Wisconsin' s\
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program\
(WHIP) Plan

Updated 9/2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NATIONAL & REGIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE PRIORITIES 4

INTRODUCTION 4

OBJECTIVES 6

WHIP PRIORITY HABITAT TYPES 7

Oak Savanna 7

Oak and Pine Barrens 9

Prairie/grassland 11

Aquatic Communities 14

STATE RANKING CRITERIA 16

MEASURING PROGRAM SUCCESS AND MONITORING 17

PARTNERSHIP INVOLVEMENT 17

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 19

LITERATURE CITED/OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION 21\
\
APPENDIX I

\- Potential and Documented Range in Wisconsin (map) 23

APPENDIX II

\- Table 1: Species of greatest conservation need-Oak Savanna 23\
- Table 2: Species of greatest conservation need-Oak/Pine Barren 23

\- Table 3: Species of greatest conservation need-prairie/grassland 23

\- Table 4: Species of greatest conservation need-cool/coldwater stream
24

\- Table 5: Species of greatest conservation need-warmwater
rivers/streams 24

\- Table 6: Species of greatest conservation need-inland lakes 25

[NATIONAL AND REGIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE PRIORITIES]{.underline}

Projects that enhance habitat essential for the survival of federally
protected species or those that are candidates for listing under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 have priority. Also of concern are
state listed species and local species of concern. With this in mind,
WHIP in Wisconsin will focus on:

-   Promoting the restoration of declining or important native wildlife
    habitats

-   Protecting, restoring, developing or enhancing wildlife habitat of
    at-risk species (candidate species, state and federally listed
    species)

-   Reducing the impacts of invasive species on native wildlife habitats

-   Protecting, restoring, developing or enhancing declining or
    important aquatic wildlife species' habitats

[INTRODUCTION]{.underline}\
Located at the junction of three of North America's six biotic
provinces-the eastern deciduous forest, the northern boreal forest, and
the temperate grasslands-Wisconsin has a wealth of species and
biological communities. At least 335 species of birds, 78 mammals, 70
amphibians and reptiles, 170 species of fish, 1800 species of native
plants, and literally thousands of species of invertebrates such as
insects, mollusks, and crustaceans have been identified in Wisconsin.

The location and extent of Wisconsin's biological communities are
determined by environmental factors including moisture, temperature,
soils, and climate. Natural factors, especially the glaciers, but also
windstorms, fires, droughts, and floods, shaped Wisconsin's landscape.
Human activities, beginning with Native American activities and
continuing into today's intensive use of land and water, have also had
profound impacts on Wisconsin's biological communities.

Curtis (1959) originally identified 21 major plant communities in
Wisconsin, with Wisconsin's Biodiversity Report (WDNR 1995) aggregating
those into seven major biological communities. We are proposing to do
targeted work in four of those biological communities through WHIP:

> Oak savanna (primarily restoration and management)\
> Oak and pine barren (primarily restoration and management)\
> Grassland prairie (primarily restoration and management)\
> Aquatic (warm- and cold-water fisheries habitat management and wild
> rice waters restoration)

Oak savannas are characterized by open grassland areas interspersed with
trees, especially oaks. Savannas, historically found in southern and
western Wisconsin, were the gradation between the great prairies and the
eastern deciduous forests. The savannas were perpetuated by fire. In the
early 1800s, Wisconsin had perhaps 5.5 million acres of oak savanna,
virtually all of which has been destroyed for agriculture and urban
development or has succumbed to natural succession as fire has been
suppressed. Oak savanna is now virtually non-existent in Wisconsin, with
only 0.01 % remaining as scattered remnants. Fortunately, oak savanna
restoration is possible, through the use of fire, control of exotic
plant species, grazing management, and plantings.

Oak and pine barrens, like savannas, depend on fire to maintain their
unique character. These communities, which are found in central and
northern Wisconsin where soils are poor, are characterized by sparse
scrub pine or oak scattered among shrubs, brush, and grasses. In the
early 1800s, barrens covered about 4.1 million acres of Wisconsin.
Barrens communities have been destroyed by agriculture and urban
development, or have succeeded to forest in the absence of fire. Only a
few remnants remain. As with other communities, many of the plant and
animal species associated with barrens have managed to survive, though
often in reduced numbers. The potential for restoration of barrens areas
on public and private land is good if controlled burning, cutting, and
reseeding are used as management tools.

Wisconsin's grassland prairie communities, characterized by the absence
of trees and large shrubs and the dominance of grass and forb species,
are at the periphery of the extensive mid-continent grassland biome,
which lies south and west of the state. These grasslands, which grew up
5,000-6,000 years ago after the glaciers retreated, were maintained by
fire and probably by large grazing animals such as buffalo. Prior to
Euro-American settlement, Wisconsin had about 3.1 million acres of
prairies, of which almost one million acres were a wet prairie type
known as "sedge meadow".

The grassland biome has been degraded throughout its range, generally
from farming and grazing, but also from urban development. Some prairie
areas also grew up into trees and shrubs as fire was controlled. Thus,
the prairie community has been severely fragmented, with only 0.5% of
original grassland remaining as scattered remnants. Prairies, along with
oak savannas, are the most endangered natural communities in Wisconsin.
As a result, an estimated 15%-20% of the state's original grassland
flora is now considered rare here. Grassland mammals and birds adapted
better, using "surrogate" grasslands such as pastures for their survival
needs. Managed use of fire, removal of trees and shrubs, light grazing,
control of exotics, and prairie grass/forb plantings will aid prairie
restoration. Populations of grassland mammals and birds can also be
restored by establishing "surrogate" grassland habitat on both private
and public lands.

