Region 3 Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Transmittal Form … Prop… · · 2009-08-31Key: X...

Region 3 Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Transmittal Form

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WSFR

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building One Federal Drive

Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056

Date Received: (Region 3 FA Date Stamp)

Date Approval Requested by: Friday, September 25, 2009 Date Submitted: Thursday, August 27, 2009

Project No.: To Be Determined

Project Title: Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana for Species of Greatest Conservation Need

FWS Biologist: Mike Sweet, (612) 713-5129 State Contact: Eric Sink Telephone Number: (517) 335-1064 e-mail address: [email protected]

Track (check one): Routine = 15 day Non-Routine = 30 day Non-Routine = 45 day

Type(s): Grant Proposal (GP): GP Renewal: Grant Segment:

GP Amend: USFWS will complete Segment Amend:

USFWS will complete

Obligation Intent: Sub-Account Federal Share

WR Regular 5220 $

WR Sect 4 Hunter Ed 5210 $

WR Sect 10 Hunter Ed 523 $

WL Cons. & Rest. 5511 $

SFR Regular 9514 $

SFR Aquatic Ed. 9511 $

SFR Boat Access 9521 $

Other : Competitive SWG $ 864,020

Circle or Check if Applicable:

In-Kind Value

Program Income

SHPO

NEPA (EA Letter or EA)

Section 7

Lobby Certification

Other (describe in Note/Special Instructions section below)

Needs funding condition (describe in Note/Special Instructions section below)

COMPETITIVE ( ) or NON-COMPETITIVE ( )

Notes/Special Instructions (check): Biologist Fiscal Land Secretary

Mike, until we can get the Section 7 consultation and biological opinion documents, can you approve with the caveate that no work is to be done in any occupied habitat until documentation is provided. Chris, please obligate entire amount.

WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION CHECKLIST

State: Michigan Project #: TBD Proposed start: 9/15/2009 End date: 9/30/2011

Project Title: Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana for Species of Greatest Conservation Need

Key: X = Document Received or Requirement Met NA = Not Applicable 1,2,3,4, = See Notes Section

Standard Forms1 X Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424) Narratives2 X Grant Proposal – See Project Statement Information below X Annual Work Plan with Budget Other Materials X Transmittal form X Lobbying Certificate X NEPA documentation, or letter, or explained in narrative X Phase I Section 7 Evaluation Form Other Information as Relevant NA State Clearinghouse/Single Point of Contact Letter3 NA Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Compliance: NA Clearance from State Historic Preservation Officer NA Clearance from Tribal Historic Preservation Officer/Contacts NA Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) NA Program Income - Amount projected and intention of how it will be used and credited NA In-kind match - Source, type, and amount NA Engineering plans, and specifications4 NA Army Corp of Engineering Permit NA Documentation of land control for facilities construction grants and habitat development

grants.

1Originals and 2 copies of each form, signed by an authorized State official. 2All documentation follows FA Handbook, 43 CFR Part 12, Program Rule (e.g. 50 CFR 80) 3States exempted are MN (all Federal Aid, January 3, 1984), MO (PR and DJ research, plus Section 6 ESA only June 29, 1987), IA (Section 6 only July 26, 1991), IN (all Federal Aid, March 21, 1990), MI (PR and DJ, Section 6, Natl. Coastal Wetlands, Anadromous Fish, August 24, 1995), OH (Clearinghouse closed 3/10/97), all states for State Wildlife Grants 4Required only when requested by Federal Aid Division. See 522 FW 10.5D and 50 CFR 80.11(a). Submission of preliminary documents will facilitate approval of Grant Agreement.

Project Statement Information (refer to www.fws.gov/r3pao/fed_aid/programs/guidelines.htm for guidance)

X Needs X Objectives X Expected results and benefits X Approach X Specific procedures to be employed X Schedules or target dates X Locations X Key project personnel and cooperators X List of work items X Cost estimates by year X Compliance (NEPA, ES, NHPA, Floodplains E.O. 11988, Wetlands E.O. 11990, ADA,

Relocation, use of chemicals)

FOR REGIONAL OFFICE USE ONLY

___ Triage review of grant package completed ___ Lands documentation (refer to Lands Guidelines) ___ Engineering Review Request - sent ___ NEPA Checklist signed by Region 3 biologist ___ Environmental Action Statement (EAS) ___ Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) ___ Record of Decision (ROD) ___ Phase II Section 7 Evaluation Form ___ For SWG – relationship to State CWCS adequately identified ___ Conditional Statement(s) ___ All document approval information entered into FAIMS

Notes

Completed by:

Signature Date:

2. DATE SUBMITTED

Application :

Construction 4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY

Non-Construction Non-Construction

Department:Division:

Prefix: Middle Name: Last Name:Suffix: Email:

9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:

Start Date: Ending Date:

$ a. YES

$

$

$ b. NO

$

$

$ Yes No

Prefix: Ms.Last Name:

Authorized for Local ReproductionStandard Form 424 (Rev. 9-2003)Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102

Fax Number (give area code)

(517) 373-1164e. Date Signed:

Previous Edition Usable

August 27, 2009

Suffix:c. Telephone Number (give area code)

(517) 373-0046

f. Program Income

g. TOTAL

Koch

Resource Management Deputy

17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?

18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES.

a. Authorized RepresentativeFirst Name: Mindy Middle Name: S.

THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON

DATE: August 27, 2009

OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW

If “Yes” attach an explanation.

0

280,421

0

1,464,441

d. Local

e. Other

PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E. O. 12372

14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:a. Applicant: Eighth b. Project: Various

15. ESTIMATED FUNDING: 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS?

a. Federal

b. Applicant

11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT’S PROJECT:15.634 - State Wildlife Grants Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana for Species of

Greatest Conservation NeedOther (specify): 12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (Cities, Counties, States, etc.):Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana

c. State

10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER:

13. PROPOSED PROJECT09/15/2009 09/30/2011

864,020

0

320,000

38-60001348. TYPE OF APPLICATION:

NewIf Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es)(See back of form for description of letters.) Other (specify):

Other (specify): U.S. DOI - Fish & Wildlife Service

None None

A. State Government

County: INGHAMState: MI Zip Code: 48909-7528 Country: USA6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN):

7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (See back of form for Application Types)(517) 335-1064 (517) 373-1547

First Name: EricCity: LANSING

Mr.

Organizational DUNS: 805339991Address: Name and telephone number of person to be contacted on matters involving this

application (give area code)Street: PO BOX 30028

Federal IdentifierTBD Including Segment 1

Wildlife

Phone Number (give area code) Fax Number (give area code)

Sink

[email protected]

State Application IdentifierMichigan

1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION:

Pre-application

3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE

Version 7/03

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE Applicant Identifier August 27, 2009

b. Title:

Email:

d. Signature of Authorized Representative

APPLICATION FOR

5. APPLICANT INFORMATIONLegal Name: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Organizational Unit:

Construction

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

mailto:[email protected]�

OMB Approval No. 3048-0044

Grant Program Function

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

or Activity Number Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

1. Competitive SWG 15.634 $0 $0 $864,020 $600,421 $1,464,441

2. $0

3. $0

4. $0

5. Totals $0 $0 $864,020 $600,421 $1,464,441

Total(Segment 1) (Segment 2) (Segment 3) (Segment 4) (5)

$148,121 $148,121

$56,286 $56,286

$5,000 $5,000

$10,000 $10,000

$50,000 $50,000

$1,150,000 $1,150,000

$0 $0

$5,544 $5,544

$1,424,950 $1,424,950

$39,491 $39,491

$1,464,441 $1,464,441

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Previous Edition Usable

BUDGET INFORMATION - Non-Construction ProgramsSECTION A - BUDGET SUMMARY

Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget

e. Supplies

f. Contractual

g. Construction

h. Other - Audit - 0.0038

k. TOTALS (sum of 6i-6j)

7. Program IncomeStandard Form 424A (Rev. 7-97)Authorized for Local Reproduction

j. Indirect Charges - 0.1932

i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h)

a. Personnel

SECTION B - BUDGET CATEGORIES

6. Object Class CategoriesGRANT SEGMENT BUDGET DETAILS

b. Fringe Benefits

c. Travel

d. Equipment

(b) Applicant (c) State (d) Other Sources (e) TOTALS

$320,000 $280,421 $600,421

$0

$0

$0

$0 $320,000 $280,421 $600,421

Total for 1st Year 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter

13. Federal $288,007 $72,002 $72,002 $72,002 $72,002

14. Non-Federal $200,140 $50,035 $50,035 $50,035 $50,035

15. TOTAL (sum of lines 13 and 14) $488,147 $122,037 $122,037 $122,037 $122,037

(b) First (c) Second (d) Third (e) Fourth

$288,007 $288,007 $0 $0

$288,007 $288,007 $0 $0

22. Indirect Charges: 19.32% on Personnel and Fringe Benefits23. Remarks:

Standard Form 424A (Rev. 7-97) Page 2Authorized for Local Reproduction

21. Direct Charges:

SECTION F - OTHER BUDGET INFORMATION

18.

17.

16. Competitive SWG

20. TOTAL (sum of lines 16-19)

8. Competitive SWG

9.

SECTION D - FORECASTED CASH NEEDS

SECTION E - BUDGET ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL FUNDS NEEDED FOR BALANCE OF THE PROJECTFUTURE FUNDING PERIODS (Years)

19.

(a) Grant Program

12. TOTAL (sum of lines 8-11)

11.

10.

(a) Grant ProgramSECTION C - NON-FEDERAL RESOURCES

U.S. Department of the Interior

CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING

This certification is required by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code, entitled "Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions."

Certifications for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements

The undersigned certifies to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subscriptions shall certify accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Mindy S. Koch, Resource Management Deputy Name and Title of Authorized Representative August 27, 2009 Signature Date

PRAIRIE FEN AND ASSOCIATED SAVANNA RESTORATION IN MICHIGAN AND INDIANA FOR SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED

COMPETITIVE STATE WILDLIFE GRANT

GRANT PROPOSAL ADDENDUM – MICHIGAN PORTION

FOR THE PERIOD: SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2011

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Eastern massasauga rattlesnake Mitchell’s satyr butterfly

SUBMITTED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT STATEMENT: Prairie fen and associated savanna restoration, enhancement and management for species of greatest conservation need on public and private lands in Michigan and Indiana...................................................................................................................................... 3

SUMMARY:............................................................................................................................... 3 NEEDS:....................................................................................................................................... 3 OBJECTIVES:............................................................................................................................ 3

Objective 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat .......................................................... 3 Objective 2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 Other SGCNs........... 3 Objective 3. Habitat Protection ........................................................................................... 3

EXPECTED RESULTS AND BENEFITS: ............................................................................... 4 APPROACH: .............................................................................................................................. 4

Approach 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat .......................................................... 4 Approach 2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 Other SGCN ............ 4 Approach 3. Habitat Protection ........................................................................................... 4

LOCATION: ............................................................................................................................... 5 ESTIMATED COST:.................................................................................................................. 5 COMPLIANCE: ......................................................................................................................... 6

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)........................................................................... 6 Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA) .............................................................................. 7 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) .......................................................................... 8 Other Federal Compliance Issues .......................................................................................... 8

PROJECT PERSONNEL: .......................................................................................................... 9

APPENDIX A: Budget Narrative Summary for Segment 1........................................................ 10

ACCOMPLISHMENT AND EXPENDITURE PERIOD........................................................ 10 PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS......................................... 10 DIRECT COST CATEGORIES............................................................................................... 11 REQUESTED CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 11

APPENDIX B: Original Competitive Proposal Submitted by Michigan .................................... 12

Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration, MI DNR Addendum Page 2 of 12

PROJECT STATEMENT: Prairie fen and associated savanna restoration, enhancement and management for species of greatest conservation need on public and private lands in Michigan and Indiana.

SUMMARY:

This Addendum provides further details on the activities, procedures, and policies that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), along with conservation partners, will use to accomplish the objectives set in the competitive submission of this grant proposal (see Appendix B for the original proposal submitted during the competitive phase). The purpose of this addendum is to provide clarity on how the objectives will be accomplished; the objectives to be accomplished remain exactly as they were competitively submitted.

NEEDS:

See Appendix B (page 12).

OBJECTIVES:

The ultimate goal of this project is to improve the status of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and 32 other species of greatest conservation need (SGCNs) in Indiana and Michigan. This goal is addressed by the following objectives set in the competitive proposal (Appendix B page 16):

Objective 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat

Restore or enhance 200 acres of prairie fen and associated savanna to benefit the federally endangered Mitchell’s satyr butterfly and a diverse array of other SGCNs.

Objective 2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 Other SGCNs

Restore or enhance 400 acres of prairie fen and associated savanna to benefit the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 32 other SGCNs.

Objective 3. Habitat Protection

Protect 11.7 acres of prairie fen currently occupied by Mitchell’s satyrs by using the value of this parcel as in-kind match for this grant.


EXPECTED RESULTS AND BENEFITS:

Successful accomplishment of the overall project and MDNR specific objectives will lead to achievement of the expected benefits and results identified in the grant proposal. See Appendix B for full discussion of the overall results and benefits.

APPROACH:

The following provides additional details on the activities supported by this project statement. The scope of the work to be conducted remains identical to that included in the competitive submittal.

In the process of achieving the first two objectives, both The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy (SWMLC) will act as subrecipients. Both of these agencies will be responsible for conducting activities that will assist MDNR in meeting Objectives 1 and 2 (Appendix B, page 17) on their respective lands. Additionally, both agencies will work to identify landowners to include in the project. They will act similarly to MDNR biologists in that they will be required to determine eligibility and priority of landowner requests, establish contacts with landowners, develop contracts with landowners, and ensure conservation work is completed and maintained throughout the life of the contract. TNC and SWMLC staff will use the same process as MDNR biologists as described on the Conservation Actions portion of the Approach Section of the competitive proposal (Appendix B, page 21)

Approach 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat

See above and Appendix B, page 17

Approach 2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 Other SGCN

See above and Appendix B, page 20

Approach 3. Habitat Protection

SWMLC will be donating the value of an 11.7-acre parcel of occupied Mitchell’s satyr habitat as in-kind match for this project. Consequently, this parcel will be managed for Mitchell’ satyr habitat and associated fen species in perpetuity. SWMLC will protect the Federal interest in the lands used as in-kind match by ensuring that a Notice of Property Restriction as described below is recorded separate from, but referencing, SWMLC’s existing title. The Notice of Property Restriction will:

1. Identify that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) has an interest in the real property to which the Notice of Property Restriction applies and where the title to this interest is recorded.

2. Identify this grant by including its identifying number and name.


3. State the purpose of the project is to protect, manage, and enhance Mitchell’s satyr habitat and habitat for associated fen species in perpetuity.

4. State that SWMLC will not convey or encumber the interest in real property, completely or in part, without US FWS’ consent and will manage the interest in real property for the project’s authorized purpose unless US FWS authorizes otherwise.

5. State that the Notice of Property Restriction runs with the interest in the real property and none of the items may be changed or cease to be applicable unless US FWS provides written authorization, which SWMLC will also record with reference to the title to the real property.

The process for establishing the value of the match lands will conform to the guidelines set forth in the Federal Aid Handbook. Essentially, the match lands will be treated as if they were acquired with federal funds through this grant and will be subject to the following conditions:

1. Minerals, oil, gas, and grazing rights were acquired with the land. Once used as in-kind match, any use, sale or easements must be approved by the US FWS in accordance with applicable federal regulations. Any income derived from these rights or sale of timber incidental to habitat management will be used to manage and maintain the parcel for its intended use. If this option is not needed, funds will be treated as program income and used for similar operations and maintenance activities on SWMLC projects or as stipulated in MDNR’s W-145-L Land Acquisition Grant.

2. The fair market value of the match lands will be estimated by a State-licensed or certified appraiser, as provided by the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions guidance provided in the “Yellow Book.” The appraisal must be reviewed by a certified Review Appraiser.

LOCATION:

As described in the competitive proposal (Appendix B, page 26).

ESTIMATED COST:

The estimates for total cost by objectives provided below may include salaries and wages, contractual services, expenses and equipment. Specific work activities to be completed and planned expenditures by direct cost category for this segment are detailed in APPENDIX A.

Objectives Segment 1 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat $554,377 2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 other SGCN $831,565 3. Habitat Protection $78,500

Totals $1,464,442


A number of conservation partners are included in this project and are providing non-federal matching funds. The relationship with, amount of, and type of non-federal match by partner is detailed as follows:

Conservation Partners Relationship Amount Source The Nature Conservancy Subrecipient $145,921 Cash Michigan Natural Features Inventory Vendor $52,000 Waived Indirect

Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy Subrecipient $78,500 In-kind Land Match

Michigan Nature Association Vendor $4,000 Cash MDNR, Parks and Recreation Division Recipient $20,000 Cash MDNR, Wildlife Division Recipient $300,000 Cash

TOTAL $600,421

COMPLIANCE:

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The activities necessary to accomplish the objectives supported by this project statement will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Prairie fen restoration along with restoration of associated savannas will only occur on lands with willing landowners. The majority of these lands consist of wetlands degraded by invasive and woody plant species. There will not be any large-scale land use changes as a result of the activities supported by this grant. Consequently, these techniques at the scale applied as part of this project will not have the potential to affect the quality of the human environment. Additionally, these activities are completely covered by categorical exclusions 1.3 and 1.10 in Appendix 1 to 516 DM Chapter 2 and/or 1.4A(2), 1.4B(3-6), and 1.4B(8) in 516 DM Chapter 8.5. The definitions of the categorical exclusions used are as follows:

516 DM 2, Appendix 1 – Department of the Interior Categorical Exclusions revised in the Federal Register: March 8, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 45)

1.3 Routine financial transactions including such things as salaries and expenses, procurement contracts (in accordance with applicable procedures and Executive Orders for sustainable or green procurement), guarantees, financial assistance, income transfers, audits, fees, bonds, and royalties.

1.10 Activities which are educational, informational, advisory, or consultative to other agencies, public and private entities, visitors, individuals, or the general public.

516 DM 8.5 – US Fish and Wildlife Service Categorical Exclusions – Effective Date 5/27/2004


1.4A(2) Personnel training, environmental interpretation, public safety efforts, and other educational activities, which do not involve new construction or major additions to existing facilities.

1.4B(3) The construction of new, or the addition of, small structures or improvements, including structures and improvements for the restoration of wetland, riparian, instream, or native habitats, which result in no or only minor changes in the use of the affected local area. The following are examples of activities that may be included.

(a) The installation of fences.

(b) The construction of small water control structures.

(c) The planting of seeds or seedlings and other minor revegetation actions.

(d) The construction of small berms or dikes.

(e) The development of limited access for routine maintenance and management purposes.

1.4B(4) The use of prescribed burning for habitat improvement purposes, when conducted in accordance with local and State ordinances and laws.

1.4B(5) Fire management activities, including prevention and restoration measures, when conducted in accordance with Departmental and Service procedures.

1.4B(6) The reintroduction or supplementation (e.g., stocking) of native, formerly native, or established species into suitable habitat within their historic or established range, where no or negligible environmental disturbances are anticipated.

1.4B(8) Consultation and technical assistance activities directly related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources.

Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Activities similar to those supported by this grant have been previously conducted under Tier 2 Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) grants administered by US FWS. For the long-term survival of some federally listed and candidate species, grant supported work was conducted in occupied habitat. This work included occupied habitat of Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Karner blue butterfly, eastern prairie fringed orchid, and eastern Massasauga rattlesnake. These activities required formal consultation with the US FWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Because of the urgency to work in occupied habitat while maintaining efficiency, programmatic consultation for these species was developed. This approach has resulted in our ability to obtain permission to work in occupied habitat on multiple sites under one consultation. We will follow the same consultation and biological opinion results when conducting activities in occupied habitat supported by this grant. The biological opinions used for the programmatic agreement are included in the Phase 1 Section 7 Evaluation Documentation for this proposal.


National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

In most cases, the activities necessary to accomplish the objectives supported by this project statement do not have the potential to affect any sites that are listed on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Most habitat restoration techniques supported by this grant do not involve disturbing soils. Most lands anticipated to be included in this project do not have any buildings on them, let alone any that are older than 50 years. When all of the following conditions are met, there will be no potential to affect any sites that are listed on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and consequently no Section 106 consultation will be necessary:

• No soil disturbance will occur and no buildings are present; or

• Soil disturbance will only occur on sites that were in active agriculture within the past 50 years and no soil disturbance will exceed normal plow depths. Additionally, no buildings will be affected.

A site specific Section 106 consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and interested Tribal Historic Preservation Officers will be conducted before any work is initiated on sites that meet any of the following conditions:

• Soil disturbance will occur beyond normal plow depths on sites that have been in active agriculture within the past 50 years; or

• Any soil disturbance will occur on sites that have not been in active agriculture within the past 50 years; or

• Structures older than 50 years are present and may be affected by grant supported activities.

In such cases, before any activities begin, the US FWS will be provided with the results of any Section 106 consultation along with recommended compliance actions. Non-undertaking agreements will be developed when necessary.

Prescribed fire is not considered to have the ability to affect any sites that are listed on or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places except when buildings greater than 50 years old are present or when firebreaks cleared and plowed to the mineral soil are used.

TNC will be responsible for all activities occurring on sites in Indiana supported by this grant. Consequently, TNC will initiate any necessary Section 106 consultations for Indiana sites.

Other Federal Compliance Issues

The activities necessary to accomplish the objectives supported by this project statement do not involve any other federal compliance issue. When conducting these activities, MDNR will comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies including but not limited to Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management, 11990


Protection of Wetlands, 13112 Invasive Species, Animal Welfare Act of 1985, and Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982.

