Introduction

Chapters

Bedrock Communities

Boreal Forest

Dry Forests, Savannas and Barrens

Dynamic Forests

Forested Wetlands

Grasslands

Great Lakes Coastal Systems

Islands

Mines and Caves

Peatlands

Wildlife Health

Big Rivers

Coldwater Lakes

Coldwater Streams

Great Lakes Ciscoes

Littoral Zones

St. Clair-Detroit River System

Warmwater Streams and Their Headwaters

Appendices

1. Species of Greatest Conservation Need list.
2. Changes in Species of Greatest Conservation Need list since 2015.
3. Adaptive Capacity outputs for assessed SGCN.
4. Partner list and engagement process.

The goal of Michigan’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) is to provide a common strategic framework to coordinate conservation efforts for wildlife and their habitats through voluntary and cooperative partnerships, such as Tribal Partners, nonprofit organizations, and the state heritage program - Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). Michigan’s SWAP recognizes the need to advance a broader, integrated strategy to restore or maintain species populations, preserve biodiversity, and support sustainable agriculture and other human activities across the state. For this plan, “habitats” encompasses natural communities and ecosystems found in Michigan. The 2025–2035 plan identifies 714 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), an increase from 301 in the 2015–2025 plan (Derosier et al. 2015). This change is driven by the addition of plants to Michigan’s SGCN list for the first time. However, limited funding, staff capacity and other critical resources make it impossible to address the needs of all species equally. As a result, the plan prioritizes a subset of focal SGCN and key issues to guide conservation actions over the next ten years, ensuring efforts are targeted, effective and sustainable.

For each priority, conservation partners helped develop chapters that outline: 1) the habitat, 2) who contributed to the plan, 3) focal SGCN, 4) key habitat and 10-year goals for each focal SGCN, 5) critical threats, 6) key conservation actions, 7) environmental vulnerability and adaptive capacity of focal SGCN, 8) places for partnerships, and 9) priority monitoring and surveys needed. Other state or national conservation and management plans have been cross-referenced with identified actions, goals and monitoring needs. Each chapter is a stand-alone document, although overarching survey and monitoring needs are identified in this chapter.

We extend our sincere appreciation to the many individuals, agencies, Tribal partners, conservation organizations, academic institutions, and members of the public whose expertise, collaboration, and commitment made this State Wildlife Action Plan possible. The development of this plan reflects the culmination of countless hours of research, technical review, and thoughtful discussion. We are especially grateful to those who shared data, provided critical insight and offered constructive feedback throughout the planning process. Your dedication to conserving our state’s fish, wildlife, and habitats ensures that this plan is grounded in sound science and positioned to guide meaningful conservation action for the next decade. For a complete list of tribal partners and organizations who participated, and at what level of engagement, please see Appendix 4.

For this iteration of the SWAP, the DNR contracted with The Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) to create drafts for terrestrial chapters. MNFI has been generating and disseminating high quality scientific information on the location and condition of Michigan's rare species and habitats for more than 40 years; as a program of Michigan State University Extension since 2000. MNFI staff were instrumental in the creation of the SWAP and the data on conservation targets central to informing decision-making and metrics for success.

This plan was led by a DNR Core Development Team consisting of:

Tony Henehan: SWAP Coordinator

Kevin Wehrly and Joe Nohner: Fisheries Division liaisons and Aquatic Chapter leads

Jennifer Kleitch and Amy Bleisch: Wildlife Division liaisons

Heather Shaw: Forestry Division liaison

Greg Norwood: Parks and Recreation Division liaison

The overarching goal of Michigan’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) is to provide a common strategic framework to coordinate the conservation of wildlife and habitats in Michigan. States develop SWAPs in collaboration with conservation partners and Tribes with vested interests to coordinate conservation efforts across lands and among partners. These plans are unique and adapted to the state for which they are developed, and together they create a national conservation strategy for safeguarding and conserving rare species and their habitats. These plans are necessary to qualify for State Wildlife Grants (SWG) and provide a framework for proactive conservation and management of fish and wildlife before they become imperiled, which is more effective, straightforward and cost-efficient than reactive measures.

Michigan’s initial SWAP was developed in 2005 to serve as a status assessment and baseline review for 404 species of concern for all partners working toward the conservation of wildlife diversity and critical habitats across the state (Eagle et al. 2005). While the first iteration set the stage to better understand current knowledge and information gaps, the second iteration in 2015 covered 301 SGCN and aimed to refine conservation goals, identify additional priorities and make the SWAP more usable for all Michiganders (Derosier et al. 2015).

The third iteration of Michigan’s SWAP has been updated based on new research, conservation efforts, partnerships and the addition of vascular plants to the SGCN list. Rare species conservation today faces major barriers like insufficient funding, limited organizational capacity, and a shortage of essential resources. Acknowledging these limitations, this plan focuses on identifying feasible conservation actions and opportunities to work collaboratively. Close collaboration with partners across the state's conservation community, such as Tribal natural resources departments, nonprofits, land trusts, and single species focus groups was critical to the identification of shared goals and priorities discussed here.

The Origins of Wildlife Conservation

Indigenous peoples throughout the United States and Upper Midwest have stewarded and supported biodiversity since time immemorial. Throughout time, many different nations of Indigenous people have stewarded the present-day location of Michigan to promote wildlife, fish, and plants for sustenance living. The Nations of the Anishinaabeg – Three Fires Confederacy of Ojibwa (Chippewa), Odawa (Ottawa), and Bodewadmi (Potawatomi) dwelled in Michigan during the time of colonization in the early 1600s and continue to live and conduct cultural stewardship today. Anishinaabeg people have kinship relationships with plants and animals and hold sacred obligation to care for their relatives through stewardship (Wehi et al. 2023). Indigenous peoples have been integral to Michigan’s landscapes, sustaining Michigan’s ecosystems and wildlife through complex cultural stewardship rooted in deep ancestral knowledge and practices called Traditional Knowledge. This knowledge was passed down and refined from one generation to the next through oral tradition and the actions of conducting cultural practices. These cultural practices include a myriad of native land tending practices such as cultural burning, seeding, planting, agriculture, and the sustainable harvesting of plants, wildlife and fish. This cultural stewardship has been responsibly implemented with sophistication and care at seasonally appropriate times of the year and continues today at different scales. Anishinaabeg cultural stewardship in Michigan began to change shortly after colonization and the arrival of French fur traders, which brought a new suite of disease and resulted in widespread epidemic among the Anishinaabeg and heavily impacted community populations.

