Necedah National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Necedah
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions;
set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and,
identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations
and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization
purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and
maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network
of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration
of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.
Necedah
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Refuge Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Refuge Vision ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Refuge Mission Statement ................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Purpose and Need for the Plan ............................................................................................................. 3
1.6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .................................................................................................................. 4
1.6.1 Mission Statement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................... 4
1.6.2 Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................ 4
1.6.3 National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................................ 5
1.6.3.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................... 6
1.6.3.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................. 6
1.6.3.3 Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................... 6
1.7 Other Planning Efforts ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.8 Existing Partnerships ............................................................................................................................. 7
1.9 Legal and Policy Guidance .................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Explanation of Plan Development ......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Public Involvement .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Issues ................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.4 Opportunities and Issues .................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Service Trust Resources ............................................................................................................ 11
2.4.2 Refuge Visitor Services ............................................................................................................. 12
2.4.3 Habitat Management ................................................................................................................ 13
2.4.4 The Yellow River Focus Area .................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment .................................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Refuge History .................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Ecosystem Goals ............................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Refuge Resources ............................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 Fish and Wildlife Resources ...................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1.1 Regional Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ...................................................... 19
3.3.1.2 Birds .............................................................................................................................. 19
3.3.1.3 Mammals ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1.4 Reptiles and Amphibians .............................................................................................. 20
3.3.1.5 Invertebrates ................................................................................................................. 20
3.3.1.6 Fish ............................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1.7 Rare Plants .................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1.8 Listed Species ............................................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Archaeological and Cultural Values .......................................................................................... 23
3.3.3 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................. 24
3.3.3.1 Refuge Watershed ........................................................................................................ 24
3.3.3.2 Refuge Water Sources and Sinks ................................................................................ 24
3.4 Physiography ...................................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.1 Refuge Ecosystem ..................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.2 Bailey’s Ecological Unit Classification System ......................................................................... 26
3.4.3 Historic Condition ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.4 Current Condition ....................................................................................................................... 27
3.5 Geology .............................................................................................................................................. 31
3.5.1 Refuge Soils ............................................................................................................................... 32
3.6 Social and Economic Resources ......................................................................................................... 32
3.6.1 Economic Impact Assessment ................................................................................................... 32
3.7 Refuge Operations .............................................................................................................................. 35
3.7.1 Fish And Wildlife Management ................................................................................................ 35
3.7.1.1 Birds .............................................................................................................................. 35
3.7.2 Mammals .................................................................................................................................. 37
3.7.3 Reptiles and Amphibians .......................................................................................................... 37
3.7.4 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................................. 37
3.7.5 Fish ............................................................................................................................................ 38
3.8 Habitat Restoration ............................................................................................................................ 38
3.8.1 Wetland Restoration ................................................................................................................. 38
3.8.2 Upland Restoration .................................................................................................................... 38
3.9 Habitat Management .......................................................................................................................... 39
3.9.1 Water Level Management ......................................................................................................... 39
3.9.2 Moist Soil Management ............................................................................................................ 39
3.9.3 Grazing, Haying, and Mowing .................................................................................................. 39
3.9.4 Farming ..................................................................................................................................... 40
3.9.5 Forest Management .................................................................................................................. 40
3.9.6 Fire Management ...................................................................................................................... 41
3.9.7 Pest Management ..................................................................................................................... 42
3.10 Resource Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 43
3.10.1 Law Enforcement .................................................................................................................... 43
3.10.2 Permits and Economic Use Management ............................................................................... 43
3.10.3 Contaminant Investigations and Cleanup ............................................................................... 44
3.10.4 Water Rights Management ..................................................................................................... 44
3.10.5 Cultural Resource Management .............................................................................................. 45
3.10.6 Special Designations ............................................................................................................... 45
3.10.7 Land Acquisition ...................................................................................................................... 45
3.11 Monitoring and Studies .................................................................................................................... 46
3.11.1 Surveys and Censuses ............................................................................................................. 46
3.11.2 Studies and Investigations ...................................................................................................... 46
3.12 Coordination Activities ...................................................................................................................... 47
3.12.1 Interagency Coordination ........................................................................................................ 47
3.12.2 Tribal Coordination .................................................................................................................. 48
3.12.3 Private Lands Activities ........................................................................................................... 49
3.12.4 Cooperative Events/Friends Organizations ............................................................................. 50
3.13 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................................ 50
3.13.1 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 51
3.13.1.1 Hunting ........................................................................................................................ 51
3.13.1.2 Fishing ......................................................................................................................... 53
3.13.1.3 Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography ......................................................... 54
3.13.2 Education, Interpretation, and Outreach ................................................................................ 54
3.14 Planning and Administration ............................................................................................................ 57
3.14.1 Step-down Management Plans ............................................................................................... 57
3.14.2 General Administration ........................................................................................................... 57
3.15 Work Force ....................................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................. 59
4.1 Core Values and Guiding Principles ................................................................................................... 59
4.2 Compatibility ...................................................................................................................................... 60
4.3 Strategic Framework ........................................................................................................................... 60
4.4 Refuge Goals, Objective, Strategies and Projects .............................................................................. 61
4.4.1 Fish and Wildlife Management ................................................................................................. 61
4.4.1.1 Waterfowl and Other Migratory Birds .......................................................................... 61
4.4.2 Listed Species ............................................................................................................................ 62
4.4.3 Habitat Restoration and Management ...................................................................................... 64
4.4.3.1 Other Habitat Management Actions ............................................................................ 70
4.4.4 Resource Conservation .............................................................................................................. 71
4.4.4.1 Law Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 71
4.4.4.2 Land Conservation ......................................................................................................... 71
4.4.5 Monitoring and Studies ............................................................................................................. 73
4.4.6 Coordination Activities .............................................................................................................. 74
4.4.7 Visitor Services .......................................................................................................................... 75
4.4.7.1 Facilities and Services .................................................................................................. 79
4.4.8 Planning And Administration .................................................................................................... 79
4.4.9 Work Force ................................................................................................................................ 80
Chapter 5: Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 82
5.1 Tools ................................................................................................................................................... 82
5.1.1 Staffing Patterns ........................................................................................................................ 82
5.2 Step-Down Management Plans .......................................................................................................... 83
5.3 Partnerships ....................................................................................................................................... 83
5.4 Volunteer Program .............................................................................................................................. 84
5.5 Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................................. 84
5.6 Budget and Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 85
5.6.1 Station Budget ........................................................................................................................... 85
5.6.2 Project Descriptions ................................................................................................................... 85
5.6.2.1 Habitat Restoration and Management Projects ........................................................... 85
5.6.2.2 Resource Conservation Projects ................................................................................... 87
5.6.2.3 Monitoring and Studies Projects .................................................................................. 88
5.6.2.4 Visitor Services ............................................................................................................. 88
5.6.2.5 Planning And Administration Projects .......................................................................... 90
5.6.2.6 Work Force Projects ...................................................................................................... 91
5.6.3 Project Schedule and Annual Funding Needs ........................................................................... 91
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................................... 95
Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................... 195
Appendix C: Species List ............................................................................................................................... 203
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................................... 213
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ......................................................................................................... 217
Appendix F: Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) ..... 223
Appendix G: Mailing List ............................................................................................................................... 229
Appendix H: List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 237
Appendix I: Resource Conservation Priority Species ..................................................................................... 241
Appendix J: References ................................................................................................................................ 253
Appendix K: Summary and Response to Public Comments ........................................................................... 259
Appendix L: Necedah NWR Yellow River Focus Area Land Protection Plan ................................................. 283
Necedah
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Tables
Table 1: Rare Plants Found on the Refuge and Within the Yellow River Focus Area ..................................... 21
Table 2: Summary of Water Sources and Sinks for Necedah NWR, May 1988-April 1999 ........................... 26
Table 3: Land Cover Types, Necedah NWR ..................................................................................................... 31
Table 4: Refuge Step-Down Management Plans ............................................................................................. 57
Table 5: Current Staffing Patterns, Necedah NWR ......................................................................................... 58
Table 6: Management Strategies and Vegetation Composition ...................................................................... 65
Table 7: Special Refuge Management Areas .................................................................................................. 72
Table 8: Future Staffing Needs, Necedah NWR .............................................................................................. 82
Necedah
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Necedah National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................................2
Figure 2: National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Flyways .............................................................................................5
Figure 3: Planning Process Model for the Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan ...........................................9
Figure 4: Yellow River Focus Area .....................................................................................................................................15
Figure 5: Necedah Wildlife Management Area Location ..................................................................................................18
Figure 6: Castle Rock Watershed, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................25
Figure 7: Ecoregion of Necedah NWR ...............................................................................................................................27
Figure 8: Bailey’s Ecoregions, Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .....................................................................28
Figure 9: Historic Vegetation, Necedah NWR ....................................................................................................................29
Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Necedah NWR ..................................................................................................................30
Figure 11: Soils Found On Necedah NWR ..........................................................................................................................33
Figure 12: Physiographic Areas for Necedah NWR ...........................................................................................................36
Figure 13: Private Lands District, Necedah NWR ..............................................................................................................49
Figure 14: Wildlife Management Area, Necedah NWR ....................................................................................................50
Figure 15: Facilities, Necedah NWR .................................................................................................................................52
Figure 16: Desired Future Vegetation, Necedah NWR ......................................................................................................66
Figure 17: Desired Future Management, Necedah NWR ..................................................................................................67
Figure 18: Future Desired Conditions, Visitor Services, Necedah NWR ............................................................................76
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
Situated on the bed of former Glacial Lake
Wisconsin and the Great Central Wisconsin
Swamp, the land in and around Necedah National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was once a vast peat bog
with low, wooded islands and savannas. Higher
sand ridges were filled with mature stands of pine
and other species.
In 1939, the Refuge was established as a refuge
and breeding ground for migratory birds and for
use as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.
It is located in central Wisconsin, about 180 miles
east of Minneapolis, Minnesota, 150 miles
northwest of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and about 4
miles west of Necedah, Wisconsin.
Today, the 43,696-acre Necedah NWR is a mix of pine, oak and aspen forests, wetlands and open water
areas, grasslands, and rare savannas. This mixture of habitats supports a rich diversity of fish, wildlife
and plant populations. More than 230 species of birds have been identified on the Refuge. More than
100,000 migratory waterfowl and shorebirds use the Refuge annually, and it is the largest stopover in
the state for migrating Sandhill Cranes. With the surrounding Necedah Wildlife Management Area, it
has the Wisconsin’s second largest colony of Black Terns (a state-listed endangered species).
A number of endangered species make their home on Refuge land. Necedah NWR has the
southernmost timber wolf habitat in the state, and it is also home to the Blanding’s turtle, the Eastern
massasauga rattlesnake and the pholox moth. The largest population of Karner blue butterflies in the
world uses the Refuge, and it was recently selected as the reintroduction site for a new population of
federally-listed endangered Whooping Crane.
The Refuge attracts people as well as wildlife. An estimated 150,000 people visit the Refuge every
year to hunt, fish, hike, observe and photograph wildlife, and pick berries.
