fall 

seasons. In fiscal year 2005, prescribed fire was 

used on 21 units totaling 3,230 acres. The spring 

season was exceptionally successful in terms of 

acreage and most importantly ecological objectives. 

The annual average over the last 10 years has been 

826 acres. Burns are scheduled on a 3- to 5-year 

rotation and timed to meet specific vegetative goals. 

Post-fire monitoring is conducted to measure the 

success of each burn in ecological terms. The 

National Fire Plan has provided increased emphasis 

on fire planning, management, and suppression at 

the national level. Horicon NWR has added one permanent seasonal Range Technician to meet the 

demands of the new fire program. 

Wildfire Preparedness

Wildfires occur on the Refuge annually. In 2005, 

there were four fires on the Refuge. Additionally, 

Refuge staff assisted the state on four fires locally. 

The Refuge is prepared with staff and equipment 

for wildfire activity and is available to assist both 

local and national firefighting efforts.

Most summers Horicon NWR firefighters go on 

western wildfire details to assist other refuges and 

agencies when wildfire danger is high. 

Controlling Invasive Plants

Every year, Horicon NWR submits a Refuge 

Annual Planning Report to the Regional Office documenting the status of invasives on the Refuge and 

efforts to control their spread. The exotic and invasive species of most concern and the extent of their 

infestation on the Refuge are wild parsnip (600 

acres), reed canary grass (1,900 acres), purple loosestrife (100 acres) and leafy spurge (3 acres).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Wild Parsnip

Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) is an aggressive, 

Eurasian weed that frequently invades and modifies 

a variety of open habitats. Wild parsnip slowly 

invades an area in waves following initial infestation. 

Once the population builds, it spreads rapidly. Wild 

parsnip can cause phytophotodermatitis to the skin. 

If the plant juices come in contact with skin in the 

presence of sunlight, a rash and/or blistering can 

occur, as well as skin discoloration that may last several months. Staff has had a difficult time controlling the spread of this invasive. Fire has no effect on 

wild parsnip since plants simply resprout. Due to 

the large acreage that is affected, hand pulling is not 

an option. In 2005, mowing fields just as the seed 

heads turned color, had mixed results. Some fields 

had effective control while others were mowed too 

early and the wild parsnip resprouted and flowered. 

Staff is continuing to make adjustments and monitor the spread.

Reed Canary Grass

 Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinace), as 

mentioned earlier, is native to North America, but 

has hybridized with introduced European strains to 

create a highly aggressive and invasive strain that is 

expanding at the expense of other native species. It 

is flood-tolerant, resistant to burning, produces 

seeds prolifically, spreads rapidly via rhizomes, and 

quickly forms virtual monocultures in wet meadows 

by shading out native grasses and forbs. Aggressive 

measures are needed to control it. 

Purple Loosestrife

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is a wetland herb that was introduced as a garden perennial 

from Europe during the 1800s. It is still promoted 

by some horticulturists for its beauty as a landscape 

plant, and by beekeepers for its nectar-producing 

capability. By law, purple loosestrife is a nuisance 

species in Wisconsin. It is illegal to sell, distribute, 

or cultivate the plants or seeds, including any of its 

cultivars. Purple loosestrife can spread rapidly, 

eventually taking over an entire wetland and almost 

entirely eliminating the open water habitat. Purple 

loosestrife displaces native wetland vegetation and 

degrades wildlife habitat. The Refuge continues to 

monitor the purple loosestrife infestation. Refuge 

staff stopped raising Galerucella spp beetles several 

years ago. Several beetle surveys in early spring 

showed poor survival of beetles in the areas of original release. It was hoped that the beetles would be 

self-sustaining and that some of the beetles could be 

translocated to new areas of infestation. Refuge 

staff will continue to monitor the changes around 

the Refuge where beetles were released to see if 

additional beetles will need to be raised and 

released to combat the purple loosestrife. The original release sites have shown encouraging results 

over the last 6 years. 

Leafy Spurge

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) is an aggressive, 

exotic, perennial weed that is especially pernicious 

in western grasslands. It out-competes desirable 

native vegetation, growing in dense clumps with one 

or more shoots emerging from a woody root crown. 

This weed contains irritating chemicals that many 

animals avoid eating. Previous measures to control 

the leafy spurge included spraying it with the herbicide Plateau, however the weed can be resistant to 

chemical control. It has a pervasive root system and 

appears able to block the downward movement of 

herbicides. Still another problem with chemicals is 

that herbicides sprayed to kill spurge also kill desirable broadleaved plants. It should be noted that prescribed fire does not control leafy spurge. In 2005, 

biological control of the leafy spurge was initiated. 

Several species of beetles totaling 100,000 specimens were collected from the Trempealeau NWR. 

This included three varieties of Aphthona flea beetles: Aphthona nigriscutis, Apthona cyparissiae, 

Purple loosetrife, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Apthona czwalinae and a long-horned stem miner 

called Oberea erythrocephala. Monitoring of leafy 

spurge and beetle survival continues. 

Other species: There are several other plant species, both on and off the Refuge, that threaten the 

vegetative integrity of the Refuge. On the Refuge, 

the spread of common reed or phragmites (Phragmites australis) is of concern. The use of fire and 

chemical treatment using HABITAT are methods of 

control being explored. European buckthorn 

(Rhamnus cathartica) has a very rapid growth rate 

and resprouts vigorously after being cut. Typical of 

several non-native understory shrub species, buckthorns leaf out very early and retain their leaves 

late in the growing season, thereby shading out 

native wildflowers. Currently, management of this 

species includes pulling young seedlings and/or cutting and spraying stumps with 2-4D. Garlic mustard 

(Alliaria petiolata) is a rapidly spreading woodland 

weed that is displacing native woodland wildflowers 

in Wisconsin. A combination of pulling and spraying 

is a management tool for controlling this invasive. 

Also, spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), an 

aggressive, non-native invader of grasslands, grows 

on roadsides near the Refuge.

Habitat Monitoring

Aerial Infrared – GIS Technology 

Horicon NWR has had aerial infrared photography taken in 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001 and annually 

since 2003. The 2005 photos were digitized into a 

vegetation classification. The primary purpose of 

the photos is monitoring habitat changes that occur 

either naturally or due to management. In the past, 

visual comparisons of photos between years were 

done to make these evaluations. In 1999, Horicon 

NWR used a Geographic Information System (GIS) 

to make quantitative evaluations of open water to 

cattail growth and germination. GIS technology is 

used to compare infrared photos taken in different 

years to determine the changes in habitat that are 

taking place due to management activities such as 

water level manipulation and prescribed burning. 

Grassland Surveys 

The annual grassland surveys, initiated in 2001 

using plant community associations at point count 

sites, continue. These surveys were developed and 

tested in 1999 on several points at Horicon NWR 

based on a similar grassland survey conducted at J. 

Clark Salyer NWR. In addition to several association changes based on local habitat, visual obstruction readings (VOR) using a Robel pole and litter 

depths were taken at each site. It is hoped that 

eventually the grassland survey will be correlated to 

grassland bird surveys and guide the Refuge grassland management program including prescribed 

burning. Many staff days and hours are required to 

monitor each site every year. In 2004, only three of 

the plots were completed. All three sites were on the 

Hishmeh tract near Luehring Lake. A prescribed 

burn was conducted on this area in 2005. Survey 

methods are being reviewed to see if they can be 

simplified to reduce the time involved on each plot 

by reducing the individual points down from 800 per 

plot.

Prescribed Burning

Six photo stations were established on units that 

were planned for burning in 2004 to provide a photographic record of changes in habitat. Photos were 

taken annually in 2004 and 2005 and comparisons in 

the changes in vegetative cover will be made with 

the photos. In addition, future plans include additional monitoring, including vegetation and organic 

substrate surveys.

Wildlife Monitoring and Research

Two basics types of inventories and investigations 

are conducted at Horicon NWR:

# surveys and censuses of selected species or 

species groups, which are typically made on an 

annual basis.

# basic research into wildlife biology and ecology, 

which have no specific schedule. 

Snowy Plover, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

The surveys and censuses are generally made by 

staff and volunteers, and consist of organized surveys and/or censuses, or a compilation of observations and recorded sightings made over the course 

of the year.

Research studies are usually undertaken in cooperation with university professors and their students or other agencies, often with the direct 

participation and cooperation of Refuge staff and 

assisted by volunteers.

Surveys and Censuses

Surveys and censuses at Horicon NWR are 

guided by a 1990 Wildlife Inventory Plan.

Endangered and/or Threatened Species – Two 

federally listed threatened species are found on the 

Refuge, the Bald Eagle and Whooping Crane. 

Visual observations of eagles and Whooping Cranes 

are recorded. Bald Eagle nests are monitored annually to determine nest success. In 2005, one nest was 

active; it was located in a tall cottonwood tree.

Amphibians – Horicon NWR has been part of 

the Nationwide Malformed Amphibian Survey 

Project conducted by the Bloomington Ecological 

Services Field Office. The Refuge was part of this 

study from 2001-2003. 

In 2000, a volunteer initiated a frog survey as 

part of the Marsh Monitoring Program sponsored 

by Bird Studies Canada and Environment Canada 

to study wetland amphibians and birds in the Great 

Lakes basin. Eight stations were set up and sampled three times a year. Volunteers continue to conduct these surveys. Seven species of frogs and toads 

have been identified by their calls on the Refuge: 

green frog, wood frog, chorus frog, northern leopard frog, American toad, gray treefrog, and bullfrog.

Raptors – Staff compile observations of rare and 

uncommon raptors at the Refuge, including the 

Snowy Owl and the formerly listed Peregrine Falcon.

Waterfowl – Breeding waterfowl, including Canada Geese and ducks, are inventoried every spring 

and summer. By using waterfowl surveys and brood 

surveys Refuge staff are able to estimate the number of ducks and geese present as well as an estimate of production. Numbers of several species of 

waterfowl are also estimated during the fall migration, including Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Greenwinged Teal, Ruddy and Ring-necked Ducks and 

Canada and Snow Geese.

Bird banding has been a tool of wildlife managers 

for decades. Banding enables biologists to identify 

and track movement and timing patterns of migratory bird populations. Metal bands or rings with 

identification information are affixed to the leg of 

the bird. The bird must be recaptured or killed and 

held in hand to record the information on the band. 

Horicon NWR has an annual banding quota of 400 

Mallard Ducks. In past years, it has been difficult to 

reach the established quota. In 2005, 50 Mallards 

and 82 Wood Ducks were also banded.

Marsh Birds, Shorebirds, Gulls and other 

Migratory Birds – Horicon NWR conducts censuses and observations of many water-dependent 

avian species. Estimates of nest numbers are 

obtained for the three predominant colonial nesting 

birds (i.e., birds that nest in colonies) on the Refuge: 

White Pelican, Black-crowned Night-heron, and 

Double Crested Cormorant. Over the years, averages of 350 pairs of White Pelicans, 100 pairs of 

Black-crowned Night-herons, and 150 pairs of Double Crested Cormorants have nested at Horicon 

NWR.

Six species of marsh birds – American Bittern, 

Least Bittern, Sora, Virginia Rail, Yellow Rail and 

King Rail – are typically surveyed several times a 

year using passive call and call playback techniques.

 Point counts are also made of migratory songbirds during the breeding season. Seven of 32 sites 

were surveyed in 2005 with 44 species found. Henslow’s Sparrows continue to be found on the surveys, as well as an increased numbers of Bobolinks. 

No Meadowlarks were found on the 2005 survey, 

which is of great concern.

During years when management activities create 

extensive mudflats and moist soil units, Horicon 

NWR is a popular stopover area for shorebirds. 

These birds are often observed in the spring and/or 

summer by volunteer birding enthusiasts. Fifteen to 

20 species of shorebirds and thousands of individual 

birds have been observed by staff and visitors.

The 29th Annual Crane count, sponsored by the 

International Crane Foundation (ICF) in Baraboo, 

Wisconsin, continues as an annual survey, both on 

and off the Refuge. For the first time in 2004, Refuge staff did not coordinate the count. ICF could not 

find anybody to replace the county coordinator, so 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

they did it themselves. In 2005 a new coordinator 

was selected and will coordinate and receive the 

information. Ten of 13 sites were counted on the 

Refuge. Dodge County had a total of 65 people participate with 21 of those observers on Refuge sites. 

Refuge sites will continue to be available for the 

crane count. 

Roadkill – A roadkill survey has been conducted 

along Highway 49 since 2001. The roadkill survey is 

conducted daily most of the year, less frequently in 

winter. The survey is conducted at the same time of 

day, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Results from 

2004 included a total of 379 individuals killed, representing 43 different species. The changes in habitat 

on both sides of the highway influence what species 

are using the area. The Friends of Horicon NWR 

and Refuge staff have been working toward a solution with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.

Fish – Electro-shocking fish surveys are conducted every 3 to 5 years. Previous fish surveys 

showed that carp numbers were increasing, composing more than 95 percent of the fish in the marsh. 

Electro-shocking efforts in 2005 proved, once again, 

that the carp population is very high. The survey 

showed that carp made up 98 percent of the catch, 

with bullheads a distant second at 1 percent. The 

remaining 1 percent contained a variety of other fish 

including: fathead minnows, green sunfish, pumpkinseeds, two white suckers, golden shiners, one 

bluegill, and one large mouth bass. In July, Radke 

Pool became a popular feeding sight for the Great 

Egrets and pelicans. Two fyke nets were set overnight to find out what the birds were eating and produced interesting results. Upon retrieval the next 

morning, the mini fyke net could barely be moved 

because of the number and weight of fish in it. More 

than 97,000 young-of-the-year carp were collected. 

The large mesh fyke net, set near the monument in 

Radke Pool, had a variety of fish including carp, 

black and brown bullheads, bluegill, green sunfish, 

golden shiners, brook stickleback, southern redbelly 

dace, and one northern pike. 

Other surveys – Other surveys conducted on and 

off the Refuge include Mourning Dove, breeding 

bird survey routes, midwinter waterfowl and the 

Christmas bird count.

Resident Wildlife – An aerial deer census is conducted every winter by the Wisconsin DNR. The 

February 2006 deer population was estimated at 35 

deer per square mile for Unit 68B and 51 deer per 

square mile for Unit 68A. A deer management density goal of 30 deer per square mile is recommended 

by the Wisconsin DNR.

Refuge staff record visual observations of infrequently observed furbearers like beaver and river 

otters. A muskrat hut survey is also conducted during the winter to gain population estimates. 

Studies and Investigations

The Refuge is the site of a variety of wildlife 

research studies, ranging from life history studies to 

disease effects. Horicon NWR initiates, encourages 

and cooperates with these studies in a number of 

ways, including the use of housing, equipment and 

other facilities by guest researchers, by subsidizing 

volunteers, and by direct collaboration in the field. 

Recent and ongoing studies include the following:

Factors Influencing Reproductive Success of 

Forster’s Terns at Horicon Marsh – Initiated in 

2004 by Dr. David Shealer, Loras College, Dubuque, 

Iowa, this study aims to determine population sizes 

and the effects of habitat, food availability and predation on reproductive success at Horicon Marsh 

and Grand Lake Marsh. At Horicon Marsh, two 

areas (Main Pool, Teal Pool) clearly are important 

nesting areas for Forster’s Terns, probably because 

these areas contain extensive stands of bulrushes. 

Pike, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Interactions of prescribed burning, soils, and 

water on nutrient dynamics, vegetation, aquatic 

invertebrates, and wetland birds in managed emergent marshes – This study is being conducted by the 

Biological Monitoring Team (Soch Lor and Kari 

Ranallo), LaCrosse, Wisconsin and the USGS 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (Murray 

Laubhan, Ned (Chip) Euliss and Jane Austin), 

Jamestown, North Dakota. This research project is 

a joint USGS-FWS inter-regional (Regions 3 & 5) 

fire and wetland study that will focus on examining 

the relationship fire has with cattail-dominated wetlands. This study aims to provide wetland managers 

with scientifically sound information to improve 

their understanding and decision-making of how 

burning affects nutrient dynamics, which in turn 

influence emergent plant, aquatic invertebrate, and 

waterbird communities.

Vegetation Classification Using GIS & Aerial 

Infra-red Photos for Horicon NWR – Jennifer 

Dieck, USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, is cooperating 

with Horicon NWR in the application of GIS and 

photo interpretation to map and classify vegetative 

cover on the Refuge.

Rotational Grazing Affects on Reed Canary 

Grass – This study is being conducted in cooperation with Laura Paine, UWEX-Columbia County, 

Portage, Wisconsin; Randall Jackson, University of 

Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; and Brian 

Pillsbury, NRCS, Baraboo, Wisconsin. This study 

will focus on how rotational grazing of sheep can 

affect the vegetative cover of a field dominated by 

reed canary grass. Vegetation surveys were conducted in the fall of 2005 prior to any grazing. In the 

spring of 2006, sheep were allowed to graze on the 

divided field with limited time frames. Annual vegetation surveys conducted by UW – Madison students will determine the affects of the grazing on 

the reed canary grass. It is hoped that the grazing 

will decrease the reed canary grass and allow other 

grasses and forbs to germinate. 

Effects of Avian Vacuolar Myelinopathy on Coot 

– This study was conducted by Andy Berch, USGS 

National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, Wisconsin. Avian Vacuolar Myelinopathy is a neurological 

disease prominent in the wintering grounds of the 

coot. Suspect cause may be an anotoxin–A, which is 

a naturally produced toxin from a cyanobacteria 

called Anabenea. Coot ingest the toxin from the food 

they eat. Bald Eagles are also dying from eating the 

coot. Healthy coot were collected from the Refuge 

and then injected with the toxin at the Health Lab. 

This study will help researchers understand the disease better and potentially help mitigate the cause. 

Results are being analyzed.

Population Demographics of Nesting Black 

Terns – Dr. David Shealer, Loras College, Dubuque, 

Iowa, finalized this 4-year study in 2003 to determine population demographics of nesting Black 

Terns. Field work concentrated on locating as many 

Black Tern nests as possible, monitoring of nests to 

determine productivity and reasons for nest failure, 

banding of adults and young, and collecting blood 

samples from chicks and adults to determine sex 

using DNA microsatellite markers and conduct 

studies of parentage using DNA fingerprinting. 

Most of the work was conducted at Horicon NWR 

but banding and blood work was also conducted at 

nearby smaller colonies. Results are being analyzed.

Elevation Survey of Main Pool and Main Dike 

Road – This survey was conducted by Brian Tangen, USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. Results of this 

survey would be used to create baseline data of the 

Main Pool elevation and sedimentation and also help 

determine where a new water control structure 

should be placed. Results are being analyzed.

Wildlife Management

Wildlife management activities at Horicon NWR 

are directed by the Refuge’s establishing purposes 

and general mandate to conserve trust resources. 

Wildlife management is accomplished primarily 

through habitat manipulation rather than by direct 

manipulation of wildlife species and populations. See 

the sections on habitat restoration and management 

above. However, the following activities do pertain 

directly to increasing or decreasing wildlife numbers through management, conservation, and where 

necessary, control of wildlife populations.

Disease Monitoring and Control

Staff is continually monitoring the health and 

condition of wildlife populations on the Refuge and 

staying abreast of the regional status of diseases 

that affect the health of wildlife, humans, or both. 

Through monitoring and preventive measures, it is 

possible to prevent isolated cases from triggering 

major outbreaks of disastrous epidemics.

Historically the Refuge had a type C Avian botulism outbreak every year with a couple of hundred 

birds picked up in the various impoundments. Staff 

would routinely conduct surveillance in mid-July 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

and continue until December. Since 1992, the number of dead birds has dropped dramatically to less 

than a dozen per year and the surveillance has been 

limited to observations during daily Refuge functions. If mortality of birds is suspected, then further 

searches in the impoundments are conducted by airboat. In 2005, the Refuge experienced the first 

major outbreak in many years. Certain environmental factors can contribute to the botulism spores germinating, producing the toxin, and resulting in an 

outbreak. These environmental factors, such as high 

temperatures, low water levels with exposed mudflats, and the presence of decaying organic matter 

(fish), which support the toxin production, were all 

present in 2005. About 1,200 ducks, mostly Mallards, were retrieved and buried by Refuge staff. 

This number does not reflect the total loss of birds, 

since only a percentage of the birds are picked up. 

In 2002, the Wisconsin DNR found the first confirmed case of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) 

within the State’s deer herd in the southwestern 

part of Wisconsin. Horicon NWR is not located 

within the area of Wisconsin where CWD has been 

detected. However, in preparation for an outbreak, 

in 2005 Refuge staff wrote a Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance and Management Plan, along with 

an Environmental Assessment (EA). The Plan identifies the strategies for CWD management on the 

Refuge, which mirror the strategies identified in the 

State Plan. These strategies include Disease and 

Population Management measures, Surveillance 

and Coordination measures, Testing and Handling 

of CWD Suspect Animals, and Baiting and Feeding 

measures. In summary, if CWD is discovered in 

Dodge County, Refuge staff will continue to rely on 

hunter harvest during established seasons to 

approach the Wisconsin DNR population goals and 

will conduct active, opportunistic observations of 

deer on Refuge lands. However, if CWD continues 

to spread after discovery in Dodge County, Refuge 

staff will incorporate management activities and 

objectives consistent with the DNR disease management activities. Baiting and feeding will not be 

allowed on Refuge lands and any deer suspected of 

CWD will be euthanized. The complete Plan and EA 

is available at the Refuge office. 

West Nile Virus was found in Wisconsin for the 

first time in 2001 in infected wild birds. Spread by 

mosquitoes, this exotic virus infects mammals, 

including humans, and birds. Members of the Corvidae family (crows and jays) seem to be especially 

vulnerable. In 2005, three pelicans on the Refuge 

tested positive for West Nile Virus. Staff continues 

to monitor for West Nile. 

Nest Structures 

The Refuge has 57 Wood Duck houses that are 

checked and maintained annually by staff and volunteers. Two volunteers checked and maintained 97 

Bluebird nest boxes at various sites around the Refuge. In addition, the Girl Scouts from Camp Silverbrook in West Bend helped check the nest boxes at 

the Environmental Education Barn. This year, 

many new nest boxes were constructed, donated, 

and installed by the volunteers. Fifteen Prothonotary Warbler boxes were also installed along wet 

forest dikes. Two Osprey platforms, installed in 

2000, are also present on the Refuge and in 2005 a 

pair of Osprey were observed bringing sticks to the 

Frankfurth platform. Unfortunately, with only a few 

dozen sticks on the platform they abandoned the 

site.

Predator and Exotic Wildlife Control

A variety of furbearer species are traditionally 

trapped on the Refuge: muskrat, mink, raccoon, 

opossum, red fox, skunk, coyote, and weasel. These 

species cause problems for the Refuge because the 

upland predators prey on the ground-nesting birds 

and the muskrat cause damage to the dikes. The 

number of interested trappers has steadily declined 

over the years, primarily due to low fur prices and 

low number of muskrats available. Therefore, interest in the trapping program is now primarily recreational. 

The Refuge is divided into 21 marsh units, six 

dike units, and two upland units. The units are sold 

through an open auction held each September. However, since the 2000/2001 trapping season, no marsh 

Wild Turkey, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

units have been offered due to low muskrat numbers, which plummeted after a planned drawdown of 

the main pool.

In 2003/04, three of the trappers, including both 

upland trappers, never even came out to trap. Similarly, in 2004/2005, two of the dike units never sold 

and of the remaining six units that did sell, only 

three of those trappers actively trapped. Therefore, 

Refuge staff decided to not offer trapping for the 

2005/2006 season. Trapping results for the last several years are shown in Table 8. 

The carp trap installed along the Rock River at 

the north side of the Refuge is emptied several 

times each spring. Carp start filling the trap in early 

April. In 2005, over 100 tons of carp were removed. 

Other game fish and desirable species caught in the 

trap and released included northern pike, walleye, 

crappie, yellow perch, bluegill, and white suckers. 

Several painted turtles were also released. In addition, another 200 tons of carp were treated with 

Rotenone.

Coordination Activities

Horicon NWR staff invests a significant amount 

of energy and time representing the Refuge in its 

role as a partner with other government and 

resource agencies and as a neighbor and large landowner in the community. Staff participate as team 

members of various committees and groups.

Interagency Coordination

Refuge staff has been involved with the Rock 

River Headwaters, Inc. (RRHI) since 1994, when 

the organization was called the Horicon Marsh Area 

Coalition. The mission of RRHI, a nonprofit organization, is to serve as a catalyst for cooperation 

between citizens, businesses, agriculture, and government to protect, restore, and sustain the ecological, economic, cultural, historic, and recreational 

resources in the Upper Rock River Basin through a 

watershed-based approach. In recent years, RRHI 

has received three $10,000 grants to be used to educate the residents of the Rock River watershed on 

the importance of water quality and better land 

management practices. 

The Refuge’s involvement with the Marsh Management Committee, formed in 1998, has continued. 

The committee is made up of representatives from 

non-profit organizations, government organizations, 

and the private sector for the purpose of guiding the 

management of Horicon Marsh for the benefit of a 

healthy ecosystem and the people who enjoy it. Refuge staff has attended monthly meetings.

Each year Refuge staff coordinate with the local 

Wisconsin DNR staff on a variety of issues, including: public use events and publications, water management, carp control, law enforcement, hunting 

programs, fire; maintenance, and trapping programs. 

Since 2000, the Refuge has participated in the 

Rural Fire Assistance Program, which provides 

financial assistance to rural fire departments in the 

community around the Refuge. Since the program’s 

inception, five out of six fire departments have 

received over $79,000 dollars. Only Burnett Fire 

Department on the west side of the marsh has chosen to not participate in the grant program. 

Public Recreation, Environmental 

Education and Outreach

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act emphasizes wildlife management 

and that all prospective public uses on any given refuge must be found to be compatible with the wildlife-related refuge purposes before they can be 

allowed. The Refuge System Improvement Act also 

identifies six priority uses of national wildlife refTable 8: Furbearer Trapping Totals, 2000-2005, Horicon NWR

Species 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Muskrat 397 2,430 1,224 415 60

Mink 0 2 10 6 0

Raccoon 162 75 20 7 44

Opossum 75 28 57 12 28

Fox 0 0 0 0 10

Skunk 41 7 0 7 0

Coyote 0 0 0 0 5

Weasel 2 0 0 1 0
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

uges that in most cases will be considered compatible uses: wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

hunting, fishing, environmental education, and 

(nature) interpretation. Opportunities to participate in all of these wildlife-dependent activities exist 

at Horicon NWR. (See Figure 9) 

Activities that are prohibited on the Refuge due 

to conflicts with wildlife include: camping, boating, 

canoeing, ATV’s, snowmobiles, and fires. 

Bicycling, hiking, leashed dogs on trails, and 

trapping on an as-needed basis, are the only other 

activities that have been determined compatible 

with the priorities of the Refuge. 

Facilities include a 6,000-square-foot visitor center with exhibit space, employee offices, and a large 

multi-purpose room. There is also an observation 

deck with scopes, a rustic environmental education 

barn, a viewing area on Highway 49 with interpretive exhibits and restrooms with running water, a 

paved auto tour route with interpretive kiosks and 

wayside signs, three hiking trails, a floating boardwalk and a paved link to the Wild Goose State Trail, 

two grassland hiking trails at the Bud Cook area 

with kiosk and observation deck with spotting 

scopes, and accessible fishing platforms at three different locations on the Refuge. Aside from these visitor use areas, the remaining part of the Refuge is 

closed to public access with the exception of statewide hunting seasons. 

Currently, the most updated plan on file for any 

of the compatible activities is a Five-Year Environmental Education plan, prepared in December 2003, 

which provides the background and direction for 

environmental education at the Refuge. This plan 

will be re-evaluated as part of the CCP process.

A Visitor Services Review Report was prepared 

by Region 3 staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in October of 2005. The report lists 10 minimum 

visitor services requirements and includes a number 

of recommendations on how to improve visitor services on the Refuge. Some of these include: developing a visitor services plan and revising or writing 

step-down plans for each of the six wildlife-dependent activities, updating interpretive signs and 

kiosks and adding new directional signs, and generally enhancing several of the existing visitor use 

areas. 

Annual visitation is approximately 450,000 each 

year for priority public uses on the Refuge.

