Environmental Assessment for 2020 Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Environmental Assessment

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge Migratory Game Bird, Upland Game and Big Game Hunt Plan

January 10, 2020

Prepared by

Erin Railsback

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

Mayville, WI

Environmental Assessment for opening to common moorhen, American woodcock, ruffed grouse, black bear, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, Virginia opossum, bobcat, coyote, snowshoe hare and striped skunk hunting This Environmental Assessment is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this preferred action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. The National Environmental Policy Act requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment.

1.0 Introduction Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to open hunting opportunities for common moorhen, American woodcock, ruffed grouse, black bear, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, Virginia opossum, bobcat, coyote, snowshoe hare and striped skunk on the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with the refuge’s Migratory Game Bird, Upland Game and Big Game Hunt Plan. This proposed action is often iterative and evolves over time during the process as the agency refines its proposal and learns more from the public, tribes and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The final decision on the proposed action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the Environmental Assessment and the 2020-2021 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. The Service cannot open a refuge to hunting and/or fishing until a final rule has been published in the Federal Register formally opening the refuge to hunting and/or fishing. Background Horicon National Wildlife Refuge was established: “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds. 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

"... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1

"... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended).

"... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans..." 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

The first tract of land was acquired on January 23, 1941 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 USC 715d).

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to:

“…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.”

The Refuge System Administration Act mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4):

• Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System; • Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans; • Ensure that the mission of the Refuge System described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out; • Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the Refuge System are located; • Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of each refuge; • Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the Refuge System through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife; • Ensure that opportunities are provided within the Refuge System for compatible wildlife- dependent recreational uses; and • Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.

Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The refuge is located in southeastern Wisconsin in both Dodge and Fond du Lac counties. Public hunting opportunities have been offered on the refuge since 1953. Current opportunities include hunting for migratory game birds (ducks, geese and coots for special programs only), hunting for upland game (squirrel, pheasant, rabbit, Hungarian partridge and turkey) and big game (white-tailed deer) on approximately 21,616 acres of the refuge with 342 acres closed to hunting. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Horicon National Wildlife Refuge. The need of the preferred action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the Refuge System Administration Act to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the Refuge System” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the Refuge System for

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). The need of the proposed action also meets the Service’s implementation of Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3347 Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation and S.O. 3356 Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories by expanding hunting opportunities and aligning Service regulations with State regulations. The preferred action in the hunt plan includes modifications to provide new hunting opportunities for common moorhen, American woodcock, ruffed grouse, black bear, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, Virginia opossum, bobcat, coyote, snowshoe hare and striped skunk to align with existing state laws and provide new hunting opportunities on the refuge.

2.0 Alternatives Alternatives Considered Alternative A – Continue Current Hunting Opportunities – No Action Alternative This alternative would continue to offer hunting for migratory game birds (ducks, geese and coots for special programs only), hunting for upland game (squirrel, pheasant, rabbit, Hungarian partridge and turkey) and big game (white-tailed deer) on approximately 21,616 acres of the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge with 342 acres closed to all hunting. However, this alternative does not provide more alignment with state regulations as hunting of common moorhen, American woodcock, ruffed grouse, black bear, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, Virginia opossum, bobcat, coyote, snowshoe hare and striped skunk would not be allowed. Hunting opportunities would be limited to those interested in only hunting species currently allowed for hunting on the refuge.

Alternative B – Open the Refuge to Common moorhen, American woodcock, Ruffed grouse, Black bear, Raccoon, Red fox, Gray fox, Virginia opossum, Bobcat, Coyote, Snowshoe hare and Striped skunk Hunting, in Addition to the Current Hunting Opportunities – Preferred Alternative The refuge has prepared a hunt plan, Horicon National Wildlife Refuge Migratory Game Bird, Upland Game and Big Game Hunt Plan, which is presented in this document as the Preferred Action Alternative. Under the Preferred Action Alternative: Twelve additional species - common moorhen, American woodcock, ruffed grouse, black bear, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, Virginia opossum, bobcat, coyote, snowshoe hare and striped skunk would open for hunting on 19,751 acres of the refuge. Hunting season dates for these species would align with Wisconsin State seasons, with the following exceptions: • coyote, red fox, gray fox, and bobcat season would begin on the first day of the traditional nine day gun deer season and end on the last day of fox season (bobcat season runs concurrent with Period 1 and reopens for entirety of Period 2). • Virginia opossum and skunk seasons would run concurrently with the State raccoon season. • Snowshoe hare season would run concurrently with the State cottontail rabbit season.

Hunting regulations for these species would align with the standard State hunting regulations, with the following exceptions: • Common moorhen would only be hunted by refuge participants in special programs (Learn to Hunt Waterfowl or disabled hunts). More detail about these hunts can be found in Appendix B, Attachments 2 and 3. • Black bear, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, Virginia opossum, bobcat, coyote, and skunk would not be hunted with dogs, artificial lights, and/or at night. • All other current, Horicon National Wildlife Refuge specific regulations, including non- toxic shot requirement, permanent blind prohibition, and the nightly removal of portable blinds would apply.

Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts: • Several measures will be undertaken to avoid conflicts with trust species. One measure would be delaying the opening dates for coyote, red fox, gray fox, bobcat, opossum, skunk and snowshoe hare until later in the season so as not to interfere with fall bird migration. The second measure would be implementing further restrictions (no use of dogs or artificial lights and no night hunting) for black bear, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, Virginia opossum, bobcat, and skunk. This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting/fishing and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Service has determined that the hunt plan is compatible with the purposes of the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.

Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration No other alternatives were considered for further consideration.

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Affected Environment

The refuge consists of approximately 21,958 acres in both Dodge and Fond du Lac counties, Wisconsin. Horicon National Wildlife Refuge is primarily freshwater cattail marsh.The proposed action is located in mainly in upland areas but some hunting may occur on dikes that bisect the wetland portions of the refuge. See map of the general area and proposed project site on the refuge in Appendix B, Attachment 1. For more information regarding the affected environment, please see Chapter 3 of the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which can be found at https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/5985

Environmental Consequences of the Action This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This Environmental Assessment only includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource.”

Impact Types: • Direct effects are those that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. • Indirect effects are those that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. • Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Affected Natural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives

Striped Skunk Striped skunks live in a variety of habitats, but prefer forest edge. They prefer wooded areas, and brushy areas along streams and ditches. They use abandoned woodchuck, muskrat, or fox burrows, but often rest above ground during the warmer months. They also will use stumps, buildings or rock/brush piles as den sites. Skunk are common in Wisconsin, and widely distributed across the state in a variety of habitats. Skunks are omnivores (eat plant and animal material), and will eat about anything. They prefer to eat insects, particularly grasshoppers, beetles and crickets. They also eat grubs and other insect larvae, bees and wasps. When the opportunity arises they will take mice, rats, voles, shrews, young ground squirrels and rabbits, nesting birds, nestlings and bird/snake eggs. Due to their musk, they are not a preferred food item by most predators, but great horned owls, coyote, badger, fox and bobcats take them when other food resources are scarce. Skunks help control insect and small mammal populations. In Wisconsin, striped skunks are classified as a furbearer, and an unprotected species under Wisconsin state law. Unprotected species in Wisconsin can be hunted year-round, and there is no daily limit or bag limit.

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to skunks on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed. Impacts to the skunk population within the state of Wisconsin would stay consistent with current impacts of hunting outside refuge boundary and is likely to be not significant.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 5 Estimated Take: 2

Under this alternative, the general hunting area of the refuge (19,751 acres) would be opened to striped skunk hunting. Trapping is not considered a method of take under this alternative. Many accounts refer to skunk as a nuisance wildlife animal, so it may be that skunks are not highly sought after for meat or pelts, but are more likely to be hunted and trapped because they are a nuisance to private landowners. Regarding trapping, it can be surmised that most skunks are trapped incidentally, while targeting species such as raccoon and fox. The Fur Trapper Survey 2018-2019 estimated that statewide, 691 or 9.7% of trappers were actively pursuing skunks and harvested 5,205 skunks during the 2018-19 trapping season. Estimates for hunting were not available (Dhuey and Rossler 2019). Skunks are not a popular species for hunting and therefore

harvest is likely to be low. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that opening up the refuge to skunk hunting would make any significant impact on the local or regional population as few individuals will be removed on an annual basis.