The establishment of fur trading first began in the eastern Upper Peninsula between the French and Anishinaabeg. The establishment of the fur trading enabled the Anishinaabeg to utilize their existing networks of hunting ground territories and agriculture to establish mutually beneficial trade with the French who sought furs and food provisions. By 1658, French fur traders had developed commercial trade routes in the Great Lakes region (DNR 1990), which frequently utilized existing Anishinaabe inland travel corridors, water routes and community locations along the coast to establish trade hubs in the present day cities of Sault Ste. Marie, Detroit, Mackinaw City and St. Joseph. The rapid expansion of trade resulted in further colonization of the state and growing European settlements which resulted in further disruptions of Anishinaabeg cultural practices, the direct loss of traditionally used lands, and the installation of forced assimilation that would continue for two centuries.

During the early establishment of the fur trade, Michigan also gained prominence as a source of wild meat for large markets in the East and Midwest. Market hunters harvested a wide variety of animals including white-tailed deer, waterfowl, shorebirds, passenger pigeons and small game. Birds were also harvested for their plumage to adorn hats or for stuffing in bedding or pillows (Petersen 1979). By 1876, commercial market hunters were killing approximately 70,000 white-tailed deer and untold numbers of birds each year. Native freshwater mussels were collected for the pearly button industry in Michigan beginning in the early 1900’s, causing a drastic decline in populations until the harvest was closed in 1944 to allow for recovery (Van der Schalie 1938, Van der Schalie 1948).

With the advancement of water vessels, intensive commercial fishing on the Great Lakes began in 1820 on Lake Erie and quickly spread to the other lakes (Garling et al. 1995). By 1905, approximately 47.5 million pounds of fish were removed each year. The catch was dominated by species such as Cisco (Lake Herring), Lake Whitefish, Lake Trout and several species of suckers. Noticeable declines in Great Lakes fish harvests first began around 1862. By the 1960s, many commercial fish stocks had crashed due to overexploitation and the accidental introduction and population explosion of parasitic Sea Lamprey.

Animals in Michigan whose extinction can be partially linked to commercial exploitation, through intentional take and incidental capture, include (with date of last record): blackfin cisco (1969), blue pike (1965), deepwater cisco (1951), longjaw cisco (1957), and passenger pigeon (1898). Many other species, including wild turkey and lake sturgeon, experienced severe population declines, but have benefited from or rebounded with conservation efforts.

With the advent of the industrial age and modern agricultural methods, the reliance on wildlife for meat and revenue waned, and due to severe population declines, commercial harvest of some species was no longer economically viable. While cultural practices of the Anishinaabeg peoples recognized the importance of protecting sustainable wildlife populations, settlers also began to recognize this during this period, and began to enact broad wildlife protection laws and created public agencies to enforce those laws and implement wildlife conservation practices. Shortly following the establishment of federal and state conservation agencies, a suit of non-government conservation organizations established to further advocate for protection of wildlife. This also included the federal recognition of Tribal Governments throughout Michigan and the re-affirmation of Anishinaabeg Treaty rights. Today in Michigan, there are 12 federally recognized Tribes and 4 state recognized Tribes.

Value of Wildlife to Michigan

The historical commercial harvest of wildlife has largely been replaced by sport hunting and fishing and Michigan’s Fisheries and Wildlife Divisions were established to regulate harvest. A 2019 report by the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) estimates that hunting and fishing activities generated around $11 billion annually, with approximately $8.9 billion from hunting and $2.3 billion from fishing for Michigan (Calentone et al. 2019).

In addition to hunting and fishing, access to non-consumptive recreational activities contributes to the economy and the quality of life of our communities. Activities such as birdwatching, butterfly watching and wildlife photography provide social, ecological and economic benefits. In 2022, about 148 million Americans participated in wildlife‐watching, including observing, photographing or feeding wildlife either near home or away from home, and their expenditures (e.g., on travel, gear, and lodging) totaled roughly $250.2 billion (U.S. Department of Interior 2022). In 2023, outdoor recreation accounted for 2.1% of Michigan’s GDP (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). Beyond direct economic impact, non‐consumptive activities foster public support for conservation, incentivize habitat protection and promote outdoor recreation and mental wellbeing. Because these activities often depend on intact and healthy ecosystems, they align people’s values with wildlife protection. Valuing wildlife also aligns with a multitude of agency and organization missions and plans across Michigan, like the DNR Wildlife Division's Mission, Vision and Values, and with its Strategic Plan, Guiding Principles and Strategies (GPS).

Even people who do not directly participate in wildlife-based recreation or other outdoor recreation activities value wildlife conservation. More than three-fourths of Michiganders strongly agreed with the statement: “Whether or not I see wildlife, just knowing that wildlife exists in Michigan is important” (Koval and Mertig 2002). Recent national polls by organizations like World Wildlife Fund (WWF 2025) and the National Parks Conservation Association (2023) show strong, bipartisan support for conservation, habitat protection and wildlife recovery. The intrinsic value of wildlife is consistently viewed by Americans as the worth of a resource for its own sake (Callicott 1986) and many consider caring for nature as a moral obligation tied to health, identity and well-being. Respectful engagement with Indigenous communities and Traditional Ecological Knowledge is essential for effective and just conservation.

Intact ecosystems and sustainable wildlife populations also provide ecosystem services critical to the wellbeing of all Michiganders. Diverse wetlands, forests and grasslands, each with unique plant and animal assemblages, provide numerous benefits to people (Mace et al. 2012). Wetlands filter Michigan’s drinking water, forests provide clean air and sequester carbon, and grasslands support pollinators critical to many agricultural products (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Each of these services functions at its best when biodiversity can be maintained at its greatest potential (Säterberg et al. 2019). Whether wildlife or landscapes are measured simply as commodities for their economic value or for their intangible values, their conservation, restoration and protection for current and future generations remains a critical mission for Michigan’s conservation partners and citizens.

This SWAP is organized to highlight and strategically address the conservation issues facing Michigan’s range of habitats or natural community types. Throughout the SWAP, “natural community” and “ecosystem” are used synonymously. A natural community is defined as an assemblage of interacting plants, animals, and other organisms that repeatedly occurs under similar environmental conditions across the landscape and is predominantly structured by natural processes rather than modern anthropogenic disturbances. Indigenous peoples were and remain integral to healthy, functioning natural communities due to their influence on species composition and vegetative structure through cultural expression. Protecting and managing representative natural communities is critical to biodiversity conservation because native organisms are best adapted to environmental and biotic forces with which they have survived and evolved over millennia (Cohen et al. 2015). Biodiversity is most easily and effectively protected by preventing high-quality sites from degrading. Further, the reintroduction of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and cultural stewardship is important for maintaining healthy natural communities, especially in areas that are fire-dependent and were stewards with cultural fires as a form of management, as example.