Hunting

Hunting opportunities on the Refuge include 

Ring-necked Pheasant, Gray Partridge, cottontail 

rabbit, squirrel, and deer. Closed areas include the 

viewing area and interpretive displays on Highway 

49, the Bud Cook Hiking Area, and a small area 

around the office/visitor center. The auto tour route/

hiking trail complex is closed to all hunting except 

during the deer gun season; a 600-acre area around 

the office/visitor center is closed to all hunting 

except for special hunts for hunters with disabilities; 

and the former Stensaas unit is closed to all hunting 

except for youth and novice Ring-necked Pheasant 

hunters. The Refuge is closed to migratory bird 

hunting, other than a controlled Youth Waterfowl 

Hunt. State regulations apply to all Refuge hunters, 

except that currently all seasons close at the end of 

the deer gun season on the Refuge. However, 

changes were recently submitted to the Federal 

Register for the 2006 hunting season. All hunting 

seasons on the Refuge will coincide with the State 

seasons for all species that are currently open for 

hunting on the Refuge.

Since 1994, a 600-acre area around the office/visitor center was set aside for hunters with disabilities 

during the regular 9-day deer gun season at the end 

of November. This area had previously been closed 

to all hunting. The area was also opened at that time 

to archery hunters, through a permit system. This 

same area has also been open since 2000 for an early, 

9-day gun hunt that the State offers to hunters with 

disabilities every October. In 2003, in order to 

improve success for the hunters with disabilities, 

the area was expanded to 880 acres and the archery 

hunting was eliminated. This area has remained 

closed to all other hunting except during special TZone deer gun hunts, when it is open to all deer 

hunters. 

Since 1984, a supervised youth waterfowl hunt 

has been held every year on a designated impoundment on the Refuge. Refuge staff select three weekend days during the season for the hunt. Youth are 

selected through a random drawing, with preference given to those who have never been in the hunt. 

In order to apply, youth must have completed 

hunter safety and one of the local Ducks Unlimited 

Greenwings Days or Wisconsin Waterfowl Association Waterfowl Skills Clinic. Each youth who is 

selected may have one youth partner who also has to 

meet the above requirements and one adult sponsor 

who is not allowed to hunt. Approximately two 

dozen youth participate each year and usually each 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Figure 9: Existing Visitor Facilities, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

party is successful in harvesting at least one duck. 

In 2005, the drought was so severe that the youth 

hunt was cancelled for the first time due to lack of 

water.

 Fishing

Fishing opportunities are limited due to shallow 

water conditions and the absence of a variety of 

game fish. Boats are not allowed on the Refuge. 

Bank fishing in accordance with Wisconsin State 

fishing regulations is permissible on the Refuge at 

three locations: Main Dike Road, Ledge Road and 

Peachy Road. Main Dike Road and Ledge Road 

have accessible fishing piers on location but lack 

welcome kiosks. The Peachy Road access is currently in the planning process for reconstruction. 

Game fish are stocked each year at various locations 

throughout the Refuge. One youth fishing event is 

held on the Refuge during the summer in celebration of National Fishing Week. This event involves a 

morning of interactive stations that cover safety, 

bait and lure selection, casting, and fish biology and 

management with free merchandise such as hats, 

sunglasses, lures and tackle, followed by an afternoon of staff-led fishing at various sites on the Refuge. 

Wildlife Observation

Wildlife observation is a popular activity at the 

Refuge. At least 267 different species of birds have 

been documented on the Refuge over the years. The 

Refuge is recognized as both a state and globally 

important bird area. Between mid-September and 

mid-November, visitation is at its peak due to the 

fall migration of over one million geese that use the 

Refuge as a stopping point in their nearly 850-mile 

migration to southern wintering areas. The 3-mile 

paved Horicon Ternpike Auto Tour Route is an 

excellent place for wildlife observation and receives 

the highest annual visitation of any sites throughout 

the Refuge. Many public events and interpretive 

programs occur on the Refuge that focus on wildlife 

observation, mainly bird-watching, such as the 

Horicon Marsh Bird Festival, guided birding tours, 

and Marsh Melodies. 

Wildlife Photography

Consistent with the opportunities to view wildlife, 

many Refuge visitors also photograph the many 

birds, mammals, and other creatures that they 

observe on the Refuge. No photo blinds have been 

constructed at this time but future locations are 

being considered.

Wildlife Interpretation

The Refuge lacks a Visitor Services Plan and a 

primary interpretive theme to provide guidance for 

Refuge management and staff on matters related to 

visitor services. Developing a plan and interpretive 

themes was one of the recommendations outlined in 

the 2005 visitor services review report. The plan, 

when developed, will provide interpretive methods 

and concepts, specify compatible forms of wildlifedependent recreation, and identify existing and proposed public use areas and facilities for the Refuge. 

Currently, numerous interpretive programs are conducted on and off the Refuge for ages ranging from 

pre-school children to adults. Primary topics include 

the history of Horicon Marsh, habitat management 

and resource issues. 

Environmental Education

Environmental education is the most developed 

component of the visitor services program to date. 

The Refuge piloted the Rhythms of the Refuge curriculum for Region 3 and has used activities found in 

the curriculum in numerous programs for local public, private and home-schooled groups, Scouts 

groups and community-based service organizations. Program participants range from preschool to 

adult, with the majority being elementary and middle school students. Activities are conducted at the 

visitor center, the Environmental Education barn, 

the Egret Trail and boardwalk, off-site in the classroom and through distance learning sessions. All 

programs are free and are led by trained volunteers 

and Refuge staff. 

Students working on nature journals, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

In addition to the standard curriculum, Refuge 

volunteers participate in the Rolling Readers literacy program and lead classroom activities relating 

to the Refuge. The Refuge also offers a variety of 

educational trunks and materials available for 

check-out such as the wildlife discovery trunk, prairie trunk, aquatic exotics, songbird trunk and wetland trunk. 

Volunteer and Friends Contributions

The Refuge friends group, Friends of Horicon 

National Wildlife Refuge, is heavily involved in the 

operation of the Refuge’s visitor services program. 

The group runs a gift shop, Coot’s Corner, in the visitor center, provides funding for educational supplies and services and provides volunteers for many 

environmental education and interpretive programs, events, and outreach activities for the Refuge. In addition to the Friends group there are also 

approximately 100 other volunteers, both individual 

and groups, that donate time to the Refuge to assist 

with providing information to the public at the visitor center and other sites during peak visitation, 

habitat restoration, environmental education, interpretive and outreach programs, and administrative 

and maintenance tasks. 

Outreach

Outreach is an important component of Refuge 

operations. In addition to off-site interpretive and 

environmental education programs, the Refuge 

sends out monthly news releases pertaining to recreational opportunities and resource issues and 

maintains a website with links to: the Rhythms of 

the Refuge environmental education curriculum and 

teacher resources, news releases, current habitat 

conditions, historical information about the marsh, 

maps, regulations, and a calendar of events listing 

interpretive programs. The Refuge also maintains a 

Traveler Information System (TIS) with monthly 

updates and also a weekly waterfowl numbers 

phone recording. 

Refuge staff and volunteers reach a wider audience by partnering with other natural resource 

agencies and local community service groups to 

offer regional educational and recreational events 

such as the Horicon Marsh Bird Festival, Marsh 

Melodies, Ducks Unlimited Outdoor Show, and 

many other events. 

Archaeological and Cultural Resources

Cultural resources management in the Service is 

the responsibility of the Regional Director and is 

not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for 

Indian tribal involvement. The Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional 

Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of cultural resources laws. The Refuge 

Manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO 

about Service undertakings, by protecting archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by monitoring 

archeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting violations.

Law Enforcement

Horicon NWR is dedicated to safeguarding the 

resources under its jurisdiction, including natural 

resources, cultural resources, and facilities. 

Resource management on the Refuge includes both 

protective and preventive functions. Protection is 

safeguarding the visiting public, staff, facilities and 

natural and cultural resources from criminal action, 

accidents, negligence and acts of nature such as 

wildfires. Preventing incidents from occurring is the 

best form of protection and requires a known and 

visible law enforcement presence as well as other 

proactive steps to address potential threats and natural hazards.

Over the years, the most common violations on 

the Refuge have been vandalism and trespass. Vandalism incidents have included damage to signs and 

other structures and dumping on the west side 

roads, which are all township roads that dead-end at 

the Refuge boundary. Trespass violations have usually involved visitors who wander into closed areas. 

Muskrat, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Other incidents have included hunting violations, 

shining on the Refuge, drug problems, arson, and 

taking protected plants and animals from the Refuge. 

Fox River National Wildlife 

Refuge

Introduction

Fox River NWR encompasses 1,004 acres of 

wetland and upland habitat along the Fox River in 

Marquette County, approximately 35 miles west of 

Horicon NWR. Fox River NWR was established in 

1979 under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Unique Wildlife Ecosystem Program to protect an 

area known as the Fox River Sandhill Crane Marsh 

from further drainage and to preserve associated 

upland habitat. The Refuge protects an important 

breeding and staging area for the Sandhill Crane. 

The majority of the Refuge contains sedge meadow, 

wet prairie, and shallow marsh wetlands (Figure 10

and Figure 11). Fox River NWR is managed by 

staff from Horicon NWR.

The Refuge is unique not only because of its 

importance to nesting Sandhill Cranes, but because 

of the diversity of wildlife within this wetland/

upland complex. The Refuge has 10 distinct plant 

communities ranging from upland coniferous and 

deciduous woodlands to five wetland communities. 

This diversity of vegetation communities is 

responsible for the presence of about 150 different 

species of wildlife. Wildlife diversity to this extent 

within such a relatively small, confined area is not 

encountered elsewhere in Wisconsin (USFWS, 

1987). 

Fox River NWR is located directly across the 

road (County Highway F) from John Muir 

Memorial Park, a county park named after the 

famous conservationist and founder of the Sierra 

Club. During part of his boyhood years, Muir lived 

near the county park and Fox River NWR. 

Although he settled in California, explored the High 

Sierra and wilderness Alaska, and traveled all over 

the world, John Muir never forgot this humbler 

land, and tried several times to purchase and 

preserve parts of it. He remarked:

...even if I should never see it again, the beauty 

of its lilies and orchids is so pressed into my 

mind I shall always enjoy looking back at them 

in imagination even across seas and continents 

and perhaps after I am dead.

Climate

As would be expected, given its proximity to 

Horicon NWR, Fox River NWR’s continental 

climate, characterized by cold winters and warm 

summers, is very similar to that of Horicon NWR. 

In the nearby county seat of Montello, July is the 

warmest month with average highs of 78 degrees 

Fahrenheit and January the coldest month with 

average lows of 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual 

precipitation is about 32 inches, with April through 

September the wettest months. Average snowfall is 

approximately 40 inches. The median growing 

season is 144 days (Wisconline, 2005). 

Topography and Soils

Local relief is quite gentle, sloping to the Fox 

River and adjacent marshes. Elevations range from 

the river at 770 feet above mean sea level to an 

upland hill that rises to 816 feet. Soils are 

predominantly muck and peat underlain by sandy 

alluvium deposited by the Fox River. The island 

and upland edges have sandy soils, ranging from 

loamy sand to sandy loam (USFWS, 1979; USFWS, 

2003). 

Surface Hydrology

The surface hydrology of the Refuge is 

dominated by the Fox River, which bisects it. The 

majority of habitats on the Refuge consist of sedge 

meadow, wet prairie, and shallow marsh wetlands, 

dominated by many species of sedges, grasses, and 

cattail. These are all considered wetland habitats 

and many would qualify as “jurisdictional wetlands” 

or “waters of the United States.” That is, these 

areas are under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act and the Army Corps of 

Engineers for the purpose of actions that might 

deposit fill in these waters/wetlands or otherwise 

alter their values and functions. 

Archeological and Cultural Values 

Much of the general discussion of Horicon 

NWR’s pre-history and history would also be 

applicable to Fox River NWR. See “Archeological 

and Cultural Values” on page 21 for a combined 

history of the two refuges.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Fox River NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Figure 11: Historic Vegetation of the Fox River NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

Social and Economic Context

Marquette County, where Fox River NWR is 

located, is a more rural county than either Dodge or 

Fond du Lac Counties, where Horicon NWR is 

situated. Table 9 presents data on socioeconomic 

features of the county in comparison with 

Wisconsin as a whole. 

Marquette County has a substantially smaller 

population as well as a lower population density 

than either Dodge or Fond du Lac Counties. Its 

population has declined slightly since 2000, 

although it grew very rapidly in the 1990s, three 

times as quickly as the state did. Still, the county 

population density is only one-third of Wisconsin’s 

average density. 

Except for American Indians, Marquette County 

has a lower percentage of minorities than the state 

as a whole and the country at large, which is very 

typical of the more rural, northern states. Likewise, 

there are lower percentages of foreign born and 

persons who speak languages other than English at 

home than in Wisconsin generally. 

Educational attainment is substantially lower 

than in Wisconsin overall, with the percentage of 

college graduates in the county less than half the 

percentage of college graduates in the state (10 

percent vs. 22 percent). However, as stated earlier 

in the case of Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties, 

this is very typical of rural areas around the 

country. Both median household income and per 

capita money income in Marquette County are 

substantially below the state figures (18 percent 

and 20 percent, respectively). 

The almost 3,000 county residents with a 

disability underscores the importance of Fox River 

NWR trying to serve this population. 

Table 10 provides industry and employment data 

for Marquette County. 

The low employment and industry figures for 

agriculture belie its prominent place in the 

landscape of Marquette County. Farmers own and 

manage 145,552 acres in the county – including 

pastures, cropland and tree farms – fully half of all 

the land in Marquette County. Individuals or 

Table 9: Socioeconomic Characteristics, Marquette County, Wisconsin

Characteristic Marquette County Wisconsin

Population, 2004 estimate 14,973 5,509,026

Population, % change, 2000-2004 - 5.4% 2.7%

Population, 2000 15,832 5,363,675

Population, % change, 1990-2000 28.5% 9.6%

Land Area, 2000 (square miles) 455 54,310

Persons per square mile (population density), 2000 35 98.8

White persons, %, 2000 93.7% 88.9%

Non-Hispanic white persons, %, 2000 92.0% 87.3%

Black or African American persons, %, 2000 3.4% 5.7%

American Indian persons, %, 2000 1.0% 0.9%

Asian persons, %, 2000 0.3% 1.7%

Persons of Latino or Hispanic origin, %, 2000 2.7% 3.6%

Language other than English spoken at home, %, 2000 6.2% 7.3%

Foreign born persons, %, 2000 1.5% 3.6%

High school graduates, % of persons age 25+, 2000 78.8% 85.1%

Bachelor’s degree or higher, % of persons 25+, 2000 10.1% 22.4%

Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 2,863 790,917

Median household income, 1999 $35,746 $43,791

Per capita money income, 1999 $16,924 $21,271

Persons below poverty, %, 1999 7.7% 8.7%

Sources: USCB, 2005c; USCB, 2005d
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

families own 90 percent of these farms, with family 

partnerships, family-owned corporations, and nonfamily corporations accounting for the remainder 

(UWE, 2004b). 

Marquette County ranks consistently among 

Wisconsin’s top five producers of mint oil and 

Christmas trees and also has significant potato and 

sweet corn production. The county has a rich 

history of dairy as well as cash grain crops. It also 

has several large nursery producers and sod farms. 

Production of landscape trees and plants as well as 

landscape and grounds maintenance is rapidly 

growing segments of Marquette County’s 

agricultural industry. Greenhouses, tree farms, 

nurseries, sod farms and other horticultural 

businesses contribute to the diversity of agriculture 

in the county. 

Overall, agriculture accounts for 1,779 jobs in 

Marquette County and $167 million in economic 

activity. It contributes $55 million to the county’s 

total income and $5 million in taxes (UWE, 2004b). 

Table 10: Marquette County Employment and Industry Data 

Workforce Number Percentage

Employed civilian population 16 years and over 6,621 100.0

Occupation

Management, professional, and related occupations 1,460 22.1

Service occupations 1,213 18.3

Sales and office occupations 1,245 18.8

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 155 2.3

Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 827 12.5

Production, transportation, and material moving 

occupations

1,721 26.0

Industry

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 402 6.1

Construction 538 8.1

Manufacturing 1,749 26.4

Wholesale trade 143 2.2

Retail trade 629 9.5

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 320 4.8

Information 108 1.6

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 243 3.7

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and 

waste management services

236 3.6

Educational, health and social services 941 14.2

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food 

services

633 9.6

Other services (except public administration) 282 4.3

Public administration 397 6.0

Class of Worker

Private wage and salary workers 5,021 75.8

Government workers 847 12.8

Self-employed workers in own not incorporated business 689 10.4

Unpaid family workers 64 1.0

Source: USCB, 2000c
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

Natural Resources

Habitats

Nine plant communities are recognized on the 

Refuge: upland deciduous forest, upland old field, 

lowland forest, low prairie, fen, sedge meadowshrub carr, shallow and deep marsh, and 

submerged aquatic plants in open water. Only two 

of these nine (upland deciduous forest, and upland 

old field) are upland habitats; the others are 

lowland, wetland, or bottomland habitats with high 

moisture or saturated soils. Two features of the 

wetlands are acid sands and alkaline seeps; in 

combination, they give the wetlands an unusual 

floristic diversity. The diversity and structure of the 

vegetation communities offer an outstanding 

variety of habitats for wildlife. 

Another habitat feature that contributes to 

habitat diversity is a 40-acre upland island in the 

center of the marsh. This island is generally 

inaccessible to humans or cattle during the summer 

and represents an excellent example of an 

undisturbed climax oak-hickory woodlot. 

The majority of the Refuge consists of sedge 

meadow, wet prairie, and shallow marsh wetlands 

dominated by many species of sedges, grasses, and 

cattail. However, other wetland types such as fens, 

lowland forest, shrub-carr thickets, deep marsh, 

and open water occur on the Refuge as well. 

In Wisconsin generally, sedge meadows are 

dominated by sedges, most of which belong to the 

genus Carex, growing on saturated soils. Other 

sedges found in sedge meadows include spike 

rushes (Eleocharis sp,), bulrushes (Scirpus sp.) and 

nutgrasses (Cyperus sp.). Grasses (Poaceae) and 

true rushes (Juncus spp.) are also found in sedge 

meadows. The forb species are diverse but 

scattered and may flower poorly under intense 

competition with the sedges. Sedge meadows often 

grade into shallow marshes, calcareous fens, low 

prairies and bogs (WWA, 2002).

Fens are a very rare wetland type in Wisconsin 

and harbor many state-listed threatened and 

endangered plants. Shrub-carr thickets are a 

wetland community dominated by tall shrubs such 

as red-osier dogwood, meadow-sweet, and various 

willows. Canada bluejoint grass is often very 

common (WDNR, 2004b). 

Upland habitats consist of closed canopy upland 

deciduous forest dominated by white, black, and bur 

oak, upland dry prairie, and oak savanna. Three 

spring-fed creeks flow through the Refuge, adding 

to the diversity of the area (USFWS, no date-g). 

In 2003, the Service conducted surveys of six 

broad habitat types on the Refuge in order to 

monitor vegetation and wildlife communities, as 

well as abiotic conditions, namely the hydrologic 

regime (USFWS, 2003). 

Wet Prairie – Emergent Marsh

This habitat type is very broad on the Refuge 

and includes most treeless wetland habitats, such as 

wet prairie, sedge meadow, and shallow emergent 

marsh. Wet prairie and sedge meadow are difficult 

to differentiate, since these two habitats tend to mix 

together. Wet prairie is drier than the sedge 

meadows and is dominated by tussek sedge (Carex 

stricta), flat-top aster, joe-pie weed, goldenrod spp., 

wild iris, smartweed spp., and sensitive fern. Wet 

prairie also tends to be overgrown in many places 

with shrubs such as red-osier dogwood, willow spp., 

poison sumac, and alder. Many of the wet prairie 

sites are also fens, where rare plants characteristic 

Falsenettle, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

of fens were documented in the 2003 survey, such as 

hedge nettle, swamp thistle, lousewort, obedient 

plants, sneezeweed, culvers root, water hemlock, 

downy willoweed, and St. John’s wort, among 

others. There is rarely any surface water in the wet 

prairie, only moist soil.

Sedge meadow is dominated by plant species 

with more flooding tolerance, such as lake sedge 

(Carex lacustra), Carex laciosa, blue joint grass, 

marsh fern, some patches of tussock sedge, 

Impatiens spp., wild iris, and moss spp. The sedge 

meadows are much more monotypic and have fewer 

forbs than the wet prairies. Other species 

documented in the 2003 survey that were not too 

common included mint spp., bedstraw, and Rumex 

spp. Water depths in sedge meadows varied from 0 

– 10 inches, with a mean close to 5 inches. 

Shallow emergent marsh has generally deeper 

water depths, ranging from 0 – 30 inches, with a 

mean close to 15 inches. Again, while it is difficult to 

discern distinct differences in shallow marsh and 

sedge meadow, shallow marsh tends to be 

dominated by cattail spp., lake sedge, some blue 

joint grass, Epilobium spp., Sagitarria spp., Biden 

spp., Rumex spp., Scirpus spp. (wool grass, river 

bulrush, and softstem bulrush), smartweed spp., 

bur reed, and sweet flag. 

A variety of wildlife species, from ducks to rails 

to songbirds, use this habitat type. Common 

breeding bird species in this habitat type include 

Sandhill Crane, Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Wood 

Duck, Canada Goose, Sedge Wren, Swamp 

Sparrow, Common Yellowthroat, Red-winged 

Blackbird, Northern Harrier, American Goldfinch, 

Tree Swallow, Sora, American Bittern, Green 

Heron, Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, Bobolink, 

Eastern Kingbird, and American Crow. Only a few 

Yellow and Virginia Rails were seen during the 

summer 2003 survey; the Yellow Rail is a species of 

concern and is very rare. Species present in larger 

numbers during fall included Sandhill Crane, 

Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Canada Goose, Bald 

Eagle, American Crow, and Red-winged Blackbird. 

Species not present during the summer 2003 

survey, but present during the fall included Black 

Ducks, Green-winged Teal, Common Snipe, 

American Tree Sparrow, Snow Bunting, and 

Lapland Longspur (USFWS, 2003).

Wetland Shrub-Scrub

These shrub-carr habitats are dominated by red 

osier dogwood, other dogwood spp., willow spp., 

alder spp., bog birch, tamarack, green ash, poison 

sumac, and some aspen. The herbaceous community 

and hydrology is similar to that of wet prairie, and 

as a result fens occur in this shrub scrub habitat 

(USFWS, 2003).

Common breeding birds include Sandhill Crane 

(in the more open shrub-scrub areas), Song 

Sparrow, Yellow Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, 

Swamp Sparrow, Blue-winged Warbler, Northern 

Cardinal, Alder and Willow Flycatcher, American 

Crow, American Goldfinch, Woodcock, Gray 

Catbird, Mourning Dove, Brown-headed Cowbird, 

Red-winged Blackbird, Cedar Waxwing, Veery, 

Rufous-sided Towhee, Eastern Kingbird, Green 

Heron, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Blue Jay, and 

Indigo Bunting. A few Bell’s Vireos were 

documented during the summer 2003 survey, a rare 

bird for this part of the United States. Birds 

common during fall migration include Sandhill 

Crane, Woodcock, Yellow-rumped Warbler, 

American Goldfinch, Gray Catbird, Golden-crowned 

Kinglet, Blue Jay, Downy Woodpecker, Cedar 

Waxwing, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, 

Eastern Bluebird, Palm Warbler, Song Sparrow, 

American Robin, and Northern Flicker (USFWS, 

2003). 

Northern Cardinal, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

Wetland Forest

Dominant trees in this habitat type include 

tamarack, green ash, swamp white oak, red maple, 

elm spp., and to a lesser extent, bur oak. Midcanopy trees and shrubs include those mentioned 

previously, dogwood spp., bog birch, poison sumac, 

alder spp., and willow spp. The herbaceous layer 

was dominated by moss spp., carex spp., grass spp., 

wild raspberry, fern spp., Impatiens spp., and nettle 

spp. Little, if any, surface water is present in 

wetland forest, but soil is very moist (USFWS, 

2003).

In terms of bird use, this is possibly the most 

diverse habitat type on the Refuge. Common 

breeding species in this habitat type include Veery, 

House Wren, American Robin, Cedar Waxwing, 

Yellow Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Bluewinged Warbler, Red-bellied Woodpecker, Pileated 

Woodpecker, Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Downy 

Woodpecker, Indigo Bunting, Willow and Alder 

Flycatcher, Gray Catbird, Baltimore Oriole, 

Northern Flicker, Blue Jay, Eastern Wood-pewee, 

Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, Northern Cardinal, 

Mourning Dove, Yellow-throated Vireo, Blackcapped Chickadee, and Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. 

Species present in larger numbers during fall 

include American Robin, Cedar Waxwing, 

American Goldfinch, Black-capped Chickadee, 

Yellow-rumped Warbler, White-throated Sparrow, 

White-breasted Nuthatch, Fox Sparrow, and 

American Crow. In the 2003 survey, a Long-eared 

Owl was documented in a tamarack forest in 

October (USFWS, 2003).

Upland Prairie

In the 2003 survey, only four points were located 

in upland prairie (old agriculture fields). These 

points were dominated by monotypic cool season 

grass stands consisting of mainly smooth brome, 

quack grass, and Kentucky bluegrass. Goldenrod 

spp. and common mullein were the only common 

forbs found.

In contrast to wetland forest, upland prairie 

likely had the lowest number of bird species 

surveyed in 2003. The habitat was very monotypic, 

likely causing low bird species richness. Bird 

species documented in upland prairie included 

Bobolink, Northern Bobwhite, Wild Turkey, 

Common Yellowthroat, Tree Swallow, Eastern 

Bluebird, Field Sparrow, Song Sparrow, Eastern 

Kingbird, Sandhill Crane, and European Starling 

(USFWS, 2003).

Upland Savanna

Upland savanna is similar to upland prairie on 

the Refuge, the only difference being that these 

sites have been invaded by small red cedar and 

white pine, thus creating an old field savanna. This 

savanna is not the goal of management and 

restoration efforts – the goal is true oak savanna. In 

the 2003 survey, these old field savannas did contain 

some good native plant species (in a limited 

amount) not found on upland prairie sites, such as 

big bluestem, little bluestem, whorled, common, and 

sand milkweed, Carex spp., wild raspberry, aster 

spp., western ragweed, bush clover, needle grass, 

Cyperus spp., horsemint, blazing star, and butterfly 

milkweed. 

Upland savanna has more species than upland 

prairie, likely because of the presence of small 

cedar and white pine in the prairie. In the 2003 

survey, these species included Sandhill Crane 

(feeding), Chipping Sparrow, Clay-colored 

Sparrow, Henslow’s Sparrow, Common 

Yellowthroat, American Robin, Field Sparrow, 

Rufous-sided Towhee, Mourning Dove, American 

Goldfinch, Song Sparrow, Eastern Bluebird, Tree 

Swallow, Savanna Sparrow, Barn Swallow, Eastern 

Kingbird, Bobolink, Turkey Vulture, Red-tailed 

Hawk, and Brown-headed Cowbird (USFWS, 2003).

Upland Forest

All of the upland forest on the Refuge was 

historically oak savanna, dominated by white, black, 

and bur oak. Now, it is a closed canopy forest with 

many tree species that are not fire tolerant. Many 

remnant savanna trees exist in these forests, 

obviously open grown, with broad, spreading, 

drooping crowns. Dominant tree species were white 

oak, black oak, bur oak, black cherry, red cedar, 

elm spp., northern red oak, shagbark hickory, sugar 

maple, and some green ash. Mid-canopy trees and 

shrubs consisted of those dominant trees mentioned 

previously, plus mulberry, grape spp, winterberry, 

and dogwood spp. The herbaceous layer was 

dominated by huckleberry spp., wild raspberry, 

garlic mustard (not good), avans, nettle spp., grass 

spp., and burdock.

