U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

St. Croix Wetland Management District

Habitat Management Plan

June 2020

Wildlife on a muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) hut at Bierbrauer WPA. (Thomas Kerr,USFWS)

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Habitat Management Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program-planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, over 460 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, as well as 38 wetland management districts.

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Habitat Management Plan St. Croix Wetland Management District

Signature Page1

Action Signature /Printed Name Date

Digitally signed by CHRISTOPHER TROSEN Prepared By: CHRISTOPHER TROSEN Date: 2020.06.22 07:29:11 -05'00' Chris Trosen, Refuge Biologist / Jennifer Herner-Thogmartin, DNRCP Wildlife Biologist

Submitted By: Digitally signed by BRIDGET BRIDGET OLSON OLSON Date: 2020.06.23 16:13:06 -05'00' Bridget Olson, Project Leader Digitally signed by CATHERINE Reviewed By: CATHERINE NIGG NIGG Date: 2020.06.26 14:58:13 -05'00' Cathy Nigg, Refuge Supervisor, Area 2 Digitally signed by JEANNE Reviewed By: JEANNE HOLLER HOLLER Date: 2020.06.29 08:43:39 -05'00' Jeanne Holler (Acting) Chief, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning Digitally signed by SUZANNE Approved By: SUZANNE BAIRD BAIRD Date: 2020.06.29 15:03:29 -05'00' Suzanne Baird, Regional Refuge Chief

1 Signatures apply to all contents of the HMP. ii

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table of Contents Signature Page ...... ii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 4 1.0 Scope and Rationale ...... 5 1.1 Legal Mandates ...... 6 1.2 Relationship to Other Plans ...... 6 Chapter 2: Background ...... 12 2.0 District Location and Description ...... 13 2.1 Physical/Geographic Setting ...... 16 2.2 Climate ...... 22 2.3 Historic Perspective ...... 22 2.4 Current Land Classification and District Conditions ...... 26 Chapter 3: Resources of Concern ...... 40 3.0. Introduction...... 41 3.1. Comprehensive Resources of Concern ...... 41 3.2. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ...... 43 3.3. Priority Refuge Resources of Concern ...... 44 3.4. Relationship between Refuge Habitats and Priority Resources of Concern ...... 46 3.5. Priorititization of District Habitats ...... 52 3.6. Prioritization of Wetland Management Units ...... 54 3.7. Conflict Resolution ...... 54 3.8. Adaptive Management ...... 55 Chapter 4: Habitat Goals, Objectives, Strategies ...... 57 4.0 Introduction ...... 58 4.1 Grassland Management (High Priority) ...... 61 4.2 Wetland Management (High Priority) ...... 67 4.3 Savanna Management (High Priority) ...... 71 4.4 Forest Management (Low Priority) ...... 75 Literature Cited ...... 79 Appendix A: CCP Goals and Objectives ...... 91 Appendix B: St Croix WMD Wetland Thunderstorm Map ...... 93 Appendix C: St. Croix WMD 2020 seed species list ...... 94 Appendix D: ROCSTAR Comprehensive list of species for St. Croix WMD ...... 99

June 2020 1

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Appendix E: ROCSTAR: Resources of Concern Selection Tool for Americas Refuges ...... 100 Appendix F: Prioritization tool ...... 109 Appendix G: Current and desired conditions of habitat types within each WPA and conservation easement ...... 113 Appendix H: Habitat Management Strategy Descriptions ...... 130

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Bird conservation regions of Wisconsin. Most of St. Croix Wetland Management District is within BCR 23: Prairie Hardwood Transition...... 10 Figure 1.2. Karner blue butterfly high potential range regulatory map (Source: Figure 6.10. in WDNR 2010)...... 11 Figure 2.1. Location of St. Croix Wetland Management District and District office...... 14 Figure 2.2. Overview of St. Croix Wetland Management District Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) management units and U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) conservation easements (formerly Farmers Home Administration). Figure created by Jim Lutes 4/2/2014...... 15 Figure 2.3. Wisconsin’s Ecological Landscapes (WDNR 2015b). Figure created by Jim Lutes 4/2/2014...... 17 Figure 2.4. Other conservation lands in the area of St. Croix Wetland Management District (Source: 2008 St. Croix WMD CCP; Table 13). Figure created by Jim Lutes on 4/2/2014...... 19 Figure 2.5. Major watersheds, lakes and rivers of St. Croix Wetland Management District (USFWS 2008a). Figure created by Jim Lutes 4/2/2014...... 21 Figure 2.6. Pre-settlement vegetation in St. Croix Wetland Management District. (Finley 1976). Figure created by Chris Trosen 4/16/2020...... 24 Figure 2.7. Current landcover of the St. Croix Wetland Management District (Source: Wisclands 2.0, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)...... 30 Figure 2.8. Location of Bird Conservation Areas within St. Croix Wetland Management District...... 32 Figure 2.9. Permanently protected lands in St. Croix Wetland Management District with focus areas...... 34 Figure H.1. Phases of strategic and adaptive invasive plant management...... 148 Figure H.2. Phases of invasive species invasion and control (from Rawlins et al. 2011)...... 149

List of Tables Table 2.1. Percent land cover by county in the St. Croix Wetland Management District...... 25 Table 2.2. Population projections 2015-2040 in St. Croix Wetland Management District counties. Source: 2008 St. Croix WMD CCP (See Table 3 but updated with information from Wisconsin Department of Administration Official Population Projections, June 2013)...... 26 Table 2.3. Summary of habitats that represent existing biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, within St. Croix Wetland Management District...... 27

June 2020 2

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table 3.1. Plans and lists from which potential resources of concern were identified for each taxon within St. Croix Wetland Management District...... 42 Table 3.2. Selected priority resources of concern and reasons for selection for St. Croix Wetland Management District...... 45 Table 3.3. Habitat requirements for St. Croix Wetland Management District priority resources of concern...... 47 Table 3.4. Priority resources of concern and other benefiting species on St. Croix Wetland Management District...... 50 Table 3.5. High and low priority habitats on St. Croix Wetland Management District...... 52 Table 3.6. St. Croix Wetland Management District priority resources of concern and associated priority habitats...... 54 Table 4.1. Crosswalk between the goals and objectives identified in the St. Croix Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Appendix A) and the goals and objectives developed for the St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Managemenr Plan...... 58 Table 4.2. Current and desired acres by broad habitat types within St. Croix Wetland Management District. See Appendix G, Table G.1 for current and desired conditions of habitat types within each WPA. See objectives for explaination of differences between current and desired acres...... 60 Table F.1. Criteria used to prioritize St. Croix Wetland Magement District WPAs using the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART)...... 109 Table F.2. Ranking results for St. Croix Wetland Magement District WPAs using a Simple Multi- Attribute Rating Technique (SMART)...... 110 Table F.3. St. Croix Wetland Management District Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) table with rankings...... 111 Table G.1: Current and desired conditions of habitat types within each WPA and management action history...... 113

June 2020 3

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Chapter 1: Introduction

Fall morning on Erickson WPA. (Thomas Kerr, USFWS)

1.0. Scope and Rationale 1.1. Legal Mandates 1.2. Relationship to Other Plans

June 2020 4

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

1.0 Scope and Rationale

St. Croix Wetland Management District (District or WMD) was established in 1993 and manages more than 8,500 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) that span eight counties. The District also manages 15 (439 acres) conservation easements. St. Croix WMD is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS or System). The mission of the NWRS is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans”.

In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Public Law 105-57) renewing its vision for the future of the refuge system where: • A strong and singular wildlife conservation mission for the Refuge System • Wildlife comes first • Refuges are anchors for biodiversity and ecosystem-level conservation • Lands and waters of the System are biologically healthy • Refuge lands reflect national and international leadership in habitat management and wildlife conservation • The biological integrity, diversity and environmental health must be maintained, defined in 601 FW 3. • Monitoring of plant and animal populations is essential

In September 2008 St. Croix WMD completed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), which is designed to guide the management and administration of the District for a period of 15 years while adhering to the NWRS and the District mission and vision (USFWS 2008a). Identified within the CCP are broadly defined goals and objectives for the management of wildlife and habitats within the District (Appendix A). The Vision Statement of the 2008 St. Croix WMD CCP is: Waterfowl and other migratory birds find District lands isles of refuge in a landscape of increasing residential development. Native plants and animals, amazing in their diversity, flourish on District and private lands from the efforts of many active partners. Neighbors and visitors enjoy and value District lands and work to conserve the region’s natural heritage.

The following Habitat Management Plan (HMP) serves as a step-down plan from the CCP and provides a more precise guide to the goals, objectives, and strategies for the management of wildlife and habitats at St. Croix WMD. The HMP will help facilitate thoughtful and explicit planning for habitat objectives and management actions. Additionally, the HMP will inform the District’s Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) and Annual Habitat Work Plans. This plan was prepared in accord with FWS Habitat Management Plans policy (620 FW 1). It also complies with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing the management of units of the NWRS.

June 2020 5

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

The lifespan of this HMP coincides with the 15-year cycle for the Districts’ CCPs. HMPs may be peer reviewed every five years as needed. The District managers may modify the CCP and/or HMP at any time if new information suggests these plans are inadequate or would result in resource benefits.

1.1 Legal Mandates

St. Croix WMD was established in 1993 to manage lands for the purpose of enhancing waterfowl production and ensure the preservation of habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered native species, and resident wildlife. Key legal conservation provisions of the WMD are in this section. For a detailed list of legal mandates and authorities, see Appendix E of the St. Croix WMD CCP (USFWS 2008a).

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act was established on February 19, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222) as amended, 16 (U.S.C. 715d, 715e, 715f, to 715k and 715l to 715r). The Act provides for the acquisition of lands determined to be suitable as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.

Waterfowl Production Areas within the St. Croix WMD are acquired under the establishing authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 as amended in 1958 through the Small Wetland Acquisition Program (16 U.S.C. 718-718h). The Act authorized the “…acquisition by gift, devise, lease, purchase, or exchange of, small wetland pothole areas, interest therein, and right-of-way to provide access thereto. Such small areas to be designated as ‘Waterfowl Production Areas’, may be acquired without regard to the limitations and requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act”.

“…As Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “…all the provisions of such Act…except the inviolate sanctuary provisions…” 16 U.S.C. 718c (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp).

Mandate for Farmers Home Administration Easements and Fee Title Transfers, “…for conservation purposes…” 7 U.S.C. at 2002 (Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act).

1.2 Relationship to Other Plans

The wildlife and habitat goals and objectives described in this HMP are consistent with other District plans, as well as, regional and national conservation plans. The plans listed below were key resources used to develop the HMP.

District Plans

St. Croix WMD Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) As described above, the HMP is a step-down plan from the St. Croix Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2008a; ServCat Record: 1493). The CCP is a long-term, comprehensive plan that guides all aspects of conservation in the District, including habitat management, public use and general District operations. However, the wildlife and

June 2020 6

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

habitat goals and objectives in the CCP (Appendix A) are not specific enough to guide implementation practices. Therefore, the HMP focuses on and refines the broad vision for habitat management provided in the CCP. The goals and objectives contained within this HMP support the purposes for which St. Croix WMD was established and are consistent with the actions outlined in Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) of the 2008 CCP’s Environmental Assessment.

St. Croix WMD Fire Management Plan Fire is a key ecological process in prairie, wetland, and savanna ecosystems. Therefore, prescribed fire is the primary habitat management tool used on St. Croix WMD habitats. The St. Croix Wetland Management District Wildland Fire Management Plan (USFWS 2008b; ServCat Record: 54791; 2020 in Prep) is an operational guide for managing the wildland fire program of the District. The fire plan was developed in order to comply with both Department of Interior and Service requirements that units with burnable vegetation develop a fire management plan (620 DM 1). The Fire Management Plan outlines a program that accounts for the safest, most cost effective and ecologically responsible suppression of all wildland fires and includes the steps to implement a prescribed fire program.

St. Croix Farming Plan To standardize how the station uses farming to achieve management goals, the District developed the St. Croix Wetland Management District Farming Program Implementation Plan (USFWS 2014a; ServCat Record: 114551). As outlined in the plan, the District uses farming as a tool to prepare seedbeds for planting with native prairie species. Farming a site prior to planting, using genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant crops (corn and soybeans only), provides one or more years of undesirable plant/weed control and provides a competitive advantage to native prairie species planted after the farming practice ends. The District only uses farming for seedbed preparation and does not use farming to provide food for wildlife. The District partners with local farmers to prepare seedbeds for planting.

Grazing and Haying Plan The St. Croix Wetland Management District Grazing and Haying Program Management Plan (USFWS 2015a; ServCat Record: 54793) was developed to standardize the process for implementation of grazing and haying programs on WPAs in western Wisconsin. The District spans across Wisconsin's Western Prairie, Forest Transition and Western Coulee & Ridge Ecological Landscapes (WDNR 2015b). The District uses mechanical and chemical forms of disturbance in addition to prescribed fire to maintain and enhance diversity within grassland and oak savanna habitat.

State, Regional, and National Plans

Wisconsin Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy (Straub et al. 2019) The Wisconsin Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy (Straub et al. 2019) was collaboratively developed to update how and where partners will focus habitat conservation efforts through the year 2035. The new rategy supersedes all previous out dated strategies, summarizes 30 years of accomplishments, provides habitat goals for the life of the plan, summarizes landscape

June 2020 7

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

and waterfowl population change in Wisconsin since 1992, provides a detailed habitat delivery decision support process, suggests research, monitoring and planning priorities to improve future waterfowl habitat conservation and gives guidance on how to implement the decision support tool found within the new Strategy. The St. Croix Wetland Management District will use this strategy to collaboratively work with partners to help achieve the goals found within.

Wisconsin Waterfowl Management Plan (Finger and Rohrer 2020) (https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/WisconsinWaterfowlPlan.pdf) The Wisconsin Waterfowl Management Plan was developed to focus Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) efforts toward the continued management of waterfowl populations in the state. The plan addresses the need for providing habitats and management for nonbreeding and breeding species while also working to provide quality waterfowl hunting opportunities throughout the state. The Wisconsin Waterfowl Management Plan (Finger and Rohrer 2020) identifies five objectives which are: • Objective 1: Maintain, enhance and manage habitats consistent with the Upper Mississippi River Great Lakes Region Joint Venture’s Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy to meet the year-round ecological needs of Wisconsin’s diverse waterfowl. • Objective 2: Monitor and evaluate waterfowl populations in Wisconsin across seasons and locations and use this information to guide habitat and harvest management. • Objective 3: Through continued research, seek to better understand the factors that influence changes to resident breeding waterfowl populations, migrating waterfowl populations and waterfowl hunters. Apply new data to inform habitat and harvest management strategies as well as seek a better understanding of hunter satisfaction and the public’s interest in waterfowl. • Objective 4: Improve waterfowl hunter’s experiences and satisfaction and increase hunter recruitment and retention efforts and continue to educate hunters and the general public on Wisconsin’s history of managing waterfowl and waterfowl hunting seasons. • Objective 5: Manage resident Canada goose (Branta Canadensis) populations at a level that balances societal perspectives.

Wisconsin Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program is administered by the USFWS and includes the distribution of federal funds to all states and territories for the conservation of wildlife resources of greatest conservation need. Implementation of the SWG program requires each state to complete a plan that guides the actions of the state in allocating SWG funds towards conservation activities. As mandated by participation in the SWG program, the state of Wisconsin completed the Wisconsin Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need in 2005 (WDNR 2005). Among the many purposes of this plan, it serves to identify Wisconsin native wildlife species that are most at risk of becoming endangered or threatened, delineates their distribution within the state, identifies the habitats they are associated with, and identifies actions that can developed to contribute to their conservation. The plan was updated in 2015 (WDNR 2015a) and can be accessed here: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/actionplan.html

June 2020 8

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

All of the HMP priority species identified herein are also Species of Greatest Conservation Need as identified by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. In addition, Wisconsin’s strategy also identifies Conservation Opportunity Areas in the state, some of which overlap with WMD boundaries and focus areas.

Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Plans include: • Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Implementation Plan (UMRGLR JV. 2007) • Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Shorebird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Potter et al. 2007a) • Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy (Soulliere et al. 2017) • Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterbird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Soulliere et al. 2018) • Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Potter et al. 2007b)

The Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture all-bird, shorebird, waterfowl, waterbird, and landbird plans provides land managers with guidance regarding conservation strategies that can be used in managing bird habitats. These plans establish regional bird population and habitat conservation objectives and provide estimates of the size and types of habitats required to increase and sustain populations of focal bird species at target levels. Focal species identified in these plans were considered during our evaluation of ROC specific to St. Croix WMD.

USFWS Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities In 2002, the USFWS identified the species considered to be in the greatest need of attention in Region 3 under the full span of USFWS authority (USFWS 2002). This plan also associated each species with ecosystems and habitats, and identified conservation concerns, desired outcomes, conservation obstacles, and conservation strategies associated with each species.

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern As mandated by the 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, in 2008 the USFWS identified species, subspecies and populations of all migratory nongame birds that were likely to become candidate species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This document identifies which species fall into this category as well as species that were already candidate species and species that had been recently delisted. Additionally, it identifies which Bird Conservation Region (BCR) each species is associated with. Most of St. Croix WMD is within BCR 23, Prairie Hardwood Transition (USFWS 2008c). See Figure 1.1.

June 2020 9

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 1.1. Bird conservation regions of Wisconsin. Most of St. Croix Wetland Management District is within BCR 23: Prairie Hardwood Transition.

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan Partners in Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plans (BCP) identify species and habitats most in need of conservation, establish objectives for bird populations and habitats within physiographic areas, and make recommendations for needed conservation actions. St. Croix WMD is encompassed by the PIF Upper Great Lakes Plain, physiographic area 16 (Knutson et al. 2001). This area is known as the “driftless area” because it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. Habitats within the area include broadleaf forests, oak savannas, and a diversity of prairie communities.

June 2020 10

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003a) and Wisconsin Statewide Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan (WDNR 2010) Karner Blue Butterflies are a Federally Endangered species that are dependent on wild lupine (Lupinus perennis), its only known larval food plant, and on nectar plants. Wild lupine historically occurred in savanna and barren habitats characterized by dry sandy soils, but only remnants of these types of habitats remain. Wild lupine will also grow in rights-of-ways, airports, military bases, and utility corridors. St. Croix WMD is within the Karner Blue Butterfly’s historical range (Figure 1.2) and the savanna habitat that was historically present in the District may have supported these butterflies at one time. Although wild lupine grows on the District, Karner blue butterflies (KBB) have not been recorded. Any restoration of this habitat would be beneficial to this species. Possible reintroductions of this species may be feasible and would follow the recommendations of the recovery plan. The Crex Meadows State Wildlife Area complex in Burnett County is within the St. Croix WMD boundaries and has one of the highest populations of Karner Blue Butterflies in the state of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin KBB Habitat Conservation Plan (WDNR 2010), the first state-wide habitat conservation plan developed in the nation, identifies guidelines and management protocols to avoid and limit incidental take of KBB.

Figure 1.2. Karner blue butterfly high potential range regulatory map (Source: Figure 6.10. in WDNR 2010). June 2020 11

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Chapter 2: Background

Trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator) – Oak Ridge WPA. (Thomas Kerr, USFWS).

2.0. District Location and Description 2.1. Physical/Geographic Setting 2.2. Climate 2.3. Historic Perspective 2.4. Current Land Classification and District Conditions

June 2020 12

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

2.0 District Location and Description

St. Croix WMD located in western Wisconsin is about 40 miles east of the metropolitan area of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota (Figure 2.1). District headquarters are located about four miles west of the city of New Richmond (population 9,300), or four miles east of Somerset (population 3,000) off of 95th street on the St. Croix Prairie WPA. The District manages 43 WPAs encompassing over 8,500 acres across eight, west-central Wisconsin counties including Barron, Burnett, Dunn, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, St. Croix and Washburn (Figure 2.2). The District also manages and enforces 15 U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements (formerly Farmers Home Administration) totaling 439 acres (Figure 2.2). Easements on the St. Croix WMD receive varying levels of management based on habitat and landowner interest. Some easements are grazed and hayed, while others have active timber management programs. All management performed on easements within the St. Croix WMD is accomplished in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Policy as outlined in the Midwest Region Easement Manual (USFWS 2016, third edition).

St. Croix WMD covers eight counties in west-central Wisconsin where land acquisition for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System as waterfowl production areas has been pre- approved. The area covered by the District include some of the most important waterfowl breeding and stopover areas of western Wisconsin. Waterfowl Production Areas consist of a habitat complex of wetlands, grassland and woodland communities (like oak savanna). While WPAs are managed primarily for waterfowl, they also provide habitat for a variety of other wildlife species such as grassland birds, Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), shorebirds, wading birds, mink (Neovison vison), muskrat, wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

June 2020 13

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 2.1. Location of St. Croix Wetland Management District and District office.

June 2020 14

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 2.2. Overview of St. Croix Wetland Management District Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) management units and U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) conservation easements (formerly Farmers Home Administration). Figure created by Jim Lutes 4/2/2014.

June 2020 15

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

2.1 Physical/Geographic Setting

St. Croix WMD land covers four different ecological landscapes; Northwest Sands, Forest Transition, Western Prairie, and Western Coulee and Ridges (Figure 2.3). The counties that lie within the District owe much of their ecology to the glacial history of Wisconsin. Glacier activity in Wisconsin ended about 10,000 years ago (WDNR 2015b) and left behind potholes that were formed when glaciers advanced and retreated over the area. The Western Prairie Ecological Landscape (Figure 2.3) at the center of the District contains most of the District’s WPAs in St. Croix county and southern Polk county. This area is also known as Wisconsin’s only Prairie Pothole Region and is characterized by its glaciated topography and primarily open landscape with rich prairie soils and pothole lakes, ponds, and wet depressions (WDNR 2015b). Sandstone underlies a mosaic of soils but silty loams, that can be both shallow and stony, are the dominant soil type, whereas alluvial sands and gravels are found in stream valleys (WDNR 2015b).

The northern portion of the District (northern Polk, Barron and southern Washburn counties) lies primarily in the Forest Transition Ecological Landscape (Figure 2.3) whose western portion lies on the moraines of the Wisconsin glaciation (WDNR 2015b). The soils are diverse and range from poorly drained to well drained. The most northern section of the District falls within the Northwest Sands ecological landscape and is within Burnett and northern Washburn counties. This area is a xeric glacial outwash system consisting of a large outwash plain pitted with depressions, or “kettle lakes,” and a former spillway of Glacial Lake Duluth (which preceded Lake Superior) and its associated terraces (WDNR 2015b). The soils are sandy or loamy with organic peat soils in wetlands. The southern and eastern part of the District lies within the Western Coulee and Ridges Ecological Landscape, that “is characterized by its highly eroded, Driftless topography and relatively forested landscape. Soils are silt loams (loess) and sandy loams over sandstone residuum over dolomite (WDNR 2015b)”.

June 2020 16

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 2.3. Wisconsin’s Ecological Landscapes (WDNR 2015b). Figure created by Jim Lutes 4/2/2014.

June 2020 17

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

The 252 miles of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, managed by the National Park Service, forms much of the western boundary of the District (Figure 2.4). The Riverway includes the St. Croix and Namekogan Rivers and their biologically diverse habitats. “The St. Croix Valley is an important route for migrating birds. It connects the western Great Lakes basin and much of central Canada with the Mississippi Flyway. Millions of birds annually pass along the Riverway during spring and fall migrations. Many of these migrants depend upon the contiguous forested corridor that the Riverway protect” (NPS 2019).

The USDA Forest Service manages the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. The Great Divide Ranger District covers those portions of the National Forest falling within southern Bayfield, Ashland and Sawyer counties. Sawyer county is the next county immediately east of Burnett county within the Wetland Management District. Lands within the Great Divide Ranger District contain large tracts of wetland, pine barrens, forest, river and grassland habitat.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources also manages significant land holdings within the eight counties of the District ranging from large protected areas in Burnett county such as Crex Meadows (30,000 acres), Fish Lake (14,000 acres), Amsterdam Sloughs (7,233 acres) and Namekogan Barrens (6,446 acres) Wildlife Areas as well as the Governor Knowles State Forest (32,500 acres) to smaller parcels adjacent to or that are embedded in several WPAs in St. Croix and Polk counties like Ten Mile Creek and Spring Meadows Wildlife Areas (Figure 2.4).

June 2020 18

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 2.4. Other conservation lands in the area of St. Croix Wetland Management District (Source: 2008 St. Croix WMD CCP; Table 13). Figure created by Jim Lutes on 4/2/2014.

June 2020 19

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

To maximize the value of our collective conservation efforts, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU 2015) to work together on landscape scale projects that benefit all partners. The first project the partners decided to work on was a pollinator project called the Pollinator Pledge. The Pollinator Pledge engaged over 110 organizations to actively work on projects or donate funds toward projects that benefit monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) and other pollinator species throughout the St. Croix River Valley. The Pollinator Pledge Project is an example for how the St. Croix Wetland Management District works with partners to expand and improve pollinator habitat within the District and beyond.

Watershed The St. Croix Wetland Management District is located almost entirely within the St. Croix (SCRB) and Lower Chippewa River Basins (LCRB) which are components of the Mississippi River Watershed (Figure 2.5). Together the St. Croix and Lower Chippewa River Basins encompass 9,403.52 square miles of northwestern Wisconsin. The eight county District makes up 5,773.81 square miles within the two watersheds.

Like many watersheds in the state of Wisconsin, and across the county, the SCRB and LCRB face challenges that include, but are not limited to, water quality, human development, sedimentation, wetland loss, point and non-point source pollution, terrestrial and aquatic invasive species, high levels of contaminants, fluctuations in fishery resources and poor habitat conditions. Information regarding the status of the two watersheds can be derived from the following sources:

Watershed Strategic Plans and Condition Assessments:

1. St. Croix River Basin: Interagency Water Resource Management Planning Team Strategic Plan (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-b6-16.pdf) 2. St. Croix River Basin Water Resource Planning Team: 2010 Monitoring Plan (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-b6-13.pdf) 3. The state of the Lower Chippewa River Basin 2001 (PUBL-WT-554 2000) (https://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/lowerchip/lchippewa.pdf) 4. State of the St. Croix Basin 2002 (PUBL WT-555-2002) (https://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/stcroix/stcroix_final_3-26-02.pdf)

June 2020 20

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 2.5. Major watersheds, lakes and rivers of St. Croix Wetland Management District (USFWS 2008a). Figure created by Jim Lutes 4/2/2014.

June 2020 21

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

2.2 Climate

The District’s climate is characterized as having cold winters and warm summers. The temperature and annual precipitation averages for the period 1971-2000 for the area that includes Dunn, Pepin, Pierce, and St. Croix Counties and other southern counties, are indicative of the climate local to the District. The region has an average annual temperature of 44.1°F. July is the warmest month with an average temperature of 70.8°F and January is the coldest month with an average temperature of 12.7 °F. Annual precipitation is 33.3 inches. The average monthly precipitation exceeds three inches for April, May and September. The average monthly precipitation exceeds four inches for June, July, and August (State of Wisconsin Blue Book 2005- 2006).

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued Secretarial Order 3226 in January 2001 which required that all DOI Federal agencies with land management responsibilities consider potential climate change impacts as part of long-range planning endeavors. According to a report produced by the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI 2011), Wisconsin has become warmer and wetter, with scientists projecting these changes in climate will continue. Changes such as rising air temperatures and changes in the frequencies of extreme weather, such as heavy rains, will have a significant impact on wildlife populations and habitats (Allstadt et al. 2015; Martinuzzi et al. 2016). Projected increases in heavy rain events in the Midwest (Martinuzzi et al. 2016) may increase sediment and nutrient inputs into the District wetlands and adjacent rivers leading to an increase in blue-green algae blooms and a loss of biodiversity in wetlands. Changes in climate are already causing breeding distributions of landbirds to shift substantially at an average velocity of 1.27 km/year (Bateman et al. 2015) and the relationships between plants and pollinators are being disrupted with the early onset of spring (Allstadt et al. 2015). Some native species will no longer thrive in the higher temperatures, favoring instead invasive or non-native species (WICCI 2011). Therefore, our management strategies need to be flexible to accommodate any future habitat alterations due to climate change within the District. Climate change impacts and ways to address them through management have been considered throughout this HMP and are incorporated into the habitat goals, objectives and strategies outlined in Chapter 4.

2.3 Historic Perspective

The nature and distribution of vegetation types in Wisconsin are described by Curtis in his book Vegetation of Wisconsin (1959) and in 1976 Finley compiled survey notes from the 1800’s to document vegetation cover in Wisconsin and created a map that was later digitized. These documents indicate that forests once covered the southern half and western third of the state. Dominant species were primarily oak (Quercus spp.) on the drier sites; sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American basswood (Tilia americana L.), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), red oak (Quercus rubra) and ironwood (Ostrya virginiana) on the mesic sites; and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) and American elm (Ulmus americana) dominating the lowland sites. In pre- settlement times these forests covered approximately 5.2 million acres with another 7.3 million acres of what is considered oak savanna also falling into this category (Figure 2.6). In this region the closed woodlands and oak savannas provided no distinct boundaries but blended together.

June 2020 22

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Scattered throughout the southern forest type were areas of true tall grass prairie. These prairies covered just over 2 million acres and were most dominant in the southwest corner of the state, becoming smaller and more scattered as one moved northeast. Prairie and oak savanna covered about 9.5 million acres of Wisconsin. These areas were dominated by many species, including big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), needlegrass (Hesperostipa spartea) and many other grass and forb species. Burr (Quercus macrocarpa), black (Quercus velutina), Hill’s (Quercus ellipsoidalis) and white (Quercus alba) oak dominated the oak savannas. Forest communities also dominated the northern half of Wisconsin. These northern forests supported jack (Pinus banksiana), red (Pinus resinosa), and white (Pinus strobus) pine with red maple (Acer rubrum) and red oak on the dry sites. The more mesic stands of the northern forests were dominated by sugar maple, but hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and/or American beech (Fagus grandifolia) may have been co-dominant. Finally, the northern lowland (swamp) forests of Wisconsin are split into the tamarack (Larix laricina)- black spruce (Picea mariana) bog forests, the white cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.)-balsam fir (Abies balsamea) conifer swamps, and the black ash (Fraxinus nigra)-yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis)-hemlock hardwood swamps (Figure 2.6).

June 2020 23

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 2.6. Pre-settlement vegetation in St. Croix Wetland Management District. (Finley 1976). Figure created by Chris Trosen 4/16/2020.

June 2020 24

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Due to farming, urban sprawl, fire suppression, and other developments only scattered remnants of prairie and savanna remain. In addition, forests in Wisconsin have been altered through logging, farming, fire prevention, and urbanization. Agriculture has had the largest impact covering 26.3 % of the District according to the most recent landcover estimates (Table 2.1). The counties with the highest proportion of agriculture in the District are Pierce (42%) and St. Croix (41%). The counties with the lowest proportion of agriculture are Burnett (6%) and Washburn (5%) (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Percent land cover by county in the St. Croix Wetland Management District. District Barron Burnett Dunn Pepin Pierce Polk St. Croix Washburn Total AGRICULTURE 32.24% 5.82% 40.46% 37.90% 42.30% 21.88% 40.59% 5.01% 26.30% BARREN 0.09% 0.08% 0.05% 0.06% 0.07% 0.06% 0.08% 0.09% 0.07% FOREST 33.58% 65.23% 33.94% 34.74% 28.35% 41.56% 21.17% 65.98% 41.34% GRASSLAND 19.70% 6.42% 15.70% 13.23% 21.80% 19.52% 28.08% 6.64% 16.27% OPEN WATER 2.79% 0.57% 1.26% 6.49% 2.69% 3.76% 1.86% 4.93% 3.44% SHRUBLAND 0.01% 0.06% 0.03% 0.02% 0.07% 0.02% 0.31% 0.00% 0.06% URBAN/DEVELOPED 2.99% 1.09% 2.63% 2.06% 2.46% 2.17% 5.22% 1.59% 2.51%

WETLAND 8.61% 20.74% 5.93% 5.49% 2.24% 11.04% 2.69% 15.75% 10.00% Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wiscland 2.0, 2016

Population Projections According to the Wisconsin Department of Adminstration (2013) the population of the District is expected to grow about one percent per year over the next 15 years. The counties with the highest and lowest projected average annual growth rate are St. Croix and Pepin Counties with growth rates of 1.35% and 0.82%; respectively. The District as a whole is projected to increase in population approximately 30,000 from 2020 to 2040 (Table 2.2).

Most lands managed by the St. Croix WMD are located in southern Polk and St. Croix counties and are two of the four fastest growing counties in the District. As land located adjacent to WPAs within these counties become more developed, habitat management using grazing and prescribed fire will become more challenging to implement. Challenges include decreasing number of available livestock producers to take part in public lands grazing programs along with increased limitations on smoke management for prescribed burns caused by houses located adjacent to WPAs as well as decreased tolerance of smoke due to fear and lack of understanding of important role of prescribed fire in land management as turnover in neighbors is rapid with a mobile workforce in the US. A distance of roughly ¼ mile from a prescribed burn unit to an occupied structure is desirable to allow smoke to lift and dissipate without impacting neighbors. As a result, future management of these lands may include more mowing, haying, and chemical treatments and less grazing and prescribed fire.

June 2020 25

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table 2.2. Population projections 2015-2040 in St. Croix Wetland Management District counties. Source: 2008 St. Croix WMD CCP (See Table 3 but updated with information from Wisconsin Department of Administration Official Population Projections, June 2013). Average Annual Historical Projections Percent Increases 2015- 2015- 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2030 2040 Barron 38,730 40,750 44,963 46,067 45,870 48,493 49,386 50,004 50,640 49,545 1.04 1.02 County Burnett 12,340 13,084 15,674 16,375 15,457 17,329 17,415 17,390 17,800 17,425 1.03 1.01 County Dunn 34,314 35,909 39,858 42,046 43,857 45,165 47,061 49,105 47,970 48,485 1.06 1.07 County Pepin 7,477 7,107 7,213 7,631 7,469 8,418 8,737 8,862 7,315 6,885 0.87 0.82 County Pierce 31,149 32,765 36,804 38,194 41,019 41,190 42,655 44,368 46,125 46,825 1.12 1.14 County Polk 32,351 34,773 41,319 43,621 44,205 47,842 49,592 51,152 53,240 53,825 1.11 1.13 County St. Croix 43,262 50,251 63,155 72,377 84,345 87,967 95,202 100,806 111,470 119,010 1.27 1.35 County Washburn 13,174 13,772 16,036 16,671 15,911 17,634 17,869 18,023 18,460 18,010 1.05 1.02 County St. Croix 214,777 230,401 267,022 284,987 298,133 316,053 329,937 341,735 353,020 360,010 1.12 1.14 WMD Wisconsin Department of Administration Official Population Projections, June 2013

2.4 Current Land Classification and District Conditions

Using the descriptions within the Wisconsin Natural Communities (WDNR 2015c), National Vegetation Classification System Association Classification (Faber-Langendoen 2001), and our best professional judgment, we developed a table of the natural communities that have been documented on the District or have the potential to occur (Table 2.3). Figure 2.7 reflects the spatial distribution of the current landcover for the St. Croix Wetland Management District as depicted by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisclands 2.0 vegetation layer. While assessing how to categorize habitat types, we determined that the habitat characteristics described in Table 2.3 and Figure 2.7 are far too detailed for the scale at which a WMD is managed. In the broadest sense, the priority habitat for St. Croix WMD could be described as a grassland-wetland complex with a diverse prairie and several different types of wetlands. For the purposes of this HMP, middle ground between that broad description and the very detailed species habitat requirements were selected. Therefore, the District’s vegetation types were grouped into the following broad habitat types: grassland, wetland, savanna, and forest. The broad habitat classifications were used to guide the selection of resources of concern and the development of goals and objectives in the subsequent chapters.

June 2020 26

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table 2.3. Summary of habitats that represent existing biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, within St. Croix Wetland Management District.

Broad NVCS Natural Processes WI Natural Habitat Association Populations and Habitat Attributes Responsible for Limiting Factors/Threats Communities1 Type Classification2 these Conditions State Rank State

Dry, loess-derived soils; steep S ore SW facing slopes at summits of river bluffs, knolls of Kettle Moraine. Short / medium prairie grasses: little bluestem, side-oats Steep dry conditions Little Bluestem Fire suppression, grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), hairy grama (B. hirsuta), and prairie dropseed and rough terrain Bedrock Bluff encroachment of woody Dry Prairie (Sporobolus heterolepis); Shrubs and forbs include lead plant (Amorpha allow persistence of S3 Prairie, species; non-native canescens), silky aster (Aster sericeus), flowering spurge (Euphorbia corollata), dry prairie species; CEGL002245 invasion purple prairie-clover (Petalostemum purpureum), cylindrical blazing-star (Liatris periodic fire cylindracea), and gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis). Midwest Dry-

Sandy/loamy soil; terraces, outwashes or gravelly moraines, lower slopes of bluffs; Dry conditions, Fire suppression, woody Dry-mesic mesic Sand taller grasses, big bluestem and Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) dominate. sandy/loamy soils; species; non-natives; S2 Prairie Prairie, Needle grass may also be present; herbs diverse, both dry and mesic species. periodic fire Agriculture CEGL002210 Grassland Rich, moist, well-drained sites, level or gently rolling glacial topography; tall grass, big bluestem dominates; also little bluestem, indiangrass, porcupine grass (Stipa Conversion to agriculture spartea), prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), and tall switchgrass (Panicum due to highly productive Central Mesic Rich moist soils, good virgatum); diverse forbs, prairie docks (Silphium spp.), lead plant, heath and soil types; fire Mesic Prairie Tallgrass Prairie, drainage and S1 smooth asters (Aster ericoides and A. laevis), sand coreopsis (Coreopsis palmata), suppression, CEGL002203 periodic fire prairie sunflower (Helianthus laetiflorus), rattlesnake-master (Eryngium encroachment of woody yuccifolium), flowering spurge, wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa), prairie species; development coneflower (Ratibida pinnata), spiderwort (Tradescantia ohioensis).

Occurs in large wetland complexes on level or gently rolling glacial moraine or outwash; tall grasses, big bluestem, Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis Regular fire; Conversion to agriculture canadensis), prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), and Canada wild-rye (Elymus Lakeplain Wet- surrounding or development; invasive Wet-mesic canadensis); diverse forbs, azure aster (Aster oolentangiensis), shooting-star mesic Prairie, grassland and species; fire suppression S2 Prairie (Dodecatheon meadia), sawtooth sunflower (Helianthus grosseseratus), prairie

Wetland CEGL005095 wetland and woody blazing-star (Liatris pycnostachya), prairie phlox (Phlox pilosa), prairie coneflower, communities encroachment prairie docks, late and stiff goldenrods (Solidago gigantea and S. rigida), and culver's-root (Veronicastrum virginicum).

June 2020 27

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Broad NVCS Natural Processes WI Natural Habitat Association Populations and Habitat Attributes Responsible for Limiting Factors/Threats Communities1 Type Classification2 these Conditions State Rank State

Tall heterogeneous grassland of Canada bluejoint grass, prairie cordgrass, and prairie muhly (Muhlenbergia glomerata), plus several sedge (Carex) species Wetland like Drainage and Central including lake sedge (C. lacustris), water sedge (C. aquatilis), and woolly sedge (C. character and development, grazing; Cordgrass Wet lanuginosa); prevalent herbs are New England aster (Aster novae-angliae), swamp connectivity to other Wet Prairie invasive species; SU Prairie, thistle (Cirsium muticum), northern bedstraw (Galium boreale), yellow stargrass open grasslands and sedimentation, pollution, CEGL002224 (Hypoxis hirsuta), cowbane (Oxypolis rigidior), tall meadow-rue (Thalictrum wetlands; periodic fire suppression dasycarpum), golden alexander (Zizea aurea), and mountain-mint (Pycnanthemum fire virginianum). Emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation in permanent standing water, pure Disturbance, Midwest Mixed stands of single species or in various mixtures; cattails (Typha spp.), bulrushes Permanent standing development, Emergent Emergent Deep (particularly Scirpus acutus, S. fluviatilis, and S. validus), bur-reeds (Sparganium water; highly sedimentation, S4 Marsh Marsh, spp.), giant reed (Phragmites australis), pickerel-weed (Pontederia cordata), water- dynamic from season eutrophication, CEGL002229 plantains (Alisma spp.), arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.), and larger spikerush to season pollution, invasives (Eleocharis smallii).

Dogwood - In bands around lakes, ponds, floodplains; glacial lakebeds; tall shrubs such as red- Maintenance of Altered hydrology, Shrub Carr Willow Swamp, osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), meadow-sweet (Spiraea alba), and various natural hydrologic invasives, sedimentation S4 CEGL002186 willows (Salix discolor, S. bebbiana, and S. gracilis). Canada bluejoint grass. cycles and pollution; grazing

Open wetland community, common in glaciated landscape, border lakes and Southern streams; Dominants are tussock sedge (Carex stricta) and Canada bluejoint grass; Altered hydrology; Sedge Tussock Sedge also water-horehound (Lycopus uniflorus), panicled aster (Aster simplex), blue flag Alkaline ground invasives; fire Meadow/ Wet Meadow, S3 (Iris virginica), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), spotted joe-pye-weed water, periodic fire suppression and woody Northern CEGL002258 (Eupatorium maculatum), broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), bulrushes and encroachment, grazing Sedge Meadow swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata). North-central Conversion to agriculture Intermediate between Southern Dry Forest and Oak Opening; similar species as Dry-mesic Oak Frequent low and development; fire Oak Woodland Oak Opening but mixed with red oak and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), denser in Woodland, intensity fire suppression and woody growth and less spreading in form. CEGL002142 encroachment

North-central Oak-dominated savanna community in which there is less than 50% tree canopy Conversion to agriculture Savanna Bur Oak coverage; wet-mesic to dry sites; Bur, white, and black dominate as large, open- Regular fire regime and development; fire Oak Opening S1 Openings, grown trees with distinctive limb architecture; American hazelnut (Corylus of low intensity suppression and woody CEGL002020 americana) is a common shrub. Herb layer of prairie species. encroachment

June 2020 28

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Broad NVCS Natural Processes WI Natural Habitat Association Populations and Habitat Attributes Responsible for Limiting Factors/Threats Communities1 Type Classification2 these Conditions State Rank State

Eastern white pine and red pine are typically dominant, sometimes mixed with northern red oak, red maple, and occasionally, sugar maple. Paper birch (Betula papyrifera), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), and big-toothed aspen Fire suppression; White Pine - Red (Populus grandidentata) can also be present. Common understory shrubs include Occasional Northern Dry- invasives (leafy spurge, Oak Forest, hazelnuts (Corylus spp.) and blueberries (Vaccinium angustifolium and V. (prescribed) fire to S3 Mesic Forest smooth brome, spotted CEGL002480 myrtilloides), as well as low-growing species such as wintergreen (Gaultheria regenerate knotweed)

procumbens) and partridge-berry (Mitchella repens). Among the dominant herbs are wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), and cow-wheat (Melampyrum lineare). Forest Lowland hardwood forest along large rivers; canopy dominants, silver maple, river Hydrology change, Silver Maple - birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), hackberry (Celtis impoundment; adjacent Elm - occidentalis), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and cottonwood (Populus Periodic flooding and Floodplain agriculture, (Cottonwood) deltoides); understory of nettles (Laportea canadensis and Urtica dioica), sedges, scouring, lateral S3 Forest sedimentation, erosion, Forest, ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) and gray-headed coneflower (Rudbeckia water movement pollution; invasive CEGL002586 laciniata), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis) and green dragon (Arisaema species dracontium). 1 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015b. Wisconsin’s Natural Communities. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/communities.asp 2 Faber-Langendoen, D., editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context. Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pp. + appendix (705 pp.). Retrieved from https://www.natureserve.org/biodiversity-science/publications/plant-communities-midwest 4 State Rankings: S1-critically imperiled, S2-imperiled, S3-rare or uncommon, S4-apparently secure, S5-secure, SU- possibly in peril but status uncertain. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/NHI/WList.html#GRank

June 2020 29

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 2.7. Current landcover of the St. Croix Wetland Management District (Source: Wisclands 2.0, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources).