Virginia Opossum Virginia opossum live in wooded areas, although they can be found in a variety of adjacent habitats. Most often they are observed along the road eating carrion or scavenging for food. Opossum are the only native marsupial in Wisconsin, and the young will stay in the mother’s pouch for the first 2-3 months of life. Opossum are omnivores (eat plant and animal material) and will eat almost anything, including fruit, insects, and mice. Opossum are common in Wisconsin and widely distributed across the southern part of the state. They help control insect and small mammal populations. In Wisconsin, opossum are classified as a furbearer, and an unprotected species under Wisconsin state law. Unprotected species in Wisconsin can be hunted year-round, and there is no daily limit or bag limit. There was no Wisconsin hunting harvest data available at the time of this writing.

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to opossum populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 5 Estimated Take: 3

Under this alternative, the general hunting area of the refuge (19,751 acres) would be opened to opossum hunting. Trapping is not considered a method of take under this alternative. Many accounts refer to opossum as a nuisance wildlife, so it may be that like skunks, opossums are not highly sought after for meat or pelts, but are more likely to be hunted and trapped because they are a nuisance to private landowners. It is estimated there will be few hunters visiting the refuge on an annual basis harvesting on average three opossums a year. It seems unlikely that opening up the refuge to hunting would make any significant impact on the local or regional population.

Snowshoe Hare The snowshoe hare range ends at the treeline in Northern Canada and Alaska and extends south into the Rocky Mountains, Great Lakes Region and the Appalachian Mountains of the United States (Murray 2000). The snowshoe mainly inhabits the more heavily forested areas of northern Wisconsin, but does extend into the forested areas of Central Wisconsin. According to Buehler and Keith, “the southern limit of the Snowshoe Hare distribution in Wisconsin, now and historically has been established mainly by predator caused mortality which can be significantly moderated by conifer cover and timely snowfalls” (Buehler and Keith 1982). The southern limit is often established by low predation rates and the presence of low conifers which provide winter food, protection from predators, and concealment from predators and inclement weather (Buehler and Keith 1982). In Wisconsin, snowshoe hare are classified as a small game animal that is an unprotected species. Unprotected species in Wisconsin can be hunted year-round, and there is no daily limit or bag limit. The Small Game Harvest 2018-2019 Report estimated that 6,729 hare hunters harvested 14,070 (±7,129) hares (Dhuey 2019a). Small game harvest trends

for snowshoe have trended downward from highs of over 200,000 in 1989 to lows of under 20,000 in 2018 (Dhuey 2019a).

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to snowshoe hare populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 The range of snowshoe hare in Wisconsin is primarily limited to the northern and central part of the state, other than some small isolated pockets. There have been no recorded snowshoe hare observations on the refuge. There will be no impact on this species under this alternative.

Black Bear Black bear are classified as a large carnivore in Wisconsin. There are over 16 subspecies of black bear, and black bears in Wisconsin belong to the most common and widespread subspecies ranging from Alaska, to the Atlantic and down to Texas (Hall, E.R. 1981). Bears are omnivores and their diet ranges greatly to the time of year, geographic location and food availability. Bears have traditionally been associated with the “big northwoods” areas in the northern part of the Wisconsin. However, according to the harvest records from the Wisconsin Bear Management Plan 2019 to 2029, the traditional range of bears has expanded south as the bear population has increased in recent years (WDNR 2019a). Also noteworthy is that harvest records indicate that only one bear has been harvested by hunting in Dodge County and zero in Fond du Lac County (WDNR 2019a). The bear population in Wisconsin has expanded to just under 29,000 bears in 2019 from about 9,000 bears in 1989, and in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties bear are considered “transient” (Roberts 2019a). The 2018 Wisconsin Black Bear Harvest Report estimated that 3,717 bears were killed during the 2018 season, which was 81.7% of the state’s quota of 4,550 bears. Only 661 bears were harvested in Zone C where the refuge lies. Zone C covers approximately the southern 2/3rds of the state (Dhuey, Walter, Koele 2018).

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to black bear populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 In 2018, there were no bears harvest in Dodge or Fond du Lac Counties, where the refuge is located (Dhuey, Walter, Koele 2018). Wisconsin harvest records indicate that from 1977-2017 there has only been one bear harvested in Dodge County, and zero in Fond du Lac County (WDNR 2019a). Due to the extremely low chance a hunter will observe a bear on the refuge, and the fact that no hunting with dogs or baiting is allowed, it seems unlikely that opening up the refuge to hunting would make any significant impact on the local or regional bear population.

Bobcat The bobcat is a furbearer, and the most common cat species in Wisconsin. They are smaller than the more uncommon Canada lynx. Bobcat diets primarily consist of rabbit, hare, mice, rodents, birds, and deer (USFWS 2003). According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, bobcat populations in Wisconsin have expanded over the past decade and they are now statewide in distribution (WDNRb). Wisconsin has a north zone and a south zone for bobcat hunting/trapping. Trapping will not be evaluated in this plan. Bobcats have traditionally been associated with northern Wisconsin. “In 2014, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimated the southern zone bobcat population was stable enough to re-open a bobcat hunting/trapping season after a 20-year pause. That first year, a 50-cat quota was set for southern Wisconsin. In 2015, it was doubled to 100. For both years, the quota was filled before the end of the season, which runs from Oct. 18 to Jan. 31” (Kremer 2016). In 2019 after five seasons, the southern zone harvest quota has increased to 500 bobcats (Roberts 2019b). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources population models focus primarily on the northern zone. The fall 2019 bobcat population prediction for the northern zone was 3800 bobcats, with a harvest quota of 550 bobcats in the northern zone (Roberts 2019b). Population estimates for the southern zone were not available. Long-range models predict that the fall bobcat population in northern Wisconsin ranged from around 1,600 in the 1980s to approximately 3,800 in 2019 (Roberts 2019b).

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to bobcat populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 The refuge is located in the southern bobcat zone. Some of the larger expanses of woody shrubland and woodland on the western and southern portions of the refuge may be suitable for bobcat, but no species specific management or surveys are conducted. According to the Wisconsin 2019 Bobcat Population Analyses, bobcat harvest for the 2017 season was 506 animals (Roberts 2019b). Of this total, 77 were hunted and 44 were trapped in the southern zone (total 121); and 225 were hunted and 81 were trapped in the northern zone (total of 306-two unknown) (Roberts 2019b). The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources also reported in the 2017 Bobcat Harvest that no bobcats were harvested in either of the counties the refuge is located in during the 2017-18 season (Dhuey and Rossler 2017). The Bobcat Harvest Survey 2017 reports that only about 3% of bobcats were harvested by means other than “shot over dogs” or “trapped” (Dhuey and Rossler 2017). With the most common methods of take not being allowed on the refuge and the low bobcat population numbers, it seems unlikely that opening up the refuge to hunting would make any significant impact on the local or regional population.

Raccoon Raccoons are one of the most common and recognizable furbearers in Wisconsin. They live almost anywhere and eat almost anything. Raccoons are most abundant in agricultural and sub- urban areas. Regional population densities are highest in Wisconsin’s central and southern farmland regions, as reported by deer hunters and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

field staff in the annual deer hunter observation survey, though localized populations can vary (WDNR 2019b). In Wisconsin, they can be hunted or trapped, but this evaluation is only considering the hunting of raccoon. Statewide or local population data was not able to be found, however it is known that local populations can fluctuate with severe weather and/or disease outbreaks, and all indications point to robust raccoon populations (WDNR 2019b). Raccoon harvest generally follows pelt demand and both have been relatively low the past several seasons (WDNR 2019b).