When the glaciers receded, they left behind a variety of aquatic
communities, including springs, ponds, lakes, and more than 33,000 miles
of rivers and streams. Simplification of many aquatic systems has
occurred due to introduction of exotic species of fish which
successfully compete against native species, as well as large-scale
destruction of shorelines and other habitats. Fragmentation and loss of
habitat has been caused by dam construction. Other activities that
create pollution or cause simplification and fragmentation of aquatic
systems include agricultural and urban development and resulting runoff,
channelization of streams, and shoreline development and the resulting
loss of habitat and spawning areas. Agriculture can have a dramatic
impact on aquatic ecosystems. Practices of particular concern are
overgrazing of livestock in riparian areas, plowing and tilling of
erodible soils, concentrated nutrient runoff from barnyards and feed
lots, pesticide and nutrient runoff from fields, loss of upland
vegetation when forests and prairies are brought under cultivation,
dredging and filling of wetlands, and channelization of streams.

**OBJECTIVES**\
The biological communities identified in this plan are, for the most
part, communities that are extremely rare in Wisconsin, host a large
percentage of the endangered, threatened, and special concern species in
the state. Current programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP),
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) compliment some of the objectives in this plan, yet many
of the lands and practices proposed have not been eligible under these
programs in the past. WHIP provides an opportunity for NRCS to address
resource management concerns in some of these critically important
ecosystems.

The objectives of the Wisconsin WHIP plan are to:

1\) Restore retrievable oak savanna through the creative use of tree
thinning, brushing, burning, invasive species management, plant
reintroduction, and in some cases, grazing management.

2\) Restore and manage pine and oak barrens through cutting, burning,
invasive species management, plant reintroduction and moderate grazing
where appropriate.

3\) Restore and manage a range of prairie/grassland communities from dry
prairie to sedge meadow through the control of woody succession,
burning, invasive species control, grazing management and plant
reintroduction.

4\) Improve habitat conditions for fish and wildlife species dependent
upon warm- and cold-water streams (through instream habitat management,
invasive species control, riparian buffering, and grazing management)
and wild rice waters (through water level management and wild rice
seeding).

WHIP Priority Habitat Types

**[Oak Savannas]{.underline}**\
In the early to mid-19th century, the oak savanna as an ecosystem was
thoroughly fragmented and nearly totally destroyed throughout its range.
Most of its acreage suffered one of the following fates: clearing and
plowing, overgrazing, invasion by dense shrub and tree growth due to
lack of fire, lack of grazing, or both. Oak savanna now shares equal
billing with tallgrass prairie as the most threatened plant community in
the Midwest and among the most threatened in the world (WDNR 1995).
Intact examples of oak savanna vegetation are now so rare that less than
500 acres are listed in the Wisconsin's Natural Heritage Inventory as
having a plant assemblage similar to the original oak savanna. This is
less than 0.01 % of the original 5.5 million acres in the state.

[What priority species are going to benefit]{.underline}?\
Many plant species that were probably savanna specialists are now
uncommon and are found only in the fringes and openings of oak woods,
brushy areas, and lightly grazed pastures. Some examples are yellow
pimpernel, pale Indian plantain, woodland thistle, downy wild rye,
elm-leaved goldenrod, New Jersey tea, sessile-leaved eupatorium, and
horse gentian. Two likely savanna specialists (purple milkweed and wild
hyacinth) are listed as endangered in Wisconsin and three others (kitten
tails, cream gentian, and Virginia lespedeza) are listed as threatened.

Many of the mammal species that were closely associated with our
historical oak savannas are still doing well today (e.g., long-tailed
weasel, cottontail rabbit, woodchuck, fox squirrel, red fox, and
white-tailed deer). However, others have been extirpated from the former
savanna regions (e.g., timber wolf, bison, and elk). Some mammals
associated with the most open savannas (and the prairies) have not fared
as well with the changes. For example, the least shrew and the
Franklin's ground squirrel are of special concern in the state.

Most savanna bird species are still doing very well today (e.g.,
American robin, indigo bunting, blue jay, American goldfinch, and brown
thrasher). Only one oak savanna bird, the passenger pigeon, has become
extinct, and another, the turkey, was extirpated but restored. However,
a number of savanna bird species have not thrived or have begun to
decline in recent years (e.g., black-billed cuckoo, northern flicker,
red-headed woodpecker, warbling vireo, vesper sparrow, bobwhite quail,
and field sparrow). One species, the orchard oriole, is on the state's
list of special concern species; one, Bell's vireo, is on the state's
list of threatened species; and two others, the loggerhead shrike and
barn owl, are on the state's endangered species list (Table 1). Although
loss of habitat has not been the cause of decline in all these species,
it certainly is affecting many of them. The abandonment and loss of
savanna/woodlot pastures in the past few decades may be playing a role
in some of these recent declines in savanna bird species.

Most of the amphibian and reptile species that were closely associated
with historical oak savannas are still doing at least moderately well
today (e.g., Cope's gray treefrog, five-lined skink, eastern hognose
snake, smooth green snake, western fox snake, eastern milk snake, and
Dekay's snake). However, two reptiles associated with savanna habitat
are suffering from habitat loss. These are the western slender glass
lizard (state threatened) and the eastern massasauga rattlesnake
(federally endangered). Oak savanna sites may be important nesting sites
for turtle species such as the threatened Blanding's turtle in some
areas, as agriculture continues to dominate open spaces traditionally
used for turtle nesting.

Unlike the vertebrate communities, our knowledge of oak savanna
invertebrates is very limited. We don't know what species were
characteristic or restricted to the community, let alone their current
status.

