Wisconsin Young Forest Partnership Full Partnership Meeting Minutes

9:00am - 3:00pm CDT November 2, 2017

DNR Service Center, 107 Sutliff Avenue, Rhinelander WI

Conference line: Jeremy set up a skype meeting that will allow sharing of documents as well as voice.

Attendees: Jeremy Holtz (WDNR – Wildlife), Randee Wlodek (WYFP Coordinator), Tom Krapf (NRCS), Nora Kennedy (ABC), Callie Bertsch (ABC), Mark Pfost (USFWS), Eric Holms (WCFA – Price County), Scott Walter (RGS/AWS), Janet Brehm (WDNR – Wildlife), Bob Ellingson (WWF), Gary Zimmer (WCFA), Katie Koch (USFWS), Dan Eklund (USDA FS), Kent Van Horn (WDNR – Wildlife), Kristin Lambert (WDNR – Forestry), Tom Carlson (WDNR – Wildlife), Ryan Jacques (WDNR – Wildlife), Anna Buckardt (Univ. ofMaine – phone)

9:10 am Introductions

9:20 am Additions to Agenda - Funding – update on personnel- Monitoring and Research – Anna will be providing an update on her graduate work

9:25 Steering Committee changes since last meeting - none

Woodcock Symposium Update (Jeremy Holtz) - Represented the WDNR and the WYFP- Presented talk on how the partnership came to be and how we run and collaborate- Thanks to the RGS for supporting travel and splitting the cost

MOU – any recent additions - none

WYFP updates (Jeremy Holtz) - none

9:30 am Coordinator Report (Randee Wlodek) WYFP Website: www.youngforest.org/wi) - Reminder: meeting minutes and annual report are posted on website- April – Mailing to landowners who have already responded as interested in the past

(22.6% response rate)- June – Did a cold contact mailing to Lincoln, Langlade, Marathon, and Sawyer

counties (5% response rate)o Marathon and Sawyer – first time mailing to these counties

- Three letters sent out – 1st letter brought in the most responses and slowlydecreased after each round of mailing.

o 1st – Who we are as a partnershipo 2nd – Brochure focusing on management for huntingo 3rd – Brochure focusing on management for birds/recreation

- Success and Results (Appendix A)

- When referrals were made they were directly sent contact information on who orwhat organization to contact.

- March, 2018 – next planned mailing to expand our reach and make sure to avoidpeople that we have already mailed to.

Points Mentioned: -Do we have metrics on what is being used and accessed on our website, such as, number of views onposted videos, articles, survey monkey responses, or tabs on the website. Keeping up with our metrics,summaries, and results on mailing responses and landowners that follow through with managementhas been getting better and needs to continue to be available and evolve. This will also help indetermining how many letters we can send out and handle the expected responses since we havepeople (employees) in place.

-Communication between WYFP mailings and NRCS/ABC has been good with contact information beingpassed back and forth. Many times, throughout the young forest flow chart, NRCS programs aresuggested since they have a diversity of funding. NRCS can provide the number of people that havefollowed up on the referrals. As in, of the 31 we referred to NRCS EQIP how many (just the numbers,no names or contact information) applied and followed through with the NRCS EQIP program. Fromthere we could break it down to the management practices that took place (dollars spent and acresmanaged). Essentially mapping where, when, how, and who get called, contacted, referred, and visitedwill provide the detail on how WYFP is feeding the hopper to the diversity of programs available tolandowners through DMAP, NRCS (EQIP or RCPP), Partners through FWS, WDNR, and WFLGP.

10:10 am Subcommittee Reports 10:10 am Anna Buckhart Update (University of Maine Research)

- Plots surveyed 2016 and 2017 – bird point counts and vegetation- Geolocators

o Put out 28, recovered 7 (still hashing out R-code to analyze where these birdswent)

▪ Have the remaining 21 geolocators been seen in anyway? – no theyhave not

▪ 2017 – of 7 caught geolocators were replaced with new ones and 4additional have been put out. We will see what happens next spring!!Anna will be in the North Woods for two weeks to recovergeolocators.