Managing a refuge demands long-range planning that reflects vision, science and people. The
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, describes how we will provide for
migratory species within our boundaries, support endangered species on the Refuge, work with
partners to improve habitats beyond our boundaries, expand opportunities for wildlife viewing and
fishing, and develop environmental education and outreach programs to increase appreciation of fish
and wildlife.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 1: Location of Necedah National Wildlife Refuge
3
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1.2 Refuge Purpose
The purpose for which the Refuge was established provides the basic framework for developing
management direction for the Refuge. It is within the Refuge purpose that management functions are
developed and what uses and facilities can be provided.
Pursuant to the Refuge’s enabling legislation, the Refuge purpose is “a refuge and breeding ground
for migratory birds and other wildlife...” (Executive Order 8065, dated 1939) and “...for use as an
inviolate sanctuary, or for any other purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act
of 1929).
1.3 Refuge Vision
Necedah NWR exemplifies a diverse and productive ecological system of woodlands, savannas,
and wetlands managed to perpetuate waterfowl and other migratory birds, listed species, and
native biological diversity within Wisconsin’s Central Sand Plain Natural Division. Refuge
staff are a multi-disciplined team of biologists, technicians, and support staff who are dedicated
to providing quality wildlife-dependent public use opportunities to a diverse and supportive
public. The Refuge is a model in its commitment to create long-term mutually-beneficial
relationships with its stakeholders, and has produced consistent growth in the public’s
understanding and appreciation of the Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and
Service trust resources.
1.4 Refuge Mission Statement
Our mission is to provide scientific and community leadership and support in the restoration,
preservation, and management of waterfowl and other migratory birds, listed species, and native
biological diversity within south central Wisconsin, while providing, to the extent possible, quality
wildlife-dependent recreational and educational experiences that foster an understanding and
appreciation of these resources, and expands the role humankind plays in their stewardship.
1.5 Purpose and Need for the Plan
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) identifies the role Necedah NWR will play in
supporting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and provides primary management
guidance for the Refuge. The plan articulates management goals for the next 15 years and defines
objectives and strategies that will achieve those goals. Legislative and other policies, including the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, have guided the development of this plan.
These mandates include:
# Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
# Wildlife-dependent recreation activities of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, environmental education and interpretation are the priority public uses of the
Refuge System. These uses will be accommodated when they do not interfere with a refuge's
purposes or the mission of the Refuge System.
# Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when they are determined to be appropriate
and compatible with the Refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System.
4
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Following the recommendations in the CCP will enhance management of Necedah NWR by:
# Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the Refuge.
# Giving Refuge neighbors, visitors, and the general public an understanding of the Service's
management actions on and around the Refuge.
# Ensuring that the Refuge's management actions and programs are consistent with the
mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
# Ensuring that Refuge management is consistent with federal, state and county plans.
# Establishing long-term Refuge management continuity.
# Providing a basis for the development of budget requests for Refuge operations,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
1.6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal Federal agency
responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and
their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The Service manages the 93-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System of more
than 545 national wildlife refuges and thousands of small wetlands and other special
management areas. It also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource
offices and 78 ecological services field stations. Among its key functions, the Service enforces Federal
wildlife laws, protects endangered species, manages migratory birds, restores nationally significant
fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments
with their international conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes
hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and
wildlife agencies.
The Service employs approximately 7,500 people at facilities across the country, with a headquarters
in Washington D.C., seven geographic regions, and nearly 700 field units. Necedah NWR is located in
the Great Lakes/Big Rivers Region of the Service, which includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin (Figure 1). The Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region
manages over 1.2 million acres of land and water on 46 national wildlife refuges and nine wetland
management districts, including more than 240,000 acres in waterfowl production areas. The Region
also manages six national fish hatcheries, nine fisheries stations, 10 ecological services field offices,
and 18 law enforcement field offices.
1.6.1 Mission Statement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the Service is working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
1.6.2 Goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
# Sustainability of Fish and Wildlife Populations: Migratory birds, endangered fish and
wildlife species, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammals are conserved, protected,
enhanced, or restored. The Service is participating in conservation of other species when its
expertise, facilities, or lands can enhance state, tribal, or local efforts.
# Habitat Conservation – Network of Lands and Waters: An ecologically diverse network of
lands and waters, of various ownerships, is conserved to provide habitats for marine
5
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
mammals and migratory, interjuristictional, endangered, and other species associated with
ecosystems conserved in cooperation with others.
# Connecting Americans to Wildlife: The American public understands and participates in the
conservation and use of fish and wildlife resources.
# Workforce Excellence: The Service's workforce, scientific capability, and business practices -
in cooperation with the Department of Interior’s scientific expertise - fully support
achievement of the Service mission.
1.6.3 National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's largest and most diverse collection of lands and
waters set aside specifically for wildlife. The Refuge System began in 1903 when President Theodore
Roosevelt designated 3-acre Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as a national bird
sanctuary.
Today, over 545 national wildlife refuges have been established
from the Arctic Ocean to the South Pacific, from Maine to the
Caribbean. Varying in size from half-acre parcels to thousands of
square miles, they encompass more than 92 million acres of the
Nation's best wildlife habitats. The vast majority of these lands are
in Alaska, with the rest spread across the rest of the United States
and several U.S. territories.
Like Pelican Island, many early wildlife refuges were created for herons, egrets, and other water
birds. Other refuges were set aside for large mammals like elk and bison. However, most national
wildlife refuges were created to conserve migratory waterfowl. This is a result of the United States'
responsibilities under international treaties for migratory bird conservation and legislation such as
the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. Refuges dot the map along the four major “flyways”
that waterfowl follow from their northern nesting grounds to southern wintering areas (Figure 2).
Figure 2: National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Flyways
6
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
National wildlife refuges play a vital role in conserving endangered and threatened species and their
habitat. Among these are Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, the winter home of the whooping
crane; the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, which protects one of the Nation's most
endangered mammals; the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, home of the Laysan duck and
monk seal; and Necedah NWR, which provides critical habitat for the federally listed endangered
Karner blue butterfly.
1.6.3.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
1.6.3.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
# Preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practical) all species of
animals and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
# Perpetuate the migratory bird resource.
# Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands.
# Provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and humankind’s role
in their environment and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome and
enjoyable recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these activities are
compatible with the purposes for which each refuge was established.
1.6.3.3 Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Habitat: Fish and wildlife will not prosper without high quality habitat, and without fish and wildlife,
traditional uses of refuges cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will continue to conserve and
enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat within refuges.
Public Use: The Refuge System provides important opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
Partnerships: America’s sportsmen and women were the first partners who insisted on protecting
valuable wildlife habitat with wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other Federal agencies,
state agencies, tribes, organizations, industries, and the general public can make significant
contributions to the growth and management of the Refuge System.
Public Involvement: The public should be given full and open opportunity to participate in decisions
regarding the acquisition and management of our national wildlife refuges.
1.7 Other Planning Efforts
The following Federal, state, and local plans, planning efforts, and initiatives were reviewed and
considered when developing the CCP for the Refuge:
# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Timber Wolf Recovery Plan
# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bald Eagle Recovery Plan
# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan
7
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
# Juneau and Wood County Land and Water Resource Management Plans
# Juneau and Wood County 10-Year Forest Management Plans
# Wisconsin DNR/Refuge Cooperative Agreement (Meadow Valley Management)
# Wisconsin DNR/Refuge Cooperative Agreement (Fire Protection Agreement)
# Savanna Partnership Memorandum of Understanding
# Golden Sands Resource Conservation and Development Area
# Central Wisconsin River Basin Partnership
# Hardwood Bombing Range Guidelines (pertaining to Refuge overflights)
# North American Waterfowl Management Plan
# Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plans
# U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
1.8 Existing Partnerships
Necedah NWR is part of the Necedah Wildlife Management Area, a 111,564-acre area of Federal
property. Land that is outside of the Refuge is managed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) as part of surrounding State Wildlife Areas through a cooperative agreement. The
Service considers the Wisconsin DNR a major partner in conservation efforts in the area.
In addition, the Refuge has cooperative working relationships with several universities, other Federal
agencies, the State of Wisconsin, educational institutions, and non-government organizations.
1.9 Legal and Policy
Guidance
The authority for developing CCPs for national
wildlife refuges is the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. However,
management and administration of refuges is
governed by numerous national and regional
directives derived from Secretarial Orders,
Service Director’s Orders, Service Regional
Director’s Orders, and Service Policy Guidance
contained in the Interior Departmental Manual
and the Service’s Manual (see part 602 of the
Service Manual at www.fws.gov).
In addition to the executive order establishing the
Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws,
executive orders, and regulations govern the administration of Necedah NWR. Appendix E contains a
partial list of the legal mandates that guided the preparation of this plan and those that pertain to
Refuge management activities.
John and Karen Hollingsworth
8
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
2.1 Explanation of Plan
Development
This CCP was prepared in compliance with the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and Service
policy guidance set forth in the Departmental Manual (see
part 602 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual at the
Internet website, www.fws.gov).
While there are many steps involved in developing a CCP,
the process the planning team followed for developing the
Necedah NWR CCP focused around five functional parts
(Figure 3):
# Reaffirming the Refuge’s purpose and
developing vision,
# Conducting an operational assessment and
environmental analysis,
# Establishing management direction (goals and
objectives),
# Developing a range of programs, activities, and projects to achieve desired outcomes
(implementation strategies), and
# Developing protocols to monitor and evaluate progress.
As a first step, the planning team developed a vision statement to provide focus for the actions and
character of the Refuge, as well as to clarify its purpose and direction. In developing the vision
statement, the planning team reviewed the Refuge’s authorizing legislation, national and regional
directives, internal and external planning documents, and information relative to the public’s
expectations for the Refuge. Figure 3 was adapted from Justis et al. 1985.
An operational assessment and environmental analysis was performed to identify the Refuge’s
current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Strengths and weaknesses refer to
internal factors, operational components controlled by management such as habitat, certain fish and
wildlife populations, resource conservation, cooperative programs, administration, work force, public
use, and maintenance. Opportunities and threats refer to external factors, such as favorable actions or
situations in the Refuge environment that can benefit the Refuge, or unfavorable actions or situations
in the Refuge environment that may impede operation and/or development of the Refuge. External
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
9
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
factors include the Refuge’s biological environment, physical environment, political/legal
environment, economic environment, and socio/cultural environment. The results of the operational
assessment and environmental analysis formed a planning context and provided the basis from which
management direction was derived.
Management direction was established through a strategic framework, which we define as a pattern
of purposes, policies, programs, actions, decisions, or resource allocations that describe what the
Refuge is, what it does, and why it does it. Refuge goals were developed that articulate broad
direction, end results, or positions to be achieved. Refuge objectives serve as intermediate-term
targets necessary for the accomplishment of goals.
Strategies and projects were developed to describe the means, methods, and approaches used to
achieve Refuge objectives (also answers the who, what, why, when, and where questions). However, in
many cases step-down management plans will be developed to provide the specific details necessary
for implementation of objectives, strategies, and projects. In this regard, step-down management
plans refer to annual work plans, fire management plans, public use plans, inventory and monitoring
plans, and occupational safety and health plans (see Chapter 5 for a list of step-down plans and
schedules for revisions). Thus, the CCP provides an overview of future Refuge programs and projects
and leaves the details of scheduling and budgets to be developed as funding levels and staffing
patterns become clearer. Refuge staff will set priorities and make decisions based on Refuge
operating needs and directives from Regional and Washington Office staff.