Helpful resources for identifying and understanding Michigan’s natural communities include MNFI’s natural community classification (Cohen et al. 2015, Cohen et al. 2025) and natural community abstracts, both of which are available online along with photos, comprehensive descriptions, distribution maps, and thorough references from the scientific literature. MNFI’s most detailed bibliography on Michigan’s natural communities can be found in the publication “Distribution Maps of Michigan’s Natural Communities” (Albert et al. 2008), which is also available for viewing and downloading at the MNFI website.

Funding Wildlife Conservation

Wildlife provides recreational opportunities and holds aesthetic, intrinsic and spiritual value. Public funding for state-level wildlife conservation began in 1937 with the Wildlife Restoration Act. This Act, popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, provides funding to states for restoration, conservation, management and enhancement of wild bird and mammal populations and their habitats. Then in 1950, the United States passed the Sport Fish Restoration Act, commonly known as the Dingell-Johnson Act, which provides funding to states to restore, conserve and manage fish and their habitats. Enacted in 1973, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund provides funding to States and Territories to conserve threatened and endangered species.

State Wildlife Grants (SWG)

The U.S. Congress began appropriating Federal funds in 2001 through the SWG program to bolster wildlife conservation needs identified in each state’s SWAP with a dedicated funding source. This program provides funds for programs and projects that implement SWAPs and is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with funds to be used with matching non-Federal sources. These funds are critical in funding conservation work performed in and outside of state lands, including funding conservation projects by nonprofits.

SWG funding is annually appropriated by Congress and leverages significant additional funding from state agencies and conservation partners, benefiting wildlife and their habitats in Michigan. As a requirement of accepting SWG, each state and territory must have a current SWAP and commit to revising that plan at least every 10 years.

SWAPs are central to funding and directing conservation actions across the country. However, funding for conservation has fluctuated greatly since the inception of SWG (AFWA 2025), falling short of the investment needed to address growing conservation demands (Figures 1, 2).

Figure 1. National State Wildlife Grant (SWG) apportionment over time.

Figure 2. Michigan’s SWG apportionment over time.

Review & Evaluation of the Second SWAP Iteration (2015-2025)

Filling Data Gaps

Concentrated efforts by the DNR, nonprofits, MNFI, and Tribal partners have taken place to compile information regarding the distribution and abundance of several species over the past 20 years. These efforts often focused on gaining a better understanding of the distribution and abundance of insects, birds, reptiles and fish. Typically, sampling efforts for fish focused on game fish, but additional sampling of non-game fishes has resulted in the clarification of the distribution and population status of many species. Despite the critical information gained about the status, distribution and life history of many species, further work is needed. This revision of the SWAP identifies priorities that reflect our improved understanding of current data gaps.

Conserving SGCN and their Habitats

Since the initial SWAP was unveiled in 2005, efforts focused on protecting SGCN and other wildlife on state, federal, private, and Tribal lands. Since 2015, the DNR and its partners have been awarded 11 Competitive State Wildlife Grants totaling $2.8 million for habitat management, research and surveys for SGCN. Many partners worked with the DNR and independently to benefit SGCN.

Important tools, such as geographic information systems (GIS) databases and models, a Midwest Conservation Blueprint, adaptive capacity assessments for SGCN and best management practices for invasive species, aid conservation of SGCN and the revision of this SWAP. These tools are used to guide habitat management that benefits wildlife and conserves their habitats. This is an ongoing process and priorities for the conservation of SGCN are continually assessed.

Coordinating Conservation

Coordination among partners is critical to the success of Michigan’s SWAP. The initial SWAP (Eagle et al. 2005) provided partners across the state with a baseline status assessment of 404 species and their habitats. The 2015 update provided more focused goals and priorities, allowing the conservation community to work collaboratively towards rare species conservation. Tribal and conservation partners continue to use the plan to prioritize habitat management, research, grant applications and partnerships. Partnerships over the last 20 years focused on existing workgroups for taxa or specific species (e.g., Mitchell’s Satyr Working Group, Michigan Rare Turtle Working Group, and Michigan Eastern Massasauga Working Group to name a few) and habitats (e.g., Northern Pine Plains Partnership, Michigan Vernal Pools Partnership, and Northern Michigan Fire Collaborative).

Lessons Learned

The first version of Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (Eagle et al. 2005) provided a needed baseline for the state on 404 animal species and their habitats. Partners across the state have worked towards conserving these SGCN in a variety of ways. Implementation of this plan provided key insights for strengthening this revision:

• Identifying priorities and goals is useful to focus efforts and better evaluate the plan at the end of 10 years.
• More regular communication among partners increases opportunities for additional partnerships and sharing of lessons learned.

The second version of the SWAP (Derosier et al. 2015) updated the SGCN list to 301 species, re-organized the SWAP into a chapter or mini-plan structure and identified focal SGCN. Overall, this structure was widely accepted by Michigan’s conservation community. The last 10 years have shown us:

• Partners recognize the plan as a strong foundation and valuable nexus for collaboration, while also acknowledging opportunities to enhance its inclusivity and effectiveness moving forward.
• Partners appreciate the chapter structure but expressed a desire for terrestrial chapter names to be more inclusive and generalized, ensuring that all collaborators and community members feel represented and included.
• Partners support adding plants to the SGCN list, providing a more holistic approach to rare species conservation.

Michigan’s State Wildlife Action Plan is organized by chapters. This first chapter describes the approach and methods for how the entire plan was developed and has a list of priority species for future surveys (i.e., structured, time-delineated data collection). The subsequent chapters are organized by key habitat (e.g., ecosystem or groupings of natural communities) and detail focal SGCN, current threats, needed conservation actions, places for partnerships, monitoring needs, and goals for the next 10 years. Each chapter functions as a stand-alone document to better serve diverse user needs.

For the purposes of this action plan, “wildlife” is defined as “any species of wild, free-ranging, undomesticated living organism, including, but not limited to, plants, mussels, snails, crayfish, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.” Wildlife also includes organisms in animal captive-breeding programs or plant restoration programs (e.g., native seed collection) designed to reintroduce individuals of a depleted native species into a previously occupied range.

Each SWAP is required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to have 8 elements, and states can address each of the elements to suit their own individual needs. These 8 elements are:

1. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN): distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining populations that are indicative of the diversity and health of wildlife of the state.
2. Habitats: descriptions of the locations and relative condition of key natural communities essential to the conservation of each state’s SGCN.
3. Threats and Needs: descriptions of problems that may adversely affect SGCN or their habitats, and priority research and surveys needed to identify factors that may assist in restoration and improved conservation of SGCN and their habitats.
4. Conservation Actions: descriptions of the actions necessary to conserve SGCN and their habitats.
5. Monitoring: descriptions of the provisions for periodic monitoring of SGCN and their habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of conservation actions and for adapting conservation actions as appropriate to respond to new information or changing conditions.
6. Revision: description of provisions to review the plan at intervals not to exceed 10 years.
7. Coordination: description of provisions for coordination during the development, implementation, review and revision of the plan with Federal, State and local agencies and Indian Tribes that manage significant areas of land or water within the State or administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of species or their habitats.
8. Public Participation: description of provisions to provide the necessary public participation in the development, revision, and implementation of the plan.