[What practices are we going to use]{.underline}?\
In the absence of active management, the future of oak savanna looks
very bleak in Wisconsin and throughout its entire range. The increasing
abandonment of lightly to moderately grazed wooded pastures and the
accelerating succession of oak woodlots toward heavy shade-producing
trees and shrubs will lead to the decline and possible loss of much of
what remains of the savanna flora and fauna, including the eventual
decline of the oaks themselves.

Currently there are hundreds if not thousands of acres of overgrown but
retrievable oak savanna on publicly managed lands in Wisconsin. In
addition there are probably thousands of acres of private land, both
overgrazed and overgrown, with retrievable oak savanna. Much of this
land, especially low productivity sites, could be restored within a
decade by tree thinning, brushing and burning. Well-drained, rich soil
sites will require more work and time to restore. Some plant
reintroduction may be necessary, but much can be accomplished with fire
alone. Light grazing may also have potential as a savanna management
tool and as a means of maintaining the open habitat required by many
savanna vertebrates. Grazing, however, should not be considered the best
management tool for most savanna plants, although some may do well under
light grazing.

[Relationship to regional strategic plans. state plans. and other
conservation programs]{.underline}\
The importance of savanna restoration and management in Wisconsin is
described in the Wisconsin's nationally approved Strategy for Wildlife
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WDNR 2005), Wisconsin's
Biodiversity Report (1995), Henderson and Krause's (1995) Potential
landscape scale management opportunities for southern Wisconsin's most
threatened landscapes report, and the Midwest Oak Ecosystem Recovery
Plan (1995). Albert (1995) also identified savanna restoration as one of
many conservation concerns in his Regional Landscape Ecosystems of
Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin report.

**[Oak and Pine Barrens]{.underline}**\
Barrens are plant communities that occur on sandy soils and are
dominated by grasses, low shrubs, small trees, and scattered large
trees. Pine barrens originally covered 2.3 million acres, or 7% of
Wisconsin's presettlement landscape. Oak barrens covered 1.8 million
acres, or 5% of the presettlement landscape. Today, the Natural Heritage
Inventory lists pine barrens as G3 (very rare and local throughout is
range or found locally) and oak barrens as G2 (imperiled globally
because of rarity).

Since Euro-American settlement, the pine and oak barrens communities
have been reduced to small scattered parcels with a simplified
vegetative structure and a reduced composition of plants and animals.
Control of wildfire, forest succession, pine plantation development, and
agricultural development have all worked to bring the barrens
communities to their current rarity.

[What priority species are we going to benefit?]{.underline}\
Barrens are inhabited by animals that require open, brushy habitats
(Table 2). Large, open barrens are critical habitat for sharp-tailed
grouse (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1952, Gregg 1987). Barrens large
enough to sustain a viable population of sharptails will also sustain
populations of other plants and animals common to large, open, brushy
habitats. In addition to sharp-tailed grouse, other characteristic
species that are found in barrens equally or more commonly than perhaps
in any other native Wisconsin community include upland sandpiper,
northern flicker, eastern kingbird, eastern bluebird, brown thrasher,
Tennessee warbler, lark sparrow, Brewer's blackbird and American
goldfinch (Mossman et al. 1991). Several singing males of the federally
endangered Kirtland's warbler have been located in west-central and
northwestern Wisconsin pine barrens.

Vogt (1981) found Cope's gray treefrog, American toad, five-lined skink,
hognose snake, green snake, and bullsnake common in Wisconsin pine and
oak barrens. Jim Hoefler (WDNR wildlife biologist) reports prairie skink
common in northwestern barrens. Eric Epstein (WDNR Natural Heritage
Program ecologist) reports the six-lined racerunner and slender glass
lizard present in west- central Wisconsin pine and oak barrens.

In general, little is known about the invertebrates that occupy the
barrens community or the ecological function they fulfill. An exception
is the butterfly and moth fauna, which has been extensively studied by
Ferge (1990). Larvae of the Karner blue butterfly, a federally
endangered species found primarily in northwestern and central
Wisconsin, feed only on lupine. The state endangered Northern blue
butterfly and the phlox flower moth are also found in barrens, as is the
state threatened frosted elfin butterfly. Several species of special
concern are found in barrens habitat including the Nevada buck moth, and
a host of butterflies including the Persius dusky wing, Leonard's
skipper, cobweb skipper, dusted skipper, Henry's elfin, Gorgone
checkerspot, and tawny crescent.

[What practices are we going to do?]{.underline}\
Despite the neglect and abuse that most barrens have undergone since
settlement, this is one of our most resilient natural communities, and
it will respond to careful management by prescribed burns and cutting
(Mossman et al. 1991). Barrens management tools include prescribed fire,
mechanical management (such as timber cutting, tree-girdling and
brush-hogging), selective herbicide treatment, native plant restoration,
or grazing. Many plants and animals native to disturbance-adapted
communities like the barrens depend on the ability to either survive the
disturbance at some level, or to recolonize from undisturbed areas
nearby. Many sites are so dry that they require only very infrequent
disturbance.

Sites targeted to support the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly
may not provide sufficient wild lupine, which can quite easily be seeded
in. In other cases, occupied areas may require enhancement with
additional nectaring plants or tall prairie grasses to favor the Karner
blue and other invertebrate species that may depend on certain plants.

Pine barrens management should ideally result in a mosaic of vegetation
types ranging from recently clearcut stands to stands of mature timber.
Temporary barrens communities would include pockets of dense jack pine
regeneration, open grassy areas, scattered single large red and white
pines, upland brush pockets (hazel/oak), patches of aspen, and patches
of scrub oak all mixed together in a large open barrens consisting
primarily of native forbs, grasses and low heath sized shrubs (Greg
Kessler, WDNR wildlife biologist).