This habitat type is also very diverse in terms of 

bird use. Just a few of the most common breeding 

birds seen in the 2003 survey were Pileated, RedBellied, and Downy Woodpecker, White-breasted 

Nuthatch, Scarlet Tanager, Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak, Ovenbird, Eastern-wood Pewee, Blackcapped Chickadee, Northern Cardinal, Gray 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Catbird, Hairy Woodpecker, Red-eyed Vireo, 

Northern Flicker, Great Crested Flycatcher, 

Indigo Bunting, Blue Jay, American Crow, 

American Goldfinch, Cedar Waxwing, Blue-gray 

Gnatcatcher, and Mourning Dove. Less common 

birds include Ruffed Grouse, Chestnut-sided 

Warbler, Lincoln’s Sparrow, Yellow-throated Vireo, 

Black-billed Cuckoo, and Blue-headed Vireo. 

Golden-crowned Kinglet, Wild Turkey, American 

Robin, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Black-and-White 

Warbler, White-throated Sparrow, Slate-colored 

Junco, Cedar Waxwing, Northern Shrike, and Fox 

Sparrow are commonly observed on the Refuge 

during fall (USFWS, 2003).

Open Water – Deep Marsh

In the 2003 survey, this habitat type was not 

officially sampled with the methods used in the 

habitat types above. However, casual observations 

from open water/deep marsh wetlands on the 

Refuge are recorded here. Wild rice and a variety 

of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) were 

present on Refuge open water wetlands. SAV 

consisted of water lilies, Potamogeton spp., coontail, 

wild celery, and a variety of others not identified. 

Species using open water on the Refuge during 

summer include Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Wood 

Duck, Canada Geese, Great Blue Heron, Great 

Egret, Green Heron, Sandhill Crane, American 

Bittern, Belted Kingfisher, Bald Eagle, Killdeer, 

Black Tern, and Caspian Tern. In addition to the 

birds listed above, fall migrants at Fox River 

include Ring-billed Gull, Tundra Swan, Osprey, 

Western, Pectoral, and Least Sandpiper, Lesser 

and Greater Yellowlegs, Long-billed Dowitcher, 

Green-winged Teal, Black Duck, Gadwall, and 

Northern Shoveler (USFWS, 2003).

Wildlife 

The matrix of many wetland and upland habitat 

types present on the Refuge furnishes excellent 

habitat for both wetland and upland associated 

wildlife, such as ducks, Sandhill Cranes, herons, 

rails, songbirds, deer, turkey, and Bobwhite Quail. 

The Refuge also harbors furbearers, marsh birds, 

raptors, and a variety of woodland mammals, in 

addition to amphibians, reptiles and fish. 

Birds

The Fox River NWR is important to nesting 

Sandhill Cranes and has some of the most 

productive crane habitat in southern Wisconsin. 

The marsh supports at least five breeding pairs 

each year. It is also one of four major staging areas 

for Sandhill Cranes in southern Wisconsin and is 

used by 300-400 migrating cranes each autumn 

(USFWS, 1979). 

Due to its relatively undisturbed condition, the 

wooded island in the center of the marsh has 

historically supported a small rookery of herons, 

including Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets, and 

Black-crowned Night Herons (USFWS 1979). In 

addition to these colonial nesting herons, American 

Bitterns have been observed nesting in the marsh 

and Least Bitterns occur during the summer.

Waterfowl numbers in the area are relatively 

high, with fall censuses having counted 

approximately 3,000-5,000 ducks and 10,000 Coots 

on nearby Buffalo Lake. Ducks in the Refuge are 

mostly Blue-winged Teal and Mallards. Estimates 

of breeding pairs per square mile have averaged 

five pairs of Mallard and 27 pairs of Blue-winged 

Teal at the French Creek Wildlife Management 

area, which has waterfowl habitat similar to that 

found on Fox River NWR.

Altogether, approximately 100 species of birds 

representing 21 families have been observed at the 

Refuge. Nesting on the Refuge has been 

documented for 51 of these species. 

White-tail deer buck, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Mammals

About 26 species of mammals have been 

recorded at the Refuge. One of them is 

Richardson’s squirrel, typically a western prairie 

species. Furbearers include mink, muskrats, 

beaver, and raccoon. Marquette County has had 

high densities of white-tailed deer, up to 60 deer per 

square mile (USFWS, 1979).

Amphibians and Reptiles

At least 15 species of amphibians and reptiles 

have been identified at the Refuge. This tally 

includes six species of frogs, five species of turtles, 

and four species of snakes (USFWS, 1979).

Aquatic Life

Fox River and nearby Buffalo Lake contain an 

abundance and diversity of fresh water aquatic 

plant and animal life. Portions of the river and the 

lake have been chemically treated at times to 

remove undesirable non-game fish and excessive 

aquatic vegetation. Game fish included perch, bass 

and northern pike. Six species of freshwater clams 

have been reported at the Refuge, providing food 

for many wildlife species (USFWS, 1979).

Threatened and Endangered Species

No species on the federal threatened and 

endangered species list are known to exist at Fox 

River NWR. However, several state-listed species 

are present, including the Double-crested 

Cormorant, Great Egret, Red-shouldered Hawk, 

wood turtle and Blanding’s turtle. 

Fox River NWR Current Refuge 

Programs: Where We Are 

Today

This section summarizes current management 

programs, operations, and facilities at Fox River 

NWR. It also describes the participation and cooperation of Refuge staff and management activities 

with our partnering agencies and stakeholders in 

the wider community on efforts to balance competing demands for natural resources, wildlife, and protection from environmental hazards like flooding.

Habitat Management

Many of the current management efforts on the 

Refuge focus on restoring valuable wildlife habitats 

that have declined regionally since the advent of 

intensive habitat modification and destruction 

wrought by Euro-American settlement, agricultural 

development and drainage projects. The staff 

located at Horicon NWR staff carries out wetland 

and upland habitat restoration projects on the Refuge.

Habitat Restoration

Virtually all the work completed on Fox River 

NWR to date has been some kind of habitat restoration. After completion of wetland and upland restoration activities, Fox River NWR will provide 

wonderful examples of habitats present before 

European settlement of the area in 1850. The area 

will then be managed primarily by periodic prescribed burning, mowing, and monitoring/evaluation. 

General Land Office (GLO) records for the area 

and old aerial photos have provided a glimpse into 

what the area used to look like. For example, a GLO 

surveyor in December 1832 described seeing what 

we call today oak savanna along a section line that 

runs through the Refuge: “land rolling, second rate, 

thinly timbered with oak.” In the wetlands, the surveyor did not give much detail, only statements such 

as “land level and marshy, no trees.” However, the 

fact that the surveyors did not see any trees in the 

marsh is very notable as today, large blocks of tamarack, aspen, green ash, willow, and a variety of 

shrubs such as red osier dogwood exist in the 

former treeless marsh. This observation tells us 

that fire was likely present to keep the woody vegetation out of the marsh (most woody vegetation that 

can tolerate wet conditions is not fire tolerant). 

Other sources of information include old aerial 

photos from the 1930s to the 1950s. These photos 

depict the current day Fox River NWR with oak 

savanna still present on the uplands (very little 

closed canopy forest as is seen today) and a nearly 

treeless marsh.

Wetland Restoration

In 2004, funding was received for a wetland restoration project on the Refuge from (a) the NAWCA 

Small Grants Program ($17,500), (b) Ducks Unlimited ($12,500 as a match for the NAWCA grant), (c) 

Wisconsin Waterfowl Association ($10,000), and (d) 

the Service’s Cooperative Conservation Initiative 

(CCI), two grants of $20,000 and $2,500. Elevation 

surveys were conducted throughout the project 

area in order to determine water flow patterns and 

post-construction water depths. The wetland restoration involved filling and plugging ditches (via 

earthen and sheet piling plugs) that drain approxi-
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

mately 350 acres of Refuge wetlands and mowing 

shrubs that have invaded the fen communities in 

these wetlands. Several scrapes, ranging in size 

from 6 to 24 inches in depth, were also dug. Work 

was done by a construction company from Portage, 

Wisconsin, using two D-6 dozers with wide tracks, a 

track hoe, and two tracked dump trucks. 

Dry Prairie Restoration

According to 1832 General Land Office surveys, 

uplands on the Refuge were oak savanna and dry 

prairie. In 2004, a $20,000 Cooperative Conservation 

Initiative grant was received to begin restoration of 

dry prairie habitats on the Refuge. About 45 acres 

of old agricultural fields (Overlook unit, minus 

northern 6 acres) dominated by quack grass and 

smooth brome were prepared and planted to native 

prairie in 2004. The remaining 45 acres in the East 

Muir, Rataczak, and North Overlook units were prepared and planted in May of 2005. In addition, needle grass, leadplant, thimbleweed, Canada 

milkvetch, white wild indigo, yellow coneflower, rosinweed, compass plant, cup plant, and prairie dock 

were planted by hand on the top of the hill north and 

east of the section corner in the Overlook unit. By 

the end of 2005, the 12-acre Spring Unit and the 8-

acre Homestead unit were being sprayed in preparation for seeding. 

In 2004, Refuge staff led a red cedar and white 

pine cutting day to cut and pile invasive red cedar 

and white pine from the Overlook prairie restoration unit. More than 65 volunteers helped with the 

project. These volunteers donated more than 260 

hours of labor worth more than $3,900 to Fox River 

NWR on the work day. The day was very successful 

as all the red cedar and white pine on the Overlook 

unit were cut and piled.

Between June and October, native prairie grass 

and forb seed was collected and cleaned from Shoenberg and New Chester Waterfowl Production 

Areas and private land near the Refuge, as well as 

Goose Pond Sanctuary, with the aid of many volunteers from Beaver Dam and River Crossing charter 

schools. Goose Pond Sanctuary, Leopold Wetland 

Management District, and the Madison Private 

Lands Office aided with the seed collection and 

cleaning efforts. Five species of grass and 32 species 

of forbs were collected, worth more than $12,000 if 

bought from local vendors. Combining seed collected and purchased, nine species of grass and 42 

species of forbs comprised the seed mix of 2.6 lbs./

acre of grass and 1.75 lbs./acre of forbs. 

Oak Savanna Restoration

Nearly all the historic oak savanna on the Refuge 

has changed from oak savanna to closed canopy forest due to lack of fire. Large, open grown oaks are 

present in these forests, but are being starved for 

sunlight due to encroachment by fire intolerant 

trees and thick stands of young black oaks. Fire 

intolerant trees such as red cedar, black cherry, 

green ash, and elm have colonized these oak 

savanna habitats and contributed to the closed canopy. 

Oak savanna restoration on the Refuge has 

involved thinning of these closed canopy forests in 

the Cedar and Bur Oak units. A Montello forest 

products company was hired to cut the fire intolerant trees mentioned above and thin the smaller oaks 

and hickories. All of the oaks and hickories above 16 

inches DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) were not 

cut. The thinning opened up the forest and created 

an oak savanna, at least the tree portion of the 

savanna. Much slash remained on the ground as a 

result of the logging. Refuge staff rented a chipper 

in the Bur Oak unit in an effort to reduce slash. The 

chips were thrown into the dump truck and hauled 

to the Montello mulch site in order to reduce 

chances of invasion by invasive plant species and to 

enhance chances for a successful prescribed burn 

next year (piles of chips don’t burn very well). The 

chipper is a great way to remove the slash, but 

requires extensive labor and funds. The need for 

prairie grass and forb seeding will be evaluated 

after several successful prescribed fires have 

removed much of the slash.

Dragonfly, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

It will likely take several years to restore all 

aspects of the historic oak savannas on the Refuge. 

In addition to removing slash, stumps need to be cut 

lower to the ground and treated with herbicide to 

prevent re-sprouting. Lack of personnel with the 

needed training to apply the herbicides during logging severely restricted the number of stumps that 

could be treated shortly after cutting. Aspen has resprouted in the Bur Oak unit and will need to be 

controlled in the future via burning, mowing, or 

chemicals. 

Water Level Management

As mentioned in the wetland restoration section, 

hydrological restoration in Refuge wetlands will be 

accomplished via ditch filling, plugging and stream 

course reestablishment. No water control structures that would require intensive management are 

needed on the Refuge in order to manage Refuge 

sedge meadow/shallow marsh habitats similar to 

historic conditions. The majority of the Refuge has 

significant groundwater inputs and surface water 

inputs from spring fed streams, precipitation, and a 

natural flood regime from the Fox River. As a result, 

the majority of the Refuge is very wet. Surface 

water depths ranged from 0-30 inches above the 

spongy peat layer and some areas even have floating 

vegetation (water depths greater than 30 inches). 

Vegetation composition and structure vary along 

this water level gradient. Any wetland restoration 

that takes place will be designed so that only passive 

water level management will be needed and hydrological conditions will be restored as closely as possible to pre-European settlement conditions. For 

instance, after ditches are plugged or filled, periodic 

visits should be done to make sure that plugs are 

holding and ditches remain filled. Stream courses 

that were restored should be checked to make sure 

they are still coursing down the restored paths.

Moist Soil Management

No intensive moist-soil management occurs on 

the Refuge because there is no need for infrastructure in the naturally functioning parts of this wetland. The 400 acres of wetland impacted by past 

ditching efforts will be restored by filling and plugging of ditches (no water control structures). Productive moist-soil areas naturally occur in various 

locations on the Refuge. The largest moist-soil wetland is Crane Pool, a 10-acre wetland on the southwest side of the Refuge. This wetland is directly 

connected to the Fox River and as a result, water 

levels fluctuate with river height. Other pockets of 

moist-soil exist throughout Refuge wetlands, but in 

all they total less than another 10 acres. 

Nearly all the other Refuge wetlands function as 

wet prairie, sedge meadow, or shallow emergent 

marsh where more stable water levels across the 

seasons and years creates ideal conditions for 

perennial plant species such as Carex spp. The 

moist-soil areas seem to lack this stable water, likely 

as a result of little groundwater inputs on these sites 

(unlike the majority of the Refuge). These sedge 

meadow/shallow marsh areas with native perennial 

vegetation and more stable water regimes are also 

heavily used by waterbirds, namely Sandhill 

Cranes, Canada Geese, Blue-winged Teal, and Mallards. In many cases, the birds “roto-till” the marsh, 

eating tubers, newly sprouted shoots, and seeds. 

Waterbird use of these areas tends to be higher in 

the spring when more habitat and food sources are 

made available due to higher river flows, snowmelt, 

and precipitation. 

Although wild rice production is not considered 

“moist-soil,” it should be noted for its significance on 

the Refuge. Wild rice occurs on the Refuge in shallow, open water areas, such as the outlet to Long 

Cattails, Horicon NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Lake, in most Refuge streams and ditches with 

water flow, in the old Fox River channel slough on 

the northwest side of the Refuge, and along the 

shoreline of oxbow lake and the active Fox River 

channel. It is estimated that approximately 20 acres 

of wild rice exist either on or adjacent to the Refuge. 

Wild rice sites are extremely attractive to fall 

migrating waterfowl. Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, 

Wood Ducks, and Black Ducks are seen in sizeable 

numbers in the fall utilizing these wild rice stands. 

Dabbling ducks also use stands of wild rice during 

the breeding season for brood rearing areas.

Prescribed Fire

Fire was an integral part of the oak savanna and 

sedge meadow wetland habitats historically present 

on the Refuge. Fire greatly reduced the abundance 

of fire intolerant woody and herbaceous vegetation, 

thus effectively maintaining the savannas and 

marshes. General Land Office notes describe Refuge wetlands in 1832 as “wet marsh, no trees.” Due 

to fire suppression efforts after human settlement, 

frequency of fire greatly diminished. Open forests 

became closed forests, treeless marshes became 

dominated by lowland forests or shrubs on the 

higher elevations, and dry prairies were invaded by 

woody vegetation. In order to reduce this woody 

component and aid in the process of restoring native 

habitats, prescribed burns are needed for the entire 

Refuge. Burn units were identified for the entire 

Refuge and a burn schedule discussed so each unit 

is burned on a recurring 3-4 year schedule.

Prescribed fire is one of Fox River NWR’s most 

useful tools for maintaining prairie and marsh vegetative characteristics. Since many upland birds and 

waterfowl require open areas for nesting, prescribed fire helps maintain habitat necessary for 

migratory species. By choosing burn units based on 

needs of the wildlife habitat we can maintain a combination of prairie, savanna, marsh, sedge meadow 

and woodland habitats required by native wildlife 

species.

Haying

Historically permits were issued for haying the 

units that border County Road F. In recent years, 

no haying has been done on the Refuge. Refuge 

staff has mowed fields in preparation for native 

grass plantings. 

Controlling Invasive Plants 

The Refuge is very unique in that the abundance 

of exotic and invasive plants is extremely low as 

compared to other sites. Only small, scattered 

patches of exotic plants occur within a sea of native 

plants. Most of the quack grass and brome dominated fields were sprayed in 2004 and 2005 as part 

of the prairie restoration project. Monitoring is 

needed for reed canary grass, phragmites, purple 

loosestrife, and garlic mustard and aspen. The most 

important invasive plant species is loosestrife. Areas 

of reed canary grass are spreading and taking over 

native sedge meadow; Refuge staff is attempting to 

identify the best control techniques for this exotic 

species to control it in the worst areas before the 

problem intensifies. It is important to closely monitor the areas recently disturbed by logging and wetland restoration. Equipment brought into these 

areas has increased the potential for invasive species introduction.

In 2005, Refuge staff collected purple loosestrife 

beetles from an area west of Winona, Minnesota. A 

total of approximately 750 beetles were released on 

and around Fox River NWR where purple loosestrife was present. 

Vegetation Surveys

Vegetation and Habitat Surveys 

The majority of the Refuge is sedge meadow, wet 

prairie, and shallow marsh wetlands dominated by 

many species of sedges, grasses, and cattail. However, other wetland types such as fens, lowland forest, shrub-carr thickets, deep marsh, and open 

water occur on the Refuge as well. 

As discussed previously, 100 survey points were 

randomly placed in six broad habitat types on the 

Refuge in 2003 in order to monitor vegetation and 

wildlife communities, as well as abiotic conditions, 

namely the hydrologic regime. At this point, the 

data have not been entered or analyzed. These surveys will provide good insight into the effects of 

management and restoration efforts on habitat and 

wildlife. 

Wildlife Management

Wildlife management activities at Fox River 

NWR are directed by the Refuge’s establishing purposes and general mandate to conserve trust 

resources. This is accomplished primarily through 

habitat manipulation rather than by direct manipulation of wildlife species and populations. See the 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

previous sections on habitat restoration and management above. However, activities described below 

do pertain directly to investigating wildlife population trends through surveys and censuses, increasing or decreasing wildlife numbers through 

management, conservation, and where necessary, 

control of wildlife populations.

Wildlife Surveys and Censuses

The matrix of the many wetland and upland habitat types present provides excellent habitat for both 

wetland and upland associated wildlife, such as 

ducks, Sandhill Cranes, herons, rails, songbirds, 

deer, turkey, and Bobwhite Quail. More than 300 

Sandhill Cranes have been observed using the Refuge as a staging area during fall migration. Comprehensive plant, bird, fish, amphibian, reptile, or 

mammal lists need to be developed. These baseline 

surveys will provide good insight into the effects of 

habitat management and restoration efforts on wildlife. 

Waterbird Surveys

In 2004, waterbird surveys were performed on 

nine transects established either on or within 1.5 

miles of the Refuge boundary during the spring. 

Survey data from all nine transects were summed to 

get the data shown in Table 11. No corrections for 

disturbance or surveyor error were performed. 

Some surveys were performed via boat and walking, 

while others were performed only by walking.

A total of 29 waterbird species were documented 

on the Refuge during the 2004 surveys. Canada 

Geese, Sandhill Crane, Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, 

Green-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, Wood Duck, 

and Common Merganser make up the majority of 

individuals documented on the Refuge. Table 11

shows a summary of species and groups documented on the Refuge. The “Geese” category 

includes 100 White-fronted Geese and two Snow 

Geese. 

Before the two spring flooding events in 2004, the 

Refuge biologist documented seven active Sandhill 

Crane nests (two eggs each) and five active Mallard 

nests. 

Whooping Crane 14-02 (female) from the eastern 

migratory flock re-introduction project was either 

on the Refuge or within 1.5 miles of the Refuge border in 2004. 

Rail and Bittern Surveys

In 2004, 13 of the 56 wet prairie-emergent marsh 

points were surveyed for rails and bitterns between 

5/5 and 6/4 using standardized marsh bird monitoring protocol, namely tape playbacks of vocalizations. 

Table 12 shows the species documented and number 

of individuals detected per point. In addition to the 

species documented below, vocalizations of Least 

Bitterns and King Rails were also played but with 

no responses. In all, very few rails and bitterns were 

documented on the Refuge, likely a result of the 

deep flooding of many areas during the second visit. 

Areas with shallow surface water tended to hold 

Table 11: Summary of Spring 2004 Waterbird Surveys, Fox River NWR

Date Cranes Geese Dabblers Divers Coot Great 

Blue 

Heron

RB Gull Forsters 

Tern

Black 

Tern

Other Total

3/25/2004 163 4,584 1,033 50 0 0 14 0 0 0 5,844

4/2/2004 292 621 643 76 50 0 13 0 0 1 1,696

4/7/2004 299 2,272 85 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 2,663

4/15/2004 222 1,665 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,976

4/27/2004 119 5 80 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 209

5/11/2004 121 14 220 0 0 14 10 4 0 3 386

5/26/2004 39 4 121 7 0 2 2 10 10 0 195

6/18/2004 20 0 28 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 62

Totals: 1,275 9,165 2,299 137 50 24 39 14 17 11 13,031

Table 12: Marsh Birds Detected Per Point, Fox 

River NWR

Species Individuals Per Point 

(n=23)

Sora 0.57

American Bittern 0.17

Virginia Rail 0.13

Yellow Rail 0.04
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

more rails and bitterns than areas with deep water 

or no surface water. Most of the points that are currently drained by the ditch system did not have any 

rails or bitterns.

Yellow Rails are state-listed as threatened and 

they are on Region 3’s species of conservation concern list; thus, documenting this species on the Refuge is wonderful news. Further management and 

restoration efforts should take into account the life 

history needs of this species. Only one Yellow Rail 

was documented on the rail survey, but two others 

have been heard on the Refuge; all were found in 

Carex laciosa with 1 to 3 inches of surface water. 

Bird Point Count Surveys

Six habitat types were surveyed at the 102 survey points described above during summer and fall 

2003 and spring 2004. Only data from the summer of 

2003 were entered and analyzed in 2004 due to time 

constraints. A summary of the overall species richness on the Refuge and among habitat types, as well 

as community and species relative abundance 

among habitat types, follows. Each survey point was 

placed at least 100 meters apart and 50 meters from 

the edge of the respective habitat type. 

Refuge Species Richness

In 2003, 92 bird species were documented on the 

Refuge during summer bird point count surveys. 

The most common species documented on the Refuge are presented in Table 13. However, these data 

are directly related to the amount of these species’ 

preferred habitat on the Refuge. For example, 

nearly 75 percent of the Refuge is wet prairie-emergent marsh, thus the most common species on the 

Refuge are expected to be those that prefer that 

habitat type. Twenty-two species are on the 

Regional conservation priority list. Of those, notable 

rare species documented included American Bittern, Bald Eagle, Henslow’s Sparrow, Bobolink, 

Sedge Wren, Bell’s Vireo, Yellow-headed Blackbird, 

and Yellow Rail. 

Species Richness Among Habitat Types

Table 14 shows the number of bird species documented on point counts in each habitat type.

All habitat types except upland prairie had high 

species richness. The monotypic herbaceous layer 

with no vertical structure likely contributed to the 

low number of species found here. In addition, only 

four points were surveyed in this habitat type.

Amphibian Surveys

In April 2004, 25 wet prairie-emergent marsh 

points were surveyed for frogs and toads. Protocol 

involved visiting each point for 10 minutes and 

recording species present by listening to calls. The 

numbers of each species were documented if individuals could be distinguished, otherwise a “partial 

or full chorus” designation was documented if calls 

were overlapping or constant, respectively. Because 

surveys were only conducted in early April, species 

that typically vocalize later in the spring and summer were not detected. For example, the biologist 

documented gray tree frogs, cricket frogs, and 

green frogs on the Refuge later in the spring (not 

part of an official amphibian survey though). 

Table 15 shows the species documented and number 

of points where each species was documented. 

Red-headed Woodpecker Nesting Survey

 In 2004, the biologist from Necedah NWR 

assisted the Refuge biologist in a survey for breeding Red-headed Woodpeckers. They are a species of 

conservation concern in Region 3 and the State of 

Table 13: Ten Most Common Bird Species Documented on Fox River NWR, Summer 2003

Species Number Percent of 

Total

Sandhill Crane 472 10.94

Swamp Sparrow 395 9.15

Common 

Yellowthroat

323 7.49

Red-winged 

Blackbird

318 7.37

Sedge Wren 219 5.07

Song Sparrow 204 4.72

American Goldfinch 192 4.45

Tree Swallow 141 3.26

Canada Goose 140 3.25

Mourning Dove 131 3.04

Table 14: Bird Counts by Habitat Type, Fox River NWR

Habitat Type Species Richness

Wetland Forest 46

Wetland Prairie 

Emergent Marsh

44

Wetland Shrub-scrub 44

Upland Savanna 41

Upland Forest 38

Upland Prairie 12
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Wisconsin, thus monitoring their status on the Refuge is imperative. Moreover, with oak savanna restoration ongoing on the Refuge, it is important to 

document the response of this species to the restoration actions, i.e., selective thinning. 

Two active nest cavities were located on the Refuge, both in an oak savanna restoration unit where 

trees had just been thinned 3 months earlier. Six 

adult birds were documented in oak savanna habitat 

around nest cavities located in large (>15 inch 

DBH) snags. In 2003, no nest cavities or Redheaded Woodpeckers were documented on the Refuge, thus the birds seem to be responding to the restoration actions.

Crane Surveys

The Annual Sandhill Crane Count, sponsored by 

the International Crane Foundation, took place on 

April 17, 2004, all across Wisconsin and adjoining 

states. In Wisconsin alone, 12,779 Sandhill Cranes 

were documented (2,197 pairs) by 2,647 observers 

(4.83 cranes per observer). Marquette County, 

where 1,091 Sandhill Cranes (203 pairs) were 

recorded by 169 observers (6.46 cranes and 1.20 

pairs per observer), contained the second highest 

county population and the highest number of breeding pairs reported in Wisconsin. However, the 

county ranked eleventh out of 72 counties in the 

state for the number of cranes documented per 

observer and thirteenth in the number of pairs documented per observer. Thus, it is safe to say Fox 

River NWR and Marquette County play an important role in the life history needs of Wisconsin Sandhill Cranes. Survey results for the past 11 years 

are shown in Table 16. 

Fish Surveys

In 2004, a formal baseline fish inventory was conducted on July 12 and 13 with the assistance of the 

Lacrosse fisheries office. Long Lake, the Fox River, 

Muir Creek, and Oxbow Lake were sampled with 

one-half-inch trap, mini-fyke, and gill nets, as well as 

electro-fishing techniques. In all, 26 species of fish 

were documented on the Refuge or in the Fox River 

adjacent to the Refuge. Very few carp were documented and the Refuge seems to support a very 

diverse and healthy population of fish in all habitat 

types sampled. A report detailing lengths and 

weights of fish caught and catch per unit effort was 

prepared by the Lacrosse Fisheries Office. A summary of the species composition in each water body 

is listed in Table 17 and Table 18. 

Bluegill is the dominant species in Long Lake, 

and the majority were collected in the large mesh 

fyke net, which had the highest catch per unit effort 

(CPUE) at 3.07 fish/hr. The bluegill fishery would 

provide angling opportunities at Long Lake, and 

with the occasional largemouth bass and northern 

pike, this would make a great site for a recreational 

fishing pier. A recommended lowered bag limit 

would help sustain this limited fishery. 

A total of 17 species representing seven families 

were collected from the Fox River. Centrachids 

dominated the catch; bluegill, largemouth bass, 

pumpkinseed sunfish and black crappie totalled 59 

percent of the catch. Channel catfish, yellow bullhead and tadpole madtom represented the catfish 

family. 