Finally, the fifth process function dealt with developing monitoring and evaluation protocols. Four
basic steps capture this process function: (1) identification and establishment of predetermined
standards of strategy performance, (2) a measurement of the actual performance results, (3) a
Figure 3: Planning Process Model for the Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
comparison of the results achieved against those previously established, and (4) determining whether
the CCP is producing the desired results, or if corrective action is necessary. The CCP was developed
using the best information available at the time of preparation. As new and better information
emerges, including new input from partners and stakeholders, the CCP will be revised. Additional
step-down plans will be developed to address plan monitoring, plan evaluation, and plan change
procedures. Adaptive management will be fundamental to keeping the plan active and effective.
2.2 Public Involvement
Scoping is the process of identifying opportunities and
issues related to a proposed action. The Service publicly
announced it was preparing a CCP for the Refuge in June
1997. Since that time, information about the planning
project has been provided to the public through news
releases, presentations, interviews, informational letters,
and one-on-one briefings. Federal, state, local, and private
entities were involved in the scoping process. More than
6,000 people were sent information on the Refuge CCP
(e.g., letters, newsletters, draft CCPs), including
landowners in the four townships surrounding the Refuge
(information was obtained from Juneau County and Wood
County tax records) and landowners in the Yellow River
Focus Area. Others involved were Wisconsin’s
Congressional Delegation, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, elected officials representing Juneau and
Wood counties, the Wisconsin DNR, local governments, representatives of national, state, and local
conservation organizations, neighboring landowners, and other interested people.
Public input was considered at all phases of the CCP planning process. The Service coordinated its
scoping effort closely, and corresponded frequently with many of the aforementioned entities. Since
June of 1997, 10 public meetings were held to gather public input. In addition, three draft CCPs/EAs
were released for public review. The first draft was released in August 1998. The second draft was
released in July 2000, and a third draft was released in October 2001. Draft documents were published
on the Service’s website for this planning project, and paper copies were provided in all of the libraries
in the counties surrounding the Refuge. In October 2001, a summary of the draft CCP was mailed to
individuals who requested to be on the Necedah NWR mailing list. Comments received during the
scoping and public involvement process covered a wide range of interests.
The Service used a highly participatory planning process to develop the Necedah NWR CCP.
Throughout the CCP process, the Service initiated outreach to diverse stakeholders and afforded
numerous opportunities for public input. Information about the CCP was provided to stakeholders
and the general public through news releases, presentations, interviews, informational letters,
newsletters, public meetings, briefings, and the Internet. Questionnaires, focus groups, public
meetings, and one-on-one discussions were used to gather input from Refuge visitors, neighbors, and
other stakeholders. A geographic information system (GIS) was developed to aid in the analysis and
transfer of information. Additional information on the public involvement process is located in the
Environmental Assessment (Appendix A).
2.3 Issues
In response to the Service’s proposed action to prepare and implement a CCP for the Refuge and
from questions raised in conversations and correspondence with individuals and organizations within
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
11
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
and outside the Service, the Service identified several significant issues to analyze in the planning
process, specifically:
# Service trust resources: What effect will Refuge management actions have on listed species,
waterfowl and other migratory birds, and biological diversity (internal issue)?
# Refuge visitor services: What effect will Refuge management actions have on the quality of
visitor services provided at the Refuge, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education, and interpretation (internal/external issue)?
# Habitat management: What effect will Refuge habitat management actions have on the
quantity and quality of habitats within the Refuge and the Refuge watershed, namely the
wetlands, forests, and open landscapes (internal issue)?
# The Yellow River Focus Area: How will Refuge management actions affect the habitat in the
Yellow River Focus Area, and how will those management actions impact private property
rights and the areas tax base (external issue)?
2.4 Opportunities and Issues
2.4.1 Service Trust Resources
Numerous Service trust resources utilize the Refuge and the Yellow River Focus Area for meeting one
or more of their life cycle needs, including four Federally listed threatened or endangered species.
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Service has primary responsibility to
conserve not only jeopardized life, but also the natural resources on which life depends. Federally
listed species include the Karner blue butterfly (federally listed as endangered), Eastern timber wolf
(federally listed as endangered), Whopping Crane (federally listed as endangered), and Bald Eagle
(federally listed as threatened). The Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, which is currently a candidate
for federal listing, is found in low numbers in the Yellow River Area. Several state-listed threatened or
endangered species also use the Refuge, including the Blanding’s turtle and Trumpeter Swan. The
Refuge also supports several rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants, including the spring
beauty, oval-leaved milkweed, and wooly milkweed, and provides habitat for several important plants
(e.g., wild lupine) that support rare organisms (e.g., Karner blue butterflies). Protecting endangered
and threatened species and restoring them to secure status in the wild is a primary responsibility of
the Service and the Refuge.
Many bird species are declining across part or all of their breeding range in the Midwest (Peterjohn et
al. 1994). Breeding Bird Surveys for the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region indicate that numerous
grassland nesting, non game species in the Midwest have shown extensive declines since the mid-
1960s (National Biological Survey 1995). Grassland-dependent birds have shown steeper, more
consistent, and geographically more widespread declines (25-65 percent) than any other group of
North American birds (Samson and Knopf 1994). Several of these declining species utilize the Refuge
and the Yellow River Area. These include the Bobolink, Henslow’s Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow,
Vesper Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow, Lark Sparrow, Field Sparrow, Dickcissel, Eastern Meadowlark,
and American Bittern. The Grasshopper Sparrow and Dickcissel have declined over 80 percent in
Wisconsin since the mid-1960s. Many others, especially those associated with rare oak savannas (e.g.,
Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern Flicker), have experienced similar, though less dramatic declines.
In total, more than 230 different species of birds have been observed on the Refuge since its inception.
The Refuge has long been considered an important migratory stopover area for waterfowl such as
Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, Ring-necks, and Wood Ducks. Other migrant bird species that utilize the
Refuge during spring, summer, or fall include: Canada, Snow, and White-fronted Geese; Sandhill
Cranes; Woodcock; Snipe; Great Blue Herons; Swans; egrets; Dickcissels; warblers; Brown
12
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Thrashers; several different species of sparrows; meadowlarks; Sora Rails; Black-crowned Night
Herons; Bobolinks; bitterns; and Red-tailed Hawks; just to name a few. During migrations, three
species of geese, 10 species of dabbling ducks, nine species of diving ducks, and Trumpeter and Tundra
Swans can be found on the Refuge.
The Refuge has incomplete inventories for many of its natural, archeological, and cultural resources,
including wildlife and habitat. Monitoring systems needed to conserve and properly manage Refuge
resources are inadequately funded. Monitoring and evaluation systems need to be developed to
measure progress toward habitat goals.
2.4.2 Refuge Visitor Services
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 has ushered in a new era of public
involvement on national wildlife refuges. Providing for public uses is now an essential part of Refuge
missions across the country. Necedah NWR has always been a popular destination for hunting and
fishing enthusiasts. However, in recent years other uses, such as wildlife observation and wildlife
photography, hiking, environmental education and interpretation have surpassed traditional activities
in terms of public interest.
The Refuge currently has two major needs relative to providing quality services to its visitors. First,
the main office (which also serves as the visitor center) is ineffective as an initial visitor contact point
due to its isolation, distance from a main road, and small size. The current facility has no formal
education features, with the exception of a small conference room, and it is lacking in interpretive
programming displays. In recent years, Refuge programs and activities have attracted over 150
participants at some events. The current facility accommodates a maximum of 30 people. Programs
are held in the office space, reducing productivity of staff who are not directly involved with the event.
It also compromises the overall effectiveness of the educational experience, due to the distraction of
office business and the lack of student comfort.
Public use of the Refuge now exceeds over 150,000 visits annually. Three state highways border the
Refuge: 21, 80 and 173. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation numbers from 1995 (the latest
information available) shows that over 1,500 vehicles a day use Highway 173; more than 3,200 vehicles
a day travel on Highway 21; and over 1,100 use Highway 80 each day. Occupants of these vehicles are
all potential visitors to the Refuge. Due to small, inconvenient facilities and poor signage, many of
these potential visitors are currently being overlooked.
Further, the Refuge is now the site for an experimental Whooping Crane population, an attraction that
will undoubtedly increase visitor use long-term at the Refuge. During the first year of the 10-15 year
reintroduction program, the Refuge hosted an event that drew more than 600 visitors. The project
frequently drew the attention of the media. This increased use of the Refuge could further
disseminate key messages about the Refuge, its resources, and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Another need relates to the quality of the existing visitor facilities at the Refuge. There is a need to
renovate existing facilities for safety and accessibility, to improve visitor information systems (signs
and brochures), and to bring public facilities up to Service standards. To improve customer service,
the Refuge needs to collect additional information on Refuge visitor volume, characteristics, opinions,
and what their expectations are for the Refuge. Key components to customer service is having
suitable facilities (addressed above) and having an eager work force that can provide quality service.
Current refuge staffing patterns do not emphasize the importance of good customer service. A strong
volunteer base exists and could easily be used in the contact areas. A volunteer coordinator is vital.
Seasonal public use staff could also help meet increased needs during peak times.
Another visitor services concern learned through scoping is that the Refuge is not known and
understood within the local area. This was made apparent during the multi-year planning process for
13
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
the Refuge CCP. Many people living near the Refuge do not distinguish the Service from the
Wisconsin DNR, or understand that the Refuge is part of a national system of Refuges dedicated to
perpetuating the nation’s fish and wildlife resources for the enjoyment of present and future
generations. The Refuge needs to promote its recreation and educational opportunities, as well as
raise awareness of the importance of the Refuge among the various economic and environmental
interests that influence public policy and Refuge management direction.
2.4.3 Habitat Management
The need for additional wildlife habitat conservation, restoration and management at the Refuge has
been made clear by the declining status of numerous grassland, savanna, and wetland dependent
species of birds (see “Service Trust Resources” above) and numerous studies that have demonstrated
that habitat loss or degradation is a common causal factor in many of those declines.
Of the estimated 221 million acres of wetland habitat present in the lower 48 states at the time of
colonial America, only 103 million acres remain (47 percent). Draining, dredging, filling, leveling, and
flooding have reduced wetlands by 50 percent or more in 22 states, and 10 states have lost 70 percent
or more (Dahl 1990). Prior to European settlement, Wisconsin had approximately 10 million acres of
wetlands. Currently less that 47 percent remain (Dahl, 1990).
In recent years, many plant and animal species
associated with Midwestern grasslands have
experienced serious declines, primarily due to
habitat loss and alteration of natural structure
and function (e.g., predation, exotic species, fire
suppression, habitat fragmentation, drainage/
flooding). The original tallgrass prairie, which
extended from western Indiana to the eastern
part of Kansas, Nebraska, and North and South
Dakota and south to Oklahoma and Texas, has
been virtually eliminated throughout its historic
range. Recent surveys suggest that 82.6 to 99.9
percent declines in the acreage of tallgrass prairie
have occurred in 12 states and one Canadian
province since European settlement. The State of
Wisconsin has lost over 99 percent of its original
prairies. For years following the initial conversion
of native Midwestern prairies, many prairie-dependent
wildlife remained relatively stable through their ability to colonize agricultural grasslands.