PROJECT PERSONNEL:

Federal Aid Coordinator Eric Sink MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator Financial Services Division (517) 373-1052

Grant Coordinator Stephen Beyer Wildlife Division Federal Aid Coordinator Wildlife Division (517) 241-3450

Project Leader Mark Sargent Private Lands Specialist Wildlife Division (517) 241-0666

Project Leader – TNC John Legge Conservation Director TNC West Michigan Office 3728 West River Drive NE Comstock Park, MI 49321 Phone: (616) 785-7055

Project Leader – SWMLC Nate Fuller Conservation and Stewardship Director Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy 6851 S. Sprinkle Road Portage, MI 49002 (269) 324-1600


APPENDIX A: Budget Narrative Summary for Segment 1

ACCOMPLISHMENT AND EXPENDITURE PERIOD

The period for expenditures of funds and planned accomplishment for Segment 1 is from 15 September 2009 through 30 September 2011.

PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

Project Statement and Objectives Planned Accomplishments

Reporting Units

Estimated Costs1

Prairie fen and associated savanna restoration, enhancement and management for species of greatest conservation need on public and private lands in Michigan and Indiana.

1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat 200.0 Acres $554,377

2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 other SGCN 400.0 Acres $831,565

3. Habitat Protection 11.7 Acres $78,500

Project Total $1,464,441 1The costs provided are for grant evaluation purposes only. These values will not be included in Financial Status Reports nor are they subject to financial audits. Actual grant expenditure tracking with supporting documentation necessary for audit purposes will not be maintained by MDNR at the objective level. All financial tracking and reporting for the purposes of audits is at the grant level only.


DIRECT COST CATEGORIES

Salaries and Wages $148,121Fringe Benefits (38%) $56,286 Salary Sub-total $204,407

Indirect Rate (19.32%) $39,491 Total Salaries $243,898

Contracts $1,150,000Travel $5,000Equipment $10,000Supplies, Services, and Materials $50,000 Project Sub-total $1,458,898

Indirect for Audit (0.38%) $5,544 TOTAL COST $1,464,442

Federal Share: $864,020 Other Share: $280,422 State Share: $320,000

REQUESTED CONDITIONS

1. MDNR requests that expenditures for Segment 1 not be subject to the prior written approval requirements of 43 CFR 12.70(c)(1)(ii), the “10 percent rule.”



APPENDIX B: Original Competitive Proposal Submitted by Michigan

MICHIGAN AND INDIANA COMPETITIVE STATE WILDLIFE GRANT

PRAIRIE FEN AND ASSOCIATED SAVANNA RESTORATION IN MICHIGAN AND INDIANA

FOR SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED

GRANT PROPOSAL FOR THE PERIOD: JUNE 1, 2009 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2011

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES – WILDLIFE DIVISION

Eastern massasauga rattlesnake

Mitchell’s satyr butterfly

SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 17, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 4

RANKING CRITEIRIA SUMMARY SHEET.......................................................................... 5

NEEDS ......................................................................................................................................... 12

Status of habitat for SGCN - Fens and savannas................................................................... 12

Status of SGCN ........................................................................................................................ 12 The status of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly ........................................................................... 12 The status of the eastern Massasauga rattlesnake ................................................................. 13 The status of 32 other SGCN................................................................................................ 13

Threats to SGCN and their habitats ........................................................................................ 13

Statewide priority conservation needs ..................................................................................... 14

Conservation Actions ............................................................................................................... 14

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 16

Objective 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat .......................................................... 16

Objective 2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 Other SGCN .......... 16

Objective 3. Habitat Protection ............................................................................................ 16

EXPECTED RESULTS AND BENEFITS ............................................................................... 17

Short-term and long-term benefits for SGCN and their habitats........................................... 17

APPROACH................................................................................................................................ 17

Approach 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat........................................................ 17

Approach 2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 Other SGCN ...... 20

Approach 3. Habitat Protection........................................................................................... 20

Conservation Actions ............................................................................................................... 21 Exotic/invasive species control............................................................................................. 21 Prescribed Fire ...................................................................................................................... 22 Setting Back Succession (Mowing) ...................................................................................... 22 Restoration of Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 23 Creation of Natural Corridors ............................................................................................... 23 Support private landowner programs to foster conservation ................................................ 23

Conservation actions on private lands .................................................................................... 24

Using common methodologies and data sharing between states and other partners............ 24

Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................................................... 24

Performance Reports, Monitoring Results, and Adaptive Management ............................... 25

LOCATION................................................................................................................................. 26

Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana Page 2 of 39

PROJECT PERSONNEL .......................................................................................................... 26

BUDGET...................................................................................................................................... 26

Fiscal Administrative Procedures ........................................................................................... 26

Non-federal Cost Sharing ........................................................................................................ 27

Estimated Costs and Accomplishments by Objective.............................................................. 27

Salaries and Wages .................................................................................................................. 28

Contracts................................................................................................................................... 28

Travel Equipment, Supplies and Materials............................................................................. 28

COMPLIANCE........................................................................................................................... 29

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .......................................................................... 29

Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA) .............................................................................. 30

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)........................................................................... 30

Other Federal Compliance Issues ........................................................................................... 31

LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 31

APPENDIX A. Private contractors used by MDNR private lands biologist in Michigan. . 33

APPENDIX B. SGCN expected to benefit from grant in Michigan and Indiana. ............... 34

APPENDIX C. Landowner Agreement. .................................................................................. 35

APPENDIX D. Project description form. ................................................................................ 37

APPENDIX E. Grant form used by MDNR private lands biologist. .................................... 39


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Wildlife Division is requesting $864,020 in federal funds for Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana through the State Wildlife Grant Competitive Program (FY09 and FY10). We will provide 41% or $600,421 in non-federal match. At least 40% of the minimum 25% non-federal match or $280,421 comes from entities or partners other than the MDNR. At least 51% or $320,000 of the total non-federal match is cash from the MDNR’s game and fish account and the state park improvement fund. Prairie fens, savannas, and the species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) that rely on these habitats, are identified in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (MI WAP, Eagle et al. 2005) and Indiana’s Wildlife Conservation Strategy (IN WCS) as conservation priorities due to their rarity, biodiversity value, and their dependency on private land management. Our conservation partners for this proposed work include the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy (Michigan and Indiana Chapters), the Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the MDNR Parks and Recreation Division and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, the state natural heritage program and a department of Michigan State University Extension. From June 1, 2009 to September 30, 2011, we propose to accomplish 3 objectives. The first objective is to restore and enhance 200 acres of prairie fens and associated savannas in Michigan and Indiana that will benefit the federally endangered Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii). This objective will be obtained by implementing conservation actions on at least 16 sites that either currently or historically harbored the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly. The second objective is to restore 400 acres of prairie fen and associated savannas for the federal candidate eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus cantenatus) and 32 other SGCN. This objective will be accomplished by conducting specific conservation actions on an additional 24 sites with high quality habitat. For the third objective we propose to protect 11.7 acres of prairie fen currently occupied by Mitchell’s satyrs by using the value of this parcel as in-kind match for this grant. SGCN in fens and savannas are threatened by altered hydrologic regimes, invasive plants, altered fire regimes and landscape fragmentation. Conservation actions to address these threats include exotic/invasive species control, prescribed fire, setting back succession (mechanical treatment), restoration of hydrology, working with private landowners and to maintain and rehabilitate natural corridors. Expected benefits include improving the long-term sustainability of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly and the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and increasing population viability of 32 other SGCN. A specific monitoring protocol and adaptive management strategy will be implemented by the MDNR and partners to ensure conservation actions are achieving desired results and to improve information gaps on MSB, EMR and several other SGCN. The MDNR and our partners have a proven track record in working with private landowners to manage and conserve habitats and the species that rely on them, especially SGCN.


RANKING CRITEIRIA SUMMARY SHEET

A) Organizational Capacity Criteria 1. Grant proposal includes coordination and cooperation between two or more partners including the State and identifies the actions that are priorities in the State’s CWCP.

The MDNR is coordinating and cooperating with numerous partners including The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), The Nature Conservancy Michigan Chapter (TNCMI), The Nature Conservancy Indiana Chapter (TNCIN), the Michigan Nature Association (MNA), the Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy (SWMLC), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), the MDNR Parks and Recreation Division (PRD) and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). Letters of commitment that detail non-federal match contributions from our partners are attached to this grant. The IDNR could not contribute financially, but supports the goals and objectives of this grant. All of these partners have been involved in the Mitchell’s satyr Working Group, Fen Conservation Plan, and most have provided input into Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. See Approach (pg. 17) and Budget (pg. 27) for detailed information.

Michigan’s WAP identified several priority actions for rare wetland and grassland ecosystems like fens and adjacent savannas and the rare and declining species that occur in these habitats, including the Mitchell’s satyr, eastern massasauga, and 32 other SGCN. This proposal implements conservation actions to benefit these species including exotic/invasive species control, prescribed fire, setting back succession (mechanical treatment), restoration of hydrology, working with private landowners and to maintain and rehabilitate natural corridors. More information on priority conservation actions can be found in the Needs (pg. 14) and Approach (pg. 21) sections.

2. Grant proposal describes how the applicant will coordinate all aspects of work, including use of common procedures, data sharing, monitoring, and reporting with other partners including other State fish and wildlife agencies.

The MDNR has a demonstrated ability to coordinate all aspects of work with partners, contractors, and private landowners. The MDNR has had a private lands program since 1991 and in 2003 the MDNR received funding from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to implement the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). The development of Michigan’s LIP initiated a new era in coordination and cooperation with partners, who provide regular input into the direction of the program through regional steering committees and other informal working groups. MDNR staff is integrally involved in groups such as the Mitchell’s Satyr Working Group and Eastern Massasauga Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) which facilitates the development of common procedures as well as data sharing. Through LIP, monitoring of habitats and rare species has been conducted by MDNR private lands biologists working in concert with ecologists, botanists, and zoologists from the MNFI. Reports are shared with all partners through regional steering committees and working groups. This monitoring partnership and reporting to partners will continue and be strengthened under this proposal. More information on how the MDNR will coordinate the implementation of this proposal can be found in the Approach (pgs. 17-23) and Monitoring (pg. 24) sections.


3. Grant proposal identifies dedicated staff or contractors currently in place to implement work.

Two regional private land biologists and a statewide LIP coordinator have been working to implement conservation projects in fens and savannas in southern Michigan since 2004. These staff are dedicated entirely to implementing restoration projects for rare and declining species. Through LIP, the MDNR has relied on private contractors to conduct on-the-ground projects (Appendix A). The MDNR’s regional private land biologists have developed strong working relationships with these contractors, which have the experience, knowledge and skills to accomplish the goals and objectives stated in this proposal. In addition, the MDNR has partnered with contractors such as the MNFI since their inception in 1979. The MDNR utilizes the expertise of the MNFI to help evaluate potential habitat, conduct rare species surveys, and conduct pre and post treatment monitoring at project sites. More information on how the MDNR has dedicated staff to implement this proposal can be found in the Approach (pg. 21) and Monitoring (pg. 24) sections.

4. Grant proposal identifies existing processes or protocols that will be used to implement actions and monitor outcomes.

Since 2004, the MDNR’s LIP has developed and refined processes and protocols to implement conservation actions on private land. MDNR’s LIP is a complex private lands program that provides financial and technical assistance to private landowners to manage habitat for rare plants, animals and natural communities. Two private lands biologists implement LIP in southern Michigan. Program implementation includes a well defined process to track landowners and projects via applications, contracts, an access database and a six part folder. The six part folder includes maps of the site, a detailed management plan, contracts, budget, invoices and documentation for federal compliance. The regional private lands biologists work closely with private landowners and numerous partners across southern Michigan. Habitat restoration is carried out by qualified professional private contractors based on a competitive bidding process. Monitoring is conducted by all partners, and is coordinated by MNFI and the regional private lands biologists. More information on the processes and protocols that will be used to implement actions and monitor outcomes can be found in the Approach (pgs. 17-23) and Monitoring (pg. 24) sections.

5. Grant proposal describes how Federal compliance requirements can be addressed in a reasonable time and provide an estimated timeline.

The MDNR has developed methods for complying with state and federal statutes through LIP. During the process of assessing various needs for compliance, we have strived for streamlining procedures while ensuring requirements have been met. Our process for complying is tracked and organized for each individual conservation project or by private landowner. Implementation of this proposal will occur in a manner that does no harm to cultural, historical and environmental resources. A detailed description for complying with state and federal statutes is addressed under Compliance (pgs. 29-31).


6. Non-Federal Match

a) Overall: For the total amount of match identified in the Budget and the Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424), applicants must identify the percentage of non-Federal match.

The total portion of non-federal match will be $600,421, or 41%. For detailed information on non-federal match see the Budget section (pg. 27).

b) Source: At least 40% of the minimum 25% non-Federal match requirement comes from an entity or entities other than a State fish and wildlife agency and the match is well-documented through a commitment letter from those entities describing the nature (i.e., cash, waived cost, and/or in-kind), the source, and the value of the match. “Other entities” can include another State agency, Tribes, organization, business, or individual.

Our partners or entities other than the State will provide a non-federal match of $280,421, which is greater than 40% of the minimum required 25% non-federal match. For more information see the Budget section (pg. 27).

c) Type: At least 51% of the total non-Federal match comes in one of the following forms:

The MDNR will provide $320,000 in cash, or 53% of the total non-federal match. For more information see the Budget section (pg. 27).

B) Technical Criteria Need

1. Grant proposal implements actions identified in CWCPs by multiple States.

This proposal identifies specific statewide priorities and habitat based conservation actions identified in Michigan’s WAP and Indiana’s WCS. More information on how the MDNR and partners address conservation priorities and actions identified in Michigan’s WAP and Indiana’s WCS can be found in the Needs section (pgs. 12-14).

2. Grant proposal implements priority conservation actions, which are documented in the State(s) CWCP(s) or are documented as an emerging issue(s) in the grant proposal.

We propose to implement specific conservation actions, based on site specific threats, as identified in Michigan’s WAP and Indiana’s WCS. Specific conservation actions included in this grant are: control of invasive species, prescribed fire, set back succession (mechanical treatments), restoration of hydrology, creation of corridors to connect disjunct populations of SGCN, and providing technical assistance to private landowners. More information on how the MDNR and partners address conservation actions identified in Michigan’s WAP and Indiana’s WCS can be found in the Needs (pg. 14) and Approach (pg. 21) sections.


3. Grant proposal clearly describes conservation needs that directly link to objectives and conservation actions described in each participating State’s CWCP (reference page number is needed) or documented as an emerging issue in the grant proposal to address a critical need or unanticipated event, e.g., a wildlife health/disease issue.

Conservation needs, as identified in Michigan’s WAP and Indiana’s WCS, are: 1) identification, conservation and protection of high quality natural areas, 2) identification and conservation of high quality natural areas facing threats, 3) develop and use best management practices, recommended plans or strategies for conservation and management of species at risk, and 4) assist private landowners and create partnerships between conservation organizations and private landowners for conservation of species at risk and natural communities. These needs directly connect our objectives and conservation actions. More detail, including reference page numbers in the Michigan WAP and Indiana CWS, can be found in the Needs section (pgs. 12-14).

4. Grant proposal is a substantial effort to improve the status of SGCN.

We propose to implement specific conservation actions that will improve the long-term sustainability of the federally endangered Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, the federal candidate eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 32 other SGCN. For example, we will implement conservation actions at 12 of the 18 Mitchell’s satyr sites documented in Michigan and Indiana. More detail on how MDNR will improve the status of SGCN can be found in the Needs (pgs. 12-14) and the Approach (pgs. 17-23) sections.

5. Grant proposal is a substantial effort to improve the habitat status of a SGCN.

We propose to improve 600 acres of prairie fen and associated savanna on 40 sites across southern Michigan and northern Indiana. More detail on how MDNR will improve habitat for SGCN can be found in the Needs (pgs. 12-14), Objectives (pg. 16) and the Approach (pgs. 17-23) section.

Objectives

1. Describe distinct, obtainable, and quantifiable or verifiable outputs to be accomplished for habitats used by SGCN (for example, but not limited to, the grant proposal identifies the number of stream miles or the number of acres of wetlands or other types of habitat to be restored, or the increase in available habitat for SGCN).

We propose 3 distinct, obtainable and quantifiable objectives for habitats used by SGCN. Those objectives are:

Objective 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat

• Restore or enhance at least 200 acres of prairie fen and associated savanna for the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly.

Ojective 2. Restoration of Habitat for the Eastern Massasauga rattlesnake and 32 other SGCN.

• Restore or enhance at least 400 acres of prairie fen and associated savanna for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 32 other SGCN.


Objective 3. To protect 11.7 acres of prairie fen currently occupied by Mitchell’s satyrs by using the value of this parcel as in-kind match for this grant. This parcel will be maintained for the purposes of providing and enhancing habitat for the butterfly and associated SGCN in perpetuity.

2. Describe distinct, obtainable, and quantifiable or verifiable outcomes to be accomplished for SGCN (for example, but not limited to, the grant proposal identifies the percentage increase in a population of one or more SGCN on project sites; the long-term sustainability of one or more SGCN on project sites).

Objective 1. We propose to restore or enhance at least 12 sites with known Mitchell’s satyr populations and at least 4 sites that historically harbored the Mitchell’s satyr thereby improving the long-term sustainability of this species.

Objective 2. We propose to restore or enhance at least 24 sites with eastern massasauga rattlesnake and other SGCN thereby improving their long-term sustainability.

Objective 3. Permanently protect 11.7 acres of habitat for the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly.

Expected Results and Benefits

1. Grant proposal describes the short-term benefits for SGCN or their habitats to be achieved within a ten-year period and it makes clear connections.

The short-term benefits for SGCN and their habitats will be improved habitat quality, increased suitable habitat and increased habitat connectivity for the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 32 other SGCN. More detail on the short-term benefits for SGCN or their habitats can be found in the Expected Results and Benefits section (pgs. 17-18).

2. Grant proposal describes the long-term benefits for SGCN or their habitats to be achieved beyond ten years and makes clear connections between the proposed conservation actions and expected benefits for species and their habitats.

The long-term benefits for SGCN and their habitats will be improved population viability, land protection, prevention of extirpation of Mitchell’s satyr butterfly at multiple sites and prevention of federal listing of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and other SGCN. More detail on the long-term benefits for SGCN or their habitats can be found in the Expected Results and Benefits section (pgs. 17-18).

Approach

1. Grant proposal describes the specific types of conservation projects/actions that each State will conduct to address these projects/actions and provides adequate detail to understand how each State will implement them.

Specific conservation actions will be implemented to restore prairie fen and associated savanna in southern Michigan and northern Indiana. Conservation actions that will be implemented include exotic/invasive species control, prescribed fire, setting back succession (mechanical treatment), restoration of hydrology, working with private landowners and maintain and


rehabilitate natural corridors. Conservation plans will be developed by the MDNR private lands biologists and our partners. Conservation actions will be implemented by trained and experienced staff from the State, our partners and private contractors. All local, State and Federal permits will be obtained prior to implementation. Conservation planning and gathering of baseline data will begin in summer and fall 2009 and project implementation will begin in fall/winter of 2009. For more information on how the MDNR and our partners will implement the objectives of this grant can be found in the Approach section (pgs. 21-23). 2. Projects/actions are accomplished, in part, on private lands. Points are awarded on the percentage of the total acres affected.

Of the proposed 600 acres of prairie fen and associated savanna to be restored, at least 500 acres or 83% will be on private lands and the remaining 100 acres will be on State owned lands (see Approach pg. 24) 3. Projects/actions involve other State agencies, Tribes, private landowners, non-governmental organizations, or Federal agencies other than the Service and/or lands owned or managed by these entities. The following organizations will be directly involved in conservation planning, project implementation and monitoring to restore and enhance prairie fens and associated savannas in Michigan and Indiana: the IDNR, TNCMI, TNCIN, MNA, SWMLC, the MDOT, the MDNR PRD and the MNFI. Each of the above listed organizations owns property with prairie fens adjacent to or that harbor the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (except MNFI). To further collaboration, the MDNR and our partners will continue to communicate effectively through the Mitchell’s satyr working group. For more information on how our proposed actions will involve all are partners see the Approach section (pgs. 17-25). 4. Grant proposal includes activities that use the same methodologies and share data between States and other partners. The MDNR has consistently demonstrated its ability to work with other partners, particularly in the conservation and management of habitats for rare and declining species. The MDNR has collaborated through many partnerships efforts, such as the Mitchell’s Satyr Working Group, a coalition coordinated by the USFWS. Active participation in such efforts facilitates information sharing and helps address emerging threats before they become widespread issues. Close involvement in this broad partnership goes well beyond simply standardizing common methodologies and data sharing. By bringing together all of the expertise and resources from an array of organizations, this truly collaborative effort enables conservation of an entire species that would not be otherwise possible. Other ongoing partnerships include a similar group focused on conservation of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Michigan Eastern Massasauga Working Group). Efforts focus on conservation planning, prioritizing management of sites across ownership boundaries and joint monitoring of rare and declining species and their habitats. We plan to use the skills and effective tools learned from these efforts to aid in the successful implementation of this proposed work. For additional information see the Approach section (pg. 24).


5. The grant proposal describes a monitoring plan that each participating State or partner will use to ensure SGCN need and/or habitats are adequately monitored and evaluated to determine the effectiveness of conservation actions and provide for adaptive management for future efforts. The monitoring plan may include identifying appropriate monitoring protocols and establishing baselines, developing monitoring standards, timeframes for conducting monitoring activities, and expectations for monitoring. A biological monitoring plan has been developed for prairie fens and associated savannas for the MDNR based on protocol used by the U.S. Forest Service and this plan is currently being implemented on a pilot basis for MDNR’s LIP (O’Connor 2007). The strategy includes an assessment of potential monitoring methods as well as detailed methods for specific target species and their habitat. In general, a hierarchical approach is used that allows resources to be concentrated on sites, habitats and species of greatest interest. Where progress toward accomplishing short-term and long-term benefits is determined to be unsatisfactory, adaptive management strategies will be used to ensure goals and objectives are met. Monitoring will be conducted by DNR private land biologist as well as by conservation partners such as the MNFI and TNC in a way that maximizes the quality of information and expertise while minimizing time and resources. For more information see the Approach section (pg. 24).

6. The grant proposal describes how performance reports will clearly document monitoring results and how they will be used for adaptive management for future improved efforts.