Table 15: Frog and Toad Point Count Surveys, 

Fox River NWR

Species Number of Points 

Where Documented

Chorus frog 15

Spring peeper 15

Leopard frog 11

Wood frog 1

American toad 1

Table 16: Sandhill Crane Survey Results, 1994-2005, Fox River NWR

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Pairs 5 2 3 9 6 5 8 2 9 3 1 3

Total 12 31 7 21 22 27 31 40 22 12 14 17
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

 Muir Creek was electrofished for 707 seconds at 

two sites resulting in a catch of 131 individuals. A 

total of 14 species representing six families were collected (Table 19). Muir Creek is a low volume creek 

(5-10 cubic feet per second) that flows out of Ennis 

(Muir) Lake. Several minnow species were present, 

as were darter, stickleback, mudminnow, bowfin and 

small centrachids. Only three fish collected measured over 100 mm (4 inches), and all three were 

largemouth bass. This survey gives us a good baseline to evaluate future work.

Nest Structures

In April 2004, the Friends of Horicon NWR 

donated five homemade Wood Duck boxes constructed of old Freon tanks. Two of these boxes were 

Table 17: Long Lake Fish Population Survey, 2004, Fox River NWR

Species Total 

Number

Average 

Weight (g)

Average 

Length 

(mm)

Range Len 

(mm)

Bluegill 66 63 146 62-205

Black Crappie 8 245 249 190-305

Pumpkinseed Sunfish 6 54 130 69-176

Largemouth Bass 6 380 259 48-430

Black Bullhead 5 165 208 183-230

Northern Pike 2 1,585 654 654 

Johnny Darter 2 1 35 34-35

Carp 1 3,100 608

Yellow Bullhead 1 360 265 

Golden Shiner 1 4 96 

 Total 98

Table 18: Fox River and Backwaters Fish Population Survey, 2004, Fox River NWR

Species Total 

Number

Average 

Weight

(g)

Average 

Length

(mm)

Range 

Length

(mm)

Bluegill 44 73 144 115-257

Yellow Perch 15 46 150 120-181

Largemouth Bass 11 456 236 43-535

Pumpkinseed Sunfish 7 46 125 80-165

Black Crappie 5 132 188 115-257

Carp 5 2,470 577 510-640

Golden Shiner 5 

Spotfin Shiner 4

Channel Catfish 3 1,900 575 515-690 

Yellow Bullhead 3 395 280 240-315

Bluntnose Minnow 3

Smallmouth Bass 2 822 306 123-490

Bowfin 2 660 397 387-406

Rock Bass 1 60 130

Freshwater Drum 1 390 325

White Sucker 1 750 405

Tadpole Madtom 1 15 75

Total 113
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

placed along Muir Creek on the east side of the Refuge, one on the north side of Oxbow Lake, and two 

others on the south bank of a slough on the northwest side of the Refuge. When checked in February 

2005, one had evidence of a successful hatch of seven 

Wood Ducks. The other four boxes all had Wood 

Duck feathers, but no egg membranes. 

Pest, Predator, and Exotic Animal Control

Carp were seen in large numbers in Long Lake 

and the Fox River during the summer and have 

made areas of the lake very muddy, thus reducing 

production by submersed aquatic vegetation. 

Although large numbers were noticed casually, a 

formal fish survey conducted in July captured only 

six carp total during netting and electro-fishing 

samples. 

Coordination Activities

Fox River NWR staff invests a significant 

amount of energy and time representing the Refuge 

in its role as a partner with other government and 

resource agencies and as a neighbor and landowner 

in the community. 

Interagency Coordination

The Refuge biologist has continued efforts to 

coordinate, plan, and implement wetland, dry prairie, and oak savanna habitat restoration efforts with 

the assistance and expertise of staff from Horicon 

and Necedah NWRs, Leopold WMD, Madison PLO, 

Green Bay Ecological Services office, numerous 

Wisconsin DNR offices, and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS). Horicon NWR staff 

is involved in all aspects of Refuge management and 

restoration, since Fox River NWR is a satellite of 

Horicon NWR. The Necedah NWR biologist visited 

the Refuge on two occasions – once to provide advice 

on the oak savanna restoration project and the other 

time to aid in performing a Red-headed Woodpecker 

survey in newly thinned oak savanna restoration 

units. Leopold WMD and the Madison PLO were 

more than helpful in the preparation of a fall prairie 

seeding on the Refuge. Many of their staff devoted 

time, expertise, and equipment to aid the biologist in 

seed collection and cleaning efforts, as well as site 

preparation and planting.

Wisconsin DNR staff members have visited the 

Refuge to determine applicable water regulations 

and provide advice for prairie, oak savanna, and 

wetland restoration and management. All of the 

above agencies and offices contributed much staff 

time to a red cedar cutting day at the Refuge in 

March 2004, to jumpstart prairie restoration efforts. 

Specifically, 24 wildlife professionals from three 

NRCS offices, four FWS offices, and four DNR 

offices contributed a day’s worth of labor to the Refuge during the cedar cutting day. 

Since 2000, the Refuge has participated in the 

Rural Fire Assistance Program, which provides 

financial assistance to rural fire departments in the 

community around the Refuge. Since the program’s 

inception, Montello Fire Department has applied for 

funding in 2003 and 2005 and received $5,850 and 

$3,000.

Partners, Volunteers and Cooperating 

Organizations

The Refuge biologist has also expanded cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) 

and volunteer groups, to include Ducks Unlimited 

(DU), Wisconsin Waterfowl Association (WWA), The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC), Friends of Horicon 

NWR, River Crossing and Beaver Dam charter 

schools, and numerous individual volunteers. In 

2004 alone, these NGOs and volunteers contributed 

Table 19: Muir Creek Fish Population Survey, 

2004, Fox River NWR

Species Total Number CPUE 

(fish/

hour)

Bluntnose Minnow 73 372.45

Fathead Minnow 20 102.04

Largemouth Bass 9 45.92

Central Mudminnow 6 30.61

Blackside Darter 6 30.61

Iowa Darter 4 20.41

Bluegill 4 20.41

Green Sunfish 2 10.20

Brook Stickleback 2 10.20

Bowfin 1 5.10

Pumpkinseed 

Sunfish

 1 5.10

Johnny Darter 1 5.10

Golden Shiner 1 5.10

S. Redbelly Dace 1 5.10

Total 131 668.37
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

1,270 hours of labor to the Refuge, worth more than 

$20,000. These non-federal dollars were used as a 

match to three challenge grants received from the 

FWS for restoration projects. Ducks Unlimited and 

WWA strongly support the Refuge in wetland restoration efforts via planning and financial support. 

Staff from WWA visited the Refuge on five occasions to provide wetland restoration recommendations and aid in needed elevation surveys. 

In addition, WWA funded a flight over the Refuge 

to take needed aerial photos of the wetland restoration project area. River Crossing and Beaver Dam 

charter schools provided indispensable help with 

cedar cutting and piling, elevation surveys, prairie 

forb seed collection, and prairie planting efforts. All 

of the above NGOs and volunteers (except DU) contributed a day’s worth of time to the red cedar cutting day held at the Refuge on March 3, 2004.

Public Recreation, Environmental 

Education and Outreach 

The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act emphasizes wildlife management 

and that all prospective public uses on any given refuge must be found compatible with the wildliferelated refuge purposes before they can be allowed. 

The Refuge System Improvement Act also identifies six priority uses of national wildlife refuges that 

in most cases will be considered compatible uses: 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, hunting, 

fishing, environmental education, environmental 

interpretation. Currently, no uses are allowed on the 

Refuge except deer hunting. 

Facilities include two parking lots that border 

County Road F. A two-panel kiosk is in place at each 

parking lot. These kiosks will provide information 

on the Refuge system, Refuge regulations and 

maps, and interpretive information regarding the 

habitats and wildlife of Fox River NWR.

The Refuge biologist has been involved in outreach efforts over the last 2 years, namely environmental education, with two local charter schools. 

Tours of Refuge fens, shallow marshes, oak savannas, and prairies were given to the school groups. 

Flora and fauna were identified and natural processes such as fire and flooding discussed. Not only 

did these school groups learn a lot about the Refuge 

and the environment, they had the chance to get 

their hands dirty and provide wonderful help on the 

Refuge’s 85-acre prairie restoration project (cedar 

cutting/piling, prairie seed collection, and prairie 

planting). River Crossing Environmental Charter 

School from Portage donated 658 hours of labor to 

the Refuge and Beaver Dam Charter School 

donated 408 hours. 

Deer Hunting

The Refuge is open to deer hunting during all 

state deer seasons in Unit 67A. No Refuge permits 

are required. 

Law Enforcement

Fox River NWR is dedicated to safeguarding the 

resources under its jurisdiction, including its facilities and cultural resources. Resource management 

on the Refuge includes both protective and preventive functions. Protection is safeguarding the visiting public, staff, facilities and natural and cultural 

resources from criminal action, accidents, negligence and acts of nature such as wildfires. Preventing incidents from occurring is the best form of 

protection and requires a known and visible law 

enforcement presence as well as other proactive 

steps to address potential threats and natural hazards.

Over the years, the most common violations on 

the Refuge have been trespass and hunting violations. 

Eastern cotton-tail, Horicon NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon National Wildlife 

Refuge

Future Management Direction: 

Tomorrow’s Vision

Refuge Vision

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge will be 

beautiful, healthy, and support abundant and 

diverse native fish, wildlife, and plants for the 

enjoyment and thoughtful use of current and 

future generations. The Refuge’s hydrologic 

regime will include a functional Rock River 

riparian system, with clean water flowing into 

and out of the Refuge. The Refuge will be a 

place where people treasure an incredible 

resource that upholds the distinction of being 

a Wetland of International Importance.

Goals, Objectives and Strategies

The planning team developed goals and objectives for three management alternatives at Horicon 

NWR. Cooperating agencies, conservation organizations, and Refuge staff all participated in this 

endeavor. Alternative A is the Current Management 

Direction or No Action Alternative, Alternative B is 

named Restoring Natural Watercourses, and Alternative C outlines a “Big Pool” concept. The Environmental Assessment (Appendix A) describes and 

evaluates each alternative. The preferred alternative is B (Restoring Natural Watercourses), and this 

forms the basis for the Horicon NWR CCP and the 

goals, objectives and strategies presented on the following pages. The planning team established three 

goals for major management areas (wildlife, habitat, 

and people), objectives for achieving those goals, 

and the specific strategies that will be employed by 

Refuge staff. The goals are organized into the broad 

categories of wildlife, habitat, and people.

Goal 1: Wildlife

Protect, restore, and maintain a diversity of wildlife species native to habitats historically found on the Refuge, 

with special emphasis on Service Regional Conservation 

Priority Species.

Discussion: This goal exemplifies the Refuge 

staff ’s commitment to “thinking globally and acting locally.” On the local and regional scales, it 

implements the broad mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System to conserve America’s 

wildlife and enhance biodiversity. Horicon NWR 

can most effectively do its share as part of the 

national conservation strategy by focusing on 

those migratory and resident species indigenous 

to the particular habitat types found in southeastern Wisconsin. In emphasizing Conservation Priority Species in Region 3 of the Refuge System, 

Horicon NWR is contributing to wildlife conservation at an appropriate regional scale by trying 

to assist those species in greatest need of attention. The following objectives primarily deal with 

Horicon NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

reducing overabundant or nuisance wildlife species and addressing wildlife safety issues. We recognize that most direct wildlife outcomes result 

through habitat management and these are considered under the Habitat Goal.

Objective 1.1: Deer Population

Annually, maintain Refuge deer population consistent with State Management Unit 68A and 68B 

at a density of 15-20 deer per square mile based 

on annual winter surveys. The allowable deer 

density can be modified based on the health of the 

herd and/or changes in state regulations.

Discussion: Based on studies and long-term experience with deer herd management by Wisconsin 

DNR, this is the optimal population density or 

carrying capacity of white-tailed deer in habitat 

characteristic of this region. At present, the Refuge’s deer herd is healthy and increasing, at a 

density of approximately 35 (Unit 68B) to 51 

(Unit 68A) per square mile.

The deer population on the Refuge, as well as 

many areas in Wisconsin, is currently above a 

level that the available habitat can support. Control of the herd through hunting will help reduce 

the rate of deer-car collisions, the spread of 

Chronic Wasting Disease, and damage to nearby 

apple orchards and croplands. A moderate deer 

density will also contribute to the success of 

establishing historic upland habitats, especially 

oak savanna.

Strategies:

1. Change deer hunting opportunities by 

expanding the current Refuge deer season to 

include a later archery and muzzleloader hunt 

to commensurate with the state seasons, with 

a delayed opening of December 1 on designated dikes north of Ledge Road.

2. Conduct informal survey/interact with hunters and listen to feedback on ways to improve 

hunt.

3. Monitor for signs of habitat damage such as 

browse lines on the Refuge that would indicate that carrying capacity has been surpassed.

4. Evaluate the health of individual animals and 

herds using standard techniques, as needed, 

and by cooperating with the Wisconsin DNR.

Objective 1.2: Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions

By 2012, reduce wildlife losses as the result of 

auto collisions by 50 percent on Highway 49.

Discussion: Wildlife mortality from collisions with 

automobiles can be substantial, especially in 

areas of high wildlife concentration. State Highway 49 east of Waupun is a high speed roadway 

that bisects the northern section of the Horicon 

Marsh for 2.5 miles. From 2002-2005, Refuge 

staff and volunteers systematically searched the 

road throughout the year for road kill. They 

found a total of 4,244 dead animals, including 

waterfowl, bitterns, river otters, muskrats, frogs 

and toads, representing 91 species or species 

groups. This number should be considered an 

absolute minimum, as many carcasses are scavenged or hidden in roadside vegetation. The number of roadkill each year is directly related to the 

water management within the impoundments 

north and south of Highway 49. When water levels are low in a given year, the roadkill is less. 

Keeping the water permanently low is not an 

option since the wetland cycle, drawdown to lake 

stage, results in the best habitat for wildlife. 

Strategies:

1. Support a reroute of State Highway 49, leaving the existing road for bird watching and 

recreation.

2. Promote lowering of the speed limit along 

State Highway 49 or at a minimum, promote 

compliance of the existing speed limit through 

increased law enforcement patrol.

3. Provide mitigation measures along State 

Highway 49 to reduce the number of roadkill. 

These measures may include providing simple 

barriers or fences along the road where 

appropriate, constructing coffer dams at strategic locations that allow animals to cross 

under the road through existing culverts, 

placing poles or other similar tall barriers 

along the highway to discourage birds from 

flying into the path of vehicles.

4. Pursue funding sources to implement the 

above mitigation measures and/or to participate in research to determine the best measures.

5. Seek to engage local, state, and federal 

elected officials in finding a solution to this 

problem.

Objective 1.3: Over-abundant Fish and Wildlife Species

Annually reduce the number of carp and predators on the Refuge to improve wetland habitat 

conditions and protect nesting migratory birds. 
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Annually evaluate the muskrat population to 

determine the need for trapping on dike and/or 

marsh units. 

Discussion: Carp are an extremely destructive, 

non-native species of fish that thrives in low-oxygen conditions, unlike game fish. Carp roll in the 

marsh sediments and create a cloudy environment and uproot aquatic plants. Little sunlight 

can penetrate the water and fuel the marsh food 

web, few organisms thrive in such conditions, and 

the biological diversity of the Marsh is reduced.

Over-abundant populations of mammalian predators, such as mink and raccoon, can have detrimental impacts on a wide variety of groundnesting birds. Traditionally, trapping has been 

used to reduce the predator population, but trapper interest and effort over the years has been 

low. Likewise, trapping has been used to maintain 

a healthy balance of muskrats. Too many muskrats can destroy the dikes, yet the muskrats are 

beneficial in areas with dense stands of cattail. 

Muskrats will open up a dense area by eating the 

cattail and using the cattail for their houses. 

Therefore, each area of the Refuge is evaluated 

annually to determine the need for muskrat trapping.

Strategies:

1. Explore new research techniques such as 

using pheromones for carp control.

2. Use chemical pesticides periodically (i.e. 

rotenone) to control carp.

3. Continue use of carp trap and look for 

improved ways of disposing of the carp such 

as commercial fisherman, mink farms, etc.

4. Continue stocking marsh with game fish to 

serve as predators for carp.

5. Conduct Refuge trapping program as necessary and as water and habitat conditions 

allow. 

6. Explore other options, along with trapping, to 

reduce the number of predators (such as 

hunting of predators, providing incentives for 

taking a predator, expanding the trapping 

season, making upland Refuge trapping regulations less restrictive).

7. Remove woody vegetation, old fencerows, and 

other structures in order to decrease predator habitat. 

Objective 1.4: Regional Conservation Priority (RCP) Species

 Within 15 years of CCP approval, 50 percent of 

the Region 3 RCP species associated with historically occurring habitats will be present on the 

Refuge.

Discussion: Region 3’s Regional Conservation 

Priority (RCP) list includes rare and declining 

species, federally listed, and recreationally 

important species that are of high concern in the 

Upper Midwest. The RCP list was developed to 

help prioritize management techniques on Service lands and partnership efforts. Appendix G 

lists the RCP species that have been observed on 

the Horicon NWR.

Strategies:

1. Monitor population trends according to the 

wildlife inventory plan.

2. Support research activities that are directed 

toward these species.

3. Continue water level management to provide 

a mosaic of water level depths for migrating 

waterfowl to utilize during spring and fall.

4. Provide mudflats for migrating shorebirds in 

early May.

5. Once nesting has been initiated, keep stable 

water levels to prevent flooding nests.

6. Remove trees and brush that are encroaching 

on grassland fields.

7. Conduct rotational burning as outlined in the 

Fire Management Plan to provide a mosaic of 

burned and unburned habitat.

8. Continue seeding tall-grass or mixed-grass 

prairie with a forb component to provide 

cover and singing perches.

9. Restore oak savanna areas.

Goal 2: Habitat

Provide a diverse mosaic of wetland, upland, and riverine 

habitats that meet the needs of Service priority species 

dependent upon them through habitat preservation, restoration, and management.

Discussion: The Refuge has both inherited and 

contributed to an altered landscape with vegetation communities different from those that 

existed during the pre-settlement era (Figure 3 

on page 8). The habitat goal seeks to restore natural landscapes and processes, to the extent feasible, within the constraints imposed by the 
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Refuge’s establishing purposes, the altered landscape outside the Refuge, responsibility to the 

surrounding community, and wildlife objectives.

Objective 2.1: Restoration of Natural Watercourses

By 2015, re-establish a more natural water flow 

throughout the Federal portion of the Horicon 

Marsh, flushing sediments and chemical contaminants through the marsh system, and reducing 

cattail growth by 20 percent from 2005 levels.

Discussion: This objective will promote a higher 

flow of water across the marsh to reduce cattail 

growth and flush excess nutrients and sediments. 

This objective would encourage the hydrological 

system to return to a more natural state by reestablishing a meandering river system flowing 

into and through the north end of the Horicon 

Marsh. A successful drawdown of the 11,500-acre 

Main Pool in 2005 revealed the scoured out Rock 

River channel in many locations and that the 

main ditch has been predominantly filled. As a 

result, the Rock River channel was identified and 

mapped for the first time since the pool was created. The map reveals that the Rock River now 

meanders back and forth and only exists in a 

channelized form for the last half mile prior to 

flowing into the State end of the marsh.

A larger radial gate, a water control structure, 

and several spillways along Dike Road will be 

installed. Refuge staff will remove or breech the 

spoil piles and plug lateral ditches. As a result of 

these management actions, water from springs 

and surface flow will move evenly across the 

marsh. This sheet flow should reduce cattail 

growth and flush excess nutrients, such as phosphorus, from the marsh. Daily inflow from the 

Rock River will also be passed through the new 

radial gate instead of holding water as in the past. 

The result will be a more open, healthy Horicon 

Marsh with better-quality wildlife habitat. However, the area may not change for many years 

since the monotypic stand of cattail could continue to act similarly to how the lateral ditches 

are presently acting. Benefits will be evident in 

the long term, although fire control will be more 

difficult with the loss of the lateral ditches.

The key to success is Refuge management’s ability to maintain high water levels when necessary 

to stress and kill cattails and simulate the high 

water of the wetland cycle. This will ensure at 

least some open water annually in the Main Pool.

Strategies:

1. Replace the damaged radial gate on the Main 

Dike just east of the present location. The 

water control structure would be kept open 

most of the time to allow the removal of the 

daily influx of phosphorus and sediments and 

allow a meandering river channel throughout 

the Main Pool.

2. Add a spillway, with a water control structure, 

at the historic river channel site. The purpose 

of the spillway would be to release water during heavy rain events. The highest water level 

achievable in the Main Pool would be dictated 

by the level of the spillway.

3. Remove or breech spoil banks and plug the 

lateral drainage ditches to increase water 

level, reduce side drainage, and increase 

sheet flow.

4. Evaluate the Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI) levee on the west side of the Refuge 

for possible reconstruction or rehabilitation to 

improve hydrology, but without negatively 

effecting fire control. The WUI dike was constructed in 2001 so that prescribed burning 

could be conducted safely on the Refuge without impacting neighboring property. The dike 

serves as a firebreak, as well as providing 

access.

Objective 2.2: Managing Water Impoundments

Annually, manage water impoundments as a complex of basins to provide wetland diversity and 

improve water quality for maximum benefits to 

migrating and breeding birds. Management will 

Wetland tour, Horicon NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

be within the capabilities of the wetland system 

as a whole and individual impoundments will be 

drawn down on a 3 to 10-year rotation.

Discussion: Water level manipulation allows managers to simulate different stages of the natural 

flood/drought cycle at the same time in different 

impoundments. This increases the diversity of 

habitat types and food resources in the wetland 

complex that are available to migrating and nesting birds. The emphasis is on semi-permanent 

wetlands, as these wetlands can be the most productive type. Management can increase this 

diversity by varying the water regime in each 

impoundment. The outcome will be interspersion 

of cover and openings which provide habitat.

Details of specific pool water level manipulations 

will be described in annual water management 

plans. The following strategies are generalizations for the next 15 years of water management 

on Horicon Marsh.

Strategies:

1. Draw down Main Pool (10,845 surface acres) 

when the opportunity exists (i.e., cooperation 

with Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources and/or Lake Sinissippi) and when 

weather conditions permit. The emphasis is 

on maintaining a diverse aquatic plant community while reducing sedimentation and pollutants.

2. Draw down selective sub-impoundments in a 

cycle of 4 to 6 years, based on the annual 

water management plan. Burning may be 

prescribed if feasible during the drawdown 

phase. 

3. Provide stable water levels from May 1 to 

July 15 in a variety of cover types for overwater nesting birds.

4. Lower water levels 6 to 12 inches in some 

impoundments during the fall to provide shallow foraging sites for migrating waterfowl.

5. Draw down selective sub-impoundments each 

year to expose mudflats for migrating shorebirds.

Objective 2.3: Exotic and Invasive Species Control

By 2020, reduce invasive plant species locations 

by 50 percent from 2006 levels and make every 

attempt to eliminate new infestations as they 

occur.

Discussion: Invasive plant species are often introduced from other areas, usually Europe or Asia, 

and they have no native biological controls in the 

United States. The plants are often early successional species adapted to disturbance, moving in 

quickly. They are difficult to control and interfere 

with natural ecological processes. If the plants 

are not controlled, they can completely take over 

an area, out-competing and displacing native 

flora and thus reducing its biological potential 

and benefit to native wildlife.

Strategies:

1. Document the location and size of invasive 

populations on the Refuge with GIS mapping.

2. Use biological control when available as a preferred strategy.

3. Use chemical and mechanical means to control infestations in cases where biological control techniques have not been developed.

4. Use fire and grazing in controlling some invasive plant species.

5. Monitor the infestations and effectiveness of 

control measures.

6. Support and work with the Service’s Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife program, other partners, and landowners to provide education, 

identification, location, and a control program 

for invasive species within a 15-mile radius of 

the Refuge.

Objective 2.4: Oak Savanna

By 2012, restore and maintain 100 acres of oak 

savanna in the uplands on the west side of the 

Refuge to benefit regional habitat diversity and 

grassland-dependent wildlife species. Restoration efforts will target mature habitats that 

within 75-100 years will have 10-50 percent tree 

canopy closure, 5-35 percent relative cover of 

shrubs, and at least 50 percent relative cover of 

diverse native grasses and native forbs 

(Figure 12). 

Discussion: General Land Office surveys from 

1832 suggest much of the landscape around the 

Refuge was historically prairie and oak savanna, 

with pockets of mixed hardwood forest. Today, 

less than 1 percent of Wisconsin’s prairie and oak 

savanna remain, largely due to the conversion to 

agricultural crops, fire suppression, and eradication of large grazing animals such as bison and 

elk. The North Central bur oak openings are 

found only in parts of Wisconsin, Minnesota, 

Iowa, and Illinois. These oak openings are imper-
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

Figure 12: Future Habitat Conditions of Horicon NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

iled globally because they are very rare throughout their range and are one of the most 

threatened major plant communities in the Midwest. As a result of the thousands of acres of 

short-rotation agricultural crops in the Upper 

Rock River watershed which has replaced the 

prairie and oak savanna, habitat quantity and 

quality available to upland and wetland wildlife 

species has been drastically compromised. In 

addition, water quality has been impacted with 

excessive amounts of sediments, nutrients, and 

chemicals entering the Upper Rock River and its 

tributaries.

Strategies:

1. Remove the understory in existing oak forest 

by thinning the trees with cutting and then 

treating the stumps.

2. Plant native grasses and forbs (flowers) if 

needed.

3. Plant and protect oak seedlings in native 

grasslands in the designated oak savanna 

areas.

4. Control invasive and exotic plants.

5. Conduct rotational burning (prescribed fire), 

as outlined in the Fire Management Plan and 

the Habitat Management Plan.

Objective 2.5: Grasslands

By 2020, restore and manage 500 to 1,000 acres of 

upland grasslands, primarily native dry tallgrass 

prairie, to benefit declining wildlife species that 

depend on this habitat type including Bobolinks, 

Grasshopper Sparrow and Eastern Meadowlark. 

Grasslands are characterized by less than 10 percent canopy closure, less than 5 percent shrub 

cover, and a diverse native grass and forb species 

mix. 

Discussion: A portion of Refuge uplands were 

considered grassland at the time of Euro-American settlement in the mid-19th century. The State 

of Wisconsin has lost 99 percent of its original, 

pre-settlement prairies and oak savannas. To 

varying degrees, grassland bird species have 

adapted and co-existed with agriculture for most 

of the past century. However, grassland bird populations are steadily declining in Wisconsin, and 

throughout the Midwest, due to changes in agricultural practices, land fragmentation, development, and other factors. 

Strategies:

1. Conduct rotational burning (prescribed fire), 

as outlined in the Fire Management Plan and 

the Habitat Management Plan.

2. Use mechanical treatments exclusively, such 

as brush cutting and mowing with a fecon 

mower, or in combination with other techniques.

3. Use chemical treatments exclusively or in 

combination with other techniques.

4. Use grazing, when appropriate, exclusively or 

in combination with other techniques.

5. Monitor plant species composition and structure in plantings and compare to other native 

prairies; try to achieve historical conditions.

Objective 2.6: Sedimentation of Horicon Marsh

By 2020, reduce sediments and non-point source 

pollutants entering the Horicon Marsh from 

drainages of the Rock River watershed by 50 percent from 2000 levels.

Discussion: The quality of water on the Horicon 

Marsh is one of the most important factors influencing fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant populations and health, which in turn influence the 

opportunity for public use and enjoyment. Water 

quality is also beyond the Refuge’s ability to 

influence alone, given the immense size of the 

Refuge’s watershed and multiple-agency responsibilities. This objective recognizes these limitations, but charts a more aggressive role for the 

Refuge through the strategies below. The objective also highlights the advocacy role the Refuge 

can play in educating the public and supporting 

the myriad of agencies which together can influence water quality. Aquatic buttercup, Horicon NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Excessive sedimentation and the accumulation of 

pollutant chemicals, primarily the nutrient phosphorous, is a major challenge to the management 

of Refuge wetlands and moist soil units. The 

Horicon Marsh is literally filling up with soil and 

dense vegetation stimulated by excessive nutrient levels. 