However, 20th century agricultural grassland loss has followed a similar path of decline as native
prairie loss in the 19th century. In many parts of the Midwest, agricultural grasslands are at their
lowest level in more than 100 years.
Similarly, oak savanna, which covered approximately 27-32 million acres of the Midwest prior to
European settlement (Nuzzo 1985), has become one of the nation’s most endangered ecosystems
(Noss et al. 1995). Nationwide, over 99 percent of the original savanna has been lost, and Midwestern
oak savannas are among the rarest ecosystems in the Nation. Historically Wisconsin had roughly 4
million acres of savannas. Today, less than 60,000 acres remain, and much of what remains is highly
degraded. Nuzzo (1985) found that by 1985 only 113 sites (2,607 acres) of quality oak savanna
remained across the Midwest. Development has destroyed, fragmented, and disrupted the natural
processes needed to maintain quality oak savanna ecosystems.
The wide-scale loss of oak savanna and pine barren ecosystems across 12 states and the province of
Ontario, Canada, has had severe negative impacts on Karner blue butterflies (Karner Blue Butterfly
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
14
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 1999). As a result, the Karner blue
butterfly was proposed for federal listing on January 21, 1992, and listed as endangered on December
14, 1992. Today scattered populations are only found in portions of New Hampshire, New York,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Minnesota. The Refuge is home to the world’s largest remaining
population of Karner blue butterflies, providing habitat for 12 population complexes. No critical
habitat has been designated for this species. The long-term effect of these landscape-scale losses of
important ecosystems has yet to be determined.
The long-term declines in early successional forests across the north-eastern and north-central
United State has contributed to the decline of many bird species. Selective harvesting, fire
suppression, urban sprawl, and cessation of agricultural abandonment contributed to the present
imbalance in distribution of young forests (Oliver and Larson, 1999).
The Refuge is facing increasing threats to its ecological and health due to air, water, and noise
pollution, exotic species, and incompatible recreational uses. Of late, a new round of change threatens
many remaining ecosystems in the Refuge area. A trend called “rurbanization” where rural areas
containing quality wildlife habitat are being converted to a more densely developed state. In recent
years, the population of the area surrounding the Refuge has expanded, while the size of the
undeveloped land base continues to shrink, leaving many natural areas as scattered fragments of
increased importance for scientific study, education, and conservation of natural ecological processes.
According to the U.S. Census, the Town of Necedah and the Town of Finley grew by 34 percent and 27
percent respectively between 1990 and 2000. As a result, many of the large natural areas around the
Refuge (and in the Yellow River Area) are at risk of being fragmented through housing development,
driveways, etc., which diminishes the value of these areas for area-sensitive wildlife like the Bobolink,
Prairie Chicken, and many large mammals. Habitat size, shape, and amount and type of edge are
important factors in the reproductive success of many grassland birds. It is this type of development
that particularly threatens the remaining oak savanna habitat in this region. Without management,
most areas will continue to degrade due to their size, isolation, absence of natural processes such as
fire and hydrologic cycle maintenance, and inadequate buffers conserving them from surrounding
agricultural and urban land uses. It also places greater demands on the Refuge and its partners in
terms of safeguarding Refuge ecosystem structure and function for the benefit of Service trust
resources.
2.4.4 The Yellow River Focus Area
The Yellow River Area (Figure 4), which lies east of the Refuge within an area referred to as
Wisconsin’s Central Sand Plain Natural Division, provides a unique opportunity to conserve rare and
declining bottomland forest and adjacent upland habitat for the benefit of listed species, waterfowl
and other migratory birds, and native biological diversity. According to Wisconsin’s Statewide Natural
Area Inventory, extensive field reconnaissance by the Refuge, and other sources, the Yellow River
Area represents one of the few remaining quality bottomland hardwood forest ecosystems in the
Midwest. Silver maple, swamp white oak, green ash, and river birch dominate the floodplain, while the
lower sandy ridges, slightly higher than the flood plain, support white oak, bur oak, shagbark hickory,
basswood, and white pine. The highest of these areas were once oak and pine savannas, one of North
America’s most endangered habitats, with only .02 percent of its pre-settlement acreage remaining.
The shrub spectrum within the area varies in density from sparse to impenetrable, and includes
buttonbush, dogwoods, prickly ash, winterberry, and wild grapes. The herbaceous layer of the
forested areas support wood nettle, coneflowers, ferns, and many sedges. Aggressive non-native
species are currently not an issue.
Many rare, uncommon, and declining species of animals have been documented in the Yellow River
Area in recent years. Many of them are sensitive to size, isolation, context, and quality of habitat.
These include the Eastern massasauga, Blanding’s turtle, Red-shouldered Hawk, Cerulean Warbler,
Acadian Flycatcher, Yellow-crowned Night-heron, Prothonotary Warbler, and Louisiana Waterthrush.
15
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Figure 4: Yellow River Focus Area
16
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Several neo-tropical migrants that are suspected of or exhibiting extensive population declines that
use the area include the Verry, Wood Thrush, Sedge Wren, Blue-winged Warbler, and Golden-winged
Warbler. Waterfowl species include Mallard, Wood Duck, and Hooded Merganser. Bald Eagles utilize
the area year-round and at least one active nest has been documented. Great Blue Heron rookeries
are found in the Yellow River Area as well as extensive Wood Duck nesting. Federally listed
endangered Karner blue butterflies are also found on Friendship and Plainfield soils throughout the
area. These soil types offer potential for expansion of oak savanna and the restoration of essential
Karner blue butterfly habitat.
While rich in biological diversity, the Yellow River Area is experiencing degradation, primarily due to
rural development and lack of habitat management, and could benefit from habitat conservation and
management practices designed to sustain its ecological value. Habitat conservation and management
practices could take the form of financial incentives to landowners, prescribed fire, mowing, wetland
and upland restorations, and forest management. Recreational development pressures are high in the
area. An expansion of agricultural activities could directly impact Yellow River habitats and create
many indirect impacts due to habitat fragmentation, withdrawal and discharge of surface and ground
waters, and construction of needed infrastructure.
Many Federal, state, and local conservation organizations support stewardship and conservation of
the natural resources in the Yellow River Area. Several property owners have indicated an interest in
selling their land and/or a conservation easement on their land to the Service. Many landowners
within the 21,952-acre Yellow River Focus Area have contacted the Refuge in recent years in search of
technical assistance in managing their land for wildlife. Between 2000 and 2002, 121 landowners
owning 17,308 acres in the Yellow River Focus Area received technical assistance from the Service.
However, an organized group of Yellow River property owners as well as several local units of
government strongly oppose any public acquisition of land in the area (fee title and conservation
easements) that could potentially restrict future cranberry bed expansion, residential development,
and impact the area’s tax base.
17
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
3.1 Refuge History
The history of the Refuge dates back to the early 1930s when the U.S. Government acquired 114,964
acres of land in Juneau, Wood, Monroe, and Jackson counties, Wisconsin, using the authority of the
National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. The
purpose for these acquisitions was to assist farmers living within the area and to develop the area for
wildlife.
On March 14, 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an
executive order authorizing 43,696 acres of this Federal land be set
aside as the Necedah Migratory Waterfowl Refuge for the purpose
of “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife...” (Executive Order 8065) and “...for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other purpose, for migratory birds”
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
One year later, the Necedah Migratory Waterfowl Refuge became
formally known as the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge.
Around this same time, the management of 55,000 acres of this
Federal land was transferred to the State of Wisconsin with the
signing of a Cooperative and License Agreement.
However, in 1941, Executive Order 8763 declared these federally
owned/state-managed lands be “reserved as a refuge and breeding
ground for native birds and other wildlife and for research relating
to wildlife and associated forest resources, under such conditions of
use and administration as will best carry out the purposes of the
land conservation and land utilization program for which such
lands have been, or are being acquired...”. Executive Order 8763
also designated the Service as custodial agent for the property.
Today this land is known as Necedah Wildlife Management Area, which includes parts of the Central
Wisconsin Conservation Area (parts of Meadow Valley State Wildlife Area, parts of Wood County
Wildlife Area, and parts of Sandhill State Wildlife Area) and scattered parcels in Jackson County
(Figure 5). They are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but managed cooperatively with the
Wisconsin DNR through a Cooperative Agreement. It should be noted that this CCP is for the Refuge
portion of this land only.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
18
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 5: Necedah Wildlife Management Area Location
19
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
3.2 Ecosystem Goals
As stated previously, the Refuge is located in the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie
Ecosystem. Six eco-types are currently the Service’s focus for this ecosystem. They include: prairie
wetland and associated habitats, tallgrass prairie and associated habitats, oak savanna and forest
lands, the Driftless area, streams and riparian woodland corridors, and the Mississippi River corridor.
Service goals for this Ecosystem are to:
# Protect, restore, and enhance native and trust species and their habitats.
# Restore and maintain natural ecosystem processes, including hydrology and sediment
transport to maintain species and habitat diversity.
# Promote environmental awareness of the ecosystem and its needs with emphasis on
sustainable land use management, improve water quality of the Ecosystem.
# Promote balance and compatible socioeconomic uses of the Ecosystem’s resources.
# Improve water quality in the ecosystem
3.3 Refuge Resources
3.3.1 Fish and Wildlife Resources
3.3.1.1 Regional Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities
In 1999, the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of the Service initiated a process to identify its top
species priorities in terms of those in need of the greatest conservation attention in the Region.
Appendix I is a list of regional priority species that occur on the Refuge and/or the Yellow River Focus
Area. In addition, the Refuge and the adjacent Yellow River Area contain habitat that supports or
historically supported several species of birds on the Service’s List of Migratory Nongame Birds of
Management Concern. Appendix I contains those species as well. The planning team used this
information when developing goals and objectives for the Refuge.
3.3.1.2 Birds
For centuries, birds have descended upon the Refuge area during their annual migrations between
Central and South America and their northern U.S., Canadian, and Arctic breeding grounds. In total,
over 230 different species of birds have been observed on the Refuge since its inception. The Refuge
has long been considered an important migratory stopover area for Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, Ring-neck
Duck, and Wood Duck. Other migrant species that utilize the Refuge during spring, summer, or
fall include: Canada, Snow, and White-fronted Geese; Sandhill Crane; American Woodcock; Common
Snipe; Great Blue Heron; swans; egrets; various warblers; Brown Thrasher; several different species
of sparrows; meadowlarks; Sora; Black-crowned Night Heron; Bobolink; Least Bittern, American
Bittern; Red-breasted Nuthatch, White-breasted Nuthatch, and Red-tailed Hawks; just to name a
few. During migrations, three species of geese, 10 species of dabbling ducks, nine species of diving
ducks, and Trumpeter and Tundra swans are commonly found on the Refuge. Waterfowl are most
abundant in the fall, with fall counts of ducks averaging around 20,000. Resident bird species include
Wild Turkeys, Ruffed Grouse, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Woodpeckers, and Nuthatches.