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to bobcat populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 7 Estimated Take: 5

Long-term harvest trends follow pelt value. Resident hunters are required to have a small game license to hunt raccoon. The Small Game Harvest 2018-2019 Report estimated that statewide, the trend in small game license sales in Wisconsin have decreased from a high of almost 400,000 in 1983 to just under 250,000 in 2018 (Dhuey 2019a). The Small Game Harvest 2018-2019 Report also estimated that 6,006 or 2.7% of hunters hunted raccoons in the 2018-19 season, with a harvest of 56,281 raccoons (±26,751). This info is based on the responses to the 2018-19 Wisconsin Small Game Hunting Questionnaire. Small game harvest trends for raccoon have trended downward from approximately 200,000 animals in 2001 to approximately 50,000 raccoons in 2018 (Dhuey 2019a). Trapping does account for harvest and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimated there were 3,363 trappers in 2018-19 who harvested approximately 45,953 raccoons. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources also estimated, using the Fur Trapper Survey, that trappers who also hunted, harvested an additional 6,477 raccoons for a total harvest of 52,392 (Dhuey and Rossler 2019). Finally, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimated in the Wisconsin Fur Buyers Report 2018-19, that in 2018-19, 44% of the 19,209 raccoons purchased by licensed Wisconsin fur buyers were harvested by hunters in Wisconsin (Dhuey 2019b). The most effective means of hunting raccoons is at night with dogs. Because the most effective means of hunting raccoons will not be allowed on the refuge (dogs and night hunting not permitted), it seems unlikely that opening up the refuge to hunting would make any significant impact on the local or regional population. There will be negligible impact on this species under this alternative.

Red Fox Red fox are a common furbearer game species in Wisconsin. Red fox are a member of the canine (dog) family, and have the largest world-wide distribution of any carnivore (WDNR 2014). Red fox have adapted well to agricultural lands and edge habitat, in close proximity to humans. One of their primary food sources is mice, but they readily eat rabbits, ducks and other small animals. Red fox can be hunted or trapped in Wisconsin, however this analysis is only evaluating hunting. Annual track surveys are one way to estimate general abundance, and the Winter Track Counts 1977-2018 showed an increase in the number of tracks from 2017 to 2018 (Dhuey 2018). It should be noted the track survey routes are primarily located in the northern part of the state, are

impacted by weather, and the red fox/gray fox are not differentiated in the track survey. Long term averages for both percent present and tracks per transect have trended upward from 1977-78 to 2017-18 (Dhuey 2018).

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to red fox populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 15 Estimated Take: 10 As with other furbearers, long-term harvest trends generally follow pelt value. Resident hunters are required to have a small game license to hunt red fox. The Small Game Harvest 2018-2019 Report estimated that statewide, the trend in small game license sales in Wisconsin have decreased from a high of almost 400,000 in 1983 to just under 250,000 in 2018 (Dhuey 2019a). The Small Game Harvest Report 2018-2019 estimated that 4,735 or 2.2% of hunters hunted red fox during the 2018-19 season, with an estimated harvest of 1,739 (± 1,384) red foxes harvested (Dhuey 2019a). Dodge County is in the top three counties of red fox harvested, and small game harvest trends for red fox have remained largely stable, although they have trended slightly downward from 1983 to 2018 (red fox and gray fox species were not differentiated) (Dhuey 2019a). Trapping does account for harvest in the survey and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimated there were approximately 1,069 trappers in 2018-19 who harvested approximately 3,189 red fox (Dhuey 2019a). Using the Fur Trapper Survey, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources also estimated that trappers, who also hunted, harvested an additional 346 red fox by hunting for a total harvest of 3,535 red fox (Dhuey and Rossler 2019). Finally, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimated from the Wisconsin Fur Buyers Report 2018-19, that in 2018-19 an average of 25% of the 1,026 red fox purchased from Wisconsin furbearers were harvested by hunting (Dhuey 2019b). On the refuge, it is estimated that annually approximately 15 red fox hunters will harvest on average ten red fox from hunting activities. This would be an additional 1.5% red fox hunted based on 2018-2019 harvest data. Due to the anticipated low hunter participation and low take, it seems unlikely that opening up the refuge to hunting would make any significant impact on the local or regional population.

Gray Fox Gray fox are another common furbearer game species in Wisconsin. The gray fox is the smallest canine found in Wisconsin, and are unique because they have semi-retractable claws, which allow them to climb trees, one of only two canine species in the world that can do this. They are more common in southern Wisconsin (WDNR). The gray fox tend to inhabit woody areas, but can be associated with a number of habitats. In Wisconsin, habitat preferences for gray fox include brushy bluffs and hills intermingled with woodland and farmland areas (Crossley 1985). Little is known about gray fox distribution in Wisconsin prior to 1900, and records indicate that the gray fox has been relatively common in the southern part of the state, with the greatest populations in the driftless area of southwestern Wisconsin (UWSP 2004). Winter track counts in Wisconsin, although only conducted in primarily the northern part of the state, showed an increase in the number of tracks from 2017 to 2018 (Dhuey 2018). Red fox and gray fox species were not differentiated in the track survey. Long term averages for both % present and tracks per transect have trended upward from 1977-78 to 1917-18 (Dhuey 2018).

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to gray fox populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 2 Estimated Take: 0 As with other furbearers, long-term harvest trends generally follow pelt value. Resident hunters are required to have a small game license to hunt gray fox. The Small Game Harvest 2018-2019 Report estimated that statewide, the trend in small game license sales in Wisconsin have decreased from a high of almost 400,000 in 1983 to just under 250,000 in 2018 (Dhuey 2019a). The Small Game Harvest Report 2018-2019 also estimated that 3,704 or 1.7% of hunters hunted gray fox during the 2018-19 season, with an estimated harvest of 6,482 (± 4,860) gray foxes harvested (Dhuey 2019a). Small game harvest trends for gray fox have remained largely stable, although they have trended slightly downward from 1983 to 2018 (red fox and gray fox species were not differentiated) (Dhuey 2019a). Trapping does account for harvest and in the Fur Trapper Survey 2018-19, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimated there were approximately 363 trappers who harvested approximately 315 gray fox (Dhuey and Rossler 2019). Using the Fur Trapper Survey 2018-2019, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources also estimated that trappers, who also hunted, harvested an additional 19 gray fox by hunting for a total harvest of 334 gray fox (Dhuey and Rossler 2019). Finally, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimates from the Wisconsin Fur Buyers Report 2018-19, that and average of 33% of the 104 gray fox purchased from Wisconsin fur bearers were harvested by hunting (Dhuey 2019b). It is estimated that there will be no additional take of gray fox by opening the refuge to hunting as there is limited suitable habitat available for this species and few gray fox found on the refuge. Opening to hunting will provide on average two additional hunters an opportunity to hunt the refuge for this species, even though likelihood of success defined as harvest of gray foxes is unlikely. Due to the anticipated low hunter participation and low take, it seems unlikely that opening up the refuge to hunting would make any significant impact on the local or regional population.

Coyote Coyote are another common furbearer game species in Wisconsin. Coyote are a medium-sized canine distributed across the state and can be hunted year-round, though trapping season is restricted. Coyotes are omnivores and will eat what is generally available, however they generally pursue small rodents such as mice and voles, and rabbits. Coyotes are the expert generalist, and have adapted to live in close proximity to humans, even in urban areas. “Coyotes prefer woodland edges and brushy areas that provide adequate cover, however they readily use farm fields, parkways, riverways, parks and other areas with natural vegetation in city and residential developments” (Ryan 1999).

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to coyote populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 25 Estimated Take: 10

As with other furbearers, long-term harvest trends generally follow pelt value. Although coyotes can be hunted year round in Wisconsin, resident hunters are still required to have a small game license, unless hunting on property they own. The Small Game Harvest 2018-2019 Report estimated that statewide, the trend in small game license sales in Wisconsin have decreased from a high of almost 400,000 in 1983 to just under 250,000 in 2018 (Dhuey 2019a). The Small Game Harvest 2018-2019 report also estimated 23,958 or 10.9% of small game hunters hunted coyotes during the 2018-19 season, with an estimated harvest of 35,729 (± 13,105) coyotes harvested (Dhuey 2019a). According to the Small Game Harvest 2018-19 report, Small game harvest trends for coyote have generally increased from 1983 to 2018, with lows around 15,000 in the late 80’s to a highs around 60,000 in 2017 (Dhuey 2019a). In the Fur Trapper Survey 2018-19 which includes trapping in harvest reporting, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimated there were approximately 2,138 trappers who harvested approximately 10,811 coyotes (Dhuey and Rossler 2019. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimated from the Fur Trapper Survey that trappers who also hunted, harvested an additional 7,071 coyotes by hunting for a total estimated harvest of 17,882 (Dhuey and Rossler 2019. Finally, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimates from the Wisconsin Fur Buyers Report 2018-19, that and average of 63% of the 6,886 coyotes purchased from Wisconsin fur bearers were harvested by hunting (Dhuey 2019b). Coyote hunting on the refuge will increase the average annual take of coyotes by approximately 10 coyotes. This additional take is only 0.2 % more than what was reported for coyote hunting harvest in 2018-19 in the entire state of Wisconsin. It is expected there will be negligible impact both locally and regionally on this species under this alternative.

