![[KBB HCP page header]](../images/subpheaderb2.jpg)
![[GVSU logo]](../images/g2-top3.jpg)
![[DNR Logo]](../images/dnr_circle.jpg)
Present: Maria Albright (MDNR Allegan SGA), David Blaszkiewic (John Ball Zoo), Gary Dawson (Consumers Energy), Rhoda de Jonge (Land Conservancy of West Michigan), Jennifer Fettinger (Michigan Natural Features Inventory), Norah Fletchall (John Ball Zoo), Daniel Hemman (John Ball Zoo), Joe Kelly (USFS Manistee NF) Pat Lederle (Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources), John Legge (The Nature Conservancy), John Lerg (Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources), John Niewoonder (MDNR Flat River SGA), Margaret Parker (Consumers Energy), Doug Powless (Land Conservancy of West Michigan), David Schuen (Michigan Dept. of Transportation), Larry Visser (MDNR NWMU)
This was the first meeting of the Karner Blue Butterfly (KBB) Management Partners Workgroup.
John Lerg, KBB Habitat Conservation Plan Coordinator, began the meeting by welcoming everyone and introducing Nora Fletchall, Assistant Director John Ball Zoo and co-host of the meeting.
The meeting started with self-introductions. John explained this is a representative group who will share in the planning process and gave an overview of the meeting's agenda.
Presentation by Pat Lederle, Michigan Endangered Species Coordinator, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits "take" of a listed species.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) is required if "take" may occur while engaging in otherwise lawful activity.
A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is required for an ITP application.
Need ITP:
The KBB Recovery Plan - Roadmap to Recovery
Recovery & HCPs
Biological Goals and Objective
Conservation Strategy
Michigan Recovery Implementation Plan (MRIP)
Ecosystem Management
Recovery: Everyone's Best Interest
John Lerg and Pat Lederle agree that the Michigan plan will have fewer partners initially than the Wisconsin plan. More can be accomplished interactively with a smaller group. However, this does not mean that other groups will not be included later. If others want to get involved, they will be allowed to. There are representatives of groups who were invited to this meeting but were unable to attend and do want to be kept informed and included. Some groups, i.e. Allegan County Road Commission, we can solicit as long as we present them with a plan. Final notes from the meeting will be posted on the website, www.karnerblue.org, not the DNR website.
Joe explains that, for the federal agencies, they must follow a different procedure - Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
Informal Consultation Process
Becomes a Formal Consultation Process
This is all a lengthy process that must be gone through before anything can be done on the ground. When that has finally occurred, Joe must then monitor the effect the action has had on the habitat and the numbers of KBB themselves. He then must submit a report to USFWS at the end of each year.
Presently they are going through their "forest plan revision". The KBB was listed after the plan was reviewed. They are amending the plan for the KBB habitat.
Presentation by Jennifer Fettinger, Associate Program Leader - Zoology, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Using a map from last year showing KBB localities - looked at the eco units and made the recovery units. Now have a map showing presence of KBB and Lupine using GPS.
-2002 Activities-
113 potential sites were visited
11 new sites were found
57 previously known sites found KBB
Failed to find KBB at 45 sites - much of that may have been due to weather or other variances that could have affected the survey
A mock, completed KBB & Lupine Survey Form is presented to show how data is noted and how it will now be in a more useful form
The next field season, focus will be on more state and private land. Federal lands have generally been well covered. Will also be looking at habitat suitability and threats. Understanding habitat and availability will be doing more statistical analysis next year. If previously found sites were dense with lupine but no KBB, will revisit them again. Next year's analysis will be much more in depth, and anticipated result is to use the data gathered over 3 years which will enable a more complete picture of the species and its habitat.
It is suggested by members of the group, volunteers be solicited who could help survey. It is not difficult to identify the KBB or the Lupine. It was suggested that the website might also be a place to house information for the private landowner and perhaps a brochure to start to network with some of the different organizations.
Building the HCP
The need is to lay out very specific instruction so that it is clear. HCP is for any nonfederal individuals/agencies who get involved in the process. If it is the state's right of way or easement is on federal land then it would fall under Section 7. If a power company is maintaining lines that are on federal land and opportunity for "take" occurred, it would fall under Section 7. It is important to have such agencies input so that some techniques, such as used in maintaining right of way, may benefit the species. It is important to also have at the table those who control the right of ways. The need is to lay out very specific instructions so that that the process, HCP, is clear. The coordination is valuable so there should be a mutually agreeable structure for contractors. A standard protocol is worthy, not just with the KBB. There is also the issue of how to obtain "blanket permission" for these types of groups.
John will draft a set of goals and objectives, a vision of "who we are and where we are headed", to be submitted to the group for their review. As the project is being developed, it will also be reviewed with other groups. A clearer view of MRIP also fits into this. An outline will be done of the two planning efforts and how they network. When the final draft is complete the partners will have the opportunity to review it first bearing in mind that it will be the DNR whose name is on it and that it will be the DNR submitting it to the USFWS.
