Karner Blue Butterfly Working Group
Management Partners Workgroup
Joint Meeting

March 22, 2005
Grand River Room - Kirkhof Center
Grand Valley State University

Minutes

Present: Michele Richards (MI Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs), Christopher Hoving (MDNR-Plainwell), Tyson Edwards (MDNR-Allegan), John Niewoonder (MDNR-Belding), Donna Jones (MDNR-Belding), Steve Mueller (Howard Christensen Nature Center), Jim Dunn (Grand Valley State University), Doug Powless (Land Conservancy of West Michigan), Tom Schneider (Detroit Zoo), Laura Harris (Detroit Zoo), Ken Klumpp (Consumers Energy), Don Froncheck (Consumers Energy), Elizabeth McCloskey (USFWS-Indiana), Scott Hicks (National Parks Service-Indiana), Jack Vander Maas (Consumers Energy), Polly Gray (MDNR-Lansing) Matt Groves (ENSR Corp.), Robert Schultz (Michigan Electric Transmission Co.), John Legge (The Nature Conservancy), Corrie Towns (ANR Pipeline Co.), Linda Koning (West Michigan Butterfly Assoc.), Rhoda deZoete (Land Conservancy of West Michigan), Dan Hemmann (John Ball Zoo), Todd Hogrefe (MDNR-Lansing), Kenneth Ennis (Huron Manistee National Forest), Michael DeCapita (USFWS-E. Lansing), Margaret Parker (Consumers Energy), Tom Funke (Binder Park Zoo), John Lerg (MDNR - Plainwell, Chair)

This was the second joint meeting of the KBB Working Group and the KBB Management Partners Workgroup

I. Welcome/Introduction

John Lerg, KBB Habitat Conservation Plan Coordinator, Michigan DNR, began the meeting with each participant introducing themselves to the group.

II. Research on Karner Blue Populations and Movements

James Dunn, Ph.D., Grand Valley State University

Understanding the diverse population structures of the KBB is needed

1. Isolated patch populations without dispersal (never moves)
   • inbreeding, wildlife managers will have to help to maintain a healthy population
2. Well connected true metapopulation with low level dispersal
   • less than 10%
3. Lupine patches where high dispersal ( > 80%)
   • occurs in natal patches
4. Core-Satellite metapopulation
   • high population occurs in a large patch and feeds surrounding patches
5. "True" metapopulation?
   • theory has uniform landscape but the reality is the landscape is a complex and fragmented mosaic

Summary - MRR study in Oceana County, Otto Township

1. 65 documented cases of inter-patch dispersal through matrix of closed canopy oak forest
2. Most of the patches had hard edges (woods)
3. Few corridors among patches (through matrix)
4. 65/612 KBB dispersed among subpopulations (10%)
5. 58/65 dispersal flights greater than 200m
6. Mean flights of 440m for males and 516m for females
7. Farthest distance was 1.3 km (but did not look at opportunities for greater distances)
8. Data supports true metapopulation dynamic (10% dispersal)

Study objectives

1. To evaluate dispersal of KBB among isolated subpopulations embedded within a forest matrix
   • measurement of inter-patch dispersal distances (is the 200m parameter valid?)
   • evaluation of forest, roads, and rivers as barriers to dispersal
   • assessment of KBB need for corridors for inter-patch dispersal
2. Estimation of population levels within 52 subpopulations in the Muskegon RU
   • monitor long-term population change
   • document local extinction and re-colonization of populations

III. Efforts to Document the Distribution of an Endangered Butterfly - Completing 3 years of Karner Blue Butterfly Surveys in Michigan

Jennifer Fettinger, Michigan Natural Features Inventory

Created model for potential habitat (potential lupine) by layering data sets (49% of occupied habitat sites are on private land)

1. known KBB range - data from 2001
2. revisited sites where KBB presence had not been verified for at least 5 years
3. layering historic land cover, geology, and current land data used to predict possible KBB sites
   1. Predicted habitat
      • successfully predicted habitat (lupine presence) at 69% of all sites surveyed (true positives)
      • unsuitable habitat (no lupine) correctly predicted at slightly less than half of surveyed sites
      • a majority of predicted habitat was located in the Newaygo Recovery Unit (35%)
   2. Survey site selection
      • identified possible sites for lupine
      • potential habitat - known occupied sites nearby
      • landowner contact - phone, letter, in person
      • roadside surveys, and site visits, for lupine and KBB during first flights
      • "meander" surveys - walkthroughs of areas - if lupine found marked with GPS
   3. 9,801 acres were surveyed over the last 3 years
      • KBB present on 3,797 acres
      • lupine present on 2,557 acres
      • added 7 townships to known distribution
   4. Summarized characteristics of sites
      • current threats i.e., off-road vehicles, development, succession exotic species, etc.
      • opening type
      • surrounding environment
      • canopy closure
   5. Looked at habitat variables
      • dominant ground cover
      • lupine density and distribution - deer browse present/absent, percentage of lupine in seed or bloom
      • ant mounds present/absent
      • woody species, exotic species, nectar species
   6. Derived habitat variables
      • dominant ground cover - grass, sedge, etc.
      • lupine density and distribution
      • canopy closure
      • woody species
      • exotic species
      • nectar species
      • current threats
      • management

Habitat data results were calculated and summarized for 350 sites. The data was analyzed using information from 146 sites where KBB were observed along with information from 112 sites where there was lupine with only some observation of KBB.