The MDNR will compile annual performance reports that document progress toward meeting management goals. Monitoring of habitat and populations that is conducted by partners, such as TNC and MNFI, will be compiled into an annual report and the results shared with all partners. Forums such as the Mitchell Satyr Working Group and the Michigan Eastern Massasauga Working Group will provide additional opportunities to disseminate monitoring results and discuss progress towards restoration goals outlined in the draft Mitchell’s satyr Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Massasauga CCAA. In conjunction, regular meetings will be held with all partners to discuss opportunities for adaptive management, using all available monitoring data, recent literature and professional expertise. For more information see the Approach section (pg. 25).


NEEDS Fens and savannas are important habitats in the Great Lakes region. Historically, northern Indiana and southern Michigan had approximately one million acres of grassland, and much of it was oak savanna (Nuzzo 1986). Within the savannas were globally rare wet grasslands called prairie fens. Both fens and savannas are listed as globally vulnerable, imperiled or critically imperiled by NatureServe (2008). These natural communities are disproportionately rich in biodiversity. Fens and savannas are the principal habitat for the federally endangered Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) and the federal candidate eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) (MI WAP p.SLP-75 and IN WCS p.113). In addition to these federally listed species, prairie fens and savannas are home to 32 other SGCN (Appendix B). Status of habitat for SGCN - Fens and savannas Prairies, savannas and unique wetlands like prairie fen are home to more rare and declining species than any other habitat type in Michigan (MI WAP p.SLP-30 and 75). Historically, they occurred on the same landscapes, often directly adjacent to each other and were linked through ecological processes. Landscape fires ignited on savannas often burned into the flammable sedges of fens, and precipitation that fell on the sandy soils of savannas provided the groundwater that fed the springs of fens. Today, fens and savannas rarely occur together on the landscape. These ecosystems are extremely rare and are more endangered than tropical rain forests (Noss et al. 1995). Michigan and Indiana have lost over 99% of their savannas and over 50% of their wetlands. Status of SGCN

The status of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly

A federal Recovery Plan for the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (USFWS 1998) sets specific, quantifiable objectives to measure improved status. The objectives outlined in this proposal will make substantial progress toward the reclassification of this species from federally endangered to federally threatened, and ultimately to delisting. Several criteria must be met to reclassify the species as federally threatened. There must be 16 viable populations, 12 of which are in southern Michigan, 2 in northern Indiana, and 1 each in Ohio and New Jersey. Fifty percent of the occupied area must be protected and managed for Mitchell’s satyr butterflies by federal agencies, state agencies, or conservation organizations. For delisting, 60% of 25 viable populations must be protected (USFWS 1998).

Currently, 18 populations are known in Michigan and Indiana. Of these, 17 are in Michigan, but only 7 Michigan populations are currently considered viable. Only one population persists in Indiana, and it appears to be viable. The actions proposed here will implement site conservation plans to maintain viable sites, move sites from unviable toward viability, and to restore potential reintroduction sites to add more viable populations in southern Michigan and northern Indiana. The geographic scope of the proposal encompasses greater than 50% of the known range of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly.


The status of the eastern Massasauga rattlesnake

The eastern Massasauga rattlesnake is a candidate for federal listing as a threatened species. It is listed as endangered across its range in the Great Lakes, except in Michigan where it is listed as a species of special concern and a SGCN. Populations in Michigan have remained stable or declined slightly, in marked contrast to precipitous declines throughout the rest of the range. Populations in extreme northern Indiana are likewise seemingly robust, while the species has declined precipitously elsewhere in the state. The eastern Massasauga rattlesnake is often found in healthy fens and adjacent savannas, prairies, and old fields. Michigan is currently working with diverse conservation partners and the USFWS to craft a CCAA. Many of the conservation partners participating in this grant proposal are also participating actively in the CCAA. The geographic scope of this proposed work encompasses approximately 50% of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake’s known range.

The status of 32 other SGCN

Fen habitat is threatened throughout Michigan and Indiana, which impacts the status of many species other than the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly and the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. The status of these other species range from state endangered to species thought to be declining, and include other globally imperiled animals such as the poweshiek skipper (Oarisma poweshiek) (G3, under consideration as a Federal Candidate), which has experienced recent dramatic declines in the heart of its range, and the Huron River leafhopper (Flexamia huroni), a species discovered only 10 years ago and currently known from 5 sites in the world, all them in southern Michigan. Each of the remaining 32 SGCN depends on high-quality fen, savanna or both of these natural communities. The proposed conservation actions will improve habitat and conservation status for many SGCN and other species of wildlife.

The geographic scope of the proposal encompasses greater than 50% of the known range of the Huron River leafhopper, tamarack tree cricket (Oecanthus laricis), and approximately 50% of the known range of the silphium borer moth (Papaipema silphii), the maritime sunflower borer (Papaipema maritima), the blazing star borer (Papaipema beeriana), and the poweshiek skipperling.

Threats to SGCN and their habitats

The conversion of savannas surrounding fens to agriculture or forest has been documented as a significant threat to fens in the draft Michigan and Indiana Fen Conservation Plan (FCP). Habitat conversion exceeds habitat protection, 8:1, in the world’s temperate grasslands, making grasslands the most threatened habitat on earth (Hoekstra et al. 2005). Prolonged fire suppression has led to the invasion of trees and shrubs in formerly open prairie, savannas and wetlands. Invasive species have also taken over extensive areas of habitat. Species that require open habitat are being pushed to the edge of extinction. What little habitat remains will continue to decline in the absence of management, putting further pressure on SGCN.

Overall, fens and savannas, as well as the SGCN that rely on them, are threatened by altered hydrologic regimes, invasive plants and animals, altered fire regimes, and landscape fragmentation (MI WAP, p. SLP-75; IN WCS p.113). These threats have also been documented in the draft Michigan and Indiana HCP for the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly.


This proposed work addresses two of the top priority threats to SGCN and habitats: invasive species and fragmentation. Invasive species and fragmentation are the greatest threats to SGCN in Michigan statewide (MI WAP p.43-50), and they are priority threats to both savannas, fens, and the numerous SGCN that depend on those habitats (MI WAP p.SLP-30 and 76).

In addition to the above listed ecological threats, another significant threat is the loss of federal funding to the MDNR’s LIP. Michigan’s LIP has had proven successes in working with private landowners to conduct habitat management and restoration activities for SGCN and their habitats. During the past 5 years, LIP has worked with private landowners to manage 10 of 18 fens with Mitchell’s satyr butterflies. State Wildlife Grant funds have been used to manage habitat at 2 fens on public land for Mitchell’s satyr. This proposal would continue these efforts on at least 12 of 18 (>50%) known Mitchell’s satyr sites. This proposal will allow the MDNR to continue fen conservation after current LIP funds are exhausted.

Statewide priority conservation needs

Many of the conservation needs in fens and savannas are priorities for the conservation of SGCN. This proposed work addresses four statewide priority conservation needs identified in Michigan’s WAP and Indiana’s WCS (MI WAP Executive Summary pg 9; IN WCS p. 68):

• Identification and conservation of representative areas, high-quality areas and other areas of high ecological significance (includes development of site conservation plans and any formal protection determined to be necessary).

• Identification and conservation of areas facing serious threats (e.g., invasive species, lack of disturbance regime and contamination).

• Develop and use best management practices, recommended plans or strategies for conservation and management of species at risk.

• Assist private landowners and create partnerships between conservation organizations/agencies and private landowners for conservation of species at risk and natural communities.

Conservation Actions

Although the Michigan WAP and Indiana WCS differ in size and level of detail, the conservation actions are similar for a similar suite of SGCN that occur in similar habitats. Fens and savannas in the two states are largely restricted to the North Central Tillplain Ecoregion and the western extension of the Central Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregion in Indiana (Albert 1995, Bailey 1995, TNC 2003), which straddles both states (Fig. 1). Our proposed work directly implements conservation actions identified in the Michigan WAP, the Indiana WCS, as well as the draft FCP and Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly HCP. In addition, our proposed conservation actions directly address threats to prairie fens and savannas across Michigan and Indiana. Our conservation actions include:



Conservation of high quality areas: • Habitat acquisition and protection

o Cooperate with programs (Wetland Reserve Program) and organizations (Ducks Unlimited) that provide financial incentives to private landowners to develop and/or protect wetlands (IN WCS p. 114).

o Support and expand conservation purchase of high quality occurrences (MI WAP p.SLP-30 and 76).

Conservation of areas facing serious threats/best management practices:

• Exotic/invasive species control o Control shrub encroachment and

invasive species in grassland areas (IN WCS p. 102).

o Reduce invasive plants in wetlands using water level manipulation, fire, herbicides, and other methods (IN WCS p. 115).

o Institute invasive species monitoring, prevention and control programs (MI WAP p.SLP-30 and 76).

• Prescribed fire o Manage plant succession using water level manipulation, fire, and other methods

to conserve diverse wetlands for the benefit of SGCN… (IN WCS p. 114) o Manage to approximate disturbance regimes using prescribed fire, mowing and

restoration of natural water flow (MI WAP p.SLP-30 and 76) • Setting back succession (mechanical treatment)

o Manage plant succession using water level manipulation, fire, and other methods to conserve diverse wetlands for the benefit of SGCN… (IN WCS p. 114)

o Manage to approximate disturbance regimes using prescribed fire, mowing and restoration of natural water flow (MI WAP p.SLP-30 and 76)

• Restoration of hydrology o Manage plant succession using water level manipulation, fire, and other methods

to conserve diverse wetlands for the benefit of SGCN… (IN WCS p. 114) o Manage to approximate disturbance regimes using prescribed fire, mowing and

restoration of natural water flow (MI WAP p.SLP-30 and 76) • Maintain and rehabilitate natural corridors

o Promote the develop and protection of wetland complexes including connecting wetland habitats for the benefit of SGCN (IN WCS p. 114)

o Maintain and rehabilitate natural corridors between wetlands and to representative upland habitats (MI WAP p.SLP-30 and 76)

Figure. 1. Prairie fens and associated savannas in Michigan and Indiana.

Assist private landowners • Working with private landowners

o Provide information to landowners and public land managers on methods to manage grassland areas for the benefit of SGCN… (IN WCS p. 102)

o Support Landowner Incentive Programs to foster conservation on private land (MI WAP p.SLP-30 and 76)

The actions of this proposal constitute a substantial effort to improve the status of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 32 other SGCN in Indiana and Michigan. The status of many of these species is uncertain, and they are listed because their fen or savanna habitat is rare and degraded. Thus, in addition to implementing specific conservation actions, surveys and monitoring associated with the grant will provide much needed data to better define and improve the status of these species.

OBJECTIVES Objective 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat

Restore or enhance 200 acres of prairie fen and associated savanna to benefit the federally endangered Mitchell’s satyr butterfly and a diverse array of other SGCN. We propose to improve suitable habitat on at least 12 of the 18 prairie fens known to harbor the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly in Michigan and Indiana. We also propose to restore and enhance 4 prairie fens that historically harbored the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly in Michigan or Indiana. Restoration efforts on historic sites will be conducted in partnership with the Mitchell’s satyr workgroup to ensure coordination with re-introduction efforts. This objective should improve the long-term sustainability of Mitchell’s satyr and other SGCN.

Objective 2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 Other SGCN

Restore or enhance 400 acres of prairie fen and associated savanna to benefit the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 32 other SGCN (Appendix B). We propose to improve suitable habitat within at least 24 sites for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and other SGCN. This proposed work should improve the long-term sustainability of these species.

Objective 3. Habitat Protection

Protect 11.7 acres of prairie fen currently occupied by Mitchell’s satyrs by using the value of this parcel as in-kind match for this grant. This parcel will be maintained for the purposes of providing and enhancing habitat for the Mitchell’s satyr and associated SGCN in perpetuity. The parcel is part of the Cass County Southwest Mitchell’s satyr occupied site in southwest Michigan.



EXPECTED RESULTS AND BENEFITS Short-term and long-term benefits for SGCN and their habitats By completing the objectives of this grant, progress will be made towards the overall goal of Michigan’s WAP and Indiana’s WCS to conserve and restore SGCN. The conservation actions identified in this proposal will benefit 34 SGCN found in fens and associated savannas. By restoring 200 acres of occupied and historically occupied habitat for Mitchell’s satyr, we will benefit the species over the short term by improving habitat quality at more than 50% of the sites it has been documented from worldwide. This will result in the long-term benefit of improved population viability at these sites, as well as preventing the imminent extirpation of the species at one or more sites. Restoring 400 acres of habitat for other species such as the eastern massasauga rattlesnake will result in short-term benefits such as improved habitat quality in the stronghold of its range and improved connectivity between wetland hibernation sites and upland basking sites. Over the long term, massasauga will benefit through improved population viability, complimenting the CCAA, and ultimately the prevention of the species being federally listed. Similar short term and long-term benefits are expected for the other 32 species associated with fens and adjacent savannas (Table 1). Finally, the acquisition of land for rare and declining species by a land conservancy will result in an increased ability to restore habitat on the property over the short-term, and over the long-term will permanently protect critical habitat for numerous SGCN. APPROACH Approach 1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat The first objective will be site specific and accomplished by restoring at least 200 acres of suitable habitat on at least 12 prairie fens that currently harbor the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly in Michigan and Indiana (Fig. 2). In addition to currently occupied sites, we will restore at least 4 prairie fens that historically harbored the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly. These 4 sites would be ideal to support reintroduced populations once habitat is restored to high-quality conditions. All of these sites also support populations of high-priority SGCN identified in Michigan’s WAP and Indiana’s CWS. Each occupied site varies in Mitchell’s satyr butterfly population viability, occupied habitat, potential habitat and ownership (Table 2). The MDNR private lands biologist will work closely with our partners to update or develop conservation plans, prioritize site specific threats, identify conservation actions, allocate resources, implement projects and a monitoring program. The MDNR will facilitate the coordination of the above listed activities with our partners through existing work groups such as the Mitchell’s satyr Working Group.

Figure 2. Mitchell’s satyr sites in Michigan and Indiana.


Table 1. Expected results and benefits for SGCN in prairie fens and associated upland savannas.

Conservation Needs and Actions

Expected Results and Benefits

Species and Status1

Threats identified in MI WAP & IN WCS

Conservation Actions Short-term Benefits (0-10 years)

Long-term Benefits (10+ years)

Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (E, SE)

Lack of protected land; Invasive plants; Altered fire regime; Shrub encroachment; Altered hydrology; Habitat fragmentation

Land acquisition and protection; Exotic invasive species control; Prescribed fire; Set back succession; Restoration of hydrology; Working with private landowners; Maintain and rehabilitate natural corridors

Protection and restoration of habitat; Improve habitat quality at 12 of 18 occupied satyr sites in the world; Increase amount of suitable habitat and improve habitat connectivity

Permanent protection of habitat; Improve population viability; Prevent imminent extirpation of species at one or more sites;

Eastern massasauga (C, SC)

Lack of protected land; Altered fire regime; Habitat fragmentation; Poor public perception and related social attitudes


Improve habitat quality in 50% of species range Improve connectivity between wetland hibernation sites and upland basking sites; Reduce killing

Improve population viability; Compliment CCAA; Prevent federal listing of massasauga

Remaining 32 SGCN ( For full least, see Appendix C).

Lack of protected land; Invasive plants; Altered fire regime; altered hydrology; Habitat fragmentation


Improve habitat quality; Expand habitat by setting back succession; improved connectivity between fens and adjacent upland savannas

Improve population viability; Prevent listing of species such as Poweshiek skipper as a federal candidate species

1 Status abbreviations: E: Federal Endangered, C: Federal Candidate, SE: State Endangered, SC: State Special Concern.

Table 2. Potential sites for prairie fen and savanna restoration to benefit the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly.

Survey Site State Mitchell's

Satyr Status

Occupied habitat (Acres)

Potential Habitat (Acres)

Owner(s)

Jackson Central Michigan Very Good 43 602 TNCMI, Jackson

County and private landowners

Branch Michigan Good 30.1 126 SWMLC and private landowners

Cedar Creek Indiana Good TNCIN and private landowners

Van Buren Northwest Michigan Fair to

Good 1.3 180 Private landowners

Barry South Michigan Fair 2.5 360 MDNR Berrien North Michigan Fair 2.12 374 Sarett Nature Center

Cass Southwest Michigan Fair 5.28 280 SWMLC and private landowners

Washtenaw West Michigan Fair 15.6 957 Private landowners and

Washtenaw Land Trust Barry

Southwest Michigan Poor to Fair 6.6 332 MDNR

Berrien East Michigan Poor to Fair 2.6 310 MNA and private landowners

Cass East Michigan Poor to Fair 10 590 TNCMI and private landowners

Cass Southeast Michigan Poor to Fair 9.3 123 Private landowners Jackson East Michigan Poor to Fair 18 265 Private landowners

Berrien South Michigan Poor 6 25 TNCMI, MDOT,

Benton Harbor Twp. and private landowners

Jackson West Michigan Poor 1.7 1,394 Private landowners Kalamazoo

West Michigan Poor 38 271 MNA and private landowners

St. Joseph East Michigan Poor 19 435 Private landowners Kalamazoo

East Michigan Extirpated Private landowners

Lenawee Michigan Extirpated MDNR Kalamazoo

North Michigan Extirpated Private landowners

St. Joseph West Michigan Extirpated Private and MDNR



Approach 2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 Other SGCN The second objective will be accomplished by restoring 24 high quality prairie fens and associated savannas for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 32 other SGCN (Appendix B) across southern Michigan and northern Indiana (Fig. 3). Specific sites and conservation projects will be identified by the MDNR private lands biologist and our partners. The MDNR private lands biologist will work with our partners to prioritize conservation projects on sites with known eastern massasauga rattlesnakes and a diverse array of SGCN. Specific criteria have been developed by the MDNR and will be used by the MDNR private lands biologist and partners to prioritize potential projects:

• Presence of high quality prairie fen and associated savanna

• Presence of eastern massasauga rattlesnake • Presence of multiple SGCN • Project is adjacent to known eastern

massasauga rattlesnake or other SGCN • Proximity of project to known populations of

eastern massasauga rattlesnake and other SGCN • Cost-benefit evaluation based on site specific threats and opportunities • Additional match provided by private landowner or new partners

Approach 3. Habitat Protection

An 11.7 acre parcel currently owned by SWMLC adjacent to Cook Lake in Michigan’s Cass County will be used as in-kind match for this grant. This parcel contains prairie fen and is part of the currently occupied Cass County Southwest Mitchell’s Satyr site (Table 1). Additionally, this fen provides habitat for a number of other SGCN. Consequently, this parcel will be maintained for the purposes of protecting and enhancing Mitchell’s satyr and associated SGCN habitat in perpetuity. To ensure this parcel continues to be maintained for its intended purposes, a Notice of Property Restriction will be recorded separate from, but referencing, the title. The Notice of Property Restriction will:

1. Identify that the USFWS has an interest in the match property to which the Notice of Property Restriction applies and where the title to this interest is recorded.

2. Identify the Federal interest as being derived from using the real property as match for this grant by this grant’s identifying number and name.

3. State the purpose of the match property is to protect, manage and enhance prairie fen habitat for Mitchell’s satyrs and associated SGCN in perpetuity.

Figure 3. Known prairie fen sites in Michigan and Indiana.

4. State that SWMLC will not convey or encumber the interest in the match property, in whole or in part, without USFWS' consent and will manage the interest in the match property for the project’s authorized purpose unless USFWS authorizes otherwise.

5. State that the Notice of Property Restriction runs with the interest in the match property and none of the items may be changed or cease to be applicable unless USFWS provides written authorization, which SWMLC or other authorized title holder must also record with reference to the title to the match property.

The fair market value of the matching lands will be estimated by a State-licensed or certified appraiser, as provided by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, using generally accepted techniques recognized by the appraisal profession. The appraisal will be reviewed by a certified Review Appraiser.

Conservation Actions Conservation actions will be implemented to restore prairie fens and associated savannas for SGCN based on site-specific threats. Conservation threats for prairie fens and associated savanna include invasive plants, altered fire regime, shrub and tree encroachment, altered hydrology and habitat fragmentation. A detailed site specific conservation plan will be created for each site. The conservation plan will identify the site specific threats and subsequent conservation actions. The following conservation actions, as identified in Michigan’s WAP and Indiana’s WCS, will be implemented to restore prairie fens and associated savannas for the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 32 other SGCN:

• Exotic/invasive species control • Prescribed fire • Setting back succession (mechanical treatment) • Restoration of hydrology • Maintain and rehabilitate natural corridors • Working with private landowners

Exotic/invasive species control

Removal of invasive plants is conducted where infestation poses a critical threat to rare and declining species and their sensitive habitat. This includes shrubs like glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) and autumn-olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) as well as herbaceous species like reed grass (Phragmites australis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). In sites supporting dwindling Mitchell’s satyr populations, invasive species have greatly reduced available habitat for this federally endangered species and species recovery is dependent upon immediate removal of invasive species. Removal of invasive plants is conducted by the MDNR, our partners, the private landowner or by a contactor that specializes in ecological restoration. Plants are controlled using one or more of the following techniques: manual, mechanical, chemical, biological and/or prescribed fire. In all cases, care is taken to maximize control while minimizing non-target damage to other native plants and animals. Landowners may conduct the work themselves, with the DNR private lands biologist providing training and supplies. Timing of plant removal is conducted year-round and


is dependent on the biology of the species, ecology of the site and the best techniques established in the literature and by practical experience. The MDNR private lands biologist has worked with our partners and private contractors on over 50 invasive species projects in prairie fens and savannas.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed burning is an important management tool in fire-dependent ecosystems, including prairies, savannas, fens and barrens. Decades of fire suppression has led to the loss of prairie grasses and forbs required by SGCN, increased shrub invasion, and exacerbated the spread of invasive species. Prescribed burning is conducted according to a carefully designed plan that maximizes ecological benefits while minimizing adverse impacts to rare species. For the federally Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, the MDNR has already established specific programmatic guidelines in consultation with the East Lansing Field Office of the USFWS.