June 2020 30

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Focus Areas

Bird Conservation Areas The District has identified several focus areas where management actions will maximize conservation benefits for trust resources. In partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the District identified four Bird Conservation Areas (Figure 2.8). The BCAs range in size from 12,000 to 25,000 acres. The partnership goal in each BCA is to reach 40% grass on the landscape with a 2,000-acre core of permanantly protected grassland habitat. The 40% grass on the landscape can include all types of grassland ranging from public lands, pasture, USDA programs such as Conservation Reserve Program, hayfields and other perennial grasses. These BCA’s are located in the Western Prairie Habitat Restoration Area (WPHRA). The WPHRA was established in 1999 by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in partnership with local citizen groups. The goal of the WPHRA is to work toward restoring 20,000 acres or roughly 20% of the original grassland, wetland and oak savanna habitat that naturally occurred in portions of Wisconsin’s St. Croix and southern Polk Counties prior to European settlement. The focus of the WPHRA aligns with the mission of the District and is why the District has been such a strong partner over the years.

June 2020 31

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 2.8. Location of Bird Conservation Areas within St. Croix Wetland Management District.

June 2020 32

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Focus Areas The District has also identified six additional focus areas (Figure 2.9) that were selected based on the following criteria: • Distribution of wetlands based on Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) mapping plus a station wetland mapping project to correct the WWI data. The WWI data is extremely inaccurate for wetlands under five acres in size. We mapped and added over 13,000 wetlands to our wetland distribution database (0.1 acres in size or larger). • Priority HUC 12 watersheds for waterfowl identified in the Wisconsin Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy, a step-down plan of the Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Venture plan (Straub et al. 2019). • A wetland distribution thunderstorm map produced by Mary Mitchell (unpublished data, USFWS (2009), National Wildlife Refuge System, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning, Branch of Conservation Planning) for St. Croix WMD (Appendix B). The map is based on wetland acreage and number of basins using the District’s updated wetland map. The relative wetland quality scale illustrates high- and low- quality wetlands. • Blocks of public lands within the District – the WMD contains over 200,000 acres of public lands within the 8-county area. • Known distribution of grasslands (# of patches and patch size based on WisLands 2.0). • Waterfowl pair count data from WPAs (pair count data within WPAs indicate mallard pair numbers have ranged from 3.8 to 26 pairs/mile2 and blue-winged teal have ranged from 2.1 to 23.0 pairs/mile2. • Partnership projects with the WDNR that are within 1-3 miles including the Western Prairie Habitat Restoration Area, Bird Conservation Areas, and WDNR State Wildlife Area property planning efforts.

District programs use these focus areas as priorities for acquisition, private lands projects, fire management and other habitat restoration and management activities.

June 2020 33

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure 2.9. Permanently protected lands in St. Croix Wetland Management District with focus areas.

June 2020 34

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Focus Area Descriptions Star Prairie Grassland Wetland Complex (127,800 acres): This area has a high density of public land (numerous WPAs and State Wildlife Areas) and a high density of grassland and wetland habitat. This focus area overlaps with several interagency priority areas including the Star Prairie Bird Conservation Area (BCA), the northern part of the Erin Prairie BCA, Western Prairie Regional Master Plan-Draft and the State Wildlife Action Plan Grasslands Conservation Opportunity Area (COA). These state plans have the goal of restoring wetland and grassland habitat.

Willow River Bird Conservation Area (14,642 acres): The Willow River Bird Conservaton Area was designated by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the WI DNR as one of four Bird Conservation Areas (BCA) in the Western Prairie Habitat Restoration Area. This is one of two BCAs that is a priority for the St. Croix WMD because of the distribution of wetlands and grasslands within the BCA. The Willow River BCA includes several State Wildlife Areas (approx. 1,200 acres), four WPAs (865 acres) and is anchored by the 2,900-acre Willow River State Park

Rock Creek Complex (5,870 acres): The Rock Creek Complex is a small, but important focus area. A goal in the Lower Chippewa River Properties State Plan is to connect the Rock Falls State Wildlife Area with the Rock Creek WPA by promoting conservation easements and encouraging conservation-oriented farming practices on private lands in this area. The Rock Creek Complex contains numerous wetlands and many farmers graze livestock on the surrounding landscape. Conservation grazing is an important tool for grassland management. The goal in this focus area is to enlarge the Rock Creek WPA, connect to the State Wildlife Area by focusing on developing conservation practices on private land and eastablishing conservation easements within and around this focus area.

Elk Mound Swamp (34,422 acres): This priority area is anchored by the 4100-acre Muddy Creek State Wildlife Area and a complex of WPAs around this property. This area has a high density of wetlands and grassland and therefore is of continued interest to the District.

Crex Meadows and Surrounding Lands Focus Area (266,239 acres): Anchored by the 40,000- acre complex of Crex Meadows and Fish Lake State Wildlife Areas, this focus area has great potential for the creation of new WPAs and for improving conservation practices on private lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Crex Meadows and Fish Lake support good breeding populations of mallard, wood duck, blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck and sandhill crane. Although a large geographic area is included in this focus area, staff will work with local parters and available data for the area to better define the focus area for future acquisition and restoration opportunities. We will coordinate with the WI DNR and complete additional GIS mapping to identify the best of the best wildlife habitat in this area. We will then determine how best FWS can support additional conservation protections and practices. Options for FWS are to seek fee-title acquisitions from willing sellers or to engage with private landowners who wish to establish conservation easements. Several areas (Alabama Lakes, Trade Lake Township) within this focus area boundary are specifically mentioned in the Wisconsin Joint Venture Implementation Plan. Numerous townships in this area are also identified as priorities in the historic Wisconsin JV Implementation Plan.

June 2020 35

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Burnett/Polk County High Density Wetland Area (214,427 acres): We will investigate this area over the life of this plan to determine the suitability of parcels for acquisition from willing sellers (USFWS Wetland Mapping Project, completed in 2009 by M. Mitchell; Appendix B). When acquisition monies become available, we will look for opportunities to acquire habitats with a good mix of grassland and wetlands. Several townships in this area are listed in the Wisconsin JV Implementation Plan as having good potential for WPAs. By combining the WI JV Plan information with the more detailed wetland map from the USFWS, as parcels become available, we will quickly access its conservation potential and, if the parcel looks promising, engage in discussions with willing sellers.

Descriptions of current broad habitat types:

Grassland (5,424.70 acres) Grassland habitat comprises about 64% of District lands. As recently as 2019, 165 acres of cropland was restored to grasslands. The District contains 54.7 acres of native prairie remnants and the remaining 5,205 acres are planted grasslands. Past habitat management emphasized the provision of dense nesting cover (DNC) for waterfowl. Several areas on the District were planted to grass species such as tall (agropyron elongatum) and intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), sweetclover (Melilotus spp.), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa). These fields initially provided good cover for nesting birds; however, over time they deteriorated and were prone to invasion by Canada thistle (Carduus arvensis), Cirsium incanum, and other problem species (e.g., smooth brome (Bromus inermis)). In addition, many of the Waterfowl Production Areas contained fields that had been enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program and were planted to smooth brome by the previous owners. These monotypic stands provide some habitat for wildlife but not as much as diverse native species plantings. The District has begun the process of restoring these grasslands to native grasses and forbs. The native grass restoration process generally involves cropping the field for 3 or more years via a cooperator, to eliminate exotic cool-season grass seeds and rhizomes, control Canada thistle and other invasive plants, and prepare a seed bed for planting native grass seed. When possible, fields are planted to corn for one or two years and then soybeans for one year. Soybean stubble provides a good seedbed for native grass and forb species.

Some uplands in the District were historically comprised of cool-and warm-season grasses characteristic of the tall-grass prairie. Vegetation composition at local levels was determined by numerous interrelated factors, including elevation, topography, climate, soil characteristics, herbivory, and fire intervals. Species typical of the historical mixed-grass prairie include little bluestem, Indian grass, big bluestem, switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), side oats gramma and numerous forbs such as yellow coneflower (Ratibida pinnata), blue vervain (Verbena hastata), oxeye sunflower (Heliopsis helianthoides), rough blazing star (Liatris aspera), wild bergamot, cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum), giant hyssop (Agastache foeniculum) and cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.). Appendix C includes a listing of prairie plants found on the WPAs. The District has been planting native grasses and forbs as former crop lands are converted to more favorable wildlife habitat. Grassland restoration and management is targeted to create large blocks of contiguous grassland habitat.

June 2020 36

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Many of the former agricultural fields were restored using locally harvested native prairie grasses and wildflowers. Current management efforts on District grasslands include the re- establishment of grasses such as big and little bluestem, Indian grass, switchgrass, prairie dropseed, prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), and sideoats grama. Prairie wildflowers such as milkweed (Asclepias spp.) and wild lupine, as well as, purple prairie clover, cream false indigo (Baptisia bracteata), white wild indigo (Baptisia alba), spiderwort, prairie phlox, leadplant, and wild bergamot, and many other species are encouraged to support native pollinators. Non- native leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), common tansey (Tanacetum vulgare) and cool season grasses such as quackgrass (Agropyron repens), smooth brome, and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) occur throughout the grasslands.

Many species of grassland and wetland dependant migratory birds have declined dramatically due to the loss of habitat (Sauer et al. 2003). Most of these species evolved in a treeless landscape of prairie and wetlands with scattered patches of oak savanna. There is growing evidence that the presence of trees has dire consequences for these species, often resulting in lower reproductive success (Ellison et al. 2013). Bird species that benefit from the District’s grasslands include bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Henslow’s sparrow (Centronyx henslowii), monarch butterfly and many other grassland- dependent species.

Wetland (1907.30 acres) Wetland habitat comprises 22% of the District lands and serve as breeding and nesting habitat for migratory birds and as wintering habitat for many species of resident wildlife. Humans also benefit from wetlands as these habitats improve water quality and quantity, reduce flooding effects, and provide areas for recreation. Wetlands are classified using a number of attributes including vegetation, water regimes (the length of time water occupies a specific area), and water chemistry. District wetlands are classified using the following water regime descriptions (Cowardin et al. 1979): • Temporarily and seasonally flooded-surface water (427.65 acres) are present for brief or extended periods during the growing season. The water table usually lies below or near the soil surface most of the season, so plants that grow in both uplands and wetlands are characteristic. • Semi-permanently flooded-surface water (526.86 acres) persists throughout the growing season in most years. When surface water is absent, the water table is usually at or very near the land surface. • Permanently flooded water (950.79 acres) covers the land throughout the year in nearly all years. Vegetation is composed of obligate hydrophytes, such as cattails.

The District focuses on preserving and restoring small wetlands. Wetland diversity is important because wetlands change continuously; a single wetland can not be maximally productive all the time. Waterfowl use different types of wetlands at different times during the breeding season. Laying hens may forage in ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal wetlands early in the season and shift to semi-permanent and permanent wetlands after the brood is hatched. Marsh birds need a variety of wetlands in close proximity so they can shift from one wetland to another as the wetlands cycle through different phases both seasonally and temporally.

June 2020 37

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Wetland complexes include a variety of basins, some shallow and some deep. Diverse wetland complexes are rare today because most shallow ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal basins have been drained. Freshwater wetlands like those in the District are among the most productive in the world (Weller 1982). Bathymetry surveys to determine water depth based on bottom contours have been completed, including Lundy Pond and Bass Lake WPAs. The completed bathymetry surveys suggest wetland depths to be shallow or several inches deep to well over 6 feet and vary in depth throughout the year and from year to year. The dynamic water cycle creates a rich environment for many waterfowl and other marsh birds. Cycling water accelerates decomposition of marsh vegetation, resulting in a natural fertilizer. When the basins recharge in the spring, the water becomes a soup of dissolved nutrients, submersed aquatic vegetation, and supports a diverse and healthy population of aquatic invertebrates, which feed reproducing waterfowl and marsh birds throughout the spring and summer. In the larger basins, the areal distribution of emergent vegetation changes from dense stands of cattail or bulrush to completely open water over a period of years. In the process of transition, the percent of the wetland covered by vegetation moves through a phase, known as hemi- marsh, when clumps of emergent vegetation are interspersed with open water (Weller 1982). In this phase, the structure of the vegetation itself creates habitat and stimulates the production of aquatic invertebrates. The marsh, in this phase, hosts the maximum number of marsh birds. Unfortunately, the phase is only temporary, and most wetlands cycle out of it in 1 to 3 years.

Wetlands throughout the District provide both resting cover and food resources for migratory birds. Substantial emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation occurs in freshwater wetlands. Sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), various pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.) and duckweed (Lemna trisulca) occur in the deeper, more permanently flooded zones, while cattail, hardstem (Schoenoplectus acutus) and softstem (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani) bulrush, bur-reed, arrowhead, sedges, and smartweed (Polygonum spp.) grow in shallow areas that may go dry during some periods. Most palustrine basins exhibit concentric zones of vegetation that are dominated by different plant species. The terms commonly used in reference to these zones are, in decreasing order of water permanency, deep marsh, shallow marsh, and wet meadow (Kantrud et al. 1989). The water regime in a deep marsh zone is usually semipermanent. Dominant plants include cattail, hardstem and softstem bulrush, submergent or floating plants, and submergent vascular plants, but this zone also may be devoid of vegetation if bottom sediments are unconsolidated. Shallow marsh zones are usually dominated by emergent grasses, sedges, and some forbs, but submergent or floating vascular plants also may occur. Wet meadow zones also are typically dominated by grasses, rushes (Juncus spp.), and sedges, whereas submergent or floating plants are absent.

A listing of 50 plant species found on WPA wetlands during a study conducted between 1983 and 1990 (Lillie, 2004) can be found in the St. Croix CCP, Appendix C, page 102 (USFWS 2008a). A variety of wildlife species, from ducks to rails to songbirds, use the WPAs. Common breeding bird species include mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), wood duck (Aix sponsa), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), Canada goose, trumpeter swan, hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), green heron (Butorides virescens), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), red-winged

June 2020 38

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and Virginia rail (Rallus limicola). Waterfowl species present during the spring and fall migration include mallard, wood duck, Canada goose, green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis), blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), lesser (Aythya affinis) and Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) and American wigeon (Mareca americana).

Savanna (552.13 acres) 6% Most of the forested habitat on WPAs in the District are oak savannas, old farm woodlots or pine plantations with red pine or white pine. Through a highly active restoration program occurring over the past 15 years (early to mid 2000’s) most farm woodlots and pine plantation habitat have been removed and restored to planted grassland. Oak savannas are an extremely rare community with less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the original oak savanna habitat remaining in the US. Roughly 6% (552.13 acres) of the lands managed by the District is oak savanna. Oak savannas depend on fire to prevent the succession to deciduous forest. With the suppression of fire, many oak savannas need intensive management to bring back the understory community. Burr oaks, which have a thick fire-resistant bark are the dominant tree species in oak savannas within the District. A wide variety of prairie grass and forb species are found in the understory of a healthy oak savanna. Numerous animal species are found in forested habitats on WPAs. Many species of neotropical migrants use the small woodland patches for migration habitat. In addition, numerous mammals use the forested habitat including white-tailed deer, wild turkey, coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) and many small mammals. No surveys have been completed on the District to assess wildlife use of forested habitats. Oak savannas are important habitat for red- headed woodpeckers (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) and are also used heavily by wild turkey and white-tailed deer. Invasive species found in oak savanna habitat mirror those of the District’s grasslands including spotted knapweed and common tansey. On newly restored savanna, burdock (Arctium spp.) and Canada thistle are often the first plants to colonize the understory and provide management opportunities.

Forest (612.66 acres) 7% In addition to grassland, wetland and oak savanna, the District hosts 7 percent of forested habitat. Forested habitat in the District includes floodplain (104.04 acres) and upland northern dry-mesic forest (508.62 acres). Species such as the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), wood duck, American woodcock (Scolopax minor), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), as well as migratory songbirds can be found in these forests. The dominant trees in mature stands of Northern Dry-mesic Forest are eastern white pine and red pine. The important canopy associates vary but may include northern red oak, red maple, big-tooth aspen, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and white birch (Betula papyrifera). Black cherry (Prunus serotina), white oak, northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis), balsam fir, and jack pine occur in some stands but are uncommon or rare. Forest habitat not considered restorable oak savanna (i.e. presence of savanna obligate species in understory) or grassland habitat are typically minimally managed or left unmanaged by the District.

June 2020 39

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Chapter 3: Resources of Concern

Northern Harrier on nest. (Thomas Kerr, USFWS)

3.0 Introduction 3.1 Comprehensive Resources of Concern 3.2 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 3.3 Priority Refuge Resources of Concern 3.4 Relationship between Refuge Habitats and Priority Resources of Concern 3.5 Prioritization of District Habitats 3.6 Prioritization of Wetland Management Units 3.7 Conflict Resolution 3.8 Adaptive Management

June 2020 40

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

3.0. Introduction

Resources of concern (ROC) are the primary focus of this HMP and are central to the work of the NWRS. The FWS’s HMP Policy (620 FW 1) defines “resources of concern” as

All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in Refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are resources of concern on a refuge whose purpose is to protect “migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.” Federal or State threatened and endangered species on that same Refuge are also resources of concern under terms of the respective threatened and endangered species acts.

The USFWS is entrusted with conserving and protecting migratory birds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fishes, and certain marine mammals (i.e. “trust species”). Additionally, each refuge has one or more purposes for which it was established. As a result, management goals and objectives for each refuge are determined by the direction of the refuge purpose(s) and statutory mandates, coupled with species and habitat priorities. Refuges also support other elements of biological diversity including invertebrates, rare plants, unique natural communities, and ecological processes that contribute to biological integrity and environmental health at the refuge, ecosystem, and broader scales (601 FW 3).

Given the multitude of purposes, mandates, policies, and plans that can apply to a refuge, it is necessary to explicitly identify resources of concern and identify those resources for which the refuge is best suited to focus its management activities. The process used to identify resources of concern and habitat types and communities that represent biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) are described in this chapter. Resources of concern and habitat priorities were then used to develop habitat goals, objectives, and strategies (Chapter 4).

3.1. Comprehensive Resources of Concern

To develop a focused habitat management plan, we first must define the Refuge’s comprehensive list of species. A tool was developed to assist in this process, the Resources of Concern Selection Tool for America’s Refuges (ROCSTAR; Salas and Pranckus 2015). ROCSTAR was populated with St. Croix WMD’s comprehensive list of species by consulting several plans and lists, including the 2008 CCP, national and regional priority documents, state fish and wildlife plans, and Federal and State endangered species lists (Table 3.1). Generally, any species known to occur or that could reasonably occur within the St. Croix WMD and are included in any of the resources consulted was added to the comprehensive list (see Appendix D). For the purpose of this document we used available species lists. The ROCSTAR tool, was used to assist us in querying the multiple published conservation priority lists of plants, animal, and ecosystems (Table 3.1), and our best professional judgment to select our priority resources of concern (PROC). Key ecosystems were also considered because of their importance under the auspices of the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Ecosystem Health policy (BIDEH; 601 FW 3; USFWS 2003b).

June 2020 41

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table 3.1. Plans and lists from which potential resources of concern were identified for each taxon within St. Croix Wetland Management District.

Resource Fish Bird Herp Plant Insect Mammal Arachnid Mollusca Crustacean Fed T&E 2015 (USFWS 2015b) X X X X X X X X X WI State T&E (WDNR 2015d) X X X X X X X X X WI SWAP (WDNR 2005) X X X X X X X X X BCR 23 BCC (USFWS 2008c) X FWS R3 BCC (USFWS 2017b) X FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Species (USFWS 2011) X Resource Conservation Priorities, R3 (USFWS 2002) X X X X X X X X PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Plain (Knutson et al. 2001) X UMGL Surrogate Spp (USFWS 2014b) X X X X X X X X UMRGLR JV All Bird Implementation Plan (UMRGLR X JV 2007) UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Spp Waterbirds X (Soulliere et al. 2018) UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Spp Shorebird (Potter et X al. 2007a) UMRGLR JV Priority Spp Landbird (Potter et al. X 2007b) UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Spp Waterfowl X (Soulliere et al. 2017) American Bird Conservation Watchlist (Rosenberg et X al. 2014) Interjurisdictional Fish, (MICRA 2009) X Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation X (PARC 2011) Xerces Society Redlist of Butterflies and Moths X (Xerces Society n.d)

June 2020 42

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

3.2. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that, in administering the System, the Service shall “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained…” The Service’s policy discusses the role of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH). It also provides managers with an evaluation process to analyze their refuge and recommend the best management direction to prevent further degradation of environmental conditions; and where appropriate and in concert with refuge purposes and System mission, restore lost or degraded components (601 FW 3). The Service defines BIDEH as follows:

• Biological Integrity - Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities.

• Biological Diversity - The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences between them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur.

• Environmental Health - Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.

As described in the BIDEH policy (601 FW 3), the goal of habitat management on units of the NWRS is to ensure the long-term maintenance and where possible, restoration of healthy populations of native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. In addition to providing habitat for trust species, refuges support other elements of biodiversity including invertebrates, rare plants, unique natural communities, and ecological processes (USFWS 1999). Where possible, refuge management restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes or functions and thereby maintains biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health.

The native plant communities presented in Chapter 2, Table 2.3, provide guidance on what conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of District habitats; how those conditions are maintained; how and when it is appropriate to restore degraded conditions; and provide an awareness of external threats to those habitats and ecosystems. Given the continually changing environmental conditions and landscape patterns of the past and present (e.g., rapid development and climate change within the District), relying on natural processes is not always feasible or possible, nor always the best management strategy for conserving wildlife resources. Uncertainty about the future requires that the District manage within a natural range of variability rather than emulating an arbitrary point in time. One of our goals is to maintain or mimic ecological processes and mechanisms that allow species, genetic strains, and natural communities to evolve with changing conditions, rather than necessarily trying to maintain stability.

June 2020 43

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

The St. Croix WMD CCP (USFWS 2008a) includes wildlife and habitat related goals and supporting objectives (Appendix A). However, to comply with BIDEH policy (610 FW 3) and to encourage the successful protection and restoration of BIDEH, we amended some of the original objectives from the CCP to add specificity and account for BIDEH in development of the associated management objectives and strategies. By maintaining existing BIDEH and sustainably managing it over the life of this HMP, we will support the District purpose and habitat needs of priority resources and other benefitting species. These changes and the rationale behind them are summarized in Chapter 4.

3.3. Priority Refuge Resources of Concern

The ROCSTAR comprehensive species list contains many species with a wide array of habitat needs and life history requirements. From this list, we selected and focus our efforts on a few resources of concern. Priority resources of concern (PROC) are species, species groups, habitat or natural features that represent the spectrum of ecological systems found on the District and that can serve as indicators regarding the success of our management actions or the health of the system.

To guide in the selection of priority resources of concern, we used a series of filters and steps outlined in the Service’s Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities for Refuges: A Handbook (Taylor and Paveglio 2017). The Handbook guides the selection of the Priority ROCs and their associated habitats by considering where we can make the greatest contribution to conservation efforts while taking into account three important considerations: 1) relevance to legal mandates, 2) management significance, and 3) ecological significance. The following filters were applied to select potential ROCs:

• Filter 1: Basic assessment of importance: species were cut if they are not included on any threatened or endangered, conservation need, or other priority lists (ROI=0.0). See Table 3.1 for all plans and lists. • Filter 2: Cuts were made based on the species’ probability of occurrence using range maps and District species lists. Species removed from consideration include those that are unlikely to occur on the District. • Filter 3: All UMGL Surrogate Species (USFWS 2014b) were added to potential ROC list. • Filter 4: All Federal T& E species were added to the potential ROC list. • Filter 5: All State T& E species were added to the potential ROC list. • Filter 6: species other than birds were eliminated from further consideration if they had a relatively low number of inclusions on priority lists; known occurrence was also taken into consideration again. • Filter 7: Waterfowl that breed in St. Croix WMD, wood ducks, mallards, and blue-winged teal are included due to the District’s purpose to provide breeding habitat for waterfowl. • Filter 8: Other bird species breeding on District are kept. Birds using District habitats during migration only will also benefit from habitat management that benefits resident birds.

June 2020 44

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

In addition to the above filters, we also relied heavily on our own knowledge and experience (i.e. ease of monitoring, abundance on District, etc.) related to each species. Once potential ROCs were selected, each species, group, habitat or feature was scored based on the following;

1) Number of priority rankings or listings in Federal, State, or regional plans 2) Ability to be supported by current or restorable District capabilities 3) Abundance on District 4) Response to habitat management 5) Ability to represent a larger guild or group of species 6) Ability to represent (a) on-District ecological processes, (b) broader ecosystem processes, or (c) their importance in the maintenance or restoration of BIDEH

Based on the scoring results, the District then made an informed decision on the number and type of priority ROC to select. The results of the ROCSTAR scoring evaluation is summarized in Appendix E. Because of the importance of threatened habitats, native prairie remnants and oak savanna were also selected as resources of concern for the District. Priority resources of concern selected for the St. Croix WMD are provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Selected priority resources of concern and reasons for selection for St. Croix Wetland Management District. Broad ROC Comments on Selection Habitat FWS focal species; UMGL surrogate species; regional conservation priority species. Bobolink prefer taller, dense Bobolink stands of tallgrass vegetation, moderately deep litter, forbs are important for nesting and perching. Easy to monitor and responds well to management. JV focal species; UMGL surrogate species; regional conservation priority species. Eastern meadowlarks prefer taller, dense Eastern meadowlark stands of tallgrass vegetation with greater litter depth and

scattered woody vegetation used for perches; easy to monitor; representative of mature grasslands. JV focal species; FWS focal species; UMGL surrogate species; regional conservation priority species. Henslow’s sparrows

Grassland Henslow’s sparrow prefer dense stands of herbaceous grasslands, a well-developed litter layer, and standing dead vegetation with minimal woody cover. UMGL surrogate species; national priority species; flagship Monarch butterfly species for pollinator and grassland conservation. Require nectar producing plants that bloom in succession from May through September. Native Prairie Remnants are rare and are often in degraded Native Prairie Remnants condition. Without management these Native Prairie Remnants are susceptible to further degradation.

June 2020 45

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Broad ROC Comments on Selection Habitat Waterfowl production is the primary purpose of St. Croix WMD.

Dabbling ducks: Blue-winged teal and mallard are the two most abundant Blue-winged teal nesting waterfowl in the District. Both are Prairie Pothole Joint Mallard Venture focal species. Each requires a grassland/wetland Wetland complex that also meets the habitat needs of many other species. JV focal species; regional conservation priority species; Red-headed woodpecker represents savanna species.

Karner blue butterfly UMGL surrogate species; regional conservation priority species; indicator of quality grassland and savanna habitat

Savanna Oak Savanna are rare and are often in degraded condition. Oak Savanna Without management Oak Savanna habitats are susceptible to further degradation. JV focal species; UMGL surrogate species; regional conservation priority species. Ground gleaner, surface gleaner. Represents Wood duck species dependent on old growth forests with tree cavities for nesting, mast production, and proximity to water. FWS focal species; regional conservation priority species. The bald eagle is a federally protected bird. This species is common

and is present year-round. Bald eagles prefer undisturbed Bald eagle areas with large, mature trees, near open water. As an apex

Forest predator, the bald eagle can be used as an indicator of environmental pollutants. JV focal species; UMGL surrogate species; regional conservation American woodcock priority species. Represents species that require transitional landscape with shrubs.

Northern long-eared bat State and Federal Threatened species; occurs on District

3.4. Relationship between Refuge Habitats and Priority Resources of Concern

To aid in management of St. Croix WMD habitats for the priority resources, we must know their specific habitat requirements. Table 3.3 summarizes the habitat composition, structure or habitat requirements of the selected priority ROCs. Those habitat requirements are often shared with other species. Therefore, each priority resource was chosen, in part, because managing for them would also benefit many of the other species on the District. Some of those benefitting species are listed in Table 3.4.

June 2020 46

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table 3.3. Habitat requirements for St. Croix Wetland Management District priority resources of concern. Key Habitat Relationships1 Priority Refuge Habitat Vegetative Resource Type Vegetative Structure Patch Size Special Considerations Composition Responds positively to haying or Mid-successional grasslands with burning; needs regular management Moderately area sensitive moderate litter layer, standing residual intervals; use of grasslands declines Bobolink Grasses and forbs requiring grassland patches > vegetation, and moderate grass:forb with lack of management; will respond 10 hectares. ratios with little to no woody vegetation. positively to light grazing, but not mod/heavy grazing. Attracted to open grasslands as Prefer medium density, high litter layer, small as 20 acres (8 ha), Moderate grazing levels are Eastern with some forb content and few shrubs Grasses and forbs although larger acreage is compatible with this species and other meadowlark (5% or less) although they will tolerate needed to sustain a viable grassland bird species. up to 30% shrubs. population.

Densities may be higher, in Medium to tall vegetation heights, dense large grassland areas. Loosely Intolerant of grazing and other Henslow's litter, and significant residual vegetation Grasses colonial during breeding management practices (fire/mowing) sparrow in grass dominated fields with little to no season; 0.3 ha territories that unless implemented infrequently. woody cover. don’t overlap. Grasslands Dependent on milkweed which can be found in open fields, gardens, parks. Upper Midwest Great Lakes geography Upland and lowlands; Often found along woodland edges and Found throughout North Monarch surrogate species; national priority open areas with open areas where milkweeds are America. Overwinter in Mexico butterfly species; flagship species for pollinator abundant nectar sources prevalent and there are abundant other and southern California. and grassland conservation. nectaring plant resources available from May through September. Cover is dominated by native species with a minimum of 30 species of native forbs and six warm and cool season Native Prairie Tall grass prairie native grass species. N/A Rare and often degraded. Remnants community Litter depth 0-6 in and woody cover less than 30%. Invasive plants should not exceed 30%

June 2020 47

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Key Habitat Relationships1 Priority Refuge Habitat Vegetative Resource Type Vegetative Structure Patch Size Special Considerations Composition Nesting cover is more important than Grasses and forbs, availability of water in limiting the size Forage in open to interspersed emergent Wetland-upland complex >240 Blue-winged emergent and of breeding populations. A 2:1 ration of cover, nest in moderate to dense upland ha is best for waterfowl teal submergent wetland upland nesting cover to emergent vegetation, height density > 50 cm. production. vegetation. wetland and open water is needed (Soulliere et al. 2017).

Wetland Grasses and forbs, Recruitment in Great Lakes States is Forage in open to interspersed emergent Wetland-upland complex >240 emergent and driven more by brood survival than by Mallard cover, nest in dense upland vegetation ha is best for waterfowl submergent wetland hen survival as it is in the Prairie about 60 cm high. production. vegetation. Pothole Region.

Typically nests in dead trees (generally Areas with greater basal area, 30-90 centimeters DBH) or dead limbs ( > cavity density, snag density, Red-headed Open upland sites with 6m long) of live trees. Cavity between 2- limb-tree density, and total Overall stand decadence also is woodpecker scattered trees. 25 m above ground with most nest dead limb length. Also, patches important to restoring this species. cavities between 7 and 12 meters above containing high densities of the ground. potential nest trees. Distances between populations that are likely to facilitate recolonization in a Fire-mediated improvement in lupine Oak savanna, barrens, Dependent on wild lupine, its only known metapopulation most likely fall Karner blue quality may significantly improve grasslands containing larval food plant, and on other nectar in the range of 0.5-2 kilometers butterfly abundance of second brood larvae on

avanna wild lupine. producing plants. (0.31-1.24 miles) and will S burn plots. depend on the nature of the habitat, especially canopy cover between habitat sites. Average of 2 or more open-branching, mature bur oaks, per acre, (dbh 10 inches or greater) and a variety of Oak dominated savanna Oak Savanna younger aged oaks (dbh ranging from 5 N/A rare and often degraded community to 10 inches). The herbaceous component will be similar to those found in the surrounding grasslands.

June 2020 48

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Key Habitat Relationships1 Priority Refuge Habitat Vegetative Resource Type Vegetative Structure Patch Size Special Considerations Composition Flooded shrubland, Nests in living or dead deciduous trees water-tolerant trees, with cavities that are found in Not territorial; female home Wetland drainage, agriculture, and small areas of open scrub/shrub wetland with overhead range before incubation is logging are threats to habitat. Wood Wood duck water, emergent plants; cover of downed timber; dense stands of ~367 ha (Hartke and Hepp ducks will use nesting boxes that oak mast is the emergent plants; shallow wetland types 2004). provide a safe nesting place. preferred food source in close proximity. Nests in forested areas adjacent to large Lakes, reservoirs, rivers, bodies of water; for perching they prefer 0.5-2 km2; territorial during Bald eagle Top avian predator marshes, and coasts tall, mature coniferous or deciduous breeding season trees

Prefers clearings for singing grounds and Usually solitary; displaying Forests, forest edges, roosting, young second-growth males are loosely clustered on Nests and forages on ground in young American old fields, and wet hardwoods for nesting and brood singing grounds. May also forests; vulnerable to poisoning by woodcock Forest meadows rearing, and moist shrubby sites for form small clusters in winter at pesticides and heavy metals. feeding. night. Colonial hibernators; roosts Forest dwelling bat; management alone in summer or females should promote increasing roosting Caves, buildings, tree Summer habitat may include day roosts may form small colonies; and foraging habitat. Avoid impacts to bark for roosting; caves in buildings, under tree bark or shutters. roosts in tall trees or snags known maternity roost trees and tree and mines for Northern long- May co-hibernate with other species. during day and caves or rock removal within 150 feet of known hibernation; forested eared bat Foraging habitat includes forested shelters at night; switch roosts maternity roost trees during the hillsides and ridges, and hillsides and ridges, and small ponds or frequently. Summer home summer maternity period, June 1- July small ponds or streams streams. range is highly variable (Owen 31 (federal guidance); in Wisconsin for foraging et al. 2003; Broders et al. June 1 until Aug 15 is recommended 2006). (WDNR 2012). 1Sources: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2018. Available: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=AFCJC04010 Poole, A., editor. 2005. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna Powell, H., editor. 2010. All about birds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available: https://www.allaboutbirds.org Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Wisconsin’s endangered resources. Available: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/

June 2020 49

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table 3.4. Priority resources of concern and other benefiting species on St. Croix Wetland Management District. Resource of Life History Other Benefitting Habitat Habitat Structure Concern Requirement Resources During breeding season, prefers open grasslands with a field sparrow (Spizella moderate litter layer and standing residual vegetation. pusilla), grasshopper Bobolink Can be found in hay fields, pastures, idle grasslands, old sparrow (Ammodramus fields, mesic prairies, and sedge meadows. savannarum), dickcissel (Spiza americana), Migration, Occurs in open grassland with medium density, high northern harrier (Circus nesting, litter layer, with some forb content and a few shrubs; cyaneus), sedge wren Eastern brood they need at least 6 acres in which to establish a (Cistothorus stellaris), meadowlark rearing, territory; nests on ground and cup nest is concealed by savannah sparrow foraging dense vegetation. (Passerculus sandwichensis), northern Large fields with tall, dense grass and well-developed bobwhite (Colinus Henslow’s litter layer. Nests are placed 6–8 cm off ground among virginianus), short-eared sparrow thick litter layer owl (winter) (Asio flammeus), common

Grassland yellowthroat (Geothlypis Breeding, Dependent on milkweed its only known larval food trichas), vesper sparrow Monarch larval and plant; adults feed on other nectar-producing plants. (Pooecetes gramineus), butterfly adult (nectar) Monarchs can be found wherever there is milkweed, lark sparrow (Chondestes foraging such as open fields, gardens, parks. grammacus), killdeer, upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), Cover is dominated by native species with a minimum sandhill crane, mallard, of 30 species of native forbs and six warm and cool Native Prairie blue-winged teal, ring- N/A season native grass species. Litter depth 0-6 in and Remnants necked pheasant, wild woody cover less than 30%. Invasive plants should not turkey; pollinators, such exceed 30%. as native bees and other butterflies. wood duck, sandhill crane, American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), great egret (Ardea alba), Occur in high density stands with short to moderate Blue-winged sora (Porzana carolina), grasses that is close to water for nesting and/or shallow teal Virginia rail, common tern water for foraging. (Sterna hirundo), forester's tern (Sterna Migration, forsteri), black tern

nesting, (Chlidonias niger), marsh brood wren (Cistothorus

rearing, Wetland palustris), yellow-headed foraging blackbird (Xanthocephalus Occur in a wide variety of habitats for feeding and xanthocephalus), swamp nesting but ideal habitat conditions consist of both a sparrow (Melospiza Mallard diverse wetland complex and upland cover; nests on georgiana), great egret, ground in areas with tall, dense vegetation near water. osprey (Pandion haliaetus), common tern, forester's tern, black tern, upland sandpiper

June 2020 50

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Resource of Life History Other Benefitting Habitat Habitat Structure Concern Requirement Resources Migration, nesting, Occurs in oak savanna and other open upland sites with Red-headed brood scattered trees; nests in dead trees or dead limbs of live woodpecker orchard oriole (Icterus rearing, trees. spurius), Baltimore oriole foraging (Icterus galbula), Dependent on wild lupine, its only known larval food northern bobwhite, Karner blue Whole life plant, adults feed on nectar plants. Wild lupine brown thrasher butterfly cycle historically occurred in savanna and barrens habitats (Toxostoma rufum), field Savanna typified by dry sandy soils. sparrow, northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Average of 2 or more open branching, mature bur oaks, eastern bluebird (Sialia (dbh 10 inches or greater) and a variety of younger aged sialis) Oak Savanna N/A oaks (dbh ranging from 5 to 10 inches). The herbaceous component will be similar to those found in the surrounding grasslands. Migration, eastern massasaugua nesting, Occur in wooded swamps, marshes, streams, beaver (Sistrurus catenatus), Wood duck brood (Castor canadensis) ponds, and small lakes; stick to wet hairy woodpecker rearing, areas with trees or extensive cattails; cavity nester. (Leuconotopicus villosus), foraging downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), red- Migration, bellied woodpecker nesting, Needs clearings for singing grounds and roosting, young (Melanerpes carolinus), American brood second-growth hardwoods for nesting and brood eastern wood pewee woodcock rearing, rearing, and moist shrubby sites for feeding. (Contopus virens), blue foraging jay (Cyanocitta cristata),

black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), Migration, white-breasted nuthatch Forest nesting, Sitta carolinensis Prefers forest stands that are mature or old growth ( ), blue- Bald eagle brood with many tall trees; nests in tall trees near water. gray gnatcatcher rearing, (Polioptila caerulea), red- foraging eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), scarlet tanager (Piranga Summer habitat may include day roosts in buildings, Northern olivacea), northern Whole life under tree bark or shutters. May co-hibernate with long-eared waterthrush (Parkesia cycle other species. Foraging habitat includes forested bat noveboracensis), and hillsides and ridges, and small ponds or streams. rose-breasted grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus) Poole, A., editor. 2005. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna Powell, H., editor. 2010. All about birds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available: https://www.allaboutbirds.org Steele, Y. 2013. Central Hardwood Habitat Page. In Paulios, A. and K. Kreitinger (eds.). 2007-2013. The Wisconsin All-Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/plan/habitats/CentralHardwood.htm Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Wisconsin’s endangered resources. Available: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/

June 2020 51

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

3.5. Priorititization of District Habitats

Due to personnel and funding resource limitations, management activities must be prioritized to ensure that the most important resource needs are met. The habitat types within the WPAs were prioritized based on current vegetation, management capability, and conservation needs of priority resources of concern.

Using the criteria presented in the Handbook (Taylor and Paveglio 2017), District lands were categorized into Priority I and II Habitats using the following factors:

Priority I Habitats: • Can be managed to provide the greatest conservation benefit to priority species, especially those specifically identified in the District purpose. • Offer the greatest contribution to (1) maintenance/restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; (2) represent important ecological and ecosystem processes not well represented within the landscape (including the broader ecoregion of which the District is a part) and; (3) address conservation needs of the Refuge System resources of concern. • Habitat condition or other factors suggest an urgent need for active management.

Priority II Habitats • Too limited in extent to make a meaningful difference. • Outside the management authority or jurisdiction of the District. • Does not require active management to maintain their present condition.

The purpose of identifying the habitat characteristics and attributes on which our priority resources of concern depend is to develop measurable and achievable habitat goals and objectives for the St. Croix WMD. In addition to identifying priority resources of concern, we have identified the high and low priority habitats to manage on the District (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5. High and low priority habitats on St. Croix Wetland Management District. HIGH PRIORITY HABITAT TYPES Broad Justification for Ranking Habitat Type (ac) (ha) Habitat

Active management results in positive impact Intact Remnant 54.70 22 on District priority resources of concern. (Native) Prairie Highly threatened ecosystem. Active management results in positive impact Grassland Planted Grasslands 5,205.00 2,106 on District priority resources of concern. Temporary/Seasonal Active management results in positive impact 427.65 173 Wetlands on District priority resources of concern.

Semi-permanent Active management results in positive impact 528.86 214 Wetlands on District priority resources of concern.

Wetland Permanent Active management results in positive impact Wetlands/Shallow 950.79 385 on District priority resources of concern. Lakes

June 2020 52

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

HIGH PRIORITY HABITAT TYPES Broad Justification for Ranking Habitat Type (ac) (ha) Habitat Restored Oak Active management results in positive impact Savanna/Oak 283.33 115 on District priority resources of concern. Woodlot Highly threatened ecosystem.

Savanna Restorable Oak Active restoration and management results in Savanna/Oak 268.80 109 positive impact on District priority resources Woodlot of concern. Highly threatened ecosystem.

LOW PRIORITY HABITATS Broad Justification for Ranking Habitat Type (ac) (ha) Habitat

Active management may result in positive impact on District priority resources of Upland Forest 508.62 206 concern. Highly intensive and expensive Forest management required. All cropped fields in District are in preparation

for restoration to native grassland plant community. No District management required Cropland 165.00 67 while tract is being farmed by cooperator. Any newly acquired cropped fields will be Grassland converted to planted grassland within three years.

Minimal amount of this habitat on the District. Riverine/Floodplain 104.04 42 Potential for restoration may be addressed on Forest Forest a unit-by-unit basis.

Minimal ability or jurisdiction to manage this Sparse Vegetation habitat however opportunities for (e.g., gravel pits, 19.06 8

Other collaboration on restoration/management roadsides) may exist.

High priority habitats can be actively managed or restored to benefit the priority resources of concern (Table 3.6). Low priority habitats benefit fewer priority resources of concern, have management restrictions, or do not require active management to maintain their present condition.

June 2020 53

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table 3.6. St. Croix Wetland Management District priority resources of concern and associated priority habitats. Grassland Wetland Oak Savanna Forest Native Permanent Priority Species Temp Semi- Prairie Planted Shallow Restored Restorable Upland Floodplain Seasonal permanent Remants Lake Bobolink X X Eastern X X meadowlark Henslow’s sparrow X X Monarch butterfly X X X X Native Prairie X Remnants Blue-winged teal X X X X X Mallard X X X X X Red-headed X X woodpecker Karner blue X X X X butterfly Oak Savanna X X Wood duck X X X X Bald eagle X X American woodcock X

3.6. Prioritization of Wetland Management Units

High and low priority habitat categories are primarily intended for long-term planning. The actual waterfowl production area that will be managed each year will be prioritized based on the scores from our prioritization tool (Appendix F), current resource conditions at each unit, and logistical constraints such as available staff and equipment. These year-by-year factors will be addressed in annual habitat work plans. The prioritization tool gives us numerical scores and rankings based on the criteria listed in Appendix F, Table F.1. We do not expect to make decisions solely on the use of this tool. Professional judgment, expertise, feasibility, as well as continued assessments of habitats and resources present on our WPAs will be considered in our decision-making process when implementing restoration and management activities.