The inflow of sediments is highly linked to spring 

rainfall events. A 3-year study conducted by the 

U.S. Geological Survey in the late 1990s found 

that sediment volumes for the month of April 

range from 1 to 400 tons per day. Phosphorous 

loads averaged from 124 to 4,000 pounds per day. 

To deal with these issues in the watershed, existing programs will be used to encourage private 

landowners to improve soil and water conservation management. Service staff will continue to 

work with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS), soil and water conservation districts, the U.S. Geological Survey and local 

upstream private landowners to reduce soil erosion and to improve water quality, particularly as 

it affects the Refuge.

 Strategies:

1. Increase the enrollment in cost-sharing wetland restorations and agricultural practices 

that improve water quality and to reduce 

peak flows entering Horicon Marsh by working with the Service’s Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program and partnerships with the 

Dodge County Land Conservation Department, Fond du Lac County Land and Water 

Conservation Department, Green Lake and 

Washington Counties, and NRCS.

2. Continue to provide financial and non-financial incentives to private landowners through 

the above partners to implement conservation 

measures within the south and west branches 

of the Rock River watershed. Non-financial 

incentives can include landowner recognition 

at public functions, news articles, and voluntary land heritage registries. 

3. Conduct door-to-door landowner education 

using non-government employees and involving local industry and businesses.

4. Monitor water quality and quantity entering 

the Marsh in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey.

5. Purchase land or obtain easements from willing sellers as it becomes available within the 

authorized Refuge boundaries.

6. Work with water experts, such as hydrologists, groundwater specialists, and other 

water specialists, on the problems and solutions for the Rock River basin. 

7. Cooperate with local government land use 

planning efforts to ensure that water quality 

impacts to the Refuge are considered.

8. Continue to stress the importance of water 

quality in public information and interpretation, and environmental education programs.

Goal 3: People

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational and environmental education opportunities to a diverse audience. 

These activities will promote understanding, appreciation, 

and support for Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and wildlife conservation.

Objective 3.1: Hunting

Annually, provide no less than 2,000 quality 

upland hunting visits per year. Seventy-five percent of hunters will report no conflicts with other 

users, a reasonable harvest opportunity and satisfaction with the overall experience. 

Discussion: Providing opportunities for hunting 

is consistent with the Refuge and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. Refuge uplands will be open to hunting, 

subject to state regulations and public safety concerns, where conflicts with other users will not 

occur, and where biologically feasible. When necessary, Refuge staff will seek ways to ensure that 

hunters have the opportunity for quality experiences.

Strategies:

1. Small game: Upon revision of the Refuge 

Hunt Plan, Pheasant, Gray Partridge, rabbit 

Deer hunter on Horicon NWR.
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

and squirrel hunting will be expanded to 

include the entire state season and state bag 

limits. In order to avoid migratory bird disturbance, the season will have a delayed opening of December 1 on designated dikes north 

of Ledge Road.

2. White-tailed deer: Deer hunting is both a recreational opportunity and a population management strategy to protect Refuge habitats. 

See Objective 1.1 under the Wildlife Goal.

3. Enhance public understanding of Refuge 

hunting opportunities by increasing the quality of maps, signs and wording within brochures and on the Refuge web page.

4. Amend restricted use hunting areas (areas D, 

E, and F on the Refuge hunting brochure 

map). Changes will be reflected in the Refuge 

Hunt Plan.

5. Increase the visibility of Refuge law enforcement and hunter adherence to Federal and 

state regulations to ensure quality, ethical 

hunting.

6. Establish hunter and vehicle counts, through 

staff and volunteers, at all hunting access 

points to gain an index on hunting pressure 

and collect additional hunting data.

Objective 3.2: Fishing

By 2008, provide for 250 quality fishing visits per 

year to the Refuge. Seventy-five percent of 

anglers will report no conflicts with other users 

and will know that they were fishing on a national 

wildlife refuge.

Discussion: Currently, there are few fishing 

opportunities on the Refuge because of low 

demand, shallow water conditions, and difficulty 

of access, as well as limited species of game fish. 

Boats have not been allowed and bank fishing is 

permitted at three locations, two of which have 

accessible fishing piers. Game fish including 

northern pike, bluegill and largemouth bass are 

stocked each year at various locations throughout 

the Refuge. One youth fishing event is held on the 

Refuge during the summer in celebration of 

National Fishing Week. Angler numbers should 

increase by promoting ice fishing at a select location.

Strategies:

1. Open all three fishing sites to ice fishing 

(Figure 13).

2. Continue to provide the annual fishing expedition for area schools, coordinated with volunteers.

3. Maintain accessible bank fishing platforms at 

all fishing sites.

4. Improve the parking lot at Peachy Road. 

Develop a site plan for placement of a kiosk; 

wayfinding, interpretive and regulatory signage; accessible routes; possible rest rooms; 

and accessible bank fishing facilities.

5. Improve access for fishing at Ledge Road and 

add signs at Ledge Road and Dike Road. 

Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Provide year-round opportunities for up to 

400,000 visitors annually to observe and photograph wildlife and habitat.

Discussion: Wildlife observation and nature photography are important and valuable activities for 

Refuge visitors and are priority, wildlife-dependent uses approved by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Specific activities 

must be compatible with the purposes of the 

Horicon NWR.

People walking and riding bicycles along Refuge 

trails and dike roads cause some disturbance to 

wildlife. Resting waterfowl may flush and move 

to other areas and birds sitting on a nest may 

temporarily leave. Overall, distrubance is limited 

to a small portion of the entire Refuge. The following strategies to increase wildlife observation 

and photograhy would cause only minor disturbance to wildlife because the open areas and designated times were determined on the basis of 

wildlife needs. However, entry on all or portions 

of designated routes may be temporarily suspended due to unuusal or critical conditions 

affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety.

Chapter 5 of this CCP lists a proposal to conduct 

an indepth evaluation of the Refuge’s visitor services programs and the effects of visitor use on 

wildlife. This work would be completed through a 

contract with a local university. This study would 

provide staff with information on the impacts of 

activities on closed and open areas of the Refuge 

and may lead to adjustments in specific strategies.
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

Figure 13: Proposed Visitor Facilities, Horicon NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Strategies:

1. Develop the Highway 49 overlook/comfort 

station for better wildlife observation and 

promote the use of the site.

2. Open most of the Refuge roads and trails to 

wildlife observation and photography via 

cross country skiing, hiking, and bicycling 

from December 1 through March 15.

3. Extend the auto tour route season to be open 

year-round, weather conditions permitting. 

The Refuge does not intend to plow the route 

after significant snowfall.

4. Open Main Dike Road east of the water control structure year-round, conditions permitting, to automobiles, foot, and bike traffic.

5. Open Main Dike Road west of the fishing site 

year-round to foot and bike traffic for wildlife 

observation and photography.

6. Open Old Marsh Road every weekend in 

June, July, and August to foot and bike traffic 

for wildlife observation and photography.

7. Open a specific area on the west side and east 

side of the Refuge to foot traffic for yearround wildlife observation and photography.

8. Install two permanent or temporary photo 

blinds on the Refuge.

9. Develop an interpretive loop trail from the 

visitor center.

10. Due to maintenance concerns and low visitor 

use, reduce the length of the Bud Cook Trail.

11. As part of the Visitor Services Plan, the trail 

system will be evaluated to ensure that trails 

meet resource goals and are accessible to all 

visitors.

12. Document current use of the Environmental 

Education Barn and determine if use justifies 

the future cost of maintenance.

Objective 3.4: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Maintain annual onsite visitation of 2,205 students and 100 group visits (2005 level) to promote 

understanding and advocacy for the Horicon 

Marsh and the global environment.

Discussion: Horicon NWR has a long history of 

providing environmental education and interpretation opportunities for thousands of visitors each 

year. In 2005, 100 on-site environmental education programs by school groups occurred on the 

Horicon NWR. However, school budgetary problems have made maintaining even the existing 

level a serious challenge. The Refuge currently 

has only one person to handle all responsibilities 

of the visitor service program, including promoting and conducting environmental education and 

interpretation.

The Refuge staff will strive to provide educational opportunities focused on the objectives in 

this plan, so that the public will understand 

future management activities and provide support. For example, a person who understands 

how their actions in the watershed can impact the 

Refuge will be more likely to make changes on 

their land and support Refuge decisions. Education will lead to understanding and eventually to 

action. 

Strategies:

1. Hire an additional park ranger to serve as 

environmental education specialist and volunteer coordinator.

2. Train volunteers to provide tours such as 

goose watches and birding trips.

3. Construct a portable building at the Auto 

Tour/Hiking Trail Complex for volunteers to 

use during the busy season as an outpost for 

providing visitors information.

4. Develop a partnership with local schools to 

develop a curriculum-based, interdisciplinary 

environmental education program.

5. Hold teacher workshops to train educators to 

conduct their own programs.

6. Develop a partnership with the Wisconsin 

DNR and the Horicon Marsh Internal Education Center to meet shared goals and save 

time and money.

7. Purchase state-of-the-art audio visual equipment for the new visitor center auditorium 

where thousands of people are provided programs each year.

8. Update the exhibits and signs in the visitor 

center and on all kiosks to meet Service 

regional standards.

9. Update and print new brochures and post 

them on the Refuge website.

10. Rehabilitate the Highway 49 Overlook into a 

wildlife observation site used to conduct educational and interpretive programs. Facilities 

would include: new interpretive panels, a shel-
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

ter, and an observation deck. The site should 

be staffed with volunteers during peak migrations.

11. Develop interpretive themes based on 

resource issues and update all interpretive 

panels to reflect these themes.

Objective 3.5: Community Outreach

Increase awareness of Refuge management 

within surrounding areas by annually providing 

opportunities for at least 1,250 people to participate in off-site programs and exhibits; 25 teachers to participate in training programs, 250 

people to volunteer at the Refuge, and 100 people 

to be members of a supporting Friends group.

Discussion: It is critical to the mission of the Refuge that the neighbors and citizens in the surrounding landscape know about the Refuge and 

support it as a valuable and contributing part of 

the community.

Strategies:

1. Offer training programs for teachers centered on the Refuge’s place in the ecological 

landscape, the importance of habitat management, and the objectives in this plan.

2. Support an active volunteer program which 

includes recruitment and training of volunteers for assistance in Refuge programs.

3. Participate in off-site community events.

4. Issue regular news releases and improve the 

Information Dissemination System for distributing news releases.

5. Maintain and update a Refuge website with 

current information about Refuge management and events.

6. Increase community partnerships.

7. Work closely with the Friends of Horicon 

NWR to foster understanding and mutual priorities.

8. Develop outreach plans for important 

resource issues.

Objective 3.6: Protection of Cultural Resources

Ensure archeological and cultural values are 

described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings. (The 

intent of this objective is to cover Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7(e)(2) of the FWS Improvement Act.)

Discussion: The historic and pre-historic artifacts 

on the Refuge are limited and irreplaceable 

national treasures. Many of the sites have been 

identified but not researched.

Strategies:

1. Initiate a Cultural Resources Management 

Plan within 5 years of CCP approval that 

incorporates all existing surveys and investigations and identifies future needs. Develop a 

step-down plan for surveying lands to identify 

archeological resources and for developing a 

preservation program. (The intent of this 

statement is to meet the requirements of Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Section 110(a)(2) of the 

National Historic Preservation Act.)

2. Prepare a museum property Scope of Collections Statement for the Refuge. (The intent of 

this statement is to meet the requirements of 

the DOI Departmental Manual, Part 411.)

3. Develop an oral cultural history to preserve 

the “community memory” about the area.

Objective 3.7: Cultural Resources Appreciation

Seventy percent of visitors will understand and 

appreciate the cultural history of the Refuge.

Discussion: The interest and depth of a natural 

landscape is enhanced by an understanding of its 

human history as well as its natural history. An 

effective program that increases the understanding of this history by visitors to the Refuge will 

increase their sense of the Refuge’s value. This 

effort should be evaluated to make sure it is successful in achieving the goals of increased appreciation.

Strategies:

1. Incorporate cultural history messages into 

programs, exhibits and other media with an 

emphasis on use of the Refuge landscape 

throughout time.

2. Seek to form a partnership among the Service, the Wisconsin DNR, and the Rock River 

Archaeological Society to promote the story 

of the Horicon Marsh.
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Fox River National Wildlife 

Refuge

Future Management Direction: 

Tomorrow’s Vision

A Vision for Fox River National Wildlife Refuge

Fox River NWR will consist of diverse, productive habitats and wildlife that provides 

conditions found historically (pre-European 

settlement) in the Upper Fox River watershed. Specifically, the Refuge consists of a 

mosaic of oak savanna, dry and wet prairie, 

fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh habitats managed to perpetuate a variety of 

native plant and wildlife species, namely 

those of priority to the Service.

Refuge staff, located at Horicon NWR, are a 

multi-disciplined team dedicated to providing 

quality habitat and wildlife management, as 

well as quality wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities compatible with Refuge purposes. Local communities and visitors value 

the Refuge for the personal, financial, and 

societal benefits it provides. A strong conservation ethic is promoted in the surrounding 

communities where both John Muir and Aldo 

Leopold were inspired by nature’s beauty, 

complexity, and value.

Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Goal 1: Wildlife

Protect, restore, and maintain a diversity of wildlife species native to habitats historically found in the Upper Fox 

River Watershed, with special emphasis on Service priority species, through habitat preservation, restoration, and 

management.

Objective 1.1: Deer Population

Annually, maintain a deer population at a density 

of 15-20 deer per square mile to reduce damage 

to Refuge habitats and maintain a healthy herd. 

Discussion: The following notes support a continued high level of deer hunting opportunities on 

the Refuge. During the summer months of 2003 

and 2004, the Refuge biologist regularly saw 

herds of deer (three to 12) all across the Refuge; 

deer trails were plentiful, well-developed (wide), 

and regularly used. Deer damage native plant 

populations (such as remnant patches of prairie 

forbs, e.g., spiderwort) and there is the high possibility of high deer populations on the Refuge 

impacting local farmers and motorists. In addition, the Refuge has been part of a T-Zone unit, 

which allows additional antlerless deer hunting 

opportunities, and is just north of the Chronic 

Wasting Disease zone (increased harvest zones). 

Strategies:

1. Continue to use regulated hunting every fall 

during all state seasons, including archery, 

gun, muzzleloader, and special hunts. 

2. Monitor for signs of habitat damage such as 

browse lines on the Refuge that would indicate that carrying capacity has been surpassed.

3. Conduct informal survey/interact with hunters and listen to feedback on ways to improve 

the hunt.

4. Evaluate the health of individual animals and 

herds using standard techniques, as needed, 

and by cooperating with the Wisconsin DNR.

Objective 1.2: Sandhill Cranes

Annually, maintain habitat to support eight pairs 

of nesting Sandhill Cranes and more than 400 

migratory cranes daily during spring and fall. 

Discussion: The Refuge was established for nesting Sandhill Cranes during a time when the species was declining throughout the Midwest. 

Crane numbers have increased significantly during the last 20 years. The reintroduction of 

Whooping Cranes to Wisconsin has created the 

likelihood that a nesting pair may utilize Refuge 

habitats in the future. In fact, an individual 

Whooping Crane used the area in 2004 and six 

Whooping Cranes were present within 3 miles of 

the Refuge boundary in 2005.

Columbine, Horicon NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

Strategies:

1. Monitor Sandhill Crane use of the Refuge.

2. Maintain the open structural component in 

prairies and oak savannas on the Refuge as 

Sandhill Cranes forage in these habitats.

Objective 1.3: Regional Conservation Priority (RCP) Species

Within 15 years of CCP approval, 50 percent of 

the Region 3 RCP species associated with historically occurring habitats will be present on the 

Refuge.

Discussion: Region 3’s Regional Conservation 

Priority (RCP) list includes rare and declining 

species, federally listed, and recreationally 

important species that are of high concern in the 

Upper Midwest. The RCP list was developed to 

help prioritize management. High priority species already present on the Refuge that need to 

be perpetuated include Red-headed Woodpecker, 

Henslow’s Sparrow, Yellow Rail, American Bittern, Mallard, Canada Goose, Sandhill Crane, 

Sedge Wren, Bobolink, and Eastern Meadowlark. 

Strategies:

1. Monitor population trends according to the 

Wildlife Inventory Plan.

2. Support research activities that are directed 

toward these species.

3. Continue restoring natural hydrology to benefit waterfowl and other birds by filling/plugging remaining ditches.

4. Monitor effects of ditch plugging on vegetation and bird use.

5. Remove trees and brush that are encroaching 

on grassland fields.

6. Continue burn program rotation of every 4-8 

years to provide a mosaic of burned and 

unburned habitat.

7. Continue seeding tall-grass or mixed-grass 

prairie with a forb component to provide 

cover and singing perches.

8. Restore oak-savanna areas.

Goal 2: Habitat

Protect, restore, and enhance the wetland and adjacent 

upland habitat on the Refuge to emulate a naturally functioning, dynamic ecosystem containing a variety of habitat 

conditions that were present prior to European settlement, 

namely dry tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, fens, sedge 

meadow, and shallow emergent marsh wetlands. 

Objective 2.1: Oak Savanna

By 2010, restore and maintain 90 acres of oak 

savanna in the uplands to benefit regional habitat 

diversity and savanna-dependent wildlife species. 

Restoration efforts will target mature habitats 

that within 75-100 years will have 10-50 percent 

tree canopy closure, 5-35 percent relative cover of 

shrubs, and at least 25 percent relative cover of 

diverse native grasses and native forbs 

(Figure 14). 

Discussion: General Land Office surveys from 

1832 suggest much of the landscape around the 

Refuge was historically dry prairie and oak 

savanna. Today, less than 1 percent of Wisconsin’s 

prairie and oak savanna remain, largely due to 

the conversion to agricultural crops, fire suppression, and eradication of large grazing animals 

such as bison and elk. As a result of the thousands of acres of short-rotation agricultural crops 

in the Upper Fox River watershed, habitat quantity and quality available to upland and wetland 

wildlife species has been drastically compromised. In addition, water quality has been 

impacted with excessive amounts of sediments, 

nutrients, and chemicals entering the Upper Fox 

River and its tributaries. 

Mallard drake, USFWS
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

Figure 14: Future Vegetation Cover, Fox River NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Strategies:

1. Remove the understory in existing oak forest 

by thinning the trees with cutting and then 

treating the stumps.

2. Plant native grasses and forbs (flowers) if 

needed.

3. Plant oak seedlings in native grasslands in the 

designated oak savanna areas.

4. Control invasive and exotic plants.

5. Conduct rotational burning (prescribed fire), 

as outlined in the Fire Management Plan and 

the Habitat Management Plan.

Objective 2.2: Grasslands

By 2008, restore and manage 115 acres of upland 

grasslands, primarily native dry tallgrass prairie, 

to benefit wildlife species that depend on this 

habitat type, including Henslow’s Sparrow, Bobolink, Grasshopper Sparrow, and Eastern Meadowlark. Grasslands are characterized by less than 

10 percent canopy closure, less than 5 percent 

shrub cover, and a diverse native grass and forb 

species mix.

Discussion: A portion of Refuge uplands were 

considered grassland at the time of Euro-American settlement in the mid-19th century. The state 

of Wisconsin has lost 99 percent of its original, 

pre-settlement prairies and oak savannas. To 

varying degrees, grassland bird species have 

adapted and co-existed with agriculture for most 

of the past century. However, grassland bird populations are steadily declining in Wisconsin, and 

throughout the Midwest, due to changes in agricultural practices, land fragmentation, development, and other factors. 

Strategies:

1. Conduct rotational burning (prescribed fire), 

as outlined in the Fire Management Plan and 

the Habitat Management Plan.

2. Use mechanical treatments exclusively, such 

as brush cutting and mowing with a fecon 

mower, or in combination with other techniques.

3. Use chemical treatments exclusively or in 

combination with other techniques. 

4. Monitor plant species composition and structure in plantings and compare to other native 

prairies; try to achieve historical conditions.

Objective 2.3: Fen and Wet Prairie

By 2010, restore and maintain annually 100 acres 

of fen and wet prairie habitats with a shrub coverage of 5-25 percent to benefit Regional Conservation Priority species dependent on this habitat 

type such as Sedge Wren, Bell’s Vireo, and Alder 

Flycatcher, as well as a variety of state endangered and threatened plants.

Discussion: Remnant tracts of wet prairie and 

fens are extremely rare in Wisconsin. Many of 

the historic tracts were either drained and tilled 

or allowed to be overgrown by shrubs as a result 

of the lack of fire and altered hydrology. The fen 

and wet prairie areas on the Refuge have never 

been tilled and still hold a diverse, native plant 

community characteristic of this habitat type. For 

example, tussock sedge, big bluestem, flat-top 

aster, joe-pie weed, and goldenrod spp. are the 

dominant species, with hedge nettle, swamp thistle, lousewort, obedient plants, sneezeweed, culvers root, water hemlock, downy willoweed, and 

St. John’s wort as less common species. The 

hydrology in these sites is still relatively intact 

(many calcareous seeps and high groundwater 

table are still very evident) although more than 

half of this habitat type has been taken over to 

some degree by shrubs such as red osier dogwood, poison sumac, and willow. The high quality 

remnant fen and wet prairie tracts on the Refuge 

should be protected and restored via the strategies that follow.

Strategies:

1. Attempt to burn each unit in early fall as outlined in the Fire Management Plan to control 

brush.

2. Use mechanical treatments such as hand cutting or mowing over the ice when burning is 

not effective for controlling brush.

3. Use localized chemical treatments on the 

stumps in conjunction with the mechanical 

treatments.

4. Control other invasive and exotic plants.

5. Inventory and monitor plant species composition and structure and compare to other 

native fens and wet prairies; try to achieve 

historical conditions.

Objective 2.4: Sedge Meadow and Shallow Emergent Marsh

Annually, maintain 600 to 650 acres of sedge 

meadow and shallow emergent marsh to benefit 

Regional Conservation Priority species depen-
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

dent on this habitat type such as the Yellow Rail, 

American Bittern, Sedge Wren, Mallard, Canada 

Goose, and Sandhill Crane, among others.

Discussion: Sedge meadow is a rare wetland habitat in the region due to habitat destruction and 

degradation from ditching, drain tile, tillage, 

nutrient and sediment inputs, as well as invasion 

by exotic species such as reed canary grass. The 

Refuge retains a small, high quality portion of the 

remaining sedge meadow present in the Midwest. 

The Refuge’s sedge meadow is still dominated by 

native species such as lake sedge, blue joint 

grass, marsh fern, tussock sedge, Impatiens spp., 

wild iris, and moss spp. The sedge meadow was 

never tilled but the hydrology in 400 acres was 

compromised in the late 1970s via ditching. A 

wetland restoration project began in 2004 to 

restore historical hydrologic conditions back to 

these sedge meadows via ditch filling and plugging.

Strategies:

1. Monitor the hydrological and plant species 

composition and structure changes associated 

with restoration activities. 

2. Practice adaptive management in restored 

areas via maintaining restored conditions if 

habitat goals are achieved or modifying techniques if goals are not achieved. The ultimate 

goal would be to achieve historical site conditions.

3. Conduct rotational burning (prescribed fire), 

as outlined in the Fire Management Plan and 

the Habitat Management Plan.

Objective 2.5: Exotic and Invasive Species Control

Inventory and actively reduce invasive plant species throughout the Refuge. By 2015, reduce 

invasive species locations by 50 percent from 

2005 levels and make every attempt to eliminate 

new infestations as they occur.

Discussion: Invasive species are often introduced 

from other areas (usually Europe) and have no 

native biological controls. The plants are often 

early successional species adapted to disturbance 

and move in quickly. They are difficult to control 

and they interfere with natural ecological processes. If the plants are not controlled, they can 

completely take over an area, out-competing 

native flora and reduce its biological potential and 

benefit to native wildlife. Exotic and invasive species on the Refuge in order of abundance include:

# reed canary grass

# cool season grasses such as quack grass, 

Kentucky bluegrass, and smooth brome

# purple loosestrife

# garlic mustard

# spotted knapweed

# leafy spurge

# black locust

# glossy buckthorn

# multiflora rose

Many areas of the Refuge need to be monitored. 

For example, sedge meadow can be vulnerable to 

invasion by reed canary grass. Fortunately, less 

than 10 percent of the historical sedge meadow is 

dominated by reed canary grass, primarily near 

the banks of the Fox River, but this area and 

recently disturbed sites will need to be watched. 

Purple loosestrife has also begun to invade the 

sedge meadow.

Strategies:

1. Document the location and size of invasive 

populations on the Refuge with GIS mapping.

2. Use biological control when available as a preferred strategy.

3. Use chemical and mechanical means to control infestations in cases where biological control techniques have not been developed.

4. Use fire in controlling some invasive plant 

species.

5. Monitor the infestations and effectiveness of 

control measures.

Spider, Horicon NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

6. Support and work with the Service’s Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife program, other partners, and landowners to provide education, 

identification, location, and a control program 

for invasive species within a 15-mile radius of 

the Refuge.

Objective 2.6: Land Conservation

By 2020, conserve sufficient lands adjacent to the 

Refuge to ensure the restoration and protection 

of Refuge wetlands.

Discussion: As the Refuge is relatively small and 

is surrounded by many agricultural lands, habitat 

and wildlife are vulnerable to human induced disturbance such as increased nutrient and sediment 

loads, abundant invasive species seed sources off 

the Refuge, and human presence and hunting 

along the borders. These problems can be offset 

via the following strategies. 

Strategies:

1. Protect 200 acres of land surrounding the 

Refuge by acquiring fee title or conservation 

easements from willing sellers. The Refuge 

will need to obtain the concurrence of the Service Director prior to acquiring land.

2. Improve cooperative conservation work with 

adjacent landowners by sharing technical 

advice and referring them to the Service’s 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, 

USDA’s programs, or other NGO’s for assistance in performing conservation practices on 

their lands.

Goal 3: People

Provide quality visitor services compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established and/or the 

mission of the Refuge System. These wildlife-dependent 

activities will promote an understanding and appreciation 

of the naturally functioning landscape and the Service’s 

management efforts on the Refuge.

Objective 3.1: Hunting

Provide no less than 100 quality upland hunting 

visits for area residents per year. Seventy-five 

percent of hunters will report no conflicts with 

other users, a reasonable harvest opportunity 

and satisfaction with the overall experience.

Discussion: Providing opportunities for hunting 

is consistent with the Refuge purposes and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997. Refuge uplands will be open to hunting, subject to state regulations and public safety 

concerns, where conflicts with other users will 

not occur, and where biologically feasible. When 

necessary, Refuge staff will seek ways to ensure 

that hunters have the opportunity for high quality experiences.

Strategies:

1. Enhance public understanding of Refuge 

hunting opportunities by increasing the quality of maps, signs, and wording within brochures and on the Refuge web page.

2. Increase the visibility of Refuge law enforcement and hunter adherence to federal and 

state regulations to ensure quality, ethical 

hunting.

3. White-tailed deer: Deer hunting is both a recreational opportunity and a population management strategy to protect Refuge habitats. 

See Objective 1.1 under the Wildlife Goal.

Objective 3.2: Fishing

By 2008, provide for 75 fishing visits per year to 

the Refuge. Seventy-five percent of anglers will 

report no conflicts with other users and will recollect awareness that they were fishing on a 

national wildlife refuge.

Discussion: Boat access for fishing is available 

along the Fox River. Many people have expressed 

interest in fishing on Long Lake. The 1-mile hike 

from the parking lot to the potential fishing spot 

is expected to limit the number of anglers 

(Figure 15). Boating will continue to be restricted 

on Refuge-interior waterways other than the Fox 

River to reduce disturbance of migratory birds, 

especially nesting Sandhill Cranes. 

Strategies:

1. Provide fishing on designated areas of the 

Refuge at given times of the year where it 

does not interfere with wildlife and upon completion of the Fishing Plan.

2. Monitor litter and provide signs to educate 

anglers to always carry out trash.

Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Provide limited opportunities for 200 visitors 

annually to observe and photograph wildlife and 

habitat.

Discussion: No trails should be built solely on the 

Refuge as the likely low number of visits from the 

public would likely not warrant the impact to habitat and disturbance to wildlife associated with 

trail maintenance. A segment of the Wisconsin 
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Figure 15: Current and Proposed Visitor Facilities, Fox River National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

Ice Age State and National Trail may traverse 

the Refuge from Muir Park to the north if needed 

to connect properties. 