Elements one through five are addressed in each chapter. The last three elements are described in detail in this Approach, Methods & Survey Needs section.

Identification of SGCN

SGCN include wildlife (by definition, both aquatic and terrestrial) and plant species for which a population has been documented within Michigan that depend on resources available within the State during any life stage (e.g., breeding, migration, wintering). The plan excludes species documented within Michigan but believed to be accidental or infrequent visitors.

Wildlife listed as Federally or State Endangered or Threatened, or identified as Special Concern, are automatically included on the SGCN list. This list was updated based on recommendations from Michigan’s Taxa Advisory Committees; members represent state experts for each taxon. Each Taxa Advisory Committee reviewed and provided recommended changes to the criteria for listing a species as State Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern. The SWAP core development team also considered extirpated species if there was significant commitment from agencies to re-introduce the species over the next 10 years. Additional species could be recommended for inclusion to the SGCN list with sufficient documentation of rationale and a review by the SWAP core development team. The process of revising the SGCN list has been directly tied to the State Threatened and Endangered species list review to streamline and increase transparency. Notably, the gray wolf (Canus lupus) is excluded from the SGCN list. The primary wolf management tool for the DNR is the Wolf Management Plan; all wolf related activities and goals are coordinated through that plan. Plants were added for the first time to the SGCN list with this iteration. Although SWG funds cannot be used solely on plants at the time of publication, we are hopeful funding will be created that allows targeted work on rare plants. To be proactive, we added plants using the same process as wildlife to the SGCN list.

Through this process, 714 species are now identified as SGCN for the next 10 years (Table 1, Appendix 1). Four hundred twenty-three species were added to the SGCN list since 2015, of which 378 are plants; eight species were removed. Rationales for removal are detailed in Appendix 2.

This iteration of the SWAP further delineates Species of Greatest Information Need (SGIN) as a subset of the SGCN list. These species are prioritized because they lack sufficient data, making baseline surveys essential to accurately assess their status within the state. Focusing funding and conservation efforts on SGIN helps fill these knowledge gaps, ensuring that effective management and protection strategies can be developed. There are 135 SGIN in the 2025-2035 SWAP, listed on page [see page 29].

Distribution and Abundance of SGCN

The distribution and relative abundance of each SGCN is detailed at Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Web Site (https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/). Distribution maps for focal species are included in each chapter. Data from a variety of sources were used including the state’s Natural Heritage Database and the Department of Natural Resources Fish Collection System. Distribution maps were based on documented locations of species, to the greatest extent possible, but some maps were supplemented with current range maps and data from best available resources, including expert opinion. Abundance information is described in the accompanying text. This section was included in both prior iterations of the SWAP (Eagle et al. 2005, Derosier et al. 2015) and was updated in this revision to include new information when available.

Table 1. Status and changes for the list of SGCN.

Limited conservation resources restrict capacity to focus on the recovery of every SGCN. Given the size of Michigan’s SGCN list and available resources, we acknowledge the need to prioritize conservation actions. We prioritized conservation actions for a subset of SGCN and key habitats to focus efforts on improving collaboration between partners and implementation of stewardship in the most important cultural and ecological landscapes.

Prioritizing SGCN

We prioritized SGCN using Michigan Natural Features Inventory data and expertise, consultation with species and taxa experts and NatureServe Explorer. If a species met any of the below criteria, it was elevated to the next level of prioritization and evaluation.

The recommended criteria for prioritizing SGCN are as follows:

1. Species is or was endemic or unique to Michigan or the Great Lakes;
2. Michigan is the stronghold for this species;
3. Species relies on obligate plants for host or nectar that are rare or threatened;
4. Species relies on obligate habitat that is imperiled (defined as natural communities with a G1 or G2 rank, or landscape features where condition is ≥70% degraded based on version 1 of the Wildlife Action Plan);
5. Species has specific existing priorities to one of the SWAP partners. These can be reflected in Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs), existing management plans, etc.;
6. There is an imminent threat to the species that is specifically defined and could cause the extirpation of the species in a very short timeframe (e.g., white-nose syndrome in cave-dwelling bats);
7. Species is globally imperiled (defined as G1 or G2);
8. Species is designated as critically imperiled or at very high risk of extirpation in the state (S1); or
9. Species is impacted by long-term threats that must be addressed now to avoid likely listing (e.g., land-use change, slow marching diseases, environmental stressors).

Focal Species and Key Habitats

To guide the organization of Michigan’s SWAP, the core development team grouped SGCN into natural community types based on the classification framework defined by Cohen et al. (2015, 2025). To simplify and streamline this organization, similar natural community types were combined (e.g., dry northern and dry southern forests were grouped as dry forest). The number of priority SGCN within each combined community type was then assessed to identify the most critical habitats for conservation action.

To maintain a practical and focused structure for the SWAP, habitat chapters from the previous version were merged where appropriate, allowing space to introduce chapters that reflect new conservation priorities. This SWAP is organized into 18 chapters: 10 terrestrial and wetland habitats, 7 aquatic habitats and 1 chapter based on wildlife health. These key habitats include a diverse range of systems, from terrestrial habitats like Grasslands to Peatlands, and aquatic habitats like Coldwater Streams to Great Lakes Coastal Systems, representing the breadth of Michigan’s ecological diversity and focusing on their specific conservation challenges.

Within each chapter, focal species were selected to represent broader needs of SGCN in those systems. The SWAP core development team developed criteria to guide this selection, emphasizing species for which Michigan serves as a stronghold, especially Federally listed or expected to be listed soon. Additional considerations included partner priorities, alignment with ongoing initiatives, and potential for positive impact on species’ population status with the application of conservation actions.

The focal species list was developed through an iterative, collaborative process. An initial draft was created by the DNR SWAP core team, then refined over six months of review with partners and DNR staff. Each chapter was limited to a maximum of seven focal species to ensure the strategy remains actionable. This approach ensures that focal species serve as effective surrogates for broader conservation efforts within each habitat.

For 2025-2035, Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan focuses conservation efforts on priorities, which are detailed in the following chapters and outlined in the table below.

Habitats for All SGCN

Nidentified Primary and occasional habitats for each SGCN can be found in their species profile at Michigan Natural Features Inventory’s web site (https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/) along with natural community type definitions.