[Relationship to regional strategic plans. state plans. and other
conservation programs]{.underline}\
The importance of barren restoration and management in Wisconsin is
described in the Wisconsin's nationally approved Strategy for Wildlife
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WDNR 2005), Wisconsin's in
Wisconsin's Biodiversity Report (1995). Gregg (1987) recognized the
importance of barrens management for the future of sharp-tailed grouse
in Wisconsin. Shively and Temple (1994) proposed an ecosystem recovery
plan for Wisconsin pine barrens in recognition of their status and
importance in Wisconsin. Albert (1995) identified barrens restoration as
one of many conservation concerns in his Regional Landscape Ecosystem of
Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin report. Barrens habitat restoration
and management is also a critical component to the Habitat Conservation
Plan developed for the protection and recovery of the federally
endangered Karner blue butterfly

**Prairie/Grassland**\
Over the past 150 years, the mid-continental grassland biome has been
greatly reduced and degraded throughout its range. Most grassland
acreage has suffered one of the following fates: conversion to crop
production, over-grazing, invasion by shrubs and trees due to lack of
fire, lack of grazing, or both. With productive soils and ample
precipitation, the eastern portion of the grassland biome (including
Wisconsin), known as tallgrass prairie, was thoroughly fragmented and
almost totally converted to agricultural use. Tallgrass prairie and
related oak savanna are now the most decimated and threatened plant
communities in the Midwest and among the most decimated in the world
(WDNR 1995).

According to the State Natural Heritage Inventory, Wisconsin has only
0.5% (13,000 acres) of its original grassland ecosystem remaining in a
relatively intact condition, and much of this remnant acreage has been
degraded to some degree by livestock grazing or woody invasion. Over 80%
of this remaining acreage is sedge meadow, and the rest is native
prairie.

[What priority species are we going to benefit]{.underline}?\
Wisconsin's grassland plants and animals responded to the changes that
came with Euro-American settlement in various ways. Some species adapted
well and maintain healthy populations today, while some are persisting
only in low numbers (Table 3). Others are restricted to prairie and
sedge meadow remnants, and a few have been extirpated.

An estimated 15%-20% of the state's original grassland flora is now
considered rare in the state. Seventeen species are currently on
Wisconsin's endangered species list; 17 species are on the threatened
species list; and 29 species are of special concern in the state. This
pervasive rarity among grassland plants is due to the extensive loss of
the original grassland sod and the conservative nature of many grassland
plants, which are rarely found outside of native vegetation remnants.

The current rarity of many of these species is not limited just to
Wisconsin but is also characteristic throughout their range. Three
Wisconsin species, Mead's milkweed, prairie bush-clover, and prairie
white-fringed orchid are on the federal list of threatened species, and
six others, prairie thistle, glade mallow, tubercled orchid, prairie
fame-flower, pale false foxglove, and eared false foxglove, are being
considered for federal listing.

Most of Wisconsin's grassland vertebrates adapted to the changes in the
land. Species that did adapt made use of croplands, pastures, old
fields, roadsides, and other highly altered, surrogate "grasslands".
However, in the past few decades even these areas have declined in
acreage and quality due to changing agricultural practices and land use
(e.g., increased use of pesticides, extensive conversion of small grain
and pasture acreage to row crops, and changes in the nature and timing
of agricultural disturbances, including the early and frequent mowing of
alfalfa) and invasion by woody growth into fence lines and open fields.

Some prairie mammals adapted to the initial loss of prairie vegetation
and more recent land use changes and are thus still doing well in
Wisconsin today. Other species have not adapted well to the changes and
have been either extirpated (e.g., bison) or are now of special concern
in the state (e.g., Indiana little short-tailed shrew, white-tailed jack
rabbit, Franklin's ground squirrel and prairie vole).

Grassland bird populations were substantially altered by Euro-American
settlement. Because grassland birds are not strictly dependent upon
native vegetation, they are one group that generally did not decline
solely because of the loss of native vegetation. They are, however,
sensitive to both the structure of vegetation (e.g., degree of
treelessness, vegetation height and density, and amount of residual
ground cover) and size of habitats, as well as to the nature and timing
of agricultural disturbances.

Today, grassland bird species vary in their status. Of those that were
historically present in Wisconsin, a few are still doing very well,
often because they are generalists that can use a variety of habitat
types (e.g., red-winged blackbird, mourning dove, and song sparrow) or
have adapted to intensive row-crop agriculture (e.g., killdeer and
horned lark). However, the status of most grassland birds is far less
secure than that of these few species.

As a result of a combination of factors including habitat changes over
the past 150 years on breeding grounds, wintering grounds, or both, and
habitat-related problems with nest productivity, 16 of Wisconsin's
grassland bird species are now of special concern in the state (WDNR
1995). One is on the state's list of threatened species (greater
prairie-chicken).

Only about one-half of Wisconsin's prairie-associated reptiles and
amphibians are still at good population levels today. These include
eastern tiger salamander, six-lined racerunner, blue racer, eastern
plains garter snake, and Butler's garter snake. Like many other
vertebrates, their success has been due to their ability to adapt to
surrogate "grasslands". The rest of the prairie reptiles have not
adapted as well and are apparently suffering from habitat loss and
fragmentation. Of this group, three (blandings turtle, ornate box
turtle, western slender glass lizard) are state-listed species and one
(massasauga rattlesnake) is federally listed, and two (prairie ringneck
snake and bull snake) are on a list of special concern in the state.

Little is known about the status of invertebrates in our native
grasslands. In fact, there are probably dozens of grassland insects in
Wisconsin still unknown to science. For example, a cursory search for
leafhoppers at 14 Wisconsin prairie remnants in 1993 and 1994 revealed
five leafhopper species new to science and 24 species never before
recorded from the state (K.G.A. Hamilton, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa).
Many species may have already been extirpated or become extinct without
our having known of their existence. Many more would likely be
considered rare and endangered at both state and federal levels if
distribution and population data were available.