3.3.1.3 Mammals
The Refuge supports an assortment of mammals that contribute to the ecological, economic, and
aesthetic value of central Wisconsin. Within the past 3 years, timber wolves have established two
packs on Refuge land. Timber wolves are a top predator that play an important ecological role, as well
as provide educational opportunities for Refuge visitors. Black bear and bobcat are also present in low
numbers. White-tailed deer are very abundant and can be seen on the Refuge almost anywhere, and
20
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
at anytime. Cottontail rabbits, snowshoe hare, gray, red, fox and flying squirrels, woodchucks,
raccoon, skunks, red and gray fox, coyotes, muskrat, mink, otter, opossum, weasels, and badger are
mid-sized mammals that serve as both predators and prey in Refuge plant and animal communities.
Small mammalian residents include meadow voles, white-footed and deer mice, shrews, and moles.
These small animals are a primary food source for many larger animals.
3.3.1.4 Reptiles and Amphibians
Reptiles and amphibians are important Refuge residents. Snake species
include hog-nosed snakes, Eastern garter snakes, smooth green snakes,
Northern water snakes, fox snakes, and Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes.
Five-lined skinks are a species of lizard that call the Refuge home. Painted,
softshell, and snapping turtles can be seen in wetland environments;
Blanding’s turtles are most frequently seen in upland savanna
environments. Frog and toad species include leopard frogs, green frogs,
wood frogs, grey tree frogs, spring peepers, and the American toad. Blue-spotted
salamanders are fairly common and can be found in dark moist
environments, such as under decaying logs or thick leaf litter.
3.3.1.5 Invertebrates
Invertebrates are abundant on the Refuge and play an integral role in maintaining the ecological
balance of several Refuge ecosystems. Wisconsin has approximately 20,000 species of insects. The
Refuge is home to the world’s largest remaining population of the Federally listed endangered Karner
blue butterfly and also to the rare Leonard’s skipper. Other rare insects that use the Refuge include
the phlox moth, frosted elfin butterfly, Persius dusky wing, ringed bog haunter dragonfly, and two
species of tiger beetles.
3.3.1.6 Fish
Fish species are also important members of the Refuge ecosystem. They cycle nutrients in Refuge
aquatic systems and serve as food sources for a variety of birds and mammals. Although many fish
species are at a disadvantage due to the drainage of Refuge pools for waterbird management, many
people travel to the Refuge for rewarding year-round fishing opportunities on Refuge pools and
ditches. Northern pike, large mouth bass, yellow perch, black crappie, pumpkinseed, black, brown,
and yellow bullhead are some of the species most sought by anglers.
3.3.1.7 Rare Plants
There may be rare species of plants that have not been identified on the Refuge, particularly those
that may be living in remote locations. While several studies have been done on plant abundance and
distribution, a comprehensive inventory of Refuge plants is needed. The Refuge and the Yellow River
area have several populations of rare and declining plant species (Table 1).
3.3.1.8 Listed Species
Federally listed threatened or endangered species that utilize the Refuge and the adjacent Yellow
River Area include the Bald Eagle, Eastern timber wolf, Karner blue butterfly, and Whooping Crane.
The Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, which is currently a candidate for federal listing, is found in low
numbers in the Yellow River Area. Chapter 4 discusses management actions aimed at restoring and
protecting federally-listed species in these two areas.
Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle, America’s national symbol, experienced a drastic decline throughout the country
from the 1950s into the early 1970s. This decline was caused by the bio-accumulation of organochlorine
pesticides (DDT and dieldrin) in fish and habitat destruction. The use of pesticides which contained
DDT or dieldrin were banned in 1972, and shortly there after the number of successful eagle nests
increased steadily. Bald Eagles were listed as an endangered species in 1976. Due to successful
Frank Durbian
21
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
conservation efforts, the Bald Eagle was recently upgrade to a threatened species. One occupied eagle
nest currently occurs at the Refuge which is protected from human disturbance.
Eastern Timber Wolf
Eastern timber wolves lived throughout Wisconsin prior to the 1830s. As settlers transformed native
habitat into farmland, prey species declined and wolves began feeding on livestock. In 1865, the
Wisconsin Legislature paid a $5.00 state bounty for every wolf killed. The wolf bounty was later
increased to $20.00 for adults and $10.00 for pups to protect the dwindling deer herd. By 1960, few
wolves remained throughout the lower 48 states and were declared extirpated from the State of
Wisconsin.
Table 1: Rare Plants Found on the Refuge and Within the Yellow River Focus Area1
Common Name Scientific Name State Status* Habitat/Location
Round-stemmed false
foxglove
Agalinus gattingeri State threatened
(Federal status
assessment in progress)
Southern Juneau County in dry
prairies and bedrock glades
Wooly milkweed Asclepias languinosa State threatened Dry savannas (oak barrens) in
Juneau County, just south of
Necedah Refuge
Brittle prickly pear Opuntia fragilis State threatened Dry, sandy habitats in
neighboring Adams County;
may occur in similar habitats in
Juneau County
Dwarf bilberry Vaccinium cespitosum State endangered Sandy pine and oak savanna
habitats, bracken grasslands
Sand violet Viola fimbrulata State endangered Sandy pine and oak savanna
habitats
Pale false foxglove Agalinus skinneriana State endangered Dry savannas in Adams County
Tubercled or pale green
orchid
Plantanthera flava var.
herbiola
State threatened Wet prairies and sedge
meadows in Juneau and Adams
counties
Umbrella sedge Fuirena pumila State endangered Coastal plain species that
inhabit peat and muck flats, wet
sands, and fluctuating lake
shores
Bald rush Psilocarya scirpoides State threatened Coastal plain species that
inhabit peat and muck flats, wet
sands, and fluctuating
lakeshores
Netted nut-rush Scleria reticularis State endangered Coastal plain species requiring
recently desiccated mud or
sand lake beds with fluctuating
water
Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena State threatened Sedge meadows and tamarack
bogs; has been documented in
western Adams County.
Beak grass Diarrhena americana State endangered Floodplain forest; may inhabit
Yellow River bottoms, adjacent
and east of Necedah NWR
1.No federally-listed plants are likely to occur on the Refuge.
22
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
In 1973, the wolf was listed as a federal endangered species and as a state endangered species in the
State of Wisconsin in 1975. Between 1979-1986, studies showed that four to six wolf packs (15-25
animals) roamed two areas of northern Wisconsin. Since this period, wolf packs continue to increase
throughout Wisconsin. Currently there are at least 66 confirmed wolf pack (248-259 animals)
territories in northwestern and central Wisconsin and 11 established wolf packs in the central
Wisconsin forest complex (Wydeven et al. 2000). Territories of four packs, Suk Cearney, Yellow River,
Dead Creek, and South Bluff, may extend onto the Refuge. The Suk Cearney pack’s territory appears
to be concentrated on the southern end of the Refuge. This pack has numbered as many as seven
individuals at one time. Based on winter wolf track surveys, there may be two dens and/or rendezvous
sites on the Refuge, although howling surveys have not detected wolf pups as of yet. For the most
recent map of wolf pack distribution in Wisconsin, see the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources website at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/.
Karner Blue Butterfly
Karner blue butterflies have undoubtedly been longtime residence of the Refuge property. Savanna
habitat was present on Refuge land at the time of the original land surveys. The butterflies most likely
occurred on these savannas. However, definitive proof is lacking. Karner blue butterflies undoubtedly
benefitted from the drainage and expanded burning that occurred in the area of the Refuge at the
beginning of the 20th century. Presently, Karner blue butterflies are known to occur in 12 population
complexes within the Refuge, which constitutes the world’s largest remaining population of Karner
blue butterflies. The butterfly was listed as an endangered species in 1993.
Whooping Crane
Whooping Crane chicks were introduced at the Refuge in the summer of 2001 as part of an
experimental Whooping Crane reintroduction project aimed at establishing a migratory population in
the eastern U.S. to contribute toward recovery of the species. The population has been designated as a
non-essential population (NEP) in a rule making action finalized on June 26, 2001. The crane chicks
were reared in a pen situation and trained to follow ultralight aircraft in migration to a selected
wintering site at Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge. Yearling cranes successfully returned to
the Refuge in the spring of 2002. Annual Whooping Crane introduction, rearing, and release activities
are expected to continue for 10 years with a goal of 25 breeding birds, 125 birds total.
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake
Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes have disappeared from
most of Wisconsin. Once widespread and plentiful in
southern and western Wisconsin, the Eastern massasauga
has been reduced to just five populations in the state. One of
those populations is located next to the Refuge in the Yellow
River. The Yellow River was long considered Wisconsin’s
best massasauga population in terms of species abundance.
Evidence of this is found in bounty records which indicate
that bounty was paid on over 4,000 massasaugas between
1952 and 1972.
The Yellow River population produced 25 Eastern
massasauga rattlesnakes in the 1990s. Nineteen of these
snakes were neonates from two different clutches. Of the six adults, three were located during routine
surveys and three were road-killed animals. No new snakes have been located in the Yellow River
since 1995, despite intensive survey efforts by the Refuge and Wisconsin DNR. The Eastern
massasauga was listed as a state endangered species in 1975.
The Refuge is currently working with landowners on the Yellow River to conserve snakes through
habitat improvements. Similar efforts are under way with landowners around three other massasauga
Frank Durbian
23
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
populations. These populations are in LaCrosse, Monroe, and Buffalo counties. The Refuge is
developing Candidate Conservation Agreements with landowners on all of these areas.
State Listed Species
State-listed threatened or endangered species that use the Refuge include the Bald Eagle, Red-shouldered
Hawk, Blanding’s turtle, Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and Trumpeter Swan. The
Refuge also supports several rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants. These include the
prairie fameflower, small skullcap, oval-leaved milkweed, and wooly milkweed. Plant species that are
necessary to support rare organisms include wild lupine and downy phlox.
3.3.2 Archaeological and Cultural Values
Archaeological records show evidence of human occupation in Juneau County since the end of the last
Ice Age when Paleo Indians hunted large prehistoric animals. Every subsequent cultural period for
the past 10,000 years is represented. The land now known as the Refuge was probably used by several
cultures since the Ice Age. The peat-covered lowlands around the extensive marsh and shallow river
environment contained a wide variety of food resources. Slightly higher ground would have been
suitable for resource-extraction activities, but the people likely located their larger camps and villages
on elevated land forms not found within the Refuge.