Key Habitats & Relative Condition

Priorities in each chapter were developed to conserve or enhance key habitats for focal SGCN. Habitat definitions for terrestrial habitats generally follow the Natural Communities of Michigan (Cohen et al. 2015; Cohen et al. 2025). Definitions for aquatic habitats were primarily based on habitat suitability modeling (Cooper et al. 2022). These are described in each chapter, under the What are “habitat”? section (e.g., What are Bedrock Communities?).

Relative conditions of key habitats are described for each priority; this information was summarized from different sources according to the expertise of plan authors and partners. These are detailed in each chapter under the What is the health of “habitat”? section (MNFI 2025).

An element occurrence is the basic unit of record for documenting and delimiting the presence and geographic extent of a species or natural community on the landscape. Element occurrences are defined as an area of land and/or water where a species or natural community is, or was, present and which has practical conservation value. For each key habitat, we looked at the total number of element occurrences and changes in their viability. This information was summarized and used to describe their current condition. This is the best available data for the condition of key habitats and will provide a consistent approach to document changes in relative condition over time.

For streams and inland lakes, habitat condition was determined using a GIS-based assessment of watershed disturbance and fragmentation (Cooper et al. 2022). Habitat condition for Great Lakes habitats was based on input from partners.

Threats were identified for key habitats and focal SGCN by reviewing the scientific literature. Partners participating in plan development refined this list of threats and identified those that were most critical. Threats were categorized using the IUCN-CMP Threats Classification Version 4.0 (Salafsky et al. 2024) and were detailed in the chapters under the What are the Conservation Threats and Actions? section. Many of the threats facing SGCN are a result of direct and indirect human activity, such as residential and commercial development, natural systems modifications (e.g., bulkheads, dams, dredging, fire suppression, herbicides, logging, mining), human intrusions and disturbance (e.g., off-road vehicle use, boating, trail systems, illegal pet/wildlife trade), agriculture and aquaculture, pollution, and transportation and service corridors. To adequately address the threats, conservation actions must be multifaceted, including managing habitat; raising awareness and education; providing incentives for voluntary cooperation and mitigation/corrective action; establishing laws and policies as a deterrent; and enforcing laws where violations occur. Conservation actions may also require minimizing or eliminating human activities in focal SGCN habitats.

Adaptive Capacity as a New Tool for Conservation

MNFI, with funding support from the DNR, assessed the adaptive capacity of over 500 animal SGCN across the Midwest in 2024 (Earl et al. 2024). The previous version of Michigan’s SWAP used a Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI; Derosier et al. 2015) to evaluate how SGCN might be affected by shifting weather patterns and long-term environmental trends. While the CCVI helped determine which species were most at risk, it is difficult to translate such information into concrete conservation actions without guidance on potential management responses. Managers cannot change a species’ biological sensitivity, and addressing exposure to environmental changes is often beyond their direct control.

The adaptive capacity approach offers a more nuanced understanding of how different species may respond to environmental stressors. Rather than producing a single vulnerability score, the tool identifies specific traits where a species may be especially limited in its ability to adapt. This information helps managers better understand why a species is at risk and, more importantly, what can be done about it. For instance, if a species shows low adaptive capacity due to specialized habitat requirements or limited dispersal ability, conservation actions can be tailored to address those specific challenges.

The evaluation of Adaptive Capacity for SGCN was supported by funding from Competitive State Wildlife Grants and made use of a science-based tool developed by Thurman et al. (2020, 2022). This tool evaluates how well a species may be able to cope with environmental changes based on 37 key life history traits, such as reproductive strategy, habitat use, and dispersal ability.

The 2024 assessment prioritized species from Michigan’s 2015–2025 list of SGCN, with approximately 200 Michigan species being selected for assessment, reflecting a broad diversity of taxa including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects. Importantly, the selection of species was informed by multiple SWAPs in the region; enabling a broader, more cooperative approach. Unlike past assessments that were limited by state boundaries, this regional effort evaluated species across their entire geographic ranges. This offers two important benefits: (1) it increases the relevance of the results for multi-state conservation efforts and (2) it supports stronger coordination among Midwestern states working toward shared conservation goals.

Adaptive Capacity and climate vulnerability rankings were detailed in the chapters under the Focal Species Adaptive Capacity and How Vulnerable are Focal Species to a Changing Environment? sections.

Aquatic Species Vulnerability Assessments

For most aquatic focal SGCN, climate vulnerability was based on Cooper et al. (2022). For this analysis, habitat suitability models were constructed for each species under current climate conditions. These models were then used to predict the amount of change in suitable habitat and consequently species distributions by 2050 based on regionally down-scaled climate projections. Climate vulnerability rankings for each species were based on the amount of change in their current distribution and accounted for natural and anthropogenic barriers to dispersal. Rankings included: extremely vulnerable, indicating that a species range would be reduced by more than 50% or the species would disappear by 2050; highly vulnerable, indicating that a species range would be reduced by 10-50% by 2050; moderately vulnerable, indicating that a species range would decrease by 1-10% by 2050; and not vulnerable/presumed stable, indicating that a species range would likely increase or remain unchanged by 2050. Additional contributing research on climate vulnerability includes Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) Climate Change Team (2023) and Hansen et al. (2022).

Climate vulnerability rankings were detailed in the chapters under the How Vulnerable are Focal Species to a Changing Environment? section.

Conservation Actions, Research and Survey Needs for Key Habitats and Focal SGCN

Conservation actions, along with research and survey needs, were identified for key habitats and focal SGCN based on literature review and input from partners who participated in plan development. We focused on the most critical needs that could be addressed over the next 10 years given current levels of available resources and State Wildlife Grant (SWG) funding trends. Conservation actions and research and survey needs were listed and categorized under the IUCN-CMP Action Classification Beta Version 2.0 (Salafsky et al. 2024). These needs, as well as links to existing plans, were detailed in the chapters under the What are the Threats & Conservation Actions? section.

Many state and national conservation and management plans have been developed over the past ten years. To capitalize on existing efforts and to facilitate expansion of partnerships, we cross-referenced actions in our chapters with actions identified in other conservation and management plans. Within each chapter, we included superscripts at the end of actions that could be linked to existing plans as well as a list of these planning documents.

Places for Partnerships to Implement Conservation Actions

Maps were developed through an iterative process with partners to identify priority areas to implement conservation actions. This process was guided by a common goal of achieving the greatest impact for focal species and their habitats, given constraints in funding, resources and capacity for rare species conservation. Therefore, maps are based on areas that were most valuable for focal SGCN, areas with ongoing conservation efforts and areas with potential to expand conservation actions. Given current funding levels, this iteration of the SWAP focused on 3 to 5 places per terrestrial chapter. In the aquatic chapters, places are ranked based on priorities identified by the DNR and partners. These areas will guide funding opportunities and work when possible. However, we recognize that significant conservation opportunities may exist outside of identified priority areas. Priority area maps are detailed in each chapter under the Where are There Places for Partnerships? section.