The final KBB habitat model retained 5 variables. Together, these variables correctly classified 83% of the sites where KBB were observed.

1. Closed canopy
2. Near occupied site
3. Lupine density
4. Nectar plants
5. Nectar plant diversity

Sites with less than 50% canopy closure, that were within 1000m of occupied habitat, and contained dense lupine in addition to diverse flowering plant species, have a high probability of having KBB observed.

Very general management recommendations can be made based on this model but more specific recommendations need to be made on a site-to-site basis.

All of this information will be included in Jennifer's report which will be available at the end of April 2005.

IV. Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan

Steven J. Mueller, Director, Howard Christensen Nature Center

In July 2004, Steve presented a paper on KBB recovery efforts in Michigan that he and Jennifer Fettinger had written. It was an overview of the Recovery Plan presented to the International Lepidopterists Society at their annual conference in Baltimore, Maryland. It was well received by the Society and they have invited Steve to present again this year at their August conference in Arizona. Jennifer Fettinger and Dr. James Dunn will be working with Steve on this paper.

This year, Steve will present to the Society a more focused, specific piece of the Recovery Plan. For example:

• the importance of glacial geology which provides savanna type species, such as lupine, the ability to survive
• necessary actions - develop range wide and regional management guidelines
• develop information and educational programs
• other species that benefit from the work with KBB

V. Marketing, Education, and Outreach Committee

Dan Hemmann, John Ball Zoo & Tom Funke, Binder Park Zoo

John Ball Zoo has hired new zoo director Bert Vescolani. Mr. Vescolani was senior vice president of aquarium collections and education at the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. Hope is he will help with expansion so an insect terrarium will be added.

Second annual John Ball Zoo Insect Day will be held Saturday, July 9, 2005. Anyone who is interested in participating, volunteering, or exhibiting should contact the zoo. Last year's attendance was over 5,000.

Binder Park Zoo will be holding their first Creepy Crawler Day. This is also on Saturday, July 9, 2005.

VI. Environmental Review Update

Todd Hogrefe, Threatened and Endangered Species Specialist, DNR

Environmental review requests are now available through the DNR website. 80% of requests have no element occurrence of species of concern so this helps to take a step out of the process. The limitation is the website will tell you if there is an occurrence but does not tell you what it is so an environmental review still must be done.

VII. Plans, Reports, Processes, and Wrap Up

John Lerg

John is trying to pull all the individual notifications of first KBB flight emergence together and pass, via an email contact list, this information on. It is valuable to approximate the peak of the flight period when estimating numbers of KBBs. Send an email to John so a master list can be compiled and you can receive notification.

Another initiative - John is compiling indicators as to when flight will be begin and peak. This will not be on line for a year or two.

USFWS held a recovery meeting for KBB to look at easier, better ways to monitor KBB in the field. This meeting resulted in organizing a KBB monitoring sub-team to do this with John as their chairperson.

The Recovery Team wants a preliminary report by the field season, with a final report later, regarding differing monitoring protocols that might be used in occupied areas. The report will not just be one protocol technique but a sweep. Then will have recommendations for techniques the recovery team can offer to managers.

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
The document 2.0 is available for a second look.

Environmental Assessment (EA)
Has been completed in first draft and received some valuable comments from USFWS, made changes, and returned to them for a second draft reading.

Michigan Recovery Implementation Plan (MRIP)
The plan is on the KBB website. Not only deals with habitat but also populations. This is a part of the step-down, Michigan responsibility program stemming from the KBB Recovery Plan. This is up for public review because it is a Michigan document. It will not be coupled with an EA to make it a federal document - it is only what Michigan will be doing.

It may be of value to pull out the goals and objectives of the HCP, EA, and MRIP so they do not get confused.

John would like comments back to him by 4/15/05 so they can be put into the version 3 drafts.

Land Acquisition
Todd Hogrefe is working on a land acquisition proposal due 5/24/05. Contact Todd if you have questions.

Management Partners Workgroup
John will be emailing the management partners drafts and will request comments. There no longer is need for another meeting. All that was needed from "face-to-face" meetings has been accomplished. Thanks to all for participating in this interactive planning process!!