Archaeological investigations have covered 2 percent of the Refuge. The surveys and other sources
have identified 27 prehistoric and historic sites. The earliest evidence of people on the Refuge has
been dated to the Middle Archaic period of 5,000 to 3,000 years ago. The rest of the identified sites are
camps from the Woodland period of 3,000 to 250 years ago, and farmsteads and cemeteries from the
period of Western culture settlement and occupation. Prehistoric mounds, including effigy mounds,
are reported near the Refuge. An inventory of Yellow River archaeological values and previous
archaeological work within the Yellow River Focus Area has not been completed. As of November 1,
1998, the National Register of Historic Places contained seven properties in Juneau County and three
properties in adjacent Jackson County. These properties include a bridge, houses, and prehistoric
sites, including the Cranberry Creek Archaeological District 3 miles east of the Refuge. Early 20th
century fires burned across the Refuge area, destroying the peat so that now the sandy subsurface is
exposed or shallowly covered with silt. The slight elevations that might have been used for resource
extraction or temporary camps are virtually indistinguishable. In consultations with the Wisconsin
State Historic Preservation Officer, the more efficient method of identifying archaeological sites
would be to conduct a geomorphological investigation of the Refuge to determine where land forms
exist that could have supported human use. A similar study conducted at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin,
could be a useful prototype.
Indian tribes may have interest in the Refuge area in terms of traditional cultural properties and
sacred sites, as well as claims to human remains, funerary objects, and other cultural items. During
the early historic period in Wisconsin, Indian tribes were in a great state of flux, many tribes from the
east having moved from their ancestral land and pushed the aborigines from Wisconsin to the south
and west. Thus connecting historic period tribes with their prehistoric cultural antecedents in
Wisconsin is problematic. People of the Late Woodland Lakes phases may have become the
Menominee tribe. Evidence from archaeological excavations indicates that ancestors of the
Winnebago had lived in Eastern Wisconsin for hundreds of years; the Oneota of Eastern Wisconsin
may have been prehistoric Winnebago. In any event, historic records place Winnebago and
Potawatomi in the area at the time of Western contact. The Refuge is within the area recognized by
the Indian Claims Commission as being part of Menominee and Winnebago aboriginal territory. The
Ioway spoke a Siouan language, which likely links them to late prehistoric cultures of central and
southern Wisconsin. To a limited extent the Illinois were indigenous tribes in southern Wisconsin,
probably not as far north as the Refuge. By the 1600s, however, a variety of tribal groups were moving
in and out of areas south of the Refuge and may have spent time within the vicinity. These included the
Sauk, Fox, Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Miami, and Mascouten.
24
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3.3.3 Hydrology
Water plays an important part in the history of the Refuge. The sandy sediments and flat topography
of the area are a result of Glacial Lake Wisconsin, a pre-historic lake that developed when a glacier
blocked the Wisconsin River near Baraboo, Wisconsin. This extensive lake occupied large parts of
Juneau and Adams counties, and parts of Wood, Portage, Waushara, Marquette, Columbia, Sauk,
Richland, Vernon, Monroe and Jackson counties. Glacial Lake Wisconsin drained catastrophically
about 13,000 years ago when the glaciers retreated.
3.3.3.1 Refuge Watershed
Located in the Castle Rock Watershed, the Refuge is supported by an important hydrological system
comprised of natural and man-made waterways in which materials and energy are transferred
(Figure 6). Some, such as the Yellow River and its tributaries, provide an important ecological
component to the Refuge by connecting biologically diverse food webs that provide important habitat
features for wildlife. The Refuge, along with a series of other swampy basins such as Meadow Valley
Flowage, Beaver Flowage, and numerous managed cranberry bogs, all contribute to the 7,800-square
mile Middle Wisconsin River Basin. The Castle Rock Watershed drains 3,259 square miles, contains 27
rivers and streams, and has 3,358 total river miles.
3.3.3.2 Refuge Water Sources and Sinks
On average, approximately 85 percent of the water entering the Refuge comes directly from
precipitation, either as rain or snow (Table 2) (USGS Report). Precipitation averages about 32.6
inches annually. Streams that flow into the Refuge contribute about 13 percent of the water, while
groundwater flow into the Refuge accounts for about 2 percent of the water, due largely to the
interception of ground water by the extensive drainage networks surrounding the Refuge. Surface-water
inflow to the Refuge includes: Remington Ditch (60 percent), Neal Lateral (15 percent), EBR-Spencer
(11 percent), Meadow Valley (6 percent), and un-gauged (8 percent).
Of the water leaving the Refuge, about 62 percent is lost to evaporation from the pools or
transpiration of water vapor back to the atmosphere from plants. Evaporation from open-water
surfaces is estimated to be about 28 inches annually, as determined from a regional map of average
annual lake evaporation (Kohler and others, 1959). Surface-water outflows from the Refuge, mostly
through Rynearson Pools 1 (28 percent) and 2 (59 percent) and Suk-Cerney Pool (10 percent),
constitute about 36 percent of the total outflows; groundwater flows out of the Refuge are about 2
percent of the total annual outflows. This small amount of groundwater outflow, along with larger
surface water outflows, demonstrates the efficiency of the extensive drainage network within the
Refuge boundaries. A natural topographic fall of 50 feet occurs from north to south across the Refuge,
or roughly 2-3 feet per mile.
From recent groundwater modeling of the Refuge, annual recharge was estimated to be 9.5 inches.
Hence, evapotranspiration was 32.6 inches (precipitation) minus 9.5 inches (groundwater recharge), or
23.1 inches. This value agrees well with the findings of Weeks and Strangland (1971), who reported
evapotranspiration values for nearby agricultural areas ranging from 15 to 20 inches per year, with
higher rates expected in areas containing water-tolerant vegetation. Groundwater moves through the
Refuge in a northwest to southeast direction traveling toward the Yellow and Wisconsin Rivers.
Groundwater varies from 0 to 20 feet and is typically high in iron, with a pH of approximately 6.0,
which is slightly acidic. Total dissolved solids and hardness are low. Groundwater recharge occurs
primarily from percolation of precipitation through the loamy sands.
Water control structures within the Refuge regulate drainage. During high water flows such as spring
floods, water control structures are monitored regularly and outflows are controlled to prevent
damage to down-stream roads and culverts. Water is generally stored in Refuge pools during spring
runoff and is used to refill pools that are drained in early June for moist soil seed production. Re-flooding
of moist soil units takes place during September and October. Stored water can also be used
25
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Figure 6: Castle Rock Watershed, Necedah National Wildlife Refuge
26
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
to maintain water levels in pools that are managed at full pool to provide breeding and brood rearing
habitat for migratory birds.
3.4 Physiography
3.4.1 Refuge Ecosystem
The Refuge is located in the Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem (Ecosystem) which
is one of eight hydrologically defined ecosystems that comprise the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of
the Service (Figure 7). The Ecosystem is a large and ecologically diverse area that encompasses land
in the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. The Mississippi River
bisects the Ecosystem east and west. Other major rivers include the Minnesota, Chippewa, Black,
Wisconsin, Iowa, Rock, Skunk, Des Moines, Illinois, and Kaskaskia.
3.4.2 Bailey’s Ecological Unit Classification System
Bailey’s Ecological Unit Classification System (Keys et al., 1995) defines the Upper Mississippi River/
Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem as laurentian mixed forest, eastern broadleaf forest, lower Mississippi
riverine forest, and prairie parkland. The Refuge is located in the eastern broadleaf forest province
within the central Wisconsin sand plain subsection (Figure 8).
3.4.3 Historic Condition
Historically, land in and around the Refuge was once a vast peat bog with some low wooded islands
and savannas. The higher sand ridges were occupied by mature stands of pines and other species
(Figure 9).
Table 2: Summary of Water Sources and Sinks for Necedah NWR, May 1988-April 19991
Water Sources and Sinks Annual Flow
(acre-feet)
Water Sources
Precipitation 118,700
Surface Water Inflow 19,600
Ground Water Inflow 2,300
Total Water In 140,600
Water Sinks
Evapotranspiration Loss 85,400
Surface Water Outflow 51,500
Ground Water Outflow 2,700
Total Water Out 139,600
Change in Storate (water inflow/water outflow) 1,000
Percent of Water Inflow 0.7
1.U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, May 2000
27
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
3.4.4 Current Condition
Today the Refuge consists of roughly 43,700 acres of pine, oak, and aspen forests, grasslands and
savannas, and wetlands and open water areas, all of which support a rich diversity of fish and wildlife
(Figure 10). Table 3 is a summary of Refuge land cover.
Refuge forest communities (upland) include northern mesic forest (white and red pine, bigtooth
aspen, trembling aspen, red maple) and mixed wet-mesic forest (jack pine, northern pin oak, red
maple, trembling aspen, paper birch). Refuge forests provide excellent habitat for many neo-tropical
migratory birds such as the Scarlet Tanager, Eastern Wood-pewee, and Ovenbird. Currently upland
forests on the Refuge comprise roughly 16,500 acres.
Refuge grasslands, savannas, fallow fields, and shrublands comprise open landscapes on the Refuge.
Refuge grasslands include prairies, fallow fields, and meadows. Tree cover on the grasslands ranges
from little to none. Plant cover is a mixture of sedges, grasses, and forbs that attract nesting
Bobolinks, Vesper Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows, and Upland Sandpipers. Some common
grassland species on the Refuge include big bluestem, little bluestem, Kentucky bluegrass, and a wide
variety of other grasses, sedges and forbs. Blackberry and spirea are scattered in grassland areas as
well. Willow-dogwood communities are invading old farm fields and wet meadows in places where
disturbance is rare. Refuge grasslands provide important nesting habitat for many migratory birds
including ducks, geese, and Sandhill Cranes, and also serve as grazing sites for white-tailed deer.
Figure 7: Ecoregion of Necedah NWR
28
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 8: Bailey’s Ecoregions, Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
29
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Figure 9: Historic Vegetation, Necedah NWR
30
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Necedah NWR
31
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Refuge savannas include northern pin oak, jack pine, warm season grasses, upland sedges, blueberry,
goldenrod, and wild lupine. These savanna areas are also known as barrens, because fire and tree
diseases such as oak wilt are more common in the droughty, sandy soils. These disturbances keep the
trees small and scattered. Oak savanna has been defined as having at least one tree per acre, but less
than 50 percent cover. Wisconsin historically had over 4 million acres of barren habitat covering 12
percent of the state. Today less than .14 percent remains. Refuge savannas support Eastern
massasauga rattlesnakes, phlox moths, Blandings turtles, Karner blue butterflies, and over 110
species of birds. Currently, open landscape lands on the Refuge comprise roughly 3,700 acres.
Refuge wetlands include forested, non-forested, and open water wetlands. The majority of these occur
within pools, streams, and ditches. Wetland plant species include pondweeds, rushes, elodea, coontail,
milfoils, and duckweeds. Some Refuge pools are drawn down for part of the year to promote the
growth of high energy waterfowl foods such as millet, smartweed, chufa, beggar ticks, rice, and
spikerush. Ditches and streams also provide additional wetland habitat, although to a lesser extent
than Refuge pools.
Wet meadows and marsh edges consist of bur-reed, smartweeds, beggar’s ticks, bulrushes, blue-joint
grass, and reed canary grass. Open sedge meadows comprise mixed sedges with invading jack pine,
willow, and hardhack. Sedge meadows on the Refuge are home to Northern Harriers, Sedge Wrens,
and Sora Rails.
Bottomland forested areas include jack pine, silver and red maple, green ash, northern pin and swamp
white oak, river birch, and trembling aspen. Tamarack was historically present in these areas.
Currently non-forested, forested, and open water wetlands comprise roughly 23,500 acres.