3.7. Conflict Resolution

Due to the diversity of goals, purposes, mandates, and conservation priorities of the National Wildlife Refuge System it is not unreasonable to expect conflicting management priorities at a specific refuge. With the diversity of priority resources of concern there will be instances where priority resources have conflicting habitat needs. Balancing the types and proportions of habitat conditions on the District will require a thoughtful process for determining the best course of action. Waterfowl are the highest priority for WMDs, so their needs will take precedence in most situations. However, one advantage of working at the landscape scale of a WMD is the constant assessment of habitat available in the surrounding landscape outside the

June 2020 54

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

boundaries of the WPA. While there are subtle differences in habitat requirements between grasshopper sparrows and mallards, for example, establishing nesting cover for mallards on several tracts across St. Croix WMDs will simultaneously provide grasshopper sparrow nesting cover on some tracts as all lands provide a range of micro-habitat conditions based on soil types, seed mixes, precipitation, management treatments, and tract sizes. Some of the non- waterfowl grassland birds of interest may have more precise microhabitat requirements for nesting habitat than mallards, such as proportion of forb cover. The challenge is to recognize how to enact slight modifications to habitat management efforts to provide even greater value for other priority resources of concern. Those types of considerations are reflected in the objectives and strategies developed in this HMP (Chapter 4).

3.8. Adaptive Management

Priority species and their respective habitat attributes were used to develop habitat objectives for the District that are achievable. Many factors, such as the lack of resources, existing habitat conditions, species response to habitat manipulations, climatic changes, or invasive species, may reduce or eliminate the ability of the District to achieve objectives. Although these factors were considered during the development of management objectives, conditions may change over the next 15 years and beyond.

In some instances, a Refuge or District may be able to employ the use of adaptive management principles as outlined in the U.S. Department of the Interior Adaptive Management (AM) Technical Guide (Williams et. al 2009). However, these instances will be rare (Knutson et al. 2017). The U.S. Department of the Interior AM Technical Guide defines adaptive management as “…a decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process” (Williams et al. 2009).

The District might consider adaptive management under the conditions where there is ecological uncertainty, partial observability, partial controllability, or environmental variation and where they are uncertain as to the outcome of management options (Knutson et al. 2017). Specific management actions that maximize the District’s biological contributions were identified where the application of true adaptive management may be prudent. The topics below may require accelerated iteration and alteration of management actions based upon comparisons between predicted and observed results that require changes to management actions outside of the anticipated 5-year Wildlife and Habitat review process (620 FWS 1): • Water management capabilities in wetland habitat • Grassland management • Native brush and tree management

Regardless of whether true adaptive management is employed, or habitats are simply monitored to measure the effectiveness of our management actions, the District is committed to ensuring that management actions and any changing conditions can be detected and

June 2020 55

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan responded to adequately and efficiently. In order to achieve this the District will establish and maintain an inventory and monitoring program in accordance with 701 FW 2.

June 2020 56

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Chapter 4: Habitat Goals, Objectives, Strategies

Restored grassland on St. Croix Prairie WPA (Thomas Kerr, USFWS).

4.0. Introduction 4.1. Grassland Management 4.2. Wetland Management 4.3. Savanna Management 4.4. Forest Management

June 2020 57

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

4.0 Introduction

The St. Croix CCP (USFWS 2008a) was written to help ensure that management and administration of the District meets the mission of the Refuge System, the purpose for which the District was established, and the goals for the District. The CCP contains broad statements about the desired future habitat conditions of the District with associated broad goals and objectives. These broad goals and objectives (Appendix A) were stepped down and refined and were the basis for the goals, objectives, and strategies developed for this HMP.

During development of the HMP, the CCP goals and objectives were reviewed to determine if they 1) still represented existing District habitat conditions; 2) reflect current Service policies, as well as 3) appropriately describe future management opportunities. CCP goals and objectives were also reviewed to determine if they meet the criteria defined in the Service’s Writing Goals and Objectives Handbook (USFWS 2004). The handbook requires that objectives be written using the S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, time fixed) criteria. Some amendments to the goals and objectives were needed to meet the SMART criteria (Table 4.1). Using the SMART criteria, the HMP habitat goals and objectives described in this chapter articulate specific, clear, and concise strategies to implement the broad vision as outlined in the CCP goals and objectives (USFWS 2008a, Appendix A). With amendments the HMP goals and objectives support the purpose for which the District was established and are consistent with the actions outlined in the CCP and Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) of the Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2008a).

Table 4.1. Crosswalk between the goals and objectives identified in the St. Croix Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Appendix A) and the goals and objectives developed for the St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Managemenr Plan. HMP Goal CCP Goals and Change between CCP or Rationale Objectives and HMP Objective CCP has only one habitat Goals and objectives for each broad goal. HMP goals and All HMP habitat type helped staff identify top GOAL 1: Habitat objectives are written for goals priority communities and their each broad habitat type. associated species. HMP objectives provide more specificity CCP objective is mostly Objective 1.1. Objective about the desired future condition of strategies; revised using Grasslands 4.1.1, 4.1.2 grassland habitats to better define SMART criteria. management actions and priority ROCs. HMP objectives provide more specificity CCP objective is mostly Objective Objective 1.2. about the desired future condition of strategies; revised using 4.2.1, Wetlands wetland habitats to better define SMART criteria. 4.2.2, 4.2.3 management actions and priority ROCs. HMP objectives provide more specificity CCP objective is mostly Objective 1.3. Objective about the desired future condition of strategies; revised using Oak Savanna 4.3.1 oak savanna habitats to better define SMART criteria. management actions and priority ROCs.

June 2020 58

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

HMP Goal CCP Goals and Change between CCP or Rationale Objectives and HMP Objective HMP objectives provide more specificity CCP objective is a Objective 1.4. Objective about the desired future condition of strategy; revised using Woodlands 4.4.1 forest habitats to better define SMART criteria. management actions and priority ROCs. CCP strategy is incorporated into habitat Objective 1.5. CCP objective is a N/A objectives and associated strategies and Invasive Species strategy; updated to meet SMART objectives. Objective 1.6. All newly acquired lands will be Land Strategy; not part of HMP N/A managed based on the appropriate Acquisitions habitat objectives of this HMP. CCP has only one wildlife Goals and objectives for each broad goal. HMP includes habitat type includes wildlife goals and All HMP GOAL 2: Wildlife wildlife goals within each helped staff identify top priority goals broad habitat type goal communities and their associated and objectives. species. Objective CCP objective is incorporated into CCP objective is a 4.2.1, Objective 2.1. wetland habitat objectives, waterfowl strategy; revised using 4.2.2, Waterfowl priority ROC objectives, and associated SMART criteria. 4.2.3, strategies. 4.2.4, 4.4.3 Objective 2.2. Federally listed CCP objectives are Threatened and strategies; removed as Endangered overall objectives and CCP objectives are incorporated into all Species incorporated into habitat ALL HMP habitat objectives as a strategy or Objective 2.4. strategies; priority ROC objectives addressed as priority ROC objectives. State T&E objectives written for any Species and T&E’s known to be Species of present on District. Concern CCP objective is a strategy related to CCP objective is incorporated into all Objective 2.3. inventory and monitoring ALL HMP habitat objectives as a strategy or Regional Species and will be addressed in objectives addressed as priority ROC objectives. of Concern the Inventory and Also see IMP. Monitoring step down plan (IMP). CCP objective is a strategy related to seed Seed mixtures and plantings are Objective 2.5. mixes, planted grasslands Objectives addressed in HMP strategies. Also see Monitoring and monitoring; 4.1.1, 4.1.2 IMP. monitoring will be addressed in IMP

June 2020 59

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

It is especially challenging to develop measurable, achievable, and time-specific goals and objectives for a WMD. The priority ROCs and habitats that are within the District WPAs and easements are non-contiguous and spread out over an expansive and highly altered landscape There is 43.5 miles between the farthest north and farthest south WPA while the eastern-most WPA is 50.8 miles from the westernmost WPA. Therefore, we chose to develop objectives based on the broad habitat types that exist across the District instead of writing detailed habitat objectives for each management unit (WPA). However, brief descriptions of current and desired future conditions for each unit/WPA can be found in Appendix G. The amount of habitat that will be managed as stated in these HMP objectives is based on what can be accomplished in an average year at current budget and staffing levels. Management goals for each broad habitat type will be established annually and will fluctuate based on variability in staffing and budgets. The current and desired condition for each broad habitat type within the District is found in Table 4.2. Current and desired condition of habitat types within each WPA are detailed in Appendix G. All acreages detailed in this HMP are approximations. District staff used 2010 NAIP Imagery and hand digitized polygons around each habitat type using ArcGIS™. Habitat information for each polygon was populated using a combination of field truthing and staff knowledge of the unit.

The District is actively engaged in land acquisition. Therefore, acreages may change over time. Acreages will be updated during the 5-year wildlife and habitat review to reflect new acquisitions and increased understanding of habitat distribution. Any new land acquired after the approval of this HMP that is managed by St. Croix WMD will also adhere to the goals and objectives outlined in this chapter.

Table 4.2. Current and desired acres by broad habitat types within St. Croix Wetland Management District. See Appendix G, Table G.1 for current and desired conditions of habitat types within each WPA. See objectives for explaination of differences between current and desired acres. Difference Broad Habitat Current acres Desired Sub-habitat types between existing Type(s) (as of 2019)* acres (HMP) and HMP target Grassland (total) 5424.7 Native Prairie Remnants 54.7 54.7 0 Grassland types Planted Grassland 5205 5435.33 +230.33 Cropland 165 0 -165 Wetland (total) 1907.3 Temporary & Seasonal Wetlands 427.65 283.54 -144.1 Wetland types Semi-permanent Wetlands 528.86 492.46 -36.4 Permanent Wetlands & Shallow Lakes 950.79 1131.29 +180.5 Savanna (total) 552.13 Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 283.33 552.13 +268.8 Savanna types Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 268.8 0 -268.8 Forest (total) 612.66 Floodplain Forest 104.04 104.04 0 Forest types Upland Forest 508.62 443.3 -65.33 Other 19.06 19.06 0 Total 8515.86 *Acreage calculations are from resource grade data by GIS mapping; not official Realty survey acres.

June 2020 60

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Management strategies identify the tools and techniques that can be used to achieve the habitat goals and objectives outlined in this chapter. The management strategies identified for each habitat objective were selected by reviewing previous and current District practices, consultation with other District biologists, and feasibility of implementing these strategies with the current resources and staff. Many factors, (i.e. accessibility, weather, staffing) will affect which strategies are implemented from year to year and will be reflected in Annual Habitat Work Plans. Management strategies are provided in this chapter along with links or references to additional or supporting documents. Additional information regarding management strategies and prescriptions are further defined in Appendix H.

4.1 Grassland Management (High Priority) Priority ROCs: Native Prairie Remnants, bobolink, Eastern meadowlark, Henslow’s sparrow, and monarch butterfly

Grassland Management Goal To restore, protect, and manage grasslands throughout St. Croix WMD to promote inherent ecological diversity and integrity of grassland-dependent wildlife and plants while providing nesting cover for the benefit of waterfowl and other grassland-dependent wildlife.

HMP Objective 4.1.1. Native Prairie Remnants Restore, protect, and manage all existing native prairie remnants (~55 acres) and newly acquired tracts throughout St. Croix WMD with a priority given to prairie tracts larger than 10 acres at an average of 10 acres per year. Native prairie remnants should exhibit the following conditions: • A minimum of 30 species of native forbs. • A minimum of five warm and cool season native grass species. • Cover is dominated by native species (≥70%). • Litter depth with a range of 0-15 cm (0-6 in). • Trees >1 m (3.3 ft) tall comprise <10% of the cover • Woody shrubs will represent less than 30% • Invasive plants should not exceed 30%

HMP Objective 4.1.2. Planted Grasslands Annually, enhance, protect, and manage at least 1,500 acres of the approximately 5,450 acres of planted grasslands. Within 3 years of acquisition of new croplands or non-native grasslands, restore with native prairie seed. Future acquistions of lands will be within the St. Croix WMD focus areas (See Figure 2.9). Planted grasslands can provide breeding, nesting, or foraging habitat requirements for grassland dependent species, such as, bobolink, eastern meadowlark, Henslow’s sparrow, and monarch butterflies. Planted grasslands should demonstrate similar conditions as native prairie remnants and exhibit the following conditions: • A minimum of 30 species of native forbs. • A minimum of five warm and cool season native grass species. • Cover is dominated by native species (≥70%). • Litter depth with a range of 0-15 cm (0-6 in).

June 2020 61

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

• Trees >1 m (3.3 ft) tall comprise <10% of the cover • Woody shrubs will represent less than 30% • Invasive plants should not exceed 30% • Forbs should comprise ≥20% of the seed mix (seeds/ft2). A minimum of 30 forb species and 5 grass species should be represented in the seed mixes to promote structural and species diversity that bloom throughout the growing season. o Planted grasslands should express ≥50% of the planted seed mix within 5 growing seasons. o Seed mixes will include milkweed and other nectaring plants that are important for Monarchs and other pollinator species. o See Appendix H for additional information regarding seed mix development and establishment. o See Appendix C for 2020 in-house seed inventory.

GRASSLAND PRIORITY ROC OBJECTIVES: HMP Objective 4.1.3. Henslow’s sparrow: Desired conditions for Henslow’s sparrow breeding habitat consists of dense stands of herbaceous grasslands (>30 cm tall), a well- developed litter layer (>2.5cm) and standing dead vegetation with minimal woody cover (Pruitt 1996; Winter 1999; Potter et al. 2007b). A minimum area of 74 acres of grass is required (Potter et al. 2007b). Densities of breeding Henslow’s sparrow average 0.23 breeding pairs/acre, with a range of 0.12-0.62 pairs/acre (Potter et al. 2007b). Therefore, if all grassland acres were available and of high quality, the District could potentially support approximately 74 Henslow’s sparrow pairs annually.

HMP Objective 4.1.4. Bobolink: Suitable habitat for breeding bobolinks consists of abundant herbaceous grassland vegetation with medium height-density (15-35 cm), grass cover >50%, woody plant cover <25%, and litter depths of 2-5 cm, (Wiens 1969, Sample and Mossman 1997; Dechant et al. 2003; Winter et al. 2004; Ribic et al. 2009). Bobolinks prefer grassland patch sizes >25 acres that are embedded in a homogeneous landscape of other grasslands (Fletcher and Koford 2003, Renfrew and Ribic 2008, Shustack et al. 2010). In Wisconsin average territory size ranged from 1 to 6 acres depending on habitat quality (Wiens 1969; Martin 1967; 1971; Renfrew et al. 2019; 2020) and density of singing males ranged from 0.17 – 0.85/acre (Ribic et al. 2009). Bobolinks are polygynous and in Wisconsin successful males formed pair bonds with one to four females depending on quality of habitat and abundance of food (Renfrew et al. 2020). Therefore, based on territory size and if all grassland acres were available and of high quality, the District could potentially support approximately 900 singing males annually. However, because annual fluctuations and vegetation changes may not provide ideal conditions across all acres each year and grassland acres within the District are fragmented, a lesser sum of approximately 600 singing males was chosen as the District population target.

HMP Objective 4.1.5. Eastern Meadowlark: Annually, support an estimated breeding population of 0.32 pairs/acre of eastern meadowlark (Potter et al. 2007b). Multipurpose territories for feeding, mating, and rearing of young range between 7 and 8 acres (Hull et al. 2019). Breeding habitat should include areas of dense grasses of moderate height (12.5-35

June 2020 62

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

cm), low shrub coverage (<5%), low forb coverage, a well-developed litter layer (<13 cm), and the availability of suitable perches (Hull 2002; Hull et al. 2019).

HMP Objective 4.1.6. Monarch Butterfly: Develop, restore, enhance and manage grassland habitat that supports breeding monarch butterflies, a Service flagship species. Provide milkweed and flowering plants that bloom prior to the arrival of monarchs in late May (Howard 2019). In established grassland habitats, provide a diversity of nectar resources from spring through fall for adult monarchs and other pollinators. Plant only source- identified and locally adapted seeds of milkweed to establish the goal of about 250 milkweed stems/acre (Table S3.1 in Thogmartin et al. 2017).

Grassland Management Rationale: Grasslands are one of the most threatened natural communities in the Midwest (WDNR 2015c) and are a high priority habitat for St. Croix WMD. Before Europeans arrived, Wisconsin contained 2.1 million acres of native prairie. Presently, less than 10,000 acres of native grassland remain, and the grasslands that remain are fragmented, small remnants (<10 acres) of varying quality. Over 99% of Wisconsin’s grasslands have been lost to agriculture and development (WDNR, 2015c). The District contains approximately 54.7 acres of native prairie remnants, 5,205 acres of planted grasslands and 165 acres of cropland that will soon be converted to planted grassland (Table 4.2). It is essential that we actively manage the District grasslands not only for their inherent ecological integrity and diversity, but to protect endemic flora and fauna, and to benefit grassland-dependent wildlife, such as but not limited to, Henslow’s sparrow, bobolink, eastern meadowlark, and monarch butterfly.

The absence of trees, except in areas where fire seldom carries such as in wet draws and in small pockets along rivers and streams, is generally the optimum state for maximum development and health of grassland systems (Curtis 1959). Grasses dominate the vegetative biomass of grasslands, but forbs dominate the species composition. The most represented families of forbs are the composite (aster), legume, milkweed, and rose families. Over 400 species of native vascular plants are characteristic of Wisconsin’s grasslands. Detailed descriptions and distribution of Wisconsin’s grassland plant communities can be found in the classic text by Curtis (1959), the Atlas of the Wisconsin Prairie and Savanna Flora (Cochrane and Iltis 2000) and in the Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Wisconsin (Wetter et al 2001). An updated inventory of the District’s native prairie remnants, as part of the Inventory and Monitory Plan, would be beneficial to catalogue the species of plants that are present. An inventory was completed circa the late 1990s soon after the District was established by District staff (USFWS unpublished data, internal District records). Planted grasslands within the District contain a minimum of five species of warm and cool season native grass species and at least 30 forbs. See Appendix C for 2020 grassland seed species inventory list. The planted grasslands throughout the District are at different stages of establishment. It is well understood by land managers that grasslands can take several years to become “established” and that “weediness” is a common challenge for the first few years. Schramm (1990) discusses four different stages of prairie establishment, with black-eyed susans (Rudebekia hirta) and other prairie annuals in the first stage (years 1-3), yellow coneflower and false sunflower (Heliopsis helianthoides) in the second stage (years 2-5), rattlesnake master and compass plant (Silphium laciniatum) in the

June 2020 63

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

third stage (years 6-12), and finally lead plant and prairie dropseed in the fourth stage (years 13-20+).

Grassland flora is abundant and diverse with varying vegetative structure, such as: litter depth, visual obstruction or vegetation density, and height of live or residual vegetation that benefit a range of grassland-dependent wildlife such as our priority resources of concern, bobolink, eastern meadowlark, Henslow’s sparrow, and monarch butterflies. Even degraded grassland habitat is of substantial value with respect to ecological diversity. For breeding birds, vegetation height, density, patchiness, and canopy are factors more important than the species of plants (Nickens 2010). Grassland birds prefer a range of vegetation structures. Therefore, maintaining a diversity of vegetation structure (i.e. heights and growth stages) for the conservation of grassland species is desired. For example, Henslow’s sparrows prefer tall and dense grasses and forbs, bobolinks prefer lush medium-height habitats, and eastern meadowlarks prefer mesic or dry grasslands of moderate to low height (Sample and Mossman 1997). The presence of litter is also a structure that can be attractive and beneficial for some grassland-dependent species while unattractive when too deep for other species. For example, bobolink prefer medium litter depths and eastern meadowlark and Henslow’s sparrow prefer deep litter depths (Dechant 2003; Hull 2002; Sample and Mossman 1997). Providing a mosaic of vegetation structure will allow for the coexistence of all three species. The diversity of vegetation structure can also be increased with greater plant species diversity (Helzer 2010) that will benefit other grassland dependent species. Many animal species need to shift their feeding from one plant species or group of species to others as the season progresses. For example, many native bees depend on sources of nectar and pollen from early spring until late fall. Monarch butterflies, a priority resource of concern, are dependent on milkweed as it’s only known larval food plant while the adults require a diversity of nectar sources from spring through fall.

Historically, grasslands were maintained through fire and grazing as well as a highly variable climate (Anderson 2006). Historic fire intervals were estimated at about five to ten years (Wright and Bailey 1980). However, recent literature suggests fire frequencies in the grassland regions of Minnesota and Wisconsin were between two and three years but were highly dependent on the climate (Dickmann and Cleland 2002). In the absence of disturbance such as, fire, haying, mowing, or grazing, grasslands are vulnerable to rapid encroachment of invasive species. St. Croix WMD is no exception, as evidenced by the presence of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa), spotted knapweed, boxelder (Acer negundo), and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) in most of the District’s grasslands. In addition, adjacent forests are also becoming infested with invasive species and provide a continual seed source of some of the invasive species present in the grasslands. Increasing CO2, warmer temperatures, earlier springs, reduced snowpack, and an increase in flood events will only increase plant productivity and expansion of invasive species (WICCI 2011). In addition, as environmental conditions become less predictable with more frequent and prolonged droughts and/or storms, local conditions may not allow for the application of controlled fires at the right time. Measures of control or eradication of invasive species will vary by plant species and unique site conditions. Selection will be based on plant species that have the potential to significantly alter the ecology of the native plant and animal community. For some invasive species, control may necessitate attempting to eradicate, whereas for others it may require limiting the spread. For

June 2020 64

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

example, spotted knapweed can have serious ecological impacts given its ability to chemically exclude other plants, but it is feasible to greatly reduce this plant over a long-time frame. Conversely, smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass may be controlled through prescribed burns or grazing to deplete root reserves of these species and set them back temporarily. See Appendix H for more information regarding invasive species control.

The main management tool to maintain a diverse grassland is fire. Prescribed burning has been an important part of grassland management at St. Croix WMD since establishment. About 1,000 acres are burned on a rotational system during the spring months under prescriptions found in Unit by Unit plans within the District’s Fire Management Plan (USFWS 2008b). Grasslands are typically burned on a 3-5-year rotation (USFWS 2008b). This is consistent with the literature that suggests after six years, native and restored grasslands become dense, grass-dominated stands with increased litter depth (Olechnowski et al. 2009, Naugle et al. 2000) and are more susceptible to invasive species including trees and shrubs (Naugle et al. 2000). However, there is some recent literature on pollinators that indicates a 3-year interval may be too often to support healthy populations (Brown et al. 2017). Grassland stand health and vigor will deplete due to increased litter accumulation (Naugle et. al 2000) and therefore, grasslands may need management intervention between years two and eight post fire, when litter accumulation is great enough to carry a fire and the dominance of woody or invasive species is greater than 25% of the unit (Olechnowski et al. 2009). Properly timed mowing and burning is key for preserving populations of grassland nesting birds (McCracken et al. 2013). For example, bobolink density will decline in response to litter accumulation and shrub encroachment (Johnson 1997). However, bobolink abundance generally peaks one to three years after disturbance (Bollinger and Gavin 1992, Johnson 1997, Madden et al. 1999). The District’s fire plan (USFWS 2008b, 2020 in Prep) incorporates the desired habitat conditions and annual monitoring of the plant assemblages within WPAs that will better inform annual treatment schedules.

Grassland Management Strategies (Native prairie remnants and planted grasslands): • Acquire native prairie remnant blocks of any size whenever possible. • As conditions allow, implement prescribed burning as a strategy to maintain habitat composition and improve diversity. Select units based on conditions such as time since last burn, litter depth, and existing woody cover. o Use prescribed fire to reduce cool season invasive grasses when the target species are actively growing but before native warm season species are active. o Strive to burn smooth brome during the boot stage (stem elongation). For smooth brome, this is during the 3-5 leaf stage. o Use prescribed fire to minimize coverage of Kentucky bluegrass. o Use prescribed burns to control and set back woody species encroachment. o Develop fire prescriptions that maintain <10% aerial coverage of woody plants in a unit and promote growth of warm season native grasses and forbs o See the St. Croix WMD Fire Management Plan (USFWS 2008b; ServCat 54791; 2020 in Prep) and Appendix H for more details.

June 2020 65

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

• Apply a combination of treatments (fire, mechanical, chemical, biological controls) at the appropriate time based on the needs of the unit and to maximize native plant diversity and early successional stages of grassland systems. o Select and prioritize treatment based on species of woody or invasive plants, life history of the woody or invasive plants, and severity of the infestation. o Early detection, rapid response (EDRR; DOI 2016a) methods may be used to monitor for new invasive species and stop them before they get a foot hold or to determine when management actions are needed to keep established invasive plant species cover below 30% of total area. o Prioritize treatment of invasive species populations that are in high quality habitat. o Prioritize reduction of black locust, wild parsnip, spotted knapweed, boxelder, and Siberian elm, and elimination of other early colonizing invasive species. o Conduct woody species removals in priority grassland areas that exceed more than 10 percent aerial coverage by unit. o Use high flow skid steer attachments to cut encroaching trees with >6 in dbh in remnant prairies and >18in dbh in planted prairies; chemically treat stumps or regrowth with appropriate chemical(s). See Appendix H for additional information. . As needed, employ contractors to remove encroaching trees. o Provide defoliation treatments (burning, haying, grazing, or mowing,) on an approximate 3 - 7year cycle, varying the season in which the treatment is applied and based on the condition of the unit, the life history of any plant species of concern, and outcome desired. o Consider introduction of biological controls to control invasive species such as spotted knapweed and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). o Continue to research new technologies and management techniques for enhancing the floristic quality of the native prairies. o Coordinate with partners to implement conservation practices that minimizes off-District invasive species introductions. o Consider the long-term well-being of any PROCs that may be affected by the management action. • Continue to use livestock grazing and employ multiple grazing regimes and species to defoliate and control smooth brome and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). o See St. Croix Haying and Grazing Program Plan (USFWS 2015a; ServCat 54793) for details. • Continue to consider mowing, haying, or grazing on units when needed to reduce litter layer, introduce disturbance, control woody and invasive species, and as site preparation for seeding. • Promote, plant, and monitor a mix of pollinator specific plants, including milkweed and goldenrod (Solidago spp.), timed to accommodate all life stages of monarch butterflies and other nectar dependant invertebrates. o Conduct pollinator-friendly management practices, such as prescribed burns, October 1-May 15.

June 2020 66

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

• Within three years, assess whether additional acres of remnant native prairies exist on WPAs and update Table G.1 in Appendix G. • On newly acquired lands, cool season planted grasslands, or sites heavily infested with invasive species use cooperative farming and/or haying to restore and manage grasslands to meet grassland target attributes. o Continue to seek out and collect seeds from known remnant prairie sites within the District in partnership with local, state and federal agencies and organizations for the purpose of enhancing diversity on planted grasslands. o Continue to adapt and expand the Seed Farm Partnership to meet management specific needs such as augmentation of spring flowering species on lands managed by the District and to promote grassland restoration and management. • Allow some isolated and/or low priority grassland units to transition into other habitat types to minimize management efforts in areas of marginal conservation benefit. • Explore collaboration with other FWS offices or partners such as USFWS Ecological Services Field Office, Migratory Birds, universities, and/or state and private agencies as well as citizen scientists to collect baseline inventory data, assist with restoration, and/or design research projects. o Develop or use existing protocols to assist in collection of baseline inventories. o Within 5 years of HMP approval, conduct baseline vegetation assessments to improve understanding of management needs across each unit. • Use applied research or consider adaptive management to address any questions that arise regarding resources of concern, T&E species or other issues such as invasive species management • Record all management actions in R3 Management Actions database.

4.2 Wetland Management (High Priority) Priority ROCs: blue-winged teal and mallard

Wetland Management Goal Restore, protect, and manage wetlands and shallow lakes throughout St. Croix WMD to provide breeding, brood rearing, and migratory habitat for waterfowl and provide diverse habitat for other wetland-dependent wildlife while promoting the overall ecological integrity of the wetland.

HMP Objective 4.2.1. Temporary & Seasonal Wetland Objectives Annually, provide 283 acres of temporary and seasonal wetlands primarily for the benefit of waterfowl and waterbirds, but also for the benefit of reptiles and amphibians. Emphasis will be on temporary and seasonal wetlands within WPAs in St. Croix WMD focus areas (Figure 2.9). Presently approximately 428 acres of temporary and seasonal wetlands exist within the District but, if conditions allow, 144 acres of primarily reed canary grass will be converted to permanent wetlands. Temporary and seasonal wetlands will exhibit the following characteristics: • Wetland vegetation will be comprised primarily of native species (≥80%) including a diversity of emergent and woody vegetation including cattail, burreed, sedges, bulrush,

June 2020 67

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

arrowhead, willow (Salix spp.), red osier dogwood, and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). • Water depths of 0-24 inches. • Trees <10 cm (4 in) dbh (diameter at breast height) will comprise ≤25% cover in the margins. • <50% shrub cover at margins with woody vegetation less than 6 m (20 feet) tall. • State-listed noxious weeds and invasive plants should not exceed 20% cover.

Temporary and Seasonal Wetlands Rationale: Temporary and seasonal wetlands are critical for waterfowl during migration and the early part of the breeding season when more permanent wetlands are still frozen (Stewart and Kantrud 1971). These shallow water zones with aquatic vegetation provide quality foraging and staging habitats for many birds, such as, mallards and blue-winged teal, District ROCs, but also benefit other dabbling ducks, waterfowl, and wading birds. Seasonally flooded wetland habitats support higher densities of several benthic macroinvertebrates that are important for waterfowl (Krapu et al. 1997). Trees and shrub development along the margins of basins contribute to the loss of water through transpiration and can cause flow reversals, reduce ponded water from discharge, inhibit groundwater recharge, and alter soil makeup (Eisenlohr et al. 1972, Meyboom et al. 1966). Therefore, management will be implemented to reduce trees and shrubs around wetland margins.

HMP Objective 4.2.2: Semi-Permanent Wetland Objectives Annually, restore, and protect approximately 492 acres of semi-permanent wetlands primarily for the benefit of waterfowl and waterbirds, but also for the benefit of other migrant and resident wetland species. Emphasis will be on semi-permanent wetlands within WPAs in St. Croix WMD focus areas (Figure 2.9). Presently approximately 529 acres of semi-permanent wetlands exist within the District but, if conditions allow, 36 acres of primarily reed canary grass will be converted to permanent wetlands. Semi-permanent wetlands will exhibit the following characteristics: • Wetland vegetation will be comprised primarily of native species (≥80%) including a diversity of emergent and submergent vegetation such as cattail, burreed, sedges, bulrush, arrowhead, duckweed, coontail, sago pondweed, and wild celery (Vallisneria americana). • 50:50 ratio of emergent vegetation to open water. • Water depths of 2-36 inches. • Trees <10 cm (4 in) dbh (diameter at breast height) will comprise ≤25% cover in the margins. • <50% shrub cover at margins with woody vegetation less than 6 m (20 feet) tall. • State-listed noxious weeds and invasive plants should not exceed 20% cover.

Semi-Permanent Rationale: Semi-permanent or hemi-marsh conditions are well accepted as ideal habitat structure for dabbling ducks and many other waterbirds (Weller and Spatcher 1965, Murkin et al. 1982, Murkin et al. 1997). The interspersion of water and vegetation allows for pair isolation,

June 2020 68

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

provides escape cover for broods, and encourages an abundant and accessible invertebrate food source. However, prairie wetlands historically existed under dynamic climatic (and thus hydrologic) conditions. Above average precipitation in the 1990s and accelerated drainage across the landscape (including surface ditches) have resulted in many wetland basins having an unnaturally deep and stable water regime. An occasional dry period (drought or artificial drawdown where possible) is important for consolidating wetland sediment, recycling nutrients, and germinating emergent vegetation. Drying semi- permanent wetlands also provide excellent mudflat habitat for shorebirds.

HMP Objective 4.2.3. Permanent Wetlands & Shallow Lakes Objectives Annually, restore, and protect approximately 1,131 acres of permanent wetlands and shallow lakes on WPAs throughout St. Croix WMD for the benefit of foraging and resting waterfowl and waterbirds. Emphasis will be on permanent wetlands within WPAs in District focus areas (Figure 2.9). Currently, approximately 950 acres of permanent wetlands exist within the District but, if conditions allow, approximately 36 acres of semi-permanent and 144 acres of temporary and seasonal wetlands will be converted from reed canary grass dominated wetlands to permanent wetlands. Permanent wetlands and shallow lakes will exhibit the following characteristics: • Wetland vegetation will be comprised primarily of native species (≥80%) of submergent, floating and floating leaved aquatic plant communities such as coontail, sago pondweed, and wild celery. • 50:50 ratio of emergent vegetation to open water. • Water depths of ≥24 inches. • Trees <10 cm (4 in) dbh (diameter at breast height) will comprise ≤25% cover in the margins. • <50% shrub cover at margins with woody vegetation less than 6 m (20 feet) tall. • State-listed noxious weeds and invasive plants should not exceed 20% cover.

Permanent Wetlands & Shallow Lakes Rationale: True aquatic (submerged) vegetation is a crucial component of shallow/permanent open water communities. The permanent water regime of these shallow open water habitats are particularly important for waterfowl production, brood rearing, molting, and migration. These wetlands also provide important habitat for overwater nesting waterfowl, colonial waterbirds and other dependent flora and fauna. Native aquatic plants help maintain healthy wetlands and buffers that provide critical habitat and food resources for wetland-dependent wildlife. Invasive species can be very detrimental to wetland ecosystems. Invasive species such as curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), and purple loosestrife displace native species due to excessive plant growth.

WETLAND PRIORITY ROC OBJECTIVES Objective 4.2.4 Dabbling Ducks (Mallard, Blue-winged teal) Annually, provide approximately 1,907 acres of wetland (temporary, seasonal, semi- permanent, permanent, and open water) habitats with adjacent grassland/herbaceous uplands for the benefit of breeding dabbling ducks, such as mallard and blue-wing teal. These wetland complexes have the potential to annually support 515 breeding blue-winged teal

June 2020 69

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

pairs (3.7 acres/pair) and 389 breeding mallard pairs (4.9 acres/pair; Soulliere et al. 2017). However, because annual fluctuations may not provide ideal conditions across all acres each year and wetland acres within the District are fragmented, a lesser sum of approximately 400 breeding blue-winged teal pairs and 300 breeding mallard pairs were chosen as District population targets.

Wetland Management Rationale: Wetlands provide critical habitat for a host of migrating and resident waterfowl, wading birds, fish-eating birds and songbirds. Of the 370 species of birds occurring in Wisconsin, 39% rely on wetlands to meet some portion of their life cycle needs (Hale 1982). Wetlands also play an essential role in the healthy functioning of ecosystems by providing flood storage, sediment and nutrient filtering, and groundwater recharge. To sustain local populations of ground-nesting waterfowl while at the same time helping to improve and retain water quality in the associated wetlands a 2:1 ratio of grassland cover to wetland restorations is recommended (Straub et al. 2019). Therefore, management and acquisition of wetlands as well as adjacent grasslands within the St. Croix WMD are a high priority.

The District maintains, protects and enhances a mixture of wetland communities to achieve high species diversity. These wetland communities provide critical habitat for several of the District’s Priority ROCs. Wetlands, especially temporary and seasonal wetlands, undergo natural wet-dry cycles that provide varying types of emergent and submergent vegetation that are used as forage or cover for wetland dependent wildlife. Climate change is contributing to changes in wetland conditions with higher temperatures, variable precipitation, and more frequent and intense storms (WICCI 2011). These changes can alter the wetland hydrology and increase erosion, sedimentation, and nutrient runoff. Wetland plant community composition is affected by depths, duration and frequency of flooding (Casanova and Brock 2000), therefore long-term and sustained water-level changes may result in changes in wetland type within the district to those that are less favorable to the District ROCs. Environmental changes such as longer growing seasons, elevated CO2 levels, sedimentation, and excess of nutrients (WICCI 2011) are contributing to an increase in invasive reed canary grass and non-native phragmites in District wetlands. Invasives can crowd out native species posing a threat to wetland ecology. A water management plan is needed to address management needs and develop new strategies due to climate change impacts that ensure continued highest and best contribution to biological diversity of District wetlands. The water management plan should include a combination of water level management and invasive species control to enhance habitat available for shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, and herptiles during their peak spring and fall migration and breeding periods while maintaining essential habitat for other freshwater species.

Wetland Management Strategies • Only six basins (located on Betterly, Houghdahl North, Kobernick, Prairie Flats North (two sites), and Star Prairie WPA) within the District contain water control structures. With the help of the regional refuge hydrologist and as part of the Inventory and Monitoring step-down plan a water management plan and

June 2020 70

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

hydrological investigation will be conducted to address the best use of these control structures. The plan will determine: o water use, inputs, outputs, timing, magnitude and duration of flooding, and impoundment capacity at these basins. • Water quality parameters will also be monitored periodically using an approved water quality sampling regime. • An inventory of wetland plant species present on all WPAs as part of the Inventory and Monitoring step down plan will be conducted. A study completed between 1983 and 1990, documented 50 plant species on WPA wetlands (Lillie 2004). This list can be found in the St. Croix CCP, Appendix C (USFWS 2008a). • Apply a combination of treatments (fire, mechanical, chemical, biological controls) at the appropriate time to maximize native plant diversity. o Early detection, rapid response (EDRR; DOI 2016a) methods may be used to determine when management actions are needed to keep invasive plant species cover less than 20% of total area. • Control dense stands of cattail using fire, mechanical removal, or approved herbicides such as glyphosate. o The best timing for the treatment is in late spring, which will impede carbohydrate storage during the growing season. However, herbicides can only be used during drought or if the wetland can be artificially drawn down. o Cattail treatment can also occur late in the growing season when the wetland is dry or in winter over ice. • Temporary and seasonal wetlands often have no surface water by mid-summer allowing for vegetation management such as mechanical manipulation (mow/hay/crush). Scraping sediment, disking, and herbicide application specifically targeted within the wetland basin can also occur at this time but should be preceded by some method of defoliation (haying, burning). • Limit damage to trees, dikes, and water control structures by continuing to allow trapping of furbearers, such as beaver and muskrats. These activities are currently open per state regualtions on Waterfowl Production Areas. A partnership with USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has been developed and will continue to enable removal of nuisance animals causing damage to infrastructure and resources. Write a district nuisance animal control plan. • Use applied research or consider adaptive management to address any questions that arise regarding resources of concern, T&E species or other issues such as invasive species management • Record all management actions in Region 3 Management Actions database.

4.3 Savanna Management (High Priority) Priority ROCs: Oak Savanna, red-headed woodpecker, Karner blue butterfly

June 2020 71

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Remnant Oak Savanna Goal To restore, protect, and manage remnant oak savanna throughout St. Croix WMD to promote ecological diversity and integrity of oak savanna dependent wildlife and plants characteristic of the Forest Transition, Western Prairie, and Northwest Sands ecological landscapes.

HMP Objective 4.3.1. Restored Remnant Oak Savanna Objective Annually, protect and manage 20% of the existing 283 acres of restored remnanat oak savanna and restore an average of 30 acres per year of the remaining 269 acres of degraded remnant oak savanna that is present throughout District. Any additional acres acquired after the approval of this HMP will be evaluated for potential oak savanna restoration. Ultimately, per acre, the desired conditions include an average of 2 or more open branching, mature bur oaks, with dbh 10 inches or greater and a variety of younger aged oaks with dbh ranging from 5 to 10 inches that provide a canopy cover providing highly filtered shade averaging approximately 50% across the unit. The herbaceous component will be similar to those found in the surrounding grasslands, with many of the same grasses and forbs present. However, shade-loving species such as boneset (Eupatorium sessilifolium), woodland sunflower (Helianthus strumosus), eastern shooting-star (Primula meadia) and purple milkweed (Asclepias purpurascens) may also be present (WDNR 2015c). For the benefit of Karner blue butterflies, increase or maintain the desired lupine density to or at, 405-810 lupine stems/acre (USFWS 2003a). Oak savanna understory conditions will be dominated by native shrubs, sparse to common, <1.5 m (5 ft) in height and native open grassland >30% cover with an invasive species component <30%.

SAVANNA PRIORITY ROC OBJECTIVES Objective 4.3.2: Red-headed woodpecker: Restore and maintain through periodic fire, 552 acres of oak savanna habitat (See Table 4.2) that consists of open grassland with scattered or clumps of trees and snags for the benefit of nesting red-headed woodpeckers. Red- headed woodpeckers prefer nesting habitat that consists of open grassland with scattered or clumps of trees and snags at a density of 1.5/0.04 ha. Average DBH of nest tree = 56-59 cm (22-23 inches; Ingold 1994; Rodewald et al, 2005) and dead limbs on live trees with nest cavities averaged 20-cm (~8 inches) in diameter (Rodewald et al. 2005). By restoring and managing oak savanna habitat the District will be contributing to the Mississippi Great Lakes Joint Venture (UMGL-JV) red-headed woodpecker population goal of up to 0.05 birds/acre (Potter et al. 2007b). If all 552 acres of oak savanna were available and of high quality for red-headed woodpecker nesting the District could potentially support 28 red-headed woodpecker pairs.

Objective 4.3.3. Karner blue butterfly: Evaluate the feasibility of translocating Karner blue butterflies on the District following the guidelines of the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003a) and the Wisconsin Statewide Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan (WDNR 2010). Wild lupine, the only host plant for Karner blue caterpillars, will be maintained through prescribed fire at intervals that will allow for the development of healthy populations of lupine and forbs (USFWS 2003a). See Fire Management Plan (USFWS 2008b, 2020 in Prep). Suitable habitat for Karner blue butterflies includes 405-810 lupine stems/acre (USFWS 2003a) and a diversity of nectar resources from spring through fall for adult Karner blues and other pollinators. Translocation of Karner blues on the District may

June 2020 72

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

contribute to the Karner Blue Recovery Plan objective of restoring viable metapopulations (approximately 3,000 first or second brood adults) of Karner blues across the species extant range so that it can be reclassified from endangered to threatened (USFWS 2003a).

Remnant Oak Savanna Management Rationale: Oak savannas share a similar status with grasslands; however, they are the most threatened plant community in the Midwest and among the most threatened in North America (Nuzzo 1986). Intact examples of oak savanna vegetation are now so rare that less than 500 acres are listed in the WI DNR state Natural Heritage Inventory database as having a plant assemblage similar to the original oak savanna. This is less than 0.01% of the original 5.5 million acres (Henderson 1995). Conversion of oak savanna to agricultural lands, elimination of fire, invasion by exotic species, and human development have largely eliminated this ecotype. According to Curtis (1959) oak savanna was present within the borders of what is now the St. Croix Wetland Management District. Savanna is a high priority habitat for the District. The District presently contains 283 acres of restored oak savanna and 269 acres of restorable oak savanna. Presently, 24 of the 43 WPAs include restored or restorable oak savanna habitat (see Appendix G).

