![[KBB HCP page header]](../images/subpheaderb2.jpg)
![[GVSU logo]](../images/g2-top3.jpg)
![[DNR Logo]](../images/dnr_circle.jpg)
Present: Tom Funke (Binder Park Zoo), Steve Mueller (Howard Christensen Nature Center), Norah Fletchall (John Ball Zoo), Dan Hemmann (John Ball Zoo), John Niewoonder (MDNR), Gary Dawson (Consumers Energy Co.), Krys Bylund (John Ball Zoo Society), Brenda Stringer (John Ball Zoo Society), Jim Dunn (Grand Valley State University), Tameka Dandridge (USFWS), Mike DeCapita (USFWS), Gordon Ferguson (ENSR), James Smith (METC), Corrie Towns (ANR Pipeline Co.), Todd Hogrefe (MDNR), Rex Ennis (Huron Manistee N.F.), John Lerg (MDNR)
This was the fifth meeting of the KBB Management Partners Workgroup
John Lerg, KBB Habitat Conservation Plan Coordinator, Michigan DNR, began the meeting.
Populations of KBB at Allegan State Game Area were robust for this year's second flight. Counted 10,000 in one metapopulation and 18,000 in another.
Structure of the mitigation has yet to be resolved. There will be a teleconference meeting for the Recovery Team on September 22 thru September 24, 2004. This will allow a different framework for Michigan staff and offer a greater opportunity for more members to participate.
Detroit Zoo has contacted John. They would like to work with us in Monroe County. There will be a meeting in October 2004, which will include people from Ohio and management staff from the area the project is in. Tameka Dandridge, USFWS, is in the process of reviewing the HCP along with the Recovery Permit. Robin Nivers, USFWS, is looking into what the definition is of "occupied habitat".
James Dunn, Ph.D., Grand Valley State University
A mark/release/recapture study took place in Oceana County. The study included a 40% recovery of KBB of which 80% were males. Dr. Dunn will be publishing the results. Findings include:
Steve Mueller, Howard Christensen Nature Center
In July 2004, Steve attended the Lepidopterists Society Conference in Maryland. Steve presented a paper, which he and Jennifer Fettinger had written, on KBB recovery efforts in Michigan. Steve's presentation and paper were well received by Conference attendees. They requested that Steve and Jennifer prepare a paper to present at next year's conference. Steve will give this same paper to the Workgroup at the next meeting.
Gordon Ferguson, Consultant - ENSR
Gordon is working with the Michigan Electric Transmission Company to "change out" some power lines in KBB habitat in southern Muskegon County. They have submitted an HCP to USFWS and to MDNR. They are hoping to begin the "reconductering" in November 2004 with the actual work starting in late December 2004, or January 2005. Initially, this work was to have begun in the spring of 2004 but was delayed for KBB first and second flights.
Rex Ennis, Huron-Manistee National Forest
General indications, from the Forest Service's 2004 KBB monitoring, are that population numbers are down at some sites, apparently stable at other sites. Considerations for this could be due to weather, surveys not conducted during peak flight, and a reflection that all species of butterflies' numbers were down considerably in 2004. The lower KBB numbers, however, seem to be part of a downward trend which has occurred over the past four years.
Forest Service is moving forward with their Forest Plan Revisions.
Jennifer Fettinger, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
2004 is the final year of a 3 year effort.
Year 1 - revisited known sites to verify presence or document extirpation of KBB
Year 2 - documented KBB new sites on private lands and public land
Year 3 - surveyed outlying areas that showed potential for KBB and habitat also fill data gaps by defining the boundaries of the populations
Survey Goals
2004 Spring Surveys
2004 Summer Surveys
Survey Characteristics
Highlights/Findings
Summary of Last 3 Years Surveys
Still Ahead
Jennifer will have funding for survey next year - which will be surveys conducted on MDOT's right-of-ways and surveys on southern Michigan State Game Areas.
Dan Hammond, John Ball Zoo
The first John Ball Zoo Insect Day was held this past August, and it was a great success. Approximately 6,000 people attended, and many of them saw the KBB display manned by John Lerg. There was also a nice write-up in the Grand Rapids Press providing information about KBB with several paragraphs quoting John Lerg.
The Zoo has decided to make Insect Day an annual event each August. They would be happy to host anyone who is interested in participating next year.
Norah Fletchall, Assistant Director, John Ball Zoo
Marketing the butterfly objectives
Who is the target audience?
What the target audience has in common
So, what is the problem?
Methods to reach the "target audience"
The Workgroup agreed to develop a power-point presentation that will be used to inform people at township meetings/reality board meetings, etc. Also, need to develop distribution materials to give to realtors and developers, etc. Please provide Norah with materials by 12/1/04.
The Workgroup agreed that several members would volunteer to go out and speak to these groups. Possibly, could contact a teacher form each township who could get students from the area to give a presentation as part of a social studies curriculum that would meet the state guidelines for such classes. A representative from the Workgroup would also attend to answer questions. It was also agreed that it would be best to have individuals from the area do the presenting.
John Lerg, John Legge, and Norah will work on developing a plan to demonstrate how private landowners benefit from KBB conservation and how this benefit could also work for the townships.
Education
Did not receive CEF grant approval for butterfly gardens for schools. The grant reviewers liked the idea for the gardens but thought the timeline offered in the proposal was too long term. Progress has been made in that the lupine-finder-cards and the KBB brochures are now available.