- Landowner Engagemento Spring 2017 – did a side by side study to see if landowners can survey for

woodcock (hearing or lack of training shows their inconsistencies in surveys)o Social sciences research on landowner engagement (Appendix B)o Use of landowner demographic

▪ Who owns land, responds to mail, make/return phone calls▪ Could we take advantage of social media? Who could organize and

manage such a site?o Suggestion for landowner monitoring- do a before and after abundance

survey on woodcock to see if the management activities have a short-termeffect. Training videos or articles will be needed to help landowners conductpresence and absence survey for woodcock.

▪ Needs personal to organize and collect the data from the landowners

o Take advantage of landowner feedback surveys to see how the landownersare feeling about the whole experience from beginning to end. (add socialscientist to aid in developing multiple surveys to see progress over time)

Points Mentioned: -Could we take advantage of the recording devices available? Yes but, increased time to analyze allrecordings and we may not be able to get abundance since direction would not be able determinedthrough a recording. It may still help us out as a supplemental piece of the puzzle.-The use of a correction factor. Calculate correction factor on points surveyed by DNR/professionalemployees to use for the landowner surveys.-Use of UW-Stevens Point organizations to help in the surveys.

-RGS (Scott) – would the surveys add to the biological knowledge of our management practices – no,not really. But, these surveys would help us with the social aspect. So still valuable but may be limited.The research has been done to tell us that woodcock respond to management but we want to increasethe landowner engagement on their own land, so more along the lines of monitoring then developingnovel biological questions to research. (Kent VanHorn to oversee and manage in the social researchaspect of this project and the research subcommittee). More overall mission statement needs to bedefined and broadcasted.

-Let us not forget about the research already conducted, the research subcommittee should be up todate on the literature published on woodcock, grouse, golden wing warbler, and managementactivities needed.Landowners availability to bring people out to their own property to promote the program becausethey are proud of the management that they have done. This has helped and we hope to continue thisaspect to sell the program to other landowners and to the partners and future partners.

11:15 am Partnership needs, partner needs & opportunities for involvement; future steps, plans for expansion/subsistence; big picture discussion

- Creating or assessing who has the capability to do what is need and DEFINING whowill be doing what in the future

o Monitoringo Researcho Out in the fieldo Outreacho Landowner engagement

- We are a committee (filled with many different partners) of the willing and will haveto stick with that concept (we are not a Joint Venture)

o Bottom line we are getting stuff done on the ground and moving forward- (Holtz) Revisit the goals and objectives to take a step back to make sure we are all on

the same page.- Review flow chart for partnership responsibilities- Our definition of ‘Young Forest’?

o as of now we are working towards young healthy aspen forest to focus onthe detail of golden wing warbler, woodcock, and grouse management.

- Creating the specific landscape goals (acreage) to answer the question andcomments that are received by the public, such as, ‘are you trying to cut all theforest?’

11:35 am Lunch

12:15 pm Personnel – Jeremy Holtz (DNR) - Randee’s position funding is becoming more limited with decreasing grants

available.- This position is a partnership position so we have options

o Keep it as a contractor position through WMI with funds coming frommultiple areas

o Lumberjack RCD hourly position- The coordinator position is crucial to the partnership because others within the

group do not have time available to make up for the loss. We have grown and addedthis position and now we need to find that funding to maintain the positions that wehave created.

- This program is not a DNR program advised by others but is a partnership with equalinvestments from each partner. It benefits the partnership more to have thecoordinator to be an outside the DNR position.

- Where can we reach to maintain the funding for this positiono DNRo RGSo NRCS (in the past $20,000 for one year) using GLRI fund that needs to be

matched by others (prefer Lumberjack route)o ABC (always searching for funding options, could start looking for addition

funds for this position)- Email to be sent – update on length left (last day March, 2018?) on the position and

funding options for future.

