![[KBB HCP page header]](../images/subpheaderb2.jpg)
![[GVSU logo]](../images/g2-top3.jpg)
![[DNR Logo]](../images/dnr_circle.jpg)
Present: John Legge (The Nature Conservancy-West Michigan), Linda Koning (West Michigan Butterfly Association), John Niewoonder (MDNR Flat River State Game Area), Nate Fuller (Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy), Norah Fletchall (John Ball Zoo), Margaret Parker (Consumers Energy), Jennifer Fettinger (MSUE Michigan Natural Features Inventory), Larry Lyons, Tom Schneider (Detroit Zoo), Steve Mueller ( Kent ISD), Jim Dunn (Grand Valley state University), Mike DeCapita (US Fish and Wildlife Service), Pat Lederle (MDNR Endangered Species Coordinator), Maria Albright (MDNR Allegan State Game Area), John Lerg (MDNR Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan Coordinator), Joe Kelly (US forest Service Manistee National Forest), Jeremy Emmi (Michigan Nature Association), Rhoda DeJonge (Land Conservancy of West Michigan), Doug Powless (Land Conservancy of West Michigan)
This was the annual meeting of the Working Group. The meeting started with self introductions. John Lerg explained the function of the Group and contrasted it with the function of the Management Partners Workgroup. John pointed out that this Working Group has expanded, as interest in the butterfly has expanded, from a group of scientists and land managers to a Group that now embraces zoo personnel, private landowners, butterfly enthusiasts, and educators. He also noted that the Group would be dealing more with population-based challenges relating the butterfly as the Management Partners Workgroup dealt with the habitat-based challenges.
Land managers at areas historically supporting KBB reported on their activities of the past year.
John Niewoonder reported on individual efforts involving burning and cutting to maintain habitats on the Flat River State Game Area. He noted particular difficulty in preserving the savanna state given the propensity of the sites to convert to a forested condition. He also discussed plans to integrate historic sites into a larger effort to maintain savanna at a larger scale on this public land.
Maria Albright reported on burning and mowing at Allegan State Game Area. This year's effort is part of an ongoing focus at Allegan over the past decade or more to maintain savanna. Restrictions in the Endangered Species Act surrounding take have added to the complexity of managing savannas, and the opportunity for a Research Permit to cover some activities at Allegan will be a welcome boost to current management efforts.
Joe Kelly reported on management that is occurring on the Manistee National Forest following on the Biological Opinion and amendments to the Forest Plan that have been produced on behalf of the KBB through compliance with provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. He reports that he is involved with additional efforts in documentation in this regard.
John Legge reported on efforts that The Nature Conservancy is undertaking on Conservancy property in Brooks Township, Newaygo County. A specific focus of their efforts has been to reduce spotted knapweed AND Pennsylvania sedge and convert reduced areas to native plants, especially those with nectaring potential for KBB. John offered to share data the Conservancy has as a result of their work with interested parties.
With the Recovery Plan soon expected in final form, Mike addressed the relationship between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the various agencies and organizations that had an interest in contributing to recovery. Mike reported that while the Service does take the lead in managing listed species, much of the work accomplished in species recovery is done by cooperators (State, NGOs, USFS, researchers), and the Service often acts as a coordinating body. The work taken on by the cooperators under auspices of the ESA is voluntary, but work with a listed species that potentially involves take does require special provisions that are typically couched within a permit from the Service.
Michigan has significant acreage both on public and private land that supports KBB habitat. MDNR has a history of active management of public lands for various objectives. Many of the management practices used in managing these lands (prescribed burning, mowing, timber cutting) have the potential to take KBB. Thus, MDNR intends to secure the permits necessary to proceed with management of affected public lands.
Two permit options are available: a Research and Recovery Permit and an Incidental Take Permit. The Recovery Permit addresses situations that can result in direct take. This Permit type typically addresses activities that are of short duration. MDNR will be applying for a Recovery Permit to address management on MDNR lands for an initial 5-year period. This will allow management to go forward on KBB-occupied sites for the period while the Habitat Conservation Plan is being written.
MDNR will also be applying for an Incidental Take Permit. This Permit is supported on an accepted Habitat Conservation Plan. MDNR will take the lead in drafting an HCP to support an application for Incidental Take Permit. The HCP will have a statewide scope (exempting US Forest Service lands that are addressed under the ESA Section 7) and will involve public and private Management Partners who will share in the benefits conveyed through the Incidental Take Permit. The Incidental Take Permit will be the long-term arrangement that will allow management to go forward on KBB-occupied habitat.
Because the Habitat Conservation Plan will be statewide in scope, MDNR will draft this plan within a larger Oak Savanna Ecosystem Management Plan. Because of the extensive nature and distribution of KBB habitat in the state, effective management for this species will involve a significant proportion of existing Oak Savanna within the state. Management at this scale has the potential to impact other species endemic to this ecosystem. Management for this ecosystem sets in place an approach that structures a sensitivity for these species as well. Management at the ecosystem level also allows for more optimal incorporation of the variety of land use objectives that are currently directed to this land base.
MDNR will also be sharing in the drafting of a MRIP. An outline built on the direction included in the draft Recovery Plan was presented to further discussion. This outline provides the opportunity to detail strategic approaches within each of the 4 Recovery Units within the state. The northern 2 RUs are focused around KBB-occupied habitat in the Manistee National Forest. Thus, the USFS will have the lead in crafting the approach in these 2 RUs. Similarly, MDNR will have the lead in crafting approaches in the southern 2 RUs. Approaches will be closely coordinated between the 2 lead agencies. Group members are asked to review the outline and suggest additions or concerns. Additional draft language will be sent out for review and comment as it is prepared.