Nineteen grassland Lepidoptera are now on the state's list of special
concern; two species, swamp metalmark and regal fritillary, are on the
Wisconsin threatened list (regal fritillary is also being considered for
federal listing); and three species, Powesheik skipper, phlox moth, and
silphium borer moth, are on the Wisconsin endangered species list.

[What practices are we going to use?]{.underline}\
Recovering and maintaining native grassland biodiversity in Wisconsin is
very feasible for many but not all components of the system. Retention
of grassland biodiversity will require more than just the preservation
and management of existing high-quality remnants of native vegetation.
Most remnants are less than ten acres in size and very few exceed 50
acres. Small sites, however, are capable of supporting viable
populations of most plant species, most soil microflora and microfauna,
and many other invertebrate species. Control of exotics, brush removal,
and prescribed burning are the principal practices necessary to restore
such remnants.

Remnants degraded by grazing or woody growth invasion can also play a
significant role. Degraded areas are much more common and often larger
than high quality remnants. Their value is in the residual species they
still harbor and the great potential they have for recovery. Their
condition is often such that recovery can be accomplished solely by
brush removal, restrained grazing, or fire. The greatest opportunity for
recovery of degraded sites are at the dry and wet ends of the soil
moisture spectrum, where several thousand acres of degraded dry prairie
and sedge meadow still exist.

Recovery of the mesic prairie system is a different situation. Because
mesic prairie remnants of any quality are very rare, retaining or
regaining components of this system will require extensive buffering of
the few remaining remnants and much restoration from scratch. Although
restorations should be viewed as long-term, they can, in as little as a
decade, result in reasonable facsimiles of prairie that support far more
biotic diversity than alternative grass covers such as brome or
switchgrass.

The opportunities for establishing habitat are extensive on private
lands, especially those associated with a core complex of
publicly-managed grasslands. In many cases establishment would only
require removal and control of woody growth. In others it would require
the establishment of permanent grass/forb cover. And in still others,
intensive rotational grazing systems using refuge paddocks or
warm-season grass paddocks may serve as valuable surrogate grasslands,
particularly for grassland nesting birds.

[Relationship to regional strategic plans. State plans. and other
conservation programs]{.underline}\
The importance of prairie/grassland restoration and management in
Wisconsin is described in the Wisconsin's nationally approved Strategy
for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WDNR 2005),
Wisconsin's Biodiversity Report (1995). Albert (1995) identified prairie
remnant management and restoration as one of many conservation concerns
in his Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota and
Wisconsin report. Henderson and Krause (1995) identifies open
grassland/prairie as one of southern Wisconsin's most threatened
landscapes. Grassland/prairie restoration are key components in the
Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture plan for Wisconsin
(WDNR 1992), Wisconsin's Greater Prairie Chicken management plan (WDNR
1995), and Wisconsin's Pheasant Management Plan (WDNR 1992).
Grassland/prairie restoration and management is identified as a crucial
habitat need for the Midwest Region of Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri,
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin by the Wildlife
Management Institute in their Regional Wildlife Habitat Needs Assessment
for the 1995 Farm Bill (WMI 1995).

**Aquatic Communities\
**

Streams \-- In Wisconsin, rivers and streams are commonly classified by
fish community types. Smaller, spring-fed headwater streams and some
rivers in the northern part of the state can support a fish community
with trout or salmon as the top fish predator. Smaller streams fed by
surface water or located in the southern part of the state are typically
warmer and support fish communities with smallmouth bass as the top fish
predator. Rivers and streams with trout or salmon are often classed as
"cold-water" systems, while the other streams and rivers are often
classed as "warm-water" systems. Cold-water systems are afforded special
protection under Wisconsin law.

Streams are defined in Wisconsin as rivers and streams with mean annual
flows of 40 cms or less (Lyons 1992). A definitive inventory of
Wisconsin's streams is not available, but Becker (1983) indicates that
of the 33,000 miles of rivers and streams in the state, 9,561 miles are
cold-water streams (WDNR 1980). Adequate natural trout reproduction
occurs in only 37% of the state's cold-water streams. The status of
warm-water fish populations on most warm-water streams is not well
known.

Wild rice waters - - Wild rice grows throughout the eastern half of the
United States and adjoining portions of Canada, but is most abundant in
Minnesota and northern Wisconsin. Before settlement, wild rice probably
grew in suitable wetlands throughout Wisconsin (Fannucchi et al. 1986).
Since European settlement, Wisconsin has lost about half of its wetlands
and presumably some of its wild rice habitat. Currently, wild rice
waters are regarded as statewide and regionally scarce aquatic
communities (Fannucchi et al. 1986). In the past, wetland drainage,
pollution, siltation, shoreline development and dredging have destroyed
many rice beds. However, the most dramatic declines are associated with
the alteration of water courses and the resulting changes in water
levels.

[What priority species are going to benefit]{.underline}?\
A wide variety of warm- and cold-water fish species are found in
Wisconsin streams (Table 4). Common species include brook trout, creek
chub, Johnny darter, common shiner, central mudminnow, brook
stickleback, blacknose dace, white sucker, bluntnose minnow, and fathead
minnow. No federally threatened or endangered species are found in
Wisconsin streams, but six species are currently under consideration for
federal listing. At least three species, ghost shiner, iron color shiner
and creek chubsucker, have been extirpated from state streams. Nine
state-endangered and 11 state- threatened species are found in state
streams. Most are on the edge of their range distribution, but species
such as the river redhorse, pallid shiner, crystal darter, and gilt
darter are declining across their ranges. Wisconsin has some of the best
populations of greater redhorse and pugnose shiners across their ranges
(Lee et al. 1980) even though they are listed as threatened in Wisconsin
streams.