Ruffed Grouse Ruffed grouse are a resident game bird species and one of the most popular game birds to hunt in Wisconsin. According to the Draft Wisconsin Ruffed Grouse Management Plan 2020-2030, ruffed grouse are one of the most widely distributed non-migratory game birds in North America, and Wisconsin (Michigan and Minnesota included) is a top destination for hunters from throughout the Unites States (WDNR 2019c). Ruffed grouse are considered a habitat

specialist because they rely on young forest habitat, typically young mixed-deciduous forests containing aspen (WDNR 2019c). Since settlement, ruffed grouse distribution in Wisconsin increased because of logging and fire disturbances, but this greater range has been decreasing over the last half-century because of land use changes in Wisconsin (WDNR 2019c). Drumming surveys are the most important survey for measuring grouse abundance in Wisconsin’s primary range, which includes the central and northern forest regions of the state. At a statewide level, there has been a general decline in ruffed grouse distribution and abundance since the surveys inception in 1954 (WDNR 2019c). Survey transects were updated in 1994 and survey starting points were randomly located to better understand ruffed grouse distribution across the entire state. Since 1994, none of the three transects in Dodge County (where most of the refuge is located) have recorded a drumming male (B. Dhuey, personal communication, 12-13-19).

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to ruffed grouse populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 According to the Wisconsin Upland Birds 2019 Fall Forecast, during the 2018-19 season, 69,090 hunters harvested approximately 173,347 birds (WDNR 2019d). In addition, between 2018 and 2019, the forecast reported statewide ruffed grouse drumming activity increases 41% based on drumming surveys--following a year where survey results showed a 34% drop. The general trend is that Ruffed grouse populations rise and fall over a nine to 11-year cycle (WDNR 2019d). Based on Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources transect data and refuge staff personal observation, it is not likely a hunter will observe a grouse on the refuge. There will be no impact on this species under this alternative as it is highly unlikely any take will occur.

American Woodcock The American woodcock is also a popular game bird throughout eastern North America and in Wisconsin. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the primary agency for accessing woodcock populations, has a primary management objective to stabilize woodcock populations with a goal of returning to a level that occurred in the early 1970s (Kelley et al. 2008). The Service Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest report estimated that nationally woodcock hunters numbered about 103,300 in 2017 and harvested 203,500 (±17%) birds (USFWS 2019). According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Migratory Game Birds 2019-20 Fall Forecast, singing-ground surveys from 2009 to 2019 indicate a stable population in Wisconsin, consistent with the 50 year trend (WDNR 2019e). The forecast also stated that Wisconsin surveys showed an 11.76 percent increase in woodcock heard during the 2019 survey, and that the 50-year trend shows a -0.26 percent population trend from 1968-2019 (WDNR 2019e). Wisconsin is very important contributor to the annual woodcock population with about 11,000 square miles of woodcock habitat (contributing over 750,000 birds). Over 80 percent of this prime habitat is found in the northern third of the state (WDNR 2019e). In addition, the annual fall flights through Wisconsin total at least 1,500,000 birds (WDNR 2019e).

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to woodcock populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 20 Estimated Take: 15 During the 2018-19 season, about 15,000 hunters harvested approximately 40,000 birds in Wisconsin (WDNR 2019e). Although the refuge is not located in the most productive woodcock habitat in the northern part of the state, there are small pockets of available habitat, this coupled with the influx of migrating birds will provide some woodcock hunting opportunity to hunters. There will be negligible impact on this species under this alternative.

Common Moorhen Now referred to as the common gallinule, the moorhen is in the rail family and resembles the American coot, although not nearly as abundant in numbers. The gallinule is also more secretive and rarely seen where it lives in the cattails. According to preliminary data in the Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas II (eBird 2019), the Horicon Marsh is near the top of the gallinules known breeding range in Wisconsin and gallinule have been confirmed to nest on the Horicon Marsh, where transects were located. According to the Atlas, most confirmed breeding activity is taking place in the southeast area of Wisconsin, where birds appear to be closely associate with Lake Michigan in the northern range of their breeding. Common gallinule data was not included in the Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey for Wisconsin, 1973-2019 or the Service Waterfowl Population Status, 2018.

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative there would be no impact to common gallinule populations on the refuge as there would be no hunting of this species allowed.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Estimated Hunter numbers: 30 Estimated Take: 1

According to the Service Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest report 2017-18 and , preliminary estimates of gallinule harvest and hunter activity during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 hunting seasons indicated there was no harvest of common gallinule or gallinule hunters in Wisconsin during the 2017 and 2018 seasons (USFWS 2019). The report also estimated the United States total gallinule harvest was 12,600, plus-minus 108% in 2017 and 2,400 plus-minus 138% in 2018. Active gallinule hunters were 5,400 and 2,100 respectively. According to harvest data, gallinule hunting is more popular in the southern part of the United States (USFWS 2019) where it is more abundant. The common gallinule will be added to the species allowed to be hunted during the refuge’s Learn to Hunt Waterfowl program. Due to the low refuge abundance and the Learn the Hunt Waterfowl program generally targeting traditional duck and goose species, it is estimated take of moorhen will be very low on an annual basis. In some years there may be no take of this species as it is expected the novice hunters will harvest this species opportunistically. There will be negligible impacts to this species under this alternative.

Other Wildlife and Aquatic Species Horicon Refuge is well known for outstanding wildlife values within an intensive agricultural landscape. Waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, raptors, songbirds, reptiles, amphibians, furbearers and other mammals utilize the area. The refuge is especially important for migratory birds, both during the migrating and nesting seasons. Over 300 species of resident and migratory bird species use the refuge throughout the year. Migration counts can number in the tens of thousands including ducks, geese, shorebirds, wading birds and countless other avian species. Some of the resident bird or year-round species include: wild turkey, northern harrier, downy woodpecker, and great horned owl. Wide arrays of other avian species use the refuge due to the scarcity of native habitats within the surrounding area.

The refuge has been recognized as the largest nesting area for redhead ducks east of the Mississippi River. Trumpeter swans were reintroduced to Wisconsin in the late 1980’s and are now regular nesters on the refuge. Hundreds of American white pelican and double-crested cormorants nest colonially on small islands made from dredged spoil material in the marsh. The bald eagle, a recently delisted species from the federal threatened and endangered list, is a common resident and at least four nests have been documented on the refuge in recent years. State listed endangered species which nest on the refuge include the black tern and Forster’s tern. Other nesting water birds such as the black-crowned night heron, sandhill crane and black- necked stilt also nest on the refuge.

The refuge is home to 34 known mammal species. Common species include white-tailed deer, mink, muskrat, raccoon, opossum, striped skunk, red fox, coyote, eastern cottontail, meadow vole, thirteen-lined ground squirrel and little and big brown bats. River otters are also common residents on the refuge. In addition, there are 15 reptile and amphibian species known to occur on the refuge. The most common species include painted turtle, snapping turtle, eastern garter snake, western fox snake, northern leopard frog, western chorus frog, green frog, eastern gray tree frog and American toad. Alternative A – No Action This alternative would have no additional effect on other wildlife populations and aquatic species. Current hunting opportunities result in negligible impacts to other wildlife and aquatic species. Typically impacts are limited to temporary disturbance of these species. As there is adequate habitat available hunting activities have minimal impact. Most hunting activity happens after most species have migrated or are dormant. Animal populations would be managed using the current hunting seasons and locations.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Increased hunting may result in additional short-term disturbance to wildlife since the refuge would be open for additional opportunities for hunting of new species. This disturbance may include temporary displacement of migratory and resident wildlife from foot traffic moving through the area. Under both alternatives approximately 98% of the refuge would be open to hunting during the specified seasons. The only difference between the alternatives is the addition of new species. Although added opportunities exist under Alternative B, the refuge does not anticipate a major change in levels of use historically seen on the refuge as most new species would be hunted concurrently with current hunting seasons.