Prescribed burns will be conducted by MDNR’s Forest, Fire and Mineral (FMFM) staff, our partners or professional contractors depending on land ownership. On State owned land, the WLD and PRD will work with FMFM to develop a burn plan and coordinate the burn. The Nature Conservancy and Michigan Nature Association already have professionally trained staff to write burn plans and conduct burns. On all other private lands, the MDNR private lands biologists will work with the private landowner to review management objectives, identify burn units, write a burn plan, hire a professional burn contactor and monitor results. Cost-share is occasionally provided by the private landowner through in-kind match for site preparation activities (e.g., establishing fire breaks). The MDNR private lands biologists have reviewed over 100 burn plans, taken prescribed fire training and funded over 100 burns through the MDNR’s LIP.

Setting Back Succession (Mowing)

Mechanical shrub control is used where shrub invasion is so severe that other management tools like prescribed fire are not effective. Shrubs have invaded many formerly open areas in prairie fens and savannas due to fire suppression and altered hydrology, virtually eliminating habitat many rare and declining species (e.g., Mitchell’s satyr butterfly).

Shrub control will be conducted by our partners and qualified professional contractors. Activities include using heavy equipment such as brush-hogs and hydro-axes or hand-operated tools such as brush saws and loppers. Methods are selected based on cost efficiency and sensitivity of the site (i.e., wetlands, steep slopes, presence of T/E species, etc.). To prevent re-sprouts, approved herbicides will be applied to cut stumps or seedlings. Timing of shrub control is dependent on the biology of the species and ecology of the site but will typically be conducted from late summer through winter. The MDNR private lands biologists have provided funding and overseen 50 projects to set back succession in prairie fens and savannas in southern Michigan.


Restoration of Hydrology

The restoration of natural water flow will occur at prairie fen sites where hydrology has been altered by humans. For example, restoration activities may include breaking drain tiles or plugging ditches. The MDNR private lands biologist will work with partners to develop a wetland restoration plan and hire a qualified contractor, through a bidding process, to complete the project. Timing of work is dependent on the nature of the work, but may be done year round. The MDNR private lands biologist has worked with our partners and the USFWS’ Partners for Wildlife Program staff to restore approximately 15 wetlands in southern Michigan.

Creation of Natural Corridors

Conservation planning will include both coarse and fine scale approaches. The fine scale approach will address site specific issues such as reconnecting isolated patches of prairie fen or savanna. The coarse scale approach will focus on restoration of landscapes, which includes multiple prairie fens, savannas and the land in between these natural communities. This includes the restoration of degraded fens and savannas as well as the potential creation savannas in former agricultural areas for the benefit of SGCN. The MDNR private lands biologist will develop a detailed management plan; coordinate planting, site preparation and follow-up activities like mowing and herbicide application. The MDNR private lands biologist has worked with our partners and private contractors on over 50 prairie and savanna creation projects in southern Michigan.

Support private landowner programs to foster conservation The MDNR is committed to conserving wildlife on private lands and has successfully operated a private lands program over the past 20 years. Most recently, the MDNR’s LIP conserves, protects and enhances habitat for SGCN on private lands by providing technical and financial assistance to landowners. Michigan’s program is targeted, ecosystem-based and identifies key priority areas to restore habitat for species at-risk. Michigan’s LIP is an important tool for implementing the MDNR’s WAP and has allowed us to manage for at-risk species directly by providing financial assistance along with technical guidance for habitat management on private lands. Over the past 5 years, MDNR’s LIP staff has made the following accomplishments:

• Restored more than 6,000 acres of grassland and wetland habitat for at-risk species in southern Michigan.

• Documented 125 new occurrences of rare and declining species and 7 new occurrences of natural communities on private lands.

• Restored, enhanced and managed more than 18,000 acres for at-risk species statewide.

The MDNR private lands program has strong partnerships with other agencies, organizations, communities and individuals and has capitalized on opportunities to work on common goals. These partnerships have helped to influence Farm Bill programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, Conservation Reserve Program and Wetland Reserve Program to benefit wildlife and SGCN. The most recently developed Farm Bill program, State Acres For Wildlife (SAFE), was developed by the MDNR to create savannas on former agricultural land.


Partnerships with other private lands programs such as USFWS Partners for Wildlife have helped to increase the quality of wildlife habitat projects. To implement this grant, the MDNR private lands biologist will continue to work with other private lands programs and partners to increase the number and scope of projects helping SGCN in fens and savannas. The knowledge and partnerships of other private lands programs helps to maximize State Wildlife Grant funds and bring additional resources to reach common goals (e.g., fen and savanna restoration). Conservation actions on private lands Of the proposed 600 acres of prairie fen and associated savanna stated in the Objectives, at least 500 acres or 83% will be on private lands and the remaining 100 acres will be on State owned lands. Using common methodologies and data sharing between states and other partners

The MDNR has consistently demonstrated its ability to work with other partners, particularly in the conservation and management of habitats for rare and declining species. The MDNR has collaborated through many partnerships efforts, such as the Mitchell’s Satyr Working Group, a coalition coordinated by the USFWS. This group meets annually and involves more than 30 individuals from an impressive array of 15 partners including multiple state and federal agencies, universities, land trusts, and other conservation-oriented non-governmental organizations. Active participation in such efforts facilitates information sharing and helps address emerging threats before they become widespread issues. We discuss and share information related to population trends, the status and impacts of current management efforts, and the setting of research priorities. Sub-groups discuss best management practices for restoring habitat and partners share expertise and personnel to ensure population monitoring is conducted according to agreed upon standards at all sites. The resulting data is summarized and shared with all partners at the annual meeting. Close involvement in this broad partnership goes well beyond simply standardizing common methodologies and data sharing. By bringing together all of the expertise and resources from an array of organizations, this truly collaborative effort enables conservation of an entire species that would not be otherwise possible. The Mitchell’s Satyr Working Group is just one example of the MDNR’s close involvement with its partners. Other already-formed, ongoing partnerships include a similar group focused on conservation of the massasauga, the Michigan Eastern Massasauga Working Group, and numerous smaller-scale efforts focused on prairie fens and savannas involving local land conservancies. Efforts focus on conservation planning, prioritizing management of sites across ownership boundaries and joint monitoring of rare and declining species and their habitats. We plan to use the skills and effective tools learned from these efforts to aid in the successful implementation of this proposed work.

Monitoring Plan

A biological monitoring plan has been developed for prairie fens and associated savannas for the MDNR based on protocol used by the U.S. Forest Service and this plan is currently being implemented on a pilot basis (O’Connor 2007). The strategy includes an assessment of potential monitoring methods as well as detailed methods for specific target species and their habitat. In


general, a hierarchical approach will be used that allows resources to be concentrated on sites, habitats and species of greatest interest. Where progress toward accomplishing short-term and long-term benefits is determined to be unsatisfactory, adaptive management strategies will be used to ensure goals and objectives are met. Monitoring will be conducted by MDNR field biologists as well as by conservation partners such as the MNFI and TNC in a way that maximizes the quality of information and expertise while minimizing time and resources. Specifics of the monitoring plan are as follows:

• At all project sites, photo points will be used to document baseline conditions and monitor habitat changes over time as a result of management.

• At selected sites (including occupied habitat for federally listed species), more intensive habitat monitoring such as plot sampling and course-level metrics will be used to track progress toward specific restoration goals (Pearsall and Woods 2006).

• On sites with potential habitat or old records for listed species, a presence/absence survey will be conducted with the assistance of the MNFI.

• At sites with known rare species, population monitoring will range from presence-absence to marked-recapture studies, depending on the species, listing status and site. In general, more intensive methods will be used for rarer species. For example, the populations of the Mitchell’s satyr are surveyed annually at all sites through a network of partners including the MDNR, MNFI, TNC (Michigan and Indiana Chapters), MNA, SWMLC and numerous private landowners. Surveys are coordinated by MNFI and the ensuing results such as GPS locations and numbers of individuals found are compiled and disseminated to all partners.

• For federally listed species, all monitoring will be done in conjunction with established protocols to guarantee compatibility with data collected by other public agencies and non-governmental organizations.

• Long term monitoring with additional partners such as universities and research organizations will be established when possible. This will ensure that benefits to at-risk species initiated by the program will be monitored well beyond the scope of this proposal.

Performance Reports, Monitoring Results, and Adaptive Management

The MDNR will compile annual performance reports that document progress toward meeting management goals. Monitoring of habitat and population that is conducted by partners, such as TNC and MNFI, will be compiled into an annual report and the results shared with all partners. Forums such as the Mitchell Satyr Working Group and the Michigan Eastern Massasauga Working Group will provide additional opportunities to disseminate monitoring results and discuss progress towards restoration goals outlined in the draft Mitchell’s satyr HCP and Massasauga CCAA. In conjunction, regular meetings will be held with all partners to discuss opportunities for adaptive management, using all available monitoring data, recent literature and professional expertise.


LOCATION The 40 project sites will be selected after this grant is awarded in southern Michigan and northern Indiana. Sixteen sites will be specifically chosen within currently or historically occupied Mitchell’s satyr sites. The other 24 sites will be chosen based on the specific criteria identified under Approach 2 (see page 20). The 11.7-acre parcel to be protected by use in this grant as in-kind match is located in SWMLC’s Cook Lake Preserve in Section 30 of Wayne Township, Cass County, Michigan.

PROJECT PERSONNEL

Federal Aid Coordinator Eric Sink MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator Financial Services Division (517) 335-1064

Project Leaders Mark Sargent Private Lands Coordinator MDNR, Wildlife Division (517) 241-0666 [email protected] Dan Kennedy Private land biologist MDNR, Wildlife Division (517) 373-9358 ext. 245 [email protected] John A Shuey Director of Conservation Science The Nature Conservancy Indiana Field Office (317) 951-8818 [email protected]

BUDGET

Fiscal Administrative Procedures

The MDNR will implement specific fiscal procedures for each conservation project. When the MDNR, partner or private landowner agree to implement a project to benefit SGCN, both will sign a Landowner Agreement (Appendix C). This Agreement is an approved legal contract between the State of Michigan and the partner or private landowner. The Agreement references the Project Description (Appendix D), which contains specific contractual items that identifies


the scope of the project, conservation actions to be implemented and the commodities and services necessary to complete the project. Once the Landowner Agreement has been signed and the Project Description form completed, the project will be implemented. Funding for projects will be distributed to our partners or other private landowners via grants (Appendix E).

To ensure fiscal and contractual accountability, each project will be reviewed and certified by a MDNR private land biologist before the release of funds. The MDNR private lands biologist ensures the project adheres to the terms of the Landowner Agreement and Project Description. For example, exotic/invasive species treatments will be evaluated to ensure appropriate sites and techniques were used. If any deviation is found, the MDNR private lands biologist will work with our partners to make sure projects are implemented appropriately.

Non-federal Cost Sharing

The sources of non-federal funds are as follows (see attached letters for more detail):

Contributors Match Provided

The Nature Conservancy (Indiana Chapter) $48,684

The Nature Conservancy (Michigan Chapter) $97,237

Michigan Natural Features Inventory $52,000

Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy $78,500

Michigan Nature Association $4,000

MDNR, Parks and Recreation Division $20,000

MDNR, Wildlife Division $300,000

TOTAL $600,421

Estimated Costs and Accomplishments by Objective

The estimated total cost and planned accomplishments by objectives are as follows:

Objectives Planned Accomplishments

Reporting Units

Estimated Cost

1. Restoration of Mitchell’s Satyr Habitat 200 Acres $554,377

2. Restoration of Habitat for Eastern Massasauga and 32 other SGCN 400 Acres $831,565

3. Habitat Protection 11.7 Acres $78,500

Project Total $1,464,441


This grant proposal covers salaries and wages, contractual services, travel, supplies and equipment. These estimated costs will be expended according to the following direct cost categories:

Salaries and Wages $149,638 Fringe Benefits (38%) $56,862 Salary Sub-total $206,500 Indirect Rate (18.11%) $37,397 Total Salaries $243,898 Contracts $1,150,000 Travel $10,000 Equipment $5,000 Supplies and Materials $50,000 Project Sub-total $1,458,898 Indirect for Audit (0.38%) $5,544 TOTAL COST $1,464,441 Federal Share: $864,020 Other Share: $280,421 State Share: $320,000

Salaries and Wages

The salaries and wages portion of this grant will be used for MDNR private lands biologists to coordinate all aspect of conservation projects with our partners and private landowners.

Contracts

Contractual grant funds will be used for on-the-ground implementation of conservation actions and all monitoring activities conducted in prairie fens and associated oak savannas.

Travel Equipment, Supplies and Materials

These grant funds will be, used by the MDNR private lands biologists and our partners to purchase necessary equipment, supplies and materials to implement conservation projects. In addition, travel funds will be used by the MDNR private lands biologist to coordinate all conservation projects.


COMPLIANCE

The MDNR has already developed methods for complying with state and federal statutes through our Landowner Incentive Program. During the process of assessing various needs for compliance, we have strived for streamlining procedures while ensuring requirements have been met. Our process for complying is tracked and organized for each project. Implementation of this proposal will occur in a manner that does no harm to cultural, historical and environmental resources.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The activities supported by this grant for this project statement will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. These activities are completely covered by categorical exclusions 1.3 and 1.10 in Appendix 1 to 516 DM Chapter 2 and/or 1.4A(2-3), 1.4B(3-6, 8) and 1.4C(1) in 516 DM Chapter 8.5. The definitions of the categorical exclusions used are as follows:






1.4A(3) The issuance and modification of procedures, including manuals, orders, guidelines, and field instructions, when the impacts are limited to administrative effects.












1.4C(1) The issuance, denial, suspension, and revocation of permits for activities involving fish, wildlife, or plants regulated under 50 CFR Chapter 1, Subsection B, when such permits cause no or negligible environmental disturbance. These permits involve endangered and threatened species, species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), marine mammals, exotic birds, migratory birds, eagles, and injurious wildlife.

Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA)

When the MDNR initiated the LIP in 2004, we found it necessary to work in occupied habitat of federally listed species to maximize long-term survival. To date four federally listed species, the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Karner blue butterfly, copperbelly water snake and eastern prairie fringed orchid, have required formal consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Because of the urgency to work in occupied habitat while maintaining efficiency, we have sought a programmatic consultation for these species. This approach has resulted in our ability to obtain permission to work in occupied habitat on multiple sites for the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly and Karner blue butterfly under one consultation. We are also refining our final draft Phase 1 form for the copperbelly water snake and eastern prairie fringed orchid.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Many of the proposed conservation actions will not have a negative effect on sites that are listed or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. These would include those activities on lands that have been in active agriculture in the past 50 years and do not involve soil disturbance below normal plow depth. This includes plowing, seeding using no-till drill, culti-packing, hand clearing of brush and trees and prescribed fire for those areas with no structures more than 50 years old present. For sites that have not been in active agriculture in the past 50 years and those activities likely to disturb the soil below the average plow depth, the State Historic Preservation Officer will be contacted and a site specific Section 106 review will be prepared.


Other Federal Compliance Issues

The activities supported by this grant for this project statement do not involve any other federal compliance issue. MDNR will comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations and policies including but not limited to Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Executive Order 11987 Exotic Organisms, Floodplains and Wetlands Protection, Animal Welfare Act of 1985 and Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982.

LITERATURE CITED

Albert, D.A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. St. Paul, MN.

Bailey, Robert G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States (2nd ed.). Misc. Pub.

No. 1391, Map scale 1:7,500,000. USDA Forest Service. 108pp. Eagle, A.C., E.M. Hay-Chmielewski, K.T. Cleveland, A.L. Derosier, M.E. Herbert, and R.A.

Rustem, eds. 2005. Michigan's Wildlife Action Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. 1592 pp. http://www.michigan.gov/dnrwildlifeactionplan

Hoekstra, J.M., T.M. Boucher, T.H. Ricketts, and C. Roberts. 2005. Confronting a biome crisis:

global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8:23-29. IN WCS, Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy developed for State of Indiana by D.J. Case

and Associates and project coordinator Catherine Gremillion-Smith NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 13, 2008).

The Nature Conservancy North Central Tillplain Ecoregional Planning Team. 2003. The North

Central Tillplain Ecoregion: A Conservation Plan. The Nature Conservancy. http://conserveonline.org/library/NCT0703.pdf/view.html, 217 pp.

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States:

A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28, National Biological Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Nuzzo, V. 1986. Extent and status of Midwest oak savanna: presettlement and 1985. Natural

Areas Journal 6:6-36. O’Connor, R.P. 2007. Development of Monitoring Strategies and Methods for the DNR

Landowner Incentive Program. Report 2007-15. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 24pp.


http://conserveonline.org/library/NCT0703.pdf/view.html

Pearsall, D and S. Woods. 2006. Methods and guidelines for assessing restoration progress in prairie fens using coarse-level metrics. The Nature Conservancy. Lansing, MI. 2p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha

mitchellii mitchellii French). Ft. Snelling, MN.



APPENDIX A. Private contractors used by MDNR private lands biologist in Michigan. Blue Heron Ministries Nathan Simons 2955 W. Orland rd. Angola, IN 46703 Tel: 260-833-4976 Fax: 260-833-1885 [email protected] Bruce, Jim Conservation Resource Management 4390 Center Rd., Hastings, MI 49058 PH : 269-945-8930 Ecological Consulting/ Prescribed Burning Service David Borneman L.L.C. 1123 Mixtwood Street Ann Arbor, MI 48103 PH: 734-645-8476 [email protected] FDC Enterprises Inc. 2948 Brookdown Dr. Columbus, OH 43235 [email protected] J.F. New & Associates 11181 Marwill Avenue West Olive, Michigan 49460 Ph. 616-847-1680 FAX: 219-586-3446 [email protected] http://www.jfnew.com King and MacGregor Environmental 2520 Woodmeadow Dr. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Ph. 616-957-1231 Fax 616-957-2198 [email protected] Mike Appel, MLA Appel Environmental Design 613 North Fifth Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734-395-1060 Native Connections Jerry Stewart 62791 Shaffer Rd. Constantine, MI 49042

email: [email protected] phone: 269-435-2208 cell: 269-580-4765 PlantWise David Mindell 224 Charles Street Ann Arbor, MI 48103 (734) 665-7168 [email protected] http://www.plantwiserestoration.com/ Pizzo & Associates Jack Pizzo 10729 Pine Road Leland IL 60531 815-498-9988 http://www.pizzo1.com/ (throughout Michigan) Stewardship Network Work Crew for Southwest Michigan 7000 North Westnedge Ave. Kalamazoo, MI 49009 Ph. 269-381-1574 (southern 3 tiers of counties in SW Michigan) Tallgrass Restoration 2221 Hammond Drive Schaumburg, IL 60173-3813 Office 847-925-9830 Fax 847-925-9840 Toll Free 877-699-8300 [email protected] http://www.tallgrassrestoration.com Wildtype Bill Schneider 900 N. Every Road Mason, MI 48854 Ph. (517) 244-1140 Fax. (517) 244-1142 Email: [email protected] http://www.wildtypeplants.com/index-2.html Zay, Daniel DLZ Michigan, Inc. 1425 Keystone Avenue Lansing, MI 48911 Ph. 517-393-6800 Fx. 517-272-7390 [email protected] Website http://www.dlz.com

mailto:[email protected]





http://www.jfnew.com/

http://www.jfnew.com/



http://www.plantwiserestoration.com/

http://www.pizzo1.com/


http://www.tallgrassrestoration.com/


http://www.wildtypeplants.com/index-2.html


APPENDIX B. SGCN expected to benefit from grant in Michigan and Indiana.

Common Name Scientific Name MI Status1

US Status2 Grank3 Fen Savanna

Angular spittlebug Lepyronia angulifera SC G3 X Blanchard's cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardi SC G5T5 X Blanding's turtle Emys blandingii SC SOC G4 X X Blazing star borer moth Papaipema beeriana SC G3 X X Blue racer Coluber constrictor foxii G5 X Bog conehead Neoconocephalus lyristes SC GNR X Culver's root borer moth Papaipema sciata SC G3G4 X Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina carolina SC G5T5 X Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus catenatus SC C G3G4 X X Golden borer Papaipema cerina SC G3G4 X Grey petaltail Tachopteryx thoreyi SC G4 X Hoosier locust Paroxya hoosieri SC G5 X Huron River leafhopper Flexamia huroni SC GNR X Kirtland's snake Clonophis kirtlandii E SOC G2 X Leafhopper Flexamia reflexus SC GNR X Maritime sunflower borer Papaipema maritima SC G4 X Mitchell's satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii E LE G1G2 X Newman's brocade Meropleon ambifusca SC G3G4 X Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens G5 X Persius duskywing Erynnis persius persius T SOC G5T1T3 X Pickerel frog Rana palustris G5 X Poweshiek skipperling Oarisma poweshiek T SOC G2G3 X Red-faced meadow katydid Orchelimum concinnum SC GNR X Red-legged spittlebug Prosapia ignipectus SC G4 X Regal fern borer Papaipema speciosissima SC G4 X Ringed boghaunter Williamsonia lintneri G3 X Silphium borer moth Papaipema silphii T G3G4 X Six-whorl vertigo Vertigo morsei SC G2G3 X Sora Porzana carolina G5 X Spatterdock darner Aeshna mutata G4 X Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata T G5 X Swamp metalmark Calephelis mutica SC G3G4 X Tamarack tree cricket Oecanthus laricis SC SOC G1G2 X Tawny crescent Phyciodes batesii SC SOC G4 X


APPENDIX C. Landowner Agreement.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Division LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM - WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT

Required under authority of Act 451 of PA of 1994, as amended.