Trees within a savanna are open grown, typically small and gnarled (MDNR 2005). Savanna understory consists of a mosaic of both heliophiles typical of prairie as well as species well adapted to shaded environments under trees, shifting as the tree canopy becomes more opened or closed. The extent of shrub density is dependent on the subtype savanna classification and the frequency of fire (Law et al. 1994, Swanson 2008, MDNR 2005). More bird species are found in higher densities in savannas than in grasslands, shrublands, and forests (Grundel and Pavlovic 2007).

Several species benefit from the restoration of oak savannas within the District including red- headed woodpeckers and Karner blue butterflies. Red-headed woodpeckers occur on the District and are a species of special concern in Wisconsin. They prefer open habitats with a few trees and snags for nesting (Powell 2010). The Karner blue butterfly was listed as federally endangered in 1992 and systematic statewide surveys for this species in Wisconsin have been conducted since 1990 (USFWS 2003a). Inspection of the Karner Blue Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003a) indicates that no Karner blue butterflies are currently found on lands managed by St. Croix WMD and no recent records or citings have been reported. A population of Karner blue butterflies exists in Burnett County on Fish Lake and Crex Meadows Wildlife Areas managed by the WI DNR. Both areas fall within the boundaries of the District thereby affording population restoration potential. If Karner blue butterflies are detected on WPAs in the future, the District could become part of the Glacial Lakes Grantsburg Recovery Unit (USFWS 2003a). Karner blue butterflies rely on wild lupine as its only larval food plant. Wild lupine is present in large patches throughout the District. Karner blue recovery efforts have been ongoing in Wisconsin since 1990 and on District land since 2014. Efforts on the District include oak savanna restoration and reintroduction of wild lupine and augmentation of early spring flowering species such as wild phlox within savanna restoration sites. Translocation within the District may be feasible when suitable habitat has been restored to a condition that supports Karner blue butterfly populations (Lopez 2019). Management and recovery efforts for Karner blue butterflies will

June 2020 73

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

follow the guidelines outlined in Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003a) and the Wisconsin Statewide Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan (WDNR 2010).

Decisions on management tools, locations and restoration related to oak savanna require continuous discussions, monitoring, and creativity to meet the needs of wildlife resources and achieve the criteria outlined in the objectives. Guidance provided by the Oak Savanna Workbook (USFWS In Prep), Plant communities of the Midwest (Faber-Langendoen 2001), Wisconsin’s Natural communities (WDNR 2015c), and District staff best professional judgment and experience are just some of the “tools” that will be used to help guide management decisions. Remnants of oak savanna on the District are highly degraded and are invaded by noxious weeds and shade loving woody trees and shrubs. Restoring these habitats will require intensive and frequent management such as, the removal of woody species followed by herbicide treatments to control resprouting and frequent fire and mowing followed by herbicide to deplete the seed banks of undesirable plants to create open space to encourage colonization of native grasses and forbs in the understory. Augmentation of existing plant communities with local native grasses and forbs may be required using seed harvested from the Seed Farm Project. In addition, we want to provide quality habitat for breeding red-headed woodpeckers and Karner blue butterflies. For those species we want to make sure our savanna provides snags for nesting birds and lupine for breeding butterflies and other pollinators. Managing savannas for historic structural characteristics and native species composition will help to conserve this imperiled habitat for a diversity of wildlife but more importantly, for the ecological integrity of the savanna ecosystem.

Remnant Oak Savanna Management Strategies • Follow oak savanna restoration guidance outlined in the Oak Savanna Workbook (USFWS In Prep). o Determine feasibility of restoration at newly discovered or acquired oak savanna sites following guidance outlined in the Oak Savanna Workbook (USFWS In Prep), site inspections from staff, and through historic records search. o Conduct vegetation assessments on all restored savanna sites. • Acquire remnant oak savanna blocks of any size whenever possible. • Remove fire intolerant woody vegetation using methods including manual (e.g. hand removal, girdling), chemical (herbicide), mechanical, or livestock grazing to increase exposure of understory plants to sunlight. This may include removal of some overstory trees to increase the exposure of native species to light and to meet the overstory canopy objective. These treatments may need to be repeated for several consecutive years for control to be successful. • Eradicate or control noxious weeds and other invasive plants as needed using manual, mechanical, chemical and biological control techniques. o Early detection, rapid response (EDRR; DOI 2016a) methods may be used to determine when management actions are needed to keep invasive plant species cover less than 30% of total area. • Conduct prescribed burns to stimulate growth of native savanna plants, remove litter, and reduce fire-intolerant woody vegetation and invasive species. Initially, prescribed

June 2020 74

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

fire shall be conducted as frequently as possible. Fall burns will be conducted to control and set back woody species encroachment. If necessary, plant grasses to provide fine fuels. Grasses could be annuals such as oats or rye, or perennial natives. If perennial natives are planted, local ecotype seed will be used. • If the native seed bank is depleted, it may be necessary to enhance the floristic quality with woodland species using local ecotype seed or plugs. • Conduct surveys to assess wildlife use of oak savanna areas as part of the Inventory and Monitoring step down plan. To date, no surveys have been completed on the District to assess wildlife use of oak savanna habitats. • Protect snags and cavity trees. • Enhance the floristic quality by reseeding using local ecotype seed. • In rare occasions, it may be necessary to supplement savanna areas with locally grown burr oak trees if natural recruitment does not occur under the correct management prescriptions. • Monitor and maintain wild lupine component of all grassland/savanna units to provide for expansion of Karner blue butterfly range. Goal is to provide 405-810 lupine stems/acre (USFWS 2003a). o Provide ~30% to 60% canopy cover in areas of Karner blue butterfly resoration. Later stage lupin requires ~30% to 60% canopy cover to be viable for second flight Karner blue butterfly larvae (Grundel et al. 1998). • When working in areas of potential Karner blue butterfly habitat within mapped high-potential zones, adhere to the guidelines of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Karner Blue Butterfly conservation plan (WDNR 2010). Conduct Section 7 consultations on activities that may pose potential to affect species. • Use applied research or consider adaptive management to address any questions that arise regarding resources of concern, T&E species or other issues such as invasive species management. • Record all management actions in R3 Management Actions database.

4.4 Forest Management (Low Priority) Priority ROCs: wood duck, American woodcock, bald eagle, northern long-eared bat

Forest Management Goal To protect and manage floodplain and upland forest throughout the St. Croix WMD to promote inherent ecological diversity and integrity of floodplain and upland forest dependent wildlife and plants.

HMP Objective 4.4.1 Forest Objective Annually, manage an average of 30 acres per year of the 443 acres of upland forest and the 104 acres of floodplain forest throughout the St. Croix WMD for the benefit of northern long-eared bats, bald eagles, cavity nesting waterfowl, such as wood ducks, ground-nesting birds, such as the American woodcock, and other forest species. Northern dry-mesic forest and floodplain forest (Table 2.3; WDNR 2015c) are the dominant forest types within the District. Currently, approximately 508 acres of northern dry-mesic forest occurs on the District, but approximately

June 2020 75

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

65 of those acres are pine plantations that will be evaluated for conversion to planted grassland. The desired conditions of District forests include: • Moderately closed canopy (50-80% cover) with overstory dominated by pines and oaks in uplands and silver maple in floodplains. o Mature trees should be >50 feet tall with smaller saplings in the understory for the benefit American woodcock (Potter 2007a) • Well-developed shrub layer dominated by hazelnuts and blueberries in uplands and buttonbush and dogwoods in floodplains. • Understory comprised of a ground layer with (50-100% cover) o Herbaceous species in the upland may include wild sarsaparilla, Canada mayflower, and cow-wheat and in the floodplain nettles, sedges, ostrich fern, and gray-headed coneflower. • Invasive and non-natives species will comprise <10% of total species abundance o Black locust, Siberian elm, and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) combined will occupy <10% of the canopy o Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) and garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) will occupy <1% of total plants in the shrub and herbaceous layer.

FOREST PRIORITY ROC OBJECTIVES HMP Objective 4.4.2. American woodcock: Annually, manage and protect approximately 547 acres of forest for the benefit of breeding American woodcock. Preferred nesting and brooding habitat is within young to mid-age hardwood stands where an abundance of earthworms are available for foraging woodcock (Kelley et al. 2008; McAuley et al 2013). The American Woodcock Conservation Plan indicates that habitat managed for woodcock should support 0.5-1 woodcock/acre (Kelley et al. 2008). Therefore, if all southern dry forested habitat within the District were considered suitable for American woodcock the District could potentially support 273-547 woodcock. However, because annual conditions may not provide ideal conditions across all acres and because forest acres within the District are fragmented, a lesser sum of approximately 200 woodcock pairs was chosen as our population target.

HMP Objective 4.4.3. Wood duck: Annually, manage and protect 104 acres of floodplain forest for the benefit of cavity nesting wetland species such as wood ducks. Wood ducks prefer mature hardwood forests near wetlands. Species nests primarily in tree cavities of trees with diameter (dbh) >25 cm and are not territorial (Soulliere et al. 2017). In Wisconsin naturally occurring nest cavities densities range from 0.263 to 0.372 cavities/acre (Soulliere 1990; Denton et al. 2012). According to Soulliere et al. (2017) the minimum optimal habitat required for each wood duck pair is 1.2 acres. Therefore, if suitable wood duck breeding habitat and nest cavities are available, the District has the potential to support approximately 87 breeding pairs.

HMP Objective 4.4.4. Bald eagle: Annually, protect existing bald eagle nests on the District and monitor for any additional nests. Bald eagle territories range in size from 0.5-2 km2 (123.5-494 acres) and prefer mature trees 20 to 60 m in height and 50 to 190 cm in diameter that are relatively close (usually <2 km) to water (Buehler 2020). A 200-meter

June 2020 76

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

buffer around active nests will be kept free of human disturbance and all large mature trees near water will be retained as possible roosting or nesting habitat.

Objective 4.4.5. Northern long-eared bat: Annually, manage and protect the 547 acres of forest for the benefit of northern long-eared bats, a state and federal threatened species. Habitat requirements include resources for roosting, foraging and drinking (Taylor 2006). Northern long-eared bats are forest dwelling bats that roost singly or in colonies during the summer in cavities, underneath bark, crevices, or hollows of both live and dead trees (typically ≥3 inches dbh) (USFWS 2014c; Whalen and Krusac 2014). Bats move frequently between roost trees and do not show a preference for the type of tree (Taylor 2006; DOI 2016b). However, trees in the early stages of decay and with more bark cover will provide more roosting opportunities. Therefore, management should provide forested habitat that consists of mixed-species, mixed-aged trees with multiple snags or dying trees and some open areas. Female home range size varies from approximately 45 to 28 acres depending on reproductive status (Owen et al. 2003; WDNR 2013) but the females may form small maternity colonies of up to 30 bats in late spring (Caceres and Barclay 2000, Owen et. al. 2002). Northern long-eared bats occur on the District, but numbers are unknown (USFWS 2008a).

Forest Management Rationale: Forest ecosystems generally require less intensive management than other habitat types. However, if left unchecked these habitats will quickly be degraded. The forest habitats of St. Croix WMD are a low priority habitat but they will require management actions in order to maintain and keep from degrading. Resident species such as wood duck, American woodcock, bald eagle, and northern long-eared bat would benefit from management of this habitat especially management that decreases the dominance of invasive species. St. Croix WMD has very little forest habitat, however, these small blocks and corridors play a significant role for resident and migratory species. Management of these small tracts of forest should be done in conjunction with surrounding land management.

Forest Management Strategies • Conduct surveys to assess wildlife use of forested areas as part of the Inventory and Monitoring step down plan. To date, no surveys have been completed on the District to assess wildlife use of forested habitats. • Protect and connect large blocks of habitat, ≥4 ha (10 ac) where feasible. • Acquire native forest habitats throughout the District with emphasis on forested wetlands that provide nesting and brood rearing value for species like wood ducks, a priority species for the District. • On 20 percent of forest habitat explore potential timber stand improvement in collaboration with locale and regional partners. • Limit damage to trees, dikes, and water control structures by continuing to allow trapping of furbearers, such as and muskrats. These activities are currently open per state regualtions on Waterfowl Production Areas. Partnerships with USDA Aphis Nusance Animal Control have been developed and will continue to eliminate nuisance

June 2020 77

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

animals causing damage to infrastructurs and resources. Write a district nuisance animal control plan. • Remove fire intolerant woody vegetation using methods including manual (e.g. hand removal, girdling), chemical (herbicide), mechanical, or livestock grazing to increase exposure of understory plants to sunlight. This may include removal of some overstory trees to increase the exposure of native species to light and to meet the overstory canopy objective. These treatments may need to be repeated for several consecutive years for control to be successful. • Apply a combination of treatments (fire, mechanical, and chemical) at the appropriate time based on the needs of the unit (e.g. species of woody or invasive plants that require treatment, life history of the woody or invasive plant, severity of the infestation, etc.) to maximize native plant diversity (See Appendix H) • Eradicate or control noxious weeds and other invasive plants using manual, mechanical, chemical and biological control techniques. o Early detection, rapid response (EDRR; DOI 2016a) methods may be used to determine when management actions are needed to keep invasive plant species cover less than 30% of total area. • Allow natural regeneration and flooding to occur in floodplain tracts to provide age and structural diversity. • Protect all snags and cavity trees o Snags and dying trees near known bat roost locations should be protected from any management action between June 1 and August 15 when bats may have flightless pups at the roost o Surveys need to be conducted and any roost sites discovered protected following the 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat (2016) that is under authority of section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-01-14/pdf/2016- 00617.pdf#page=1) • Use applied research or consider adapative management to address any questions that arise regarding resources of concern, T&E species or other issues such as invasive species management • Record all management actions in R3 Management Actions database.

June 2020 78

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Literature Cited

Allstadt, A. J., S. J. Vavrus, P. J. Heglund, A. M. Pidgeon, W. E. Thogmartin, and V. C. Radeloff. 2015. Spring plant phenology and false springs in the conterminous U.S. during the 21st century. Ecological Research Letters 10: 104008.

Anderson, R. C. 2006. Evolution and origin of the central grassland of North America: Climate, fire, and mammalian grazers. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133(4):626–647.

Bateman, B. L., A. M. Pidgeon, V. C. Radeloff, J. VanDerWal, W. E. Thogmartin, S. J. Vavrus and P. J. Heglund. 2015. The pace of past climate change versus potential bird distributions and land use in the U.S. Global Change Biology 22(3):1130-44.

Bollinger, E. K. and T. A. Gavin. 1992. Eastern Bobolink populations: Ecology and conservation in an agricultural landscape. Pages 497-506 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston, Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Broders, H. G., G. J. Forbes, s. Woodley, and I. D. Thompson. 2006. Range extent and stand selection for roosting and foraging in forest-dwelling northern long-eared bats and little brown bats in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(5): 1174-1184.

Brown J., A. York, F. Christie, and M. McCarthy. 2017. Effects of fire on pollinators and pollination. Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 313–322.

Buehler, D. A. 2020. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.baleag.01

Caceres, M. C. and R. M. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species 634: 1-4

Casanova, M. T., and M. A. Brock. 2000. How do depth, duration and frequency of flooding influence the establishment of wetland plant communities? Plant Ecology 147: 237–250 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009875226637

Cochrane, T.S., and H. H. Iltis. 2000. Atlas of the Wisconsin Prairie and Savanna Flora. Technical Bulletin Number 191. Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 226 p.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.

June 2020 79

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Curtis, J. T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities. University of Wisconsin Press.

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Bobolink. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/bobo/bobo.htm (Version 12DEC2003).

Denton, J. C., C. L. Roy, G. J. Soulliere, and B. A. Potter. 2012. Current and projected abundance of potential nest sites for cavity-nesting ducks in hardwoods of the north central United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:422–432.

Dickmann, D. I. and D. T. Cleland. 2002. Fire return intervals and fire cycles for historic fire regimes in the Great Lakes Region: A synthesis of the literature, DRAFT. Great Lakes Ecological Assessment. 21 p.

[DOI] The U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016a. Safeguarding America’s lands and waters from invasive species: A national framework for early detection and rapid response, Washington D.C., 55p. Retrieved from: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/National%20EDRR%20Framework.pdf

[DOI] The U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination That Designation of Critical Habitat Is Not Prudent for the Northern Long-Eared Bat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 50 CFR Part 17. Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2016–0052. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-04-27/pdf/2016- 09673.pdf#page=1

Eisenlohr Jr., W.S., and others. 1972. Hydrolic investigations of prairie potholes in North Dakota, 1959-68. Geological Survey Professional Paper (No. 585-A).

Ellison K. S., C. A. Ribic, D. W. Sample, M. J. Fawcett, and J. D. Dadisman. 2013. Impacts of Tree Rows on Grassland Birds and Potential Nest Predators: A Removal Experiment. PLoS ONE 8(4): e59151. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059151

Faber-Langendoen, D., editor. 2001. Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context. Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA. 61 pp. + appendix (705 pp.). Retrieved from https://www.natureserve.org/biodiversity- science/publications/plant-communities-midwest

Finger, T. and T. Rohrer. 2020. Wisconsin Waterfowl Management Plan 2020–2030. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Retrieved from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/WisconsinWaterfowlPlan.pdf

June 2020 80

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Finley, R.W. 1976. University of Wisconsin Center System. Digital Data prepared by Maribeth Milner and Steve Ventura, University of Wisconsin – Madison. (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/documents/StateMaps/Map_S2_Finley.pdf)

Fletcher, R.J., Jr. and R. Koford. 2003. Spatial responses of Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) near different types of edges in northern Iowa. The Auk 120:799-810.

Grundel, R. and N.B. Pavlovic. 2007. Response of bird species densities to habitat structure and fire history along a Midwestern open-forest gradient. Condor 109:734-749.

Grundel, R., N. B. Pavlovic, and C. L. Sulzman. 1998. Habitat use by the endangered karner blue butterfly in oak woodlands: the influence of canopy cover. Biological Conservation 85(1): 47–53.

Hale, J. B. 1982. Birds and wetlands. Wisconsin Academy Review 29(1): 44-45.

Hartke, K. M. and G. R. Hepp. 2004. Habitat use and preferences of breeding female wood ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 68 (1):84-93.

Helzer, C. 2010. The ecology and management of prairies in the central United States. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, USA.

Henderson, R. 1995. Oak savanna communities. Pages 88–96 in Wisconsin’s biodiversity as a management issue: a report to Department of Natural Resource managers. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, PUB RS 915 95, Madison.

Howard, E. 2019. Journey North: Monarch Butterflies. Retrieved from https://maps.journeynorth.org/maps/2019/spring

Hull, S. D. 2000 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Eastern Meadowlark. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 35 pages

Hull, S. D., J. A. Shaffer, and L. D. Igl. 2019. The effects of management practices on grassland birds—Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), chap. MM of Johnson, D. H., Igl, L. D., Shaffer, J. A., and DeLong, J. P., eds. The effects of management practices on grassland birds: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1842. 26 p. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1842MM.

Ingold, D. J. 1994. Nest-Site Characteristics of Red-bellied and Red-headed Woodpeckers and Northern Flickers in East-Central Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 94 (1): 2-7.

Johnson, D. H. 1997. Effects of fire on bird populations in mixed-grass prairie. Pages 181– 206. in F. L. Knopf and F. B. Samson, eds. Ecology and conservation of Great Plains vertebrates. Springer-Verlag. New York, New York, USA.

June 2020 81

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Kantrud, H.A., J. B. Millar, and A. G. van der Valk. 1989. Vegetation of wetlands of the prairie pothole region. p. 132-187. In A.G. van der Valk, ed. Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.

Kelley, J. R. Jr.; S. Williamson, and T. R. Cooper. 2008. American Woodcock Conservation Plan: A Summary of and Recommendations for Woodcock Conservation in North America. US Fish & Wildlife Publications. 430. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&h ttpsredir=1&article=1429&context=usfwspubs

Knutson, M. G., G. Butcher, J. Fitzgerald, and J. Shieldcastle. 2001. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for The Upper Great Lakes Plain (Physiographic Area 16). USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center in cooperation with Partners in Flight. La Crosse, Wisconsin. Retrieved from: https://www.partnersinflight.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/PA-16-Upper-Great-Lakes.pdf

Knutson, M. G., H. A. Tonneson, D. Wood, K. O’Brien, D. Wirwa, J. R. Robb and P. Heglund. 2017. Forging the future: building capacity for adaptive management in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Falls Church, VA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System: 54 p.

Krapu, G. L., R. J. Greenwood, C. P. Dwyer, K. M. Kraft, and L. M. Cowardin. 1997. Wetland use, settling patterns, and recruitment in mallards. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:736-746.

Law, J. R., P. S. Johnson, and G. Houf. 1994. A crown cover chart for oak savannas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Columbia, Missouri, USA.

Lillie, R. 2004. Technical Bulletin 195, WI DNR, Liminological characteristics of waterfowl pro- duction area wetlands in St. Croix and Polk counties, Wisconsin.

Lopez, M. A. 2019. Evaluating Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) survival among translocated immature life stages in western Wisconsin. M.S. thesis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 32 pages.

Madden E. M., A. J. Hansen, and R. K. Murphy. 1999. Influence of prescribed fire history on habitat and abundance of passerine birds in northern mixed-grass prairie. Canadian Field Naturalist. 113:627–640.

Martin, S. G. 1967. Breeding biology of the Bobolink. M.S. thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 122 pages.

Martin, S. G. 1971. Polygyny in the Bobolink: habitat quality and the adaptive complex. Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State University, Oregon. 181 pages.

June 2020 82

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Martinuzzi, S., A. J. Allstadt, B. L. Bateman, P. J. Heglund, A. M. Pidgeon, W. E. Thogmartin, S. J. Vavrus, and V. C. Radeloff. 2016. Future frequencies of extreme weather events in National Wildlife Refuges across the conterminous U.S. Biological Conservation 201: 327-335.

McAuley, D. G., D. M. Keppie, and R. M. Whiting Jr. 2013. American Woodcock (Scolopax minor), version 2.0. In the Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.100

McCracken, J.D., R.A. Reid, R.B. Renfrew, B. Frei, A.C. Jalava and A.R. Couturier. 2013. Recovery Strategy for the Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario.

[MDNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota county Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. MNDNR St. Paul, MN.

Meyboom, P., R. O. van Everdingen, and R. A. Freeze. 1966, Patterns of groundwater flow in seven discharge areas in Saskatchewan and Manitoba: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Geol. Survey Bull. 14 7, 57 p.

[MICRA] Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association. 2009. Interjurisdictional Fishes of the Mississippi River Basin. Retrieved from: http://www.micrarivers.org

MOU. USDA Forest Service. 2015. Memoradum of understanding between the USDOI, National Park Service, Midwest Region, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway and the USDOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region, St. Croix Wetland Management District and the USDA, Forest Service, Eastern Region, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

Murkin, H. R., R. M. Kaminski, and R. D. Titman. 1982. Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:2324-2332.

Murkin, H. R. E. J Murkin, and J. P. Ball. 1997. Avian habitat selection and prairie wetland dynamics: a 10-year experiment. Ecological Applications 7:1144-1159.

Naugle, D. E., K. F. Higgins, and K. K. Bakker. 2000. A synthesis of the effects of upland management practices on waterfowl and other birds in the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada. College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, WI. Wildlife Technical Report 1. 28 pp.

Nickens, T.E. 2010. Vanishing voices. National Wildlife Federation. October-November:22-29.

June 2020 83

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

[NPS] National Park Service. 2019. Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway WI, MN. Foundation Document. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/sacn/learn/management/foundation- document.htm#Description

Nuzzo, V. 1986. Extent and status of Midwest oak savanna: Pre-settlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal 6(2):6-36

Olechnowski, B. F. M., D. M. Debinski, P. Drobney, K. Viste-Sparkman and W.T. Reed. 2009. Changes in vegetation structure through time in a restored tallgrass prairie ecosystem and applications for avian diversity and community composition. Ecological Restoration 27(4):449-457.

Owen, S. F., M. Menzel, W. M. Ford, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, J. W. Edwards, P. B. Wood. 2002. Roost tree selection by maternity colonies of northern long-eared myotis in an intensively managed forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-292. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Northeastern Research Station. 6 p.

Owen, S. F., M. Menzel, W. M. Ford, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, J. W. Edwards, P. B. Wood. 2003. Home-range size and habitat used by the northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 150:352-359.

[PARC] Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. 2011. Midwest PARC Species List. Retrieved from: http://www.mwparc.org/region/#species

Poole, A., editor. 2005. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna

Potter, B. A., R. J. Gates, G. J. Soulliere, R. P. Russell, D. A. Granfors, and D. N. Ewert. 2007a. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Shorebird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 101pp.

Potter, B. A., G. J. Soulliere, D. N. Ewert, M. G. Knutson, W. E. Thogmartin, J. S. Castrale, and M. J. Roell. 2007b. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 124pp.

Powell, H., editor. 2010. All about birds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Available: https://www.allaboutbirds.org

Pruitt, L. 1996. Henslow’s sparrow. Status assessment 1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minneapolis, MN. 104pp.

Renfrew, R. B. and C. A. Ribic. 2008. Multi-scale models of grassland passerine abundance in a fragmented system in Wisconsin. Landscape Ecology 23:181-193.

June 2020 84

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Renfrew, R. B., K. A. Peters, J. R. Herkert, K. R. VanBeek, and T. Will. 2019. A full life cycle conservation plan for Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Renfrew, R., A. M. Strong, N. G. Perlut, S. G. Martin, and T. A. Gavin. 2020. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.boboli.01

Ribic, C. A., M. J. Guzy, and D. W. Sample. 2009. Grassland Bird Use of Remnant Prairie and Conservation Reserve Program Fields in an Agricultural Landscape in Wisconsin. The American Midland Naturalist 161: 110-122.

Rodewald, P. G., M. J. Santiago, and A. D. Rodewald. 2005. Habitat use of breeding red-headed woodpeckers on golf courses in Ohio. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 448-453.

Rosenberg, K. V., D. Pashley, B. Andres, P. J. Blancher, G. S. Butcher, W. C. Hunter, D. Mehlman, A. O. Panjabi, M. Parr, G. Wallace, and D. Wiedenfeld. 2014. The State of the Birds 2014 Watch List. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee. Washington, D.C. 4 pages. Retrieved from http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/science/watchlist/watchlist.html

Salas, D. and M. Pranckus. 2015. ROCSTAR: Resources of Concern Selection Tool for Americas Refuges User Guide. Cardno Engineering and Environmental Services Division. Fitchburg, Wisconsin.

Sample, D. W. and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds, a guide for Wisconsin. Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Wiscoinsin Departmentof Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 154pp.

Sauer J. R., J. E. Fallon, and R. Johnson. 2003. Use of North American breeding bird survey data to estimate population change for bird conservation regions. Journal of Wildlife Management. 67:372-389.

Schramm, P. 1990. Prairie restoration: a twenty-five-year perspective on establishment and management. Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference 12:169-177.

Shustack, D. P., A. M. Strong, and T. M. Donovan. 2010. Habitat use patterns of Bobolinks and Savannah Sparrows in the northeastern United States. Avian Conservation and Ecology 5(2):11. Web site: http://www.aceco.org/vol5/iss2/art11.

Soulliere, G. J., B. A. Potter, D. J. Holm, D. A. Granfors, M. J. Monfils, S. J. Lewis, and W. E. Thogmartin. 2007a (revised 2018). Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterbird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 68pp. Retrieved from http://www.uppermissgreatlakesjv.org/docs/UMRGLR_JV_WaterbirdHCS.pdf

June 2020 85

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Soulliere, G. J., B. A. Potter, J. M. Coluccy, R. C. Gatti., C. L. Roy, D. R. Luukkonen, P. W. Brown, and M. W. Eichholz. 2007b (revised 2017). Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA. Retrieved from http://www.uppermissgreatlakesjv.org/docs/UMRGLR_JV_WaterfowlHCS.pdf

Soulliere G. J. 1990. Review of wood duck nest-cavity characteristics. Pages 153–162 in Fredrickson L. H, Burger G. V., Havera S. P., Graber D. A., Kirby R. E., and Taylor T. S., editors. Proceedings of the 1988 North American Wood Duck symposium. Columbia: University of Missouri.

Straub, J. N., M. Palumbo, J. Fleener, B. Glenzinski, D. Fowler, G. Kidd, K. Waterstradt, and S. Hygnstrom. 2019. Wisconsin Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy (2020). Project #W- 160- P-36; Final report submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from: http://umgljv.org/docs/Wisconsin%20Plan%202020.pdf

Steele, Y. 2013. Central Hardwood Habitat Page. In Paulios, A. and K. Kreitinger (eds.). 2007- 2013. The Wisconsin All-Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/plan/habitats/CentralHardwood.htm

Stewart, R. E., and H. E. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the glaciated prairie region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 92, Washington, D.C., USA.

Swanson, G. H. 2008. Prescribed fire use for oak savanna restoration at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. (Unpublished, hard copy at Refuge)

Taylor, D. A. R. 2006. Forest management and bats. Bat Conservation International. Retrieved from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_009962.pdf

Taylor J. D. and F. L. Paveglio. 2017. Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities: A Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Thogmartin, W. E., L. López-Hoffman, J. Rohweder, J. Diffendorfer, R. Drum, D. Semmens, S. Black, I. Caldwell, D. Cotter, P. Drobney, L. L. Jackson, M. Gale, D. Helmers, S. Hilburger, E. Howard, K. Oberhauser, J. Pleasants, B. Semmens, O. Taylor, P. Ward, J. Weltzin, and R. Wiederholt. 2017. Restoring monarch butterfly habitat in the Midwestern U.S.: “All Hands on Deck”. Environmental Research Letters 12:074005. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa7637

[UMRGLR JV] Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Implementation Plan (compiled by G. J. Soulliere and B. A. Potter). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA. Retrieved from: http://www.uppermissgreatlakesjv.org/docs/JV2007All-BirdPlanFinal2-11-08.pdf

June 2020 86

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manual (7 RM 14). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia. Retrieved from: https://training.fws.gov/resources/course- resources/pesticides/Pesticide%20Regulations%20and%20Policies/7%20RM%2014.doc

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System. Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuges.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities, Region 3. 32 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/midwest/News/documents/priority.pdf

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Final Recovery Plan for the Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 273 pp

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. USFWS Policy 601 FW3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. St. Croix Wetland Management District comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. (2020 version in Prep). St. Croix Wetland Management District fire management plan. St. Croix Wetland Management District, New Richmond, Wisconsin, USA.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008c. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/BCC2008.pdf

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Integrated Pest Management, Refuge Manual. (569 FW 1).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. FY2012- FY2016 Focal Species. Division of Migratory Bird Management. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/focalspecies.pdf

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. St. Croix Wetland Management District Farming Program Implementation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin, USA

June 2020 87

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Selecting surrogate species for Strategic Habitat Conservation in the Upper Midwest Great Lakes geography. Bloomington, MN: Powers, N., Brouder, M., Blomquist, S., Potter, B., Dingledine, J., Deloria, C., Soulliere, G., Kerr, T., Steiger‐Meister, K. Retrieved from: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/science/surrogatespecies/documents/UMGLSurrogatesSpe ciesTechnicalReportFINAL2014.pdf

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014c. Northern long-eared bat interim conference and planning guidance. USFWS Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. Retrieved from: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/nlebinterimguidance6jan2014.pdf

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. St. Croix Wetland Management District Grazing and Haying Program Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin, USA

[USFWS] U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species in the Upper Midwest (Region 3). Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/e_th_pr.html

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region Easement Manual. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN, USA.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017b. Midwest Birds of Concern. Bloomington, MN Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/midwest/midwestbird/concern.html

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. IN Prep. Oak Savanna Workbook. Unpublished technical report, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3, Bloomington, MN.

Weller, M. W., and C. E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station Special Report 43, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.

Weller, M. W. 1982. Freshwater Marshes: University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Wetter, M. A., T. S. Cochrane, M. R. Black, H. H. Iltis, and P. E. Berry. 2001. Checklist of the vascular plants of Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin Number 192. Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Whalen, R. and Krusac, D. 2014. Biological Assessment for Activities Affecting Northern Long- Eared Bats on Southern Region National Forests. US Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Region. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3837288.pdf

Wiens, J.A. 1969. An approach to the study of ecological relationships among grassland birds. Ornithological Monographs 8:1-93.

June 2020 88

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://www2.usgs.gov/sdc/doc/DOI-%20Adaptive%20ManagementTechGuide.pdf

Winter, M. 1999. Nesting biology of dickcissels and Henslow’s sparrows in southwestern Missouri prairie fragments. Wilson Bulletin 111:515-527.

Winter, M., D. H. Johnson, J. A. Shaffer, and W. D. Svedarsky. 2004. Nesting biology of three grassland passerines in the northern tallgrass prairie. The Wilson Bulletin 116:211-223.

Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2013. Population and Household Projections, produced in 2013, based from 2010 Census. Retrieved from https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/LocalGovtsGrants/Population_Projections.aspx

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Madison, Wisconsin.

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2010. Wisconsin statewide karner blue butterfly habitat conservation plan. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Retrieved from: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ForestPlanning/documents/KBB-HCP- Final-052710.pdf

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Species Guidance. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Retrieved from: https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/er/ER0700.pdf

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Wisconsin Northern Long-Eared Bat Species Guidance. Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. PUB-ER-700. Retrieved from: https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/er/ER0700.pdf

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015a. 2015-2025 Wisconsin Wildlife Action Plan. Madison, WI.

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015b. The ecological landscapes of Wisconsin: An assessment of ecological resources and a guide to planning sustainable management. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, PUB-SS-1131 2015, Madison. Available at: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/Book.html

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015c. Wisconsin’s Natural Communities. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/communities.asp

June 2020 89

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015d. Wisconsin Endangered and Threatened Species Laws & List. Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources

[WICCI] Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts. 2011. Wisconsin's Changing Climate: Impacts and Adaptation. Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.

Wires, L. R., S. J. Lewis, G. J. Soulliere, S. W. Matteson, D. V. “Chip” Weseloh, R. P. Russell, and F. J. Cuthbert. 2010. Upper Mississippi Valley / Great Lakes Waterbird Conservation Plan. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. Final Report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN.

Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1980. Fire ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains: A research review. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-77

Xerces Society. n.d. Red List of Butterflies and Moths. Retrieved from: http://www.xerces.org/red-list-of-butterflies-and-moths-sorted/

June 2020 90

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Appendix A: CCP Goals and Objectives Note: The text provided in this appendix is taken directly from the St. Croix Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2008). These goals and objectives are provided here for reference. The HMP goals and objectives provided in Chapter 4 are consistent with the vision and direction provided in the 2008 St. Croix WMD CCP.

Goal 1: Habitat Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological diversity of wetlands, grasslands, and native flora of District lands to support the conservation of breeding habitat for waterfowl, grassland birds, and other wildlife.

Objective 1.1: Grasslands Restore 200 acres of native grassland and remove 1 mile of fence row annually, on average. Within 15 years, 70 percent of the District’s grassland acres will be under optimal management. Remove the remaining 26 acres of pine plantations from WPAs and identify and remove woodlots from grassland areas.

Objective 1.2: Wetlands Within 15 years, restore 90 percent of the District’s wetland acres, manage water levels on 80 acres in four basins, and maintain seasonal basins in an early successional state through active management.

Objective 1.3: Oak Savanna Within 15 years, inventory 90 percent of forest habitat to locate remnant oak savanna and restore 80 percent of identified potential savanna. Restoration will include cutting trees and planting local ecotype grass and forb species on 30 acres per year.

Objective 1.4: Woodlands Implement timber stand improvement on 20 percent of forest habitat.

Objective 1.5: Invasive Species Inventory 100 percent of District lands for invasive species and apply biocontrol for three species on 50 percent of District lands. The first priority for control will be on grasslands and wetlands, followed by woodlands.

Objective 1.6: Land Acquisition Acquire 200 acres per year and develop two additional focus areas.

Goal 2: Wildlife Preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity and abundance of migratory birds and other native wildlife with emphasis on waterfowl, grassland and wetland-dependent birds.

June 2020 91

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Objective 2.1: Waterfowl Develop a waterfowl recruitment monitoring program within 5 years of CCP approval that will include working with partners and a university to develop a waterfowl production and survival study.

Objective 2.2: Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Assure that federally listed species and federally proposed species and their habitats are protected.

Objective 2.3: Regional Species of Concern Develop baseline surveys to identify Regional Species of Concern use of District lands. Surveys will identify the presence/absence of species and abundance of select high priority species.

Objective 2.4: State T&E Species and Species of Concern Consider known populations of state listed species in management actions.

Objective 2.5: Monitoring Assess the value of local ecotype native seed mixtures and plantings for migratory birds.

June 2020 92

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Appendix B: St Croix WMD Wetland Thunderstorm Map Alternative wetland suitability analysis for St. Croix Wetland Management District. All maps projected in NAD 83 UTM 15. Produced in the Division of Conservation Planning, USFWS R3, 2009.

Weighted Sum Basins 80%, Total Acres 20% Both the wetland basins map and wetland acreage map were categorized into 9 classes using natural breaks. This categorization method normalized the data, putting both datasets on a comparable scale for analysis. The values of the two datasets were multiplied by a weight and then added together to create the composite map: (Wetland Acreage Value *0.2) + Wetland Basins Value *0.8)

June 2020 93

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Appendix C: St. Croix WMD 2020 seed species list Grasses 2020 Quantity On- Common Name Scientific Name Hand (lbs.) Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii 707.7 Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium 932 Indian Grass Sorghastrum nutans 3563.6 Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 918.5 Prairie Dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis 15 Side-oats Grama Bouteloua curtipendula 26.65 Junegrass Koeleria macrantha 10.2 Bottlebrush Grass Elymus hystrix 60 Canada Wild Rye Elymus canadensis 4.75 Brown Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea 6.7 Plains Oval Sedge Carex brevior 30 Porcupine grass Hesperostipa spartea 3 Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus 13 Silky Wild Rye Elymus villosus 0.3 Kalm's Brome Bromus kalmii 0.45

Forbs 2020 Quantity on Common Name Scientific Name Hand (lbs.) Angelica Angelica atropurpurea 3.4 Cow Parsnip Heracleum maximum 2.75 Golden Alexanders Zizia aurea 10.3 Heart-leaved Alexanders Zizia aptera 0.55 Butterfly Milkweed Asclepias tuberosa 2.6

June 2020 94

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Forbs 2020 Quantity on Common Name Scientific Name Hand (lbs.) Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca 79.9 Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata 2 Whorled Milkweed Asclepias verticillata 1.25 Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides 0.35 New England Aster* Symphyotrichum novae-angliae 33.55 Silky Aster Symphyotrichum sericeum 0.3 Aromatic Aster* Symphyotrichum oblongifolium 0.5 Sky-blue Aster* Symphyotrichum oolentangiense 1.1 Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta 0.4 Cylindric Blazing Star Liatris cylindracea 0.2 Meadow Blazing Star* Liatris ligulistylis 2 Liatris pycnostachya (Prairie Blazing Star)* Liatris pycnostachya 6.65 Rough Blazing Star* Liatris aspera 4.15 Compass Plant Silphium laciniatum 4.75 Cup Plant Silphium perfoliatum 20.3 Gray Goldenrod* Solidago nemoralis 0.25 Stiff Goldenrod* Solidago rigida 143.95 Showy Goldenrod* Solidago speciosa 73.35 Missouri Goldenrod Solidago missouriensis 0.275 Grass-leaved Goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia 0.231 Zigzag Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis 0.4 Joe-pye Weed* Eutrochium maculatum 0.7 Sweet Joe Pye Weed* Eutrochium purpureum 0.1 Prairie Coreopsis Coreopsis palmata 0.1 White Sage* Artemisia ludoviciana 0.4

June 2020 95

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Forbs 2020 Quantity on Common Name Scientific Name Hand (lbs.) Naked-stem Sunflower Helianthus occidentalis 0.1 Oxeye Sunflower Heliopsis helianthoides 69.4 Sawtooth Sunflower Helianthus grosseserratus 6.2 Showy Sunflower Helianthus pauciflorus 3.7 Yellow Coneflower Ratibida pinnata 62.4 Cardinal Flower Lobelia cardinalis 0.2 Ohio Spiderwort Tradescantia ohiensis 38.1 Western Spiderwort Tradescantia occidentalis 0.275 Flowering Spurge Euphorbia corollata 0.2 Canada Milkvetch Astragalus canadensis 1.4 Lead Plant Amorpha canescens 5.58 Partridge Pea Chamaecrista fasciculata 0.4 Purple Prairie Clover Dalea purpurea 86 White Prairie Clover Dalea candida 3.7 Silky Prairie Clover Dalea villosa 0.275 Round-headed Bush Clover Lespedeza capitata 103.5 Canada Tick-trefoil Desmodium canadense 0.7 Illinois Tick-trefoil Desmodium illinoense 3.6 Cream Indigo Baptisia bracteata 10.6 White Indigo Baptisia lactea 162.6 Wild Lupine Lupinus perennis 32.75 Gentian Gentiana ssp. 2.3 Great St. Johnswort Hypericum ascyron 1.7 Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchium ssp. 0.03 Blueflag Iris Iris versicolor 0.63

June 2020 96

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Forbs 2020 Quantity on Common Name Scientific Name Hand (lbs.) Large Beardtongue Penstemon grandiflorus 0.65 False Boneset Brickellia eupatorioides 0.063 Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale 0.6 Glade Mallow Napaea dioica 3.6 Golden Glow Rudbeckia laciniata 0.05 Obedient Plant Physostegia virginiana 0.41 Spotted Horsemint Monarda punctata 0.43 Anise Hyssop Agastache foeniculum 4.6 Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa 1.22 Virginia Mountain Mint Pycnanthemum virginianum 1.27 Wood Betony Pedicularis canadensis 1.7 Michigan Lily Lilium michiganense 0.1 Wood Lily Lilium philadelphicum 0.1 Indian Paintbrush Castilleja coccinea 0.1 Culver's Root Veronicastrum virginicum 22.13 Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis 0.18 Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis 0.1 Thimbleweed* Anemone cylindrica 1.15 Tall Thimbleweed Anemone virginiana 0.11 Tall Boneset Eupatorium altissimum 0.12 Fireweed* Chamaenerion angustifolium 0.4 Narrow-leaved New Jersey Tea Ceanothus herbaceus 0.47 New Jersey Tea Ceanothus americanus 22.95 White Baneberry Actaea pachypoda 0.1 Slender Beardtongue Penstemon gracilis 0.39

June 2020 97

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Forbs 2020 Quantity on Common Name Scientific Name Hand (lbs.) Rough-seeded Fameflower Phemeranthus rugospermus 100 seeds Prairie Cinquefoil Drymocallis arguta 2.5 Prairie Alumroot Heuchera richardsonii 0.28 Prairie Smoke* Geum triflorum 0.45 Figwort Scrophularia ssp. 0.2 Hoary Vervain Verbena stricta 21.6 Blue Vervain Verbena hastata 0.76 Green Milkweed Asclepias viridiflora 20 seeds Prairie Bush Clover Lespedeza leptostachya 8 seeds Prairie Sunflower Helianthus petiolaris 0.03 Carolina Cranesbill Geranium carolinianum Trace Smooth Solomon's Seal Polygonatum biflorum 0.33 Prairie Onion Allium stellatum 1 Yellow Pimpernel Taenidia integerrima 0.19 Pussytoes* Antennaria ssp. 2 Downy Painted-cup Castilleja sessiliflora 0.001 Prairie Larkspur Delphinium carolinianum 0.00375 Harebell Campanula rotundifolia 0.01 Kittentails Besseya bullii 0.02 Pale-spike Lobelia Lobelia spicata 0.01 Hoary Puccoon Lithospermum canescens 0.07 Canada Yew Taxus canadensis 0.003 Fringed Puccoon Lithospermum incisum 0.003 Veiny Pea Lathyrus venosus 0.18 *Has plant parts mixed in with the seed

June 2020 98

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Appendix D: ROCSTAR Comprehensive list of species for St. Croix WMD

The following table is a comprehensive list of species generated from the St. Croix WMD ROCSTAR (Resources of Concern Selection Tool for America’s Refuges; Salas and Pranckus 2015). Any species known to occur or that could reasonably occur on the District and was included in any of the resources consulted was added to the comprehensive list. Please see section 3.3 for description of the selection process used to select the Resources of Concern (ROC). Please see the ServCat record 70686 for original and updated St. Croix WMD ROCSTAR.