Disturbance to other non- hunted wildlife under either alternative is minimal. Direct impacts to non-hunted migratory birds such as woodpeckers, raptors and some songbirds including red- winged blackbirds, nuthatches, finches and chickadees are negligible. Indirect impacts to this group of species are also minimal and do not appreciably reduce their numbers at the population level. Shorebirds and wading birds would not be impacted by hunting since, in most cases, they have already migrated through the area prior to the fall hunting season. Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted migratory birds would not have substantial negative indirect impacts because the majority of hunting does not coincide with the nesting season. Other disturbance to these species by hunters afield would be temporary in nature.

Migratory birds of prey (eagles, hawks, etc.) are on the refuge during most hunting seasons but disturbance is minimal. Disturbance to the daily wintering activities, such as feeding and resting, of residential birds might occur but are likely insignificant because such interactions are infrequent and of short duration when they do occur. Areas around eagle nests are generally inaccessible to hunting, so there would be neutral impact. Additionally, there is a possibility of conflict with birds of prey feeding on gut piles that may contain lead fragments. Research has indicated that lead is present in gut piles. As a way to mitigate this the refuge has a voluntary non-lead ammunition outreach program to encourage all hunters to use non-toxic ammunition and a mandatory non-toxic shot requirement for turkey, upland and waterfowl hunting on the refuge.

Small mammals such as muskrat, voles and mice are generally nocturnal or secretive. Both of these qualities make hunter interactions with small mammals very rare. Hibernation, or torpor, of cold-blooded reptiles and amphibians also limits their activity during most of the hunting season when temperatures are low. Hunters would rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians during most of the hunting season. Some species of butterflies and moths are migratory and will not be present for most of the refuge hunting season. Resident invertebrates are not active during cold weather and would have few interactions with hunters during the hunting season. Impacts to these species due to habitat disturbance related to hunting are negligible at the local and flyway levels.

Overall, hunting impacts to other wildlife and their habitats and impacts to the biological diversity of the refuge will likely be insignificant and negligible.

Threatened and Endangered species and Other Special Status Species The refuge follows recovery plan guidelines for the management of federally threatened and endangered species found on the refuge. Species that occur on the refuge or critical habitat in Dodge and Fond du lac County, Wisconsin includes:

• Federally threatened Northern long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines, called hibernacula. They use areas in various sized caves or mines with constant temperatures, high humidity and no air currents. During the summer, northern long-eared bats roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities or in crevices of both live trees and snags (dead trees). • Endangered Whooping cranes (Non-essential Experimental Population) from the reintroduced eastern migratory population have spent all or part of the summer and/or fall

on or near the refuge since 2002. They use the refuge wetland and upland habitat for roosting and foraging. Beginning in 2011, efforts to release whooping cranes on the refuge through these reintroduction efforts were undertaken and young whooping crane chicks have been released on the refuge almost every year since 2011. Only one whooping crane has successfully nested on the refuge; however, this was the result of a successful pairing between a whooping crane and a sandhill crane. • Endangered Rusty patched bumblebee is known to occur on the refuge in suitable habitat and in the county(s) where refuge is located. An area of high potential zone containing critical habitat exists on the refuge and the dispersal zone (low potential) for the rusty patched bumblebee encompasses the entire refuge.

Alternative A and B A consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was formerly conducted as part of this Environmental Assessment and the updated Hunt Plan. It was determined that both alternatives are not likely to conflict with recovery and/or protection of these species. A determination of “No Effect” was made for the northern long-eared bat, as the bat is not known to occur on the refuge therefore, not directly or indirectly affecting (neither negatively nor beneficially) individuals or designated critical habitat. While a determination of “may affect but not likely to adversely affect” was made for the whooping crane and rusty patched bumble bee, the proposed plan is not likely to adversely affect individuals and/or designated critical habitat. See Appendix C for full analysis (Section 7). At this time, no impacts are anticipated for any state listed species.

Vegetation Refuge lands consist of approximately 15,500 acres of marsh, 2,000 acres of woodlands and 3,600 acres of grasslands. More specifically, land use within refuge boundaries is primarily perennial marsh habitat with some wet meadow areas, especially in the west. Fragmented upland forest and grasslands surround the wetland portions of the refuge. The majority of the marsh basin is cattail marsh, dominated by hybrid cattail, or shallow marsh and wet meadow, dominated by reed canary grass. About half of the wetland areas consist of slightly deeper open water areas and ditches in which stands of submersed aquatics are found. Lowland woodlands of willow and ash occur on islands in the marsh and surrounding lands along with shrub swamps.

Upland grasslands as well as woods of oaks and hickory make up the bulk of the upland area. Grassland units are broken up and described as being either cool-season or warm-season. Cool- season units are typically dominated by non-native invasive grasses. Warm season units are typically seeded and managed for native prairie mixes. Oak savanna, a historically abundant community type in this region, is being actively restored in few areas of the refuge where open grown bur oak typically occur at low densities with an understory that resembles typical upland prairie.

Alternative A and B Under both alternatives approximately 98% of the refuge would be open to hunting during the specified seasons. The only difference between the alternatives is addition of new species. Although added opportunities exist under Alternative B, the refuge does not anticipate a major change in levels of use historically seen on the refuge. At its highest levels of use, under current

management the refuge will experience up to approximately 1200 hunter use days annually under Alternative B, the refuge is generally expected to experience an increase of approximately 200 hunter use days annually.

Off trail use for hunting is allowed on the refuge. This use is typically spread across the refuge and its various access points near locations open to hunting. Depending on the site conditions and extent of access, this could potentially result in higher levels of vegetation trampling, soil disturbance, and erosion, which in turn could potentially affect refuge habitat quality by inhibiting local plant growth and increasing potential for erosion. This added access is expected to still be localized, infrequent and primarily at a time of year when impacts to habitat are minimized. Negligible effect to vegetation from trampling of hunters is expected because of the low number of users and days of use expected. With the increase of off trail use there is a potential for the spread of invasive species, specifically in the upland areas from spring and late fall hunting activities. The refuge monitors and actively manages for invasive species and any spread of invasives from the increase of hunting is expected to be negligible.

Wetlands Emergent marsh is the most abundant community type on the refuge at approximately 15,600 acres. The refuge contains a large wetland complex separated into eighteen management pools. Water levels fluctuate in the impoundments both naturally and through the use of water control structures between the impoundments and, less often, with the help of pumping stations.

Horicon marsh is known for being the largest freshwater cattail marsh in the United States. However, the prevalence of the invasive cattails dominate many marsh areas. Horicon Marsh, was designated a “Wetland of International Importance” by the Ramsar Convention on December 4, 1991. It was also recognized as a Globally Important Bird Area in the American Bird Conservancy’s United States Important Bird Areas program in 1997 and as a State Important Bird Area in 2004 because it provides valuable migration habitat for Canada geese, ducks, and other migratory birds. Over 50% of the Mississippi Flyway Canada Geese migrate through the Marsh during the fall, as does 2% of the biogeographic population of Mallards (USFWS 2007). It also provides an expansive wetland complex in a region that has seen close to 90% of its wetlands converted for purposes such as agriculture or development.

Alternative A and B Negligible impacts to wetlands are expected to occur. Impacts would be associated with the use of habitat for hunting and as stated in the vegetation analysis this is not expected to have positive or negative impacts on the wetland ecosystem. Take of species associated with wetlands would result in negligible impacts as hunting take limits are monitored and set for long term viability of species which includes consideration of the impact on habitat. Impacts in both alternatives is estimated to be similar as most of the new hunted species do not occur in this habitat type. In both instances impacts are likely to be insignificant. Neither alternative will result in wetland protection or restoration thus not triggering, Executive Order 11990 with regards to Wetland Protection.

Floodplains

The Rock River Basin is shaped by nearly 3,900 river miles meandering through it and covers approximately 3,750 square miles of land (Kirsch et al., 2002), roughly 1,890 square miles of which belong to the upper division of the watershed where the 22,000-acre refuge is located. Horicon Marsh is located in the headwater region of the Upper Rock River Watershed. The principle source of runoff to the refuge is the west branch of the Rock River, which drains 110 square miles above the refuge before it enters the refuge. Today the Rock River area is primarily rural and most of the surrounding land is used for agriculture. Over the last 200 years, the basin has been altered by widespread hydrologic alterations and land clearing. As a result, of this alteration, the refuge plays an integral role in increasing the function of the Rock River floodplain through protecting and restoring natural floodplain.