Knowledge about macroinvertebrates of Wisconsin's streams is still at
the descriptive state where distributions of species are becoming
reasonably well known for many orders but significant gaps in knowledge
remain. Most species of Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Trichoptera are
found solely or predominantly in streams. Two dragonflies, two mayflies,
and one riffle beetle that inhabit streams and rivers are listed as
state-endangered. Additionally, three dragonflies are listed as
state-historical, suggesting they have been extirpated from Wisconsin
waters.

Three state listed species of stream freshwater mussels, ellipse,
rainbow shell, and slippershell, were once widespread in the southern
part of the state. Geographic ranges have decreased over 90% for these
species. They are riffle species preferring clear, small, warm-water
streams and have been negatively affected by sedimentation, dam
construction, fish community manipulations, and point pollution
discharges. They are now restricted to small reaches in watersheds where
these effects have been minimal.

Several herptile species occupy streams in Wisconsin. The queen snake
exclusively inhabits streams and their riparian corridors in the
southeastern part of the state. This state-endangered snake, while on
the northern fringe of its range, has declined in recent history as a
result of water quality degradation including sedimentation and
turbidity. The specific microhabitat of this species in the stream, flat
rocky substrate, has been inundated by sediments throughout much of its
former range in southeastern Wisconsin. The Blanchard's cricket frog,
dependent on stream habitat and Wisconsin most endangered herptile, has
seen a marked reduction in its range in Wisconsin and elsewhere
throughout the northern limits of its distribution.

Wild rice waters, with their abundant food supply, attract many wild
birds - particularly migratory waterfowl. Mallards dabble for shattered
rice seed on shallow lake bottoms. Diving ducks, wood ducks, redheads,
blue-winged teal, and Canada geese are all attracted to wild rice areas.
Sora rails often leave their breeding marshes in the fall to occupy wild
rice areas. In early and midsummer, muskrats move from stalk to stalk,
eating and gathering rice plants.

[What practices are we going to use?]{.underline}\
Habitat management practices to be considered for improving instream
structure include fish passage, channel/obstruction removal, placement
of large woody debris and possible channel modification. Vegetative
buffering of adjacent uplands, grazing management systems, and other
vegetative management strategies for adjacent croplands could prove
beneficial to instream as well as upland species.

Practices for rice bed management and restoration include seeding or
possible water level manipulation to manage rice beds (Peter David,
Great Lakes Indian Fish arid Wildlife Commission wildlife biologist),
and are limited to tribes only.

[Relationship to regional strategic plans. State plans. and other
conservation programs]{.underline}\
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources identified in-stream
habitat work and riparian area buffering on warm- and cold-water streams
as critical to these aquatic communities described in the Wisconsin's
nationally approved Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest
Conservation Need (2005), and in Wisconsin's Biodiversity report (WDNR
1995). Riparian area buffering along small rivers and streams impacted
by agriculture was identified as an important practice in the Midwest
Region of Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan
and Wisconsin by the Wildlife Management Institute (1995). The Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission is currently in the process of
restoring some wild rice waters (Peter David, GLIFWC biologist) in
cooperation with state, federal, tribal and private organizations.

**STATE RANKING CRITERIA**\
Ranking criteria were developed based on this plan and will be
maintained and modified on an ongoing basis. The ranking sheet
incorporates ecological, economic, and social factors and is used to
assess the relative merits of different applications. Native habitat
management and restoration receive higher scores. Relative cost per unit
of return is an important consideration, as is the size of the project,
recognizing the area sensitivity of many of the species and communities
being managed for. The ranking system is also designed to encourage
native community restoration in relation to the landscape in which it
occurs. Extra points are given for demonstrated partnerships. Wisconsin
is focusing WHIP on "community" management. However, it is also flexible
so plans can be developed for non-indicator wildlife species, but in a
manner that complements the species of concern.

MEASURING PROGRAM SUCCESS AND MONITORING\
The best way to monitor success is to survey and monitor the target fish
and wildlife species populations to see if they have favorably responded
to habitat improvement. The Wisconsin DNR is doing this on a special
landscape scale project (The Glacial Habitat Restoration Area) in
portions of Columbia, Dodge, Fond du Lac, and Winnebago counties. The
federal Breeding Bird Survey routes within and near project areas can be
used as a potential assessment tool for program monitoring, although
their sensitivity to small scale changes on the landscape is limited.

The Wisconsin DNR has been conducting an annual frog and toad survey
since 1981 to determine population trends of these species (Mossman and
Hine 1984). This tool's sensitivity to picking up changes from small
scale projects is limited as well, but changes that do occur near
long-term survey points may be detectable. There is ongoing population
monitoring of Karner Blue butterfly populations, as well as booming
ground surveys associated with greater prairie chickens and sharp-
tails. There are other ongoing monitoring tools that are available to
assess populations as well.

Detecting fish and wildlife species response to these potentially small
scale projects is problematic, as it may take several years for species
to respond to these changes. Improvements in monitoring are desirable
but not achievable without additional staff resources or partnership
cooperation.

**PARTNERSHIP INVOLVEMENT AND MATCHING RESOURCES**\
The opportunity for partnerships and matching resources is likely
limited only by our imagination. An obvious partnership is that between
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and NRCS. This is a
long-standing partnership in Wisconsin, and has taken many forms during
the years. DNR foresters and wildlife biologists routinely work with
NRCS to deliver the technical assistance necessary for any forest and
wildlife management practices in CRP, WRP and EQIP. Fisheries biologists
have assisted NRCS with the implementation of instream habitat and
streambank erosion control practices through WHIP and EQIP.