The MRIP will incorporate other planning efforts that occur on behalf of the KBB and will actually exist in large part as a reference document highlighting other work. In this regard, the HCP will be incorporated to meet habitat-based objectives detailed in the Recovery Plan. Also, research and outreach initiatives will be integrated as a part of this plan. One research project, newly underway, will be evaluating the population structure that KBB exhibit in Michigan and reflecting this existing structure against the theoretical metapopulation structure as detailed in the Recovery Plan and evaluating the robustness of the theoretical metapopulation model in capturing the dynamics of the existing KBB populations. (Alternatively, existing KBB populations may be better described simply as exhibiting a fragmented population character.) This research is being done by Dr. Jim Dunn, Grand Valley State University. Progress on this research will be reported at annual meetings.
Both the HCP and MRIP will be constructed largely as strategic plans. Where operational objectives are mandated as a part of strategic objective accomplishment, operational objectives will be reflected in local managed area plans (State Game Area Master Plans, Forest Plans, Natural Area Plans, etc.). The function of the strategic plans will be to ensure that strategic objectives are developed that address the full range of KBB recovery needs and to ensure full integration of these objectives with related strategic and operational objectives included within associated plans.
In order to make the conversion from population management to habitat management, better definition of patches and patch size, corridor existence and functionality, and habitat mosaic are needed. A draft habitat description was passed out that includes a digestion of references to habitat drawn from the draft Recovery Plan.
Concern was expressed regarding potential contradictory management goals on public land entities. The need for forest interior areas was used as an example where management for one set of objectives could conflict with management for another. This highlighted the need for effective integration of objectives, especially between strategic and operational plans.
The opportunity to make use of volunteers was discussed. Volunteers can serve to increase staffing on a temporary/peak need basis. Use of volunteers also contributes to a better understanding of the KBB and its plight---indirect buy in. Volunteer help was considered potentially useful in population monitoring, habitat monitoring, management effect monitoring, and outreach. Concerns came up regarding the quality of data generated using volunteers. Jim Dunn offered that he had good results when utilizing this technique on stream monitoring. He did acknowledge that effective training was critical. It was pointed out that there are models available that have worked very well in harnessing the energy of volunteers eg. Audubon Christmas Bird Count, Cornell Bird Survey. Such models might be used to complete de novo searches and to gain access to sites where access has been challenging for agency personnel.
Questions came up as to the contribution of various populations to the Michigan-based objectives identified in the Recovery Plan. Existing populations within the RUs have been identified as the focus around which to build to meet recovery objectives. Additional populations within these RUs have value in adding population redundancy to the species and to provide a keystone species to compliment ecosystem conservation. KBB populations outside RUs, especially naturally occurring populations, provide an opportunity to modify our understanding of the needs of the KBB in relation to its environment.
It was reiterated that MDNR intent is to manage at the ecosystem level while also managing at the species level. An underlying assumption is that species management can be nested within ecosystem management, but not the other way around. Recovery Plan goals can be accomplished by managing more intensively at a smaller geographic scale involving fewer land managers or more extensively at a larger geographic scale involving more land managers. The extensive management template reduces risk to the KBB, but it does involve a wider array of land use objectives, necessitate a higher degree of coordination, and does impact more species. Thus, managing at the ecosystem level is a response to a greater complexity of management challenges brought about by the scale of the overall effort. This approach brings to bear a management priority that emphasizes the ecosystem and then the habitat and butterfly. By contrast, the Recovery Plan places an emphasis on the KBB and then the habitat.
What are goals on private lands? Goals include identifying and enhancing robust KBB populations, and maintaining and developing adequate habitat supported within oak savanna to assure long term survival of resident KBB populations. Such mosaics have the highest value when they occur within existing RUs and can add redundancy to existing metapopulations.
Habitat that is maintained in the absence of the KBB and habiat that exists outside RUs has value in providing a native plant seed source and adding to the robustness of oak savanna in the state. Oak savanna hosts a number of imperiled species in addition to KBB. Savanna is also rich in biological diversity. Examples of savanna maintained in a dispersed nature on private lands contribute significantly to the qualities that the oak savanna ecosystem has to offer.
What about associated species? There are a number of species that have a range similar to the KBB. Two other lupine feeders, the frosted elfin and Persius duskywing, exist in essentially the same habitat as the KBB. Other species with a similar range include many of the leafhoppers and the Great Plains spittlebug. Species with a range that includes a mosaic of several habitat patches, a range including an area that is 100 to 1000 times that of the KBB, include deer, wild turkey, and coyote. Understanding the species-environment relationship of each of these species furthers our understanding of how this ecosystem operates and how it can be maintained. An understanding of the relationships of species with ranges similar to the KBB can be used as a fine filter in tailoring management at the habitat patch level. Understanding deer, turkey and coyote can serve as a coarse filter in managing at the ecosystem level. Consideration of information provided through an understanding of both coarse and fine filter species will prompt greater management compatibility and promote more optimal timing of management practices.
Incentives to private landowners were discussed. Programs are available to cost-share habitat establishment, especially in areas that have adjacent KBB populations. A coordinating body is needed to track the efforts that are underway on private land and to provide additional information and networking for those involved in this effort.
A similar tracking and networking coordination is needed to address needs within education and outreach. Norah Fletchall offered to serve in this capacity (Thank you Norah!). She asks that people involved with the KBB input their E & O activities to her so they can be tracked. She offered that there is an opportunity or funding of some of these activities. The AZA is funding work to benefit endangered butterflies that is initiated by multiple institutions.
The afternoon was taken up with demonstrations of various population and habitat survey techniques, comparison of their application by various entities, and a critique of their effectiveness. An annual meeting was proposed for 2004, possibly in the northern part of the KBB Michigan range.