12:45 pm RCPP – Scott Walter (RGS) - Achieving Healthy Forest Objectives for Wildlife Diversity Prospectus for 2018 RCPP

(Appendix C)- The geographical range expanding to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana- Push to continue to define goals, objectives, and the future within our partnerships

to provide to other partnerships and to refine what needs to be included in futureproposals

- Cash match opportunities through the updated proposals- RCPP does take a lot of coordination and is time intensive – the RCPP dollars are

limited on where they can be spent – the upcoming meetings will allow fordiscussion to update the proposal to allow funds to be spent in other ways

- Sign-up sheet for meeting: winter meeting to flesh out needs, wants, goals,objectives of future proposals.

- Pre-proposal due by March/April 2018, review period, full proposal due September,and offer would be sent out in December 2018.

1:10 pm 2017 RCPP/NFWF – Callie Bertsch (ABC) - Able to show results by county and by management activities of what have been

done.- Last two winters were bad so there are ~40 properties that need to get done in the

upcoming winters- There are ~40 additional landowners that need work set up and completed- Update (Appendix D).- Jeff Larkin – has grad students out conducting field work/research on private land

management for wildlife biodiversity.

- Money for Signage for public land to describe the management activities takingplace in the specific area and who or what organization funded or did themanagement.

- Money is available through NFWF to attend trainings and/or workshops (such asTELE workshops to aid in professional organizations engaging private landowners).

- New NFWF grant that will include work with invasive species

1:30 pm Outreach – Scott Walter (RGS) - Annual Accomplishment Report

o The 2017 report will be distributed beginning of 2018- Woodcock brochure (Randee)

o Draft went through Scott Walter, Jamie Nack, Chuck Fergus, and GaryZimmer.

o Draft displayed today at the WYFP 2017 Meetingo Simplified and updated the information from the old brochure created in the

1990’so Delves into woodcock behavior and what they need as a species to survive

and reproduceo Provides information on the different management activities that we can use

as managers to promote woodcock successo Provide comments by November 17, 2017o Target date for publication – December 15, 2017

- Landowner Guide Update - Jeremey Holtz (DNR)o Between Jeremey and Scott Hygnstrom- hope to create a forestland for

landowner guideo Wisconsin Center for Wildlife (Scott Hygnstrom represents) in UW Stevens

Point has funding for projects and interns- Funding/Fund administration - Eklund

1:55 am Partner updates – Representatives fill us in - Scott Walter (RGS) – forest wildlife specialist (Val Johnson) out of Spooner is the first

and another position posted for Lena, WI on the week of 10/30/2017; to be hiredsoon.

- Jeremy (DNR) – Jan/Feb Wildlife Professional journal will be publishing article on theWisconsin Young Forest Partnership

- Kent VanHorn (DNR)o Ruff grouse population in relation to West Nile virus – no data in Wisconsin

suggest a loss due to West Nile – our population is up from spring surveysand more will be available after the post hunt surveys.

o Pitman and Robertson Funds▪ Increase from base fund▪ Funding available for seeding in logging trails with clover

o Realignment▪ Wildlife – lost 8.5 positions this year and last 4 years we lost 16

positions▪ Partnerships like WYFP are critical to be able to get things done out in

the field▪ DNR WM is shifting responsibilities to do more science based

activities

▪ Forestry will be leading the prescribed burning effort▪ DNR WM will be decreasing Non-Game work and shift more time

towards habitat management▪ DNR WM will be decreasing property management activities and will

be putting that responsibilities on the shoulders of Parks andRecreation

2:30 pm Set next meeting and adjourn - By Christmas – We need to know where we are with options for funding for the

coordinator position.

- Early February conference call to see what we have come up with for funding,monitoring, and outreach.