Monitoring Key Habitats & Focal SGCN

For the purposes of the SWAP, we define monitoring as “purposeful data collection performed routinely over time”. Each chapter identifies specific monitoring and survey needs for focal SGCN and key habitats. They identify existing protocols and programs that will be used or whether new monitoring protocols or efforts are needed. Monitoring and survey needs are detailed in each chapter under the How Will We Monitor? section.

We cross-referenced monitoring needs in all SWAP chapters with monitoring needs identified in other conservation and management plans. Within chapters, superscripts are included at the end of monitoring needs that could be linked to existing plans as well as a list of these planning documents.

Monitoring All SGCN

Given limited resources and capacity, we are using focal SGCN to prioritize conservation actions. When able, we will monitor any species from the SGCN list. For some taxa groups we have regular standardized surveys, which provide consistent information on which to base decisions. However, for most taxa groups we do not have existing survey programs and rely on opportunistic sampling efforts and data. These opportunities may come through additional effort to existing surveys, new targeted efforts, or by working with community scientists. Surveys and monitoring are critical to the identification of SGCN, as well as their management needs. Below are survey and monitoring mechanisms used for each taxa group; we also include prominent community science and non-tribal partner efforts when applicable. Tribal monitoring programs are as varied as the tribes in Michigan and would require significant space to cover them. We recommend readers learn more about tribal efforts by starting with Michigan State University’s webpage on Michigan’s tribes and following the appropriate links to tribal websites from there: https://native.msu.edu/michigan-tribes/. We will continue to rely on information in the state’s Natural Heritage Database to evaluate distribution, relative abundance and population trends (MNFI 2025).

Plants

Plants currently have no regular systematic monitoring programs. Plant surveys are opportunistic based on available resources, interest and accessibility. Michigan’s Natural Heritage Database works with respected and verifiable digital and analog specimens and observational records to update the database when needed (e.g., Consortium of Midwest Herbaria, Michigan State University Herbarium and Michigan Flora, and University of Michigan Herbarium).

Mussels

Considered one of the most threatened taxa groups in North America (Haag 2012), freshwater mussels are surveyed fairly regularly. Surveys are completed using standard protocols, which vary depending on the project and question (Strayer and Smith 2003; Cummings and Graf 2010).

Snails

There are currently no regular systematic snail monitoring programs; surveys will be opportunistic based on available resources and interest. We will continue to rely on information in the state’s Natural Heritage Database to evaluate distribution, relative abundance and trends.

Crayfish

There are currently no regular systematic crayfish monitoring programs; surveys will be opportunistic based on available resources and interest. We will continue to rely on information in the state’s Natural Heritage Database to evaluate distribution, relative abundance and trends.

Insects

There are standardized survey efforts in place for some federally listed insect species. For most other insects, there are no regular monitoring programs; surveys will be opportunistic based on available resources and interest. We will use community science efforts, where available, to help evaluate distribution, relative abundance and trends for insects. Community science efforts could include iNaturalist, the Michigan Butterfly Network, Bumble Bee Watch, Michigan Bumble Bee Atlas, Michigan Odonata Survey and others. We will also continue to rely on information in the state’s Natural Heritage Database.

Fish

There are many regular and standardized fish surveys throughout Michigan, and the following data will be used: DNR Status and Trends Stream and Lake Surveys, DNR Trap Net Surveys, DNR Trawl Surveys, DNR Lake Sturgeon Assessments, USFWS Adult Fish Community Gill Net Assessments, USFWS Small Benthic Fish Surveys, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Juvenile Seining Surveys, USGS Pelagic Larval Fishes and USGS Bottom Drift Larval Fishes. Targeted surveys may also be needed. While many resources are available for fish in general, non-game fish are often understudied. We will continue to use the DNR GIS group to evaluate distribution, relative abundance and trends.

Amphibians

Amphibian surveys occur regularly within Michigan. We will compile data from participatory science platforms, such as iNaturalist, HerpAtlas and HerpMapper, and conduct targeted research projects to obtain additional information on the distribution and relative abundance of amphibian species, particularly those that have been under-surveyed in the state. We will continue to rely on information in the state’s Natural Heritage Database. We will also collaborate with and obtain relevant data from state and regional monitoring and research programs, such as the Michigan Vernal Pool Patrol and the Salamander Population and Research Adaptation Collaboration Network (SPARCnet).

Reptiles

Reptile surveys occur regularly within Michigan. We will continue to use information from the state’s Natural Heritage Database. We also will compile data from participatory science platforms, such as iNaturalist, HerpAtlas and HerpMapper, to help assess species distribution and relative abundance. We will continue to develop and implement standardized and effective survey and monitoring protocols for targeted reptile species to better assess and track their distribution, relative abundance, and trends across sites and over time.

Birds

Multiple long-term data collection efforts for birds are available as well as several smaller or more recent efforts. We will continue to use the annual North American Breeding Bird Survey for population trends. Additionally, we will use community science programs, such as eBird, to help assess distribution and relative abundance. We will continue to rely on information in the state’s Natural Heritage Database.

Mammals

Regular systematic mammal monitoring programs exist for some SGCN. Bats are monitored through the Michigan Bat Roost Monitoring Program. The DNR maintains a database of confirmed cougar sightings to monitor their distribution, and tracks moose through collar and camera surveys. Otherwise, mammal surveys and monitoring are opportunistic based on available resources, interest and accessibility. We will continue to rely on information in the state’s Natural Heritage Database.

Assessing Effectiveness of Conservation Actions

Assessing the effectiveness of conservation actions can take many forms depending on the importance and uncertainty of a project or action, available resources, and types of questions we are trying to answer. It can be as simple as monitoring photo points to look for changes in vegetation over time as a result of management actions or visiting a site after an action has occurred to see whether the intended species is using the managed habitat. Assessment can also be time intensive and statistically rigorous to answer specific research questions. We recommend that individual project partnerships determine their needs and develop methods to meet those needs. To assess the effectiveness of monitoring efforts, we recommend following standardized methods outlined for each taxa group (see Monitoring All SGCN) when available and applicable to project objectives. When such methods are not available, we recommend developing standardized methods in a collaborative effort. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Teaming with Wildlife Committee produced a report that recommended a framework of effectiveness measures that states and partners can use to enhance performance reporting (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2011).