This large excel table is only included in the PDF of version of this report.

June 2020 99

St. Croix Wetland Management District ROCSTAR: Resources of Concern Selection Tool for Americas Refuges Comprehensive List of Refuge Resources of Concern St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans RATIO OF INCLUSION Scientific Name Scientific FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Bird Landbird For X y SC X GRL UMR 3 0.25 G5 S2B,S2N Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Bird Landbird For, Gra X y 0 0.00 Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Bird Landbird Gra X y 0 0.00 Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Bird Landbird Gra X y 0 0.00 Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Bird Landbird For X T X GRL UMR Rip & Riv 4 0.33 G5 S3S4B,S1N Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Bird Landbird Gra X y X UMR 2 0.17 Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Bird Landbird Pal, Gra X y GRL UM X (IIC) 2 0.17 G5 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird Landbird For, Rip X y SC X X (d) X (f) f RL UMR 6 0.50 G5 S4B,S4N Osprey Pandion haliaetus Bird Landbird For, Rip X y 0 0.00 Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Bird Landbird Dev, Gra X y 0 0.00 Belted Kingfisher Ceryl alcyon Bird Landbird Rip X y 0 0.00 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Bird Landbird Dev, For X y (f, h) 1 0.08 Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Bird Landbird Shr X y 0 0.00 Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus Bird Landbird Shr X y 0 0.00 Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus Bird Landbird For X y X GRL UM X (f, h) 4 0.33 Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Bird Landbird Dev, Gra X y SC 1 0.08 G5 S2S3B Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Bird Landbird Dev, Shr X y 0 0.00 Painted Bunting Passerina ciris Bird Landbird Shr, For no X f Yellow 3 0.25 Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Bird Landbird Shr X y 0 0.00 Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Dickcissel Spiza americana Bird Landbird Gra X y X X GRL UM X (I) X 5 0.42 G5 Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Bird Landbird For, Gra X y 0 0.00 Brown Creeper Certhia americana Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Rock Pigeon Columba livia Bird Landbird Dev X y 0 0.00 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Bird Landbird Dev, Shr X X y 0 0.00 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Bird Landbird Dev, For, Shr X X y 0 0.00 Common Raven Corvus corax Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Bird Landbird For, Shr X y 0 0.00 Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Bird Landbird For, Shr X y 0 0.00 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Bird Landbird For X y X 1 0.08 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Bird Landbird For X y X X GRL UM X (I) 4 0.33 Baird’s Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Bird Landbird Gra X y X Red 2 0.17 Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Bird Landbird Gra X y T X X X (f) f RL UM X (I) X(f) Red Gra 10 0.83 G4 S2S3B Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Bird Landbird Pal, Gra X y SC X X GRL UMR Yellow Pal 6 0.50 G4 S2S3B Nelson's Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni Bird Landbird Pal, Gra no SC X X Yellow 4 0.33 G5 S1B Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Bird Landbird Gra X y X f RL UM X 4 0.33 G5 Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Bird Landbird Gra X y 0 0.00 Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus Bird Landbird Gra X no? X Yellow 2 0.17 Smith's Longspur Calcarius pictus Bird Landbird Gra no? X Yellow 2 0.17 Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Bird Landbird Gra X y SC X 2 0.17 G5 S3B Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Bird Landbird Pal X y X (IIA) 1 0.08 Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Bird Landbird Gra X y 0 0.00 Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Bird Landbird For, Shr X y 0 0.00 Bachman's Sparrow Peucaea aestivalis Bird Landbird Gra no X Red 2 0.17 G3 Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Bird Landbird Gra X y 0 0.00 Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Bird Landbird Gra y 0 0.00 American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Bird Landbird Gra X y X GRL UM X (I) 3 0.25 White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Bird Landbird Shr X y 0 0.00 White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Bird Landbird Shr X y 0 0.00 Harris’s Sparrow Zonotrichia querula Bird Landbird Shr X y 0 0.00 Merlin Falco columbarius Bird Landbird For, Gra y 0 0.00 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Bird Landbird Rip X y E X X (d) X GRL UM X 6 0.50 G4 S1S2B American Kestrel Falco sparverius Bird Landbird Gra X y 0 0.00 Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemannni Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Bird Landbird For, Shr X y 0 0.00 American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Bird Landbird Shr X y 0 0.00 Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Bird Landbird Dev, Gra, Rip X y 0 0.00 Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Bird Landbird Rip X y 0 0.00 Purple Martin Progne subis Bird Landbird Pal, Rip X y SC 1 0.08 G5 S2S3B Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Bird Landbird Rip X y 0 0.00 Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Bird Landbird Gra, Rip X y X (IIA) 1 0.08 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Bird Landbird Rip X y 0 0.00 Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Bird Landbird For, Pal, Shr X y 0 0.00 Bobolink Dolichonyx orizivorus Bird Landbird Gra X y X X f RL UM X (I) Gra 6 0.50 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Bird Landbird Pal, Rip X y X (nb) X f UMR Yellow 5 0.42 Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Bird Landbird Dev, Gra, Rip X y 0 0.00 Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Bird Landbird For X y X 1 0.08 Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y X GRL UMR 2 0.17 Brown-headed Cowbird Molthrus ater Bird Landbird Dev, For, Shr X y 0 0.00 Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Bird Landbird Dev, For, Shr X y 0 0.00 Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Bird Landbird Gra X y GRL UMR (f, h) Gra 3 0.25 Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Bird Landbird Gra X y SC X GRL UMR 3 0.25 G5 S2B Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Bird Landbird Pal X y SC 1 0.08 G5 S3 Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X ? E X X GRL UM X 5 0.42 G4 S1B Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Bird Landbird Shr X y 0 0.00 Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Bird Landbird Shr X no? 0 0.00 Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Bird Landbird Shr X y X X X (IIA) Shr 4 0.33 American Pipit Anthus rubescens Bird Landbird Gra X y 0 0.00 Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta Bird Landbird Gra X ? 0 0.00 Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii Bird Landbird Gra no f 1 0.08 Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X X no? SC X X 3 0.25 G5 S2S3B Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Bird Landbird For, Shr X y 0 0.00 Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus Bird Landbird For X y SC X 2 0.17 G5 S2S3B Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis Bird Landbird Shr, For X y X X GRL UM X X(f) Yellow For 7 0.58 Wilson’s Warbler Cardellina pusilla Bird Landbird Shr, For y 0 0.00 Kentucky Warbler Geothlypis formosus Bird Landbird For X no T X X X (I) X(f) Red/Y 6 0.50 G5 S1S2?B Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Bird Landbird Gra, Pal y 0 0.00 Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum Bird Landbird For no E X X UMR X 5 0.42 G5 S1B Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Bird Landbird Shr no? SC X (f, h) X (f) 4 0.33 G5 S2B Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii Bird Landbird For no X UMR 2 0.17 Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Bird Landbird For X y SC X GRL UMR (f, h) X (f) 5 0.42 G4 S2S3B Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia Bird Landbird Shr, Rip X y X 1 0.08 Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla Bird Landbird For, Rip X ? SC X X GRL UM X (IIC) (f, h) X (f) 7 0.58 G5 S3B Prothonotary Warbler Prothonotary citrea Bird Landbird For, Rip X ? SC X X GRL UM X (I) X(f) X (f) Yellow 8 0.67 G5 S3B Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Black-throated Blue Warbler Setophaga caerulescens Bird Landbird For X y GRL (f, h) X (f) 3 0.25 Bay-breasted Warbler Setophaga castanea Bird Landbird For X y X X 2 0.17 Cerulean Warbler Setophaga cerulea Bird Landbird For X ? T X X f RL UM X (I) X(f) X (f) Yellow 9 0.75 G4 S2S3B Hooded Warbler Setophaga citrina Bird Landbird For X no? T X X 3 0.25 G5 S2S3B Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata Bird Landbird For, Rip, Shr X y 0 0.00 Prairie Warbler Setophaga discolor Bird Landbird Gra X ? X UMR Yellow 3 0.25 G5 Yellow-throated Warbler Setophaga dominica Bird Landbird For no? E X 2 0.17 G5 S1?B Blackburnian Warbler Setophaga fusca Bird Landbird For X y X 1 0.08 Kirtland's Warbler Setophaga kirtlandii Bird Landbird Shr no? E SC X E GRL X(f) X (f) Red 8 0.67 G1 S1B Magnolia Warbler Setophaga magnolia Bird Landbird For, Shr X y 0 0.00 Palm Warbler Setophaga palmarum Bird Landbird For, Gra X y 0 0.00 Chestnut-sided Warbler Setophaga pensylvanica Bird Landbird For, Rip, Shr X y 0 0.00 Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Bird Landbird Rip, Shr X y 0 0.00 Pine Warbler Setophaga pinus Bird Landbird For X y For 1 0.08 American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Blackpoll Warbler Setophaga striata Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina Bird Landbird For X y GRL (f, h) X (f) 3 0.25 Black-throated Green Warbler Setophaga virens Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Bachman's Warbler Vermivora bachmanii Bird Landbird For no 0 0.00 Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Bird Landbird Shr y X X (f) f RL UM X (I) X(f) X (f) Red Shr 9 0.75 Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora cyanoptera Bird Landbird Shr, For X y X X GRL UM X (I) X(f) X (f) Yellow 7 0.58 Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Bird Landbird For, Shr X X y 0 0.00 Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis Bird Landbird For X ? T X 2 0.17 G5 S1S2B,S1S2N Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopava Bird Landbird For, Shr X X y 0 0.00 Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Bird Landbird Gra X y 0 0.00 Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido Bird Landbird Gra no T X X (I) X(f) X (f) Red 6 0.50 G4 S1B,S2N Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Bird Landbird Gra X y SC X 2 0.17 G4 S1B,S2N Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Bird Landbird Gra, For X y X GRL UMR Gra 3 0.25 Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Bird Landbird For, Gra X y X X GRL UM X (I) X(f) X (f) Yellow 7 0.58 Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 G5 American Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis Bird Landbird For X ? 0 0.00 Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Bird Landbird For X y SC 1 0.08 G5 S2S3B Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Bird Landbird For, Shr X y 0 0.00 Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus Bird Landbird For X y? 0 0.00 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Bird Landbird Gra X y SC X X (nb) X GRL UM X (IIC) X X 8 0.67 G5 S1B Long-eared Owl Asio otus Bird Landbird Gra, For X y SC GRL UMR 2 0.17 G5 S2B Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Bird Landbird Gra no f 1 0.08 Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Bird Landbird Gra X y 0 0.00 Great-horned Owl Bubo virginianus Bird Landbird For, Gra X y 0 0.00 Eastern Screech Owl Megascops asio Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Barred Owl Strix varia Bird Landbird For, Gra X y 0 0.00 Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Bird Landbird For X ? 0 0.00 European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Bird Landbird Dev, For, Gra X y 0 0.00 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Bird Landbird For X ? 0 0.00 Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris Bird Landbird For, Gra X y 0 0.00 Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Bird Landbird Pal X y X X X (IIC) 3 0.25 G5 Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Bird Landbird Pal X y X GRL UM X (IIC) 3 0.25 House Wren Troglodytes aedon Bird Landbird Dev, For, Shr X y 0 0.00 Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Bewick's Wren (bewickii ssp.) Thryomanes bewickii bewickii Bird Landbird Shr, For no X UMR X 3 0.25 Veery Catharus fuscescens Bird Landbird For X y (f, h) X (f) 2 0.17 Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Bird Landbird For X y SC 1 0.08 G5 S2B Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Bird Landbird For X y X f RL UM X (IIC) X(f) X (f) Yellow For 8 0.67 Eastern Bluebird Sialisa sialis Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X y 0 0.00 American Robin Turdus migratorius Bird Landbird Dev, For, Gra X y 0 0.00 Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Bird Landbird For X y SC X X GRL UMR X(f) X (f) Yellow 7 0.58 G4 S2B Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Bird Landbird For, Rip X y 0 0.00 Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Bird Landbird Pal, Shr X no? X (ss) X X X(f) Yellow (SW sp) 5 0.42 Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Bird Landbird For, Rip X no? T X X GRL UM X (I) 5 0.42 G5 S3B Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus citrinus Bird Landbird For, Rip X y 0 0.00 Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Bird Landbird For, Rip X y 0 0.00 Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Bird Landbird Gra, Rip, Shr X y 0 0.00 Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Bird Landbird Gra, Rip, Shr X no? 0 0.00 Barn Owl Tyto alba Bird Landbird Dev, For, Gra X no E X UMR 3 0.25 G5 SNA Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii Bird Landbird Gra, Shr X no T X X GRL UM X (I) X X Red 8 0.67 G5 S2B Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons Bird Landbird For X y X 1 0.08 Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Bird Landbird For y 0 0.00 White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus Bird Landbird Shr no X 1 0.08 Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 Blue-headed Vireo (Solitary) Vireo solitarius Bird Landbird For X y 0 0.00 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Piping Plover (Great Plains pop.) Charadrius melodus Bird Shorebird Bar ? E X E GRL UMR 4 0.33 Piping Plover (Great Lakes pop.) Charadrius melodus Bird Shorebird Bar X ? E E X E GRL UM X (I) X(f) M/B (f), 4 Beach and Open Coast 9 0.75 Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Bird Shorebird Pal X y M, 4 Yellow 2 0.17 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Bird Shorebird Gra, Pal X y (f, h) M/B (f), 5 2 0.17 American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica Bird Shorebird Gra X y X(f) M (f), 4 2 0.17 Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Bird Shorebird Pal X y M, 4 1 0.08 American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Bird Shorebird Pal X ? m 1 0.08 Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Bird Shorebird Pal X y M/B, 4 1 0.08 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Bird Shorebird Pal X y X ( c) M, 4 2 0.17 Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Bird Shorebird Gra X y SC X X X f RL UM X (I) X(f) m/b (f), 3 X (f) Gra 11 0.92 G5 S2B Sanderling Calidris alba Bird Shorebird Pal X y X (f, c) M (f), 4 Yellow 3 0.25 Dunlin Calidris alpina Bird Shorebird Pal X y f (f, h) M (f), 4 3 0.25 Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Bird Shorebird Pal X y M, 4 1 0.08 Red Knot (roselaari ssp.) Calidris canutus Bird Shorebird Pal X y X (nb) X f X M, 3 Yellow 6 0.50 Red Knot (rufa ssp.) Calidris canutus Bird Shorebird Pal X y X (nb, c X f X M, 3 Yellow 6 0.50 White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis Bird Shorebird Pal X y M, 4 Yellow 2 0.17 Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus Bird Shorebird Pal y GRL UMR M, 4 Yellow 3 0.25 Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Bird Shorebird Pal ? M, 3 Yellow 2 0.17 Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Bird Shorebird Pal X y M, 4 Red 2 0.17 Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Bird Shorebird Pal X y M, 5 1 0.08 Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Bird Shorebird Pal X y X f M, 4 3 0.25 Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata Bird Shorebird Pal X X y (f, h) M/b (f), 4 2 0.17 Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Bird Shorebird Pal X y X (nb) X GRL UMR X(f) M (f), 4 5 0.42 Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Bird Shorebird Pal X y M, 5 1 0.08 Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Bird Shorebird Pal X ? X (nb) X (f) f RL UMR X M, 3 Yellow 7 0.58 Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Bird Shorebird Gra, Pal X ? X (nb) X f RL UMR X M, 4 Yellow 7 0.58 Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Bird Shorebird Pal no f Yellow 2 0.17 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Bird Shorebird Pal ? X (nb) X GRL UMR X M, 3 5 0.42 Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Bird Shorebird Pal X ? M, 3 1 0.08 Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Bird Shorebird Pal X y SC X GRL UM X (I) X(f) M (f), 4 6 0.50 G5 S1B American Woodcock Scolopax minor Bird Shorebird For, Pal X X y f RL UM X, IIIB X(f) M/B (f), 4 X (f) Shr 7 0.58 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Bird Shorebird Pal X y X M, 5 2 0.17 Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Bird Shorebird Pal X y GRL UMR M, 5 2 0.17 Willet Tringa semipalmata Bird Shorebird Pal X y? M, 3 1 0.08 Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Bird Shorebird Pal X y X (nb) X X ( c) m/b, 4 4 0.33 Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis Bird Shorebird Pal y? X (nb) X f RL UMR X M, 4 Red 7 0.58 Great Egret Ardea alba Bird Waterbird Pal X y? T X b/m 3 0.25 G5 S2B Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Bird Waterbird Pal, Rip X y b/w 1 0.08 American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Bird Waterbird Pal X y SC X X X UMR X b 7 0.58 G4 S3B Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Bird Waterbird Dev, Gra X ? b/m 1 0.08 Green Heron Butorides virescens Bird Waterbird Pal, Rip X y b 1 0.08 Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Bird Waterbird Pal no b/m 1 0.08 Snowy Egret Egretta thula Bird Waterbird Pal no E X b/m 3 0.25 G5 SNA Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Bird Waterbird Pal X y SC X GRL UMR X b/m 5 0.42 G5 S2S3B Yellow-crowned Night-heron Nyctanassa violacea Bird Waterbird Pal no? T X X b/m 4 0.33 G5 S1B Black-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax Bird Waterbird Pal, Rip X y? SC X GRL UMR X(f) b/w 5 0.42 G5 S2B Common Loon Gavia immer Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac X y GRL UMR B/M Lac 3 0.25 G5 Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac X ? m 1 0.08 Whooping Crane Grus americana Bird Waterbird Pal X ? E E GRL UM X (I) X M Red 7 0.58 Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Bird Waterbird Pal X y B/M 1 0.08 Black Tern Chlidonias niger Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac, Pal X y SC X X X f RL UM X (IIC) X(f) b Pal 10 0.83 G4 S2B Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac, Bar X y E X b/m 3 0.25 G5 S1B,S2N Herring Gull Larus argentatus Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac, Dev X y b/w/m 1 0.08 Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac, Dev X y B/w 1 0.08 Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus Bird Waterbird Lac, Dev no? 0 0.00 Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac no? w 1 0.08 Thayer’s Gull Larus glaucoides Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac no? w Yellow 2 0.17 Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Bird Waterbird Lac, Dev no? w 1 0.08 Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus Bird Waterbird Lac, Dev no? w 1 0.08 Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac X y w/m 1 0.08 Franklin’s Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan Bird Waterbird Pal X y m 1 0.08 Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Bird Waterbird Lac no? m 1 0.08 Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Bird Waterbird Lac X y E X GRL UM X b/m 5 0.42 G5 S1B Common Tern Sterna hirundo Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac, Bar X y E X X X f RL UMR X (f) b/m Lac 9 0.75 G5 S1B,S2N Least Tern, Interior Sternula antillarum Bird Waterbird Riv, Bar no? E Red 2 0.17 Sabine’s Gull Xema sabini Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac no? m 1 0.08 American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac, Pal X y SC X b/m 3 0.25 G4 S3B Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac X y GRL UMR B/w/M 2 0.17 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac X ? b/m 1 0.08 Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac X y X (nb) X M 3 0.25 Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac X y E X B/m 3 0.25 G5 S1B Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac, Pal X y b 1 0.08 Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Bird Waterbird Pal, Lac X y X X X B 4 0.33 Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Bird Waterbird Pal X y T X X X f RL UMR X(f) B/m Red 9 0.75 G4 S1B American Coot Fulica americana Bird Waterbird Riv, Lac, Pal X X y B/m 1 0.08 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Bird Waterbird Pal X X no GRL UMR B/m 2 0.17 G5 Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis Bird Waterbird Pal no X f RL UM X (I) X m Red 7 0.58 Sora Porzana carolina Bird Waterbird Pal X X y X B/m 2 0.17 G5 King Rail Rallus elegans Bird Waterbird Pal X no? SC X X (f) f RL UM X X(f) b Yellow 9 0.75 G4 S1B Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Bird Waterbird Pal X X y B/m 1 0.08 Wood Duck Aix sponsa Bird Waterfowl Pal, For, Rip X X y GRL UMR (f, h) B/n Rip & Riv 4 0.33 Northern Pintail Anas acuta Bird Waterfowl Pal X X y f X n 3 0.25 American Wigeon Anas americana Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac X X y X (s) n 2 0.17 Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Bird Waterfowl Pal X X y 0 0.00 Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Bird Waterfowl Pal X X y b/n 1 0.08 Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Bird Waterfowl Pal X X y X (f, s) B/N Pal 3 0.25 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Bird Waterfowl Pal, Gra X X y GRL UMR X (f, s) B/N Pal 4 0.33 American Black Duck Anas rubripes Bird Waterfowl Pal X X y f GRL X (IIC) X(f) b/N 5 0.42 Gadwall Anas strepera Bird Waterfowl Pal, Gra X X y b/n 1 0.08 Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Bird Waterfowl Pal X X y 0 0.00 Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac X X y f RL UMR X(f) N Lac 5 0.42 Redhead Aythya americana Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac X X y SC X X (IIC) X (s) b/N 5 0.42 G5 S2B Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac, Rip X X y b/N 1 0.08 Greater Scaup Aythya marila Bird Waterfowl Lac X X y f N 2 0.17 Canvasback Aythya valisineria Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac X X y GRL UMR X(f) N 3 0.25 Atlantic brant Branta bernicla Bird Waterfowl Lac X X y? 0 0.00 Canada Goose, Miss Flyway Branta canadensis Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac, Dev X X y GRL UMR X B/N 3 0.25 Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac X X y n 1 0.08 Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac X X y SC X (s) N 3 0.25 G5 S2S3?B Snow Goose, Greater Chen caerulescens Bird Waterfowl Pal X X y 0 0.00 Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Bird Waterfowl Lac X no? n 1 0.08 Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac, Pal X y SC X GRL UM X (I) B/N Yellow 6 0.50 G4 S4B Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac X y (f, h) 1 0.08 Mute swan Cygnus olor Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac n X y B/N 1 0.08 Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac, Pal, Rip X X y X N 2 0.17 White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca Bird Waterfowl Lac X no? 0 0.00 Black Scoter Melanitta nigra Bird Waterfowl Lac X no? 0 0.00 Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Bird Waterfowl Lac X no? 0 0.00 Common Merganser Mergus merganser Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac X X y 0 0.00 Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac X X y 0 0.00 Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Bird Waterfowl Riv, Lac, Pal X X y B/N 1 0.08 Common Eider Somateria mollissima Bird Waterfowl Lac no? 0 0.00 Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Fish Lac, Riv X y SC X GRL UMR Rip & Riv X 5 0.83 G3G4 S3 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Fish Riv X y UMR X 2 0.33 G4 American Eel Anguilla rostrata Fish Riv y SC X X 3 0.50 G4 S2 Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus Fish Lac, Riv y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S3 River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Fish Lac, Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Fish Riv X X y X 1 0.17 G5 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus Fish Riv y T X X 3 0.50 G3G4 S2 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus Fish Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Fish Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger Fish Riv y T X X 3 0.50 G5 S2 Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer Fish Riv X y X 1 0.17 Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta Fish Lac, Riv, Pal ? SC X X 3 0.50 G5 S3 Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum Fish Lac, Riv y X 1 0.17 River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum Fish Riv y T X Rip & Riv X 4 0.67 G4 S2 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Fish Riv ? E X X 3 0.50 G5 S1 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Greater redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi Fish Riv y? T X X 3 0.50 G4 S3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Fish Lac, Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 Long-ear sunfish Lepomis megalotis Fish Lac, Riv ? T X X 3 0.50 G5 S2 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Fish Lac, Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 White crappie Pomoxis annularis Fish Lac, Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Fish Lac, Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Fish Lac, Riv X y X 1 0.17 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Fish Lac, Riv y X 1 0.17 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Fish Lac, Riv X y Rip & Riv X 2 0.33 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus Fish Riv X y X 1 0.17 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris Fish Lac, Riv y E X X 3 0.50 G5 S1 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Fish Lac, Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Goldfish Carassius auratus Fish Lac n y 0 0.00 G5 Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella Fish Lac, Riv n y X 1 0.17 G5 Common carp Cyprinus carpio Fish Lac, Riv, Pal X y X 1 0.17 G5 Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Fish Lac, Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Fish Riv n y? X 1 0.17 G5 Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Fish Riv n y X 1 0.17 G5 Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis Fish Riv y T X 2 0.33 G5 S2 Shoal Chub Macrhybopsis aestivalis Fish Riv y T X 2 0.33 G5 S2 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana Fish Riv y SC 1 0.17 G5 S3 River Shiner Notropis blennius Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 Black carp Mylopharyngodon picens Fish Riv n ? X 1 0.17 Pallid Shiner Hybopsis amnis Fish Riv y E X X 3 0.50 G4 S1 Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus Fish Lac, Riv y T X 2 0.33 G3 S2 Weed Shiner Notropis texanus Fish Lac, Riv y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S3 Pugnose minnow Opsopoeodus emiliae Fish Lac, Riv y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S3 Northern pike Esox lucius Fish Lac X y X 1 0.17 G5 Muskellunge Esox masquinongy Fish Lac, Riv X y X 1 0.17 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Fish Lac, Riv y E X X 3 0.50 G5 S2 Black bullhead Ameiurus melas Fish Lac, Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus Fish Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Fish Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 Tadpole Madtom Noturus gyrinus Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Fish Lac, Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus Fish Lac, Riv y? X 1 0.17 G5 Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus Fish Lac, Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Fish Lac X, n y 0 0.00 G5 White bass Morone chrysops Fish Lac, Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 Hybrid striped bass Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis Fish Lac, Riv X y X 1 0.17 GNR Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis Fish Lac, Riv X y 0 0.00 Striped bass Morone saxatilis Fish Lac, Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 Walleye Sander vitreus Fish Riv X y UMR Rip & Riv X 3 0.50 G5 Sauger Stizostedion canadense Fish Riv X y X 1 0.17 G5 Western Sand Darter Ammocrypta clara Fish Riv y SC X X 3 0.50 G3 S3 Crystal Darter Crystallaria asprella Fish Riv y E X UMR X 4 0.67 G3 S1 Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene Fish Riv, Pal y SC X 2 0.33 G4G5 S3 Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 Bluntnose Darter Etheostoma chlorosoma Fish Pal, Riv y? E X X 3 0.50 G5 S1 Least Darter Etheostoma microperca Fish Lac, Riv y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S3 Banded Darter Etheostoma zonale Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 Yellow perch Perca flavescens Fish Lac X X y X 1 0.17 Gilt Darter Percina evides Fish Riv y T X X 3 0.50 G4 S2S3 Blackside Darter Percina maculata Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 River Darter Percina shumardi Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Chestnut Lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus Fish Riv y X 1 0.17 G4 Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Fish Riv n y 0 0.00 G5 Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Fish Riv y T X GRL UMR Rip & Riv X 5 0.83 G4 S2 Cisco Coregonus artedi Fish Lac, Riv X y Lac 1 0.17 Bloater Coregonus hoyi Fish Lac X ? Lac 1 0.17 Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Fish Riv X y X 1 0.17 Brown trout Salmo trutta Fish Riv X X y X 1 0.17 Brook trout, Heritage strains Salvelinus fontinalis Fish Riv X y GRL UMR Rip & Riv 2 0.33 Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush Fish Lac, Riv X Lac 1 0.17 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Fish Lac, Riv y X 1 0.17 G5 Blue-spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale Herp Amphibian For X y C 1 0.17 Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Herp Amphibian For, Pal X y B 1 0.17 Common Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus Herp Amphibian Lac, Riv X y C 1 0.17 G5 Six-lined Racerunner Aspidoscelis sexlineata Herp Reptile Gra, Bar X y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus Herp Reptile Bar, For X y 0 0.00 Northern Prairie Skink Plestiodon septentrionalis Herp Reptile Bar, Rip, Gra X y SC X C 3 0.50 G6 S3 North American Racer Coluber constrictor Herp Reptile Rip, Bar, Gra X y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2 Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Herp Reptile For, Bar X y SC X UMR B 4 0.67 G4 S2S3 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Prairie Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus arnyi Herp Reptile For y? SC X 2 0.33 G5T5 S2S3 Eastern Hog-nosed Snake Heterodon platirhinos Herp Reptile Gra, For X y 0 0.00 G5 Smooth Greensnake Opheodrys vernalis Herp Reptile Gra, Pal X y B 1 0.17 G5 Gophersnake (Bullsnake) Pituophis catenifer Herp Reptile Gra, Shr, For X y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 Eastern Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus catenatus Herp Reptile For, Pal X y C E X GRL UMR A 5 0.83 G3G4T3T4Q S1 Plains Gartersnake Thamnophis radix Herp Reptile Gra X y SC 1 0.17 G5 S2? Smooth Softshell Apalone mutica Herp Reptile Lac, Riv y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S3 Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Herp Reptile Lac, Riv, Pal X y 0 0.00 G5 Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Herp Reptile Pal X y T X A 3 0.50 G4 S3S4 Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta Herp Reptile For, Riv X y T X B 3 0.50 G4 S2 False Map Turtle Graptemys pseudogeographica Herp Reptile Lac, Riv, Pal y SC 1 0.17 G5 S3? Moose Alces alces Mammal Artiodactyla For, Pal X 0 0.00 Elk or Wapiti Cervus elaphus Mammal Artiodactyla For, Gra X SC 1 0.20 G5 S2S3 White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Mammal Artiodactyla For X X 0 0.00 Coyote Canis latrans Mammal Carnivora For, Gra X 0 0.00 Gray wolf Canis lupus Mammal Carnivora For X X SC X GRL UMR 3 0.60 G4 S4 Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Mammal Carnivora For, Gra X 0 0.00 Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Mammal Carnivora For, Gra X 0 0.00 Puma / Cougar / Mountain Lion Felis concolor Mammal Carnivora For 0 0.00 G5 Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Mammal Carnivora For X X T GRL 2 0.40 G5 American Marten Martes americana Mammal Carnivora For E X 2 0.40 G5 S2 Black Bear Ursus americanus Mammal Carnivora For X X 0 0.00 Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Mammal Chiroptera Gra, Shr, For X T 1 0.20 G5 S2S4 Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Mammal Chiroptera For X T 1 0.20 G5 S2S4 Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Mammal Chiroptera For X C T X 3 0.60 G4 S1S3 Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus Mammal Chiroptera Sub, For X T 1 0.20 G5 S1S3 Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Mammal Rodentia Gra, Pal SC 1 0.20 G5 SU Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster Mammal Rodentia Gra X SC X 2 0.40 G5 S2 Woodland Vole / Pine Vole Microtus pinetorum Mammal Rodentia For X SC X 2 0.40 G5 S2 Woodland jumping mouse Napaeozapus insignis Mammal Rodentia For X SC X 2 0.40 G5 S2S3 Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Mammal Rodentia For X SC X 2 0.40 G5 S3 Franklin's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii Mammal Rodentia Gra SC X 2 0.40 G5 S2 Least Shrew Cryptotis parva Mammal SoricomorphaGra Shr X SC 1 0.20 G5 SH Water Shrew Sorex palustris Mammal SoricomorphaRip X SC X 2 0.40 G5 S3 A Jumping Araneae Paradamoetas fontana Arachnid Araneae SC X 2 0.40 GNR S1S2 A Jumping Araneae Phidippus pius Arachnid Araneae SC 1 0.20 GNR S1S2 Illinois cave amphipod Gammarus acherondytes Crustacean Amphipoda E UMR 2 0.40 Wisconsin Well Amphipod Stygobromus putealis Crustacean Amphipoda SC X 2 0.40 G2G3 S1 Cave Crayfish Cambarus aculabrum Crustacean Crayfish E 1 0.20 Rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus Crustacean Crayfish n 0 0.00 Prairie Crayfish Procambarus gracilis Crustacean Crayfish SC X 2 0.40 G5 S2? Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata Mollusca Mussel Riv y SC GRL UMR 2 0.40 G4 S3 Threeridge Amblema plicata Mollusca Mussel Riv y UMR 1 0.20 Flat Floater Anodonta suborbiculata Mollusca Mussel Riv y SC X 2 0.40 G5 S2S3 Rock Pocketbook Arcidens confragosus Mollusca Mussel Riv y T X UMR 3 0.60 G4 S1S2 Asian clam Corbicula fluminea Mollusca Mussel Riv n y 0 0.00 Spectaclecase Cumberlandia monodonta Mollusca Mussel Riv y E E X UMR 4 0.80 G3 S1 Purple Wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata Mollusca Mussel Riv y E X 2 0.40 G5 S2 Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha Mollusca Mussel Riv n y 0 0.00 Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata Mollusca Mussel Riv y E X 2 0.40 G4G5 S2 Elephant-ear Elliptio crassidens Mollusca Mussel Riv y E X 2 0.40 G5 S1 Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra Mollusca Mussel Riv y E E X UMR Rip & Riv 5 1.00 G3 S1 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena Mollusca Mussel Riv y E X 2 0.40 G4G5 S1 Higgins' eye pearlymussel Lampsilis higginsi Mollusca Mussel Riv y E E X UMR Rip & Riv 5 1.00 G1 S1 Yellow sandshell Lampsilis teres anodontoides Mollusca Mussel Riv y E X 2 0.40 G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta Mollusca Mussel Riv y GRL UMR 1 0.20 G5 Washboard Megalonaias nervosa Mollusca Mussel Riv y SC UMR 2 0.40 G5 S3 Bullhead Plethobasus cyphyus Mollusca Mussel Riv y E E X UMR 4 0.80 G3 S1 Round pigtoe Pleurobema sintoxia Mollusca Mussel Riv y UMR 1 0.20 G4G5 Pink Papershell Potamilus ohiensis Mollusca Mussel Riv y SC X 2 0.40 G5 S3 Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Mollusca Mussel Riv y E E X 3 0.60 G1 S1 Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra Mollusca Mussel Riv y T X UMR 3 0.60 G4 S2 Wartyback Quadrula nodulata Mollusca Mussel Riv y T X 2 0.40 G4 S1S2 Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa Mollusca Mussel Riv y UMR 1 0.20 G5 Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula Mollusca Mussel Riv y? SC X UMR 3 0.60 G5 S3 Salamander mussel Simpsonaias ambigua Mollusca Mussel Riv y T X UMR 3 0.60 G3 S2 Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa Mollusca Mussel Riv y T X UMR 3 0.60 G4G5 S2 Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis Mollusca Mussel Riv y SC X 2 0.40 G5 S1S2 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Ellipse Venustaconcha ellipsiformis Mollusca Mussel Riv y? T X 2 0.40 G4 S3 Broad-banded Forestsnail Allogona profunda Mollusca Snail y SC 1 0.20 G5 S2S3 Appalachian Pillar Cochlicopa morseana Mollusca Snail For ? SC X 2 0.40 G5 S2 Wing Snaggletooth Gastrocopta procera Mollusca Snail Bar, Gra y T X 2 0.40 G5 S3 Bright Glyph Glyphyalinia wheatleyi Mollusca Snail For y SC X 2 0.40 G5 S1 Sterki's granule Guppya sterkii Mollusca Snail For y SC X 2 0.40 G5 S2S3 Smooth coil Helicodiscus singleyanus Mollusca Snail Gra y SC 1 0.20 G5 S2? Cherrystone Drop Hendersonia occulta Mollusca Snail Bar, For y T X 2 0.40 G4 S2S3 Ribbed Striate Striatura exigua Mollusca Snail y SC 1 0.20 G5 S2S3 Black Striate Striatura ferrea Mollusca Snail For y SC X 2 0.40 G5 S2 Bronze Pinecone Strobilops aeneus Mollusca Snail For y SC X 2 0.40 G5 S1 Trumpet vallonia Vallonia parvula Mollusca Snail Bar, For, Gra y SC 1 0.20 G4 S2? Tapered vertigo Vertigo elatior Mollusca Snail Aqu, For, Pal y SC 1 0.20 G5 S3 Deep-throat vertigo Vertigo nylanderi Mollusca Snail Aqu, For, Pal y SC X 2 0.40 G3G4 S1S2 Mystery Vertigo Vertigo paradoxa Mollusca Snail ? SC X 2 0.40 G4G5Q S1 Honey vertigo Vertigo tridentata Mollusca Snail Gra y SC 1 0.20 G5 S3 Boreal Top Zoogenetes harpa Mollusca Snail Pal, Rip ? SC X 2 0.40 G5 S1 A Water Scavenger Beetle Agabetes acuductus Insect Coleoptera y SC X 2 0.33 GNR S2S3 A Predaceous Diving Beetle Agabus discolor Insect Coleoptera Aqu ? SC X 2 0.33 GNR S2S3 A Predaceous Diving Beetle Agabus leptapsis Insect Coleoptera Aqu y SC X 2 0.33 GNR S2S3 Beach-dune Tiger Beetle Cicindela hirticollis rhodensis Insect Coleoptera Bar, Rip ? SC X 2 0.33 G5T4 S1 Northern Barrens Tiger Beetle Cicindela patruela Insect Coleoptera Bar, Sav y SC X 2 0.33 G3T3 S2 A Crawling Water Beetle Haliplus apostolicus Insect Coleoptera Aqu ? SC X 2 0.33 GNR S2S3 A Crawling Water Beetle Haliplus leopardus Insect Coleoptera Aqu y SC X 2 0.33 GNR S1S3 A Water Scavenger Beetle Helophorus latipenis Insect Coleoptera Aqu y SC X 2 0.33 A Minute Moss Beetle Hydraena angulicollis Insect Coleoptera ? SC X 2 0.33 A Predaceous Diving Beetle Hygrotus compar Insect Coleoptera Aqu ? SC X 2 0.33 A Predaceous Diving Beetle Hygrotus falli Insect Coleoptera Aqu ? SC X 2 0.33 A Predaceous Diving Beetle Hygrotus sylvanus Insect Coleoptera Aqu y SC X 2 0.33 A Predaceous Diving Beetle Ilybius angustior Insect Coleoptera Aqu ? SC X 2 0.33 A Predaceous Diving Beetle Ilybius subaeneus Insect Coleoptera Aqu ? SC X 2 0.33 A Water Scavenger Beetle Laccobius agilis Insect Coleoptera Aqu ? SC X 2 0.33 A Predaceous Diving Beetle Oreodytes scitulus Insect Coleoptera Aqu ? SC X 2 0.33 A Predaceous Diving Beetle Sanfilippodytes pseudovilis Insect Coleoptera Aqu ? 0 0.00 A Riffle Beetle Stenelmis antennalis Insect Coleoptera Riv y SC X 2 0.33 A Non-biting Midge Pseudodiamesa pertinax Insect Diptera no? SC X 2 0.33 GNR S2 Pecatonica River Mayfly Acanthametropus pecatonica Insect EphemeroptaRiv y E X 2 0.33 G2G4 S1 Ojibwe Small Square-gilled Mayfly Brachycercus ojibwe Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G3 S2S3 A Small Square-gilled Mayfly Caenis anceps Insect EphemeroptaAqu ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 A Small Square-gilled Mayfly Caenis hilaris Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 Fox Small Square-gilled Mayfly Cercobrachys fox Insect EphemeroptaAqu ? SC X 2 0.33 G3G4 S2S3 Wisconsin Small Square-gilled Mayfly Cercobrachys lilliei Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G2 S1S2 American Sand Burrowing Mayfly Dolania americana Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G4 S1S3 A Spiny Crawler Mayfly Drunella cornuta Insect EphemeroptaAqu ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 A Spiny Crawler Mayfly Eurylophella aestiva Insect EphemeroptaAqu ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 A Common Burrowing Mayfly Hexagenia rigida Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2? A Flat-headed Mayfly Maccaffertium pulchellum Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC 1 0.17 G5 S2S4 A Flat-headed Mayfly Macdunnoa persimplex Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G4 S1S2 A Cleft-footed Minnow Mayfly Metretopus borealis Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S1S2 A Primitive Minnow Mayfly Parameletus chelifer Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S1S3 A Small Minnow Mayfly Plauditus cestus Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2? A Flat-headed Mayfly Rhithrogena undulata Insect EphemeroptaAqu ? SC X 2 0.33 G4Q S2S3 A Small Square-gilled Mayfly Sparbarus maculatus Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 A Small Square-gilled Mayfly Sparbarus nasutus Insect EphemeroptaAqu y SC X 2 0.33 G3G4 S1S3 Red-Tailed Prairie Leafhopper Aflexia rubranura Insect Hemiptera Gra y E X 2 0.33 G2 S2? A Leafhopper Attenuipyga vanduzeei Insect Hemiptera y E X 2 0.33 GNR S1 An Issid Planthopper Fitchiella robertsoni Insect Hemiptera y T X 2 0.33 GNR S1S2 A Leafhopper Memnonia panzeri Insect Hemiptera y SC X 2 0.33 GNR S2S3 Prairie Leafhopper Polyamia dilata Insect Hemiptera Gra y T X 2 0.33 GNR S2 Whitney Underwing Catocala whitneyi Insect Lepidoptera y SC X 2 0.33 G3G4 S3 Dusted Skipper Atrytonopsis hianna Insect Lepidoptera Gra, Sav y SC 1 0.17 G4G5 S2S3 Columbine Duskywing Erynnis lucilius Insect Lepidoptera For, Sav y SC X 2 0.33 G4 S2S3 Mottled Duskywing Erynnis martialis Insect Lepidoptera For, Sav y SC X 2 0.33 G3 S2 Cobweb Skipper Hesperia metea Insect Lepidoptera Gra, Sav y SC X 2 0.33 G4G5 S2 Ottoe Skipper Hesperia ottoe Insect Lepidoptera Gra ? E X GRL UMR V 4 0.67 G3G4 S1 Persius Duskywing Erynnis persius Insect Lepidoptera Sav y SC X I 3 0.50 G5T1T3 S3 Juniper hairstreak Callophrys gryneus Insect Lepidoptera Sav y SC 1 0.17 G5 S3 Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Insect Lepidoptera Gra, Sav y E E X GRL UMR Gra CI 6 1.00 G5T2 S3 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Gray copper Lycaena dione Insect Lepidoptera Gra, Pal y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2? Blazing Star Stem Borer Papaipema beeriana Insect Lepidoptera Gra, Pal y SC X 2 0.33 G2G3 S2S3 Phlox Moth Schinia indiana Insect Lepidoptera Gra, Sav y E X 2 0.33 G2G4 S2S3 Arctic Fritillary Boloria chariclea Insect Lepidoptera ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S3 Gorgone checkerspot Chlosyne gorgone Insect Lepidoptera Gra, Sav y SC 1 0.17 G5T5 S3 Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Insect Lepidoptera Gra y Gra 1 0.17 Chryxus Arctic Oeneis chryxus Insect Lepidoptera Gra, Sav y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S3 Regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Insect Lepidoptera Gra y E X V 3 0.50 G3 S1 Slender Clearwing Hemaris gracilis Insect Lepidoptera For, Sav y SC X 2 0.33 G3G4 S2S3 Midwestern Fen Buckmoth Hemileuca nevadensis Insect Lepidoptera For, Pal ? SC X 2 0.33 G5T3T4 S3 Mottled Darner Aeshna clepsydra Insect Odonata Lac ? SC X 2 0.33 G4 S2S3 Subarctic Darner Aeshna subarctica Insect Odonata Pal ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S1S2? Swamp Darner Epiaeschna heros Insect Odonata Lac, Pal y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 Forcipate Emerald Somatochlora forcipata Insect Odonata For, Lac, Rip, Riv ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 Pronghorned Clubtail Gomphus graslinellus Insect Odonata Lac, Riv y SC 1 0.17 G5 S2S3 Extra-striped snaketail Ophiogomphus anomalus Insect Odonata Riv y E X 2 0.33 G4 S2S3 Pygmy snaketail Ophiogomphus howei Insect Odonata ? SC X 2 0.33 G3 S4 Sand Snaketail Ophiogomphus smithi Insect Odonata Riv y SC X 2 0.33 G2G3 S2 Saint Croix Snaketail Ophiogomphus susbehcha Insect Odonata Riv y E X 2 0.33 G2 S2 Alkali Bluet Enallagma clausum Insect Odonata ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S1? Club-horned Grasshopper Aeropedellus clavatus Insect Orthoptera Bar, Gra y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 Speckled Rangeland Grasshopper Arphia conspersa Insect Orthoptera For, Gra, Shr y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2 A Grasshopper Arphia simplex Insect Orthoptera Gra ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S1S2 Clear-winged Grasshopper Camnula pellucida Insect Orthoptera y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S3 Rocky Mountain Sprinkled Locust Chloealtis abdominalis Insect Orthoptera For, Sav ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2? Short-winged Grasshopper Dichromorpha viridis Insect Orthoptera ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 Green-streak Grasshopper Hesperotettix viridis Insect Orthoptera y? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2? Huckleberry Spur-throat Grasshopper Melanoplus fasciatus Insect Orthoptera For, Sav y? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2 Blue-legged Grasshopper Melanoplus flavidus Insect Orthoptera Bar, Rip, Riv y SC 1 0.17 G4 S2? A Spur-throat Grasshopper Melanoplus foedus Insect Orthoptera Bar, Gra, Sav y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2? Grizzly Spur-throat Grasshopper Melanoplus punctulatus Insect Orthoptera For, Pal y? SC X 2 0.33 G4 S2? Spotted-winged Grasshopper Orphulella pelidna Insect Orthoptera Gra, Pal, Rip y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 Ash-brown Grasshopper Trachyrhachys kiowa Insect Orthoptera Gra y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2 A Common Stonefly Attaneuria ruralis Insect Plecoptera Riv y SC X 2 0.33 G4 S2S3 Quadrate Sallfly Haploperla orpha Insect Plecoptera Riv y SC X 2 0.33 G4 S2S3 A Perlodid Stonefly Isogenoides frontalis Insect Plecoptera Riv ? SC 1 0.17 G5 S1S2 A Perlodid Stonefly Isogenoides olivaceus Insect Plecoptera Riv ? SC X 2 0.33 G3 S2S3 A Giant Casemaker Caddisfly Banksiola dossuaria Insect Trichoptera ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 A Humpless Casemaker Caddisfly Brachycentrus lateralis Insect Trichoptera ? SC X 2 0.33 G5 S1S2 A Lepidostomatid Caddisfly Lepidostoma libum Insect Trichoptera ? SC X 2 0.33 G3G4 S2S3 A Long-horned Casemaker Caddisfly Triaenodes nox Insect Trichoptera y SC X 2 0.33 G5 S2S3 Rusty-patched bumble bee Bombus affinis Insect Hymenoptera no SC 1 0.17 GU S1 Climbing fumitory Adlumia fungosa Plant For ? SC 1 0.25 G4 S2S3 Musk-root Adoxa moschatellina Plant Bar y T 1 0.25 G5 S2 Roundstem foxglove Agalinis gattingeri Plant Gra, Sav y T 1 0.25 G4 S2 Round-leaved Orchis Amerorchis rotundifolia Plant For, Pal ? T 1 0.25 G5 S1S2 Carolina Anemone Anemone caroliniana Plant Bar, Gra y E 1 0.25 G5 S1 Puttyroot Aplectrum hyemale Plant For ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S2S3 Missouri Rockcress Arabis missouriensis var. deamii Plant Bar, For y SC 1 0.25 G5T3?Q S2 Short's Rock-cress Arabis shortii Plant Bar, For y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1S2 Rock Stitchwort Arenaria stricta ssp. Dawsonensi Plant Bar, Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Lake-cress Armoracia lacustris Plant Lac, Riv ? E 1 0.25 G4? S1 Dragon Wormwood Artemisia dracunculus Plant Bar, Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Prairie Sagebrush Artemisia frigida Plant Bar, Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Woolly Milkweed Asclepias lanuginosa Plant Bar, Gra y T 1 0.25 G4? S1 Dwarf Milkweed Asclepias ovalifolia Plant Sav y T 1 0.25 G5? S3 Ground-plum Astragalus crassicarpus Plant Bar, Gra y E 1 0.25 G5 S2 Kitten Tails Besseya bullii Plant For y T 1 0.25 G3 S3 Common Moonwort Botrychium lunaria Plant For ? E 1 0.25 G5 S1S2 Mingan Moonwort Botrychium minganense Plant For y SC 1 0.25 G4 S2 Little Goblin Moonwort Botrychium mormo Plant For ? E 1 0.25 G3 S1S2 Blunt-lobed Grapefern Botrychium oneidense Plant For ? SC 1 0.25 G4Q S2 Rugulose Grape-fern Botrychium rugulosum Plant Lac, Rip ? SC 1 0.25 G3 S2 Slim-stem Small Reed Grass Calamagrostis stricta Plant Gra, Pal, Rip ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S3 Larger Water-starwort Callitriche heterophylla Plant Lac, Riv, Rip ? T 1 0.25 G5 S1 Oklahoma Grass-pink Calopogon oklahomensis Plant Gra no? SC 1 0.25 G3 SH Floating Marsh-marigold Caltha natans Plant Lac, Riv, Rip ? E 1 0.25 G5 S1 Yellow Evening Primrose Calylophus serrulatus Plant Bar, Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Fairy Slipper Calypso bulbosa Plant For, Pal y T 1 0.25 G5 S2 Rocky Mountain Sedge Carex backii Plant For, Rip y SC 1 0.25 G4 S1 Carey's Sedge Carex careyana Plant For y T 1 0.25 G4G5 S1 Shore Sedge Carex lenticularis Plant Bar, Lac, Rip ? T 1 0.25 G5 S2 Livid Sedge Carex livida Plant Pal ? SC 1 0.25 G5T5 S2 Fernald's Sedge Carex merritt-fernaldii Plant Bar, Rip ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S3 Smooth Black Sedge Carex nigra Plant Gra, Pal, Shr ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Drooping Sedge Carex prasina Plant For, Pal y T 1 0.25 G4 S3 Many-headed Sedge Carex sychnocephala Plant Lac, Rip y SC 1 0.25 G4 S2 Torrey's Sedge Carex torreyi Plant Gra y SC 1 0.25 G4 S1 Brook Grass Catabrosa aquatica Plant Rip, Riv y E 1 0.25 G5 S1 Hill's Thistle Cirsium hillii Plant Gra, Sav y T 1 0.25 G3 S3 Arrow-headed Rattle-box Crotalaria sagittalis Plant Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Field Dodder Cuscuta pentagona Plant Gra, Pal y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Smartweed Dodder Cuscuta polygonorum Plant Gra, Pal y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Ram's-head Lady's-slipper Cypripedium arietinum Plant For, Pal, Rip ? T 1 0.25 G3 S2 Small White Lady's-slipper Cypripedium candidum Plant Gra, For ? T 1 0.25 G4 S3 Laurentian Bladder Fern Cystopteris laurentiana Plant For y SC 1 0.25 G3 S2 Silky Prairie-clover Dalea villosa var. villosa Plant Bar, Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa Plant Pal y SC 1 0.25 G5 S3 Beak Grass Diarrhena obovata Plant For, Rip y E 1 0.25 G4G5 S2 Water-purslane Didiplis diandra Plant Rip ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Glade Fern Diplazium pycnocarpon Plant For y SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 English Sundew Drosera anglica Plant For, Pal ? T 1 0.25 G5 S1 Linear-leaved Sundew Drosera linearis Plant For, Pal y T 1 0.25 G4 S1 Spreading Woodfern Dryopteris expansa Plant For ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Fragrant Fern Dryopteris fragrans Plant Bar y SC 1 0.25 G5 S3 Longstem Water-wort Elatine triandra Plant Lac, Rip y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Flat-stemmed Spike-rush Eleocharis compressa Plant Gra, Pal ? SC 1 0.25 G4 S2 Mamillate Spike-rush Eleocharis mamillata Plant Pal, Rip, Shr ? SC 1 0.25 G4? S1 Robbins' Spike-rush Eleocharis robbinsii Plant Lac y SC 1 0.25 G4G5 S3 Downy Willow-herb Epilobium strictum Plant Pal ? SC 1 0.25 G5? S2S3 Marsh Horsetail Equisetum palustre Plant Pal, Shr ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Russet Cotton-grass Eriophorum chamissonis Plant Pal ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Swamp Bedstraw Galium brevipes Plant For, Gra, Pal ? SC 1 0.25 G4? S1 Large-leaved Avens Geum macrophyllum var. macrophyllum Plant Bar, For ? SC 1 0.25 G5T5 S1 Large-leaved Avens Geum macrophyllum var. perincisum Plant For, Shr no? SC 1 0.25 G5T5 S2 Wild Licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota Plant Gra, Rip y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Rock Clubmoss Huperzia porophila Plant For y SC 1 0.25 G4 S3 Green violet Hybanthus concolor Plant For ? SC 1 0.25 G5 SH Goldenseal Hydrastis canadensis Plant For ? 0 0.00 Great Water-leaf Hydrophyllum appendiculatum Plant For y SC 1 0.25 G5 S2S3 Shrubby St. John's-wort Hypericum prolificum Plant For, Gra, Pal ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Twinleaf Jeffersonia diphylla Plant For y SC 1 0.25 G5 S3 Vasey's rush Juncus vaseyi Plant Gra ? SC 1 0.25 G5? S3 Prairie Bush-clover Lespedeza leptostachya Plant Gra X y T E 2 0.50 G3 S2 Silver Bladderpod Lesquerella ludoviciana Plant Bar, Gra y T 1 0.25 G5 S1 Large-flowered Ground-cherry Leucophysalis grandiflora Plant Bar, For y SC 1 0.25 G4? S1 Dotted Blazing Star Liatris punctata var. nebraskana Plant Bar, Gra y E 1 0.25 G5T3T5 S2S3 American Shoreweed Littorella uniflora var. americana Plant Lac ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Smith's Melic Grass Melica smithii Plant For ? E 1 0.25 G4 S1 Large-leaved Sandwort Moehringia macrophylla Plant Bar ? E 1 0.25 G5 S1 Small Forget-me-not Myosotis laxa Plant Rip, Riv y? SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Prairie False-dandelion Nothocalais (=Microseris ) cuspidata Plant Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Brittle Prickly-pear Opuntia fragilis Plant Bar, Gra y T 1 0.25 G4G5 S3 Clustered Broomrape Orobanche fasciculata Plant Bar, Gra ? T 1 0.25 G4 S1 Louisiana Broomrape Orobanche ludoviciana Plant Bar, Gra y E 1 0.25 G5 S1 One-flowered Broomrape Orobanche uniflora Plant Bar, For, Gra, Shr y SC 1 0.25 G5 S3 Fassett's Locoweed Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea Plant Bar, Rip y T E 2 0.50 G5T1T2 S1S2 Prairie Ragwort Packera plattensis Plant Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S3 Marsh Grass-of-Parnassus Parnassia palustris Plant Bar, Pal ? T 1 0.25 G5 S1S2 American Fever- f e w Parthenium integrifolium Plant Gra y? T 1 0.25 G5 S3S4 Silvery Scurf Pea Pediomelum argophyllum Plant Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Prairie Turnip Pediomelum esculentum Plant Gra y SC 1 0.25 G5 S3 Purple-stem Cliff-brake Pellaea atropurpurea Plant Bar ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Arrow-leaved Sweet-coltsfoot Petasites sagittatus Plant Pal ? T 1 0.25 G5 S3 Broad Beech Fern Phegopteris hexagonoptera Plant For ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Prairie Fame-flower Phemeranthus (=Talinum ) rugospermus Plant Bar, Gra y SC 1 0.25 G3G4 S3 St. Croix WMD Sources T & E SWAP FWS PIF UMRGLR JV BIRD PLANS LCC WI RANK 2007 Global Rank PARC range Xerces Species Species FISH, 2009 Plain, 2001 Taxa Group BCR 23 BCC Group/Order Broad Habitat CCP NWR Spp Landbird 2007 Landbird Fed T&E 2013 WI SWAP, 2011 Common Name Total of Number Plans Scientific Name Scientific RATIO OF INCLUSION FWS R3 BCC 2012 Harvested speciesHarvested WI State T&E, 2011 UMRGLR JV All Bird List UMR GRL, 2002 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 ABC Watchlist 2007 UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Spp Waterbirds 2007 Waterbirds Spp INTERJURISDICTIONAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL Priority Spp Waterfowl Waterfowl Spp Priority Species documented in documented Species UMRGLR JV Priority Spp PIF 16 Upper Great Lakes Lakes Great Upper PIF 16 Regional Conserv. Priority Priority Conserv. Regional UMGL Surrogate Spp 2014 Spp UMGL Surrogate FWS FY2012- FY2016 Focal Implementation Plan, 2007 Plan, Implementation Priority Spp Shorebird 2007 Shorebird Priority Spp UMRGLR JV/BCR 23 Priority Priority 23 JV/BCR UMRGLR Tubercled Rein-orchid Platanthera flava var. herbiola Plant For, Gra, Pal y T 1 0.25 G4T4Q S2 Hooker's Orchid Platanthera hookeri Plant For y SC 1 0.25 G4 S2 Bog Bluegrass Poa paludigena Plant For, Pal y? T 1 0.25 G3 S3 Woodland Bluegrass Poa sylvestris Plant For, Rip ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 James' Polanisia Polanisia jamesii Plant Bar, Gra, Rip y SC 1 0.25 G5 SH Prairie Parsley Polytaenia nuttallii Plant Gra, Sav ? T 1 0.25 G5 S2 Snail-seed Pondweed Potamogeton bicupulatus Plant Lac, Riv y SC 1 0.25 G4 S2S3 Water-thread Pondweed Potamogeton diversifolius Plant Aqu ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Clasping-leaf Pondweed Potamogeton perfoliatus Plant Lac, Riv ? SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Spotted Pondweed Potamogeton pulcher Plant Pal, Rip y E 1 0.25 G5 S1 Vasey's Pondweed Potamogeton vaseyi Plant Lac, Riv y SC 1 0.25 G4 S3 Rough Rattlesnake-root Prenanthes aspera Plant Gra y E 1 0.25 G4? S1 Bird's-eye Primrose Primula mistassinica Plant Bar y SC 1 0.25 G5 S3 Small Shinleaf Pyrola minor Plant For, Pal ? E 1 0.25 G5 S1 Lapland Buttercup Ranunculus lapponicus Plant For, Pal y? E 1 0.25 G5 S1 Canada Gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoides Plant For y? T 1 0.25 G5 S2 Uniform Bramble Rubus uniformis Plant Rip, Riv y? SC 1 0.25 G4?Q SH Slender Bulrush Schoenoplectus heterochaetus Plant Rip y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Torrey's Bulrush Schoenoplectus torreyi Plant Lac, Rip y SC 1 0.25 G5? S2 Georgia Bulrush Scirpus georgianus Plant Gra, Pal y? SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Tall Nut-rush Scleria triglomerata Plant Pal, Sav y SC 1 0.25 G5 S2S3 Small Skullcap Scutellaria parvula var. parvula Plant Bar, Gra y E 1 0.25 G4T4 S1 Marsh Ragwort Senecio congestus Plant Bar, Rip y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Snowy Campion Silene nivea Plant Rip y T 1 0.25 G4? S2 Slick-seed Wild-bean Strophostyles leiosperma Plant Bar, Rip y SC 1 0.25 G5 S2 Veined Meadowrue Thalictrum venulosum Plant For, Gra, Pal, Rip y SC 1 0.25 G5 S1 Snow Trillium Trillium nivale Plant For y T 1 0.25 G4 S3 Northeastern Bladderwort Utricularia resupinata Plant Rip y SC 1 0.25 G4 S3 Mountain Cranberry Vaccinium vitis-idaea ssp. minus Plant Pal y E 1 0.25 G5T5 S1S2 Squashberry Viburnum edule Plant Bar y E 1 0.25 G5 S2 Sand Violet Viola sagittata var. ovata Plant Bar y E 1 0.25 G5T5 S2 Oregon Woodsia Woodsia oregana ssp. cathcartiana Plant Bar y SC 1 0.25 G5T5 S1 White Camas Zigadenus elegans var. glaucus Plant Bar, Gra, Sav y SC 1 0.25 G5T4T5 S2S3 Dry Prairie Habitat Gra y X 1 0.50 G3 S3 Dry-mesic Prairie Habitat Gra y X 1 0.50 G3 S2 Mesic Prairie Habitat Gra y X 1 0.50 G2 S1 Wet-mesic Prairie Habitat Gra y X 1 0.50 G2 S2 Wet Prairie Habitat Gra, Pal y X 1 0.50 G3 SU Northern Dry-mesic Forest Habitat For y X 1 0.50 G4 S3 Oak Opening Habitat Sav y X 1 0.50 G1 S1 Oak Woodland Habitat Sav y X 1 0.50 GNR S1? Floodplain Forest Habitat For, Pal y X 1 0.50 G3? S3 Shrub Carr Habitat Pal, Shr y X 1 0.50 G5 S4 Submergent Marsh Habitat Pal y X 1 0.50 G5 S4 Emergent Marsh Habitat Pal y X 1 0.50 G4 S4 Northern Sedge Meadow Habitat Gra, Pal y X 1 0.50 G4 S3 Southern Sedge Meadow Habitat Gra, Pal y X 1 0.50 G4? S3 St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Appendix E: ROCSTAR: Resources of Concern Selection Tool for Americas Refuges