AGREEMENT

This Agreement between ____________________________ hereinafter referred to as “Cooperator(s),” and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division, hereinafter referred to as “Division,” is authorized by the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451. The Division and the Cooperator(s) agree to carry out certain wildlife management practices and habitat developments on land owned by the Cooperator(s) as described in the attached Project Description and identified on the attached map and/or aerial photograph. The Cooperator(s) agrees to join as a participant in a Landowner Incentive Program, hereinafter referred to as Program. The Cooperator(s) grants authorization to the Division to carry out wildlife habitat developments and/or agrees to personally carry out wildlife habitat development and management activities with financial or material support, as described in the Project Description. Any supplies, equipment or direct payment from the Division to the Cooperator(s) for carrying out wildlife habitat developments are also detailed in the Project Description. The Cooperator(s) further agrees to:

1. Assume responsibility for securing federal, state and local permits needed to carry out the proposed habitat development project.

2. Allow the wildlife habitat development project described in the Project Description to remain in place for a period of 10 years from the date of the Cooperator’s signature on this Agreement.

3. Allow the Division staff or an appropriate representative reasonable access to the described property for the period of this Agreement in order to complete the agreed upon habitat development project and to make periodic inspections of the habitat development for program monitoring purposes.

4. Notify the Division in writing at least 30 days before closing of any planned sale or other change in the ownership of the described property.

5. Complete all Cooperator(s) responsibilities as listed in the Contract Specifications.

The Division assumes no authority over the described property for purposes of controlling trespass, for controlling noxious weeds, for identifying or removing pre-existing hazards including waste materials, for granting rights of way, or for any other incidents of ownership. The Cooperator(s) shall own all of the completed or installed developments and shall be solely responsible for paying all taxes and assessments on the described property.


LIABILITY. The Cooperator(s) hereby releases, waives, discharges and covenants not to sue the State of Michigan, its departments, officers, employees and agents, from any and all liability to Cooperator(s), its officers, employees and agents, for all losses, injury, death or damage, and any claims or demands thereto, on account of injury to person or property, or resulting in death of Cooperator(s), its officers, employees or agents, in reference to the activities authorized by this Agreement.

If the Division secures a third party vendor to provide services or equipment for any part or all of the wildlife habitat development project, the Division will require the contractor to list the Cooperator, including its shareholders, officers, employees, and agents, as additionally insured on contractor insurance policies. INDEMNIFICATION. The Cooperator(s) hereby covenants and agrees to indemnify and save harmless, the State of Michigan, its departments, officers, employees and agents, from any and all claims and demands, for all loss, injury, death or damage, that any person or entity may have or make, in any manner, arising out of any occurrence related to (1) issuance of this Agreement; (2) the activities authorized by this Agreement; and (3) the use or occupancy of the premises which are the subject of this Agreement by the Cooperator(s), its employees, contractors, or its authorized representatives.

This Agreement may be modified at any time by mutual written consent of the parties. It may be terminated by either party upon 30 days advance written notice to the other party. However, if the Cooperator(s) terminates the Agreement before its expiration, or if the Cooperator(s) should fail to maintain the wildlife habitat development for the length of the Agreement, then the Cooperator(s) agrees to reimburse the DNR Wildlife Division prior to final termination for the pro-rated costs of all habitat development projects placed on the described land through this Agreement. For these purposes the total cost of the development projects to the State are agreed to be $____________. This agreement becomes null and void upon land being accepted into any USDA Farm Bill program, including extensions, as long as current wildlife habitat development project is maintained. Cooperator Division

Signature – Cooperator Signature - Wildlife Biologist

Printed name Printed name

Date Date


APPENDIX D. Project description form.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Division LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Requested under authority of Act 451 of PA of 1994, as amended.

I. LANDOWNER INFORMATION Name

Address

City State Zip

II. DESCRIPTION OF LAND County

Township Name

Town

Range

Section

Latitude

Longitude

III. PROJECT PLAN Project Type

Wetland acres Grassland acres Barrens acres

Jack Pine acres Mesic Conifers acres

IV. FUNDS Partner Equipment Materials Funds In-kind Total Cost

$

$

$

$

Total DNR Cost: $ Total Project Cost: $

V. Contract Specifications

Scope of work:

This contract will begin ___________________ and end ______________________ and covers the following conservation actions on the Landowners property:


Commodities: The Department agrees to reimburse the Landowner $ _____________ for the following

Commodities:

The Landowner is responsible for the following:

The landowner reimbursement for commodities will not exceed $_________________ for this contract period

Services: The Department agrees to reimburse the Landowner $_________________________ for the

following Services:

The Landowner is responsible for the following activities:

The landowner reimbursement for services will not exceed $_________________ for this contract period

Review: The project(s) will be reviewed ____________________________________ to determine success.

Method of Payment:

Invoices may be submitted upon purchase of commodities or once service has been concluded.


APPENDIX E. Grant form used by MDNR private lands biologist.

2008 Landowner Incentive Program Fund


LANDOWNER GRANTS ACCOUNT

Grant Acceptance Form

Project Title: Name: Payee: (Make check payable to): Address: Telephone: _________________________ SS # or Fed. I.D. # : __________________________ Please verify by initialing here _____ if the Social Security or Federal Identification number is correct for the payee listed above. If “SS # or Fed. I.D. #” field is blank or incorrect; please enter the correct number in this space: _________________ Address of Individual or Organization if different from above: Total amount of grant: $XXXXXX Upon signing the Grant Acceptance Form, I accept this grant and agree to the terms presented in this form, the notification letter dated ____________ and the Landowner Incentive Program Landowner Agreement. These three documents constitute the grant agreement for this project. I also agree to complete the work as described in my project description, or as modified through discussion with or notification by the Department of Natural Resources. Authorized Signature (only necessary if in addition to Grantee’s signature) date Grantee’s Signature date Department of Natural Resources Approval date

._----~---~-----------------

DNR Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Department of Natural ResourcesDivision ofFish & Wildlife402 W. Washington St., Rm. W-273Indianapolis, IN 46204

November 12,2008

Mr. Dan KennedyDept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife DivisionStevens T. Mason Building, 4th Floor530 West Allegan Street, P.O. Box 30444Lansing, MI 48909

Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., GovernorRobert E. Carter, Jr., Director

RE: State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Proposal for Prairie Fen & Associated SavannaRestoration in Michigan & Indiana for Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources is aware of the grant proposal mentionedabove, and this letter is written in support of said proposal. It is our understanding thatthe focus of this grant will be to restore and enhance prairie fens and savannas. Both ofthose natural communities are very rare in Indiana, and they support numerous plant andanimal SGCN's.

We are aware that match for the Indiana portion of the grant will be provided by theIndiana Chapter ofThe Nature Conservancy (TNC). John Shuey from Indiana TNC hasinformed us that three fen/savanna properties will benefit from management activitiesassociated with this grant: Fawn River Fen in Lagrange County, Cline Lake Fen inLagrange County, and Swamp Angel Fen in Noble County. These properties providehabitat to SGCN's such as eastern massasauga, spotted turtle and Blanding's turtle.Habitat improvements for these species fits nicely into goals for Indiana'sComprehensive Wildlife Strategy.

Indiana DNR strongly supports this grant proposal.

Glen Salmon, DirectorDivision of Fish & WildlifeIndiana Dept. of Natural Resources

An Equal Opportunity Employer

Printed on Recycled Paper

SnlruDrnncronHelen Taylot

Boeno oFTRUsrÉEs

tloyd A. Semple, Clrølr

Ge¡ard M. Ande rso n, Více' Chair

Roberr L. A¡tho fly, Trc asurer

J. DavidAllan

Essel W. Bailey, Jr.

Williain H.B¡,tzl;,aÍ

Marcie Brogan

Tho¡nas B. CooL

Cong. john D. Dingell

Paul C. HillegondsLfeTrutee

JamesÂ. Jacob

Olivia P. Maynard

MarkÂ. Murray

William U. Parfet

Philip H. PowerLlfeTruttee

William C. Râ¡ds, III

Miit Rohwe¡

Doug Rothwell

Richard D. Snyder

Barbara Van Dusentfefrwæe

Dan Wyant

ConporuruADvIsoRsRandolphl. Agley

Anthony F. Eade¡ Jr.

Devid G. Frey

William K. Ho¡'enstein

Richa¡dA. Manoogian

James B. Nicholson

Kenneth Whipple

I'*ït{ature1-,(JIf_scI:\¡ä:LC\¡

Frutectirrg rìätlrre. Preserving I ifei

l0 November 2008

Dan KennedyMichigan Deparhnent of Natural ResourcesMason Building, Sixth FloorP.O, Box 30028Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

The Nature Conservancy (Michigan and Indiana Chapters) supports the proposal*Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and lndiana" submittedby Michigan Deparknent of Natural Resources to the Competitive Staæ WildlifeGrant Program. The proposed work will advance the protection, restoration, andconservation of imperiled habitat types and associated species.

The Nature Conservancy commits to support this pïoposal by providing cash and in-kind match at a ¡ate of 4lo/o (approximately equivalent to I : I . 5 non-federal : federal) ofthe federal funds that will be distributed to TNC for inventory and managementactivities on property owned or managed by TNC ståff. TNC pledged mstch will be9145,92I (Michigau Chapter: $97,237; Indiana Chapter: $48,684) ovçr 2 years basedoû the final proposal budget. Match will consist primarily of personnel time (whichcounts as câsh match) spent conducting management activities such as removal andtreatment on invasive species, prescribed fire, planting native veget¿tion" and siteprepÍr¡ation prior to rsstoration actions. None of tho pledged match has beencommitted to other federal grants. In return for this commitmeft of matching funds,TNC expects to receive $209,984 {Michigan Chapter: $139,927; lndiana Chapter:$70,057) ayer 2 years from MDNR if the full award of the proposal is granted.Shouldthe proposal be funded at a reduced level, TNC will match federal funds¡eceived at a rate af 4lYo.

Our parhrership withthe Michigan Department ofNatural Resources has been aproductive one. We hope tlrough this proposed work to continue leveraging ourfunds to successfully and effectively conserve and manage the natural resources ofMichigan and Indiana. We encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to firnd yourproject.

onnellHelen TaylorStåte Director, Michigan Staæ Director, lndiana

11/14/2008 11:37 15175555505 MICHIGAN NATURE PAGE 02/02

326 E. Grand River Ave. Williamston MI 48895-1418 517.655.5655' Fax: 517,655.5506

michiGan natu~€ aSSOcIatIon www.michigannature.org

November 12,2008

Dan Kennedy, Wlldlife Biologist Michigan ·Department ofNatural Resources 8562 E. Stoll Road East Lansing, MI 48823

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

The Michigan Nature Association (MNA) supports the proposal "Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana" submitted by Michigan Department ofNatural Resources to the Competitive State Wildlife Grant Program. The proposed work will advance the protection, restoration, and conservation of imperiled habitats and associated species.

The Michigan Nature Association commits to support this proposal by providing in-kind match consisting primarily ofvolunteer hours spent conducting management activities on habitat containing Mitchell Satyr butterfly. This includes removal and treatment of invasive species, prescribed fire, and site preparation prior to restoration actions. None ofthe pledged match has been committed to other federal grants. In return for this commitment of matching funds MNA expects nothing.·

Our partnership with the Michigan Department ofNatural Resources has been a productive one. We hope through this proposed work to continue leveraging our funds to successfully and effectively conserve and manage the natural resources ofMichigan. We encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund this project.

Sincerely,

4.....~Z:;;;I?A Executive Director

Conserving Michigan's unique plants, animals and habitats since 1952 e Printed on Recycled Pllper

Michigan NaturalFeatures Inventory

P.O. Box 30444Lansing, MI48909-7944

(517) 373-1552FAX (517) 373-9566

Michigan State UniversityExtension programs and materials

are open to all without regard torace, color, national origin, gender,

religion, age, disability, politicalbeliefs, sexual orientation, marital

status, or family status.

MSU is an affirmative-action,equal-opporfunity employer.

MICHIGAN STATEUNIVERSITY

EXTENSIONNovember 12, 2008

Dan KennedyMichigan Department ofNatural ResourcesWildlife DivisionStevens T. Mason BuildingP. O. Box 30444Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Dan:

I am writing in support of the proposal that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources(MDNR) is submitting to the Competitive State Wildlife Grant Program to restore and enhanceprairie fens and associated savannas in Michigan and Indiana. Prairie fens are one of the mostbiologically rich and diverse ecosystems in Michigan, providing habitat for hundreds of nativeplants and animals, including some species that occur almost exclusively in prairie fens. Prairiefens also provide habitat for a number of rare plant and animal species as well as additionalspecies of greatest conservation need that have been identified in Michigan's Wildlife ActionPlan. These include the federally endangered Mitchell's satyr butterfly and the federal candidateEastern Massasauga.

Unfortunately, the distribution and condition of prairie fens across the landscape havebecome greatly reduced. These ecosystems face a number of threats including habitat loss andfragmentation due to development as well as vegetative succession and invasive species. In manyplaces, conservation ofprairie fens and associated plants and animals require active stewardship.The MDNR's proposal and efforts to restore and enhance prairie fens in Michigan and Indianaare critical for conservation of these rich and unique ecosystems. These efforts also willcontribute to improving the long-term viability of the Mitchell's satyr butterfly, EasternMassasauga, and other species of greatest conservation need associated with these ecosystems.

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) has over 25 years of experienceproviding the highest quality information that contributes to the conservation of biodiversityespecially rare and declining plants and animals and the diversity of ecosystems native toMichigan. We have been conducting surveys, monitoring, and research and providing informationand technical assistance regarding the conservation of prairie fens and associated plants andanimals including the Mitchell's satyr butterfly and Eastern Massasauga for over a decade. TheMNFI will provide a staff of scientists to help implement this project by conducting surveys andmonitoring at project sites and providing information and technical assistance to the MDNR andproject partners. We also will provide $52,000 of waived indirect costs as match for this project.

Thank you for the opportunity to collaborate on this proposal. We look forward tocontinuing to work with the MDNR on conservation and management of prairie fen andassociated savanna ecosystems in Michigan.

Sincerely,

~~'-V-YuManLeeMNFI Interim Director

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION

November 12,2008

TO: Dan Kennedy, Wildlife Division

FROM: Ray Fahlsing, Stewardship Unit Manager, Parks and Recreation Division

SUBJECT: "Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana" Grant Proposal

Parks and Recreation Division supports the proposal "Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana" to be submitted to the Competitive State Wildlife Grant Program. The proposed work will advance the restoration and enhancement of globally and state vulnerable prairie fens and their associated rare species.

Parks and Recreation Division commits to support this proposal by providing match of $20,000 over the two-year grant period. This match would include a combination of staff wages, travel expenses, supplies, and invasive species control contracts for ecological restoration work to be completed in prairie fen and adjacent habitat at the "Barry Southwest" Mitchell's Satyr site described in the grant proposal. The matching funds would come from the State Park Improvement Fund and/or the Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps Endowment Fund (100 percent state funds). None of the pledged match has been committed to other federal grants. In return for this commitment of matching funds, Parks and Recreation Division expects to receive at least $28,000 of grant funds over 2 years for use at the "Barry Southwest" site if the full award of the proposal is granted. Should the proposal be funded at a reduced level, Parks and Recreation Division will match federal funds received at a rate of 41 %.

All pledged match funding is contingent upon stable Stewardship funding from the State Park Improvement Fund through 2011.

The restoration work proposed under this grant would significantly enhance habitat for Mitchell's Satyr and other prairie fen dependent Species of Greatest Conservation Need. We encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund this project.

,'4'_._.---t~s.

~..l ) .~~~.Y~./~". ~ " /'"- ';"0"·'

R 103Q.E (Rev. 11/0312004)

SOUTHWEST ""'CHIC:ANLANP CONSERVANCY

November 11, 2008Board of Directors

C Larry Edris

President

George E Burgoyne, Jr

Vff.'e~Presfdenl

Mary L. Houser

Treasurer

Philip Micklin

S'ecretary

Dan KennedyMichigan Department of Natural ResourcesWildlife DivisionStevens T. Mason Building, 4th Floor530 West Allegan StreetP.O. Box 30444Lansing, MI 48909

Dave Coleman

Alfred l Gemnch

Re: Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana

Ben F. Lark

Cindy Mills

Lawrence Sehy

RIchard H. Shaw

Bradley E. Weller

Staff

Peter D Ter LouwJ:.~xecUflve Director

Geoffrey D. CripeLand ProtectIOn

SpecwliIt

Nate Fuller(.'onservation and

Steward\"hip D,rector

Pamela Weaver LarsonCommunrcalJom

Director

Julie LewandowskiAdministrative Assistant

EmJiy E. WIlkeI,and Protection

SpecwliIt

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

The Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy (SWMLC) supports the proposal "Prairie Fen andAssociated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana" submitted by Michigan Departmentof Natural Resources to the Competitive State Wildlife Grant Program. The proposed work willadvance the protection, restoration, and conservation of imperiled habitat types and associatedspecIes.

SWMLC commits to support this proposal by providing cash and in-kind match of the federalfunds that will be distributed to SWMLC for inventory and management activities on propertyowned or managed by SWMLC staff. SWMLC pledged match will be $78,500 over 2 yearsbased on the final proposal budget. Match will consist of acquisition costs of property with rarehabitat and species types (prairie fen with Mitchell's satyrs) and personnel time spentconducting management activities such as removal and treatment on invasive species, prescribedfire, planting native vegetation, and site preparation prior to restoration actions. None of thepledged match has been committed to other federal grants. In return for this commitment ofmatching funds, SWMLC expects to receive $112,963 over 2 years from MDNR if the fullaward of the proposal is granted.

We hope through this proposed work to continue leveraging our funds to successfully andeffectively conserve and manage the natural resources of Michigan. We encourage the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service to fund your project.

Sincerely yours,

t/i. 1r;(tA---Peter D. Ter LouwExecutive Director

Att.

6851 South Sprinkle Road / Portage. MI 49002 / (269) 324-1600 / (269) 324-9760 (fax) / www.SWMLC.org

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Findings of NEPA Compliance for Federal Assistance Grant Approval Action

August 27, 2009

Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration – MDNR NEPA Compliance Documentation Page 1 of 3

Dear Mr. Hodgson:

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is requesting approval of the AFA along with the Proposal Narrative and Segment 1 for the following Competitive State Wildlife Grant:

Federal ID: To Be Determined Amendment Number: 0

Grant Name: Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana for Species of Greatest Conservation Need

This document has been prepared to serve as part of the administrative record for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Concerning the federal action requested above, I have reviewed the actions included in this grant for NEPA compliance and have found that the activities supported by this grant:

Will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment and are completely covered by the following categorical exclusion(s) 1.3 and 1.10 in Appendix 1 to 516 DM Chapter 2 and/or 1.4A(2), 1.4B(3-6), and 1.4B(8) in 516 DM Chapter 8.5. The definitions of the categorical exclusions used are as follows:
















Additionally, none of the following extraordinary circumstances applies that would disallow the use of the Categorical Exclusions listed above:

1. Have significant impacts on public health or safety. 2. Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic

characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas.

3. Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA Section 102(2)(E)].

4. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.

5. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.

6. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects.

7. Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places as determined by either the bureau or office.

8. Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species.

9. Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.


10. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations (Executive Order 12898).

11. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 13007).

12. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112).

However, one or more Extraordinary Circumstances applies and consequently an EA/EIS will be completed.

Are not completely covered by Categorical Exclusions and an EA/EIS will be completed.

Are completely covered by and will be conducted in accordance with the selected alternative of the following approved and published Environmental Assessment with a corresponding Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI):

Are completely covered by and will be conducted in accordance with the selected alternative approved and published in the following EIS:

MDNR requests concurrence with our finding and recommends USFWS adopt this finding to serve as the administrative record of compliance with the spirit and intent of NEPA.

Prepared by: Date: 08/27/2009 Stephen Beyer, Wildlife Division Federal Aid Coordinator

Date: Federal Assistance Program Staff Date:

USFWS Federal

Assistance Concurrence

Federal Assistance Chief


Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration Phase I Section 7 Evaluation Form Page 1 of 117

REGION 3 WSFR SECTION 7 EVALUATION DOCUMENTATION

PHASE I: COMPLETED BY GRANTEE (See Phase I Instructions for completing this form)

State: Michigan and Indiana Grantee: Natural Resources Grant Program(s): Competitive SWG Grant Title and Number (add amendment no.): TBD-1 – Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration

in Michigan and Indiana for Species of Greatest Conservation Need

I Location: A. List counties where grant activities will occur.

Grant activities may occur in any Michigan counties within the lower peninsula. Grant activities in Indiana will potentially occur in counties in the northern two thirds of the state that fall within the North Central Tillplain Ecoregion and the western extension of Central Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregion (Bailey 1995, TNC 2003).

B. Describe the action area (see instructions).

Proposed grant activities will occur in selected prairie fens and associated savanna habitats on public and private lands in southern Michigan and northern Indiana.

II. Species/Critical Habitat: A. Species information

1. Using the FWS web site (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/), list species that are/or may be present in the county(ies):

There are 30 species in Michigan and Indiana on the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species (see attached table). These include 19 animal species and 11 plant species. In addition, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, rayed bean mussel, sheepnose mussel, and Short’s bladderpod are candidates for listing and will be taken into consideration during the proposed implementation activities.

Small whorled pogonia and American burying beetle are presumed extirpated from Michigan and therefore potential affects from proposed activities will not be considered. Mead’s milkweed is considered extirpated from Indiana (USFWS 2003), and also will not be considered.

2. List species, from “1.” above, that are not in the action area, and explain why:

All mussels can be excluded from the action area because they are present in rivers, and no grant activities are proposed in rivers. Canada lynx, gray bat, gray wolf, piping plover, Kirtland’s warbler, least tern, Hungerford’s crawling water beetle, and Hine’s emerald dragonfly only occur outside the geographic extent of this project, and therefore are not in the action area. All federally listed plants except eastern prairie fringed orchid and Pitcher’s thistle only occur outside the geographic extent of this project, and are therefore not in the action area.

B. Using the FWS web site, identify whether federally designated or proposed critical habitat is present within the action area:

The only designated critical habitat in Michigan is for piping plover (see attached figure), Hine’s emerald dragonfly and gray wolf on Isle Royale. The only designated critical habitat in Indiana is winter habitat for gray bat. No critical habitat is within the action area.