Strategies:

1. Provide wildlife observation and photography 

on designated areas of the Refuge during 

given times of the year where it does not 

interfere with wildlife.

2. Consider establishment of a segment of the 

Wisconsin Ice Age State and National Trail 

through the Refuge.

Objective 3.4: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Provide for annual on-site visitation of 100 students and two to four group visits. 

Discussion: A limited amount of on-site environmental education occurs at the present time. The 

Refuge biologist has provided environmental 

education and Refuge tours for two local charter 

schools. However, school budgetary problems 

have made maintaining even this modest level of 

environmental education a serious challenge. The 

Refuge does not have a staff person to promote 

and conduct environmental education and interpretation. Nonetheless, Fox River NWR is in a 

position to provide more environmental education 

than it does at present to grade-level and college 

students and the general public in south-central 

Wisconsin.

The Refuge staff will strive to provide educational opportunities that highlight the objectives 

in this plan, so that the public will understand 

future management activities and provide support. For example, a person who understands the 

benefits of controlling invasive species will be 

more likely to support Refuge decisions.

Strategies:

1. Work with local teachers to develop gradespecific curricula that meet local, state and 

national education standards and that keep 

focus on the Refuge.

2. If feasible, train volunteers to provide tours 

or lessons for classrooms.

3. Contact schools annually notifying them of 

the Refuge’s facilities, resources and educational opportunities by means of fliers or letters to individual teachers. In the higher 

grades, science and history teachers should 

be targeted.

4. Devise and encourage additional opportunities for research, wildlife surveys, or bird 

banding within the ability of high school science or biology classes.

5. Train educators to conduct their own programs (via teacher workshops). 

6. If necessary, redesign or enlarge both Refuge 

parking lots to accommodate school buses. 

Objective 3.5: Community Outreach

Increase awareness of Refuge management 

within surrounding areas by annually providing 

opportunities for at least 200 students to participate in programs, four teachers to participate in 

training programs, and 10 people to volunteer at 

the Refuge. 

Discussion: It is critical to the mission of the Refuge that the neighbors and citizens in the surrounding landscape know about the Refuge and 

support it as a valuable and contributing part of 

the community.

Strategies:

1. Offer training programs for teachers centered on the Refuge’s place in the ecological 

landscape, the importance of habitat management, and the objectives in this plan.

2. Support an active volunteer program which 

includes recruitment and training of volunteers for assistance in Refuge programs. 

3. Participate in off-site community events.

4. Issue regular news releases and improve the 

Information Dissemination System for distributing news releases.

5. Maintain and update a Refuge website with 

current information about Refuge management and events.

Birding, Horicon NWR
Chapter 4: Refuge Management

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

6. Increase community partnerships.

7. Develop outreach plans for important 

resource issues and improve the outreach to 

the Refuge neighbors about habitat management (i.e., tree cutting, invasive species control, prescribed fire).

Objective 3.6: Protection of Cultural Resources

Ensure archeological and cultural values are 

described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings. (The 

intent of this objective is to cover Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7(e)(2) of the FWS Improvement Act.)

Discussion: The historic and pre-historic artifacts 

on the Refuge are limited and irreplaceable 

national treasures. Many of the sites have been 

identified but not researched.

Strategies:

1. Initiate a Cultural Resources Management 

Plan within 3 years of CCP approval that 

incorporates all existing surveys and investigations and identifies future needs. Develop a 

step-down plan for surveying lands to identify 

archeological resources and for developing a 

preservation program. (The intent of this 

statement is to meet the requirements of Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Section 110(a)(2) of the 

National Historic Preservation Act.)

2. Prepare a museum property Scope of Collections Statement for the Refuge. (The intent of 

this statement is to meet the requirements of 

the DOI Departmental Manual, Part 411.)

3. Develop an oral cultural history to preserve 

the “community memory” about the area.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

New and Existing Projects

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action 

for the future management of Horicon and Fox 

River National Wildlife Refuges. The ability to 

enhance wildlife habitats on the Refuges and to 

maintain existing and develop additional quality 

public use facilities will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from the Service. Both 

Refuges will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement the 

objectives in this plan.

The following section provides a brief description 

of the highest priority Refuge projects, as chosen by 

the Refuge staff and listed in the Refuge Operating 

Needs System (RONS). A full listing of unfunded 

Refuge projects and operational needs can be found 

in Appendix F.

Horicon NWR Operating Needs 

Projects 

# Improve Water Level Management 

(Maintenance Worker). Provide a maintenance 

worker to improve wetland management 

through prescribed burning, mowing, diking, 

water level management, and the operation and 

maintenance of an existing dike, ditch and 

pumping system. To provide the best possible 

wetland habitat, the Refuge actively manages 

over 15,000 acres of high quality wetlands. 

Horicon NWR is a Wetland of International 

Importance and a Globally Important Bird 

Area. The 32,000-acre marsh, jointly managed 

with the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, is also an important migration stop 

for millions of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds. Strategies 2.1-3 and 2.2.1-5; Estimated 

cost: $150,000. 

# Enhance Refuge Management and 

Administration (Resource Specialist). Provide a 

resource specialist to conduct wildlife and 

habitat surveys, waterfowl banding, water level 

management, carp control, public use 

programs, and other needs such as updating 

and writing Refuge plans. The 32,000-acre 

marsh, jointly managed with the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, is an 

important migration stop for Canada Geese, 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Horicon 

NWR is a Wetland of International Importance 

and a Globally Important Bird Area. The marsh 

is also the largest freshwater cattail marsh in 

the United States and supports a wide variety of 

plants and animals. Strategies 1.1.3-5, 1.4.1-2, 

River otter, Horicon NWR
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

2.1-3, 2.2.1-5, all strategies within Objectives 

3.1-3.5; Estimated cost: $150,000.

# Increase Conservation Projects with 

Landowners in the Upper Rock River 

Watershed. Provide an outreach specialist 

under contract to act as a liaison between 

landowners and existing government and NGO 

conservation programs. The contractor will 

work closely with the Refuge staff, federal 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife staff, Wisconsin 

DNR, Counties, and non-profit groups to 

encourage understanding, and action, of private 

landowners in the upper watershed of the 

critical issue of soil erosion and contaminants 

impacting the Horicon Marsh. Strategies 2.6.1-

8; Estimated cost: $70,000 - $150,000.

# Improved Upland Habitat Restoration and 

Maintenance. Manage 5,000 acres of uplands on 

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge through the 

planting of native grasses and forbs. Selected 

upland sites would be prepared for planting and 

supplies purchased to be used in this long-term 

effort to restore native prairie grasses and 

forbs. A seed cache would also be built. This 

project would help control noxious weeds and 

invasive woody species in uplands by purchase 

of herbicides, boom sprayer, other application 

equipment, and 15-foot bat wing mower. Control 

of these invasive weeds is important since they 

cause degradation of nesting habitat and a 

decrease in overall plant and animal diversity. 

Strategies 2.3.1-6, 2.4.1-3, 2.5.1-3 Estimated 

Cost: $150,000.

# Reduce Woody Vegetation on Upland 

Grasslands. This project will involve hiring a 

contractor to thin or cut woody vegetation on 

uplands. The stumps would be treated with 

chemicals. One of the biggest factors that 

prevent some of the uplands from being 

managed is the encroachment of woody 

vegetation. Strategies 2.3.1-6, 2.4.1-3, 2.5.1-3; 

Estimated cost: $250,000.

# Reduce Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions on State 

Highway 49. This project will provide for 

physical and educational strategies to reduce 

the loss of wildlife along a major highway 

bisecting the Horicon Marsh. State Highway 49 

is a high speed roadway that bisects the 

northern section of the Horicon Marsh for 2.5 

miles. During the 2002-2005 alone, well over 

4,200 dead animals, including waterfowl, 

bitterns, river otters, muskrats, frogs and toads 

were found along this roadway. Partial solutions 

to this problem include raised culverts, or 

simple barriers and fences and poles along key 

segments of the highway. Increased law 

enforcement patrol is also a key issue.

Funding may also be used for research and 

monitoring. Matching or supplemental funds 

may also be available through the U.S. Department of Transportation (SAFETEA LU) or 

other sources. Strategies 1.2.1-4; Estimated 

cost: $1,500,000.

# Volunteer Coordination. This project will 

provide for a volunteer coordinator position. 

Horicon NWR has over 280 volunteers, who 

provide much assistance to the Refuge on many 

different projects in all program areas. 

However, volunteers need attention and 

consistent direction; a volunteer coordinator is 

needed to provide overall management to the 

program, expand opportunities for volunteers 

to get involved with the Refuge and ensure 

volunteers' needs are being met. Strategies 

3.5.2 and 3.5.8; Estimated cost: $150,000.

# Assess Impacts of Visitor Use and Disturbance 

of Wildlife. Conduct an in-depth evaluation of 

the Refuge's visitor services programs and the 

effects of visitor use on wildlife. This work 

would be completed through a contract with a 

local university. Currently, about 450,000 people 

visit Horicon NWR every year. Public use is 

limited to certain areas. This study would 

provide staff information on the impacts of 

future proposed activities on closed areas of the 

Refuge and if deemed compatible, would 

increase visitor use. Currently staff has few 

data available to support the opening of areas to 

public use. Strategies 3.1.1, 3.1.7, 3.1.8, 3.1.10, 

3.2.2, 3.3.1-4; Estimated cost: $50,000.

# Improve Visitor Services by Providing New 

Refuge Brochures. Develop new brochures for 

the Horicon NWR, a Wetland of International 

Importance, a Globally Important Bird Area, 

and the largest freshwater cattail marsh in the 

United States. About 450,000 people from all 

over the world visit this important resource. 

Many people request information on specific 

items such as certain kinds of wildlife that use 

the Refuge and the archaeological history of the 

area.

This project would provide funding for printing 

and reprinting of new and old Refuge brochures, bird lists, hunting brochures, and maps. 

Thousands of publications are distributed to vis-
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

itors by mail. Tourism groups and local businesses facilitate further distribution. Currently, 

in partnership with the Wisconsin DNR, a combined hunter map and a combined visitor map 

are developed and printed each year. Each year, 

the Wisconsin DNR covers the cost of this publication. Strategies 1.1.1, 3.1.4, 3.4; Estimated 

cost: $100,000.

# Enhance Visitor Center Experience for 

Individuals and Groups. Replace exhibits in 

visitor center where thousands of people visit 

each year. Current exhibits are outdated and in 

need of repair. Strategy 3.4.7. Estimated cost: 

$200,000. 

# Improve Water Quality of Horicon Marsh 

Ecosystem. Various studies over the years have 

determined that the marsh is being polluted 

with high amounts of nutrients and pesticides at 

an alarming rate. This project will determine 

areas within the watershed that need the most 

attention, locate high discharge areas, provide 

for incentives for landowners to implement 

conservation measures, provide for education, 

and fund conservation easements. Strategies 

2.6.1-8 Estimated cost: $1,000,000.

# Analyze Existing Water Quality Data. Three 

years of U.S. Geological Survey data on the 

Horicon Marsh was conducted to monitor flow 

velocity and collect water samples. The data 

now sits in boxes and needs to be analyzed and 

described in a final report. The marsh is 

continually being polluted with contaminants at 

an alarming rate. The analysis of this study will 

determine management direction in working 

towards a solution. Strategies 2.6.4 and 2.6.7; 

Estimated cost: $130,000.

# Improve Water Management on the Marsh 

(Heavy Equipment). Purchase a dozer, tracked 

truck, mat track, and Marshmaster to facilitate 

the repair of Refuge dikes, which are badly 

deteriorating to the point of becoming unsafe. 

The equipment will also be used to fill old, 

submerged ditches as described in the CCP. 

Purchase is more economical and efficient than 

continual equipment rental. The Refuge also 

requires an aerial lift to facilitate ongoing 

maintenance needs more efficiently and safely. 

A pump and generator for drawing the water off 

of the units and personnel to operate pumps is 

necessary to successfully manage moist soil 

areas for waterfowl. Many wetland areas are 

managed as moist soil units, which involves 

drawing the water off of an area in late spring 

and flooding the area in the fall. This 

management stimulates the growth of wetland 

plants that are attractive to waterfowl. 

Strategies 2.1.1-4, 2.2.1-5; Estimated costs: 

$190,000 (tracked truck), $30,000 (mat tracks), 

$27,000 (aerial lift), $118,000 (dozer), $50,000 

(pump & generator), Marshmaster ($100,000).

# Improve Visitor Services by Providing Staff for 

Visitor Center. Currently the Refuge has two 

intermittent employees who staff the visitor 

center, especially on the busy weekends in the 

fall. They are assisted by volunteers, but 

Service policy prevents volunteers from 

working alone. During lean years, the 

employees do not work and the visitor center 

does not stay open on weekends. The Refuge 

has over 450,000 visitors per year, especially in 

the fall. This project would provide funding for 

these intermittent employees so that the visitor 

center can remain open on weekends. 

Strategies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 Estimated cost 

$20,000

# Enhance Visitor Center Experience and 

Decrease Wildlife Vehicle Collisions. This 

project would provide funding for supplies and 

equipment for current law enforcement 

personnel. For example, a computer in the 

vehicle and a radar gun (with training) would 

allow the officer to be more efficient and would 

also alleviate the speeding problem on Highway 

49. Fewer animals would become roadkill if 

people were forced to follow the speed limit. 

Enforcement on Highway 49 would also provide 

for a safer environment for people. About 

450,000 people visit the Refuge every year. 

Highway 49 offers one of the best viewing areas 

and many of those people drive extra slow on 

the highway or pull off onto the shoulder, 

walking along the side of the highway or even 

across it as semis and other vehicles speed past. 

Strategies 1.2.2, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.3. Estimated cost 

$20,000.

# Improve Habitat for Nesting Migratory Bird 

Species by Controlling Predators. Predators, 

such as mink and raccoon, are an over-abundant 

species that impact ground-nesting birds. 

Managing this problem through trapping has 

not worked over the years due to low trapper 

interest and effort, namely due to the low price 

of pelts. This project would allow for incentives 

for trappers, as well as a contractor to remove 

woody vegetation, old fencerows and other 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

structures to decrease the predator habitat. 

Strategies 1.3.6 and 1.3.7. Estimated Cost 

$100,000.

# Improve Habitat for Migratory Bird Species by 

Controlling Invasive Carp. Carp are an 

extremely destructive, non-native species of fish 

that thrives in low-oxygen conditions such as 

the shallow wetlands of Horicon Marsh. Carp 

roll in the marsh sediments and create a cloudy 

environment and uproot aquatic plants. Little 

sunlight can penetrate the water and fuel the 

marsh food web. Few organisms thrive in such 

conditions and the biological diversity of the 

Marsh is reduced. This project would provide 

for the purchase of chemical pesticides 

(rotenone), maintenance needs for the carp 

trap, and funds for implementing new research 

techniques such as pheromone. Strategies 1.3.1, 

1.3.2, 1.3.3 Estimated Cost $100,000.

# Enhance Visitor Services by Improving Fishing 

Sites. Fishing is one of the priority public uses 

of the Refuge system. The Refuge currently 

offers fishing at three designated fishing sites. 

All of the sites will have accessible fishing 

platforms that require annual maintenance due 

to normal wear and tear and, unfortunately, 

vandalism. This project would provide funds for 

maintaining the sites, including the platforms, 

and improvement of the Peachy Road fishing 

site to include a kiosk, an accessible trail, 

accessible fishing platforms. Improvement for 

access at the Ledge Road fishing site is also 

needed as the Rock River has shifted and 

anglers no longer have access to water unless 

Refuge staff provide a bridge or platform. 

Strategies 3.2 Estimated Cost $125,000.

Fox River Refuge Operating Needs 

Projects 

# Improve Visitor Services by Providing New 

Refuge Brochures. Develop new brochures for 

the Fox River NWR. With the expanded 

hunting and other uses proposed, brochures will 

be needed to assist visitors. A brief hunting 

brochure is the only pamphlet currently 

available for visitors to the Refuge. This project 

would provide funding for printing of new 

Refuge brochures, bird lists, hunting brochures, 

and maps. Hundreds of publications are 

distributed to visitors by mail. Strategies 1.1, 

3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5; Estimated cost: $50,000.

# Develop a Complete Inventory and List of 

Species to Improve Habitat Management.

Complete a thorough bird, amphibian, reptile, 

and mammal inventory (by contract) to assist 

Refuge staff in developing the best 

management for the area. Fox River NWR 

contains a diversity of wildlife within this 

wetland/upland complex. The Refuge has 10 

distinct plant communities ranging from upland 

coniferous and deciduous woodlands to five 

wetland communities. This diversity is 

responsible for the presence of about 150 

different species of wildlife. Species diversity of 

this extent, within a relatively small confined 

area of 1,000 acres, is not found in many parts of 

Wisconsin. Strategy 3.3.7; Estimated cost: 

$75,000.

# Improved Upland Habitat Restoration and 

Maintenance. Manage uplands on Fox River 

NWR through the planting of native grasses 

and forbs. Selected upland sites would be 

prepared for planting and supplies purchased to 

be used in this long-term effort to restore native 

prairie grasses and forbs. This project would 

help control noxious weeds such as reed canary 

grass, phragmites, purple loosestrife, spotted 

knapweed, leafy spurge, garlic mustard, and 

invasive woody species in uplands by purchase 

of herbicides. Control of these invasive weeds is 

important since they cause degradation of 

nesting habitat and a decrease in overall plant 

and animal diversity. Strategies 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 

2.3, 2.4, and 2.5. Estimated Cost $75,000.

# Improved Upland Management through 

Removal of Woody Vegetation. This project will 

involve hiring a contractor to thin or cut woody 

vegetation on uplands. The stumps would be 

treated with chemical. One of the biggest 

factors that prevents some of the uplands from 

being managed is the encroachment of woody 

vegetation. Strategies 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 

2.5; Estimated cost: $100,000. 

# Enhance Refuge Management and 

Administration (Resource Specialist). Provide a 

resource specialist to conduct wildlife and 

habitat surveys, public use programs, and other 

needs such as updating and writing Refuge 

plans. Currently, the Refuge is managed by the 

staff at Horicon NWR. For the past several 

years, money has been provided through the 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

(NRDA) fund for a temporary employee who 

has worked on habitat restoration projects and 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

wildlife surveys full-time at the Refuge. This 

money and person will end in 2007 and much 

work remains. Strategies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 

2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4., 3.5 Estimated cost: 

$150,000.

Future Staffing Requirements

Implementing the visions set forth in this CCP 

will require additions to the organizational structure 

of Horicon NWR. Existing staff will direct their 

time and energy in somewhat new directions and 

new staff members will be added to assist in these 

efforts. The first organizational chart shows the 

existing Refuge staff as of Fiscal Year 2006 

(Figure 16). Table 20 identifies additional staff 

needed to fully implement this plan by Fiscal Year 

2021. 

Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships have become an essential element 

for the successful accomplishment of Horicon and 

Fox River NWR goals, objectives, and strategies. 

The objectives outlined in this draft CCP need the 

support and the partnerships of federal, state and 

local agencies, non-governmental organizations and 

individual citizens. This broad-based approach to 

managing fish and wildlife resources extends 

beyond social and political boundaries and requires 

a foundation of support from many. Horicon and Fox 

River National Wildlife Refuges will continue to 

seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve 

its vision for the future.

Particularly notable partners of the Refuges 

include the Friends of Horicon National Wildlife 

Refuge, Refuge volunteers, Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Wetlands Association and Ducks Unlimited.

Step-down Management Plans

Step-down management plans describe specific 

actions that support the accomplishment of Refuge 

objectives. The management plans identified in 

Table 21 on page 94 and Table 22 on page 94 will be 

reviewed, revised, or developed as necessary to 

achieve the results anticipated in this draft CCP. 

Archeological and Cultural 

Values

As part of its larger conservation mandate and 

ethic, the Service through the Refuge Manager 

applies the several historic preservation laws and 

regulations to ensure historic properties are identified and are protected to the extent possible within 

its established purposes and Refuge System mission.

Early in project planning for all undertakings, 

the Refuge Manager informs the RHPO (Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer) to initiate the Section 

106 process. Concurrent with public notification 

and involvement for environmental compliance and 

compatibility determinations if applicable, or cultural resources only if no other issues are involved, 

the Refuge Manager informs and requests comments from the public and local officials through 

presentations, meetings, and media notices; results 

are provided to the RHPO. 

Archeological investigations and collecting are 

performed only in the public interest by qualified 

archeologists or by persons recommended by the 

Governor working under an Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act permit issued by the 

Regional Director. The Refuge Manager has found 

this third-party use of Refuge land to be compatible. 

(The requirements of ARPA apply to FWS cultural 

resources contracts as well: the contract is the 

equivalent of a permit.) Too, the Refuge Manager 

issues a special use permit. Refuge personnel take 

steps to prevent unauthorized collecting by the public, contractors, and Refuge personnel; violators are 

cited or other appropriate action taken. Violations 

are reported to the Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer. 

The Refuge Manager will, with the assistance of 

the RHPO, develop a step-down plan for surveying 

lands to identify archeological resources and for 

developing a preservation program to meet the 

requirements of Section 14 of the Archaeological 

Table 20: Additional Staffing Required to Fully 

Implement the CCP by 2021, Horicon NWR

Position FTEs

Refuge Operations Specialist (Resource 

Specialist)

 1.0

Maintenance Worker 1.0

Park Ranger (volunteer coordinator) 1.0

Refuge Operations Specialist (Fox River 

NWR)

1.0

Total 4.0
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Figure 16: Current Staffing Chart, Horicon NWR
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

Resources Protection Act and Section 110(a)(2) of 

the National Historic Preservation Act.

The Refuge Manager should have and implement 

a plan for inspecting the condition of known cultural 

resources on the Refuge and report to the RHPO 

changes in the conditions.

The Refuge Manager will initiate budget 

requests or otherwise obtain funding from the 1% 

O&M program base provided for the Section 106 

process compliance:

1. Inventory, evaluate, and protect all significant 

cultural resources located on lands controlled 

by the FWS, including historic properties of 

religious and cultural significance to Indian 

tribes.

2. Identify and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all historic properties 

including those of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes.

3. Cooperate with Federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, and the public in 

managing cultural resources on the Refuge.

4. Integrate historic preservation with planning 

and management of other resources and 

activities.

5. Recognize the rights of Native Americans to 

have access to certain religious sites and 

objects on Refuge lands within the limitations 

of the FWS mission.

Table 21: Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Horicon NWR

Step-down Management Plan Completed/Updated Anticipated Revision

Visitor Services Plan n/a 2008

Hunting Plan 1987 2007

Law Enforcement Plan 1992 2007

Furbearer Management

And Trapping Plans

1979* 2008

Marsh & Water Management Plan1 1993* n/a

Habitat Management Plan n/a 2009

Wildlife Inventory Plan 1990 2008

Resource Inventory Plan n/a 2008

Fire Management Plan 2001 2011

Cultural Resources Management Plan n/a 2012

Accessibility Plan n/a 2012

Fishing (Fisheries Management) Plan 1986 2008

Grassland Management Plan 1994 n/a

Safety Plan 1987 2008

1.Annual Management Plans are written for the Water Management and Trapping Plans

Table 22: Step-down Management Plan 

Schedule, Fox River NWR

Step-down 

Management Plan

Completed

/Updated

Anticipated 

Revision

Visitor Services Plan n/a 2010

Hunting Plan 1987 2007

Law Enforcement Plan n/a 2007

Habitat Management 

Plan 1

n/a 2009

Wildlife Inventory Plan n/a 2008

Resource Inventory 

Plan

n/a 2008

Fire Management Plan 2001 2007

Cultural Resources 

Management Plan

n/a 2012

Accessibility Plan n/a 2012

Fishing (Fisheries 

Management) Plan

n/a 2007

Safety Plan 1987 2008

1.Annual Management Plans are written for the Water 

Management and Trapping Plans
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Monitoring and Evaluation

The direction set forth in this CCP and specifically identified strategies and projects will be monitored throughout the life of this plan. On a periodic 

basis, the Regional Office will assemble a station 

review team whose purpose will be to visit Horicon 

NWR and evaluate current Refuge activities in light 

of this plan. The team will review all aspects of Refuge management, including direction, accomplishments and funding. The goals and objectives 

presented in this CCP will provide the baseline from 

which this field station will be evaluated.

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact



Appendix B: Glossary

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Appendix B: Glossary

Appendix B: Glossary

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Appendix B: Glossary

Alternative

A set of objectives and strategies needed to achieve 

refuge goals and the desired future condition.

Biological Diversity

The variety of life forms and its processes, including 

the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities and 

ecosystems in which they occur.

Compatible Use 

A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any other 

use on a refuge that will not materially interfere with 

or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the 

Service or the purposes of the refuge.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)

A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of the refuge, and specifies management 

direction to achieve refuge goals and the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Community

A distinct assemblage of plants that develops on sites 

characterized by particular climates and soils, and 

the species and populations of wild animals that 

depend on the plants for food, cover and/or nesting.

Ecosystem

A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and 

animal communities and their associated non-living 

environment.

Ecosystem Approach 

A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural 

function, structure, and species composition of an 

ecosystem, recognizing that all components are 

interrelated.

Ecosystem Management

Management of an ecosystem that includes all 

ecological, social and economic components that 

make up the whole of the system.

Ecotone

Edge or transition zone between two or more 

adjacent but different plant communities, 

ecosystems, or biomes.

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 Assessment (EA)

A systematic analysis to determine if proposed 

actions would result in a significant effect on the 

quality of the environment.

Extirpation

The localized extinction of a species that is no longer 

found in a locality or country, but still exists 

elsewhere in the world.

Goals 

Descriptive statements of desired future conditions.

Issue

Any unsettled matter that requires a management 

decision. For example, a resource management 

problem, concern, a threat to natural resources, a 

conflict in uses, or in the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition.

National Wildlife Refuge System

All lands, waters, and interests therein administered 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife 

refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, 

waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish, wildlife and plant 

resources.

Objectives

Actions to be accomplished to achieve a desired 

outcome or goal. Objectives are more specific, and 

generally more measurable, than goals.

Preferred Alternative

The Service’s selected alternative identified in the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Scoping

A process for determining the scope of issues to be 

addressed by a comprehensive conservation plan and 

for identifying the significant issues. Involved in the 

scoping process are federal, state and local agencies; 

private organizations; and individuals.
Appendix B: Glossary

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Species

A distinctive kind of plant or animal having 

distinguishable characteristics, and that can 

interbreed and produce young. In taxonomy, a 

category of biological classification that refers to one 

or more populations of similar organisms that can 

reproduce with each other but is reproductively 

isolated from – that is, incapable of interbreeding 

with – all other kinds of organisms.

Strategies

A general approach or specific actions to achieve 

objectives.

Wildlife-dependent Recreation

 A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, 

w i l d l i f e o b se r v a t i o n a n d p h o t o g r a p h y, o r 

environmental education and interpretation, as 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997.

Threatened Species 

Those plant or animal species likely to become 

endangered species throughout all of 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.

Vegetation

Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life in 

an area.

Vegetation Type 

A category of land based on potential or existing 

dominant plant species of a particular area.

Watershed

The entire land area that collects and drains water 

into a stream or stream system.

Wetland

Areas such as lakes, marshes, bogs, and streams that 

are inundated by surface or ground water for a long 

enough period of time each year to support, and that 

do support under natural conditions, plants and 

animals that require saturated or seasonally 

saturated soils.