The USFWS is going to be involved in this. John explains that they are very interested but were unable to attend today's meeting. The USFWS would like coordination between the Management Partners Workgroup and the Stakeholders Group.
A concern was expressed wondering if our focus was too narrow on the KBB, what are our opportunities, are we making sure we are thinking on the broad scale? Pat explains that although the focus on the HCP is for a certain species (KBB), it is incumbent upon all of us to focus on other benefits we can provide within this project. John explains that using KBB as a check on the habitat, not the other way around. This is very much a habitat based and ecosystem driven plan. The final HCP will have to be something we are all comfortable in signing. John says further that it will have to be ecosystem based in order for him recommend it.
Pat Lederle: There is the statute, the regulation, and then the procedure. If we do this in a good manner that all agree with, recovery will be the result. An HCP can benefit or can be neutral but it cannot harm - we can make it a benefit. We can have a positive proactive document and push the USFWS comfort level in our habitat approach - this is a habitat recovery plan - not a butterfly plan. Our approach is to look at the broad landscape and work from there.
John Lerg: One thing that many endangered species have in common is a habitat in peril.
Is the plan supposed to be so detailed that it identifies a minimum amount of acreage the KBB need to survive?
John Lerg: The USFWS assumption is that all KBB are in the recovery units, and it falls to the state to define the populations within these units. We do not have any critical habitat. We have habitat that may be essential but not critical. Essential - meets minimum population needs. It can move as population develops or moves.
Pat Lederle: The recovery plan comes up with some numerical goals. There is a forest plan, there are recovery permits - I think collectively we will get recovery within the state. It depends on your level of participation. We could meet many of the recovery goals by just working known areas, but we can exceed these by taking a broader approach. Some groups do not want to just worry about take but enhance the property.
How can you build into the HCP permanence for maintaining the habitats?
John Lerg: You have to find a way operationally to manage the land for your prime objectives and still benefit KBB. The objective, long term, is to maintain the ecosystem that maintains the species. The idea is to develop a long term plan that is completed every year and becomes institutionalized. A 25 year plan that is an applicant driven process and we are the applicant. The Federal register says that it can be species based or habitat based so it depends on how we want to write it. Within the plan, a landowner can establish a baseline KBB population or KBB habitat. Improvements made to the land after that point that benefit KBB can be rolled back to the baseline without penalty to the landowner.
Gary Dawson: I see this plan as a living document.
Norah Fletchall: If we build it they will come.
David Schuen: We have lots of roadway in the state and opportunities for roadside management but we would need some assurance that if we need to expand the road 20 years from now, there is a mechanism to do so and still protect KBB. There could be a big gain for KBB but there is a potential loss in the future for us if there is no mechanism.
Pat Lederle: A lot of people have argued that we don't want to establish habitat by right of ways due to "take" from the cars, yet, there is a lot of potential for this kind of work along the right of ways if you accept there will be a limited amount of KBB loss.
John Lerg: Beauty of HCP is allowing, within the plan, for the movement of habitat.
Pat Lederle: There is something called "no surprises" information within HCP.
David Schuen: We have 5, 10, 20 year plans - they (MDOT's plans) always change, but they are on the website.
Gary Dawson: This is not much different than the Kirtland's Warbler approach. The right of ways go across land associations of one type or another. I would like to think of these corridors as habitat, and money could go into these habitats. Consumers Energy gives money to people that help us with our lines i.e. what they plant underneath helps us with our maintenance. There are a lot of benefits with this and thinking about this being habitat.
Jennifer Fettinger: I agree. I note as I do surveys that there would not be habitat in some sites if not for some of these corridors.
Pat Lederle: A lot of organizations like DNR, USFWS, MDOT - they do things because it is an institutional way of doing it (they've always done things this way so why change).
John Lerg: You have to look at the areas that have KBB right now - look at the application cost with different techniques and come up with a protocol that has a conservative cost for management of that land that accomplishes a good that people, especially partners, recognize as well.
Pat Lederle: If we get this outreach program going then we can institutionalize it and have it in place.
Nora Fletchall: With curriculum and education there is far more engrained environmental awareness these days. We need to be careful of ecophobia - we need to do this in a positive light, education will go a long way towards that.
David Schuen: Outreach needs to target a diversity, e.g. private individuals, corporate, stakeholders.
Norha Flechall: Outreach needs to target different groups with different strategies dependent on the group.
Agenda for the next meeting:
John Lerg will look at goals and objectives that he has drafted. He will send these out before the next meeting.
Pat Lederle will speak about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Must comply with NEPA in order to get this permit and we will be doing it differently than Wisconsin did. Pat will also speak about the process of writing the document.
Wednesday, June 25, 2003,
10:00p.m. to 3:00p.m.
John Ball Zoo Boardroom