Partnering with DNR in the delivery of WHIP is a logical extension of
the relationship between these two agencies. DNR field staff will play a
crucial role in delivering the WHIP program to cooperators at a time
when NRCS staff will be pushed to the limit with CRP, EQIP, and many
other programs. The technical expertise foresters, wildlife biologists,
and fisheries biologists bring to the partnership is important in
implementing many of the new practices and working in many of the
biological communities that are proposed for funding. In addition, DNR
biologists bring potential cost-share match and conservation
organization connections to the funding table that will help leverage
WHIP dollars to go farther for conservation.

DNR also is a potential source of cost-sharing match for private lands
work through funding programs such as their Pheasant Stamp, Turkey
Stamp, Trout Stamp and Waterfowl Stamp programs. Endangered resources
check-off funds may be a source of matching funds as well.

Another long-time partner with NRCS in delivering conservation programs
is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wildlife biologists, and in
particular, the "Partners for Fish & Wildlife" private lands biologists,
are important participants in delivering WHIP to cooperators, providing
technical expertise, and financial assistance.

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission biologists and
Native American Tribes bring expertise, tribal contacts, and potential
sources of matching funds to implement some practices in the ceded
territory and on tribal lands.

The Wisconsin Chapter of The Nature Conservancy has utilized WHIP for
habitat work on some of the properties they own. They have been able to
serve as an additional delivery mechanism to promote the program through
private landowner connections in and around many of their project sites.

Trout Unlimited has been a long-time partner with NRCS, DNR and private
landowners in delivering program support and financial match for
projects associated with instream habitat work on trout streams. They
have been and will continue to be a partner in WHIP.

Wisconsin Prairie Enthusiasts is a locally organized group of citizens
and landowners interested in the preservation, management, and
restoration of prairie, and some of their members have participated in
WHIP.

The Wisconsin State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation is
committed to turkey management throughout its range in Wisconsin. They
annually fund projects from a central account. Many of these projects
include oak regeneration and savannah establishment and improvement.

Pheasants Forever is committed to habitat management for upland
wildlife. They regularly fund projects that develop, restore, and
maintain grasslands and wetlands. Projects are funded from chapter
specific accounts according to chapter priorities. Most projects are
located in the farmland regions of southern, eastern, and west-central
Wisconsin. They are most interested in working with private landowners
and have a good history of doing so. They also are a potential source of
matching dollars, program delivery through local newsletters, and
landowners interested in the program.

County Forests control much of the balance of the non-federal/non-state
land base that still affords opportunities for landscape scale barrens
and Karner blue butterfly restoration and management. Their potential
partnership is as a cost-share recipient, source of match on
county-owned lands, and source of human resources to get the work done
on the land.

[IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY]{.underline}

NRCS will prioritize funding of projects as follows:

1.  Available funds will be allocated for a period of 1-3 years subject
    to annual review and adjustment by WHIP team as follows:

    a.  50% of funds will be targeted toward specific species in a
        defined geographic area. WHIP ranking tool will be adapted to
        this species-specific approach. For fiscal period 2007, the
        targeted species will be the Karner Blue butterfly (see attached
        map)

    b.  40% of funds will be targeted toward special projects. See Item
        #3 listed below

    c.  10% of funds will be targeted toward tribal projects

2.  Funds not obligated in these respective categories will be allocated
    to projects benefiting declining species targeted in other NRCS
    programs. For fiscal period 2007, this includes red-headed
    woodpecker, eastern meadowlark, wood turtle and American woodcock.

3.  Special projects may focus on any habitat type identified in this
    plan and must have the following additional characteristics:

    a.  Significant partnership contribution exists. NRCS should be
        committing no more than 50% of required funding for the proposed
        project, and documentation exists identifying other required
        funding sources

    b.  Probability of significant impact on habitat of concern. This
        should be documented by WDNR, USFWS or other credible agency or
        individual.

    c.  A state or federally listed animal species, or animal species of
        special concern must be documented within a one mile radius of
        project proposal and project must impact habitat for listed
        species.

[LITERATURE CITED AND OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION]{.underline}\
Albert, D.A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. North Central Forest
Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-178, St. Paul, MN.
250pp.

Ambuel, B. And S.A. Temple. 1982. Songbird populations in southern
Wisconsin forests: 1954 and 1979. J. of Field Ornithology 53(2):
149-158.

Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison. lO52pp.

Bond, R.R. 1957. Ecological distribution of breeding birds in the upland
forests of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27(4).

Curtis, J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Univ. Wis. Press,
Madison. 657pp.

Fannucchi, G.T., W.A. Fannucchi, and S. Craven. 1986. Wild rice in
Wisconsin: its ecology and cultivation. University of Wisconsin
Extension Pubi. G3372. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 8pp.

Ferge, L.A. 1990. Checklist of Wisconsin butteflies. Wis. Entomol. Soc.
Misc. Publ. No. 1. 4pp.

Gregg, L. 1987. Recommendations for a program for sharp-tail habitat
preservation in Wisconsin. WI Department of Natural Resources Report
141. 24pp.

Hamerstrom, F. and F. Hamerstrom. 1952. Sharp-tails into the shadows?
Wisconsin Conservation Department Wisconsin Wildlife No. 1. 3Spp.

Henderson, R. A., and J. Krause. 1995. Identification of landscape
management opportunities and needs in Wisconsin. Final report for P-R
project W-160-P. WI Dept. of Natural Resources Bureau of Integrated
Science Services, Madison. 4Opp.

Jackson, H.H.T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison. 504pp.\
Leach, M.K. and L. Ross, eds., 1995. Midwest oak ecosystem recovery
plan: a call to action. ll2pp.

Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and
J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American Fishes. North Carolina
State Museum of Nat. Hist., Raleigh.