*Note: If II.A and II.B above have no species or critical habitat, skip sections III and IV and go to V.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/lists/michigan-spp.html


III. Description of Proposed Action: In the space provided or on an attached sheet, describe the action(s) in sufficient detail so that the potential effects of the action can be identified and fully evaluated.

The project is specifically designed to implement management for the direct benefit and population restoration of Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and an additional 32 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) that use prairie fen and savanna habitats. Management activities have been planned to minimize direct impacts to SGCN while providing and enhancing habitat for those species. Sites with Mitchell's satyr and Karner blue butterfly occurrences and/or habitat will likely be included in this project. Habitats for eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and eastern prairie fringed orchid may also be affected by projects associated with this grant.

This project proposes to restore at least 200 acres on at least 16 sites that currently or historically supported Mitchell’s satyr butterfly. A second objective is to restore 24 high quality prairie fens and associated savannas for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 32 associated SGCN. The final component of this project is to place an 11.7 acre parcel that is currently occupied by Mitchell’s satyr butterfly into permanent protection through a landowner agreement.

Management techniques will focus on invasive species removal and restoration of native prairie fen and savanna conditions. Techniques that will be used to accomplish this include prescribed burning, mechanical vegetation control, and chemical control of invasive vegetation.

A programmatic Section 7 review has been developed to guide activities on sites occupied by Mitchell’s satyr and Karner blue butterfly. This review is based upon biological opinions attached to this document (Log No. 03-R3-ELFO-03 and Section 7 Programmatic Consultation on Issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Take Permits, and Providing Funding for and/or Carrying out Conservation Activities that Benefit Karner Blue Butterfly). Additionally, a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) has been drafted for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and the guidelines in the CCAA will be used to avoid jeopardizing populations of rattlesnakes. Timing of management activities are expected to avoid any potential to affect eastern prairie fringed orchid. All activities will conform to the programmatic review to minimize any risk to these species. The programmatic review documents are on file with MDNR Wildlife Division and with USFWS Ecological Services East Lansing office, and these documents will be supplied upon request.

Presence of listed species and/or critical habitat will be evaluated for each landowner contract. Historical records will be checked through Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Site inspections will be used to evaluate current occupation and/or presence of habitat. The programmatic review will be used to guide activities that may affect occupied habitat. We will work with USFWS Ecological Services personnel to ensure proper management whenever a landowner contract has the potential to affect a listed species.

IV. Description of Effects: In the space provided or on an attached sheet, describe the effects, including beneficial, of the project actions on the identified species, species habitats and federal critical habitat (see II above).

Management in areas with listed species is specifically intended for the benefit of those species. In the case of the Mitchell’s satyr and Karner blue butterflies, habitat management activities may cause the incidental take of some individuals. This management, however, is necessary to ensure the continued existence of suitable habitat for these species. Certain management activities may result in harm or mortality of eastern Massasauga rattlesnakes. These activities will be consistent with guidelines being developed for a Candidate Conservation Agreement and our programmatic review. These activities may result in adverse effects to a small number of individuals, but will not rise to the level of jeopardy of the species. Management activities would also improve habitat conditions for eastern prairie fringed orchid. At this time, we believe that adverse impacts to this species can be avoided through the seasonal timing of management activities, but we would reinitiate this consultation if new information indicates adverse impacts are likely.

No effects are expected for Pitcher’s thistle or copperbelly water snake because these species do not occur in prairie fen or savanna habitats. Indiana bats may use project sites for foraging, and the only effects expected would be positive.

The only designated critical habitat in Michigan and Indiana is for Piping Plovers, Hine’s emerald dragonfly, gray wolf, and Indiana bat hibernacula; no activities under this grant will occur in these habitats.

V. Recommended Determination(s) of Effect(s): For all species and critical habitat identified in Section I, mark (X) the appropriate determinations.

A. Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species

X a) “No Effect”

List species for which this recommendation is applicable (or attach list): All species except Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Karner blue butterfly, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and eastern prairiefringed orchid

X b) “May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect”

List species for which this recommendation is applicable (or attach list): Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Karner blue butterfly, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and eastern prairie fringed orchid.

c) “May Affect, and is Likely to Adversely Affect”

List species for which this recommendation is applicable (or attach list):

B. Federally Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat

X a) “No Effect” to Critical Habitat

List critical habitat(s) for which the recommendation is applied. Piping plover, gray wolf, Hine’s

emerald dragonfly, and gray bat critical habitats

b) “May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Critical Habitat List critical habitat(s) for which the recommendation is applied.

c) “May Affect, and is Likely to Adversely Affect” Critical Habitat List critical habitat(s) for which the recommendation is applied.

Signatures: Prepared by: Name/Title: Stephen Beyer/Wildlife Division Federal Aid Coordinator

Signature: Date: 08/27/2009

Telephone No. (517) 241-3450 email: [email protected]

Reviewed by: Name/Title: Eric Sink/Department Federal Aid Coordinator

Signature: Date: 08/27/2009

Telephone No. (517) 335-1064 email: [email protected]



Literature cited:

Bailey, Robert G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States (2nd ed.). Misc. Pub. No.1391, Map scale 1:7,500,000. USDA Forest Service. 108pp.

(TNC) The Nature Conservancy. 2003. The North Central Tillplain Ecoregion: A Conservation Plan. Online at: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/uoh/documents/north-central-tillplain-ecoregional-plan. The Nature Conservancy North Central Tillplain Ecoregional Planning Team. 217pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Mead’s milkweed (Asclepias meadii) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 120 pp.

Attached Documents:

Appendix A: US FWS. Biological Opinion (Log No. 03-R3-ELFO-03) Section 7 Programmatic Consultation on Issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Take Permits and Providing Funding Pursuant to Endangered Species Grant Programs for Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly

Appendix B: US FWS. Section 7 Programmatic Consultation on Issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Take Permits, and Providing Funding for and/or Carrying out Conservation Activities that Benefit Karner Blue Butterfly.


FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES IN MICHIGAN AND INDIANA

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status

Plants

Asplenium scolopendrium americanum American Hart's-tongue Threatened

Iris lacustris Dwarf Lake Iris Threatened

Platanthera leucophaea Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Threatened

Solidago houghtonii Houghton's Goldenrod Threatened

Hymenoxys herbacea Lakeside Daisy Threatened Asclepias meadii Mead’s Milkweed Threatened

Mimulus glabratus michiganensis Michigan Monkey-flower Endangered

Cirsium pitcheri Pitcher's Thistle Threatened

Trifolium stoloniferum Running Buffalo Clover Endangered

Lesquerella globosa Short’s Bladderpod Candidate

Solidago shortii Short’s Goldenrod Endangered

Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia Threatened

Animals – Mammals

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx Threatened

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat Endangered

Canis lupus Gray Wolf Endangered

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Endangered

Animals – Birds

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland's Warbler Endangered

Sterna antillarum Least Tern Endangered

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover Endangered

Animals – Reptiles

Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Copperbelly Water Snake Threatened

Sistrurus catenatus catenatus Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake Candidate

Animals – Mussels

Pleurobema clava Clubshell Mussel Endangered

Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell Endangered

Potamilus capax Fat pocketbook Endangered

Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Northern Riffleshell Endangered

Villosa fabalis Rayed Bean Candidate

Pleurobema plenum Rough pigtoe Endangered

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Candidate

Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua White cat’s paw pearlymussel Endangered


Animals – Insects

Nicophorus americanus American Burying Beetle Endangered

Brychius hungerfordi Hungerford's Crawling Water Beetle Endangered

Lycaeides melissa samuelis Karner Blue Butterfly Endangered

Somatochlora hineana Hine's Emerald Dragonfly Endangered

Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Mitchell's Satyr Butterfly Endangered

Figure 1: Piping Plover designated critical habitat in Michigan.



Appendix A: US FWS. Biological Opinion (Log No. 03-R3-ELFO-03) Section 7 Programmatic Consultation on Issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Take Permits and Providing Funding Pursuant to Endangered Species Grant Programs for Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly

1

April 1, 2004 Memorandum To: Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services Cc: Field Supervisor, Bloomington Field Office, Indiana From: Field Supervisor, East Lansing Field Office, Michigan Subject: Biological Opinion (Log No. 03-R3-ELFO-03) Section 7 Programmatic Consultation on Issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Take

Permits and Providing Funding Pursuant to Endangered Species Grant Programs for Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly

This Biological Opinion is prepared pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). At issue is the take of Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) (MSB) for scientific and conservation purposes by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Regional Director, Region 3, and her employees and agents, through the issuance of permits and subpermits by the Regional Office, pursuant to ESA section 10(a)(1)(A), and the granting of funds for recovery-related projects. This programmatic Biological Opinion evaluates the impacts of proposed Service actions that are likely to adversely affect MSB. These actions, which are generally intended to promote long term recovery, may result in short-term adverse impacts such as harm or harassment. Mortality may also occur on a small scale as a result of these activities. The specific activities that may be funded or permitted under the Service’s recovery grant programs and 10(a)(1)(A) include: population surveys using direct observation; capturing, marking, holding, translocation, and release of individuals; collection for rearing and propagation purpose and release; tissue sampling for scientific research; habitat manipulation, restoration, or enhancement activities; and other conservation actions that may result in short term adverse effects to and incidental take of MSB. Subpermits for take under section 10(a)(1)(A) would be issued under the authority of the Service’s Region 3 Endangered Species Blanket Permit (TE-697830-3). These subpermits would be issued to qualified individuals to benefit recovery of MSB. For reasons further discussed within, it is our biological opinion that proposed actions carried out pursuant to the Service’s recovery grant and section 10(a)(1)(A) programs are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of MSB nor any other listed species. No critical habitat has been designated for MSB; therefore, none will be affected. During this consultation, we coordinated with the Bloomington Field Office, as Indiana is the only state other than Michigan with extant populations of Mitchell’s satyr. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in this office.

S:\EndangeredSpecies\SECT7\BIOLOPNS\ELFO03\03-R3-ELFO-03.doc

2

Biological Opinion Log No. 03-R3-ELFO-03

Activities Proposed Issuance of ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for scientific research and conservation activities, and granting or direct expenditure of funds for projects that enhance the conservation of MSB. Species Affected Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii). Endangered. (Emergency Rule, June 25, 1991. 56 FR 122: 28828; Final Rule, May 20, 1992. 57 FR 98: 21564 – 21568). Programmatic Consultation Approach Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, the Service must ensure that its proposed actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species or result in the adverse modification or destruction of designated critical habitat. In accordance with this mandate, each proposed action must undergo a section 7(a)(2) review. In the context of the potential proposed actions described here, all section 10(a)(1)(A) permits and all future Service Recovery Grants1 are subject to section 7 consultation. We anticipate that activities similar to those described below will be authorized, conducted, or funded by the Service. This section 7 programmatic consultation for Region 3’s section 10 recovery permit and Service Recovery Grant programs is conducted to address our section 7(a)(2) requirements with respect to MSB. This document analyzes the potential effects of the actions we anticipate permitting, funding, or carrying out for the conservation of MSB. We also identify conservation measures that the Service will incorporate into proposed section 10 recovery permits or into the project designs. Each section 10(a)(1)(a) permit and Service proposal will be reviewed to ensure that 1) the actions to be permitted/funded were contemplated in the programmatic Biological Opinion, 2) the appropriate conservation measures have been incorporated into the permit/project design, 3) the anticipated effect of the permit/grant is commensurate to what was anticipated in the programmatic Biological Opinion, 4) the level of take permitted/expected does not exceed the level anticipated in the programmatic Biological Opinion, and 5) the appropriate terms and conditions from the programmatic Biological Opinion have been incorporated into the permit/project design. Projects that are funded through the Service’s Recovery Grant programs and/or require a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit that have potential effects not directly considered in this programmatic Biological Opinion will require an additional section 7 review, and may necessitate an amendment to the programmatic Biological Opinion. Description of Proposed Action There are two general types of proposed actions: 1) issuance of 10(a)(1)(A) permits and 2) granting of funds for projects that enhance the conservation of MSB. 1) 10(a)(1)(A) permits 1 For the purposes of this programmatic Biological Opinion, “Service Recovery Grants” refer to all grants administered by the Service for the purpose of benefiting listed species, as discussed in the description of the proposed action. Projects funded by these grants must enhance the conservation of MSB to be considered in this programmatic Biological Opinion.

3

The Service proposes to issue section 10(a)(1)(A) permits to purposefully take MSB for recovery and scientific purposes or for enhancement of propagation or survival. Pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, the Service may authorize otherwise prohibited actions for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of listed species. All activities authorized by the Service under section 10(a)(1)(A) must meet permit issuance criteria at 50 CFR 17.22, 17.32, or 17.52. The ESA and its implementing regulations mandate that such activities be for the purposes of enhancement of survival and recovery of listed species. In determining whether to issue a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, the Service must consider the following criteria: 1) whether the purpose for which the permit is required is adequate to justify removing from the wild or otherwise changing the status of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; 2) the probable direct and indirect effects that issuing the permit would have on the wild populations of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; 3) whether the permit, if issued, would in any way, directly or indirectly, conflict with any known program intended to enhance the survival probabilities of the population from which the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit was or would be removed; 4) whether the purpose for which the permit is required would be likely to reduce the threat of extinction facing the species of wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; 5) the opinions or views of scientists or other persons or organizations having expertise concerning the wildlife or other matters germane to the application; and 6) whether the expertise, facilities, or other resources available to the applicant appear adequate to successfully accomplish the objectives stated in the application. The section 10(a)(1)(A) process is initiated with an application for a permit. The Service processes and evaluates the permit in accordance with general permit procedures at 50 CFR 13 and permit issuance criteria at 50 CFR 17.22. The Regional Permits Coordinator consults with the appropriate Service Field Office (FO) to determine whether 1) the proposed activities have been contemplated in the Biological Opinion, 2) the appropriate conservation measures have been incorporated into the permit, 3) the effect of the permit is commensurate with what was anticipated in the Biological Opinion, 4) the type and amount of take will not exceed the level identified in the Biological Opinion, and 5) the appropriate terms and conditions have been incorporated into the permit. The Regional Permits Coordinator and Service’s FO also ensure the appropriate conservation measures identified in this Biological Opinion (see conservation measures, pages 8-9) are incorporated into the permit as enforceable terms and conditions. If the Service issues a permit, the Service may incorporate special terms and conditions to minimize incidental take. Under the section 10(a)(1)(A) permit process, take will be permitted for only those activities that enhance the conservation and recovery of MSB. Only qualified individuals as determined by the Service will be issued permits to take MSB. All data collected as a result of these actions are reported to the Service on an annual basis to facilitate recovery monitoring and planning. Upon receipt of the required annual report, the Service records the amount of take that occurred. 2) Granting of funds to enhance conservation of MSB The Service also may provide funding for projects that enhance the conservation of MSB. Several grant sources have been established to benefit listed species, including the Service’s Recovery Grants, as discussed below. Additional grants that are not explicitly discussed here may be covered under this programmatic Biological Opinion, provided they are for purpose of MSB conservation and the effects of the project are considered in this programmatic Biological Opinion. The authority for several of the funding sources is provided pursuant to ESA and Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCP). Some of these funding sources include the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (also known as section 6) and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (specifically, Private Stewardship and Landowner Incentive Programs). In addition to section 6,

4

Private Stewardship, and the Landowner Incentive grants, we are also evaluating projects funded by Region 3’s appropriated program funds (such as 1113, ESA Recovery funds), “flex” funding grants, and direct expenditure of those funds by the Service. Federal Assistance (previously known as Federal Aid) and other FWS recovery-oriented grants are also evaluated here provided they meet the criteria previously described. For example, a North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) grant, administered by the FWS’s Joint Venture, for the purpose of MSB enhancement and recovery would be covered under this programmatic BO, as would a landowner Incentive Program or State Wildlife Grant to a state wildlife Program. Section 6 authorizes the Service to enter into cooperative agreements with any State which establishes and maintains an adequate and active program for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Under this authority, the Service may provide financial assistance to any such State or Territory (hereafter, “States”) for the purposes of developing conservation programs for listed species or for monitoring the status of candidate or recovered species. In order for a State program to be deemed an adequate and active program, the Service must find and reconfirm, on an annual basis, that the State program, among other things, has: 1) the authority to conserve resident endangered or threatened species of fish and wildlife or plants; 2) established an acceptable conservation program, consistent with the purposes and policies of the ESA, for all resident species of fish and wildlife or plants in the State which are endangered or threatened; and has furnished a copy of such program together with all pertinent details, information, and data requested to the Service; and 3) authorization to conduct investigations to determine the status and requirements for survival of resident species of fish and wildlife or plants. The section 6 grant review and approval process is as follows. Project proposals are developed by the States in coordination with the Service’s FOs and are evaluated based on the merits, benefits, and risks. For projects that are likely to adversely affect MSB, the FO will ensure 1) the proposed activities have been contemplated in a Biological Opinion, 2) the appropriate conservation measures identified within the Biological Opinion have been incorporated into the project design, 3) the effect of the project is commensurate with what was anticipated in the Biological Opinion, 4) the type and amount of take does not exceed the level identified in the Biological Opinion, and 5) the appropriate terms and conditions have been incorporated into the project design. Following completion of the project, States submit reports describing the success of the project and detailing the extent or amount of take that occurred. The Service tracks the take accompanying recovery activities that have occurred throughout the Region. This review process is documented on a Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation form. The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides monies to Federal, State and local governments to acquire land, water and conservation easements on land and water for the benefit of all Americans. The Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship for Imperiled Species are two new grant programs aimed at conserving federally listed species. The Landowner Incentive Program provides funding to States to establish programs that provide financial and technical assistance to private landowners to protect, enhance, and manage habitat for imperiled species while engaging in traditional land management. The Private Stewardship Grant Program provides funding to groups and individuals to fund voluntary conservation efforts on the behalf of private landowners for the benefit of federally listed and/or at-risk species. The section 7 review process for these grant programs will be similar to the section 6 review process. The Service’s Recovery program works with Federal, state, tribal and non-government entities to take immediate action to prevent the extinction of species, prepare recovery plans to ensure coordinated, effective recovery actions, and implement recovery actions to reverse the decline of listed species and expedite those species’ recovery. Recovery program appropriated funds may be used to implement on-

5

the-ground conservation actions. In addition, FOs may submit proposals for funding through the “flex” fund program for projects to benefit listed species; these funds are awarded on a competitive basis. Region 3’s recovery monies are allocated to the FOs to implement projects. Prior to implementing such projects, the FO will conduct a section 7 review (as described above for other grants), and this review process will be documented on an Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation form. The Federal Assistance Division transfers and administers federal grants, often derived from hunting and fishing excise tax, to State fish and wildlife agencies for projects that enhance fish, wildlife, and habitat resources for present and future public benefit. The States use the Federal Assistance grants, which typically account for one-fourth to one-third of their respective fish and wildlife management budgets, for work across the full spectrum of their management responsibilities In this Biological Opinion, Region 3’s section 6, Landowner Incentive, Private Stewardship, recovery grant programs, applicable Federal Assistance or Joint Venture grants, and other appropriate FWS sources of funding will be collectively referred to as the Service’s Recovery Grant programs. Only those grant projects that are for the purpose of benefiting MSB are considered in this consultation; for other projects that may affect listed species, a separate section 7 consultation may be required. The Service may also conduct direct activities (e.g., surveys, management) that benefit the conservation of MSB. These activities are covered under this consultation, provided the effects of the action have been considered. All Service activities that may affect listed species are covered under our station permit (through section 10(a)(1)(A)), and are, in many cases, funded through recovery program appropriated funds. The intent of each component of the proposed action (i.e., 10(a)(1)(A) permit issuance and administration of Region the Service’s Recovery Grant program) is to enhance the conservation and recovery of listed species. The goal of recovery is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining components of their ecosystem, so that the protections of the ESA are no longer necessary. The recovery process is guided by a recovery plan, if available. Recovery plans identify priority recovery actions based on the species’ needs and conservation goals, document the need for research and/or management, and describe how these efforts contribute to recovery of that species. The Mitchell’s Satyr Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) (USFWS 1998) describes a list of tasks that are considered necessary for the long-term survival and recovery of the species. These activities may be permitted through section 10 or funded through the Service’s Recovery Grant programs via recovery funding or other sources, and are thus considered in this Biological Opinion. In addition to those research activities listed in the Recovery Plan, a list of priority research activities for section 6 funding has been developed by the Mitchell’s satyr Working Group (Appendix A).

6

Specific activities that may be funded or permitted by the Service’s Recovery Grant programs and section 10(a)(1)(A) permits include: Population surveys using direct observation Surveys will likely be conducted to determine the presence and abundance of MSB throughout its range. Population surveys will involve walking through and adjacent to occupied habitat during June and July and searching for adults, larvae, and signs of larval activity. The Mitchell’s satyr Working Group recommends surveying a site at least three times, on separate days during the flight period. The Working Group also recommends that the minimum length of survey visit be 30 minutes per acre of potential habitat. Surveys may be authorized for: 1) determining presence/absence or relative abundance; 2) studying the life history, biology, and ecology of MSB; and 3) assessing and monitoring the effects of management activities. Surveys and monitoring are given a priority 1 rank2 in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998). Techniques involving capture, marking, tagging, holding, translocation, and release of individuals Capture and marking of individuals may be necessary to obtain detailed information on population dynamics, movement patterns, response to disturbance, and behavior. Mark-release-recapture (MRR) studies may be conducted to provide information on annual adult density fluctuation and within-site dispersal. Tagging of butterflies (e.g., using harmonic radar) may be conducted if appropriate technology exists to support this type of research and potential adverse effects can be examined and minimized prior to implementation. In addition, holding of individuals may be required prior to translocations and for life history studies. Cage studies of larvae (or other life stages) may be conducted to obtain a more complete knowledge of species ecology and behavior. Translocation (e.g., accelerated colonization, augmentation, and reintroduction) refers to any artificial movement of eggs, larvae, pupae, or adults from one location to another, and thus includes capture, holding, and moving live MSB individuals. Purposes of translocation include the study of translocated butterflies to provide information on the suitability and quality of habitat and to augment or establish occupancy in secure, suitable, and managed habitats. Prior to funding or permitting translocation programs, the Service will require an accompanying plan that clearly articulates the goals of the translocation and defines the measures of success (e.g., a self-sustaining population that does not need further artificial immigration of animals, some defined increase in the population, etc.). The plan will also identify the anticipated duration of the program, the evaluation timeframe, and the steps to be taken if success is not achieved (i.e., continue or not continue). The Recovery Plan identifies several research tasks that may require capture, marking, holding, translocation, and/or release of individual MSBs (Tasks 2.1-2.5 and Task 5.0; Priority ranks range from priority 1 to priority 3) (USFWS 1998). Tissue sampling for scientific research These techniques may require the removal of individuals or parts of individuals from the population. For example, collection of tissue samples for genetic analysis may involve the removal of a leg or small portion of butterfly wing. Sampling may require techniques involving capture, netting, marking, holding, 2 Priority 1 tasks are those actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. Priority 2 tasks are those actions that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species population or some other significant negative impact short of extinction. Priority 3 tasks are all other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species (USFWS 1998).