Development of the 2025– 2035 SWAP required coordination among numerous partners across the state. We focused our coordination and engagement with conservation partners interested in working to conserve SGCN or their habitats; we took this approach to strengthen partnerships. We provided multiple opportunities for partners to engage in the revision of the SWAP (see Appendix 4 for a list of participating partners).

Engagement Opportunities

Updating SGCN List

After the SWAP core team drafted an initial list of SGCN based on criteria in the Identification of SGCN section, we hosted two in-person, and five virtual, partner and staff meetings over nine months to review the list and gather feedback. During this review time, we also worked over emails and calls to gather feedback from over 150 members of Michigan’s conservation community. This work occurred between December 2023 and August 2024.

Partner Engagement on Key Habitat and SGCN Development

Following the initial invitation for partners to review the draft SGCN list, the core development team expanded engagement efforts to include review of the draft Key Habitat list and the proposed organizational structure of the plan. Input was solicited through a combination of 2 in-person meetings, 2 virtual meetings and ongoing email correspondence, ensuring a range of accessibility and participation options. This collaborative feedback process occurred over a three-month period from January to March 2024. Partner insights were critical in refining both the habitat categorizations and the structure of the plan, and revisions were made iteratively to reflect emerging consensus and address concerns. Building on this foundation, the planning team then identified Focal Species and sought input from partners. From June through September 2024, targeted outreach was conducted to gather additional input on the Focal Species selections, ensuring that they aligned with partner priorities and the overall goals of the SWAP. For more information, see Focal Species and Key Habitats.

Chapter Development and Iterative Review Process

Once the Key Habitats and SGCN list were finalized, the team shifted focus to developing the core content of the Key Habitat chapters. This phase emphasized revising and updating existing content to reflect the latest scientific research, management outcomes from the past decade and the evolving priorities of conservation partners. Each chapter was developed by a dedicated workgroup composed of 3 to 10 members. Authorship of each chapter is listed in the individual chapters along with organizational affiliations of contributors. Upon completion of initial drafts, chapters were circulated to partners for review and feedback. This iterative review process allowed for multiple rounds of revision based on partner input. The chapter development and review phase took place between January 2025 and February 2026.

Final Public Review

The final draft of each chapter was available on the DNR’s website for a three-week public review and comment period. The request for public review was distributed to more than 105,000 subscribers of DNR email communications. The distribution list included individual recipients as well as media outlets that recirculated press releases through their own channels. We received and integrated 13 comments from the public on various chapter content.

Implementation

The DNR will support periodic opportunities to bring together partners around the priorities outlined in the chapters to share progress and lessons learned. We also intend to work with partners on grants and projects to implement the actions identified in the plan. The Wildlife Action Plan will be available online at www.michigan.gov/dnrwildlifeactionplan. Additional resources will be added as needed to aid partners in implementation.

A comprehensive review and revision will occur in 2035 at the end of 10 years in accordance with federal requirements.

This action plan should be considered a living document and may be updated before the 10-year comprehensive review; any change will be communicated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Below is a list of possible reasons for updating the plan and how they will be addressed:

• If a species is newly added to the Federal or State Endangered species list or the special concern list but is not on our SGCN list and occurs in Michigan, it will automatically be added to the plan.
• If a new threat is introduced to Michigan within the 10 year period, and it is expected to significantly impact populations (>50% declines) of a native species, the threat will be added to the appropriate priority. If an affected species was not a SGCN, it will be added to the list. We will work with partners following the same approach we took during the revision. We will invite partners to a workshop or webinar to develop actions to address the new threat and update the chapter. As a group, we will also reassess which actions are still important to address over the next 10 years and which ones may be deprioritized due to available resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be notified of our intent and be given a copy of the update.

Each priority has its own chapter with the following sections. Underlined words highlight the eight elements required in each Wildlife Action Plan.

What is the “habitat”? (e.g., What are peatlands?)

Description of the key habitats. Includes a list of natural communities found in this chapter. See MNFI’s website for more detailed information about these natural communities (https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/communities).

Why is this habitat important? (e.g., Why are peatlands important?)

Briefly outlines the benefits that each habitat provides and offers rationale for additional benefits beyond protection of rare species. It describes ecosystem services of the habitat, recreational and economic values and other important wildlife that rely on the habitat.

Plan Contributors?

A list of partners and organizations who helped develop the chapter.

What is the Health of the Habitat? (e.g., What is the health of peatlands?)

Describes the relative condition of the habitat within that priority.

What are the Focal Species?

Identifies the focal SGCN that will be central to conservation efforts and have status assessments at the end of 10 years. The current status is detailed as well as specific habitat needs of the species.

Accomplishments

This section highlights significant achievements by partners on SGCN and their habitats in the chapters. These lists are not intended to be exhaustive but provide examples of the important work done throughout Michigan to conserve rare species.

Goals

Delineates 10-year goals for each focal SGCN and the key habitat. These are goals the plan contributors felt were realistic given available resources for conservation work over the next 10 years.

What are the Threats & Conservation Actions?

Details threats to the key habitat and each focal SGCN.

Conservation actions, research, and surveys that need to be implemented over the next 10 years to conserve the focal SGCN and their key habitats are listed.

Focal Species Adaptive Capacity and How Vulnerable are Focal Species to a Changing Environment?

Terrestrial SGCN were assessed using an adaptive capacity framework, and aquatic SGCN were assessed using a climate vulnerability model (see Appendix 3 for more details). In terrestrial chapters, this information is found under “Focal Species Adaptive Capacity” sections, and in aquatic chapters it is found under “How Vulnerable are Focal Species to a Changing Environment”.

Where are Places for Partnerships?

Maps were designed to help partners connect around important places for SGCN and key habitats. They highlight places to voluntarily work together on conservation actions.

How Will We Monitor?

Monitoring and surveys that will be used to evaluate focal SGCN and habitat status after 10 years and determine whether we met our goals. This section includes specific ongoing and needed efforts.

How Does This Plan Link With Other Conservation Plans?

There has been a multitude of relevant planning efforts across the state and country over the past ten years. Bracketed superscripts throughout the Wildlife Action Plan indicate where the goal, conservation action or monitoring strategy aligns with those from another plan. This linking of plans is meant to facilitate the expansion of partnerships.