Alternative A and B Negligible impacts to resources related to function of the floodplain are expected to occur in both alternatives. Impacts would be associated with use of habitat for hunting and as stated in the vegetation analysis this is not expected to have positive or negative impacts on the wetland ecosystem. Take of species associated with floodplain wetlands would result in negligible impacts as hunting take limits are monitored and set for long term viability of a species which includes consideration of the impact on habitat. No modifications will be made that will increase the floodplain elevation or negatively impact its function and value and thus there will be no impacts to E.O. 11988 – Floodplain Management.

Water Resources Horicon Marsh is roughly 14 miles long and three to five miles wide and is one of the largest freshwater wetlands in the country. It suffers from several water quality issues, of which sedimentation and deposition from upstream inputs, habitat degradation and invasive species spread are likely the most problematic. Sedimentation is primarily caused by land use practices from upstream drainage basins, such as wetland drainage, fall plowing, farming adjacent to streams, agricultural practices over steep land, livestock grazing, and bank erosion (WDNR, 2010).

Alternatives A and B No effects to water resources related to water quality or quantity are expected as a direct or indirect result of increasing hunting opportunities and expanding access.

Affected Visitor Use and Experience Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives

The refuge is open to wildlife observation, photography, hunting, fishing and other public uses. In 2019, the refuge had 426,502 visitors use the refuge, of which, hunting brought 1611 visitors to the refuge while fishing brought 4266.

In an effort to minimize conflicts with priority non-hunting recreational uses outlined in the Improvement Act and for public safety, the refuge designates areas open to hunting and enforces refuge-specific regulations.

The boundaries of all lands owned or managed by the Service are posted with refuge boundary signs. Areas administratively closed to hunting are clearly marked with “No Hunting Zone” or “Area Beyond This Sign Closed” signs.

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative, current refuge hunting opportunities for specific small game, big game, furbearer and migratory bird species would continue across the refuge. The refuge would continue to serve as habitat for fish and wildlife as well as provide outdoor recreational opportunities for all six priority wildlife dependent public uses – hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation.

In addition, the refuge’s ability to connect with certain segments of the public would potentially be diminished since hunting for some popular game species would not be permitted. Hunters would pursue these species off-refuge and thus the refuge’s ability to reach those members of the public and promote natural resources conservation, environmental education and natural resources stewardship may be more limited.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative All other public uses on the refuge would not change and would continue to be managed as described in current plans. Overall, hunting impacts of Alternative A and B to visitor services or other recreation opportunities are considered short-term, minor and local since other parts of the refuge are available for use by non-hunters (other wildlife-dependent recreation users). Impacts between hunters and non-hunters are anticipated to be similar to the impacts between other user groups (i.e. like that between hikers and photographers) and will be negligible.

Affected Cultural Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives

The Service is charged with the responsibility, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, of identifying historic properties (cultural resources that are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by our actions.

The regional historic preservation officer advises the regional director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of these and other cultural resource laws. The actual determinations relating to cultural resources are to be made by the regional historic preservation officer for undertakings on service fee title lands and for undertakings funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of the Service. Undertakings include, those carried out by or on behalf of the Service; those carried out with federal financial assistance, and those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval.

It is the responsibility of the refuge manager to identify undertakings that could affect cultural resources and coordinate the subsequent review process as early as possible with the regional historic preservation officer and state, Tribal, and local officials. In addition, the refuge manager assists the regional historic preservation officer by protecting archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by monitoring archaeological

investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting Archaeological Resources Protection Act violations.

Alternative A and B Neither alternative will have any impacts to cultural resources. No buildings or structures exist on-site that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Hunting is not expected to cause ground disturbance. Any activity that might cause an effect to a historic property would be subject to a case-by-case Section 106 review.

Affected Refuge Management and Operations Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives Land Use Despite changes that have occurred over the years the refuge provides valuable habitat for migratory birds as well as numerous species of resident mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish.

Agriculture has played a significant role in the Rock River Watershed. The predominant land use in the basin is agriculture, including cropland and dairy farms. The refuge is less than 30 miles downstream of the Rock River’s headwaters (USFWS 2007). Significant opportunities and responsibilities for refuge managers accompany such a position in the watershed, since activities in the river’s beginnings have implications for its use and health as it journeys downstream. The Rock River Basin is shaped by nearly 3,900 river miles meandering through it and covers approximately 3,750 square miles of land (Kirsch et al., 2002), roughly 1,890 square miles of which belong to the upper division of the watershed where the 22,000-acre Horicon Refuge is located. Approximately 11,000 acres of the southern portion of Horicon Marsh are managed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities as part of Horicon Marsh State Wildlife Area.

Horicon Marsh is part of the Southeastern Wisconsin Savannah and Till Plain Level IV Ecoregion (53c; Omernik et al., 2004). Land use in this area primarily consists of cropland used to grow forage and feed grains to sustain the region’s dairy industry, and much of the natural vegetation has been cleared for this purpose. However, some forested areas remain on steeper end moraines and depressions (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2008). The natural vegetation that does exist shows a transition from hardwood forests and oak savannahs in the west to tall grass prairies found in the south.

Refuge lands consist of approximately 15,500 acres of marsh, 2,000 acres of woodlands, and 3,600 acres of grasslands. More specifically, land use within refuge boundaries is primarily perennial Marsh habitat with some wet meadow areas, especially in the west. Fragmented upland forest and grasslands surround the wetland portions of the refuge and provide some degree of protection from runoff and nutrient loading contributed by the agricultural lands that surround portions of Horicon Marsh. According to an 1800’s vegetation survey, the majority of the refuge’s historic land cover included marsh and sedge meadow, wet prairie and lowland shrubs. West of the marsh there was bur oak, white oak, and black oak, while land to the east supported communities of sugar maple, basswood, red oak, white oak, and black oak (USFWS 2007).

Alternatives A and B The refuge will continue to engage in habitat management activities during the hunting season to ensure the refuge meets its other management objectives. Impacts would be minimized by ensuring hunters, cooperators and partners are aware of each other’s activities and timed to minimize conflict when possible. No impacts are anticipated under Alternative B to habitat, buildings, infrastructure, traffic or roadways. A negligible increase to traffic on local or adjacent roadways is anticipated, with no increased cost or impacts to infrastructure.

Administration The hunting program is designed to be administered with minimal refuge resources. The costs of administering and enforcing the refuge hunting program comes out of the refuge’s annual budget. Expenses include program management, staff resources, boundary posting, signage, brochures, parking lot construction, road and trail maintenance, facility maintenance, gate installation and other hunting specific activities. Law enforcement of refuge and state hunting regulations, trespass and other violations associated with management of the refuge is the responsibility of a refuge Law Enforcement Officer. Refuge officers cooperate with, and are assisted by, state and county officers as well as state conservation officers. Ongoing coordination and communication between refuge staff and law enforcement officers is conducted throughout the year.

Alternative A No additional increase in costs for administration, law enforcement, biological monitoring and research, or annual maintenance is anticipated for Alternative A. Refuge staff will be able to continue administration of the refuge as costs are already being implemented within existing resource allocations.

Alternative B A minor increase in costs for administration, law enforcement, biological monitoring and research, or annual maintenance is anticipated for Alternative B. Current infrastructure would face an increase in use, however this additional use of trails, roads, and parking lots will be negligible. There will be no creation of new trials and maintenance of roads, trails and other infrastructure will be managed using existing resource allocations. The increase of costs associated with this use is mainly from administration of the new hunting program and will be an increase in staff time. The increase in staff time spent on administering this program can fit within existing staff capacity of the refuge.

Affected Socio-ecomonic Resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Alternatives

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

Alternatives A and B The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. The Service has identified no minority or low income communities within the impact area. Minority or low income communities will not be disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives.

Local and Regional economies The refuge is located in both Dodge and Fond du Lac counties in southeastern Wisconsin. The area directly surrounding the refuge is primarily rural agricultural land but small towns are located within a ten mile radius and larger urban areas such as Milwaukee and Madison are located within an hour drive. In 2017, the refuge had about 434,000 recreational visits which contributed to the economies of Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties. Non-consumptive recreation - activities like birding, photography and hiking - accounted for about 428,000 of those visits, with residents comprising 41 percent of that visitation. This type of recreation brought in $6.5 million to the local economy, with non-residents accounting for $5.1 million or 78 percent of those expenditures (Carver and Caudill 2017). During a nation-wide survey conducted on national wildlife refuges during 2011, it was determined that visitors to Horicon spend between $33-$53 per visit in the local communities for food, gas, supplies or lodging (Sexton et al. 2012).