7

transport and release of individuals. Data obtained from this type of research would directly contribute to the research needs identified in the Recovery Plan and the list of priority research activities in Appendix A. Collection for rearing and propagation purposes and release Collection of eggs or larvae may occur directly from the field after observing and following oviposition behavior of females or searching the habitat. Collection of adult female butterflies for their eggs may also occur. Individuals of all life stages may be collected and reared for one or more of the following purposes: 1) to avoid population extirpation; 2) to produce individuals which may be used in research and development of technologies or techniques; 3) to maintain genetic vigor or diversity; 4) to maintain refugia populations on a temporary basis until threats to the species’ habitat are alleviated or habitat modifications are completed; 5) to provide individuals for establishment of new, self-sustaining populations necessary for recovery of the species; 6) to provide individuals for the augmentation of extant populations; and 7) to increase survival of offspring through a substantial portion or critical development stage over that which can be supported in the wild. Captive rearing studies, establishment of a breeding facility, and reestablishment of historical populations are listed in the Recovery Plan as priority 3 actions (USFWS 1998). Habitat evaluation, manipulation, restoration, or enhancement activities Habitat evaluation is likely to be conducted in areas of occupied and non-occupied habitat to gain a better understanding of the range of suitable habitats for this species. Habitat manipulation, restoration, and enhancement activities may be conducted to maintain current habitat and create additional suitable habitat. Nuisance plant invasions have been a significant problem at some locations, threatening loss of suitable habitat. These plant species include glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), common buckthorn (R. cathartica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), reed grass (Phragmites australis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), cattails (Typha angustifolia and Typha glauca), and others. Removal of invasive plant species will be a large component of management activities at many sites. Activities may include the control of non-native vegetation through manual removal with hand tools or mechanical equipment and spot applications of herbicides. Activities may also include native vegetation management through mowing, brushing, prescribed fire, controlled flooding, and other actions. Site specific habitat management activities may be governed by site plans that describe site goals, techniques, and monitoring. Site specific management may also follow general guidelines developed by experts. Implementation of habitat management plans and habitat protection are important components of MSB recovery and are given a recovery priority number of 2 (USFWS 1998). Other activities necessary to conduct various ecological studies aimed at recovery of MSB Methods may include a wide variety of monitoring and measurements of physical, chemical, geological and biological elements of the environment. These activities may include the use of data loggers in occupied habitat, groundwater monitoring wells, vegetation sampling, and various other activities as needed to conduct studies aimed at recovery of MSB.

8

Conservation Measures The above activities will include the conservation measures described in the outline below. These conservation measures are considered part of the proposed action and are therefore considered in the analysis of effects section. 1. All activities in occupied habitat

1-1. To minimize trampling the habitat and inadvertent crushing of eggs or larvae, the number of people in areas of occupied habitat will be limited to no more than 10 individuals at any given time.

1-2. All activities in occupied habitat shall be conducted in a manner to minimize disturbance to MSB adults, pupae, larvae, eggs, and their habitat, by minimizing human movement and avoiding trampling of vegetation to the extent practical. People working in occupied habitat will use existing trails when available to minimize trampling.

1-3. Researchers and managers should work with members of the Working Group to develop their proposals and get input on their projects. The Working Group will help ensure that research and management activities are considering the most recent information available on MSB, and will help project managers develop ways to maximize benefits to the satyr while minimizing the impacts.

2. Surveys and monitoring

2-1. Surveys will be conducted during the adult flight period (June through July). Larval searches may be conducted during spring, late summer, and early fall.

2-2. All surveys must be conducted by qualified individuals, as determined by the Service’s lead Field Office. Only those persons who can either document skill at butterfly identification or who have attended a field-based training session in satyr identification are considered appropriate to conduct satyr surveys.

2-3. Permittees shall notify the Service, in writing, of any previously undocumented sites within 30 days of discovery. Photo documentation is sufficient to document new sites. Voucher specimens are not appropriate without prior written approval from the Service.

2-4. Presence/absence surveys should follow current accepted survey methodology developed by the Mitchell’s satyr Working Group or consult the Service’s Lead Field Office.

3. Activities involving capture of adults

3-1. When capture of adults is necessary (e.g., during studies on population dynamics, movement patterns, response to disturbance, behavior, etc.), capture may occur with a fine mesh butterfly net. Only one butterfly at a time per net is allowed (no multiple captures).

3-2. MRR Studies 3-2.1. Captured butterflies may be marked using an ultra fine point Sharpie felt pen,

using the current standard professional protocol for MRR studies. 3-2.2. Butterflies are to be released within 5 minutes of capture; in most cases, release

can occur in less than 2 minutes. In order to determine that no injury occurred during handling, permittee must remain at the site of release until butterfly flies off or it is determined that it is healthy.

3-2.3. No more than 1,000 butterflies will be handled, including capture for marking and recapture, during a given year.

3-3. No more than 50 butterflies will be collected each year for studies requiring holding and transport, including captive rearing studies. In an emergency situation, where an entire

9

population may be lost, this number may be adjusted, based on the immediacy of the threat to the site and after an analysis of alternative actions.

4. Specimen collection and tissue sampling 4-1. We do not anticipate the need for collection of voucher specimens, with rare exception.

Thus, no voucher specimens are to be collected without prior written approval from the Service. Photo documentation is sufficient to document new sites.

4-2. No more than 15 adults may be purposefully injured or killed per year as a result of tissue sampling, and of those 15, no more than 5 may be female. An additional 15 MSB eggs or larvae may also be used for tissue sampling each year.

4-3. Prior to removal of individuals from any population, an assessment to ensure the population can withstand the loss of those individuals shall be conducted.

4-4. Adult specimens should be collected as late in the flight season as possible, to allow them opportunity to breed. When possible, butterflies incidentally injured during other activities will be used. Non-lethal sampling will occur to the extent possible.

5. Habitat manipulation and management

5-1. Habitat management in currently occupied habitat 5-1.1 Vegetation may be managed or maintained in a manner designed to support a

community dominated by Carex stricta and other species which are known to exist in habitat suitable to support MSB. MSBs prefer the edges of open fen habitat, and are also found associated with trees and shrubs within the fen. Management that increases the edge effect at sites is appropriate. Removal of invasive species will be important at many sites.

5-1.2 Vegetation management must be completed utilizing the least destructive mechanical and/or chemical means available.

5-1.3 Activities may include brush cutting, hand pulling, pesticide application, spot burning, small areas of prescribed burning and/or controlled flooding, and other accepted management techniques. For intensive management activities that are expected to be destructive over a contiguous area (i.e., controlled flooding, prescribed burning, or other destructive management techniques) AND for sites where we know the spatial distribution and areas of female concentration, treatment should occur on no more than one-fifth of the occupied habitat area. For sites where we do not have sufficient pre-management monitoring data, we will need to be far more conservative in our management efforts. In these cases, we will determine the appropriate extent of such management on a site by site basis, based on the aerial extent of the habitat, connectivity to other occupied areas, and the extent of management need. Exceptions may be appropriate in some cases.

5-1.4 Habitat manipulation and management activities in occupied areas should occur during the Mitchell’s satyr dormant season (between late October and early March) and when the ground is frozen, to the extent feasible.

5-1.5 Sites must be monitored prior to and following any management activity in order to assess the response of the satyr as well as the success or failure of the management efforts.

5-1.6 Managers should consult the Working Group on their project goals to get input from the species experts on how to minimize impacts. As the Working Group develops specific management guidelines, those will be incorporated here.

10

The conservation measures are designed to reduce the amount of incidental take that will occur as a result of the proposed actions. Because the activities proposed are intended to enhance the survival and recovery of MSB, it is reasonable to expect the actions to incorporate the fundamental conservation measures listed here, as applicable. Status of Species This section presents the biological or ecological information relevant to formulating the Biological Opinion. The purpose is to provide the appropriate information on the species’ life history, its habitat and its range-wide distribution and conservation status for analyses in later sections. This section also reflects the effects of all past human and natural activities or events that have led to the current status of the species. Species Description MSB is a dark-brown, medium-sized butterfly. A distinctive series of sub-marginal yellow-ringed black circular eyespots (ocelli) with silvery centers are found on the lower surfaces of both pair of wings. The eyespots are accented by two orange bands along the posterior wing edges, as well as by two orange bands along the central portion of each wing. Females tend to be larger and lighter in color than males. MSB has a characteristic slow bobbing flight pattern and typically does not travel great distances. Butterflies undergo complete metamorphosis and progress through four stages of development: egg, larvae, pupae, and adult. Larvae molt five times; each stage between molts is known as an instar. MSB has only one generation per year. The flight period lasts two to three weeks, occurring in mid-June to late July. Oviposition occurs close to the ground on a variety of small forbs and sedges during the afternoon. More research is needed, but it appears that several factors may be important in oviposition site selection, including partial shade, humidity, predator avoidance, foodplant availability and density, and niche segregation (Darlow 2000). Larvae undergo three molts before entering diapause in the fall. The over-wintering location is unknown but it is suspected to be in the duff. Two additional molts occur in the following spring, and larvae pupate in mid-June. The primary MSB larval host plant is believed to be fine-leaved Carex species based on various laboratory and semi-natural caged experiments (McAlpine et al. 1960, Legge and Rabe 1996) and the close association between adult MSB and dense stands of sedge (C. stricta, C. lasiocarpa) (Shuey 1997). Although MSB habitat requirements are not yet fully understood, the butterfly appears to be restricted to calcareous wetlands that range along a continuum from open fen, wet prairie, sedge meadow, shrub-carr, tamarack savanna, and numerous variations and combinations of these community types (Shuey 1997, Szymanski 1999, Hyde et al. 2001). It appears that the MSB occupies areas in these fen communities where woody and herbaceous vegetation occurs as a mosaic (Szymanski and Shuey 2002). Important structural components of the habitat include presence of peat or muck soil (Shuey 1997), scattered deciduous shrubs or coniferous trees (Shuey 1997), seeps (McKinnon and Albert 1996) and a herbaceous community dominated by C. stricta. MSB habitat also appears to exhibit large variability in vegetative structure and composition at the habitat patch scale, suggesting the importance of habitat heterogeneity (Szymanski 1999). Recent research has further reinforced the importance of the edge component; in the later part of the adult flight period (i.e., during the time of oviposition), males and females tend to be found within one meter of a tree or shrub (Barton 2003). The final rule listing this species as endangered cited the following factors as threats to the continued existence of the species: 1) human-induced destruction of MSB habitat by urban development, conversion to agriculture, or highway construction; 2) human activities adjacent to MSB habitat that can speed succession; 3) over-collection by butterfly collectors; 4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,

11

5) limited ability to recolonize new habitat patches. The Service has not designated critical habitat for this species. The primary threat to the continued survival of MSB is the loss and disruption of suitable fen habitats. Urbanization, agricultural conversion, and highway construction have led to disruption of key ecological processes that are necessary to create and maintain MSB habitat (Wilsmann and Schweitzer 1991, Shuey 1997). Wetland alteration or complete draining has resulted in the loss of the single known Ohio population of the butterfly and in the loss of populations at several sites in Michigan (USFWS 1998). Wetland alteration may also lead to nuisance plant invasions such as purple loosestrife, common buckthorn, glossy, and reed canary grass. Purple loosestrife, glossy buckthorn, reed canary grass, and cattails form monocultures and reduce species diversity at MSB sites. The fine-leaved sedges that the larvae use as a foodplant are light demanding and can be quickly crowded out by these invasives. Although we do not know which microhabitat variables are most critical to the MSB at various stages of its life cycle, it is clear that these invasive species drastically alter the community structure and microhabitat in the wetlands where they occur (Hyde et al. 2001). The loss of fen habitat for the species is complicated by the disruption of landscape-scale processes that may be crucial for the maintenance of habitat suitability and the creation of new habitats for MSB. Historical disturbance regimes such as wildfire, fluctuations in hydrologic regimes, and the flooding caused by beaver have been all but eliminated or modified throughout the range of MSB. Surviving populations now occupy highly isolated fens in which successionary processes are slowed, but not eliminated, by the discharge of calcium carbonate laden groundwater. Eventually, in the absence of some process that resets succession to an earlier stage, the surviving fen habitats will become increasingly unsuitable as habitat for MSB. As habitats become more isolated, dispersal between populations and suitable unoccupied habitats becomes increasingly unlikely, and the rate of extirpation out-paces the establishment of new populations. This may account for the disappearance of several historically known populations at pristine wetland sites. In many areas of MSB habitat, management is necessary to maintain fairly open, sedge-dominated communities. The Recovery Plan for Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly was approved on April 2, 1998. The objective of the Recovery Plan is to perpetuate viable populations of MSB throughout its former range thereby allowing reclassification, and ultimately removal, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. MSB may be considered for reclassification from endangered to threatened when 16 geographically distinct, viable populations or metapopulations are established or discovered range-wide. These 16 populations must include at least 12 populations in southern Michigan, two in Indiana, one in Ohio, and one in New Jersey. In addition, at least 50 percent of these sites must be protected and managed to maintain MSB habitat in order for it to be considered for reclassification to threatened. Delisting the species will be considered when nine additional, for a total of 25, geographically distinct, viable populations or metapopulations are established or discovered range-wide and remain viable for five consecutive years following reclassification. A minimum of 15 of these sites must be protected and managed to maintain MSB habitat by state or federal agencies or by private conservation organizations before delisting will be considered. The recovery tasks listed in the Recovery Plan are: 1) Conduct surveys and monitor; 2) Address research needs; 3) Protect all known occurrences, placing priority on achieving effective protection for the highest ranking occurrences and essential habitat; 4) Develop an outreach program; and 5) Reintroduce into suitable but unoccupied habitats.

12

Range-wide Status and Distribution of the Species Although this species historically occurred in five states (Figure 1a), it is currently known to occur in only Michigan and Indiana (Figure 1b). It is found at 17 sites in southern Michigan, and 2 sites in northern Indiana. An additional subspecies, the St. Francis satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci Parshall and Kral) (SFS), is known from North Carolina. Recently, populations have been discovered in Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi; however, the taxonomy of these populations are currently unknown (i.e., it is not known to which subspecies, N. m. mitchelli (MSB) or N. m. francisci (SFS), they belong). A genetics study is currently underway that is examining the relationships and conservation status within the N. mitchellii complex (pers. comm. John Shuey, IN TNC, 2004). The following paragraphs detail the historical and present distribution of MSB in each state. Michigan MSB is historically known from 11 counties in Michigan, and extant populations are known from nine of those (Barry, Berrien, Branch, Cass, Jackson, Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, Van Buren, and Washtenaw Counties). At least 22 MSB sites have been reported in Michigan, with 17 sites currently known to support extant populations. Several of these sites and many other potential habitats have been intensively surveyed in recent years (Wilsmann and Schweitzer 1991, Hyde et al. 2001). Since the Recovery Plan’s publication in 1998, four sites previously thought to be extirpated have been re-confirmed as having extant populations. All Michigan sites are described in more detail in Table 1. Currently, only nine occupied sites in Michigan are considered to have potential for long-term population viability (Hyde et al. 2001). These sites consistently support medium to high densities of adults, and seem to represent fen complexes which have adequate habitat to support viable populations of MSB into the foreseeable future. These sites include Berrien County South, Berrien County North, Branch County site, Cass County Southwest, Cass County East, Jackson County Central, St. Joseph County West, and Van Buren County Northwest. MSBs at the remaining sites typically occur in much lower numbers or the amount of habitat is limited in size or by threats to the site, making their long-term viability uncertain (Hyde et al 2001). Monitoring is occurring at the majority of sites, and some form of active management is occurring at many sites. Various factors have contributed to the decline of MSB in Michigan. Habitat loss and alteration may be the most important factor threatening the species. Threats to MSB in Michigan include altered hydrology, off-road vehicle use, livestock grazing, development and land-use changes, lack of landowner interest in managing for MSB, point and non-point sources of pollution, and the invasion of exotic species (Hyde et al. 2001). Illegal collection at two Michigan sites may also be a significant threat to the MSB populations at those sites.

13Figure 1. Historical (Fig. 1a) and current (Fig. 1b) county distribution for Mitchell's satyr.

13

14

Table 1. Status and threats to MSB sites in Michigan. (Adapted from Hyde et al. 2001) Site Details Threats Survey Site Status First

Obs. Last Obs.3

Site Description Glossy buckthorn

Cattails Purple Loosestrife

Reed Canary Grass

Shrub Invasion

Altered Hydrology

Other Threats/ Comments

Barry Co. South

Poor 1974 2002 Small wetland complex (approx. 5 acres) managed by the State

Barry Co. Southwest

Poor 1965 2002 State managed site, newly re-discovered

Berrien Co. North

Very Good

1986 2002 2 distinct habitat patches within an 800 acre nature preserve

Berrien Co. South

Very Good

1987 2002 Private and State owned sites. 8 patches have been documented, with only 3 of those recently occupied

Branch Co. Very

Good 1965 2002 20-25 acres of

suitable habitat, privately owned

Cattle grazing occurs at this site

Cass Co. East

Very Good

1889 2002 20-30 acres of suitable habitat, TNC and private ownership

Cass Co. Northwest

Extirpated 1979 1993

Cass Co. Southwest

Very Good

1987 2002 Six distinct occupied patches (20-25 acres)

TCE (trichloroethylene)

Contamination

3 Last observed as of August 2002.

15

Site Details Threats Survey Site Status First

Obs. Last Obs.3



Reed Canary Grass

Shrub Invasion

Altered Hydrology


Jackson Co. Central

Very Good

1974 2002 Large wetland complex, TNC and private ownership

In 2002, beaver dams resulted in

extensive flooding Jackson Co. East

Good 1996 2000

Approx. 40 acre fen complex, private ownership

Jackson Co. West

Unknown 1980 2000 Small fen of less than 10 acres. Small amount of suitable habitat. Private ownership

Kalamazoo Co. East

Extirpated 1978 1978 No suitable habitat was identified here in 2000

Kalamazoo Co. North

Unknown 1973 2002 Occupied habitat is small (approx. 1 acre), private ownership

Increasing human development in

this area is a potential threat

Kalamazoo Co. West

Good 1974 2002 5-6 acres of occupied habitat, several private landowners

Lenawee Co. Extirpated 1965 1980 State ownership, suitable habitat exists but no satyrs documented despite extensive surveys

St. Joseph Co. East

Good 1996 2002 20-25 acres occupied habitat, private ownership

St. Joseph Co. West

Very Good

1952 2002 10-15 acres of occupied habitat, private ownership

16

Site Details Threats Survey Site Status First

Obs. Last Obs.3



Reed Canary Grass

Shrub Invasion

Altered Hydrology


Van Buren Co. Northwest

Very Good

1999 2002 Occupied habitat is less than 5 acres Golf course run-off

(pesticides and fertilizer)

Van Buren Co. Unknown 1974 1994 Estimated suitable

habitat is between 5 and 20 acres, private landowner will not allow access for surveys

Last surveyed in 1994—current status unknown

Washtenaw Co. West

Poor 1958 2002 1-2 acres of occupied habitat, private ownership

17

Indiana In Indiana, a total of four or five sites are known to have supported MSB. Two sites still support MSB populations—the LaGrange County West and LaPorte County sites. The LaGrange County West site is the best known Indiana wetland supporting MSB. It is well known in the scientific and general literature and was heavily utilized by entomologists curious about the butterfly from the 1950s until listing (Shull 1987). The LaPorte County site is voluntarily protected through The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) and the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Natural Areas Registry Program. Glossy buckthorn invasion has been a problem at this site. Adjacent unoccupied habitat at this site is owned and managed by TNC. TNC is managing the site and controlling Phragmites and purple loosestrife invasion. The LaGrange County site is privately owned by two families. The bulk of the site is in the Natural Areas Registry Program. This site supports a two population metapopulation, both of which support a high density of butterflies. However, suitable habitat patches are relatively small, so there are likely no more than 500 butterflies at this site (pers. comm. John Shuey, IN TNC, 2003). The Steuben County site is an extensive fen complex covering several hundred acres. Homer Price, a northwestern Ohio naturalist, collected a pair of specimens from here in 1960. The fens are in excellent condition and are largely protected as a Wetland Conservation Area. Recent efforts (Martin 1987, Shuey 1986) to locate MSB here have been unsuccessful. However, it is possible that the butterfly is still present but was overlooked because the wetland is so large relative to the butterfly’s typical localized distribution. A possible additional historical site was reported as occurring in northeast Steuben County (Badger 1958). Martin (1987) interpreted the vague location description to a possible modern location. Wetlands including fens occur in a band and extend west in patchwork form along a creek which flows into the Steuben County Site. Roads and railroads, likely access points for Badger, intersect these wetlands at three points. Shuey (1986) surveyed the eastern portion of this area without discovering MSB. However, some nearby wetlands have not been searched for this butterfly. Some of these wetlands have been heavily disturbed or drained and are probably not suitable habitat today. Martin (1987) surveyed 28 fens in northern Indiana for the presence of MSB but only found MSB at two sites. Because of personnel limitations, large complexes such as the Steuben County site could not be completely surveyed. Some sites, especially sedge meadows, which seemingly contain suitable habitat for the butterfly were not surveyed. Wilsmann and Schweitzer (1991) summarize Martin's findings. Ohio MSB was last reliably documented in Ohio in 1925 from Portage County. There have been two other possible records of the species: one in 1905 in Seneca County and one in 1950 in Portage County (Shuey 1997). No MSB were found despite extensive surveys (1981-1998) of all known likely habitats (Ohio DNR (ODNR) and Parshall 1999). The primary site, located in Portage County, Ohio, was disjunct from all other known population sites and is approximately 200 km (125 mi) from the nearest known site in Michigan. This site was surveyed in 1998 and portions of the fen contained suitable habitat. Current management of the site has maintained open sedge meadow, with a dominance of C. stricta and Potentilla fruitcosa, bordered by low shrubs and