John Lerg, KBB Habitat Conservation Plan Coordinator
Used the HCP and EA outlines we were advised to use for this project. We have to look at the reports as a means to a permit. Maybe more of a permit application than a biological document.
Omissions were made because they did not fit the outline. Translocation will not be found in this document because it is a habitat-based document.
Recovery Implementation Plan is the Michigan portion of the KBB Recovery Plan. The HCP is a Strategic Plan so that we can take advantage of the Incidental Take Permit that will come out of this. Has to make sense/be applicable at the local level - the way John has chosen to do that is to write a step down plan to a local area. He has started with the objectives of the Strategic Plan - Allegan and Flat River documents are still very generic.
This structure of cascading plans takes the form of what is in common use of the USFWS for federal aid. It then takes the form of a project agreement - where the state is involved with the federal government-there is a reporting process. It is a way for the document to get from a strategic to a local implementation.
Before we have all the individual agreements worked out, we will be asking for a permit from USFWS based on the Strategic Plan. Wisconsin set up an Implementation Oversight Committee (IOC) to involve all parties in this cascading plan process, and that is what John is proposing within the HCP in order to assure continuity to the approach. John asks the workgroup to read the documents and let him know if all believe this is the right approach.
One problem is taking a strategic objective and chopping it up for implementation at the local level. How are you sure that none of the bits and pieces are lost?
Something else not yet clarified is the treatment of the individual species listed within the EA. These documents are directed to the KBB, but we have a list of species of concern that go beyond KBB. The way we selected these 10 species is to consider species of federal concern existing within savannas. One example of this is the massasauga rattlesnake, females of which use savanna when gravid. Michigan is preparing a CCAA to address management for this species. We are including it to show our programs are linking and do not conflict with each other. One of the places we will accomplish this linking for the massasauga is in Allegan State Game Area.
The Recovery Implementation Plan describes what will be done to meet Michigan's share of the recovery goals. It is entirely separate form the HCP, but John wants the Implementation Plan to help guide how the HCP will work toward recovery. The EA and HCP have gotten the initial concurrence so that John may share them and gather some input to take them further.
John would like comments on these plans submitted to him by January 3, 2005. He will compile the comments and meet with the workgroup again. Timeline - 3 months for the group to come up with comments and get them back to John by the first week in January 2005. John will combine the comments into documentation and then can have a revised copy and additional appendices by mid March 2005 when the workgroup will meet again.
John suggested a tiered management approach that looks at the ecosystem objectives as well. Would like the group to look at them to make sure they are not out of place - look to see if there is good networking or integration there. Also, John asks the workgroup to look at monitoring and evaluation - has 2 focuses; one is the long term direction of the program conducted by the Heritage Unit, the other is short-term conducted by the Management Partner. Example: the Partner will produce 52 more acres of habitat at Flat River and will be responsible to measure and certify that is accurate. The Heritage Unit reserves the opportunity to audit this accomplishment as does the USFWS. John asks all to review to assure that this is laid out clearly in the document.
Appendices - one for Flat River and one for Allegan. Timeline for appendices - full length of the HCP which is 20 years. Hoping that METC will ultimately integrate into the Michigan HCP but they may only need 7 years - the overall timeline. The Federal Recovery Plan said it would take 20 years.
In our document, John is calling for 20 years but wants feedback if 20-30 years is appropriate. Need to come up with a defensible timeline.
An HCP is separate in its goals from the Recovery Plan. It is not necessarily designed to benefit recovery; it is to minimize incidental take. Michigan's plan does benefit KBB recovery. However, you have to do some harm in order to do some good.
Taking proactive approach with the HCP. In 20 years, if we meet the goal and have viable metapopulations of KBB in Michigan, we then can go through the process of delisting. Must demonstrate viable metapopulations for 5 consecutive years. The reason to go for a longer permit is you have a greater degree of certainty with your approach. It can be changed within the timeline if needed. The permit is not locked in but, if you implement for 25 years, and the plan works well, then you come out on the positive end of the gamble regarding choice of timeline.
The application is designed to fold in those partners that will have permanent take. There is such an emphasis on cumulative impact that folding all activities into one HCP allows us to know that it occurs and to quantify it in planning. In order to quantify the take, the HCP is designed to be inclusive. We are going with a voluntary program but if we devise our program reasonably, we can provide benefit to the landowner sufficient to induce their participation. We are the intermediary to the feds. Keep that in mind while looking at the document and decide if you like or dislike and provide comments.
We would work out a long-term arrangement (Partnering Agreement) with individual Partners, and then minimally annual agreements drawn from the Partnering Agreements with the aid of the Implementation Oversight Committee consisting of MDNR, USFWS, and Management Partner.
Budgeting - Initial development is paid for by a grant. Once implemented, the permitted party (Management Partner) is responsible for the costs outlined in the Partnering Agreement. The Natural Heritage Unit would take over the costs associated with strategic portions of the HCP.
John will have another round of reviews (after March) to make sure that he has captured what the Workgroup wants. Then he will have to take it out for public review, possibly in conjunction with the USFWS. Mike DeCapita said it is ok for the DNR to write, and USFWS can take it out for public review. Completion target is 10/1/05 to offer HCP and EA to the USFWS for consideration.
March 22, 2005
Location to be Announced
Agenda for Next Meeting