Lyons, J. 1992. Using the index of biotic integrity (IBI) to measure
environmental quality in warmwater streams of Wisconsin. U.S. Dept. Ag.,
For. Serv., North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical
Report, NC-149. 5lpp.

Mossman, M.J., E. Epstein, and R.M. Hoffman. 1991. Birds of Wisconsin
pine and oak barrens. Passenger Pigeon 53(2): 137-163.

Mossman, M.J. and R. Hine. 1984. Wisconsin frog and toad survey:
establishing a long-term monitoring program. Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, ER report #9.

Shively, M.M. and S.A. Temple. 1994. An ecosystem recovery plan for
Wisconsin pine-shrub- grassland ecosystems (pine barrens). Univ. of
Wisconsin, Madison. 48pp.

Temple, S.A. 1988. When is a bird's habitat not habitat? Passenger
Pigeon 50(1):37-41.

Vetrano, D .M. 1988. Unit construction of trout habitat improvement
structures for Wisconsin coulee streams. WI Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Fish Management Acimin. Rep. No. 27

Vogt, R.C. 1981. Natural history of amphibians and reptiles in
Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum. 2O5pp.

WDNR. 1980. Wisconsin trout streams. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources Pubi. 6- 3600(80)

WDNR. 1992. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint
Venture - Wisconsin Plan. WI Department of Natural Resources, Madison.

WDNR. 1992. Wisconsin's pheasant management plan. Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources, Madison.

WDNR. 1995. Wisconsin's Biodiversity as a Management Issue. WI Dept. of
Natural Resources, Madison. 240pp.

WDNR, 2005. Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
WI Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison.

Wildlife Management Institute. 1995. How much is enough: a regional
wildlife habitat needs assessment for the 1995 Farm Bill. Wildlife
Management Institute, Washington D.C. 3Opp.

**APPENDIX I**\
Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Potential and Documented Range in
Wisconsin (map)

**[TABLE 1]{.underline}: Species of greatest conservation need that are
moderately or significantly associated with Oak Savannas:**

Birds: red-headed woodpecker, brown thrasher, field sparrow,
whip-poor-will

Herptiles: Blanding's turtle, ornate box turtle, northern prairie skink,
prairie racerunner, prairie ringneck snake, bullsnake, timber
rattlesnake, black ratsnake

Mammals: Franklin's ground squirrel, woodland vole,

Invertebrates: regal fritillary, wild indigo dusky wing, obovate-winged
grasshopper, short-winged grasshopper, columbine dusky wing, Leonard's
skipper, orange-winged grasshopper, Karner blue butterfly

**[TABLE 2]{.underline}: Species of greatest conservation need that are
moderately or significantly associated with Oak and Pine Barrens:**

Birds: Sharp-tailed grouse, brown thrasher, vesper sparrow, lark
sparrow, Kirtland's warbler

Herptiles: Boreal chorus frog, wood turtle, Blanding's turtle, western
slender glass lizard, northern prairie skink prairie racerunner,
bullsnake, eastern massasauga rattlesnake

Mammals: Franklin's ground squirrel

Invertebrates: Karner blue butterfly, northern blue butterfly, frosted
elfin butterfly, leonard's skipper, dusted skipper, gorgone checkerspot,
phlox flower moth, henry's elfin, tawny crescent

**TABLE 3: Species of greatest conservation need that are moderately or
significantly associated with prairies/grasslands:**

Birds: upland sandpiper, field sparrow, vesper sparrow, grasshopper
sparrow, bobolink, brown thrasher, lark sparrow, northern harrier,
short-eared owl, barn owl, greater prairie chicken dickcissel, eastern
meadowlark, western meadowlark, henslow sparrow

Herptiles: wood turtle, Blandings turtle, ornate box turtle, western
slender glass lizard, northern prairie skink, prairie racerunner,
western worm snake, yellow-bellied racer, prairie ringneck snake, black
rate snake, bullsnake, timber rattlesnake, eastern massasauga
rattlesnake, Butler's garter snake, Blanchard's cricket frog, pickerel
frog, queen snake, boreal chorus frog

Mammals: white-tailed jackrabbit, prairie vole, Franklin's ground
squirrel, gray wolf

Invertebrates: phlox flower moth, Poweshiek skipper, swamp metalmark,
regal fritillary butterfly, silphium borer moth, Karner blue butterfly

**TABLE 4: Species of greatest conservation need that are moderately or
significantly associated with cool and cold-water streams:**

Birds: Louisiana waterthrush

Herptiles: Blanchard's cricket frog, pickerel frog, wood turtle, mink
frog

Mammals: water shrew, northern long-eared bat, silver-haired bat,
eastern red bat, hoary bat

Fish: redside dace

**TABLE 5: Species of greatest conservation need that are moderately or
significantly associated with warm water rivers and streams**

Birds: canvasback, osprey, bald eagle, great egret, yellow-crowned night
heron, lesser scaup, dunlin

Herptiles: mudpuppy, Blanchard's cricket frog, pickerel frog, mink frog,
wood turtle, midland smooth softshell turtle, queen snake

Fish: lake sturgeon, pallid shiner, gravel chub, striped shiner, redfin
shiner, shoal chub, blue sucker, black redhorse, starhead topminnow,
crystal darter, bluntnose darter, gilt darter, Ozark minnow, greater
redhorse, slender madtom

**TABLE 6 Species of greatest conservation need that are moderately or
significantly associated with inland lakes:**

Birds: osprey, bald eagle

Herptiles: mudpuppy, Blanchard's cricket frog, boreal frog, mink frog,
Blanding's turtle, northern ribbon snake

Mammals: Moose

Fish: lake sturgeon, starhead topminnow