Wildlife Diversity

A measure of the number of wildlife species in an 

area and their relative abundance.
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Appendix C: Species List

Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Horicon NWR Species Lists

Bird List, Horicon NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe* (Podilymbus podiceps) CCC

Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) R R

Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena) R R

Pelicans

American White Pelican* (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) CCC

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant* (Phalacrocorax auritus) CCC

Herons and Bitterns

American Bittern* (Botaurus lentiginosus) UUU

Least Bittern* (Ixobrychus exilis) UUU

Great Blue Heron* (Ardea herodias) CCCU

Great Egret* (Ardea alba) CCC

Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) RRR

Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) RRR

Green Heron* (Butorides virescens) UUU

Black-crowned NightHeron*

(Nycticorax nycticorax) CAA

Yellow-crowned NightHeron

(Nyctanassa violacea) RRR

Vultures

Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) UUR

Swans, Geese and Ducks

Greater White-fronted 

Goose

(Anser albifrons) R R

Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) U U

Canada Goose* (Branta canadensis) ACAC

Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) R R

Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus) U U

Wood Duck* (Aix sponsa) CCC
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Gadwall* (Anas strepera) UUC

American Wigeon* (Anas americana) UUC

American Black Duck (Anas rubripes) UUUR

Mallard* (Anas platyrhynchos) AAAU

Blue-winged Teal* (Anas discors) CCC

Northern Shoveler* (Anas clypeata) CUC

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) UUU

Green-winged Teal* (Anas crecca) CUA

Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) URU

Redhead* (Aythya americana) CCC

Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) CUC

Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) R R

Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) CUC

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) U UR

Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) U U

Hooded Merganser* (Lophodytes cucullatus) UUUR

Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) U UR

Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) R R

Ruddy Duck* (Oxyura jamaicensis) CUC

Hawks and Eagles

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) RRR

Bald Eagle* (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) UCCU

Northern Harrier* (Circus cyaneus) CCCC

Sharp-shinned Hawk* (Accipiter striatus) URUR

Cooper’s Hawk* (Accipiter cooperii) URUR

Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) U U

Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) U U

Red-tailed Hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis) CCCC

Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus) C CC

Falcons

American Kestrel* (Falco sparverius) CCCC

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) R RR

Upland Game Birds

Gray Partridge* (Perdix perdix) UUUU

Bird List, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Ring-necked Pheasant* (Phasianus colchicus) CCCC

Wild Turkey* (Meleagris gallopavo) ACAC

Ruffed Grouse* (Bonasa umbellus) RRR

Rails and Coots

Yellow Rail* (Coturnicops noveboracensis) R

King Rail* (Rallus elegans) UUR

Virginia Rail* (Rallus limicola) CCC

Sora* (Porzana carolina) CCC

Common Moorhen* (Gallinula chloropus) CCC

American Coot* (Fulica americana) AAA

Cranes

Sandhill Crane* (Grus canadensis) CCCC

Whooping Crane (Grus americana) UUU

Shorebirds

Black-necked Stilt* (Himantopus mexicanus) RRR

Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) URU

American Golden-Plover (Pluvialis dominica) RRR

Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) UUU

Killdeer* (Charadrius vociferus) CCC

Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) CUC

Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) CUC

Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) UUU

Spotted Sandpiper* (Actitis macularia) RRR

Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) CUC

Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) CUC

White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis) RRR

Baird’s Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii) R R

Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) UUC

Dunlin (Calidris alpina) CUC

Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) RRU

Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) RRR

Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) RRU

Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) URU

Wilson’s Snipe* (Gallinago delicata) CUC

Bird List, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) RUR

Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) RRR

American Woodcock* (Scolopax minor) CUU

Wilson’s Phalarope* (Phalaropus tricolor) RRR

Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) R R

Gulls and Terns

Bonaparte’s Gull (Larus philadelphia) U U

Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) CUC

Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) CUCU

Forster’s Tern* (Sterna forsteri) CCU

Black Tern* (Chlidonias niger) CCU

Doves

Rock Dove* (Columba livia) CCCC

Mourning Dove* (Zenaida macroura) CCCC

Cuckoos and Roadrunners

Black-billed Cuckoo* (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) UUU

Yellow-billed Cuckoo* (Coccyzus americanus) UUU

Owls

Eastern Screech-Owl* (Megascops asio) CCCC

Great Horned Owl* (Bubo virginianus) CCCC

Snowy Owl (Nyctea scandiacus) R R

Barred Owl (Strix varia) UUUU

Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) R RR

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) URUU

Nighthawks and Nightjars

Common Nighthawk* (Chordeiles minor) UUU

Swifts

Chimney Swift* (Chaetura pelagica) UUU

Hummingbirds

Ruby-throated Hummingbird*

(Archilochus colubris) UUU

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher* (Ceryle alcyon) UUU

Woodpeckers

Bird List, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) UUU

Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) UUUU

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) U U

Downy Woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens) CCCC

Hairy Woodpecker* (Picoides villosus) CCCC

Northern Flicker* (Colaptes auratus) CCC

Flycatchers

Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) R R

Eastern Wood-Pewee* (Contopus virens) CCC

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) R R

Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) UUU

Willow Flycatcher* (Empidonax traillii) CCC

Least Flycatcher* (Empidonax minimus) CCC

Eastern Phoebe* (Sayornis phoebe) CCC

Great Crested Flycatcher* (Myiarchus crinitus) CCC

Eastern Kingbird* (Tyrannus tyrannus) CCC

Shrikes

Northern Shrike (Lanius excubitor) R U

Vireos

Yellow-throated Vireo* (Vireo flavifrons) UUU

Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius) U U

Warbling Vireo* (Vireo gilvus) CCC

Philadelphia Vireo (Vireo philadelphicus) URU

Red-eyed Vireo* (Vireo olivaceus) CCC

Jays, Magpies and Crows

Blue Jay* (Cyanocitta cristata) CCCC

American Crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) CCCC

Larks

Horned Lark* (Eremophila alpestris) CUCC

Swallows

Purple Martin* (Progne subis) CCC

Tree Swallow* (Tachycineta bicolor) AAA

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow*

(Stelgidopteryx serripennis) UUU

Bird List, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Bank Swallow* (Riparia riparia) UUU

Cliff Swallow* (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) UUU

Barn Swallow* (Hirundo rustica) CCC

Chickadees and Titmice

Black-capped Chickadee* (Poecile atricapillus) CCCC

Nuthatches

Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) R RR

White-breasted Nuthatch* (Sitta carolinensis) UUUU

Creepers

Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) U UU

Wrens

House Wren* (Troglodytes aedon) CCC

Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) URU

Sedge Wren* (Cistothorus platensis) CCC

Marsh Wren* (Cistothorus palustris) AACR

Kinglets, Bluebirds and Thrushes

Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) C CR

Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) C C

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher* (Polioptila caerulea) UUU

Eastern Bluebird* (Sialia sialis) UUU

Veery* (Catharus fuscescens) UUU

Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus) U U

Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) U U

Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) U U

Wood Thrush* (Hylocichla mustelina) UUU

American Robin* (Turdus migratorius) CCCR

Mimics

Gray Catbird* (Dumetella carolinensis) CCC

Brown Thrasher* (Toxostoma rufum) UUU

Starlings

European Starling* (Sturnus vulgaris) CCCC

Waxwings

Cedar Waxwing* (Bombycilla cedrorum) UCCR

Bird List, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Warblers

Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus) URR

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) URR

Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrina) CRC

Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata) U U

Nashville Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) CRC

Northern Parula (Parula americana) URU

Yellow Warbler* (Dendroica petechia) ACC

Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) C R C

Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) CRC

Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) U U

Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) A A

Black-throated Green Warbler

(Dendroica virens) C C

Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) URU

Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica) RRR

Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus) R R

Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum) C C

Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea) URU

Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) U C

Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia) CRC

American Redstart* (Setophaga ruticilla) CUC

Ovenbird* (Seiurus aurocapilla) UUU

Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) URU

Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) R R

Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis) R R

Mourning Warbler (Oporornis philadelphia) U U

Common Yellowthroat* (Geothlypis trichas) AAA

Wilson’s Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) U U

Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) URU

Tanagers

Scarlet Tanager* (Piranga olivacea) UUU

Sparrows, Buntings and Grosbeaks

Eastern Towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) UUU

Bird List, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

American Tree Sparrow (Spizella arborea) CUCC

Chipping Sparrow* (Spizella passerina) UUU

Clay-colored Sparrow (Spizella pallida) R R

Field Sparrow* (Spizella pusilla) UUU

Vesper Sparrow* (Pooecetes gramineus) UUU

Savannah Sparrow* (Passerculus sandwichensis) CCC

Grasshopper Sparrow* (Ammodramus savannarum) UUR

Henslow’s Sparrow* (Ammodramus henslowii) UUR

Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) C C

Song Sparrow* (Melospiza melodia) ACCU

Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) U U

Swamp Sparrow* (Melospiza georgiana) AAAU

White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) C C

Harris’s Sparrow (Zonotrichia querula) R R

White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) U U

Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) C UC

Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus) U UU

Snow Bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis) U UU

Northern Cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis) CCCC

Rose-breasted Grosbeak* (Pheucticus ludovicianus) CCC

Indigo Bunting* (Passerina cyanea) CCC

Dickcissel* (Spiza Americana) UUU

Blackbirds and Orioles

Bobolink* (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) CCU

Red-winged Blackbird* (Agelaius phoeniceus) AAAC

Eastern Meadowlark* (Sturnella magna) UUUR

Western Meadowlark* (Sturnella neglecta) RRR

Yellow-headed Blackbird* (Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus)

CCCR

Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) C CR

Brewer’s Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) AUAR

Common Grackle* (Quiscalus quiscula) CCCU

Brown-headed Cowbird* (Molothrus ater) CCCU

Baltimore Oriole* (Icterus galbula) UUU

Bird List, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Finches

Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) U U

House Finch* (Carpodacus mexicanus) UUUU

Common Redpoll (Carduelis flammea) R

American Goldfinch* (Carduelis tristis) CCCU

Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) R

Old World Sparrows

House Sparrow* (Passer domesticus) CCCC

Definitions

Status:

A... Abundant: common species that is very numerous

C... Common: certain to be seen or heard in suitable habitat, not in large numbers

U... Uncommon: Present but not certain to be seen

R... Rare: Seen at irregular intervals of 2-5 years

*... Denotes species nesting on the refuge

Data taken from Horicon National Wildlife Refuge Bird Checklist

Accidentals

Common Loon Sanderling

Western Grebe Ruff

Little Blue Heron Caspian Tern

Glossy Ibis Common Tern

White-faced Ibis Great Grey Owl

Mute Swan Barn Owl

Ross’ Goose Saw-whet Owl

Brant Whip-poor-will

Cinnamon Teal Tufted Titmouse

Black Scoter Carolina Wren

White-winged Scoter Northern Mockingbird

Long-tailed Duck (Oldsquaw)Loggerhead Shrike

Golden Eagle Bell’s Vireo

Northern Goshawk Prothonotary Warbler

Merlin Cerulean Warbler

Northern Bobwhite Black-throated Blue Warbler

Bird List, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

 

Red Knot Worm-eating Warbler

Willet Yellow-breasted Chat

Upland Sandpiper Lark Sparrow

Marbled Godwit Pine Siskin

Hudsonian Godwit Pine Grosbeak

Bird List, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Sp Su Fa Wi
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Mammals, Horicon NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name Savanna/

Prairie

Aspen/

Lowland 

Shrub

Marsh 

and Open 

Water

Shrews

Masked shrew Sorex cinereus s s

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda uss

Moles

Star-nosed mole Condylura cristata u u

Bats

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus c c

Big brown bat Epteicus fuscus ccc

Red bat Lasiurus borealis s s

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus s

Rabbits and Hares

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus a c

Rodents

Woodchuck Marmota monax c

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus

c

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus c

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis u c

Fox squirrel Sciurus niger c

Beaver Castor canadensis u u

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus u

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus s s

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus c

Muskrat Ondatra zibethica u a

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus u

House mouse # Mus musculus u

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius s s

Canines

Coyote Canis latrans sso

Red fox Vulpes vulpes cco

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus r

Other Carnivores

Raccoon* Procyon lotor ccc

Opposum Didelphis virginiana ccc
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Weasel Family (Mustelidae)

Ermine (Short-tailed weasel) Mustela erminea u

Least weasel Mustela nivalis u

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata c c

Mink Mustela vison oca

Badger Taxidea taxus r

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis ccc

River otter Lutra canadensis u u

Deer Family

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus aaa

#=Exotic species

*=No native to the area before colonial settlement

**=Not a resident mammal of the Refuge

a=abundant

c=common

u=uncommon

o=occasional; seen only a few times during the season

r=rare; seen every 2 to 5 years

s=secretive; common to abundant but rarely observable

Mammals, Horicon NWR (Continued)

Common Name Scientific Name Savanna/

Prairie

Aspen/

Lowland 

Shrub

Marsh 

and Open 

Water
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Amphibians, Horicon NWR 

Common Name Scientific Name Savanna/

Prairie

Aspen/

Lowland 

Shrub

Marsh 

and Open 

Water

Wood frog Rana sylvatica c c

Western chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata a a

Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer r r

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens a a

American toad Bufo americanus ccc

Green frog Rana clamitans a a

Eastern gray treefrog Hyla versicolor c c

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum u u

a=abundant

c=common

u=uncommon

o=occasional; seen only a few times during the season

r=rare; seen every 2 to 5 years

s=secretive; common to abundant but rarely observable
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Reptiles, Horicon NWR

Common Name Scientific Name Savanna/

Prairie

Lowland 

Shrub

Marsh 

and Open 

Water

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina c

Eastern painted turtle Chrysemys picta a

Spiny softshell turtle Apalone spinifera r

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis a a a

Northern redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata c

Western fox snake Elaphe vulpine c

Eastern milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum u

a=abundant

c=common

u=uncommon

o=occasional; seen only a few times during the season

r=rare; seen every 2 to 5 years

s=secretive; common to abundant but rarely observable
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Fish Species, Horicon NWR

Common Name Scientific Name Marsh and 

Open Water

Minnows

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas c

Southern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus erythrogaster u

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas a

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus r

Common Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella a

Suckers

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni c

Bullhead Catfish

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas a

Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus a

Pikes

Northern Pike Esox lucius c

Mudminnows

Central Mudminnow Umbra limi c

Sticklebacks

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans c

Sunfish

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus u

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides u

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus u

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus a

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus u

Perch

Blackside Darter Percina maculate r

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens u

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum u

a – abundant

c – common

u – uncommon

r – rare
Appendix C: Species List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Mussels, Horicon NWR

Common Name Scientific Name Marsh and Open 

Water

Fingernail clam Sphaeriidae c

Three ridge Amblema plicata c

Yellow sand shell Lampsilis anodontoides c
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations

The following compatibility determinations were 

presented for public review in the Draft CCP/EA. 

Copies of the signed documents are available at the 

Horicon NWR Headquarters.

Horicon NWR

#Hunting

#Firewood Cutting/Timber Harvest

#Trapping of Furbearers

#Environmental Education and Interpretation

#Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access

#Haying

#Research

#Recreational Fishing

#Permit Archeological Investigations, Horicon NWR and Fox River NWR

Fox River NWR

#Hunting

#Firewood Cutting/Timber Harvest

#Environmental Education and Interpretation

#Haying

#Research

#Recreational Fishing

#Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access)

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

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 feetitle 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.
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

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.

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 nat-
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

ural 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.

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 wildlife-dependent 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. 
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

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.

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, Section 6, requires the 

Service to make a determination of compatibility of 

existing, new and changing uses of Refuge land; and 

Section 7 requires the Service to identify and 

describe the archaeological and cultural values of 

the refuge.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

Section 106, requires Federal agencies to consider 

impacts their undertakings could have on historic 

properties; Section 110 requires Federal agencies to 

manage historic properties, e.g., to document 

historic properties prior to destruction or damage; 

Section 101 requires Federal agencies consider 

Indian tribal values in historic preservation 

programs, and requires each Federal agency to 

establish a program leading to inventory of all 

historic properties on its land.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (ARPA) prohibits unauthorized disturbance of 

archeological resources on Federal and Indian land; 

and other matters. Section 10 requires establishing 

“a program to increase public awareness” of 

archeological resources. Section 14 requires plans to 

survey lands and a schedule for surveying lands 

with “the most scientifically valuable archaeological 

resources.” This Act requires protection of all 

archeological sites more than 100 years old (not just 

sites meeting the criteria for the National Register) 

on Federal land, and requires archeological 

investigations on Federal land be performed in the 

public interest by qualified persons.

The Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) imposes 

serious delays on a project when human remains or 

other cultural items are encountered in the absence 

of a plan.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA) iterates the right of Native Americans to 

free exercise of traditional religions and use of 

sacred places.

EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), directs 

Federal agencies to accommodate access to and 

ceremonial use, to avoid adverse effects and avoid 

blocking access, and to enter into early consultation.
Appendix F: Priority Refuge Operational and Maintenance Needs

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Appendix F: Priority Refuge Operational and 

Maintenance Needs

Chapter 5 of the CCP contains a listing and description of the priority 

operational and maintenance needs for Horicon NWR and Fox River NWR.

Appendix G: Wildlife Species of Management Concern, Horicon NWR

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Appendix G: Wildlife Species of Management 

Concern, Horicon NWR

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Species (* = Managing habitat) for these species)

Scientific Name Refuge Status

Monitored on Refuge by staff or WIDNR?

Regional/State Status HabitatsR3-Conservation Priority in Region 3E-Federal EndangeredT-Federal ThreatenedSE-State EndangeredST-State ThreatenedSSC-State Special Concern

Wetlands/ Mudflats/Open water1

Lowland shrub

UfoAoasamha

Mammals

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Recreation/

economicAbundant

Yes P P P 

*Muskrat Ondatra zibethica Recreation/

economicAbundant

Yes P P

Beaver Castor canadensis Nuisance

Uncommon

Yes P P

River Otter Lutra canadensis Recreation/

economicUncommon

Yes P P

Birds*Red-necked Grebe=

Podiceps grisegena Rare Yes SE M

*Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Rare Yes SSC M

Double-Crested Cormorant

Phalacrocorax auritus Nuisance

Common

Yes R3 (nuisance) M, P
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

*American Bittern Botarus lentiginosus Uncommon Yes R3, SSC M, P 

*Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Uncommon Yes R3, SSC M, P

*Black-crowned Night Heron

Nycticorax nycticorax Abundant Yes R3 M, P

Yellow-crowned Night Heron

Nyctanassa violacea Rare Yes ST

*Great Egret Casmerodius albus Common Yes

ST

P, M

Snowy Egret Egretta thula Rare Yes SE

*Canada Goose - Resident

Branta canadensis Nuisance

Abundant

Yes R3 M, P

*Canada Goose - Migrant

Branta canadensis Recreation/

economicAbundant

Yes R3 M,P

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Recreation/

economicRare

Yes R3, SE M,P

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Species (* = Managing habitat) for these species)

Scientific Name Refuge Status

Monitored on Refuge by staff or WIDNR?

Regional/State Status HabitatsR3-Conservation Priority in Region 3E-Federal EndangeredT-Federal ThreatenedSE-State EndangeredST-State ThreatenedSSC-State Special Concern

Wetlands/ Mudflats/Open water1

Lowland shrub

UfoAoasamha
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

*Wood Duck Aix sponsa Recreation/

economicCommon

Yes R3 M, P P

*American Black Duck

Anas rubripes Recreation/

economicUncommon

Yes R3, SSC M

*Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Recreation/

economicAbundant

Yes R3 M, P 

*Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Recreation/

economicCommon

Yes R3, SSC M, P 

*Northern Pintail Anas acuta Recreation/

economicUncommon

Yes R3 M,P

*Canvasback Aythya valisineria Recreation/

economicUncommon

Yes R3, SSC M

*RedheadAythya americana

Recreation/economic

Yes SSC M, P

*Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Recreation/

economic

Yes R3, SSC M

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Species (* = Managing habitat) for these species)

Scientific Name Refuge Status

Monitored on Refuge by staff or WIDNR?

Regional/State Status HabitatsR3-Conservation Priority in Region 3E-Federal EndangeredT-Federal ThreatenedSE-State EndangeredST-State ThreatenedSSC-State Special Concern

Wetlands/ Mudflats/Open water1

Lowland shrub

UfoAoasamha
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Rare Yes ST

*Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Common Yes T, R3, SSC (proposed for 

delisting from ESA)

M, P M

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Common No R3, SSC M, P M

Red-shouldered Hawk

Buteo lineatus Uncommon No R3, ST 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Rare Yes R3, SE M 

*Yellow Rail Coturnicops 

noveboracensis

Rare Yes R3, ST M, P

*King Rail Rallus elegans Uncommon Yes R3, SSC M, P

*Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Common Yes R3, M, P

*Whooping Crane Grus americana Uncommon Yes R3, SSC, T (non-essential 

experimental population)

M

*American GoldenPlover Pluvialis dominica Rare No SSC M

*Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Common No R3 M

*Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Uncommon No SSC M

*Dunlin Calidris alpina Common No SSC M

*Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus Rare No R3 M 

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Species (* = Managing habitat) for these species)

Scientific Name Refuge Status

Monitored on Refuge by staff or WIDNR?

Regional/State Status HabitatsR3-Conservation Priority in Region 3E-Federal EndangeredT-Federal ThreatenedSE-State EndangeredST-State ThreatenedSSC-State Special Concern

Wetlands/ Mudflats/Open water1

Lowland shrub

UfoAoasamha
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

*Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Tryngites subruficollis Rare No R3, SSC M 

*Short-billed Dowitcher

Limnodromus griseus

Uncommon No

R3, SSC

M

*Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Rare No R3, SSC M, P

*American Woodcock Scolopax minor Recreation/

economicUncommon

No R3, SCC M, P M

*Black Tern Chlidonias niger Common Yes R3, SSC M, P

*Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Common Yes R3, SE M, P

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus

Uncommon No R3, SSC M, P M

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Uncommon No SSC M, P M

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Rare No R3 M

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Uncommon No R3, SSC M 

Red-headed Woodpecker

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Uncommon No R3, SSC M

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Common No R3 M

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Contopus cooperi Rare No R3, SSC M

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Common No SSC P

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Species (* = Managing habitat) for these species)

Scientific Name Refuge Status

Monitored on Refuge by staff or WIDNR?

Regional/State Status HabitatsR3-Conservation Priority in Region 3E-Federal EndangeredT-Federal ThreatenedSE-State EndangeredST-State ThreatenedSSC-State Special Concern

Wetlands/ Mudflats/Open water1

Lowland shrub

UfoAoasamha
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Common No SSC P

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Common Yes R3 M, P M, P 

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Uncommon No R3, SSC M

Veery Catharus fuscescens Uncommon No SSC M

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Uncommon No SSC M

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Rare No R3, SSC M M

Golden-winged Warbler

Vermivora chrysoptera Rare No R3, SSC M M

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Uncommon No R3 M

Louisiana Waterthrush

Seiurus motacilla Rare No R3, SSC M M

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Rare No R3, SSC M M 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Uncommon No R3, SSC M

Yellow-throated Warbler

Dendroica dominica Rare No SE M

*Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Uncommon Yes R3, SSC M, P 

*Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Uncommon Yes SSC M, P 

*Grasshopper Sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum

Uncommon Yes R3, SSC 

*Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Uncommon Yes R3, ST 

*Dickcissel Spiza americana Uncommon Yes R3, SSC 

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Species (* = Managing habitat) for these species)

Scientific Name Refuge Status

Monitored on Refuge by staff or WIDNR?

Regional/State Status HabitatsR3-Conservation Priority in Region 3E-Federal EndangeredT-Federal ThreatenedSE-State EndangeredST-State ThreatenedSSC-State Special Concern

Wetlands/ Mudflats/Open water1

Lowland shrub

UfoAoasamha
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

*Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Common Yes R3, SSC 

*Eastern Meadowlark

Sturnella magna Uncommon Yes R3, SSC 

*Western Meadowlark

Sturnella neglecta Rare Yes R3, SSC 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Common No R3, SSC

M

Amphibians*Wood Frog Rana sylvatica Common Yes P

*Western Chorus Frog

Pseudacris triseriata Abundant Yes P 

*Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer Uncommon Yes P

*Northern Leopard Frog

Rana pipiens Abundant Yes P

*American Toad Bufo americanus Abundant Yes P P P 

*Eastern Gray Treefrog

Hyla versicolor Common Yes P P P

*Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Common Yes P P P

*Green Frog Rana clamitans 

melanota

Abundant Yes P

*Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Uncommon Yes R3 P P

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Species (* = Managing habitat) for these species)

Scientific Name Refuge Status

Monitored on Refuge by staff or WIDNR?

Regional/State Status HabitatsR3-Conservation Priority in Region 3E-Federal EndangeredT-Federal ThreatenedSE-State EndangeredST-State ThreatenedSSC-State Special Concern

Wetlands/ Mudflats/Open water1

Lowland shrub

UfoAoasamha
Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

Reptiles*Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta Abundant Yes P

*Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Common Yes P

*Spiny Softshell Turtle

Apalone spinifera Rare Yes P

Northern RedBellied Snake Storeria occipitomaculata Common Yes P

Eastern Garter Snake

Thamnophis sirtalis Common Yes P P P

FishesWalleye Stizostedion vitreum Recreation/

economicUncommon

Yes R3 P,M

*Common Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella Nuisance

Abundant

Yes R3 (nuisance) P,M

MusselsThree Ridge Amblema plicata Recreation/

economicCommon

Yes P

Wildlife Species of Management Concern to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Species (* = Managing habitat) for these species)

Scientific Name Refuge Status

Monitored on Refuge by staff or WIDNR?

Regional/State Status HabitatsR3-Conservation Priority in Region 3E-Federal EndangeredT-Federal ThreatenedSE-State EndangeredST-State ThreatenedSSC-State Special Concern

Wetlands/ Mudflats/Open water1

Lowland shrub

UfoAoasamha
Appendix H: Mailing List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Appendix H: Mailing List

Appendix H: Mailing List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Appendix H: Mailing List

The following is an initial list of government offices, 

private organizations, and individuals who will 

receive notice of the availability of this CCP. We 

continue to add to this list.

Elected Officials

# Senator Russ Feingold

# Senator Herb Kohl

# Representative Tom Petri

# Governor Jim Doyle 

# State representatives

# Dodge County Sheriff

# Fond du Lac County Sheriff

Tribal Government

# Ho Chunk Nation of Wisconsin

# Ho Chunk Nation Youth Service

# Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission

# Forest County Potawatomi

# Hannahville Indian Community

# Ho-Chunk Nation

# Iowa Tribe of Kansas

# Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin

# Nottawaseppi Huron Band

# Oneida Nation

# Peoria Indian Tribe

# Pokagon Band of Potawatomi

# Prairie Band of Potawatomi

# Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri

# Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma

# Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi

# Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

# Citizen of Potawatomi

# Kickapoo Tribe

# Miami Tribe

# Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma

Local Government

# City of Waupun

# City of Mayville

# City of Horicon

# City of Beaver Dam

# City of Fond du Lac

# Dodge County

# Fond du Lac County

# Dodge County Soil & Water Conservation 

District 

# Fond du Lac Soil & Water Conservation District

# Town of Leroy

# Town of Williamstown

# Town of Oakfield

# Town of Waupun

# Town of Brownsville

# Town of Chester

# Town of Burnett

# Town of Buffalo

# Town of Moundville

Federal Agencies

# USDA, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

# USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, Georgia; Denver,

# Colorado; Fort Snelling, Minnesota; Hadley, 

Massachusetts; Portland, Oregon

# USGS, National Wildlife Health Center

State Agencies

# Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

# Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer 

Colleges and Universities

# University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, 

Madison, Green Bay, Milwaukee 

Organizations

# The Nature Conservancy

# Wisconsin Waterfowl Association
Appendix H: Mailing List

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

# Pheasants Forever

# Ducks Unlimited

# National Audubon Society

# Wildlife Management Institute

# PEER Refuge Keeper

# The Wilderness Society

# National Wildlife Federation

# Wisconsin Wildlife Federation

# Sierra Club, Midwest Office, Madison, WI

# The National Wildlife Refuge Association

# The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia

# Native Plant Society

# Trust for Public Land

# The Wildlife Society, Wisconsin Chapter

# Wisconsin Prairie Chicken Society

# Animal Protection Institute, California

# Ruffed Grouse Society, Wisconsin Chapter

# The Fund for Animals, Maryland

# Dodge County Historical Society

# Fond du Lac County Historical Society

# Marquette County Historical Society

# Marquette County Parks

# Friends of Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

# The Wisconsin Ornithological Society

# The Horicon Marsh Bird Club

# The Niagara Escarpment Resource Network

# Audubon Bird Club

# Riveredge Bird Club

# Horicon Marsh System Advocates

# America Outdoors

# International Crane Foundation

# Milwaukee County Zoo

# Blue Heron Landing

# Local libraries

# Marsh Haven Nature Center

# Marsh Management Committee

# Wisconsin Trappers Association

# Citizens Natural Resource Association

# Local gun clubs and sportsmans clubs

# Izaak Walton League

# Dodge County Sports Conservation Alliance

# Community Open Space Partnership

Wisconsin Prairie Enthusiasts

# Aldo Leopold Foundation

# Rock River Headwaters Inc.

# John Deer Horicon Works

# Local Chambers and Tourism departments

# Girl Scouts of Milwaukee Area

Individuals

Individuals who have requested a copy of the draft 

CCP

Media

# Madison, Wisconsin State Journal

# Milwaukee, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

# Beaver Dam, The Daily Citizen

# Fond du Lac, The Fond du Lac Reporter

# Waupun, Neighbors

# Waupun, the Reporter

# Mayville, Mayville News

# Watertown, Watertown Daily Times

# Refuge Reporter

# Blue Goose Flyer

# Madison, Isthmus 

# Wisconsin Outdoor News

# Wisconsin Public Radio

# Other local radio stations

# T.V. Stations

# Columbus, Columbus Journal

# Green Bay, Green Bay News Chronicle
Appendix I: List of Preparers

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Refuge Staff: 

Patti Meyers, Refuge Manager, Horicon National 

Wildlife Refuge

Diane Kitchen, Assistant Refuge Manager, Horicon 

National Wildlife Refuge

Erin Railsback, Visitor Services Specialist, Horicon 

National Wildlife Refuge

Wendy Woyczik, Wildlife biologist, Horicon National 

Wildlife Refuge

Shawn Papon, Wildlife Biologist, Fox River National 

Wildlife Refuge

Regional Office Staff:

Gary Muehlenhardt, Wildlife Biologist/Refuge 

Planner, Region 3, USFWS

Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist-GIS, Region 3, 

USFWS

H. John Dobrovolny, Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer, Region 3, USFWS

Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor, Region 3, 

USFWS

Mangi Environmental Group:

Leon Kolankiewicz, Biologist/Environmental 

Planner/Consultant

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

(Attig et al., 2005) Attig, John, T.S. Hooyer, W.N. 