ROCSTAR: Resources of Concern Selection Tool for Americas Refuges

From the Handbook: Now you must selectively reduce this table to those species and plant communities that will be managed to fulfill obligations to refuge purposes, Refuge System resources of concern, and biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health...We suggest using the following filters to help you select the appropriate focal resources: site capabilities, limiting factors, response to management or restoration, best science, and professional judgment. Also consider ecological or ecosystem processes within the refuge and surrounding landscape and importance for the maintenance and restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health when selecting focal resources.

Step 5. Identify Priority Refuge Resources of Concern 1. Select guilds and/or groups or community types of significance that utilize the broad habitat type noted within the BIDEH table (Step 3). 2. For each broad habitat type representing BIDEH within Step 3, select a number of "potential priority refuge ROC's" that help achieve refuge purpose AND rank moderate to high in regional priority rankings. 3. Select initial "potential priority refuge ROC's" from each group, guild, or significant community type to populate the scoring matrix below. 4. Score filters for each species and/or community based on available data, literature, professional judgment, and scoring definitions on the tab titled "Scoring Definitions and Scales". 5. Evaluate scoring to narrow down and select priority refuge ROC's. Be sure to consider the varying needs of different guilds, time of year, habitat availability, and biological capabilities. Select numerous species or guilds as necessary to evaluate future management and monitoring.

* Assumes that the filter of Refuge and Trust resources (Steps 1 and 2 have been applied. Can be done tracked in Step 4. Comprehensive ROC)

June 2020 100

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

1. Grassland Ability to Ability to represent on- Ratio of priority Ability to be Responds well Abundance represent a refuge ecological rankings or supported by to habitat on Refuge larger guild or processes, or Species - Grassland listings in current or restorable management? Scoring (See scoring group of species? broader Federal, State, refuge capabilities? (See scoring scale B) (See scoring scale ecosystem or regional plans (See scoring scale A) scale C) D) processes? (See scoring scale E) Selected: Bobolink 5 10 7 10 10 7 8.1 Eastern Meadowlark 3 10 7 10 10 10 8.15 Henslow's Sparrow 10 10 7 7 10 5 8.35 Monarch Butterfly 1 10 10 10 10 10 8.2

Other options: Field Sparrow 3 10 7 10 10 7 7.7 Grasshopper Sparrow 3 10 7 10 10 7 7.7 Northern Harrier 1 10 7 7 5 7 6.1 Sedge Wren 3 7 5 7 7 7 5.9 Rusty patch bubblebee 1 7 3 3 3 5 3.7 Prairie Bush-clover 5 3 1 3 3 5 3.4 Upland sandpiper 10 7 5 7 9 9 7.9

Weight 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.00

June 2020 101

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

2. Wetland Ability to Responds Ability to be represent on- Ratio of priority well to Ability to supported by Abundance refuge ecological rankings or habitat represent a larger current or on Refuge processes, or Species - Wetland listings in management guild or group of Scoring restorable refuge (See scoring broader Federal, State, or ? (See species? (See capabilities? (See scale B) ecosystem regional plans scoring scale scoring scale D) scoring scale A) processes? (See C) scoring scale E) Selected: Blue-winged Teal 3 9 8 8 10 8 7.5 Mallard 3 10 10 10 10 10 8.6

Other options: Whopping Crane 5 5 1 3 4 1 3.35 Sora 1 7 7 9 7 8 6.25 Greater Yellowlegs 1 7 7 9 7 8 6.25

Weight 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.00

3. Savanna Ability to Responds Ability to be represent on- Ratio of priority well to Ability to supported by Abundance refuge ecological rankings or habitat represent a larger current or on Refuge processes, or Species - Savanna listings in management guild or group of Scoring restorable refuge (See scoring broader Federal, State, or ? (See species? (See capabilities? (See scale B) ecosystem regional plans scoring scale scoring scale D) scoring scale A) processes? (See C) scoring scale E) Selected: Red-headed Woodpecker 5 5 7 8 10 10 7.25 Karner Blue Butterfly 10 3 1 8 8 10 6.65

Weight 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.00

June 2020 102

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

4. Forest Ability to Responds Ability to be represent on- Ratio of priority well to Ability to supported by Abundance refuge ecological rankings or habitat represent a larger current or on Refuge processes, or Species - Forest listings in management guild or group of Scoring restorable refuge (See scoring broader Federal, State, or ? (See species? (See capabilities? (See scale B) ecosystem regional plans scoring scale scoring scale D) scoring scale A) processes? (See C) scoring scale E) Selected: American Woodcock 5 7 7 8 9 10 7.5 Bald Eagle 5 9 7 7 8 10 7.6 Wood Duck 3 8 9 7 8 8 7 Northern long-eared bat 5 10 5 10 10 10 8.25

Other options: Gray wolf 5 5 1 5 1 3 3.5 Canada Lynx 5 5 1 5 1 3 3.5 Eastern Massasauga 10 6 1 5 1 3 4.7

Weight 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.00

June 2020 103

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Summary of Filter Scoring Criteria* and Determining Factors Used in Value Assignments Ability to represent (a) on-refuge Ability to be ecological processes, # of priority Responds well to Ability to supported by (b) broader rankings or Abundance on habitat represent a larger current or ecosystem processes, Scoring Criteria listings in Refuge (See management? guild or group of restorable refuge or (c) their Federal, State, or scoring scale B) (See scoring scale species? (See capabilities? (See importance in the regional plans C) scoring scale D) scoring scale A) maintenance or restoration of BIDEH? (See scoring scale E) Based on knowledge of species relation to ecological processes that support refuge Based on Based on Based on habitats (soils, knowledge of knowledge of knowledge of hydrology, Based on Based on refuge habitats refuge habitats other birds of disturbance regimes), Summary of abundance and summary listings and conditions and conditions similar guilds and broader ecosystem determining breeding listings in the Potential required for required for habitat processes (watershed factors and likely in the Potential ROC list migratory and/or migratory and/or requirements impacts, climate information ROC list developed for the breeding habitat breeding habitat based on change), or the sources. developed for the refuge. preferences preferences professional importance of the refuge. found in found in judgment or in species in evaluating literature. literature. literature. the maintenance or restoration of BIDEH based on professional judgment or in literature. *Based on filters described in Step 5: Identify Priority Refuge Resources of Concern, pages 18-19 of Identifying ROC's Handbook.

June 2020 104

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

June 2020 105

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Conservation Plan List Ratio of Inclusion 0.8 - 1.0 10 0.6 - 0.79 7 0.4 - 0.59 5 .2 - 0.39 3 0.0 - 0.19 1

Scoring Scale A - Assign values based on literature review, professional judgment, and definitions provided. Current refuge habitat(s) provide a variety of forage, breeding, and migratory requirements during Strongly Able 10 all or part of the species life history. Current refuge habitat(s) (or conditions practically restored or enhanced) provide some Somewhat Able 7 forage, breeding, and migratory requirements during all or part of the species life history. Current refuge habitat(s) provide occasional or limited forage, breeding, and migratory Limited Ability 5 requirements during a portion of the species life history. Significant restoration or enhancement would be necessary to increase supporting habitat ability. Current literature available or working knowledge of species poses a significant degree of Inconclusive/Uncertain 3 uncertainty in terms of the refuge habitat(s) ability to provide forage, breeding, and migratory requirements during all or part of the species life history. Current literature available and/or working knowledge of species indicates that refuge habitat(s) Clearly Unable 1 have limited or no ability to provide substantial forage, breeding, and migratory requirements during all or part of the species life history.

Scoring Scale B - Assign values based on refuge I&M records and professional judgment. Birds Fish, Plants, Herps, and Other Native Wildlife Common throughout breeding season 10 Common throughout refuge 10 Common during migration only 7 Common along portions of refuge 7 Occasional during breeding 5 Occasional/Uncommon throughout refuge 5 Occasional during migration 3 Occasional/Uncommon along portions of refuge 3 Uncommon/rare 1 Rare or no local records. 1

June 2020 106

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Scoring Scale C - Assign values based on literature review, professional judgment, and definitions provided. Species is documented or (based on professional judgment) is known to respond positively to Strongly Able 10 habitat management**. Suitable habitat management actions are practical for the refuge to implement and can be monitored easily. Species response to management** actions is less documented, but (based on professional judgment) is likely to respond positively to habitat management. Suitable habitat management Somewhat Able 7 actions are practical for the refuge to implement, but may require additional or detailed I&M efforts to ensure response is documented. Species response to management** actions is less documented and (based on professional judgment) is less likely to respond positively to habitat management. Species may have generalist Limited Ability 5 habitat requirements or be difficult to evaluate with I&M. Suitable habitat management actions are either difficult for the refuge to implement, or monitor a direct response.

Species response is not clearly documented and (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) is Inconclusive/Uncertain 3 uncertain as to whether it can have a reliable response to habitat management**.

Species response to management** actions is documented or (based on professional judgment) is not likely to respond positively to habitat management. Species may have generalist habitat Clearly Unable 1 requirements or be difficult to evaluate with I&M. Suitable habitat management actions are either difficult for the refuge to implement, or monitor a direct response. ** Management may include preservation, protection, restoration, enhancement, or other specific conservation measures taken to sustain a particular habitat or species requirement.

June 2020 107

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Scoring Scale D - Assign values based on literature review, professional judgment, and definitions provided. Species is documented or (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) likely to represent Strongly Able 10 (focal, umbrella, indicator, or keystone) other species. Species known to share a suite of habitat requirements with other species, guilds, or groups utilizing the refuge. Species is not clearly documented, but (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) may Somewhat Able 7 potentially represent (focal, umbrella, indicator, or keystone) other species. Species likely shares a suite of habitat requirements with other species, guilds, or groups utilizing the refuge. Species is not clearly documented and (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) is less likely to represent (focal, umbrella, indicator, or keystone) other species. Species is either a) very Limited Ability 5 specific, or b) a generalist in terms of habitat requirements related to other species, guilds, or groups utilizing the refuge. Species is not clearly documented and (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) is Inconclusive/Uncertain 3 uncertain as to whether it can represent (focal, umbrella, indicator, or keystone) other species. Species is documented (or based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) to be unable represent Clearly Unable 1 (focal, umbrella, indicator, or keystone) other species. Due to a lack of similar guilds or groups available or very specific habitat requirements.

Scoring Scale E - Assign values based on literature review, professional judgment, and definitions provided. Species is documented or (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) likely to strongly act as Strongly Able 10 an indicator of both: on-refuge ecological processes AND broader landscape ecosystem processes. Species is documented or (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) likely to strongly act as Somewhat Able 7 an indicator of either: on-refuge ecological processes OR broader landscape ecosystem processes. Species is documented or (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) somewhat likely to act Limited Ability 5 as an indicator of either: on-refuge ecological processes OR broader landscape ecosystem processes. Species is documented or (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) less likely or uncertain Inconclusive/Uncertain 3 to act as an indicator of either: on-refuge ecological processes OR broader landscape ecosystem processes. Species is documented or (based on refuge I&M or professional judgment) not likely to act as an Clearly Unable 1 indicator of either: on-refuge ecological processes OR broader landscape ecosystem processes.

June 2020 108

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Appendix F: Prioritization tool

We used a Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) as described by Goodwin and Wright (2004) and Von Winterfeldt and Edwards (1986) to rank the WPAs managed by St. Croix Wetland Management District. The criteria we used to rank WPAs is listed in Table F.1. Two objectives, distance from WPA centroid (i.e. distance to District shop) and Acres of Grassland Habitat <10 mile, were removed since they did not affect the results of the rankings. Results and rankings are in Table F.2. and F.3.

Table F.1. Criteria used to prioritize St. Croix Wetland Magement District WPAs using the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART). Objective Description Total acreage of WPA Total acres of WPA was recorded for each WPA. Remnant native prairies are a priority habitat. Therefore, the presence of remnant prairie habitat on a unit is an indicator that the unit should take precedence over the management of units without remnant prairie. Remnant Prairie Score (0 = No or 1 = Yes) Note: the prioritization tool may not match Table G.1. in Appendix G due to the presence of remnant prairies in some WPAs that have not been assessed. Future assessments will enable staff to update Appendix G. Oak savanna habitat is also a priority habitat and Restored (Restorable) Oak Savanna Score (0 = No or 1 therefore the presence of oak savanna habitat on a unit = Yes) is an indicator that that unit should take precedence over the management of units without oak savanna. We used the Wisclands 2.0 vegetation layer to find Acres of Grassland Habitat <1 mile (Patch) Wisclands grassland habitat within a 1-mile buffer from the center 2.0 of the WPA. Total acres of grassland within that 1-mile buffer is recorded for each WPA. We used the Wisclands 2.0 vegetation layer to find Acres of Grassland Habitat <5 mile (Landscape) grassland habitat within a 5-mile buffer from the center Wisclands 2.0 of the WPA. Total acres of grassland within that 5-mile buffer is recorded for each WPA. Actual grassland acres on a WPA was recorded for each Actual Grassland Acres on WPA WPA. We used the 2019 Wisconsin wetland inventory layer to find wetland habitat within a 1-mile buffer from the Area (in acres) of wetland within a 1-mile buffer center of the WPA. Total acres of wetland within that 1- mile buffer is recorded for each WPA. We used the 2019 Wisconsin wetland inventory layer to find wetland habitat within a 5-mile buffer from the Area (in acres) of wetland within a 5-mile buffer center of the WPA. Total acres of wetland within that 5- mile buffer is recorded for each WPA. We used the 2019 Wisconsin wetland inventory layer to find wetland habitat within a 10-mile buffer from the Area (in acres) of wetland within a 10-mile buffer center of the WPA. Total acres of wetland within that 10-mile buffer is recorded for each WPA. Actual wetland acres on a WPA was recorded for each Actual Wetland Acres on WPA WPA.

June 2020 109

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table F.2. Ranking results for St. Croix Wetland Magement District WPAs using a Simple Multi- Attribute Rating Technique (SMART).

WPA NAME Unit Priority Betterly WPA 1 Ten Mile WPA 2 Star Prairie WPA 3 Rock Creek WPA 4 Oak Ridge WPA 5 Bass Lake WPA 6 Prairie Flats - South WPA 7 Kostka WPA 8 Deer Park WPA 9 Houghdahl-North WPA 10 Bierbrauer WPA 11 Erickson WPA 12 Kobernick WPA 13 Hanten WPA 14 Stanton Prairie WPA 15 Red Cedar WPA 16 Plum Brush WPA 17 Alden WPA 18 Rose Lee WPA 19 Oak Ridge (Amschlier) South 20 Lundy WPA 21 Prairie Flats - North WPA 22 Clear Lake WPA 23 Three Lakes WPA 24 Spring Meadows (Flaters) WPA 25 Houghdahl-South WPA 26 Meadowlark WPA 27 St. Croix Prairie WPA 28 Boe WPA 29 Clapp WPA 30 Beyl WPA 31 Strehlau WPA 32 Cook's Pond WPA 33 Iron Creek WPA 34 Suckut WPA 35 Somerset WPA 36 Weiss WPA 37 Steffan WPA 38 Kerber WPA 39 Farmington WPA 40 White WPA 41 Risberg WPA 42 Hammond WPA 43

June 2020 110

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Table F.3. St. Croix Wetland Management District Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) table with rankings. Raw Data Normalaized Data Weighted score ACRES Score Prairie Remnant Score Savanna Oak Restored mile <1 Habitat Grassland of Acres mile <5 Habitat Grassland of Acres WPA on Acres Grassland Actual a within wetland of acres) (in Area a within wetland of acres) (in Area a within wetland of acres) (in Area Actural Wetland Acres WPA on ACRES Score Prairie Remnant Score Savanna Oak Restored mile <1 Habitat Grassland of Acres mile <5 Habitat Grassland of Acres WPA on Acres Grassland Actual a within wetland of acres) (in Area a within wetland of acres) (in Area a within wetland of acres) (in Area Actural Wetland Acres WPA on ACRES Score Prairie Remnant Score Savanna Oak Restored mile <1 Habitat Grassland of Acres mile <5 Habitat Grassland of Acres WPA on Acres Grassland Actual a within wetland of acres) (in Area a within wetland of acres) (in Area a within wetland of acres) (in Area Actural Wetland Acres WPA on Unit Score: includes ACRES; distance from WPA centroid Priority Unit WPANAME 1=Yes) (0=No or 1=Yes) (0=No or 2.0 Wisclands (Patch) (Landscape) Wisclands 2.0 1-mile buffer 5-mile buffer 10-mile buffer 1=Yes) (0=No or 1=Yes) (0=No or 2.0 Wisclands (Patch) (Landscape) Wisclands 2.0 1-mile buffer 5-mile buffer 10-mile buffer 1=Yes) (0=No or 1=Yes) (0=No or 2.0 Wisclands (Patch) (Landscape) Wisclands 2.0 1-mile buffer 5-mile buffer 10-mile buffer and 10 mile grass buffer removed Alden WPA 39.99 0.0 1.0 807.29 12607.34 31.99 192.45 3957.27 18492.55 5.80 0.03 0.0 1.0 0.83 0.62 0.08 0.32 0.43 0.76 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.41 18 Oak Ridge (Amschlier) South 309.78 0.0 0.0 598.24 12261.07 242.00 225.63 3835.17 16915.70 66.43 0.44 0.0 0.0 0.55 0.58 0.59 0.38 0.41 0.67 0.36 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.40 20 Bass Lake WPA 417.43 1.0 1.0 676.53 14027.55 112.68 238.14 2902.87 8416.11 103.32 0.61 1.0 1.0 0.65 0.78 0.28 0.40 0.26 0.15 0.56 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.57 6 Betterly WPA 485.76 1.0 1.0 838.87 10717.43 276.61 312.71 2976.95 13985.72 69.16 0.72 1.0 1.0 0.87 0.40 0.68 0.55 0.27 0.49 0.38 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.64 1 Beyl WPA 126.26 0.0 1.0 466.36 11249.84 45.35 146.48 2522.60 13986.88 24.11 0.16 0.0 1.0 0.37 0.46 0.11 0.23 0.20 0.49 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.32 31 Bierbrauer WPA 273.05 0.0 1.0 774.38 13132.19 240.74 176.28 3658.10 18260.52 25.92 0.39 0.0 1.0 0.79 0.68 0.59 0.29 0.38 0.75 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.50 11 Boe WPA 48.39 0.0 0.0 778.16 12963.84 26.30 113.45 5886.59 19680.78 9.93 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.79 0.66 0.06 0.17 0.73 0.83 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.33 29 Clapp WPA 237.97 1.0 0.0 719.22 13444.88 81.41 72.60 1205.31 5878.12 52.15 0.33 1.0 0.0 0.71 0.71 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.33 30 Clear Lake WPA 154.59 0.0 0.0 437.45 14393.17 77.92 264.82 4701.77 20396.30 59.39 0.21 0.0 0.0 0.33 0.82 0.19 0.45 0.54 0.88 0.32 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.37 23 Cook's Pond WPA 140.51 0.0 0.0 271.10 7605.46 71.74 156.42 6662.65 18772.03 67.68 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.11 0.05 0.18 0.25 0.85 0.78 0.37 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.28 33 Deer Park WPA 346.34 0.0 1.0 656.51 11968.85 173.50 117.52 5969.35 18219.80 72.87 0.50 0.0 1.0 0.63 0.54 0.42 0.17 0.74 0.75 0.40 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.51 9 Erickson WPA 466.12 0.0 0.0 828.20 11923.03 349.25 171.54 3336.54 15027.00 103.65 0.69 0.0 0.0 0.86 0.54 0.85 0.28 0.33 0.55 0.56 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.47 12 Farmington WPA 30.35 0.0 0.0 588.90 10136.09 0.00 126.64 3165.15 12782.81 2.93 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.54 0.33 0.00 0.19 0.30 0.42 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.18 40 Hammond WPA 26.23 0.0 0.0 239.52 14054.46 15.28 47.99 1646.69 9292.10 10.95 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.78 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.21 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.13 43 Hanten WPA 169.83 0.0 1.0 580.23 13551.63 113.57 280.22 3699.34 18479.26 33.61 0.23 0.0 1.0 0.52 0.72 0.28 0.48 0.39 0.76 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.46 14 Houghdahl-North WPA 92.22 0.0 1.0 867.78 13829.40 47.43 231.76 5026.10 22297.23 33.61 0.11 0.0 1.0 0.91 0.76 0.12 0.39 0.59 0.99 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.51 10 Houghdahl-South WPA 59.02 0.0 0.0 663.40 13738.44 44.42 219.90 5200.68 21581.94 13.23 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.64 0.75 0.11 0.37 0.62 0.95 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.36 26 Iron Creek WPA 47.19 0.0 0.0 276.44 7842.75 47.38 327.59 7658.73 19142.07 0.00 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.57 1.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.27 34 Kerber WPA 155.66 0.0 0.0 302.23 12251.95 119.20 94.12 1773.67 9074.10 34.73 0.21 0.0 0.0 0.15 0.58 0.29 0.13 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.18 39 Kobernick WPA 133.60 0.0 1.0 394.75 12955.61 75.19 231.66 5699.56 22383.89 38.18 0.17 0.0 1.0 0.28 0.66 0.18 0.39 0.70 1.00 0.21 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.02 0.46 13 Kostka WPA 348.88 0.0 1.0 785.28 12869.77 279.49 63.11 5792.67 19311.58 32.45 0.50 0.0 1.0 0.80 0.65 0.68 0.07 0.71 0.81 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.54 8 Lundy WPA 131.65 0.0 1.0 762.37 12901.57 87.84 170.85 3122.45 9418.57 43.43 0.17 0.0 1.0 0.77 0.65 0.21 0.28 0.30 0.21 0.24 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.38 21 Meadowlark WPA 22.35 0.0 0.0 727.68 13576.76 22.35 234.68 5040.88 22427.41 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.72 0.73 0.05 0.40 0.59 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.35 27 Oak Ridge WPA 421.64 0.0 1.0 469.03 12990.08 131.13 390.90 3797.00 18050.18 184.05 0.62 0.0 1.0 0.38 0.66 0.32 0.69 0.40 0.74 1.00 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.58 5 Plum Brush WPA 151.33 0.0 1.0 618.04 13560.97 143.47 172.97 3791.07 19198.04 3.57 0.20 0.0 1.0 0.58 0.73 0.35 0.28 0.40 0.80 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.44 17 Prairie Flats - North WPA 218.29 0.0 1.0 525.30 11709.53 150.41 181.20 2286.89 13828.41 42.32 0.30 0.0 1.0 0.45 0.51 0.37 0.30 0.17 0.48 0.23 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.38 22 Prairie Flats - South WPA 502.30 0.0 1.0 934.06 11441.77 408.76 166.52 2589.42 12531.55 62.14 0.74 0.0 1.0 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.27 0.21 0.40 0.34 0.07 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.54 7 Red Cedar WPA 336.19 0.0 0.0 433.67 7494.48 237.54 428.63 7527.87 18695.23 91.48 0.48 0.0 0.0 0.33 0.03 0.58 0.77 0.98 0.77 0.50 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.44 16 Risberg WPA 38.14 0.0 0.0 386.52 12443.66 19.45 82.11 1782.42 8573.91 14.71 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.26 0.60 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.14 42 Rock Creek WPA 670.60 0.0 1.0 189.93 7229.17 316.58 551.64 6942.62 21044.93 42.89 1.00 0.0 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.77 1.00 0.89 0.92 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.58 4 Rose Lee WPA 147.69 0.0 0.0 508.39 15962.83 31.21 275.32 5183.63 22432.45 38.62 0.19 0.0 0.0 0.43 1.00 0.08 0.47 0.62 1.00 0.21 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.40 19 Somerset WPA 65.15 1.0 0.0 518.40 11058.58 24.13 26.17 2475.38 8062.78 3.93 0.07 1.0 0.0 0.44 0.44 0.06 0.00 0.20 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.24 36 Spring Meadows (Flaters) WPA 130.58 0.0 0.0 572.00 13584.99 129.37 349.48 4125.13 20111.49 1.12 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.51 0.73 0.32 0.62 0.45 0.86 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.37 25 St. Croix Prairie WPA 75.11 1.0 0.0 856.00 13599.00 33.61 65.56 3029.86 9879.12 3.57 0.08 1.0 0.0 0.90 0.73 0.08 0.07 0.28 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.34 28 Stanton Prairie WPA 349.69 0.0 1.0 726.56 12488.80 265.16 36.28 3809.08 16323.41 2.85 0.51 0.0 1.0 0.72 0.60 0.65 0.02 0.40 0.63 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.45 15 Star Prairie WPA 307.34 1.0 1.0 609.58 12203.69 214.90 158.84 3616.76 17260.76 81.37 0.44 1.0 1.0 0.56 0.57 0.53 0.25 0.37 0.69 0.44 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.59 3 Steffan WPA 45.53 0.0 0.0 538.86 10328.24 40.45 76.83 3385.91 12608.53 5.08 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.47 0.36 0.10 0.10 0.34 0.41 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.18 38 Strehlau WPA 79.49 0.0 0.0 229.96 7207.59 42.93 436.96 7395.15 18191.43 28.84 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.78 0.96 0.74 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.29 32 Suckut WPA 48.83 0.0 0.0 311.58 14062.25 37.18 87.03 4531.42 20330.60 11.66 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.16 0.78 0.09 0.12 0.52 0.87 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.26 35 Ten Mile WPA 394.44 1.0 1.0 783.05 13200.69 252.53 294.45 2881.79 8499.14 113.89 0.57 1.0 1.0 0.80 0.68 0.62 0.51 0.26 0.16 0.62 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.62 2 Three Lakes WPA 248.78 1.0 0.0 469.92 12833.52 186.88 188.91 2571.11 7908.78 50.02 0.35 1.0 0.0 0.38 0.64 0.46 0.31 0.21 0.12 0.27 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.37 24 Weiss WPA 35.51 0.0 0.0 766.15 12895.79 30.85 201.51 2381.08 7856.10 2.84 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.77 0.65 0.08 0.33 0.18 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.22 37 White WPA 21.39 0.0 0.0 634.05 12812.39 12.44 52.11 2423.31 8073.87 3.07 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.60 0.64 0.03 0.05 0.19 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.17 41

June 2020 111

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Literature Cited Goodwin, P. and G. Wright. 2004. Decision analysis for management judgement. 3rd edition Wiley and Sons, NY. 477 pp.

Von Winterfeldt, D. and W. Edwards. 1986. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, UK. 604 pp.