3.5 Geology
The Refuge is located in the central plain province of Wisconsin within an area known as the Great
Central Wisconsin Swamp, an extensive alluvial lake plain that extends over 2,000 square miles. The
Refuge is underlain by a Precambrian Crystalline bedrock complex which surface varies in elevation
from approximately 860 Mean Sea Level at the north end of the Refuge to approximately 760 Mean
Sea Level at the south end. The Precambrian bedrock is overlain by an estimated 30 to 100 feet
stratum of late Cambrian sandstone.
Table 3: Land Cover Types, Necedah NWR1
Land Cover Type Acres
Open Landscapes (grasslands, savanna, shrublands, old fields) 3,700
Coniferous Forests 900
Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forests 10,000
Broad-leaf Deciduous Forests 5,600
Emergent Wetlands and Wet Meadows 10,500
Forested Wetlands 5,700
Lowland Shrubs 5,500
Open Water Areas 1,800
1.Data Source: WISCLAND (1994)
32
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3.5.1 Refuge Soils
Soils on and around the Refuge represent three major soil associations consistent with central
Wisconsin landscapes: Aus Gres loamy sands and Morocco silt loams, Plainfield and Nekoosa loamy
sands, and muck and peat soils (Figure 11). The dominant soil association is the Plainfield and
Nekoosa loamy sands. Newson and Dawson peat soils are found in the impoundments, along drainage
ditches, and in marshes. These soils are usually inundated and consist of partially decayed organic
matter and mineral soils.
3.6 Social and Economic Resources
3.6.1 Economic Impact Assessment
In 1998, the Refuge contracted with
Industrial Economics Inc. to complete an
economic impact assessment to estimate
the regional economic and national social
welfare benefits of the Refuge. However,
some of the data used to generate the
economic report is associated with
significant uncertainty, as well as dated.
As a result, the estimates in the report
should be interpreted with uncertainty in
mind. Some of the values used to generate
that report have been updated to reflect
more current figures. Also, it should be
noted that the report was not
commissioned to support any of the action
items contained in the CCP. It was
prepared to facilitate a better
understanding of the economic contribution national wildlife refuges in general have on local and
regional economies.
Within the four-county region surrounding the Refuge (Wood, Juneau, Adams, and Monroe counties),
agricultural activities constitute an important component of the economy. This sector includes both
dairy farms and farms that grow row crops (e.g., sweet corn, potatoes, snap peas). Cranberry
production is also important, and is considered a premium crop in that it commands a high price in the
market. Cranberry beds, while representing a small percentage of the total land area, are scattered
throughout the region. The total acreage of cranberry beds currently in Juneau and Wood counties
alone is estimated to be 4,500. Because the region has large tracts of both private and public forest
land, the timber industry is important to the economy as well. Wood County is the most populous and
strongest economically of the four.
These four counties offer a variety of recreational activities on both public and private land. Along
with the Refuge, there are several other public recreation areas. These include Sandhill Wildlife Area,
Wood County Wildlife Area, and Meadow Valley Wildlife Area. Other recreational and camping areas
nearby include Buckhorn State Park, Castle Rock, and Petenwell County Parks, which are adjacent to
the Refuge. These offer substitute sites and opportunities to the Refuge for hunting, fishing, wildlife
viewing, photography, and other recreational activities.
Commercial activities on the Refuge include timber harvesting and trapping for pelts. Several of the
surrounding towns maintain roadways that pass through the Refuge. Funding for road maintenance
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
33
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Figure 11: Soils Found On Necedah NWR
34
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
on Federal property helps supplement the tax base used to fund road projects. The Refuge’s annual
budget (> $1 million dollars in 2001) supports employee salaries, operation and maintenance,
education, and improvement projects such as bridges, dams, and roads.
Commercial and Refuge management economic activities on the Refuge include:
# The annual budget for staff salaries, maintenance, operations, small capital purchases and
educational programs exceeded $1,000,000 in 2001.
# Each year, sections of the Refuge are selected for timber harvesting to maintain quality
habitat for plants and animals. In 1996-97, 3,237 cords of wood were harvested worth
$155,758.
# Trapping is an important management tool used to reduce or prevent damage to Refuge
roads, dikes, and water control structures. Trapping may also reduce predation on nesting
birds. Trapping is also a recreational opportunity afforded by the Refuge. Trapped species
include mink, beaver, muskrat, and raccoon. The annual average value of pelts taken
between 1980 and1995 was $6,858.
In addition to maintenance of land by the Refuge, certain roads within the boundary of the Refuge are
maintained by the surrounding townships of Necedah, Finley, Cutler, Remington, and Kingston.
These townships spend, on average, approximately $96,000 annually for road maintenance, with a
large part of this cost for snow removal.
Conclusions drawn from Refuge-dependent commercial and Refuge management economic activities
include:
# Refuge spending contributes over $1 million and roughly 18 jobs to the regional economy.
# Refuge road maintenance and timber harvesting produce similar effects on the regional
economy, accounting for approximately $150,000 each year.
# Furbearer trapping plays a minor role in the overall regional economy, accounting for only
$7,000 of regional output and less than one job.
# Refuge fire support to the Necedah Fire Department accounted for $9,500 in 2001 through
Wildland Urban Interface Funding.
The Refuge also has an indirect economic impact on the local economy through recreational activities
it supports. Among these are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, berry picking,
and cross-country skiing. Although the Refuge charges no entrance fee, individuals that visit the
Refuge and participate in these activities often purchase a variety of goods and services in the
communities surrounding the Refuge (e.g., food, lodging, fuel, equipment). In 2000, Juneau County
contributed $84 million to Wisconsin’s tourism industry (Wisconsin Department of Tourism).
Some of the more popular recreational activities on the Refuge are:
# Hunting for both large (white-tailed deer) and small game species (grey, red, and fox
squirrel; rabbit; snowshoe hare; Ruffed Grouse; waterfowl; Wild Turkey; and raccoon). In
1996, an estimated 10,000 trips were made to the Refuge for the purpose of hunting.
# Fishing on Refuge waters, primarily for northern pike, bullheads, crappie, yellow perch, and
sunfish. In 1996, approximately 7,000 trips were made to the Refuge for the purpose of
fishing.
# Wildlife viewing accounted for over 106,000 trips to the Refuge in 1996.
# Blueberry, raspberry, and blackberry picking are popular during summer months.
35
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Conclusions drawn from Refuge-dependent recreational activities include:
# Wildlife viewing has the greatest effect on the regional economy, accounting for between
$1.9 million and $2.3 million of regional output and between 48 and 67 jobs.
# Recreational hunting has the second greatest effect on the regional economy, accounting for
$250,000 and 6.8 jobs.
# Fishing produces the third greatest regional economic effects, accounting for $220,000 of
regional output and 5.9 jobs.
3.7 Refuge Operations
3.7.1 Fish And Wildlife Management
3.7.1.1 Birds
Most bird management on the Refuge is accomplished through habitat management. The Refuge’s
prescribed burning and savanna restoration programs are designed to directly benefit nesting
grassland birds in open and semi-open landscapes. These programs were initially created to increase
the amount of suitable waterfowl nesting habitat. The Refuge also attempts to attract waterfowl,
shorebirds, and other marsh birds by managing water levels on most of its main pools. The purpose of
water level manipulation on these pools is to grow food plants and to increase the availability of
aquatic invertebrates that are favored by migrating water birds. In the mid-1960s to early 1970s, the
Refuge created Woodcock habitat with its forestry program. This was accomplished by clear-cutting
small linear strips of forest in successive years, which created young stands of aspen. Now, Meadow
Valley Wildlife Management Area, immediately adjacent to the Refuge (see Figure 5 on page 18),
maintains extensive areas of young forest, which is prime Woodcock habitat and habitat for many
warblers. Wetland restoration and prescribed burning activities have been used to restore and
maintain sedge meadows on the Refuge. This provides nesting habitat for birds including Sedge
Wrens, sparrows, rails, and warblers.
The Refuge participates in several migratory bird conservation initiatives to the extent applicable and
practical. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is a partnership effort to
restore waterfowl populations to historic levels, with objectives and strategies evolving through
NAWMP Updates (the latest produced in 1998). The Refuge is found within the Upper Mississippi
River and Great Lakes Joint Venture area of the NAWMP and contributes to the achievement of
waterfowl objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan for this area.
Several non-game bird initiatives are in the planning stage, with implementation beginning in the near
future. Partners In Flight (PIF) is developing Bird Conservation Plans, primarily for landbirds, in
numerous physiographic areas; these plans include priority species lists, associated habitats, and
management strategies. The same elements will be by-products of ongoing planning efforts for
shorebirds (U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan) and colonial waterbirds (North American Colonial
Waterbird Conservation Plan). The Refuge will strive to implement conservation strategies outlined
in these plans as they are developed. The Refuge lies within PIF Physiographic Area 16 (Upper Great
Lakes Plain) and 20 (Boreal Hardwood Transition).
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation
Plan have identified priority species and conservation strategies, mostly focused around habitat, that
will address the needs of those groups of birds. At some future point it is hoped that all migratory bird
conservation programs will be integrated under the umbrella of the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative. This is a continental effort to have all migratory bird initiatives operate under
36
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
common Bird Conservation Regions and for implementers to consider the conservation objectives of
all birds together to optimize the effectiveness of management strategies.
Nest Structures
In the past, the Refuge had an extensive Wood Duck and Bluebird nest box program that ran from the
1970s into the 1990s. During this time, approximately 200 nest boxes for both Wood Ducks and
Bluebirds were placed on the Refuge. Success of the nest box program was monitored by Refuge
volunteers. Wood Duck boxes have not amply contributed to Wood Duck production on the Refuge as
most nesting occurs in abundant natural cavities. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Wood Duck nest
box program will be phased out over the next 10-15 years and the Bluebird program maintained by
outside interests.
The Refuge has one known active Bald Eagle nest that is protected during the nesting season by
minimizing all human activity around it. This includes activity by the public, Refuge staff, and aircraft
activity associated with the Hardwood Bombing Range located nearby.
Figure 12: Physiographic Areas for Necedah NWR
37
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Reintroductions
Reintroduction activities for three bird species have been conducted on the Refuge. Wild Turkeys that
were trapped in Pennsylvania were released on the Refuge in the mid-1960s. Sandhill Cranes were
hatched in captivity and released on the Refuge in the early 1980s. A similar project was conducted for
Trumpeter Swans in the early 1990s. Eggs were collected in Alaska, the young were hatched in
captivity and released at three different locations on the Refuge.
In 1999, the Refuge was selected as a reintroduction site for the endangered Whooping Crane.
Whooping Crane chicks were introduced at the Refuge in the summer of 2001 as part of a Whooping
Crane reintroduction project to establish a migratory population in the eastern U.S. to contribute
toward recovery of the species. The population has been designated as a non-essential experimental
population in a rule making action finalized on June 26, 2001. The crane chicks were reared in a pen
situation and trained to follow ultra light aircraft in migration to Chassahowitzka National Wildlife
Refuge. Annual Whooping Crane introduction, rearing, and release activities are expected to continue
for 10 years with a goal of 25 breeding birds, 125 birds total.