Wisconsin Young Forest Partnership Leadership

Executive Committee Members: Jeremy Holtz, Facilitator Dan Eklund Scott Walter

Steering Committee Members (and alternates):

USFS: Dan Eklund and Matthew St. Pierre NRCS: Chris Borden and Michael Stinebrink USFWS: Kurt Waterstradt and Gary VanVreede WDNR Wildlife: Mark Witecha (and Jeremy Holtz) WDNR Forestry: Kristin Lambert and Brian Spencer? WCFA: Eric Holm and Gary Zimmer ABC: Callie Bertsch and Shawn Graff

RGS: Scott Walter WMI: Mark Baker Forestland Group: Shawn Hagan WBCI: Ryan Brady and Yoyi Steele WWOA: SAF: Tom Hittle new members always welcome

Subcommittee Members:

Personnel/workgroup: Jeremy Holtz, Chair Randee Wlodek Ryan Jacques Dan Eklund Callie Bertsch Nora Kennedy Janet Brehm

Fundraising: Dan Eklund, Chair Jeremy Holtz

Outreach: Scott Walter, Chair Jamie Nack Chuck Fergus (website) Gary Zimmer

Monitoring/Research: Scott Walter Kent VanHorn Amber Roth Anna Buckhart Randee Wlodek Ryan Jacques

Coordinator Update WYFP Partnership Meeting

November 2nd, 2017

Website

• Reminder that the meeting minutes are under the “WI Home” tab• The 2016 Annual Report is up on the site for reference

Latest Mailings

In April, we did a mailing to landowners who already responded as interested, but were not fully helped for various reasons (landowner stopped responding, phone number didn’t work, etc.)

83 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟368 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑟𝑟𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟

= 22.6% 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑚𝑚𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟

Starting in June, we did a cold contact mailing to landowners who owned more than 70 acres and were not in MFL, since we want to target unengaged landowners. Letters were sent to Lincoln, Langlade, Marathon, and Sawyer counties. A 2nd and 3rd round of mailing was done for those who didn’t respond.

• First time letters have been sent to Marathon or Sawyer county

63 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟1,229 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑟𝑟𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟

= 5.1% 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑚𝑚𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟

Average response rate for cold contact mailings is around 1% and WYFP past response rates have been around 10%. We expected our response rate to drop when we took out MFL landowners. We hoped to target more of the unengaged landowner by doing the 3 rounds of mailing—one focused on who we are and what we offer, one focused on hunting species, and one focused on birds/recreation.

A new cold contact will be done around March 2018.

Results (and more to come)

Referrals were made to the following: Young forest referrals:

NRCS EQIP- 31 NRCS RCPP- 19 DMAP- 21 Partners for fish and wildlife- 12 DNR (forestry/wildlife)- 10 Cooperating Foresters that have contracts with WYFP- 3 WFLGP- 8

Options to obtain a management plan were given to 79 landowners.

Check in at the end of the year for the 2017 Annual Report to get acreage and more!

Appendix A

UMaine Nov 2017 WYFP Partnership Meeting

Proposed WYFP Monitoring Scenarios Thirteen landowners piloted woodcock surveys on their properties in 2017, completing a total of 29 6-minute surveys. Landowners were paired with a trained technician for all surveys and their results were compared (Table 1). Based on landowner survey performance, we do not believe that a monitoring program using landowners can reliably answer questions about woodcock abundance, and should focus on woodcock presence instead.

Table 1: A comparison of landowner and technician woodcock detection counts from 29 side-by-side surveys conducted in spring 2017.

Category of landowner/technician woodcock detection comparison Number of surveys

Percentage of surveys

tech and landowners had same count 10 34% tech detected at least 1, landowner detected 0 9 31% both landowner and tech detected birds, but landowner detected > # 5 17% both landowner and tech detected birds, but landowner detected < # 5 17%

1. Wisconsin Woodcock Watch: Landowners monitoring woodcock presence before and aftermanagement.

Aim: To engage landowners with their land and young forest habitat management while getting a rough estimate of WYFP management “success” through the presence of woodcock on managed sites. Needs:

• Revise woodcock survey protocol (~2 wk)• Create training video (~3 wks)• Provide online access to monitoring materials (~2 wk)• Create education materials (~2 wk)• Update the Midwest Avian Data Center online database (~2 wks)• Set up communication/annual reporting system for landowners (~ 3 wks annually)• Manage landowner enrollment in the program (~ 1 month annually)

Total up front time: 2 months and 3 weeks Total annual time: 1 month and 3 weeks

Pros: • Engages landowners with WYFP and their own land• Provides evaluation in the adaptive management framework through a clear comparison of

woodcock before and after management• Fairly simple data for landowners to collect• Potential for a student intern to help coordinate annual program

Cons: • Doesn’t provide estimates of woodcock abundance• High upfront time and associated costs for developing protocols and materials• Needs a coordinator to give time annually to the program

Appendix B

UMaine Nov 2017 WYFP Partnership Meeting

2. A social science survey of landowner satisfaction and engagement with their YF managementAim:To understand of WYFP is achieving their goal of engaging the unengaged landowner by assessing thesatisfaction landowners have with their YF management through time and their engagement with theirland. Note: I envision a survey that is given to landowners at three points in time; When a managementplan is initially created, in the first year after management, and five years after management.Needs:

• Partnering with a social scientist to develop the survey and design… for example will a singlelandowner answer 3 surveys through time or will you target three different groups oflandowners over a 2-year period? (~2 months)

• Annual mailing of the survey to appropriate landowners (~2 wks)• Analysis and reporting of results…could be periodic or a onetime thing

Total up front time: 2 months Total annual time: 2 weeks

Pros: • May be logistically simpler than Wisconsin Woodcock Watch (no training of landowners needed)• Allows WYFP to quantify the impact management has on landowner satisfaction and

engagement with their land• May be a shorter-term commitment than Wisconsin Woodcock Watch monitoring

Cons: • Does not facilitate direct landowner engagement with YF management areas• No habitat/wildlife metric to gauge WYFP management success• Requires partnership with a social scientist

3. Landowner Engagement ExperimentAim:To answer the question; Does participating in woodcock monitoring increase landowner satisfaction andengagement with their YF management area and land overall?Needs:

• Create both the Wisconsin Woodcock Watch program and the landowner satisfaction andengagement surveys as outlined above

• Compare survey results of an experimental group (those who participate in WWW) to a controlgroup (landowners who don’t monitor woodcock)

Pros: • Understand whether and how woodcock monitoring contributes to landowner satisfaction and

engagement with their land• Potential to find funding/a grad student to take on this research• Publications from the WYFP• Analyze both the woodcock response and landowner satisfaction to YF management – social and

biological

Cons: • Larger time and money commitment than the other scenarios• Would require additional funding and a person specifically dedicated to this project

Appendix C

American Bird Conservancy

2017/2018 Accomplishment Report

11/13/2017

RCPP Improving Forest Health For Wildlife Resources

FY 2018 Applications

County # Burnett 1

Langlade 2

Lincoln 3

Oconto 1

Oneida 1

Price 13

Rusk 7

Sawyer 1

Taylor 10

Vilas 1

Total 40

FY 2017 Contracts

County Contracts Contract Acres

Ashland 1 71.1

Bayfield 1 78.5

Burnett 1 6.5

Douglas 1 35.0

Florence 1 339.2

Langlade 2 287.0

Marinette 2 161.5

Oneida 2 298.0

Price 4 72.5

Rusk 15 283.3

Sawyer 3 57.5

Taylor 8 261.8

Total 41 1,951.9

Appendix D

National Fish and Wildlife (NFWF)

NFWF 2014-2016

Purchased signs for public land and the Chequamegon school group

$25,000 for writing forest management plans with consulting foresters

$ for the 3rd round of mailing for WYFP

contractor and forester trainings were paid for through NFWF.

NFWF 2017-2018

$ for monitoring completed sites and Jeff Larkin crew

$ for Forest Management Plans

Typical supplies, travel, outreach