June 2020 112

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Appendix G: Current and desired conditions of habitat types within each WPA and conservation easement

Table G.1: Current and desired conditions of habitat types within each WPA and management action history. Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Alden WPA Total 39.99 39.99 Aspen Regrowth Upland Forest 1.18 1.18 Planting: Unknown Cool Season Planted Grassland 19.43 0.00 Logging: 2009 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 1.02 1.02 Fire: 1996 Chemical: 2011 Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 12.56 0.00 Grazing: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 31.99 Haying: None Farming: None Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 5.80 5.80 Oak Ridge South (Amschlier) WPA Total 310.04 310.04 Cool Season Planted Grassland 166.78 0.00 Planting: 2001 Oak Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 1.58 0.00 Logging: 2008, 20014 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 0.00 1.58 Fire: 1993, 2018, 2019 Chemical: 2010 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 75.23 242.00 Grazing: 2003, 2004, 2005, Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 2.10 2.10 2006, 2007 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 8.31 8.31 Haying: 2013 Farming: 1997, 1998 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 56.04 56.04 Bass Lake WPA Total 416.43 416.43 Cool Season Planted Grassland 52.74 0.00 Planting: 2020 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 0.82 0.00 Logging: 2008, 2014 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 2.09 2.09 Fire: 1998, 2003, 2018, 2019 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 0.28 0.28 Chemical: 2010, 2017, 2018

June 2020 113

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 9.30 33.39 Grazing: None Oak Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 24.09 0.00 Haying: 2013 Remnant Prairie Intact Remnant (Native) Prairie 52.56 52.56 Farming: 2019 Tree Row Upland Forest 0.68 0.68 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 6.56 224.12 Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 0.93 0.93 Wetland-Perm Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 96.69 96.69 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 5.70 5.70 Cropland Cropland 164.00 0.00 Betterly WPA Total 484.93 484.93 Cool Season Planted Grassland 232.24 0.00 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 2.43 0.00 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 34.00 34.00 Floodplain forest Riverine/Floodplain Forest 81.74 81.74 FWS Prairie Seed Nursery Planted Grassland 39.80 39.80 Planting: 2009 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 2.28 6.32 Logging: 1998, 2008, 2009 Oak Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 4.04 0.00 Fire: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, Remnant Prairie Intact Remnant (Native) Prairie 2.14 2.14 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 Chemical: 2010, 2011, 2018, River-Stream Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 14.10 14.10 2019 Tree Row Upland Forest 3.00 0.00 Grazing: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 237.67 Haying: 2013 Farming: 2019 Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 7.02 7.02 Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 31.37 31.37 Wetland-Drained Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.29 1.29 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 20.13 20.13 Wetland-Wooded Riverine/Floodplain Forest 9.34 9.34

June 2020 114

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Beyl WPA Total 126.26 126.26 Cool Season Planted Grassland 33.15 0.00 Planting: 2007 Logging: 2007, 2008, 2009 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 34.36 34.36 Fire: 1996, 2013, 2014, 2015, Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 21.53 21.53 2017 Chemical: 2010, 2011 Tree Row Upland Forest 0.92 0.92 Grazing: 1998, 1999, 2001, Warm Season-Interseeded Planted Grassland 12.19 45.35 2004, 2009 Haying: 2003, 2009, 2019 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 24.11 24.11 Farming: 2019 Bierbrauer WPA Total 274.71 274.71 Cool Season Planted Grassland 31.00 0.00 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 11.43 0.00 Planting: 1994, 2005 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 8.05 8.05 Logging: 2008 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 198.31 240.74 Fire: 1997, 1998, 2012, 2017 Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 2.46 2.46 Chemical: 2011, 2019 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 15.91 15.91 Grazing: 2017, 2018, 2019 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 2.28 2.76 Haying: 2013 Farming: 2005, 2006 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 4.79 4.79 Wetland-Semi-Perm-Drained Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.49 0.00 Boe WPA Total 48.40 48.40 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 1.16 1.16 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 1.23 1.23 Planting: 2011 Oak Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 9.78 0.00 Logging: 2009 Fire: 2003 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 0.00 9.78 Chemical: 2010 Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 1.82 0.00 Grazing: None Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.00 1.82 Haying: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 24.49 24.49 Farming: 2007, 2009, 2010 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 9.93 9.93

June 2020 115

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Clapp WPA Total 237.97 237.97 Cool Season Planted Grassland 48.17 0.00 Cool Season-Warm Season-Mixed Planted Grassland 24.28 72.46 Planting: 1990's Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 1.67 1.67 Logging: 2001, 2018 Oak Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 102.73 0.00 Fire: 1995, 2004 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 0.00 102.73 Chemical: None Warm Season-Interseeded Planted Grassland 8.96 8.96 Grazing: 2004 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 39.00 39.00 Haying: 2005 Farming: None Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 12.09 12.09 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 1.07 1.07 Clear Lake WPA Total 154.59 154.59 Cool Season Planted Grassland 77.92 0.00 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 15.62 17.28 Planting: None Logging: None River-Stream Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 1.89 1.89 Fire: None Unknow Woods Upland Forest 1.66 0.00 Chemical: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 77.92 Grazing: None Haying: 2013 Wetland-Semi-Perm-Drained Semi-permanent Wetlands 57.50 0.00 Farming: None Wetland-Semi-Perm-Restored Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.00 57.50 Cook's Pond WPA Total 140.51 140.51 Coniferous Trees Upland Forest 1.09 0.00 Planting: 2005, 2008 Cool Season Planted Grassland 4.51 0.00 Logging: 2014 Fire: None Warm Season Restored Planted Grassland 67.23 72.83 Chemical: 2018 Grazing: None Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 24.87 24.87 Haying: 2013 Farming: None Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 42.81 42.81

June 2020 116

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Deer Park WPA Total 346.35 346.35 Coniferous Trees Upland Forest 1.05 1.05 Cool Season Planted Grassland 63.92 0.00 Planting: 2008, 2010, 2016 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 21.03 0.00 Logging: 2008, 2014, 2015 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 21.28 21.28 Fire: 1995, 2000, 2016, 2017, Deciduous Trees/Cool Season Grass Upland Forest/Planted Grassland 6.09 6.09 2018 Oak Savanna Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 1.63 1.63 Chemical: 2010, 2011, 2017, Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 67.08 67.08 2018, 2019 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 88.55 176.36 Grazing: None Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 9.65 9.65 Haying: 2018 Farming: 2005, 2006, 2007, Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 47.64 44.78 2013, 2014 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 15.50 15.50 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 2.94 2.94 Erickson WPA Total 466.12 466.12 Cool Season Planted Grassland 224.31 0.00 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 4.63 4.63 Planting: 2010 Oak Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 8.58 0.00 Logging: 2006, 2018 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 0.00 8.58 Fire: 1993, 1999, 2010, 2018, 2019 Warm Season-Non Local Ecotype Planted Grassland 20.40 0.00 Chemical: 2012, 2016 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 104.55 349.25 Grazing: None Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 2.46 2.46 Haying: None Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 93.99 93.99 Farming: 2007, 2008, 2009 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 7.20 7.20 Farmington WPA Total 30.35 30.35 Planting: None Deciduous Woodland Upland Forest 27.42 27.42 Logging: None Fire: None

June 2020 117

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Chemical: None Grazing: None Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 2.93 2.93 Haying: None Farming: None Hammond WPA Total 26.23 26.23

Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 15.28 0.00 Planting: None Logging: None Fire: 2000 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 15.28 Chemical: None Grazing: None Haying: None Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 10.95 10.95 Farming: None

Hanten WPA Total 169.83 169.83 Coniferous Trees Upland Forest 0.30 0.00 Planting: 2007, 2009, 2010, Cool Season Planted Grassland 58.03 0.00 2016 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 0.92 0.00 Logging: 2009, 2014 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 6.69 6.69 Fire: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 15.66 15.66 2014, 2015, 2017 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 54.63 113.87 Chemical: 2011, 2018 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 27.23 27.23 Grazing: 2016, 2017, 2018 Haying: 2013 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.62 1.62 Farming: 2013, 2014 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 4.76 4.76 Houghdahl North WPA Total 92.22 92.22 Cool Season Planted Grassland 24.52 0.00 Planting: 2009 Logging: 2008 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 2.94 2.94 Fire: 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 8.24 8.24 2015

June 2020 118

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Warm Season-Interseeded Planted Grassland 22.91 47.43 Chemical: 2010, 2011, 2017 Grazing: 2015, 2016 Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 0.26 0.26 Haying: None Farming: None Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 33.35 33.35 Houghdahl South WPA Total 59.02 59.02 Cool Season Planted Grassland 34.30 0.00 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 1.37 1.37 Planting: 2002, 2010 Logging: 2009 Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 3.74 0.00 Fire: 2012, 2016 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 6.38 40.68 Chemical: 2010, 2011 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 3.03 3.03 Grazing: 2017 Haying: None Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 10.20 10.20 Farming: 2002 Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.00 3.74 Iron Creek WPA Total 47.38 47.38 Planting: 2005 Cool Season Grass Planted Grassland 21.36 0.00 Logging: None Fire: 2008 Chemical: None Grazing: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 26.02 47.38 Haying: 2009, 2013 Farming: 2002, 2003, 2004 Kerber WPA Total 155.66 155.66 Cool Season Planted Grassland 2.46 0.00 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 1.73 1.73 Planting: 1995, 2011 Logging: None Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 1.13 0.00 Fire: 1998, 2003, 2008 Warm Season-Non Local Ecotype Planted Grassland 69.23 0.00 Chemical: 2019 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 46.38 118.07 Grazing: None Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 3.33 3.33

June 2020 119

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 31.41 31.41 Haying: 2013, 2014 Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.00 1.13 Farming: 2008, 2009 Kobernick WPA Total 133.60 133.60 Cool Season Planted Grassland 13.28 0.00 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 1.92 1.92 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 0.61 0.61 Planting: 2010 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 17.45 17.45 Logging: 2009 Tree Row Upland Forest 0.24 0.24 Fire: 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017 Chemical: 2010, 2011, 2016 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 61.92 75.19 Grazing: None Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 8.00 8.00 Haying: None Wetland-Drained Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.18 0.18 Farming: 2008, 2009 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 28.09 28.09 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.92 1.92 Kostka WPA Total 348.75 348.75 Cool Season Planted Grassland 225.11 0.00

Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 23.38 29.68 Planting: 2008, 2011 Logging: 2009, 2014 Oak Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 6.30 0.00 Fire: 1995, 1998, 2010, 2011, Structures-Roads Other 6.96 6.96 2012, 2016, 2017, 2019 Chemical: 2010, 2011, 2017, Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 54.38 279.49 2018, 2019 Grazing: None Wetland-Drained Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.17 0.00 Haying: None Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 16.86 16.86 Farming: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 7.85 8.02 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 7.74 7.74

June 2020 120

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Lundy WPA Total 131.82 131.82 Cool Season Planted Grassland 11.75 0.00 Planting: 2010 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 7.87 0.00 Logging: None Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 0.55 0.55 Fire: 1994, 1997, 2006 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 68.22 87.84 Chemical: None Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 37.19 37.19 Grazing: None Haying: 2013 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.66 1.66 Farming: 2007, 2008, 2009 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 4.57 4.57 Meadow Lark WPA Total 22.35 22.35 Planting: 2011, 2012 Logging: None Fire: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 22.35 22.35 Chemical: None Grazing: None Haying: None Farming: 2010, 2011 Oak Ridge WPA Total 421.65 421.65 Aspen Regrowth Upland Forest 13.47 13.47 Planting: 2008, 2009, 2010, Cool Season Planted Grassland 4.12 0.00 2016 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 7.17 0.00 Logging: 2009, 2014, 2015 Cool Season-Warm Season-Mixed Planted Grassland 15.27 15.27 Fire: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 63.67 63.67 Chemical: 2010, 2011, 2016, Oak Savanna Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 1.53 1.53 2017, 2018, 2019 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 25.17 25.17 Grazing: None Structures-Roads Other 2.63 2.63 Haying: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 104.58 115.87 Farming: 2005, 2006, 2007, Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 2.04 2.04 2009, 2016

June 2020 121

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Wetland-Drained Semi-permanent Wetlands 7.66 7.66 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 172.58 172.58 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.24 1.24 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.53 0.53 Pairie Flats - North WPA Total 218.25 218.25 Cool Season Planted Grassland 41.68 0.00 Cool Season-Warm Season-Mixed Planted Grassland 1.74 1.74 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 16.87 16.87 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 1.27 1.27 Planting: 2002, 2003, 2005 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 1.46 5.09 Logging: 2009 Oak Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 3.63 0.00 Fire: 2012, 2017 Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 10.40 0.00 Chemical: 2010, 2011, 2018, Structures-Roads Other 0.25 0.25 2019 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 96.60 138.28 Grazing: None Haying: None Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 4.83 4.83 Farming: 2001, 2002, 2003 Wetland-Drained Semi-permanent Wetlands 2.03 2.03 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 34.78 34.78 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 2.70 2.70 Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.00 10.40 Plum Brush WPA Total 151.40 151.40 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 32.18 0.00 Planting: 2016, 2017 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 111.29 143.47 Logging: 2014 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 1.84 1.84 Fire: 2016, 2018 Chemical: 2016 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 2.52 2.52 Grazing: 2019, 2020, 2021 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.12 1.12 Haying: None Farming: 2016 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 2.45 2.45

June 2020 122

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Prairie Flats - South WPA Total 501.69 501.69 Cool Season Planted Grassland 14.75 0.00 Planting: 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 25.45 25.45 Logging: 2006, 2007, 2008, Structures-Roads Other 5.34 5.34 2009 Warm Season-Interseeded Planted Grassland 38.43 38.43 Fire: 2000, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 355.58 370.33 Chemical: 2010, 2011, 2018, Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 33.17 33.17 2019 Grazing: None Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 19.25 19.25 Haying: 2013 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 9.72 9.72 Farming: 2002, 2003, 2004 Red Cedar WPA Total 335.46 335.46 Coniferous Trees Upland Forest 3.94 0.00 Planting: 1998, 2005 Cool Season Grass Planted Grassland 18.14 0.00 Logging: None Ditched Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 2.12 0.00 Fire: 2005 Chemical: 2013, 2018 Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.38 0.00 Grazing: 2002, 2003, 2004, Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 219.39 241.48 2005, 2006 Seasonal Wetland Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 18.50 20.63 Haying: 2013 Farming: 2003, 2004, 2005 Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 72.98 73.36 Risberg WPA Total 38.14 38.14 Coniferous Trees Upland Forest 0.57 0.00 Planting: 1992 Cool Season-Warm Season-Mixed Planted Grassland 19.45 0.00 Logging: None Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 3.41 0.00 Fire: None Warm Season-Interseeded Planted Grassland 0.00 23.43 Chemical: None Grazing: None Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 3.69 3.69

June 2020 123

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Haying: None Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 11.01 11.01 Farming: None Rock Creek WPA Total 670.96 670.96 Aspen Regrowth Upland Forest 6.77 6.77 Black Locus Upland Forest 3.99 0.00 Cool Season Planted Grassland 82.99 0.00 Cool Season Grass Planted Grassland 0.39 0.00 Cool Season Grass with Brush Planted Grassland 8.49 0.00 Cool Season-Brome Planted Grassland 36.84 0.00 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 12.36 12.36 Deciduous Trees/Cool Season Grass Upland Forest/Planted Grassland 4.52 4.52 Fenceline Wooded Upland Forest 7.63 7.63 Planting: 1997, 2016 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 0.72 0.72 Logging: None Floodplain forest Riverine/Floodplain Forest 8.72 8.72 Fire: 1997, 2000, 2004, 2008 Oak Savanna Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 0.62 0.62 Chemical: 2012 Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 23.96 0.00 Grazing: None Haying: 2009, 2013 Savanna Restorable Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 9.57 0.00 Farming: 2014 Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 80.47 0.00 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 0.00 90.04 Tree Row Upland Forest 6.65 6.65 Warm Season-Non-Local Ecotype Planted Grassland 116.77 0.00 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 71.11 320.57 Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 1.18 25.14 Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 15.67 185.74 Wetland-Cropped Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.37 0.00 Wetland-Drained Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 145.52 0.00

June 2020 124

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Wetland-Semi-Perm-Drained Semi-permanent Wetlands 23.18 0.00 Wetland-Wooded Riverine/Floodplain Forest 1.49 1.49 Rose Lee WPA Total 147.69 147.69 Cool Season Planted Grassland 1.29 0.00 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 29.92 0.00 Planting: None Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 58.81 58.81 Logging: None Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 1.01 1.01 Fire: None Oak Savanna-Unrestored Restorable Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 18.03 0.00 Chemical: None Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 0.00 18.03 Grazing: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 31.21 Haying: 2009 Farming: None Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 38.51 38.51 Wetland-Wooded Riverine/Floodplain Forest 0.10 0.10 Somerset WPA Total 65.15 65.15 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 24.13 0.00 Planting: None Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 37.09 37.09 Logging: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 24.13 Fire: 1995 Chemical: None Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 0.74 0.74 Grazing: None Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.54 0.54 Haying: None Farming: None Wetland-Wooded Riverine/Floodplain Forest 2.64 2.64 Spring Meadows WPA Total 130.69 130.69 Cool Season Planted Grassland 12.25 0.00 Planting: 2005, 2008 Logging: 1997, 1998, 1999, Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 1.31 0.00 2009, 2014 Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.20 0.00 Fire: 1996, 1997, 2014, 2018 Chemical: 2011, 2015, 2018 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 115.81 129.37 Grazing: 2014, 2015, 2016,

June 2020 125

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.00 0.20 2019, 2020, 2021 Haying: None Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 1.12 1.12 Farming: 2005, 2006, 2007 St. Croix WPA Total 41.48 41.48 Cool Season Planted Grassland 0.75 0.00 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 1.43 0.00 Planting: 1996, 2002 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 1.22 1.22 Logging: None Fire: 2011, 2016, 2017, 2019 Structures-Roads Other 1.65 1.65 Chemical: 2010, 2016 Warm Season-Interseeded Planted Grassland 32.85 35.04 Grazing: None Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 0.26 0.26 Haying: None Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.20 1.20 Farming: 2005, 2006, 2007 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 2.11 2.11 Stanton Prairie WPA Total 349.69 349.69 Coniferous Trees Upland Forest 31.78 0.00 Cool Season Planted Grassland 257.21 0.00 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 16.84 16.84 Planting: 2017 Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 8.47 8.47 Logging: 2008, 2009, 2014 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 20.57 20.57 Fire: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Tree Row Upland Forest 4.02 0.00 Chemical: 2011, 2015 Warm Season-Interseeded Planted Grassland 7.95 7.95 Grazing: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 293.01 Haying: 2013 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 0.37 0.37 Farming: 2014, 2015, 2016 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.27 1.27 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 1.21 1.21 Star Prairie WPA Total 306.86 306.86 Cool Season Planted Grassland 121.06 0.00 Planting: 2003, 2006, 2009 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 10.42 10.42 Logging: 2008, 2009 Tree Row Upland Forest 0.16 0.00 Fire: 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018

June 2020 126

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 93.85 215.06 Chemical: 2011, 2019 Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 31.94 31.94 Grazing: None Haying: 2013 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 48.43 48.43 Farming: None Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 1.00 1.00 Steffan WPA Total 45.53 45.53

Cool Season Planted Grassland 2.78 0.00 Planting: 2005, 2010 Logging: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 37.67 40.45 Fire: 2014, 2017 Chemical: 2011 Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 1.52 1.52 Grazing: None Haying: None Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 3.56 3.56 Farming: 2005

Strehlau WPA Total 79.49 79.49 Coniferous Trees Upland Forest 2.22 0.00 Cool Season Grass Planted Grassland 30.25 0.00 Planting: None Cool Season Grass/Brush Planted Grassland 12.68 0.00 Logging: None Fire: None Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 5.51 0.00 Chemical: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 45.15 Grazing: None Wetland-Drained Semi-permanent Wetlands 24.82 24.82 Haying: 2009 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 4.02 4.02 Farming: None Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.00 5.51 Suckut WPA Total 48.83 48.83 Planting: None Cool Season Planted Grassland 37.18 0.00 Logging: None Fire: 1997, 2013, 2014, 2015 Chemical: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 37.18 Grazing: None

June 2020 127

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Haying: None Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 11.66 11.66 Farming: None

Ten Mile WPA Total 394.44 394.44 Cool Season Planted Grassland 206.17 0.00 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 2.41 0.00 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 4.58 4.58 Planting: 2001, 2010, 2017, Fenceline-Wooded Upland Forest 1.77 1.77 2019 Logging: 2009, 2018 Oak Savanna-Restored Restored Oak Savanna/Oak Woodlot 19.43 19.43 Fire: 2011, 2012, 2017, 2019 River-Stream Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 5.80 5.80 Chemical: 2010, 2011, 2016, Structures-Roads Other 2.24 2.24 2017 Warm Season-Interseeded Planted Grassland 2.94 2.94 Grazing: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 41.01 249.60 Haying: None Farming: 2007, 2008, 2009, Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 20.94 20.94 2019 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 69.97 69.97 Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 7.97 7.97 Wetland-Semi-Perm Semi-permanent Wetlands 9.21 9.21 Three Lakes WPA Total 247.06 247.06 Coniferous Trees Upland Forest 8.10 0.00 Cool Season Planted Grassland 17.58 0.00 Planting: 2009, 2010 Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 1.04 1.04 Logging: 2009, 2018 Reed Canary Grass Semi-permanent Wetlands 1.02 0.00 Fire: 2011, 2012, 2016 Warm Season-Interseeded Planted Grassland 8.40 8.40 Chemical: 2010, 2011 Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 160.90 186.58 Grazing: None Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 5.57 5.57 Haying: 2013 Farming: 2006, 2007, 2008 Wet Meadow Semi-permanent Wetlands 0.00 1.02 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 44.46 44.46

June 2020 128

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Change Original habitats (GIS layer) HMP habitat descriptions Current Management History (desired) Weiss WPA Total 35.51 35.51

Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 30.85 0.00 Planting: None Logging: None Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 0.28 0.28 Fire: None Chemical: 2001, 2011 Wetland-Perm Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 4.38 4.38 Grazing: None Haying: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 30.85 Farming: None

White WPA Total 21.39 21.39 Cool Season with Brush Planted Grassland 12.44 0.00 Planting: None Deciduous Trees Upland Forest 5.57 5.57 Logging: None Tree Row Upland Forest 0.31 0.31 Fire: None Chemical: None Warm Season-Restored Planted Grassland 0.00 12.44 Grazing: None Wetland Permanent Wetlands/Shallow Lakes 2.43 2.43 Haying: None Farming: None Wetland-Seasonal Temporary/Seasonal Wetlands 0.64 0.64 Grand Total 8514.86 8514.86

June 2020 129

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Appendix H: Habitat Management Strategy Descriptions

The following appendix identifies the management tools or strategies that could be utilized by managers to achieve the habitat objectives outlined in Chapter 4. These strategies were identified through literature review, consultation with other biologists, and feasibility of utilization at St. Croix WMD. The information in this appendix should be used as a reference when making management decisions. Many techniques mentioned in Chapter 4 were based on resources already available online and those links are provided in this Appendix. The online resources mentioned in this appendix should be referenced for further information and direction when applying these strategies.

Many environmental factors including wildlife populations, weather, seasonal variations, and habitat conditions affect the selected prescriptions and their ability to achieve objectives from year to year. Strategies outlined in this appendix are presented on a conceptual level.

The natural world contains a myriad of extremely complex and dynamic systems containing an array of different habitats that support hundreds of plant, fish, and wildlife species. It is important to understand as habitat managers, that one can never fully understand every aspect of these dynamic systems. Despite the extensive planning efforts undertaken with this HMP, there will undoubtedly be additional need to address evolving changes to physical, ecological, social, political, and financial factors that may influence the management of District Resources of Concern and the habitats they depend on.

The management strategies and methods described represent a comprehensive effort to guide management over the next fifteen years. However, it is impossible to predict the full suite of management strategies required over this period. Some additional strategies may need to be added, while others listed here may not be used.

The broad habitat types found within the District that are managed with defoliation and litter removal treatments include native prairie remnant, remnant oak savanna, planted grasslands, and permanent and semi-permanent wetlands. Defoliation can be achieved with various treatments such as prescribed fire, grazing, mowing, and haying. These habitats may need repeated management to restore or maintain desirable conditions. Treatment frequencies depend on the current state of the habitat on a WPA or subunits within a WPA. Maintaining a unit in good condition will require a defoliation return interval of 3-7 years, while recovering a unit in poor condition may require more intensive management intervals of every 1-3 years. Historically, management records for the District were captured in annual accomplishment reports but since annual accomplishment reporting stopped in 2006, most management records have been recorded in various GIS files on the District’s server. Appendix G contains a table that includes a column listing the type of management and date of treatment for each WPA as of the signing of this HMP. In 2020, the District will migrate to capturing management activities within the Regional Management Actions Database.

June 2020 130

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

The District has water level control on two WPAs (Star Prairie and Houghdahl North WPAs) basins, a small percentage of the total semi-permanent wetland acreage. Basins without water control structures naturally fluctuate due to precipitation, ground water recharge, and drought. Active management of semi-permanent wetlands without water control structures is minimal and will be subject to natural fluctuations. Similarly, the District has attempted little active management on permanent wetlands and shallow lakes.

Floodplain and upland forest are low priority habitats and require little active management. Efforts are focused on protecting and maintaining the natural cycles and succession of these forested habitats for District resources of concern. There is little forested habitat throughout the District (104 floodplain and 508 upland forest acres). Tree groves at abandoned home sites, fencerows, and windbreaks are not considered forest habitat types and have been and will continue to be removed to enhance surrounding grassland habitat.

The District applies several management strategies in multiple habitat types, sometimes to achieve different purposes. In some situations, a combination of management tools will be necessary. The management strategies implemented will be consistent with current and future National, Regional, and District polices. This section provides general descriptions of each management strategy.

Fire Fire constitutes one of the most important ecological processes of the prairie ecosystem. Whether human or lightning caused, fire has been a part of the prairie ecosystem for thousands of years (Higgins 1986). Fire return intervals in the pre-settlement tallgrass prairie region were generally 4-6 years between major fires and more frequently on a smaller geographic scale (Wright and Bailey 1980; Dickmann and Cleland 2002). Grassland species of the northern tallgrass prairie evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation from large ungulates and fire. Frequency of returns and location of fires influenced grazing by large and small mammals, as well. Numerous studies have also demonstrated species composition and vegetation structure in prairies, whether restored or native, become denser, grass-dominated stands with increased litter depth about six years post-management (Naugle et al. 2000; Olechnowski et al. 2009). Given this knowledge, the generally “accepted” management-return interval for tallgrass prairie, whether restored or native, is 4-5 years. This return interval is used by District staff when making annual habitat management decisions unless a greater threat to the habitat is identified. It is inherent then, that using a management return interval of ~5-yrs on priority WPAs will result in a variety of vegetation structures and litter depths across the District benefitting a variety of resources of concern, as well as maintain the integrity of the habitat type.

Fire kills or reduces vigor in some plants but stimulates and invigorates others. Nutrients in the form of ash are quickly reabsorbed into the soil, which stimulate root systems and are made available for plant uptake. Prescribed fire is used to mimic this natural process. Prescribed fire is an effective tool when applied during appropriate time frames which is driven by resource objectives and current vegetative conditions. Controlled burning on the District is completed under a “prescription” that sets limits to various factors under which fire may be initiated in

June 2020 131

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan relation to burn plan objectives and safety considerations (USFWS 2008). Weather factors such as temperature, wind speed and direction, relative humidity, and smoke lift are considered. Other factors include resource availability (personnel with required qualifications, equipment, and contingencies) and drought monitoring. A variety of burning techniques (backing, flanking, and head fire) are used depending on the objectives for the fire. A combination of the following techniques is typically used during prescribed fire treatments.

Backing fire (burning into the wind) provides low to moderate fire intensity depending on the vegetation, the lowest rates of fire spread, and the longest residence time. This technique is used to slowly burn through the vegetation and provides effective litter consumption. Backing fire is typically used around sensitive structures (granite outcrops, fences, power poles, etc.) and to establish control lines.

Flanking fire (burning parallel to the wind direction) creates moderate fire intensity and moderate rates of fire spread. In a flanking fire, the leading edge of fire backs through the vegetation. Along the heel side of the fire (flank), short bursts of head fire (burning with the wind) burn back toward the previously burned area (black). This technique is typically used to expand fire control lines or where high temperatures (ground level) over a long duration are needed.

Head fires have the most intense fire behavior with rapid rates of spread and shorter residence time. Fire is ignited and burns with the wind. Very intense heat and flames quickly burn through the vegetation. Litter consumption ranges from light to complete depending on the vegetation. After the exterior burn unit control lines have been established, head fire is most commonly used method to consume the remaining interior vegetation.

Most fires are conducted during the growing season, but dormant season fires (when vegetation is not actively growing) are also used. Dormant season fires consume residual vegetation and litter, which warms the soil sooner in the spring and stimulates both cool and warm season grasses and forbs. In degraded grasslands, however, these fires can amplify problems with cool season exotic species like Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Dormant season burns can also be used as a site preparation tool in combination with herbicide for controlling invasive species or to remove residual vegetation in site preparation for restoration. Dormant season burns can also reduce impacts to native cool season grasses that are often planted in newer grassland seedings. Spring burns also stimulate warm season native grasses and forbs, promoting heavy flowering and seed production.

Prescribed fire at St. Croix WMD is used when cool season grasses are actively growing during the spring (April 1 – June 15) and fall (September 15 – December 1) seasons. The exact timing is often chosen to target certain species for control. For example, Willson and Stubbendieck (2000) provide a provisional model for using prescribed fire to control smooth brome in tallgrass prairie. By burning within a specific phenological window (during tiller elongation, identified by presence of an above ground node or at least five green leaves, but before tiller heading), smooth brome will have reduced density and will be subjected to competitive stress

June 2020 132

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

from warm season grasses. A similar model may hold true for other species such as Kentucky bluegrass, though specific research is lacking for this species. For the District, targeted problematic species include buckthorn (Rhamnus spp.), siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), boxelder (Acer negundo), and sumac (Rhus spp.).

In addition, spring and fall fires are conducted to kill and/or set back woody vegetation and to injure or kill second year growth (seed production) of sweetclover (Melilotus spp.). Spring burns also stimulate warm season native grasses and forbs, promoting heavy flowering and seed production. Fire can be an effective form of site preparation on sites where we intend to harvest native seed in the fall. Dormant burning may also help with the control of invasive species like wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) by eliminating the accumulated aboveground biomass and allowing chemical access to quick growing seedlings of a target species.

Wetland vegetation can also be treated with prescribed fire. Fire will consume dormant wetland vegetation and accumulated biomass that tends to become stagnant and dense. Fire will carry through accumulated cattail biomass even if there is standing water. This refreshes wetlands by allowing light penetration into the water column which promotes vegetative growth. Some wetlands can be dewatered and allowed to dry out. The dried vegetation can be treated with fire which will remove the thatch layer and damage species like cattail. Cattail mortality is improved by reflooding the wetland to a depth of at least 0.9-1.2m over the cattail (Sojda and Solberg 1993).

Grazing Grassland species evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation from fire and large, grazing ungulates such as bison, elk and pronghorn antelope. Although the days of free-range wild bison in Wisconsin are behind us, grazing with domesticated livestock is still an effective tool when used properly for managing grasslands. Three seasons are typically used for a grazing prescription. Examples include:

Early spring grazing (mid-April to early June) on native prairie or seeded native grasses, designed to reduce the vigor of exotic species and increase the vigor of native species.

Summer grazing (July-September) may be used to stimulate the grassland after the peak nesting season while still allowing vegetative regrowth in the fall.

Fall grazing (September-October) will be designed to have effects similar to spring grazing, mostly on native prairie remnants or fields seeded with native prairie species.

In general, units are typically stocked light at around one Animal Unit Month (AUM) per 2 acres. Units are purposefully stocked light to account for unknown conditions, such as drought, that could negatively impact the grazing plan. Ideally, grazing is continued until the minimum average vegetation height is 3-4”. Grazing can create a more diverse vegetation structure than is normally possible with mowing or burning (cattle have uneven grazing patterns related to factors like the distribution of preferred and unpalatable plants). Grazing can be used to reduce litter build-up, stimulate desired plant species, control invasive species, and reduce vegetation

June 2020 133

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

height and density. Grazing can also control Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), sweet-clover and some shrubs. Livestock may even serve as dispersal agents of native seeds, thereby creating patches of desirable plants (Archer and Pyke 1991). Furthermore, cattle will consume early growing cattail and break down residual vegetation through hoof action. Cattail control is most effective when the cattle are confined to the wetland area of interest. Overall, livestock grazing (cattle, sheep, goats) may be used to meet specific habitat objectives but techniques will be consistent with the current Grazing and Haying Program Management Plan for St. Croix WMD (USFWS 2015) and will follow the Regional Grazing and Haying Program Guidance (Region 3 Grazing and Haying Program Guidance 2014).

Ideally grazing would be used in combination with prescribed fire to maximize plant and wildlife diversity. Historically, herds of bison and other grazing ungulates would follow fires because of the highly palatable and nutritious vegetation that grows immediately after a burn. This is not always feasible due to logistical issues like lack of cattle in an area, poor fencing, small sizes of grazing units, or no or limited access to water. In other situations, grazing may be the only feasible management option (e.g. when prescribed fire is not safe due to things like proximity to developments or cities or access to unit or water is difficult). Grazing is feasible on potentially all District WPAs; however, station staff will need to work internally or partner with willing grazers to develop infrastructure such as adequate boundary and partition fence, water, and loading and off-loading structures on each WPA.

Prescribed grazing is used to mimic the natural effects of ungulate and other grazing wildlife that were present during pre-settlement times. Like fire, the prescription for grazing will include specific parameters that will best achieve our goals for the management unit. Parameters that must be defined for successful grazing include timing, duration, intensity, and species of livestock.

Grazing on the District requires parterning with a cooperative farmer or producer according to the Regional Grazing and Haying Program Guidance (Region 3 Grazing and Haying Program Guidance 2014). To use grazing as a management tool requires that we find ways to make the practice economically viable for the cooperator, while not sacrificing the habitat objectives we want to achieve. Sites must have adequate fencing and accessible, clean water. Creative solutions can be used such as providing credits for fencing work or including infrastructure needs within the bid process to exchange rental payments for permanent government owned infrastructure. Not all cooperators are willing to move their cattle to a unit for just a few weeks of grazing. Therefore, the District offers open bid opportunities to any and all grazers interested in grazing on WPAs. The timing and duration of a grazing prescription will depend on the grassland type and condition. On native prairie remnants, a grazing technique called spring flash grazing may be used, where the unit is grazed at a relatively high stocking rate for a short duration of time (4-6 weeks). However, a typical grazing plan for the District includes a rotational pattern that maximizes the effect grazing will have on targeted plant communities. Grazing plans run from 2 to 3 years allowing time for the grazer and manager to partner together to maximize grazing effects on target plant communities while at the same time ensuring adequate gain for livestock. The St. Croix WMD utilizes a rotational or managed grazing technique which cycles cattle through one-week size paddocks. Paddock size is

June 2020 134

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

determined by stocking rate with paddocks being larger for larger number of animals or smaller with less animals. Spring grazing is useful in a grassland system where the goal is to reduce invasive cool season grasses and promote warm season plants. It has a similar effect as a spring prescribed fire, helping to reduce cool season grasses (especially smooth brome) while promoting warm season plants.

In low diversity WPAs such as planted grasslands that are dominated by either warm season or cool season grasses, a summer graze may be used. In these situations, the intent is to stimulate the grass stand and reduce litter build-up, rather than to reduce the cover of target species. The duration and intensity of a summer graze is based on the number of cattle placed on the unit by the grazer. The District sets a minimum number of cattle for each grazing project.

Grazing with domestic cattle is common, however we also use other livestock such as sheep and goats depending on the goals of the specific management unit within a WPA. It is important to understand which plant species are preferred by the livestock being used. Cattle, and to a lesser degree sheep, favor herbaceous species over woody vegetation, so you cannot expect to eliminate a woody invasion with cattle. However, goats will graze on woody vegetation, making them an excellent option for shrub control. Sheep tend to favor forbs (Helzer 2010) and may not be the best option when habitat management goals are to increase forbs and overall plant diversity. In 2020, the District plans to work with goat producers to expand goat grazing opportunities on WMD land.

Grazing can also be implemented to prepare a seed bed. In situations where farming is not an option or there is not a need to completely start over with a new seeding, grassland may be grazed down to a very short height. Before all the forage is gone, native seeds can be broadcast onto the ground while the cattle are still in the paddock. The hoof action from the cattle can be used to push the seeds into the ground. This is a less intense procedure to use for interseeding grassland and gives you a similar seed bed to burning a site off to prepare to broadcast seeds on the ground.

Mowing & Haying Fire and grazing are natural ecological processes in the prairie. However, there are times when mechanical defoliation techniques like mowing and haying are used instead. Mechanical treatment is useful for treating smaller patches for example, in response to noxious weed complaints or targeted brush control. Mowing is useful for controlling woody vegetation and undesirable plant species (e.g. Canada thistle), or to prepare a site for herbicide application. Release mowing (see Grassland Reconstruction section for description) can also be an effective tool for maintaining an open canopy during plant establishment on newly planted or restored sites. When preparing for prescribed fire operations, mowing can be used to create control lines or fire breaks. Mowing can also be effective when creating a mosaic of short, sparse to tall, dense vegetation. Many species such as upland sandpiper, bobolink, and Grasshopper Sparrow require diverse structure of varying vegetation heights and densities (Vickery 1996, Houston et al. 2011, Sample and Mossman 1997). Mowing can also be an effective tool to create a short structure vegetative state in tall dense grasses, creating open habitat for species like eastern meadowlark, Killdeer, upland sandpiper, and Vesper sparrow. Plant species

June 2020 135

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan composition also can be altered from mowing operations. Mid-summer mowing tends to suppress native, warm-season grasses and helps to foster and maintain native forbs, (especially spring flowering species), as well as cool-season grasses. Other native forbs (summer flowering) are reduced by mid-summer mowing (e.g. wild bergamot or prairie blazingstar). The mid- to late-summer flowering species benefit most from mowing or burning in the dormant season of early spring (March-May) or late fall (Sept.-Nov.). Haying is useful for weed control and provides us with the ability to remove the cut vegetation, thus reducing the litter layer if cuttings are raked, baled, and removed. By clipping or haying, we can prolong our fire interval on sites where our objective is to control small trees and shrubs invading grasslands. Like grazing, haying on WPAs is accomplished by working with a cooperative farmer. Haying is usually conducted as a single event during a calendar year within a haying unit but may be repeated within a single year or over several years as needed depending on unit condition. Any haying that will be conducted on the Districts will adhere to the St. Croix WMD Grazing and Haying Program Management Plan (USFWS 2015) and will follow the Regional Grazing and Haying Program Guidance (Region 3 Grazing and Haying Program Guidance 2014).

On lands managed for wildlife conservation purposes, it is advisable to delay mowing until after July 15. Mowing after this date will allow most bird species a chance to raise at least one brood and move away from the brood site. However, in some cases late spring mowing (mid to late June) is needed to control exotic species like Canada thistle. When there are instances where late-nesting species such as dickcissel and sedge wren are present, mowing should be delayed until early August. If more than one mowing is conducted or if mowing is required after the grassland bird breeding season, the last mowing of the year should be early enough to promote some fall re-growth in order to provide residual vegetative cover the following spring. In Wisconsin, this means mowing should be completed by early September for cool-season grasses and early August for warm-season grasses in most years.

Mowing or shearing can also be used to manage vegetation structure and composition in wetlands. In this case, mowing involves the use of rotary and flail mowers; forestry mulching equipment (e.g., Fecon) may also be used. Flail and forestry mulchers will chop material better than a rotary mower and a forestry mower has the added advantage of providing tillage if conditions allow. Mowing can be completed anytime when conditions allow access to the wetland however, control may be best if cutting in late summer or early fall. Winter over-ice treatments have potential to be successful particularly if a dry fall allows access to the basin and the cutting is followed by a wet spring which submerges the cut stems. One drawback of late-season treatment is that airborne seeds can clog equipment. Clipping cattail spp. too early in the growing season may stimulate growth and lead to higher stem densities the following year. Both mowing and haying are limited by the surface conditions in the field – an area that is too rocky or bumpy, too wet, or that has a steep terrain is not a good candidate for this strategy.

Disking Disking can be used to manage wetland vegetation, particularly to control cattail or reed canarygrass. Often the wetland vegetation must be pretreated to remove above ground biomass. Pretreatment may include fire or other biomass removal techniques. Key to success

June 2020 136

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan of this technique is to break the cattail spp. root layer or mass. Shallow disking (0-6 inches) will decrease the chances for success because the cattail spp. root mass lies 6-10” below the soil surface. Deep disking (below root mass) can retard shoot formation and damage the rhizomes. The disturbance decreases plant survival by exposing the roots to continued drying and freezing in fall and early winter. If a wetland can be kept dry enough to repeatedly disc for 2-3 successive seasons, cattails spp. may be eliminated or their stem densities severely reduced. However, disking does have some drawbacks. The equipment and personnel needed to carry out this method of control are costly. Also, a heavy disk must be used and will disturb the site. Disturbance may result in the loss of other native plants in the wetland. Deep disking is not currently used on District land, but this technique may be used in the future if the surrounding land becomes more developed and burning is not as viable an option.

On dense stands of cattail spp., several passes with equipment may be necessary to remove the erect stems, breakup the extensive rhizome layer, and incorporate the soil. Disking should be done in the dry season when soil is dry enough to support equipment. Disking in the dry season ensures the best disturbance of the soil and enables rootstalks and rhizomes to die through drying in the sun. Better results may be attained if disking of cattail is done when carbohydrate reserves are the lowest (i.e. pistillate and staminate portions of the spike are lime green and dark green, respectively), which usually occurs in mid- to late June depending if local soil conditions are dry enough to support equipment. Wetlands in the District with exposed mudflats or have seasonal periods with <6 inches of water during times of the year when ambient temperatures are between 77 and 86 degrees fahrenheit are vulnerable to cattails (WDNR 1976). An investigation of wetlands susseptible to cattail infestion is required for the District.

Woody Species Control Remove woody species >2m tall from remnant mesic and dry prairies using a combination of mechanical techniques, chemical application, and prescribed fire. Natural disturbances like fire and grazing in conjunction with a dry climate maintained an herbaceous-dominated vegetative community in the prairies. As those natural disturbances have been surpressed (fire) or elimated (bison), trees have encroached in grasslands throughout Wisconsin. In addition to the lack of disturbance, there is a more widespread seed source in the planted tree groves, fencerows, and windbreaks throughout the landscape. Prescribed burning, grazing and haying are used to control woody vegetation, but the effectiveness of these techniques decline as tree size increases. With the suppression of natural disturbances and defoliation, other strategies are required to remove woody species encroachment on prairies.

Manual Treatment Handsaws & Hatchets: Manually cutting large invasions of woody species with handsaws or hatchets is not cost efficient nor is it very effective. Most targeted species re-sprout and require more intensive efforts or a combination of manual techniques and other treatments as discussed later (i.e. hack and squirt or cut-stump applications).

Girdling: Girdling seems to be the only manual technique that has been proven effective and worthwhile on larger trees. Girdling is cutting through the phloem completely around the

June 2020 137

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

exterior of the tree circumference but leaving the xylem intact. This is an effective means of killing individual trees or excluding a particular tree species without the use of herbicide (Solecki 1997). Severing the phloem prevents the flow of carbohydrates from the leaves to the roots, and over time the tree dies from lack of water and/or nutrients. If only the phloem layer is severed, it can take several years for the tree to die. Severing the deeper xylem layer (therefore the cambium as well) will results in quicker mortality, but sometimes triggers increased suckering below the cut. Spring and summer (April-Aug.) is the most effective time to girdle trees. After initial spring growth (leaf out), resources have been depleted and the tree is most vulnerable. In addition, the bark and cambium are looser and easier to remove in the spring rather than in the fall. Girdled trees typically die slowly over several years, allowing understory species to adapt gradually. Eventually, dead trees need to be felled and removed or burned.