Alternative A – No Action No effects on the local and regional economy are expected to occur as visitation and expenditure is estimated to stay the same under this alternative.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative A slight increase in visitation and expenditure is anticipated under Alternative B. However, impacts to the local and regional economy are likely to have a negligible effect.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts can “accumulate” spatially when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time from actions in the past, the present, and the future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially cancelling out each other’s effects on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource. The sections below contain brief descriptions of each resource affected by the alternatives considered and anticipated direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on each resource.

Other Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activity Impacting Affected Environment Hunting

Hunting has been allowed on the refuge since 1953 when it was found to be compatible with refuge purposes. The first hunt plan for the refuge was approved in 1984 with multiple amendments to the plan through 2000. Another environmental assessment and hunt plan was completed in 2016 to add species and to modify acreage. Hunting is a popular recreational activity in Wisconsin – listed in the top five favorite outdoor activities of those surveyed during the most recent Wisconsin State-wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Survey. However, it was also noted that only 10% of respondents participated in small game hunting on public land in the past year, only hunting a mean average of 1.21 days (WI SCORP 2019-2023). In addition, past visitor surveys conducted on the refuge (Sexton et al. 2012) have shown that hunting is a small proportion to all public use at Horicon refuge. A total of 334 visitors participated in the survey during two sampling periods and of this total, only 6% of respondents had participated in big game hunting and only 5% in upland/small game hunting. By comparison, 81% of respondents had participated in bird watching and 79% in wildlife observation. Hunting at a national level does not have cumulative impacts on species hunted and locally the refuge is only a small portion of that impact. Refuges, including Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, conduct hunting programs within the framework of state and federal regulations. Population estimates of huntable species are developed at a regional, state and continental scale. Hunting frameworks and take limits are set based upon these estimates. The proposed refuge hunting program rules would conform to hunting regulations in the state of Wisconsin. By maintaining hunting regulations that are the same as or more restrictive than the state, individual refuges ensure that they are maintaining seasons which are supportive of management on a more regional basis. Such an approach also provides consistency with large-scale population status and objectives.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact The proposed action would have minor impacts on the environment of other hunting opportunities locally, regionally or at the national level. The Service does not believe that increasing hunting opportunities on our land would decrease hunting opportunities on other lands near the refuge. Because trends of the number of hunters participating in the sport is declining we believe providing additional opportunities will potentially increase the numbers of hunters that utilize public land for hunting recreation. Private land hunting will not be impacted by the use of public land for hunting. Cumulative impacts of hunting on the full refuge are likely negligible but could presumably result in more hunters participating in the sport over the long term having positive benefits for conservation.

Other wildlife-dependent recreation (i.e. road and trail development and use) To support wildlife dependent recreation the refuge has defined public use access projects in their 2007 Comprehensive Conservation Plan. There is no network of roads or trails that are causing cumulative impacts to the area that are being developed solely to support wildlife- dependent recreation opportunities. However, some wildlife-dependent recreation is reliant upon existing county roads and trails for access. Outdoor recreation is a socio-economic driver in southeastern Wisconsin and the local communities thrive on opportunities for wildlife dependent recreation such as wildlife observation, photography, hiking, hunting and fishing.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact Wildlife dependent recreation is a socio-economic driver, locally, regionally and at the state level. Future development of trails are access to support all wildlife dependent recreational opportunities on the refuge and are not expected to have a cumulative impact on the environment. As projects are proposed, they will go through additional environmental review. Increasing the hunting opportunities under Alternative B is also not likely to adversely impact other outdoor recreational opportunities on the refuge.

Development and Population Increase Since 2010 the population of Dodge County has decreased by 1% and the population of Fond du Lac County has increased by 1.4% (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). There is no regional development plan for reference, however it is estimated that based on current population trends and land use there would not be increased development threatening natural resources.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact Because the refuge uses an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually and revising annually (if necessary), the Service’s hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of population growth and development on migratory waterfowl and other wildlife.

Agricultural land uses Wisconsin has over 68,500 farm operations that cover nearly 14,300,000 acres or 41% of the land (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2017). Typical commodities produced include corn, soybeans, wheat, oats, hay, livestock, and milk. While the expansion of agriculture is not an extensive threat, existing agricultural operations adjacent to the refuge boundaries have had ongoing impacts to refuge lands throughout its history. From 2010 through 2013, one study estimated almost 30%, or more than 530,000 hectares of expiring Natural Resource Conservation Reserve Program land in a 12-state Midwest are returned to production of five major crops, with soy and corn accounting for the vast majority of these shifts (Morefield et al. 2016). The rate of land conversion from grassland enrolled in the conservation reserve program to cropland in surrounding agricultural lands lessens the amount of nutrients and chemicals that can be filtered before reaching wetland areas while simultaneously increasing the level of nutrients and chemicals in the ecosystem through farming practices. Other threats due to agriculture include pesticide drift and eutrophication of waters.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact The refuge will use an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually an revising (if necessary), the Services’ hunt program can be adjusted to endure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of agricultural development on refuge wildlife populations.

Use of lead ammunition/tackle Nontoxic shot is required for all hunting on the refuge; however, lead bullets and shotgun slugs are permitted for taking big game and small game during open seasons. Lead ammunition is prohibited for migratory birds, upland birds and wild turkey. Research has indicated that lead can

be present in gut piles left by deer hunters after field dressing. Bald eagles and other raptors feed on the gut piles and may ingest the lead, leading to poisoning.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact Horicon and other refuges within the region have been educating hunters about the risk to wildlife from lead ammunition. Under these alternatives, the refuge represents a small portion of hunting that would allow the use of lead ammunition (deer and furbearers). The continued allowance of toxic ammunition for hunting of some species is estimated to have a negligible impact on the cumulative impacts of lead in the environment. The Service’s hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of lead on refuge habitats or wildlife.

Climate Change Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. However, the complexity of ecological systems means that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will actually have. In particular, the localized effects of climate change are still a matter of much debate. In the Midwest, the effects are more frequent flooding and warmer overall temperatures (EPA 2016).

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative Impact The refuges uses an adaptive management approach for its hunt program, reviewing the hunt program annually and revising annually (if necessary). The Service’s hunt program can be adjusted to ensure that it does not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of climate change on migratory waterfowl, upland game, and big game.

Summary of Analysis The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact.

Alternative A – No Action Alternative As described above, this alternative would continue to offer hunting of migratory game birds, upland game and big game on Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, however does not provide more alignment with state regulations in Wisconsin. Hunting opportunities would be limited to those interested in only hunting species currently allowed for hunting on the refuge. Effects on wildlife and habitat would be negligible because there would likely be the same amount of use by hunters. This alternative also meets the purpose and needs of the Service as described above, because it would provide wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities for youth and people with disabilities. However, it does not allow increase in access for the variety of hunting opportunities that could be offered nor allow for alignment with state regulations.

Alternative B – Preferred Action Alternative As described above, this alternative will expand hunting opportunities for migratory game birds, upland game and big game. Additional opportunities are likely to attract more hunters. At this time we believe hunting use will not conflict with other visitor uses, and in the future any impact will be mitigated. There are no effects anticipated for endangered or threatened species as a

result of this expansion. Effects on wildlife and habitat would be negligible. This alternative helps meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described above, because it provides additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities on the refuge meeting the Service's priorities and mandates. This alternative also helps align Service regulations with state regulations in an effort to make hunting more accessible and understandable by the American public. The Service has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. The Compatibility Determination can be found in the hunt plan (see Appendix B, Attachment 4).

Mitigation Measures and Conditions There are no additional mitigation measures required beyond what has been described above in Alternative B mitigation measures.

Monitoring Continued annual biological monitoring of both resident and migratory wildlife and their habitats is done on the refuge in conjunction with our State partners. In addition, the station will stay apprised on the status of threatened and endangered species on the refuge through consultation and local monitoring.