For many SGCN, we lack sufficient information on their statewide distribution or relative abundance. Often, existing survey efforts have not provided enough data on these species, and targeted surveys and other baseline information are still needed. Such species are designated as Species of Greatest Information Need (SGIN) and the following are identified for greater survey effort over the next 10 years:

Amphibians

Marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum)

Small-mouthed salamander (Ambystoma texanum)

Fish

Bigmouth shiner (Notropis dorsalis)

Brindled madtom (Noturus miurus)

Pugnose minnow (Opsopoeodus emiliae)

Insects: Bees

A leafcutter bee (Megachile dakotensis)

Parnassia miner bee (Andrena parnassiae)

Insects: Beetles

Six-banded longhorn beetle (Dryobius sexnotatus)

Cantrall's bog beetle (Liodessus cantralli)

Black lordithon rove beetle (Lordithon niger)

Insects: Butterflies and Moths

3-striped oncocnemis (Sympistis piffardi)

Astute stoneroot borer (Papaipema astuta)

Bog copper (Lycaena epixanthe)

Boomerang dart moth (Xestia perquiritata)

Boreal brachionycha (Brachionyncha borealis)

Canadian giant moth (Andropolia contacta)

Insects: Butterflies and Moths continued

Corylus dagger moth (Acronicta falcula)

Doll's merolonche (Merolonche dolli)

Dune cutworm (Euxoa aurulenta)

Early hairstreak (Erora laeta)

Four-lined borer moth (Resapamea stipata)

Giant eucosma moth (Eucosma giganteana)

Green-spotted sympistis (Sympistis viriditincta)

Imperitive xestia (Xestia imperita)

Included cordgrass borer (Photedes includens)

Jutta arctic (Oeneis jutta)

Magdalen underwing (Catocala illecta)

Michigan dune dart (Copablepharon michiganensis)

Mixed dart moth (Euxoa immixta)

Purplish copper (Lycaena helloides)

Quiet underwing (Catocala dulciola)

Red-disked alpine (Erebia discoidalis)

Regal fern borer (Papaipema speciosissima)

Scribbled sallow moth (Sympistis perscripta)

Spartina moth (Photedes inops)

Three-horned moth (Pachypolia atricornis)

Three-staff underwing (Catocala amestris)

Insects: Cicadas and Hoppers

A leafhopper (Dorydiella kansana)

A leafhopper (Flexamia reflexa)

Angular spittlebug (Lepyronia angulifera)

Elegant spikerush leafhopper (Limotettix elegans)

Sanders' golden leafhopper (Auridius sandaraca)

Insects: Dragonflies and Damselflies

Grey petaltail (Tachopteryx thoreyi)

Pygmy snaketail (Ophiogomphus howei)

Russet-tipped clubtail (Stylurus plagiatus)

Insects: Grasshoppers and Crickets

Atlantic-coast locust (Psinidia fenestralis)

Bog conehead (Neoconocephalus lyristes)

Davis's shield-bearer (Atlanticus davisi)

Delicate meadow katydid (Orchelimum delicatum)

Green desert grasshopper (Orphulella pelidna)

Hoosier locust (Paroxya hoosieri)

Red-faced meadow katydid (Orchelimum concinnum)

Walsh's short-winged grasshopper (Melanoplus walshii)

Insects: Mayflies

A mayfly (Epeorus suffusus)

Land Snails

A land snail (Mediappendix protracta)

A land snail (Vertigo modesta modesta)

A land snail (Vertigo modesta parietalis)

Banded globe (Anguispira kochi)

Carinate pillsnail (Euchemotrema hubrichti)

Carolina mantleslug (Philomycus carolinianus)

Cherrystone drop (Hendersonia occulta)

Copper button (Mesomphix cupreus)

Crested vertigo (Vertigo cristata)

Crested vertigo (Vertigo pygmaea)

Deep-throat vertigo (Vertigo nylanderi)

Delicate vertigo (Vertigo bollesiana)

Depressed ambersnail (Oxyloma peoriense)

Domed disc (Discus patulus)

Eastern flat-whorl (Planogyra asteriscus)

File thorn (Carychium nannodes)

Flat dome (Ventridens suppressus)

Foster mantleslug (Pallifera fosteri)

Frigid ambersnail (Mediappendix gelida)

Honey vertigo (Vertigo tridentata)

Hubricht's vertigo (Vertigo hubrichti)

Imperforate glyph (Glyphyalinia solida)

Indecisive vallonia snail (Vallonia gracilicosta albula)

Lambda snaggletooth (Gastrocopta holzingeri)

Marsh hive snail (Euconulus alderi)

Median striate (Striatura meridionalis)

Mystery vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa)

Pleistocene catinella (Mediappendix exilis)

Proud globe (Mesodon elevates)

Proud globelet (Patera pennsylvanica)

Pyramid dome (Ventridens intertextus)

Sealed globelet (Mesodon mitchellianus)

Six-whorl vertigo (Vertigo morsei)

Smooth coil (Lucilla singleyana)

Southeastern gem (Hawaiia alachuana)

Spike-lip crater (Appalachina sayanus)

Sterki's granule (Guppya sterkii)

Tapered vertigo (Vertigo elatior)

Trumpet vallonia snail (Vallonia parvula)

Velvet wedge (Xolotrema denotatum)

Widespread column (Pupilla muscorum)

Yellow globelet (Mesodon clausus)

Mammals

Prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster)

Woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum)

Reptiles

Butler’s garter snake (Thamnophis butleri)

Kirtland's snake (Clonophis kirtlandii)

Plants

A sedge (Carex hirsutella)

Beaked agrimony (Agrimonia rostellata)

Bog bluegrass (Poa paludigena)

Branching bur-reed (Sparganium androcladum)

Canadian rice-grass (Piptatheropsis canadensis)

Dwarf raspberry (Rubus acaulis)

Fairy bells (Prosartes hookeri)

Fescue sedge (Carex festucacea)

Forked rush (Juncus dichotomus)

Georgia bulrush (Scirpus georgianus)

Goosefoot corn salad (Valerianella chenopodiifolia)

Greenstar sedge (Carex viridistellata)

Hemlock-parsley (Conioselinum chinense)

Large toothwort (Cardamine maxima)

Mullein-foxglove (Dasistoma macrophylla)

Narrow-leaved sedge (Carex amphibola)

Oval ladies-tresses (Spiranthes ovalis)

Prairie wedge grass (Sphenopholis obtusata)

Pumpell’s brome (Bromus pumpellianus)

Purple giant hyssop (Agastache scrophulariifolia)

Russet wotton-grass (Eriophorum russeolum)

Sawtooth wormwood (Artemisia serrata)

Sessile tooth-cup (Ammannia robusta)

Shining wedge grass (Sphenopholis nitida)

Spike-rush (Eleocharis geniculate)

Spotted pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher)

Stout smartweed (Persicaria robustior)

Swink's St. John's-wort (Hypericum swinkianum)

Virginia water-horehound (Lycopus virginicus)

White bergamot (Monarda clinopodia)

White forget-me-not (Myosotis verna)

Wild oatgrass (Danthonia intermedia)

Woodland cudweed (Omalotheca sylvatica)

Yellow water crowfoot (Ranunculus gmelinii)