Mechanical Treatment The primary mechanical means of woody species removal are listed below. The application of new tools and attachments will be examined as they become available. Cutting alone fails to eliminate the entire problem as felled trees continue to occupy 70% of the space of the living tree. Cut trees need to be limbed, piled, dried and burned to make the habitat once occupied by the tree available to wildlife. Districts have had varying degrees of success working with biofuel contractors who complete whole tree chipping and therefore eliminate many of the challenges associated with tree removal.

Saws: There are several tools and attachments available for woody species removal. Brushsaws (<14cm, 5.5in dbh) and chainsaws (dbh restricted to faller certifications) are the two most commonly used hand tools for woody species removal on the District.

Skid-Steer Attachments: The Districts use several different skid-steer attachments for tree removal. Each of them targets different ranges in dbh and require varying degrees of hydraulic power (high-flow capacity). Common skid-steer attachments are listed as follows:

• Tree Shears: The tree shears have two shearing blades that pinch together cut single trees 15-45cm (6-18in) dbh at the ground surface. This attachment grabs and cuts one tree at a time, but the grapple arms can hold up to two or three trees at a time. Once grapple arms are full, trees then are transported to a pile to be burned or removed.

• Carbide Cutter/Fecon: The carbide cutter or fecon functions only on machines with a high-flow capacity. It has a large drum with scattered teeth that rotates and shreds single or multiple trees <15cm (6in) dbh down to the ground surface. This particular attachment can be used to mulch the remaining portions of the tree that are not shredded by the initial pass.

• Timber –Ax Chipper: The timber-ax chipper can cut small trees and brush <10cm (4in) dbh down to the ground surface and requires a skid steer with high-flow

June 2020 138

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

capacity. This attachment is not as efficient and powerful as the fecon and therefore not as commonly used on the District.

• Rotary Mower: The rotary mower can cut brush and trees <25.5cm (10in) dbh. Like the fecon, it can mulch the remaining portions of the tree and requires a skid-steer with high-flow capacity. This attachment seems to operate faster when trees are sparse across the treatment area. However, this mower cannot function effectively when residual herbaceous vegetation it very dense.

• Stump Grinder: A stump grinder is used in combination with the chainsaw. Large trees (<50cm, 20in) dbh are first cut with the chainsaw approximately 1m (3ft) from the ground surface, then the stump grinder grinds the remaining stump to the ground surface. This attachment also requires a skid-steer with high-flow capacity.

• Tree Puller: The skid steer mounted tree puller can pull trees < 6 inces in diameter from the ground. The unit is equipped with one fixed row of steel teeth and one row of steel teeth moved through the use of hydraulic by the operator. The teeth are set in place and the loader arms and hydraulics are applied until the teeth are firmly gripping the tree. The loader arms are lifted pulling the tree from the ground, roots and all. This method kills the tree but causes minimal ground disturbance. This technique is 100% effective in killing targeted trees and brush but does take considerable staff time to implement.

Chemical Treatment For all chemical treatments and application types, applicators must read and adhered to the following: the chemical label, the most recent Region 3 Pesticide Policy, Pesticide Users Safety (242 FW 7), the Integrated Pest Management (569 FW 1) Policy, the DOI Integrated Pest Management Policy (517 DM 1), and the State of Wiscosin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Pesticide Regualtions (WIS. Stat 94.67 to WIS Stat. 94.71). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy provides guidelines for pesticide and other chemical applications (including adjuvants designed to enhance effectiveness) and requires a Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) for all pesticide applications be submitted and approved annually. Attention to personal protective equipment, licensing requirements, and other regulations as listed on the pesticide label is required.

The timing of applications is critical to achieve effective control, as the growth stage at which an organism will be most effectively controlled by an herbicide varies by species. The advantage of herbicide use is that the right chemicals, applied correctly, can produce desired results over a large area for a reasonable cost. The disadvantages are that the chemicals may affect non- target species at the site (including the applicator) and/or contaminate surface or groundwater. Proper planning includes using the selection of the most target-specific, least hazardous (humans and the environment), and most effective chemical to meet the habitat objectives. Additionally, the minimum effective dosage should be applied, as the chemical labels often give higher than necessary concentrations.

June 2020 139

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Herbicides can be an effective way to limit and reduce the spread of invasive plants or woody species encroachment within a native community. Herbicides work in different ways and may affect a wide range of species or only a specific target plant. Products may come in granular, pelleted, dust or liquid forms. Liquid herbicides are commonly diluted to an appropriate formula and mixed with other chemicals that facilitate mixing, application, or efficacy. In some instances, mechanical removal of the target species alone is not entirely successful. Some target species may require chemical treatment or a combination of mechanical and chemical treatments to eliminate regrowth. Common chemical application methods are listed as follows:

Basal Bark Application: Basal bark treatments are effective for controlling woody vines, shrubs, saplings, trees and other sensitive species 15 cm (6 in) in basal diameter. Basal applications offer the advantage of a low-profile application and highly selective control of target species. Selected stems are removed to enable desirable plants to naturally and rapidly occupy sites. When properly applied, complete control of foliage, stems and roots is possible. Applications can be made year-round, but the fall is most effective time because stems are easier to access at the base and rapid chemical transport to the root system occurs. Basal bark application involves spraying (with low pressure) an oil-based herbicide to the basal parts of the tree or brush 30-38 cm (12-15 in) from the ground, thoroughly wetting the area. Spraying continues until runoff at the ground line is noticeable. The oil penetrates the plant’s bark and carries the herbicide into the cambium for translocation to the roots. Basal spray formulations can also be applied to cut stumps that have begun to re-sprout. Basal treatments can be used in combination with cut surface treatments when large undesirable trees are mixed with smaller stems.

Foliar Application: Foliar treatments are also effective for controlling herbaceous vegetation, shrubs, and trees (<10 cm, 4 in, basal diameter). Ground based broadcast spray equipment (boom sprayers) and hand-held sprayers are used for either broadcast or spot-spraying applications. Herbicide like Garlon 3A is applied to the foliage (enough to wet the leaves without dripping) of target species and the chemical is absorbed by the leaf structures and translocated to the root system. Large broadcast applications are only used occasionally to treat heavy infestations of shrub and tree saplings such as Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) and willow (Salix spp.). Hand-held sprayer applications are used for spot-spraying scattered trees and for small concentrated patches. Similar to basal bark application, foliar application on shrubs and trees is most effective in the fall (just before the leaves begin turning color and shedding) as the trees are drawing nutrients back to the root reserves. Applicators should always be cautious and avoid over spraying.

Cut-Stump Application: After the target species has been manually or mechanically cut, herbicide can be applied to the cut surface. This technique uses a hand-held sprayer to spray directly on the root collar area, sides of the stump or stem, and the outer portion of the cut surface, including the cambium, until thoroughly wet, but not to the point of runoff. Application can occur throughout the year, even in winter as long as snow and ice do not prevent spraying to the ground line.

June 2020 140

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Hack and Squirt Application: This application method involves making cuts around the tree trunk at a convenient height with a hatchet or similar tool so that the cuts overlap slightly, making a continuous circle around the tree. Chemical is then applied into the pocket (between the bark and inner stem) created by each cut. This can be applied at any time of year, except during heavy sap flow (early spring).

Injection Application: Injection application requires injecting a small amount (approx. 1ml depending on chemical and dilution) of solution through the bark at intervals 7-10cm (3-4in) between centers of the injection wound. Injections should completely surround the tree at any convenient height. Like the hack and squirt application method, this can be applied at any time of year, except during heavy sap flow (early spring).

Broadcast Application: Broadcast application is primarily used on the District in farming realted settings. Cooperative farmers broadcast roundup onto fields planted with GMGT corn and soybeans to treat unwanted non-native plant species. This technique is used to prepare a restoration site for a future seeding using native, local ecotype grass and forb species.

Grassland Reconstruction

Establishing a native plant community where there was previously a cropping history is commonly referred to as prairie reconstruction or establishment. Often new WPAs or easements are row-cropped when acquired, so the first step is to restore or plant the native plant community back into these sites. In some instances, previously planted grasslands can become so infested with noxious weeds that the most efficient restoration approach is to start over by reseeding the site.

Seed Selection Selection of species to be planted and local sources of seed (within 60 miles of Star Prairie, Wisconsin) is a critical step in restoration of grassland habitat. While many species of grass and forbs are commercially available for grassland restoration, few are from local sources. Using local ecotype seed is important in restoration as plants have wide genetic diversity and differing photo periods across geographic areas. Specific guidance, state statutes, soil type, and region maps for the use of local ecotype seed is referenced when deriving a seed mix. Each District has had various levels of success with local ecotype seed nurseries. St. Croix WMD has a partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, St. Croix River Assocation and the Friends of the St. Croix WMD to produce local ecotype seed (5 grasses and 30+ forb species) sufficient to plant ~200 acres of public land annually. See Appendix C for a list of species on hand as of 2020. Local ecotype seed production can be ramped up through this partnership if additional seed is needed to restore public lands.

Initial seedbed preparation to decrease the weed (like Canada thistle) seed bank is critical to successful grassland establishment. Former agricultural fields make up the majority of our restoration projects and are ideal sites for grassland establishment if invasive weed problems are already under control. Typical seedings are conducted over snow into former crop-field.

June 2020 141

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

As warm season grasses are slow to germinate and have less seedling vigor than do cool season grasses, weed/sod control, both before and after planting, is much more critical when establishing warm-season species than when establishing cool season grass stands.

Release Mowing When establishing warm season grasses, weed control throughout the growing season is just as critical as it is prior to planting. Normally, it takes at least two growing seasons to establish a warm season grass stand. This makes weed control during the first growing season critical. As warm season grasses are not shade tolerant, weed canopies will reduce seedling vigor. Moisture competition from weeds and cool season grasses may also further reduce seedling vigor. To establish warm season grasses, weeds are usually controlled by clipping with a sicklebar/bat-wing mower set at a height (8-12”) where only the weeds shading the warm season grass seedlings are cut. This technique is called a “release mow”. Release mows will reduce shading competition but not injure the emerging grass seedlings. Mowing weeds before flowering will also prevent seed production. Mowing 2-3 times may be necessary during the establishment year. However, if clipped too frequently, weeds may “stool out” (grow out instead of up) (NRCS-USDA 2006).

Seeding Oversnow seeding between late November and late March is a typical seeding method for native prairie species in the District. A tractor mounted Vicon seeder is used to distribute seed, eliminating rows from drill planting. The sun’s heat melts the dark seeds into the snow and seed to soil contact is achieved through the spring frost heave.

Broadcast seeding followed by cultipacking has also been used on the District. This style of seeding has been used on sites where the ground has been disked and leveled or in the spring or fall of the year without snow cover. Broadcast seeding reduces the rows associated with drilling methods of seeding. Recent research on reconstructed prairies (Larson 2009) suggest that broadcast seeding is more effective at reducing the weed infestations often associated with restored grasslands. Broadcast seeding can be done in late fall (October) through late spring (June).

Another method of seeding warm season grasses is with a no-till drill such as Truax™. When using a drill in recently tilled seedbeds, it is best to culti-pack the tilled soil before seeding. Whether drilling or broadcasting on tilled soil, it is essential to culti-pack after seeding. It is further recommended to culti-pack twice after broadcasting, with the second culti-packing 90 degrees to the first (NRCS-USDA 2009).

Interseeding Interseeding native prairie remnants or planted grasslands is a management technique used to improve existing low diversity grasslands by planting additional grass or forb species directly into existing sod (Packard 1997). It is especially useful on sites where plowing would cause erosion, create potential for noxious weed problems on weed-free sites, or destroy an existing native plant community. Increased stand diversity benefits a greater assortment of grassland dependent species. In most cases when inter-seeding native prairie remnants, only local seed

June 2020 142

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

collected from the remnant communities or harvested from the seed farming operation (this is all local seed) is used. Seeding after prescribed fire is the most common method of inter- seeding remnants. Disking or other soil disturbance should not be used in remnants as a means of incorporating seed. Chemical herbicides are non-selective, and their use should be avoided on all native prairies. Seeds should be broadcast in stand openings or areas that are occupied at low stem densities.

Interseeding is most effective where grass is not overly dominant. It can be more difficult in monocultures of reed canary grass or in Kentucky bluegrass. Inter-seeding after a prescribed fire is most common, although the site preparation can also include grazing, haying, mowing or light disking. Site preparation involves removal of thatch through burning or haying to provide light for seedlings and improve seed-to-soil contact. Weed removal through herbicide treatment is sometimes needed to reduce competition; decrease existing stand density and open areas for establishment. Herbicide treatments can also be used to weaken existing grasses and decrease competition during seedling establishment. When inter-seeding into degraded native prairies, only seed collected from a local source will be used. Over snow inter- seeding into burned or mowed grasslands can be a very effective technique for establishing native prairie grasses and forbs.

Node establishment In stands of native or non-native grasses, an effective technique involves establishing 15’X15’ nodes (plots) within grass-dominated stands. Approximately 25 percent of the site should be covered by nodes. Nodes should be prepared with a tractor mounted rototiller in October followed by dormant (late October) broadcast seeding. As the nodes establish, they will generate a source of propagules to colonize the surrounding vegetation matrix and increase species diversity (Grygiel et al. 2009).

Crushing or Rolling Crushing and/or rolling have the potential of, at least temporarily, controlling vegetation in temporary and seasonal wetlands. Equipment may include a cultipacker, roller drum or other type of equipment (Marsh MasterTM, ArgoTM, ATV, etc.). Vegetation can be manipulated any time conditions allow, though Weller (1975) found that cattails crushed and re-flooded in June had poor recoveries. If spring (May-June) timing is not feasible, the vegetation can be crushed during the fall (Aug.-Sept.) when conditions are drier. Treated wetlands should then be re- flooded during the early spring. In wetlands with water level management capabilities, strive to overtop the crushed vegetation with a minimum of two feet of water.

Farming Cooperative farming is used as a management tool within the District to prepare lands for native prairie seeding. Farming is performed both on newly acquired parcels and on existing WPAs where previously farmed fields are broken and prepared to be planted with native prairie species. Depending on the condition of the site, farming will be used for up to three years with District Manager approval, or as many as five years with Refuge Supervisor concurance, using genetically-midified glyphosate-tolerant (GMGT) crops such as corn or soybeans. GMGT crops are used because the use of roundup on the sites reduces the prevalence of undesireable

June 2020 143

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan species on the site in preparation for planting with local native grasses and forbs. Farming may often continue on newly acquired lands as an option excercied by the the selling party; however, once the property is owned by the Service, farmers must plant GMGT non- neonicotinoid laced crops in accordance with the District’s Farming Plan (USFWS 2014). Farming will not be used for food plots or to provide wildlife food within the District. No neonicotinoids or other “stacked” seed will be used for farming on District lands due to the potential negative impacts on biodiversity. Stacked seed are seeds that have been genetically modified with more than one trait or sold with a pesticide coating. See the District’s Farming Program Environmental Assessment and Farming Program Implementation Plan (USFWS 2014) for more information on farming.

Water Level Manipulation Most watersheds within the District have been altered and the natural hydrological cycles no longer occur. Such hydrological alterations have reduced wetland productivity. The restoration of original wetland function and productivity often requires the development of water control systems to emulate natural hydrological regimes.

Wetlands and shallow lakes and their ecological processes have adapted to periods of low water or drought, and such systems often deteriorate during periods of high water or absence of drought. Drawdowns are used to mimic natural droughts, which occur less frequently than in the past and are the best approach to reestablishing emergent and submergent vegetation. Full drawdowns consolidate bottom sediments, facilitate decomposition of organic material, and stimulate plant growth. The seeds of most species of emergent aquatic vegetation require a period of drying for germination to occur. An additional benefit of a full drawdown includes the removal of rough fish populations. Drawdowns can also be conducted to facilitate vegetation manipulation through prescribed fire or mechanical means. Water level management (timed drawdown and flooding) is a strategy used to mimic the dynamic water regime of some natural wetlands. Drawdowns are typically timed to benefit shorebirds, wading birds, and/or waterfowl. Water levels are usually returned to the desired management level prior to fall migration, or the following spring migration if water is not available in the fall. Generally, slow (over several weeks) drawdowns will provide a greater diversity of moist-soil plants than faster (over a few days) drawdowns (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). Drawdowns can also be conducted to facilitate vegetation manipulation through prescribed fire or mechanical means.

Alternatively, high water elevations mimic flood conditions and help set back emergent vegetation, like dense cattail stands, by drowning them out. To manipulate the aquatic vegetation, the high water must be maintained throughout the growing season and through the fall. In some instances, high water should be maintained for two years to accomplish objectives. Where feasible the best management practice would be to pre-treat the vegetation via fire, mowing or disking before flooding. Flooding should be to a depth of at least two feet above the remaining vegetation to assure that species don’t reach the waterline and to breach the aerenchyma chain for oxygen.

June 2020 144

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Currently the District has several wetlands with water control capability, but with no Water- Control Plan. Over the next five years, District Biology staff will develop plans for these wetlands and begin actively managing them to maximize waterfowl use.

Sediment Removal Removing accumulated sediment from formerly cropped temporary and seasonal wetlands at the time of the initial restoration of the site following acquisition offers one option for the reduction of cattail dominated wetlands. These wetlands often endured decades of conventional cropland tillage across the adjacent uplands resulting in increased erosion of the topsoil into the wetlands. Removal of the accumulated sediment layer above the original soil horizon may return some hydrological and vegetative functionality to the wetland. Due to the high costs associated with the use of heavy equipment needed for this management activity, this method is utilized to a small degree on District lands.

Sediment removal from wetlands works most effectively when the wetland is not inundated or saturated, usually in the fall of the year. A prescribed burn on the wetland with dense vegetation (i.e. cattail spp.) prior to excavation also increases the efficiency of the process, and in many circumstances is a necessary pre-treatment tool. While using excavation as a method for restoration, ensure that the actions do not change the original water regime of the wetland (i.e. convert a temporary wetland to a seasonal). An individual wetland may have both seasonal and temporary zones where sediment depths vary. Therefore, excavation depths may vary across a single wetland.

Sediment excavation requires proper planning to ensure that the placement of the removed material will not negatively impact the restored wetland. Material should be either transported off site or spread in the uplands. The excess material must not be placed within the wetland boundary or adjacent to the wetland. The best place for it is typically in the downstream ditch as the material can be used to block the ditch leaving the basin. Consideration should also be given to the seed bank within the removed sediment layer. Undesirable plant species such as reed-canary grass may be present and grow from the excess soil material to ‘infest’ habitats where the material was placed.

Equipment used for excavation may include excavator, bulldozer, and sometimes a scraper. On small, temporary wetlands the excavator works well, as it is more precise than the bulldozer. Larger temporary wetlands and seasonal basins may require use of a bulldozer. The latter is a less precise piece of equipment and generally results in the removal of 2-4” +/- the targeted sediment removal amount. Scrapers only work if it is dry enough but can move a large amount of dirt in a shorter amount of time resulting in lower costs, especially in larger wetlands.

Invasive Species Control The District manages all invasive species control under the Integrated Pest Management (IPM; USFWS 2010) approach as defined in the Refuge Manual (7 RM 14; USFWS 1982), which includes managing pest and invasive species by combining mechanical, chemical, biological, and cultural tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136r-1)]. Strategies and methods for

June 2020 145

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

invasive species control on the District can take many different forms but the first, and most important is prevention.

Invasive Species Prevention Strategies Actions to prevent invasive species introductions into and within a region are far more cost effective and environmentally desirable than actions undertaken after invasive species establishment (Leung et al. 2002). In addition to Service staff actively treating and controlling invasive species, there are other areas in which invasive species management strategies can be considered or incorporated into habitat management:

Working with Partners Working with partners is one of the most effective way to manage invasive species. Control efforts on the District will have little long-term impact if the surrounding lands and waters are infested with invasive species. Working with partners on invasive species management is important to USFWS. A detailed summary of invasive species related partnerships and funding sources is available online at http://www.fws.gov/invasives/partnerships.html. Where possible, District habitat management will consider the support available through partnerships and resources listed here.

Incorporate Invasive Species Prevention in All Habitat Management Activities Field activities for habitat management can introduce invasive species and create disturbances favorable to species introductions. Some considerations for prevention include:

● Minimize ground disturbance and restore disturbed areas. ● Require mulch, sand, gravel, dirt, and other construction materials to be certified as free of noxious weed seeds. ● Avoid stockpiles of weed-infested materials. ● Inspect vehicles, bmachinery, and gear (hand tools, clothing, hats, socks, shoes, gloves, jackets, etc.) before and after conducting activities ● Remove any contaminated material (plants, animals, and mud) from personal gear in a designated area ● Clean and sanitize sensitive equipment every time it has been exposed to substrates that may harbor invasive species or use dedicated field gear for each site with unique invasive species risks. ● When loaning equipment or vehicles, make an expectation that the equipment is loaned out clean and returned clean. ● Where possible, take reasonable steps to avoid transit through areas of high density, or small isolated populations of invasive species. ● Minimize the number of entry points to a project site.

Invasive Species Management Controlling and managing invasive species is a strategy for maintaining the biological integrity and diversity of all habitats when prevention has failed. In 2015, NWRS invasive species representatives (strike team, invasive species, and IPM coordinators) from all eight regions and headquarters jointly refined a conceptual model depicting the phases of strategic and adaptive

June 2020 146

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan invasive plant management (Figure F.1.). The model was first developed by Region 8 to help focus regional support for invasive plant management. Although focused on invasive plants, the model can be applied in theory to other taxa. In general, the model outlines an iterative approach of invasive species management that includes prioritization, inventorying, management, and monitoring.

Potential management strategies for prioritizing control efforts for established invasive species and controlling invasive species are generally described in the sections below. Prior to the initiation of invasive species control efforts, the refuge manager must understand the biology of the species to be controlled. When invasive species become established, a number of resources are available to assist refuge managers with selecting species-specific strategies for invasive species management. Some good sources of management information include:

● National Invasive Species Information Center: http://invasivespeciesinfo.gov/index.shtml ● Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health: http://www.invasive.org/ ● USGS Invasive Species Program: http://biology.usgs.gov/invasive/ ● Midwest Invasive Plant Network (MIPN): http://mipn.org/ ● Weeds Gone Wild: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/index.htm

June 2020 147

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Figure H.1. Phases of strategic and adaptive invasive plant management.

June 2020 148

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) Where prevention is not possible, early detection and rapid response is the next best strategy for new invasions. The Department of Interior put out a general framework for EDRR efforts last year (DOI 2016).

• See: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/National%20EDRR%20Framework.pdf

This approach to invasive species control is based on the well-documented phases of invasion (Rawlins et al. 2011 and depicted in Figure 2 below), with the goal of recognizing invasions in their early phase and eradicating infestations before they grow too large to eradicate. Success will depend, in part, on participation by all District staff, researchers, and volunteers to report and respond to invasions.

Figure H.2. Phases of invasive species invasion and control (from Rawlins et al. 2011).

Tools and resources for early detection and distribution mapping have been developed and are readily available online from several sources. One such source of information includes EDDMapS (Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System) developed by The University of Georgia - Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. This site includes mapping tools, species distribution maps, and other spatial datasets that inform invasive species distribution:

● EDDMapS: https://www.eddmaps.org/

When small infestations are spotted, they should be eradicated as soon as possible. The site must then be monitored for several years to ensure the control was effective.

June 2020 149

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Prioritizing Invasive Species Control Efforts The first step in prioritizing invasive species control efforts is to set clear management objectives and then compare a suite of management alternatives against those objectives. Once measureable objectives and management alternatives have been selected then prioritization can occur.

There are several ranking tools to assist land managers with the daunting task of prioritizing their invasive plant control efforts. The Fulfilling the Promise National Invasive Species Management Strategy Team recommends using the following order of priority to determine appropriate actions:

1. Smallest scale of infestation 2. Poses greatest threat to land management objectives 3. Greatest ease of control.

The following ranking systems are available for prioritizing invasive plant species control:

• Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for Their Impact on Biodiversity. Version 1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/library/invasiveSpeciesAssessmentProtocol.pdf • Hiebert, R.D. and J. Stubbendieck. 1993. Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management and Control. National Park Service. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08. Denver, Colorado. Available online at: http://especes- envahissantes-outremer.fr/pdf/methode_hierarchisation_hiebert.pdf ● APRS Implementation Team. 2000. Alien plants ranking system version 5.1. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. (Version 30SEP2002). ● Zimmerman, C., M. Jordan, G. Sargis, H. Smith, K. Schwager. 2011. An Invasive Plant Management Decision Tool. Version 1.1. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. http://greatlakesresilience.org/sites/default/files/library_reference_2011_TheNatureCo nservancy_IPMDAT.pdf

Categories of treatment control are adapted from guidance outlined in The Nature Conservancy’s Invasive Plant Management Decision Analysis Tool Report (Zimmerman et al. 2011). This recommended approach contains three potential control options: eradication, containment, and suppression.

● Eradication attempts to eliminate all individuals and the seed bank from an area with the low likelihood of needing to address the species again in the future. ● A containment/reduction approach prevents infestations of invasive species from spreading to uninfested areas and (where possible) seeks to reduce population sizes to a level suitable for eradication. ● Suppression attempts to reduce an invasive plant population in size, abundance, and/or reproductive output below the threshold needed to maintain a species or ecological process.

June 2020 150

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

“Eradication is considered successful when no plants are recovered from the initial infested area for three consecutive years” (Zimmerman et al. 2011). Eradication is practical only for small-scale infestations, generally identified in the introduction phase. Rejmánek and Pitcairn (2002) recommend infestations of < 1 ha (2.47 acres) be considered for eradication in California.

According to Zimmerman et al. (2011), containment may involve methods that prevent reproduction and dispersal, treating the perimeter of a large infestation, and/or eliminating small satellite infestations. “Containment is most effective with species that spread slowly, move short distances, and for which effective barriers can be established” (Hulme 2006). Reduction seeks to eliminate any occurrences within the area and/or prevent the invasive species from spreading into the project area from the surrounding landscape. Similar techniques and management thresholds are at work for either focus of this approach.

The timeframe of a suppression effort may vary depending on the invasive plant and desired conservation outcome. Zimmerman et al. (2011) cites several examples where suppression is best suited:

1. Areas targeted for planting desired species in order to establish and become competitive. 2. Interim competition pressure on desired species needs to be reduced so that they may persist. 3. Areas where suppression helps maintain conditions for rare or listed species.

Restore Altered Habitats and Reintroduce Native Plants Restoration is critically important because the conditions responsible for the initial invasion will expose the site to a resurgence of the invasive species, as well as a secondary invasion of one or more different species. Furthermore, restoration of a disturbed area before the initial invasion may preclude the need for further control efforts. The goal is to conserve and promote natural processes that will inherently suppress potential pest populations (DOI 2007).

If funding or personnel are not available to restore highly disturbed areas in a timely manner, consider planting a cover crop for several years to stabilize the site prior to reintroducing native plants. This will prevent more invasive seeds from entering the environment until the site can be restored. Native plants can then be established by direct seeding or planting with less competition from invasives in the seed bank. When practical, local genotypes of native species should be used.

Biological Control Biological control is the use of animals or disease organisms that feed upon or parasitize an invasive species target. Usually, the control agent is imported from the invasive species’ native country, and artificially high numbers of the control agent are fostered and maintained. The advantages of biological control are that it avoids the use of chemicals and can provide relatively inexpensive and sometimes permanent control over large areas. Biological control

June 2020 151

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan agents have not been released on District lands and their use will be examined as they become available. Invasive species found on the District with biological control potential are:

• Leafy Spurge: The primary controlling actions for leafy spurge include consumption of above-ground plant material, consumption of root material, and blocking seed production. Three biocontrol agents are used to control leafy spurge. These include two species of flea beetles Aphthona nigriscutis and Aphthona lacertosa and one stem- boring beetle Oberea erythrocephala. Flea beetles have produced the greatest impact on leafy spurge. Adults from both species feed on spurge leaves and floral parts and further impact the plant by ovipositing eggs at the base of the plant. Larvae hatch, burrow into the soil, and begin feeding on very small leafy spurge roots and root hairs. As they develop, the larvae utilize progressively larger spurge roots. Mature larvae may also be found burrowing within large lateral roots and root buds. The stem-boring beetle adults feed on the spurge stems and leaves. The female will mine a hole in the stem and lay eggs. The larvae mine their way down the stem into the root system. The affected stems wilt and die. All three biocontrol agents feed on the leafy spurge stems, leaves, and roots. They increase plant mortality, reduce plant health and create pathways for the introduction of plant pathogens. Research indicates that flea beetles can reduce leafy spurge stem densities by as much as 80- 90% in release areas (Kirby et al. 2000).

In some situations, integrating prescribed fire or grazing at leafy spurge biocontrol sites can enhance control. Carefully timed fire, when the adults are not active, will not harm established colonies of A. nigriscutis and can improve recruitment on new release sites (Fellows and Newton 1999). Grazing sheep or goats in combination with biological control agents may provide a more rapid reduction of leafy spurge stem density and vigor than the biological control agents alone (Bourchier et al. 2006). In part these effects may be related to the litter layer in the grassland – a very thick litter layer may result in females laying eggs too far from the soil surface or may inhibit emergence in the spring.

• Purple Loosestrife: Leaf-beetles (Galerucella sp.) were found in the mid-1990s to control purple loosestrife. Leaf-beetles are good fliers and can disperse up to four miles in a year. They have been found more than 20km (12 mi) from their original release site on unmanaged purple loosestrife infestations (MN DNR 2020). They tolerate a wide range of conditions but prefer full sun and fairly stable water levels. Adult and larval beetles defoliate plants, effectively stressing the plant to the point of reducing shoot height and may inhibit flowering. Adult Loosestrife beetles emerge in early spring (April-May) and feed on leaves and young shoots of the loosestrife plant. Eggs are laid on leaves and stems. Initially, the larvae feed on leaf buds, moving to leaves and stems as they grow larger. The larvae pupate in the leaf litter below the plant, or, if the plant is in flooded water, in the aerenchyma in the stem. New adults emerge in mid-June to mid-July, feed for a short time, and then overwinter in the litter (Wilson et al. 2004). Although beetles have not been released in the Districts, there is potential that beetles can move in from adjacent sites and begin feeding on the loosestrife. Assessments can be made to see if

June 2020 152

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

the infestation already contains the biological control agents, and if the population needs to be augmented.

Detailed discussion of the application and impacts of biological controls on Service lands is available at: http://www.fws.gov/invasives/staffTrainingModule/methods/biological/impacts.html

Physical Control Physical (also referred to as mechanical or manual) removal of invasive organisms can be effective against some herbaceous plants, shrubs and saplings, and aquatic organisms. This is particularly effective for plants that are annuals or have a taproot. Care should be taken to minimize soil disturbance to prevent creating conditions ideal for weed seed germination. Repeated cutting over a growing period is needed for effective control of many invasive plant species. Care should be taken to properly remove and dispose of any plant parts that can re- sprout. Treatments should be timed to prevent seed set and re-sprouting. The following methods are available: hand-pulling, pulling with hand tools (weed wrench, etc.), mowing, brush-hogging, weed-eating, stabbing (cutting roots while leaving in place), girdling (removing cambium layer), mulching, tilling, smothering (black plastic or other), and flooding.

Mowing can be used to reduce plant height and deplete energy reserves of invasive and robust plants. Repeated mowing within a growing season is often necessary to successfully control invasive plants. This can be logistically difficult in a habitat that is managed for various resources of concern. However, mowing can be effective when combined with other strategies, such as chemical treatment, spring flooding, and disking. Timing of mowing should be scheduled to maximize above ground energy reserves and to prevent seed dispersal (late summer). Mowing may also increase plant diversity by creating space (light) for other species to germinate.

The advantages of mechanical treatment are low cost for equipment and supplies and minimal damage to neighboring plants and the environment. The disadvantages are higher costs for labor and inability to control large areas. For many invasive species, mechanical treatments alone are not effective, especially for mature plants or well-established plants. Mechanical treatments are most effective when combined with herbicide treatments (e.g. girdle and herbicide treatment).

Detailed discussion of the application and impacts of physical controls on Service lands is available at: http://www.fws.gov/invasives/staffTrainingModule/methods/physical/impacts.html

Herbicides Invasive and robust plants in impoundments can be managed using herbicides approved for use in wetlands. Methods of application include spot-treatment using backpack or ATV mounted sprayer, or aerial application. Spot-treated is more targeted (avoiding neighboring plants) but can be very labor intensive when treating large areas. Aerial application is less labor-intense, but is not as target-specific, and requires extensive planning to execute. Herbicides are applied

June 2020 153

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

during various times of the growing season depending on plant species and overall goal. For long term control, herbicide application is typically combined with other methods, such as mowing, burning, and flooding.

There are a wide variety of chemicals that are toxic to plant and animal species. They may work in different ways and be very target specific or affect a wide range of species. Herbicides may be “pre-emergent,” that is, applied prior to germination to prevent germination or kill the seedling, or “post-emergent” and may have various modes of action (auxin mimic, amino acid inhibitor, mitosis inhibitor, photosynthesis inhibitor, lipid biosynthesis inhibitor). Products may come in granular, pelleted, dust or liquid forms. Liquid herbicides are commonly diluted to an appropriate formula and mixed with other chemicals that facilitate mixing, application, or efficacy. Common application methods include foliar spray, basal bark, hack and squirt, injection, and cut stump. The timing of applications is critical to achieve good control, as the growth stage at which an organism will be most effectively controlled varies with different species.

The advantages are that the right chemicals, applied correctly, can produce desired results over a large area for a reasonable cost. The disadvantages are that the chemicals may affect non- target species at the site (including the applicator) and/or contaminate surface or groundwater. Proper planning includes using the most target-specific, least hazardous (humans and the environment), and most effective chemical for the job. Additionally, one should research minimum effective dosage, as the chemical labels often give higher than necessary concentrations. Herbicides often are most effective when used in combination with mechanical methods described above.

Attention to protective gear, licensing requirements and other regulations is essential. In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all pesticide and other chemical applications (including adjuvants designed to enhance effectiveness) are covered by Service and departmental regulations, and a Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) is required for all pesticide applications.

Prescribed Fire Fire can either suppress or encourage any given plant species, so great care must be taken to understand the ecosystem and the life histories of the native and invasive plants before using this tool. This tool is most successful when it is used to mimic natural fire regimes. Proper timing of prescribed burns is essential for controlling target invasive species. The most effective fires for invasive plant control occur just prior to flower or seed set, or at the young sapling/seedling stage. Invasive plants are well adapted to disturbance, often surviving fire and rapidly spreading through a disturbed landscape. Studies in northeastern successional habitats have generally shown that fire alone will not remove invasive shrubs. Additional herbicide and/or cutting treatments are necessary (Patterson 2003).

This tool requires a good deal of pre-planning (including permitting) and requires a trained crew available on short notice during the burn window. Spot burning using a propane torch can be a good method to control small infestations of invasive plants. It can be advantageous where it is too wet or where there is too little fuel to carry a prescribed fire.

June 2020 154

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

There are several principles that should be considered when employing prescribed fire to control woody plants:

• Plant mortality is strongly tied to death of “growth points” (i.e. meristems/buds), which are more sensitive to heat damage when actively growing, and when tissue moisture is high (Miller 2000). Therefore, applying fire during spring, when target plants are mobilizing water/nutrients and breaking dormancy of leaf/flower buds, or during fall cold-acclimation periods, is more likely to kill growth points than prescribed fire during dormant periods. • Concentrations of metabolic compounds, i.e. sugars, salts, lignins, vary seasonally, and have been shown to relate to seasonal effects on shrubs. Consequently, timing of treatments may be more important than the type (cutting versus burning) in controlling invasive plants. To reduce biomass, fires should be applied during periods of low below- ground carbohydrate storage (i.e. immediately after spring flushing and growth) and should be followed with a second growing season treatment (such as mowing, herbicide, or more prescribed fire) before total non-structural carbohydrate (TNC) levels are replenished. Repeated burning (several consecutive years) during the low point of a plant’s TNC cycle can amplify the negative effects of the treatment (Richburg and Patterson 2003, Richburg et al. 2004).

June 2020 155

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Literature Cited APRS Implementation Team. 2000. Alien plants ranking system version 5.1. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. (Version 30SEP2002).

Archer, S., and D. A. Pyke. 1991. Plant-animal interactions affecting plant establishment and persistence on revegetated rangeland. Journal of Range Management 44:558-565.

Bourchier, R., R. Hansen, R. Lym, A. Norton, D. Olson, C. B. Randall, M. Schwarzlander, L. Skinner. 2006. Biology and biological control of leafy spurge. In U.S. Forest Service (eds.): Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team: 1-125.

Dickmann, D. I. and D. T. Cleland. 2002. Fire return intervals and fire cycles for historic fire regimes in the Great Lakes Region: A synthesis of the literature, DRAFT. Great Lakes Ecological Assessment. 21 p.

[DOI] The U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007. Integrated Pest Management Policy (517 DM 1). Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance. Retrieved from: https://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/pdf/DOIIPMpolicyFINAL.pdf

[DOI] The U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016. Safeguarding America’s lands and waters from invasive species: A national framework for early detection and rapid response, Washington D.C., 55 p. Retrieved from: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/National%20EDRR%20Framework.pdf

Fellows, D. P. and W. E. Newton. 1999. Prescribed fire effects on biological control of leafy spurge. Journal of Range Management. 52:489-493.

Fredrickson, L. H., and T. S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 148. 29 pp.

Grygiel C. E., Norland J. E., and Biondini M. E. (2009) Precision Prairie Reconstruction (PPR): a technique for increasing native forb species richness in an established grass matrix. Ecological Restoration 27:458 – 446

Helzer, C. 2010. The ecology and management of prairies in the central United States. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, USA.

Hiebert, R. D. and J. Stubbendieck. 1993. Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management and Control. National Park Service. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08. Denver, Colorado. Available online at: http://especes-envahissantes- outremer.fr/pdf/methode_hierarchisation_hiebert.pdf

Higgins, K. F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium of historical fire accounts in the northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 161, Washington, D.C., USA.

June 2020 156

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Houston, C. S., C. R. Jackson, and D. E. Bowen, Jr. 2011. Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). Account 580 in A. Poole, editor. The birds of North America online, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Hulme, P. E. 2006. Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology. 43:835-847.

Kirby, D. R., R. B. Carlson, K. D. Krabbenhoft, D. Mundal, and M. M. Kirby. 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge with introduced flea beetles (Aphthona spp.). Journal of Range Management 53:305-308.

Larson, D. L. 2009. Evaluation of restoration methods to minimize Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) infestation: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1130, 48 p.

Leung, B., D. M. Lodge, D. Finnoff, J. F. Shogren, M. Lewis, and G. Lamberti. 2002. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B 269: 2407–2413.

[MN DNR] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2020. Biological control of purple loosestrife. Retrieved from: www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/aquaticplants/purpleloosestrife/biocontrol.html

Morse, L. E., J. M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for Their Impact on Biodiversity. Version 1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/library/invasiveSpeciesAssessmentProtocol.pdf

Naugle, D. E., K. F. Higgins, and K. K. Bakker. 2000. A synthesis of the effects of upland management practices on waterfowl and other birds in the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada. College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, WI. Wildlife Technical Report 1. 28 pp.

[NRCS-USDA] Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2009. Conservation planting methods for native and introduced species. Plant materials technical note no. 14. Alexandria, Louisiana.

[NRCS-USDA] Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Warm Season Grasses in New Hampshire. Harrisburg, PA.

Olechnowski, B. F. M., D. M. Debinski, P. Drobney, K. Viste-Sparkman and W. T. Reed. 2009. Changes in vegetation structure through time in a restored tallgrass prairie ecosystem and applications for avian diversity and community composition. Ecological Restoration 27(4):449-457.

June 2020 157

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

Packard, S. 1997. Interseeding. Pages 163-191 in S. Packard and C.F. Mutel, editors. The tallgrass restoration handbook for prairies, savannas, and woodlands. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Patterson III, W. A. 2003. Using Fire to Control Invasive Plants: What’s New, What Works in the Northeast? Overview and Synthesis. Page 38-41 in K. P. Bennet, A. C. Dibble, W. A Patterson III. Using Fire to Control Invasive Plants: What’s New, What Works in the Northeast, 2003 Workshop Proceedings. Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Rawlins, K. A., J. E. Griffin, D. J. Moorhead, C. T. Bargeron, and C. W. Evans. 2011. EDDMapS: Invasive Plant Mapping Handbook. The University of Georgia. Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, Tifton GA. BW-2011-02. 32 p.

Region 3 Grazing and Haying Program Guidance. 2014. Unpublished document. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Bloomington, MN. 66 pp. ServCat Record: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/115657

Rejmanek, M. and M. J. Pitcairn. 2002. When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? Page 249-253 in C. R. Veitch and M. N. Clout, eds. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. Auckland, New Zealand: Invasive Species Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Richburg, J. A. and W. A. Patterson III. 2003. Can northeastern woody invasive plants be controlled with cutting and burning treatments? Page 1-3 in K. P. Bennet, A. C. Dibble, W. A Patterson III. Using Fire to Control Invasive Plants: What’s New, What Works in the Northeast, 2003 Workshop Proceedings. Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Richburg, J. A. and W. A. Patterson III, N. Ohman. 2004. Fire Management Options for Controlling Woody Invasive Plants in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic U.S. Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Sample, D. W. and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds, a guide for Wisconsin. Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Wiscoinsin Departmentof Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 154pp.

Solecki, M. K. 1997. Controlling invasive plants. Pages 251-278 in S. Packard and C.F. Mutel, editors. The tallgrass restoration handbook for prairies, savannas, and woodlands. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Sojda, R. S. and K. L. Solberg. 1993. Management and control of cattails. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.13. 8 p. Washington, D.C.

June 2020 158

St. Croix Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manual (7 RM 14). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia. Retrieved from: https://training.fws.gov/resources/course- resources/pesticides/Pesticide%20Regulations%20and%20Policies/7%20RM%2014.doc

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. St. Croix Wetland Management District fire management plan. St. Croix Wetland Management District, New Richmond, Wisconsin, USA.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Integrated Pest Management, Refuge Manual. (569 FW 1).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. St. Croix Wetland Management District Farming Program Implementation Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin, USA

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. St. Croix Wetland Management District Grazing and Haying Program Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin, USA

Vickery, P. D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America, 239. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1976. Cattail-the significance of its growth, phenology and carbohydrate storage to its control and management. Technical Bulletin No. 94 Department of Natural Resources Madision, WI. Retrieved from: https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ss/SS0094.pdf

Weller, M. W. 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to management for marsh wildlife. Iowa State J. Res. 49(4): 383-412.

Willson, G. D., and J. Stubbendieck. 2000. A provisional model for smooth brome management in degraded tallgrass prairie. Ecological Restoration 18:34-38.

Wilson, L. M., M. Schwarzlaender, B. Blossey, and C. B. Randall. 2004. Biology and Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Agroforestry Center. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 112 p.

Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1980. Fire ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains: A research review. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-77

Zimmerman, C., M. Jordan, G. Sargis, H. Smith, K. Schwager. 2011. An Invasive Plant Management Decision Tool. Version 1.1. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://greatlakesresilience.org/sites/default/files/library_reference_2011_TheNatureCons ervancy_IPMDAT.pdf

June 2020 159