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin Tribes U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel: Horicon National Wildlife Refuge Staff, Deb Beck, Cathy Nigg, Brandon Jones

List of Preparers Bill Peterson, Project Leader Dave Bolin, Deputy Project Leader Sadie O’Dell, Wildlife Biologist Jon Krapfl, Biological Technician Erin Railsback, Visitor Services Manager Kristin Rasmussen, Conservation Planner

State Coordination National wildlife refuges, including, Horicon Refuge, conduct hunting programs within the framework of state and federal regulations. All authorized hunts are regulated by the State of Wisconsin, but the refuge may elect to be more restrictive to support refuge management goals. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will review the preferred alternative of this Environmental Assessment and the associated Hunt Plan. The refuge has moved forward with developing Environmental Assessment and Hunt Plan based upon earlier informal coordination with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

The results of this coordination are reflected in this Environmental Assessment and Hunt Plan. Horicon Refuge will continue to consults and coordinate with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources annually to maintain regulations and programs that are consistent with the

state; as well as, to monitor populations of game species and set harvest goals. The refuge will strive to maintain consistent regulations with the state of Wisconsin whenever applicable.

Tribal Consultation A formal letter was sent to all Wisconsin tribes inviting them to provide comments on the proposed changes to the hunting program. Tribes and tribal members are welcome to provide comment during the public comment period.

Public Outreach Public input has previously been sought regarding hunting and fishing opportunities on the refuge since the program begin in the 1950’s. Every plan revision outline in the background section provided an opportunity for the public to voice their opinion. This environmental assessment and 2020 hunt plan will be made available for public comment by posting on the refuge website and during that public comment period the refuge will host an open house.

Determination This section will be filled out upon completion of any public comment period and at the time of finalization of the Environmental Assessment.

☐The Service’s action will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. See the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact.”

☐The Service’s action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and the Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

References

Buehler, D.A., and Keith, L.B. 1982. Snowshoe hare distribution and habitat use in Wisconsin. Canadian Field Naturalist. 96: 19-29.

Carver, E., and J. Caudill. 2017. Banking on Nature 2017: The economic benefits to local communities of National Wildlife Refuge visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics. Washington, D.C. 372 pp.

Crossley, A. 1985. The gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Publication WM-005-85.

Dhuey, Brian 2018. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2018. Winter Track Counts 1977-2018. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/wntrtracks2.pdf

Dhuey, Brian 2019a. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2019. Small Game Harvest 2018-2019 Report. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/graphs/smgharv.pdf

Dhuey, Brian 2019b. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Fur Buyers Report 2018-2019. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/furbuyersrep2.pdf

Dhuey, Brian and Rossler, Shawn. 2019. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Fur Trapper Survey 2018-2019. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/furtrapsurv2.pdf

Dhuey, Brian and Rossler, Shawn. 2017. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Bobcat Harvest 2017. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/bobcatharv.pdf

Dhuey, Brian and Walter Scott and Koele, Brad. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2018 Wisconsin Black Bear Harvest Report. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/bbharv2.pdf

(DOI) U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation. Available from: https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/nationalsurvey/nat_survey2016.pdf

Ebird 2019. Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas II. Final Season Summary. Common Gallinule. Available from: https://ebird.org/map/comgal1

Gerlach, M.S., 2016. Water Resource Inventory and Assessment (WRIA) Summary Report: Horicon National Wildlife Refuge. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York.

Horicon NWR Water Resources Inventory and Assessment USFWS.

Kelley,J.R.,S Willimamson and T.R. Cooper. 2008. American Woodcock conservation plan: A summary of and recommendations for woodcock conservation in North America. Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Kirsch et al. (2002). Predicting sediment and phosphorus loads in the Rock River Basin using SWAT. Trans. ASAE 45(6):1757-1769.

Kremer, Rich. (Thursday, March 10, 2016). Bobcat Sightings on the Rise in Southern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Public Radio. Retrieved from: https://www.wpr.org/bobcat-sightings-rise-southern- wisconsin.

Murray, Dennis L. 2000. A geographic analysis of snowshoe hares. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 78(7):1207-1215.

N Sexton, N.R., A.M. Dietsch, A.W. Don Carlos, L. Koontz, A.N. Solomon, and H.M. Miller. 2012. National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2010/2011: Individual Refuge Results for Horicon National Wildlife

Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2008). Rapid Watershed Assessment: Manitowoc- Sheboygan River Watershed. 19p.

Omernik, J.M. (1995). Ecoregions - a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p.49-62.

Omernik, J.M. (2004). Perspectives on the nature and definitions of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v. 34, Supplement 1, p. s27-s38.

Roberts, Nathan M. 2019a. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2019. Black Bear Population Analyses. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/bearpop.pdf

Roberts, Nathan M. 2019b. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2019. Bobcat Population Analyses 2019. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/bobcatpop2.pdf

Ryan, Tami. 1999. Wisconsin Natural Resources magazine. A howl over coyotes. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/html/stories/1999/dec99/coyote.htm

United States Census Bureau. 2019. Quickfacts tool (search by county). Available from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/

USFWS 2003. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service & International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. How to Avoid Incidental Take of Lynx, While Trapping or Hunting Bobcats and other Furbearers. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/wm/WM0458.pdf

USFWSb. 2019. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 hunting seasons. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/surveys-and- data/HarvestSurveys/MBHActivityHarvest2017-18and2018-19.pdf

USFWS. 2007. Horicon and Fox River National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/5985 .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2016). 2016 Hunt Plan and Environmental Assessment for Horicon National Wildlife Refuge and Fox River National Wildlife Refuge.

UWSP 2004. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Vertebrate Collection. Gray Fox. Available from:https://www.uwsp.edu/biology/VertebrateCollection/Pages/Vertebrates/Mammals%20of%2 0Wisconsin/Urocyon%20cinereoargenteus/Urocyon%20cinereoargenteus.aspx

WDNRa. Furbearers. Learn About Furbearers of Wisconsin. Gray Fox. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/furbearers.html

WDNRb. 2019. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Ruffed Grouse Management Plan 2020-2030 DRAFT.

WDNRc. 2019. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Upland Birds 2019 Fall Forecast. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/2019uplandfallforecast.pdf

WDNRd. 2019. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Migratory Game Birds 2019-20 Fall Forecast. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/2019migratoryforecast.pdf

WDNR 2019a. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Black Bear Management Plan 2019-2029. Wisconsin DNR Advisory Committee. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/bearplan.pdf

WDNR 2019b. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Furbearers 2019 Fall Forecast. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/2019furbearerforecast.pdf

WDNR 2014. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Red Fox. Available from: https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/wm/wm0583.pdf

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2010). Upper Rock Watershed Water Quality Management Plan Update. 12p. Available online:

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin State-wide Outdoor Recreation Plan 2019-2023. (2019). https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/scorp/.

Appendix A Other Applicable Statutes, Executive Orders and Regulations List any additional steps taken by the Service to comply with these laws. This should include steps that the Applicant has taken to comply with these laws that have additional impacts on the environment, including any applicable permits. It should also include any steps the Service has taken to meet its responsibilities to comply with these laws, but should be clear about whose responsibility and action it is, the Applicant’s or the Service’s. If a law is selected additional compliance was required.

Cultural Resources ☐ American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7 ☐ Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; 43 CFR Part 3 ☐ Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7 ☐ National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810 ☐ Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11 ☐ Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10 ☐ Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971) ☐ Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996)

Cultural resources will not be impacted under either alternatives proposed to meet the purpose and need for action. No additional compliance is required.

Fish and Wildlife ☐ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22 ☒ Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 ☐ Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m ☐ Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904 ☐ Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21 ☐ Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001) A consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was formerly conducted as part of this Environmental Assessment and the updated Hunt Plan and it was determined that both alternatives are not likely to conflict with recovery and/or protection of these species. A determination of “No Effect” was made for the northern long-eared bat, as the bat is not known to occur on the refuge therefore, not directly or indirectly affecting (neither negatively nor beneficially) individuals or designated critical habitat. While a determination of “may affect but not likely to adversely affect” was made for the whooping crane and rusty patched bumble bee,

the proposed plan is not likely to adversely affect individuals and/or designated critical habitat. See Appendix C. At this time, no impacts are anticipated for any state listed species.

Natural Resources ☐ Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23 ☐ Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. ☐ Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. ☐ Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999) Natural resources will not be impacted under either alternatives proposed to meet the purpose and need for action. No additional compliance is required.

Appendix B

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge Upland Game, Migratory Game Bird and Big Game Hunt Plan

See separate attached document.

Appendix C

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

See separate attached document.