Mode, and L. Clayton. Glacial Lakes Wisconsin and 

Oshkosh – Two very different late-Glacial IceMarginal Lakes in Wisconsin. Geological Society of 

America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 37, No. 5, p. 

22. North-Central Section - 39th Annual Meeting 

(May 19–20, 2005). Accessed at: http://

gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005NC/finalprogram/

abstract_86950.htm . 

Bender, Herman E. Niagara Escarpment Geologic 

and Environmental Assessment: Town of Oakfield, 

American Septen History Company (ASHCO).

Breister, Peggy. 1995. Fond du Lac Reporter, 

"Lookouts on the Ledge." October 2. 

(Butcher, 2003) Butcher, Russell D. 2003. 

American’s National Wildlife Refuges: a complete 

guide. Lanham, MD & Memphis, TN: Roberts 

Rinehart and Ducks Unlimited. p. 662.

Daniel, Glenda and Jerry Sullivan. The North 

Woods of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, A 

Sierra Club's Naturalist Guide.

(Kahl, 1985) Kahl, R.B. 1985. Canvasback status and 

habitat management. Progress Report Study No. 

021. pp. 43-50. Wildlife Research Project Annual 

Report. 1985. Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Madison. Vol. 3.

(Laughland and Caudill, 1997) Laughland, Andrew 

and James Caudill. 1997. Banking on Nature: The 

Economic Benefits to Local Communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Economics. July.

Ledge Preservation Organization. Niagara 

Escarpment, What Will Be It's Future?

King, Thomas F. Cultural Resource Laws & Practice. 

1998. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Mclean, Doug. 1996. "Wisconsin's Great Cliff.” 

Wisconsin Outdoor Journal. April. 

Nekola, Jeff and Joel Trick. The Lost World of the 

Niagara Escarpment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

(NPS, no date) National Park Service. No date. Ice 

Age National Scenic Trail: Wisconsin’s Glacial 

Legacy. Accessed at: http://www.nps.gov/iatr/

expanded/history.htm. 

Osborn, Sannie K. “Horicon National Wildlife 

Refuge: Archaeological Survey of the Proposed 

Headquarters, Pair Pond, Water Control Structure 

and Land Exchange, Dodge & Fond du Lac 

Counties, Wisconsin.” 1988. University of 

Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Overstreet, David F. “Preliminary Reconnaissance – 

Archaeological and Historic Resources of the 

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge.” 1978. Great 

Lakes Archaeological Research Center, Inc., 

Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Patin, Michele. “Final Report of an Archaeological 

Survey of Portions of the Fox River National 

Wildlife Refuge, Marquette County, Wisconsin.” 

1982. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and 

Natural History Survey. Bedrock Geology of 

Wisconsin map.

(USCB, 2005a) United States Census Bureau. 2005. 

State & County QuickFacts: Dodge County, 

Wisconsin. Accessed at: http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55/55027.html. 

Last updated 30 Sept. 2005.
Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

(USCB, 2005b) United States Census Bureau. 2005. 

State & County QuickFacts: Fond du Lac County, 

Wisconsin. Accessed at: http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55/55039.html . 

Last updated 30 Sept. 2005.

(USCB, 2005c) United States Census Bureau. 2005. 

State & County QuickFacts: Wisconsin. Accessed at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html . 

Last updated 30 Sept. 2005

USCB, 2005d) United States Census Bureau. 2005. 

State & County QuickFacts: Marquette County, 

Wisconsin. Accessed at: http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55/55077.html. 

Last updated 30 Sept. 2005.

(USCB, 2000a) United States Census Bureau. 2000. 

DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 

2000. Dodge County, Wisconsin. Accessed at: http://

factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-

_sse=on&-geo_id=05000US55027 .

(USCB, 2000b) United States Census Bureau. 2000. 

DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 

2000. Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Accessed at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

QTTable?_bm=y&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-

_sse=on&-geo_id=05000US55039 . 

(USCB, 2000c) United States Census Bureau. 2000. 

DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 

2000. Marquette County, Wisconsin. Accessed at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

QTTable?_bm=y&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-

_sse=on&-geo_id=05000US55077 .

(USFWS, 2003) United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 2003. Fox River National Wildlife Refuge, 

Annual Narrative Report. Calendar Year 2003. 

(USFWS, 1995) United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 1995. Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact. Horicon National 

Wildlife Refuge Resource Restoration Plan, Dodge 

and Fond du Lac Counties, Wisconsin. Great Lakes 

– Big Rivers Region. March.

(USFWS, 1987) United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 1987. Fox River National Wildlife Refuge: 

Policy Compliance Document. March. 

(USFWS, 1979) United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 1979. Acquisition of Fox River Sandhill 

Crane Marsh, Marquette County, WI. 

Environmental Assessment. 

(USFWS, no date-a) United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. No date. Geology – On the Edge of 

the Ledge. Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/

midwest/horicon/hisgeolgy.html . 

(USFWS, no date-b) United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. No date. Glaciation. Accessed at: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/horicon/hisglacers.html 

. 

(USFWS, no date-c) United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. No date. Native Americans – The First 

People. Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

horicon/nativeamericans.html .

(USFWS, no date-d) United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. No date. Canada Geese at Horicon 

National Wildlife Refuge. Accessed at: http://

www.fws.gov/midwest/horicon/wildlifegeese.html .

(USFWS, no date-e) United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. No date. Horicon National Wildlife 

Refuge Bird Checklist. 

(USFWS, no date-f) United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. No date. All About the Peregrine Falcon. 

Accessed 10 November 2005 on the World Wide Web 

at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/

peregrine/QandA.html .

(USFWS, no date-g) United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. No date. Fox River National 

Wildlife Refuge. Accessed 12 November 2005 on the 

World Wide Web at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

FoxRiver/ .

(UWE, 2004a) University of Wisconsin-Extension. 

2004. Dodge County Agriculture: Value and 

Economic Impact. Accessed at: http://

www.uwex.edu/ces/cty/dodge/documents/

AgImpactWording.pdf . 

(UWE, 2004b) University of Wisconsin-Extension. 

2004. Marquette County Agriculture: Value and 

Economic Impact. Accessed 11 November 2005 on 

the World Wide Web at: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/

ag/wisag/documents/Marquette.pdf .
Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Van Dyke, Allen P. “Archaeological Survey of Two 

Borrow Areas for the Schaumberg Pool 

Construction Area at the Horicon National Wildlife 

Refuge, Dodge County, Wisconsin.” 1994. BZ 

Engineering, Inc., West Allis, Wisconsin.

(WDNR, 2004a) Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources. 2004. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus). Accessed 10 November 2005 on the 

World Wide Web at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/

land/er/factsheets/birds/

eagle.htm#Current%20Status%20in . 

(WDNR, 2004b) Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources. 2004. Wisconsin Natural Heritage 

Inventory Natural Community Descriptions. 

Accessed 12 November 2005 on the World Wide Web 

at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/

communities/descriptions.htm .

(Wisconline, 2005) Wisconline. 2005. Climate Data 

for Marquette County, Wisconsin. Accessed 11 

November 2005 on the World Wide Web at: http://

www.fws.gov/midwest/FoxRiver/.

(WWA, 2002) Wisconsin Wetlands Association. 2002. 

Wetlands of Wisconsin. Accessed 12 November 2005 

on the World Wide Web at: http://

www.wiscwetlands.org/meadows.htm .

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft 

CCP

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

The following is a summary of the comments 

received on the Draft CCP and how the issues are 

addressed in the CCP. 

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

1 Three organizations and several individuals 

endorsed the CCP as written and commended 

the Refuge and planning staff for their work on 

the plan.

Comments acknowledged. The Service appreciates 

this endorsement of its proposed plan.

2 Two organizations and two individuals oppose 

the inclusion of hunting and trapping in each 

of the management alternatives presented in 

the CCP/EA.

Hunting is one of the six wildlife-dependent public 

uses of national wildlife refuges specifically 

encouraged by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Management Act of 1997 (the “Organic Act” of the 

Refuge System). Whenever a particular type of 

hunting is compatible with the Refuge’s purposes, 

goals and objectives, and can be conducted in a 

sustainable manner, it may be permitted. Wildlife 

populations are monitored and whenever a 

population is below the population objective, 

hunting is suspended or reduced until the 

population recovers.

Limited trapping is conducted at Horicon of 

furbearers that damage infrastructure, like muskrat 

and beavers, and other mammalian predators and 

carnivores. Trapping does not occur every year as 

marsh conditions may be unfavorable. When in 

occurs, trapping is conducted by several permittees 

on a sustainable, relatively small scale. Trapping 

data indicate that there is no adverse direct effect 

on the long-term populations of target species or 

indirect effect on related prey species. As with 

hunting, trapping is suspended when the 

populations of target species appear to be low.

3 Two organizations assert that the Draft CCP 

for Horicon does not meet the requirements of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 because insufficient 

investigation of biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental health were undertaken 

prior to plan preparation. They state that 

rigorous biological analyses, with conclusions 

published in a NEPA document subject to 

public review, need to be conducted of wildlife 

populations to ensure that there is a surplus, 

before making any compatibility 

determinations about the killing of wildlife.

The Draft CCP listed a number of wildlife surveys 

and censuses that are conducted at Horicon which in 

sum provide an adequate basis for making informed 

decisions on the compatibility of hunting and 

trapping. In addition, the year-to-year trapping 

records themselves, and long-term trends in these 

numbers, furnish valuable information that can be 

used in opening or closing seasons. Recognizing that 

it does not have limitless budgetary and personnel 

resources to conduct ideal surveys that would yield 

perfect information on wildlife population sizes, the 

Refuge and Service use adaptive resource 

management, several features of which are 

monitoring, feedback, flexibility, and making 

adjustments in midcourse whenever the data point 

in that direction.

4 One organization states that the Service cannot 

continue to endorse hunting on any National 

Wildlife Refuge without analyzing its impact 

as required by the NWRSIA of 1997 and NEPA 

through an Environmental Impact Statement.

This comment letter makes reference to a legal 

complaint filed in Federal court, The Fund et al. v. 

Williams et al., Civ. No. 03-677. The complaint is 

under evaluation by the court as of this writing and 

does not specifically discuss the hunting program on 

Horicon or Fox River Refuges. See the previous 

response, and Chapter 3 of the CCP, for the 

Service’s current approach toward hunting on the 

Horicon and Fox River Refuges.

5 5. One regional organization endorsed the plan 

based on the increase in recreational 

opportunities for local tourism and businesses. 

The group also suggested that we send 

electronic copies of the final CCP to all 
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

municipal governments near the refuges to 

assist with their comprehensive planning 

efforts.

Comments acknowledged. We tried to include all 

local governments on our mailing list for notice of 

the draft and final plans. In addition, the entire final 

plan will be posted on the Service’s planning 

website.

6 Three individuals and two statewide 

organizations suggested closing or re-routing 

State Highway 49 as the best solution to the 

high number of road-killed wildlife and the 

potential safety risk for wildlife observers.

We agree that the best permanent way to reduce 

wildlife-auto collisions may be to remove this highspeed roadway from the Horicon Marsh. However, 

the closure or re-alignment of a state-owned and 

operated highway is outside the jurisdiction of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As presented in 

Chapter 4 of the CCP, we will advocate for the best 

solution possible to reduce or eliminate wildlife 

deaths along State Highway 49.

7 One organization claimed that members 

observed the refuge staff using prescribed fire 

for habitat improvement this past summer 

during the nesting season. Members of the 

organization encourage us to use fire only 

during the pre-nesting season times.

A prescribed burn was conducted during the 

summer by Refuge staff and Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources staff. The objectives of the 

burn were 1) to remove as much of the organic layer 

as possible to prepare the site for a herbicide 

treatment that was scheduled in August and 2) to 

improve the habitat, which was a dense stand of 

cattail, for nesting birds. A fire research study is 

also ongoing on the Refuge, which designates 

several areas on the Refuge for summer burning. 

Burning during the summer is not necessarily going 

to be a regular occurrence. Refuge staff consider 

the impacts of the fire to a variety of factors, 

including nesting birds. Due to the fire study, one 

area is planned for burning in 2007.

8 One individual wrote to say that current 

hunting opportunities are adequate and 

extended seasons and opening dike roads to 

year-round foot and bike traffic is excessive 

and may impact the needs of wildlife. The 

commenter states that the interior of the marsh 

should be left to Refuge personnel and the 

wildlife.

Comments acknowledged. The extension of the 

hunting seasons to coordinate with the State 

seasons is to lessen hunter confusion and is a 

recommendation in the Chronic Wasting Disease 

Management Plan for the Refuge. Increasing deer 

hunting opportunities is strongly encouraged by the 

State due to Chronic Wasting Disease in the deer 

within certain areas of the state. 

Allowing wildlife observation and photography via 

hiking, cross country skiing, and bicycling yearround on the Refuge between December 1 and 

March 15 and on Main Dike Road west of the fishing 

site year-round is a compatible use. Currently 

wildlife observation and photography are only 

allowed on the two trail systems where as hunting is 

allowed on most of the Refuge. Refuge staff wanted 

to provide an additional opportunity for people who 

wanted to observe or photograph wildlife that was 

compatible with the Refuge purpose.

9 One individual requested that the Horicon 

NWR consider special hunts for Canada Geese, 

deer and turkey for persons with disabilities. 

The comment note acknowledged that access 

assistance for wheel chairs and persons with 

limited walking ability may be required to 

designated blinds. The blinds could be used for 

bird watchers during the non-hunting season.

The Refuge currently offers an 800-acre area to 

deer hunters with disabilities during the traditional 

nine day deer gun season at the end of November 

and during a special gun hunt designated by the 

State in October. Six accessible hunting blinds are 

available for hunters to use during the hunt. 

Hunters are required to have a special Refuge 

permit, as well as a Class A, B, or C disabled permit 

from the State. Currently no other opportunities 

exist for hunters with disabilities, for example for 

Canada geese or turkey. A Refuge Hunting Plan, 

which will discuss all aspects of hunting on the 

Refuge, will be completed in 2007.

10 One individual suggested that the Refuge 

should manage a limited archery, permit-only 

spring wild turkey hunt. Archers would need to 

demonstrate competence in shooting to receive 

a permit.

Refuge staff discussed turkey hunting during the 

CCP process. In the end, Refuge staff agreed that 
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

turkey hunting in the spring is not compatible 

because of disturbance to nesting birds. The first 

couple of periods would probably be compatible, but 

Refuge staff felt it was too much of an 

administrative workload to only offer turkey 

hunting for such a small part of the season. 

11 One statewide organization stated that 

sharpshooters are a more appropriate deer 

management tool for a Refuge than hunting. 

They cite problems of trespassing, littering, 

vandalism, and shortage of law enforcement as 

reasons for not conducting public hunts.

Hunting is one of the six wildlife-dependent public 

uses of national wildlife refuges specifically 

encouraged by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Management Act of 1997 (the “Organic Act” of the 

Refuge System). Whenever a particular type of 

hunting is compatible with the Refuge’s purposes, 

goals and objectives, and can be conducted in a 

sustainable manner, it may be permitted. Wildlife 

populations are monitored and whenever a 

population is below the population objective, 

hunting is suspended or reduced until the 

population recovers.

Using sharpshooters instead of offering deer 

hunting as a deer management tool would not be 

economical or administratively efficient. The Refuge 

has adequate staffing to deal with any problems that 

may arise from the current public hunts.

12 One statewide organization urged the Service 

to eliminate the use of Rotenone for carp 

management. Total marsh poisoning and 

deposition of dead and decaying carp are given 

as reasons to eliminate this chemical control 

measure.

Rotenone has proven to be an effective method of 

control for invasive fish species. However, Refuge 

staff use an integrated fish management approach, 

which involves a variety of techniques including 

rotenone. Other techniques used include water level 

draw downs, carp gates, carp traps, and stocking of 

game fish. 

Rotenone is a naturally occurring compound 

derived from the roots of certain tropical and 

subtropical legume plants. Rotenone kills be 

interfering with cellular use of oxygen. It affects all 

gill-breathing animals such as fish, amphibians, and 

insects. At normal application rates, mammals, 

birds, and reptiles are not affected because their 

skins inhibit absorption and enzymes in their 

digestive systems break down small amounts of 

rotenone into harmless products.

13 One individual suggested that the Refuge 

restore spawning areas for northern pike and 

stock fish (rock bass, pike, perch, panfish) in the 

spring-fed areas of the marsh.

Fish stocking efforts continue each year on the 

Refuge as part of the carp control program and to 

improve marsh health after the carp treatments. 

Predator game fish are being restocked at every 

opportunity. Restocking with game fish in 2005 

consisted of 400,000 northern pike fry, 10,660 

bluegill fingerlings, 9,782 yellow perch fingerlings, 

and 13,600 black crappie fingerlings. Due to the 

drought in 2005, these fish were released upstream 

of the Refuge in Waupun’s Mill Pond. However, 

during normal water years, the fish are released 

directly into the Refuge. 

14 One statewide organization would like the plan 

to address protection of the Horicon marsh 

periphery by including recommendations for 

neighboring municipalities and the state 

pertaining to wind farms, incompatible land 

uses, phosphorous bans, etc.

Comments acknowledged. Refuge staff recognizes 

the impact of outside threats to the marsh. However, 

many state, county and local governments have 

specific regulatory jurisdiction over industry and 

residential and agricultural developments. The 

Refuge will always need to work with these partners 

to accomplish tasks outside of U.S Fish and Wildlife 

Service jurisdiction. The plan specifically addresses 

two threats, sedimentation and phosphorus loading, 

in the plan with Objective 2.6. Eight strategies are 

listed, many which involve partners and public 

education which are important aspects to these 

challenging problems.

15 The WDNR is concerned that the proposed 

increase in open flowage on the Refuge’s main 

dike water control structure will increase 

sediment load in the State portion of the marsh 

and impact water recreation. 

The movement of water and sediments through the 

marsh does indeed impact the State and Federal 

portions and downstream waters. The Refuge will 

continue to work closely with DNR marsh managers 

every time it is necessary to open the radial gate. 

Overall, the Service agrees with the DNR in that a 

“unified approach to address all issues pertinent to 

the management of the entire marsh will increase 
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

protection of the marsh both in the Federal and 

State areas.” 

16 The WDNR is in favor of establishing an 

allowable deer density that can be modified as 

conditions change instead of the fixed 15-20 per 

square mile cited in the plan.

We retained the population density figures in order 

to have a quantifiable objective target as required in 

refuge CCPs. However, we added a sentence stating 

these figures could be modified based on the future 

health of the herd and/or changes in state 

regulation.

17 The WDNR and several individuals suggested 

that we evaluate whether to leave the auto tour 

route open during the winter; citing little 

visitor use and increased costs for snow 

plowing.

Strategy 3.3.3 calls for extending the auto tour route 

season to be open year-round, conditions 

permitting. The Refuge does not intend to plow the 

road after moderate or heavy snowfalls and the 

“conditions permitting” clause was meant to convey 

this thought. We have added the phrase “weather 

conditions permitting” and added a statement about 

snowplowing in the text.

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge

1. A short petition with 8 signatures was received 

in support of Alternative B, the preferred 

alternative. Specifically, the petition endorsed 

habitat restoration to historic conditions, 

increased visitor use, and designation of Fox 

River NWR as a State Natural Area by the 

Wisconsin DNR.

Comment acknowledged. The Service appreciates 

this endorsement of its proposed plan.

2. The DNR proposes to designate a State 

Natural Area on the Fox River NWR.

The Service does not endorse the nomination of Fox 

River NWR as a State Natural Area (SNA). We 

acknowledge the program as a valuable way to 

provide protection and public recognition for 

endangered species habitat and rare natural 

features on county, state and some Federal and 

private lands. However, we feel that an SNA 

designation is redundant with the National Wildlife 

Refuge status of Fox River NWR. The Refuge is 

already protected and managed in way that 

promotes the goals of the SNA program. Further, an 

SNA designation may actually create an 

unnecessary layer of governmental oversight in 

future management of the Refuge. For instance, 

SNA regulations require all scientific researchers to 

obtain a separate research and collections permit 

from the State.

3. One individual wrote to dispute specific 

numbers of Sandhill Cranes (50 pairs) present 

on the Refuge during the summer and the 

existence of a rookery (or nesting colony) of 

wading birds.

The Environmental Assessment prepared for 

establishment of the Refuge in 1979 cited the figure 

of 50-60 non-breeding cranes present during the 

summer. Between refuge establishment and 2004, 

surveys of nesting and summer resident cranes 

have been sporadic. We do know that use by nesting 

pairs and non-breeders changes from year to year. 

We removed the specific mention of 50 summer 

residents in the Final CCP to acknowledge this 

flexibility.

In addition, the 1979 EA described a small heron 

and egret rookery on a wooded island in the center 

of the marsh. In 1977, 14 pairs of great blue herons, 

five pairs of great egrets and several pairs of blackcrowned night herons were observed nesting at the 

site. A literature citation for the 1979 EA was added 

to the text in the Final CCP.

4. Three individuals commented that fishing may 

not be a compatible use on the Refuge. They 

mentioned litter, bird-fishing line 

entanglements, lead sinkers and law 

enforcement as reasons to not allow walk-in 

fishing as proposed in the CCP.

Fishing is a priority public use on National Wildlife 

Refuge System Lands as identified in the Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997. For years, people have 

expressed interest in fishing on Long Lake. The 

lake supports a diverse population of gamefish. The 

1-mile hike from the parking lot to the potential 

fishing spot on Long Lake is expected to naturally 

limit the number of anglers.

We intend to monitor litter and habitat disturbance 

and provide signs to educate anglers to always carry 

out trash. Patrol by law enforcement staff will be 

necessary. The Service will need to revisit the 

fishing program on the Refuge if trash becomes an 

excessive problem. In the meantime, the Refuge 

Manager has determined that sport fishing on the 
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Fox River NWR, with proper stipulations, will not 

diminish the primary purpose of the Refuge.

5. One individual suggested that we eliminate the 

firearms deer hunt in favor of an archery-only 

hunt. The commenter felt that an archery hunt 

is more compatible with the Refuge habitat 

restoration, adds to a tranquil environment 

and increases safety for hikers.

As stated in the Draft CCP and EA, the deer 

population in Unit 67A, and in many places 

throughout Wisconsin, is considered too high to be 

supported by the habitat and may be contributing to 

the transmission of catastrophic diseases, such as 

Chronic Wasting Disease. Archery hunting has a 

much lower harvest rate than hunts using firearms. 

For this reason alone, the Service or the Wisconsin 

DNR cannot support a reduction in the harvest for 

this vicinity.

6. A petition with 78 signatures was submitted as 

part of the planning record. The text of the 3-

page petition contained commentary on past 

habitat restoration projects and made several 

specific requests for “local” involvement in 

future management of the refuge. The following 

is a summary of the statements and requests in 

the petition and the Service’s response.

6-a. The petition begins with an incomplete and 

misleading summary of the public scoping effort 

conducted for the CCP. 

Please see Chapter 2 of the CCP for a full account of 

the public outreach efforts for the Fox River NWR 

CCP including a local open house event in March 

2005. The open house was lightly attended. So, to 

ensure more widespread notice, the refuge biologist 

sent CCP comment forms and a packet of refuge 

information to approximately 100 neighbors and 

deer hunters later that month. The packet including 

a CCP process summary leaflet, comment form, 

Refuge fact sheet, summary of the oak savanna 

restoration project, and an invitation to take free 

firewood.

6-b. A statement that the oak savanna restoration 

project initiated by the Refuge in 2004 destroyed 

unique features and “natural gems” including three 

wild apple trees, a small red pine plantation, and a 

small natural spring.

The goal of habitat restoration on the Refuge is to 

more closely emulate the historic, pre-settlement 

conditions of the area. Oak savanna is a rare habitat 

type throughout its former range due to conversion 

to agriculture, residential developments, invasive 

plants, and the need for periodic fire or grazing to 

maintain it. All non-oak species, including nonnative planted trees such as red pine and “wild” 

apple are removed in favor of thinned native oak.

A small natural spring, one of many in the area, was 

indeed damaged by heavy equipment. However, 

water flow throughout the property is being 

restored by plugging and filling the extensive ditch 

system created by a former landowner. Natural 

water seeps and springs will be re-established in the 

process and protected to the extent possible in the 

Refuge.

6-c. A request that at least one local citizen 

representative, with full voting rights, be on the 

decision making team with the Service. The petition 

further requests that this person would be 

compensated “as are other consultants brought in 

by the F&WS.” The petition also contained a 

request that any financial opportunities that become 

available at Fox River NWR be offered to the local 

community first.

See the following section for an alternative 

approach to local citizen involvement in Refuge 

management.

7. The Service received a Resolution from the 

Town of Buffalo requesting that a Service 

representative attend their regular Township 

Board meeting on September 11, 2006 to 

“discuss the impact of the Fox River NWR CCP 

on the Town of Buffalo.” Refuge Manager Patti 

Meyers attended the meeting and answered 

questions from the Board and local citizens 

(approximately 18 people were in attendance).

Refuge Manager Meyers learned that the Town 

Chairperson had requested the meeting with a 

Service representative for two reasons. First, the 

Board was interested in the monetary aspects of the 

CCP, wanting to ensure that local businesses could 

participate in getting some of the bids for future 

projects. Ms. Meyers explained the Federal 

contracting process that requires multiple bids and 

the present budget situation for refuges. The 

habitat restoration work on the Refuge is nearly 

complete and funding for special projects will be 

difficult to obtain in the near future. However, any 

local contractors that can meet Federal contracting 

standards are welcome to bid on any future projects, 

should any funding materialize.
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the Draft CCP

Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

Secondly, Board members wanted to be part of a 

Committee making decisions for the Refuge. Ms. 

Meyers explained that such a committee would be 

very difficult to form as several Federal laws 

governed the amount of special interest involvement 

in Federal agency decisions. However, the request 

was resolved to mutual satisfaction when the Refuge 

Manager agreed to attend the spring annual 

township meeting and a fall Board meeting to notify 

them of what was happening on the refuge. In 

addition, several Board members stated their 

support for Alternative B (the preferred 

alternative), agreeing that they would like to see 

some usage of the refuge without major 

developments like roads or a visitor center.