3.7.2 Mammals
There is little active management for mammals on the
Refuge. Public hunting and trapping are two management
tools used to control certain mammalian populations.
Small game hunters pursue gray and fox squirrels,
cottontail rabbits, snowshoe hares, and raccoons. All other
mammalian species that are otherwise legal small game
are protected on the Refuge. Coyotes and red and gray
foxes benefit from this policy more than any other
mammalian species. White-tailed deer and black bear are
the only big game mammals found on the Refuge, and only
the white-tailed deer can be hunted within Refuge
boundaries. Harvest levels on the Refuge are set by the
Wisconsin DNR. The Refuge is currently part of deer
management units 53 and 56.
Trapping by permit is allowed on the Refuge to aid in
management of several mammal populations. Each fall, six
trapping permits are awarded by drawing, and successful
trappers then have exclusive rights to the area for which
their permit is issued. Trappers are not allowed to make
dry-land sets and can only trap raccoon, beaver, muskrat, mink, skunk, and opossum. This policy has
the greatest protective effect on otter, coyotes, and grey and red foxes.
3.7.3 Reptiles and Amphibians
Restoration of thousands of acres of wetlands on the Refuge has re-created reptile and amphibian
habitat that had been lost due to drainage and farming. Savanna restoration efforts on the Refuge
benefit the Blanding’s turtle, which lays its eggs in these areas. Regulations prohibiting the collection
of reptiles and amphibians are enforced on the Refuge.
3.7.4 Invertebrates
The only direct management the Refuge does for invertebrate populations is for the federally listed
endangered Karner blue butterfly and gypsy moth. The Refuge monitors Karner populations and the
populations of associated plant species, such as wild lupine, the Karner’s sole larval food source. The
Refuge modifies its prescribed burns and mowing plans so as not to disturb Karner habitat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
38
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Refuge also cooperates with the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection, the
Wisconsin DNR, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
in their efforts to survey gypsy moth distribution, abundance, and spread.
3.7.5 Fish
Management of Refuge fish populations is currently limited due to shallow water and periodic draw-downs
in most Refuge impoundments. Some Refuge impoundments are periodically sampled to
determine which fish species are present. In the past, invasive species (e.g., carp) have been controlled
by lowering pool levels in the winter, which freezes the fish out. During summer draw-downs, stranded
native fish and/or fish that are passing through the dam have been transferred to other pools.
Two aspects of wetland management are problematic with respect to managing the Refuge for
maximum fisheries benefits. First, managing quality open wetland systems is difficult because
technology is currently limited to effectively control nuisance carp and encourage desirable fish
utilization. Secondly, many controlled quality wetlands are regulated following water management
regimes that tend to limit fish use and production.
3.8 Habitat Restoration
Habitat restoration at the Refuge involves using a variety of tools and techniques to enhance the
composition, structure, and function of plant communities for the benefit of listed species, waterfowl
and other migratory birds, and native biological diversity.
3.8.1 Wetland Restoration
The Refuge is located in an area historically known as the
Great Central Wisconsin Swamp, a vast lowland area
spanning hundreds of square miles. During European
settlement, the majority of wetlands in the area were
drained, logged, and farmed. Over the years, Refuge staff
have restored many of these former wetlands for a variety
of reasons, including to provide habitat for wildlife, to aid
in flood control, and to provide recreational opportunities
for the public. The two most common ways wetlands are
restored on the Refuge are plugging drainage ditches and
constructing new dikes with water control structures. If
management objectives for an area require an open vista,
timber harvest may be used to speed up the process (trees
would eventually be eliminated by higher water levels
anyway). Native wetland plants soon return to these
restored areas, as seeds lie dormant in the soils. Woody
vegetation is managed to maintain open or semi-open
wetland habitats by regulating water levels in Refuge
pools. Some restored wetlands are also burned or mowed
to maintain the desired vegetation composition.
3.8.2 Upland Restoration
Restoration of upland habitats on the Refuge includes
establishing and maintaining productive grasslands and
savannas for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
39
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
species, and other wildlife and plants. Timber harvest is a tool used extensively on the Refuge to
restore and maintain upland areas such as semi-open savanna habitats. Timber harvest is also used to
eliminate hazardous standing dead trees and reduce fuel loading, especially along the southern edge
of the Refuge near the Town of Necedah. Mowing is often used to maintain open areas, dikes, fire
breaks, and safe roadside visibility conditions. Prescribed burning is used to restore and maintain
semi-open and open habitats such as savannas, grasslands, and sedge meadows.
3.9 Habitat Management
3.9.1 Water Level Management
In most cases, management of wetland habitats at the
Refuge involves the manipulation of water to achieve the
desired successional stage of wetland plant communities.
Hydrologic cycle maintenance plays an important role in
the life cycle of wetlands. As wetland soils go through the
drying process, nutrients are released and made available
for plant growth. Upon re-flooding, the wetland is
rejuvenated and results in an area thriving with insect life
and aquatic vegetation. Forested wetlands are managed
primarily by limiting human influence to maintain natural
levels of hydrologic change. Sedge meadows are managed
in this way and are also burned with prescribed fires to
help maintain their open character. The Refuge has a
Marsh and Water Management Plan, dated June 1992, that provides guidance on day-to-day water
management.
3.9.2 Moist Soil Management
Management of Refuge wetlands for moist soil plant production is a major part of wetland
management activities on the Refuge. Moist soil habitats provide shallowly flooded food resources
(seeds, invertebrates) for migrating dabbling ducks, shorebirds, other marsh birds, and Canada
Geese. The greatest use by all waterbirds occurs in the fall, but moist soil units provide a variety of
resources for waterbirds and other wildlife species throughout the year. Moist soil units usually
remain flooded for 2 years and are drawn down during the spring of the third year to make conditions
suitable for germination of native moist soil plant species such as smartweed, millet, beggars tick, rice
cutgrass and chufa. Drained pools are partially re-flooded in September to a depth that encourages
foraging by dabbling ducks. Mud flats and shallow pool edges enhance food availability for shorebirds
and other marsh birds. From that point, flooding continues at 6-inch increments making additional
food available as the earlier flooded food is consumed. By the end of migration, water levels are
brought up to full pool elevation. Some Refuge pools are drained in early August for green browse
production, which is used primarily by Canada Geese and Sandhill Cranes. Other pools are partially
drained in October to concentrate and expose invertebrates, insect larvae, and minnows as an
additional food source for shorebirds (Long-billed Dowitcher, Greater Yellowlegs, Dunlin), ducks, and
geese.
3.9.3 Grazing, Haying, and Mowing
In the past, grazing was used on the Refuge as habitat management tools. During the mid-1970s, a
cooperative grazing program was initiated to control woody vegetation on the Pharm-Becker field.
However, maintaining suitable fences proved costly and grazing as a management tool was
discontinued soon after.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
40
Necedah NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Cooperative haying was also used as a management tool to maintain habitat for nesting birds and to
provide green browse for Canada Geese during fall migration. Harvesting typically began after July
15th and was completed by September 1. Application of lime and fertilizer was required to maintain
legume crops due to the Refuge’s sandy soil. Because of this, the activity proved cost prohibitive and
was later discontinued. Currently there is no interest in haying Refuge land.
Mowing is regularly used as a habitat management tool on the Refuge. Each year Refuge staff mow
about 300 acres to maintain the smaller open areas on the Refuge. Dikes, roadsides, and firebreaks
are also mowed. A hydro-axe is used in areas containing large woody vegetation. As a precaution to
ground nesting birds, no mowing occurs before July 15.
3.9.4 Farming
In the past the Refuge actively farmed 150 acres of Refuge land to supply migratory waterfowl and
white-tailed deer with food. Clover, rye, millet, and buckwheat were the primary crops. Farming as a
program was phased out on the Refuge beginning in the early 1990s in favor of more ecologically
sound ways of providing food for wildlife. In place of row crops, the Refuge now focuses on increasing
the availability of native food plants, such as oak shrubs for woody browse, releasing competition
between mature oaks to increase mast production, native forbs as green browse, and moist soil
management, which produces native seed crops for migratory birds. Certain farming practices may be
used occasionally on the Refuge as a tool to achieve some of the above-mentioned natural foods.
3.9.5 Forest Management
Management of Refuge forests are guided by the Refuge’s “1994 Forest Management Step-down
Plan.” The primary objectives for forest management are to provide and restore endangered species
habitat, reduce wildfire hazard, and manage existing pine plantations to phase out monoculture
management. This is accomplished through savanna and sedge meadow restoration and reducing the
density of jack pine on the Refuge’s eastern border, as well as other areas, to reduce the risk of
wildfires spreading beyond the Refuge boundary. Commercial timber sales and firewood cutting are
used to accomplish management objectives.
Timber sales accomplish Refuge ecological objectives and contribute to the local economy. Refuge
staff mark boundaries and trees to ensure that sales meet ecological objectives. Staff also determine
timber volumes for each stand. Timber is cut and removed from the Refuge by private wood
contractors. Contracts for all sales are selected by sealed bid.
Archaeological surveys are required if any part of the timber harvest operation will disrupt the soil to
a depth of 6 inches or more. If haul roads and/or yarding areas are to be constructed, an
archaeological survey will be required in those areas. The surveys are funded and arranged by the
wood contractor. The cost of these surveys is reflected in the bid price for the timber. When no other
source of funding is available and the cut is necessary to meet ecological objectives, the Refuge
supports the cost of the surveys. The establishment of firebreaks is also written into timber contracts
when prescribed fire is a part of planned management. Refuge roads used for haul routes are required
to be rehabilitated by grading and 4 inches of gravel, at the completion of the logging operation. The
contractor is responsible for this cost which is reflected in the bid.
In recent years, the Refuge has conducted approximately two to four timber sales per year. Sales
usually are between 40 and 400 acres. Jack pine, red pine, aspen, and Northern pin oak (Hill’s oak) are
the species with the greatest quantities harvested. Contractors are generally allowed 1 to 2 years to
complete each sale. Most harvesting is done during the winter months when the ground is frozen to
prevent damage to soil, vegetation, and archaeological resources. No harvesting is done in areas
41
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
where pin oak is present during the months of April through July when trees may be infected with the
oak wilt fungus.
Refuge timber resources are also available to the general public in many locations by special use
permit. Permits to harvest dead and down wood cost $5.00 for a 6-month period. Firewood cutting
removes dead wood left over from timber harvest operations, thus reducing wildfire danger, and
provides an inexpensive source of firewood for people in the surrounding communities who do not own
firewood-producing lands of their own.
Timber stand improvement (TSI) is a forest management practice used at the Refuge aimed at
improving the health and vitality of a timber stand and generating more income at a faster rate from
the wood produced. The major benefit from TSI at the Refuge will be realized in pine plantations.
Over a period of the first 20 years of a pine plantations life some of the trees will become overgrown by
others. These smaller trees can be harvested in a thinning cut to allow the other trees adjacent to
them to grow more vigorously. These remaining trees may be pruned of lower limbs to a height of
about 20 feet to promote a larger and clearer bowl that is free of knots. The improved quality of the