18

scattered tamaracks (ODNR and Parshall 1999). This site has been suggested as a potential future reintroduction site (ODNR and Parhsall 1999). The Seneca County record (1905) was for the Georgia satyr (Neonympha areolata). No specimen was collected, and the presence of the Georgia satyr butterfly in Ohio is unlikely. In north-central Ohio, there are only two potential species likely to be confused with the Georgia satyr butterfly: the little wood satyr and MSB (Iftner et al. 1992). The little wood satyr is common throughout Ohio and should have been well known to any collector during the early 1900s. Seneca County is located in north-central Ohio, approximately half way between Portage County and the nearest sites supporting MSB in Michigan and Indiana. Seneca County at one time had numerous wetlands including at least one extensive prairie fen complex (Andreas and Knoop 1992). Most of the wetlands in Seneca County that may have once supported MSB have been extensively degraded, and the remainder has been eliminated. New Jersey Two well known sites within Sussex (Rutkowski 1966) and Warren Counties supported this species in the recent past. The confirmed sites are both fens located in areas of limestone bedrock within the same watershed. MSB was collected to extirpation at these sites and was subsequently re-ranked to State Historic status by the New Jersey Heritage Program in 1989 (Schweitzer 1989). A possible additional historical locality, the Morris County site, was reported by Pallister (1927) who mentioned a specimen collected July 10, 1890, by Charles W. Johnson, a respected entomologist. The vague locality data reflects the norm for that period and could easily refer to almost any locality within 16-32 km (10-20 mi) of the Morris County site, including the Sussex or Warren County populations. Schweitzer (1996) argues that evidence supports the likelihood that the Johnson specimen is from a population separate from the Sussex or Warren County populations. However, no extant fens occur at this location now. The specimen existed until 1989 but has since been destroyed by dermestid beetles (Dermestidae) (Schweitzer 1996). Fens are relatively rare in New Jersey, and known occurrences of this community type have been surveyed for MSB by experienced biologists (Shuey 1997). The species was last documented from New Jersey in 1985. Numerous surveys of the known historic sites and similar habitats have documented no evidence of MSB in the state. Maryland MSB was reportedly collected in 1945, near Ft. Meade, by an expert amateur lepidopterist that was familiar with both MSB and the Georgia satyr. However, because voucher specimens do not exist, and because suitable habitats are no longer evident near Ft. Meade, the validity of this report will always be questionable. In summary, although MSB historically occurred in five states, it is now restricted to only Michigan and Indiana. MSB is currently known from only 19 sites, 17 of which are in southern Michigan, and two in northern Indiana. Loss of suitable fen habitat appears to be the main threat to the species.

19

Environmental Baseline This section describes the species status and trend information within the action area. It also includes State, tribal, local, private actions already affecting the species or that will occur contemporaneously with the proposed action. Unrelated Federal actions that have completed formal or informal consultation are also included in the environmental baseline. The environmental baseline is an analysis of the effects of past and on-going human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species, its habitat, and ecosystem, within the action area. The environmental baseline provides the basis from which to judge the effects of the action. Status of the Species within the Action Area MSB is currently known from 17 sites in only 9 counties in Lower Michigan and 2 sites in 2 counties in northern Indiana. Permits and/or funding may be issued for various projects throughout the range of this butterfly; thus, the action area is all locations where the MSB is known to occur (see Range-wide Status and Distribution of Species section). Factors Affecting the Species within the Action Area Almost all of the currently extant populations are being monitored annually, and many are receiving some form of management. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy (Michigan and Indiana Chapters), Michigan DNR, and the Indiana DNR, in cooperation with the Service, are actively involved in conservation efforts to protect MSB and its habitat. These efforts include surveys and monitoring, invasive species removal, and other management activities. In addition, there is currently a graduate student conducting research on MSB in Jackson County, MI. There are no formal consultations currently underway involving MSB. There are several current MSB section 10 permits, discussed below. Previous Section 7 Consultations

Blue Creek Fen Highway US-31, 1992-1994 In 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) initiated consultation with the Service on the proposed construction of a US-31 freeway bypass in Berrien County, MI. This proposed 1.5 mile segment of US-31 from Highland Avenue to Interstate 94 included two parallel bridges of two lanes each that would span Blue Creek Fen. In its April 14, 1994 Biological Opinion, the Service analyzed the potential effects of the proposed action, including the effects from the potential increase in: shade, deposition of calcium magnesium acetate (roadway deicing agent), deposition of airborne pollutants, and opportunistic weed species. Altered hydrology was also considered. The Service determined that the proposed action would result in the destruction of approximately 3 acres of MSB habitat and the potential loss of the entire 38.6 acre site and subsequent extirpation of MSB at Blue Creek Fen. It was estimated that Blue Creek Fen contained approximately 20% of the world’s population of MSB. Because of the precarious status of the species, the Service determined that the proposed action was

20

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the MSB. Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives were developed to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and included:

1. Undertake scientific life history and habitat investigations study of MSB at Blue Creek Fen to identify microhabitat components and estimate the types and frequency of past habitat disturbance events.

2. At a minimum, immediately initiate acquisition and/or conservation easement protection of habitat to ensure the likelihood of survival and recovery of the MSB as follows:

a. 38 acres of fen and adjoining upland habitat at Blue Creek Fen b. 63 acres of fen and adjoining upland habitat in Yellow Creek Fen

adjacent to the proposed freeway bypass corridor c. 1200-1400 acres of offsite occupied habitat within MSB preserve

boundary areas in south Michigan 3. Undertake or contract a program of beneficial management of MSB habitat

on and off-site (acquired and/or under easement) to ensure the likelihood of survival and persistence of the MSB at these locations and to offset the take within Blue Creek Fen

Incidental take was authorized in the form of no more than 3.0 acres of MSB habitat at Blue Creek Fen. The action, as proposed, has not been implemented and no take of MSB has occurred as a result of the project. The original project design has changed and alternate alignments that bypass Blue Creek Fen will be chosen. Future section 7 consultation will address issues of the new proposed action. Therefore, this proposed project with the new alignment is not considered as part of the environmental baseline.

Michigan Cooperative Gypsy Moth Suppression Project

Each year the Michigan Department of Agriculture, in coordination with the USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, propose to treat areas of the state that have high densities of gypsy moths. The purpose of the Michigan Cooperative Gypsy Moth Suppression project is to provide temporary relief from intolerable levels of gypsy moth caterpillars and minimize stress and mortality of residential shade trees. Areas are treated using Bacillus thuringiensis variety kurstaki (Btk), a lepidopteran-specific biological pesticide. There is an alternative, Gypcheck®, which is a gypsy moth-specific pesticide; however, Gypcheck® is much more expensive to apply and is a less effective control agent. Informal consultation with the USDA Forest Service occurred in 1998, 1999, and 2000, when treatment blocks occurred in or near counties with MSB. For each of these consultations, the Service concurred that the proposed action was not likely to adversely affect MSB. Btk was only used for treatment blocks that were more than one-half mile from known or suspected MSB sites. Application would only occur when the wind was blowing in the direction opposite of the known sites. Gypcheck® was required for treatment blocks that were within the buffer of known MSB sites. No adverse affects to MSB were expected to occur as a result of this project.

21

Intra-Service Consultation for Federal Assistance and other Service Grants (e.g., Section 6, State Wildlife Grants, NAWCA, etc.)

Several grants have been awarded for projects that are designed to benefit the recovery and survival of MSB. These grants are administered through the Service’s Federal Assistance program, and thus are subject to section 7 intra-Service consultation. Grants have been awarded for projects involving survey and monitoring activities, development of site conservation plans, outreach, and invasive species removal. For all of these projects, the Service has determined that the proposed grant was not likely to adversely affect MSB. No adverse effects were expected to occur as a result of any current or previously funded activities.

Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation for Region 3’s Blanket Permit

In September, 1991, the Service conducted an intra-Service consultation on the issuance of Permit PRT-697830—the Region’s blanket research permit. The blanket permit authorizes research and management activities needed to enhance protection and/or further recovery objectives for listed species in the Region. Specific activities discussed in the Biological Opinion included captive breeding or propagation, collection of blood and tissue samples, and mark and release activities. In addition, research activities were expected to result in harassment of individuals during habitat survey activities, census taking, and capture and release activities. Direct (purposeful) take was limited to a total of three individuals per year. The Service determined that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the MSB. Incidental take, in the form of death or injury, was authorized for no more than 2 MSBs per year. At the time this Biological Opinion was written, it was estimated that the entire MSB population was approximately 1000-2000 individuals. This Biological Opinion was amended in July 2002, analyzing an increase in the amount of purposeful take from 3 to 15 individuals per year. The amendment stipulates that no more than 5 females may be taken and that specimens should be removed at the end of the flight season to allow them opportunity to breed.

Section 10 Permits (For Research and Recovery Activities) The following is a description of the current and recent MSB permits.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Michigan Chapter (Permit TE 007350-6) The Michigan Chapter of TNC’s current permit authorizes them to conduct take activities on MSB for scientific research, enhancement of propagation, and/or enhancement of survival. The permit specifically authorizes census and monitoring activities at the Cass County East, Cass County Southwest, Jackson County Central, Jackson County East, Jackson County West, St. Joseph County West and St. Joseph County East, and the Washtenaw County sites. The permit also allows TNC to conduct habitat management activities aimed at enhancement of survival and recovery of the species, including vegetation manipulation in occupied, historically occupied, and

22

suitable habitats. In addition, the permit allows for a prescribed burn including up to two acres of occupied habitat to occur at the Jackson County Central site, contingent upon written approval of the East Lansing Field Office Field Supervisor. A prescribed burn that included approximately 1.3 acres of occupied habitat was conducted in the spring of 2002. Take in the form of death is expected for any larvae within that area during the burn. Take in the form of harassment, and possibly harm, may occur during some monitoring and management activities.

Barb Barton, Eastern Michigan University Graduate Student (Permit TE 070782; Permit TE 697830-5, Subpermit No. 03-20 (expired 7/31/2003)) This permit authorizes take in Washtenaw and Jackson Counties. It allows the permit holder to conduct walk-through census and monitoring activities as well as a MRR study. MSBs may be captured using fine mesh nets and marked using a black Sharpie pen. Butterflies must be released within 10 minutes of capture and observed after release to ensure no injury has occurred. Incidental take in the form of injury or mortality was included in this permit for one per every one hundred butterflies handled (up to 10 individuals). In 2003, a MRR study was conducted under this permit at the Jackson County Central site. More than 720 butterflies were observed (including re-sightings), and 555 individuals (270 females and 285 males) were marked, at this site during the three-week flight period. Of the 720 butterflies handled during the study, 2 were accidentally killed.

R. D. Zande & Associates (Permit TE 834589) This permit authorizes the permit holder to conduct presence/absence surveys of MSB. Incidental take is authorized in the context of harassment by survey. Take in the form of injury and/or mortality is not authorized under this permit. Written authorization from the lead Field Office’s Field Supervisor is a condition of this permit. To date, no activities have been conducted under this permit.

John Shuey, TNC, Indiana Chapter (Permit TE 056264-0 (expired 12/31/2002))

John Shuey’s permit authorized take of MSB from the LaPorte County and LaGrange County sites for genetic analysis aimed at the recovery of the species. The permit allowed for a maximum of 15 male MSBs to be collected as close to the end of the flight period as possible (to increase the likelihood that they had an opportunity to breed). The permit did not allow for the collection of female MSBs. In addition, the permit authorized census and monitoring activities to determine MSB distribution and habitat use. The permit requires these activities to be conducted in a manner which minimizes disturbance to MSB adults, larvae, and eggs by minimizing disturbance of vegetation and disruption of natural behaviors. Incidental take in the form of unintentional injury and/or mortality was permitted for no more than 2 adult specimens. In July 2002, a total of 9 males were collected late in the flight season from the LaGrange County site (7 males from one population and 2 from another) and sent to the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History for genetic analyses. No incidental take was reported as a result of the permitted activity. State activities authorized under section 6, including agents of the state

23

The majority of state activities are covered under the State Cooperative Agreement, as defined at 50 CFR 17.21 Subpart C. State conservation organizations (e.g., Michigan DNR and Indiana DNR) and designated agents of the State (e.g., Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy) are covered by an approved Cooperative Agreement in accordance with section 6(c) of the ESA, provided the take is not reasonably anticipated to, among other things, result in death or permanent disabling of the specimen. State activities covered under this agreement include surveying and monitoring. A section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is required for activities that are likely to result in death or permanent disabling of an individual.

Other natural and human-caused factors There are other natural and human-caused factors that must be considered when analyzing the current status of the species in the action area. Loss of habitat has occurred throughout the historic range of the species and may occur as a result of succession, altered hydrology, agricultural conversion, weed plant invasion, and development. As habitats become more isolated, dispersal between populations and suitable unoccupied habitat becomes increasingly unlikely. Pesticide use (e.g., gypsy moth control), pollution, flooding, and cattle grazing are potential threats at some sites. In addition, there are a few sites that occur adjacent to powerline or railroad rights-of-way (ROW). These areas need to be maintained by the utility companies. Vegetation removal at these sites may, if not performed properly, damage habitat or harm MSB at the site. Conservation plans have been or soon will be developed for each of the known occupied sites. These plans address the current threats at each site and describe a strategy for protecting, maintaining, and enhancing MSB populations at each site. A primary goal of such a plan is to maintain a functional wetland and protect ecological processes that create and maintain suitable MSB habitat. As these plans are implemented, many of the threats to known occupied sites can be reduced or eliminated. Summary of Environmental Baseline Nine of the 17 occupied sites in Michigan currently contain or have the potential to contain viable populations (Hyde et al. 2001). MSB at the remaining eight sites occur in much lower numbers or the amount of habitat is limited in size or by threats to the site, making their long-term viability uncertain (Hyde et al. 2001). Several 10(a)(1)(A) permits are currently in place for research and recovery activities in the state. Site conservation plans aimed at reducing or eliminating threats at each site will promote long-term management at each Michigan location. The two Indiana sites appear to have stable populations, with one site supporting high densities of MSB. There are some research and management activities occurring at the Indiana sites. Sites have been lost throughout the range of the species due to a variety of threats previously discussed. Many occupied sites in Michigan and Indiana are currently being managed by various State and private organizations (e.g., TNC) in cooperation with the Service. Research has been conducted to better understand the biology of the species, which will contribute to the recovery of the species. Research has been and will continue to be tremendously important in the recovery of MSB and will be used to improve management strategies.

24

MSB populations will likely decline over the next 10 years without management and research. Loss of natural processes such as fire and flooding by beavers has increased succession and encroachment of surrounding forests. Introduction of invasive, non-native species is also causing loss of suitable habitat. Without some form of management at many of the MSB sites, the populations will likely continue to decline due to loss or disruption of suitable habitat. Other threats exist at MSB sites, as discussed above. In addition, our lack of knowledge about the butterfly and its habitat preferences is hindering recovery. Effects of the Action This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the species. Direct effects are those immediate effects of the proposed action on MSB and its habitat. When considering direct effects, interrelated and interdependent actions must also be considered. Although the proposed action is expected to have overall positive effects on the conservation status of the MSB, adverse effects to individuals or temporary adverse impacts to populations may unavoidably occur. The Service anticipates issuing permits or grants for the research activities listed later in this section (refer to Description of the Proposed Action section for more information). Take is differentiated based on its intent, i.e., purposeful or incidental. Purposeful take is take that is intended as part of the action (e.g., capturing butterflies). Purposeful take is quantified here, based on the maximum amount of purposeful take that is expected to occur as part of the proposed action. Incidental take is take that occurs accidentally during the conduct of an otherwise lawful activity (e.g., injuring butterflies during capture). Incidental take is also quantified here to the extent possible and is further discussed in the incidental take statement. In order to minimize the amount of take that may occur, the proposed action incorporates the conservation measures listed on pages 8-9. These measures are taken into account in our analysis of the extent of take that will occur. Incidental take may occur in the form of harm and/or harassment. “Harm” is defined by the Service as impairment of behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. This can include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is defined by the Service as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patters which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Population surveys using direct observation Population surveys involve walking through and adjacent to occupied habitats during the MSB flight period, typically a two week period in late-June to mid-July. Surveyors walk in a meandering pattern, looking forward, to the sides, and behind to increase likelihood that all butterflies are seen. Close-focusing binoculars can be used to aid in identification of this species, so it is not necessary to capture butterflies with a net during routine surveys. Because butterflies may be disturbed during surveys, purposeful take in the form of pursuit and harassment is anticipated for butterflies in the action area during surveying. Survey activities may result in disturbance to individuals, by temporarily disrupting resting, feeding, or mating activities. For example, butterflies may flush from resting areas when surveyors approach, or be chased out of their current area by a surveyor trying to obtain a closer look for identification. The extent of harassment on the population will depend on the duration and intensity of the survey. Typical meander surveys are short in duration (usually about an hour, ranging between 0.5 and 3 hours per visit). This

25

type of survey is not expected to result in disturbance to all MSBs in the area. Meander surveys very likely only detect a portion of MSBs in the survey area (based on sites where MRR studies have also been conducted). Butterflies that do not flush from the vegetation upon which they rest are probably not disturbed to the point that breeding, feeding, or sheltering behaviors are affected. The potential for harm for those that are disturbed by the surveyor is unlikely as the disturbance will be temporary and individuals may quickly resume their normal activity. However, because the adult life span and environmental conditions under which MSBs can mate and lay eggs is very short (i.e., approx. 2 weeks), any significant human disturbance during this critical period (i.e., disruption during mating and oviposition activities) could lead to a substantial reduction in the number of eggs laid. Most surveys are short in duration and infrequent in nature, so the level of disturbance at each site is not likely to be significant. Population survey activities may also result in incidental take in the form of injury or mortality. This take may occur while walking through the habitat (e.g., early life stages may be inadvertently stepped on while researchers are surveying occupied habitat). This is true of all types of activities conducted in occupied habitat. The true risk of this type of take is unknown; no literature is available to help us estimate the effects of trampling on fens or butterfly eggs and larvae. Conservation measures will be implemented for all activities that occur in occupied habitat, in order to minimize the potential for trampling of habitat and accidental injury to individuals. Surveys are conducted in a manner that minimizes trampling of vegetation to the extent practical, by minimizing movement in the area and utilizing existing game trails whenever possible. Areas where females were observed laying eggs, or areas where there was a high concentration of females during the later part of the flight, should be avoided to the extent possible. During the winter, when larvae are presumably burrowed under the ground, the potential for trampling is less (e.g., snow cover and a frozen surface would likely minimize the potential effect of trampling). The chance of death or injury to eggs or larvae is relatively small, because few people are involved in surveying a particular site, and the chance of stepping on and crushing eggs and/or larvae is small; however, it is possible. Only qualified individuals will be conducting surveys, and they will attempt to avoid or minimize stepping on vegetation and sedge hummocks when possible. Because the early life stages are small and difficult to locate, it is expected that this form of take will be nearly impossible to quantify, despite our best efforts to monitor any take that may occur. Injury to adult butterflies would be much easier to identify; however, it is unlikely that adults will be injured during routine survey activities, as they are easier to detect and avoid and more mobile than the eggs and larvae. Techniques involving capture, marking, tagging, holding, translocation, and release of individuals MRR may be conducted during population and spatial ecology studies. MRR studies are useful in determining how butterflies disperse between and within habitat patches and give a quantitative estimate of population size. The advantages of this type of research should be weighed against the disadvantages, as it is potentially destructive to the habitat (through potentially extensive trampling) and temporarily disruptive to the butterflies. As MRR studies require sampling a large proportion of the population, a substantial number of individuals will be captured and handled throughout a substantial portion of the flight season. Hence, the reproductive success for the population can be dramatically affected if disturbance alters mating and oviposition behaviors (as previously discussed in effects of population surveys). However, the conservation measures proposed will ensure that capture and release occur within minutes (usually less than 2 minutes). This will ensure that the majority of individuals will only be temporarily disturbed without any long-term effects. Purposeful take in the form of pursuit, capture, and harassment is expected to occur for all butterflies included in the MRR study. Incidental take, in the form of injury and mortality, could accidentally occur

26

as a result of netting and handling individuals. Based on previous capture and release studies involving MSB, accidental injury to individuals is expected to be less than 1 per every 100 butterflies handled. Although the technology exists, there have been few studies conducted that involve tagging butterflies. Before tagging can be conducted on MSB, protocols must be established that minimize potential adverse effects. For example, appropriate tag size, antennae configuration, and safe adhesive materials must be determined prior to conducting a study on MSB. Research using a surrogate species (e.g., the eyed-brown or little wood satyr) must be conducted to refine the techniques. Tagging of MSB would only be considered after successful development of a technique that would result in minimal risk to MSB. It is reasonable to assume that incidental take (i.e., accidental injury and mortality) could occur as a result of a tagging study. Only a small number of butterflies of a robust population would be allowed to be included in this type of research. Incidental take would be based on studies involving a surrogate species and would require further incidental take analysis. In addition to being handled and captured, butterflies may be held and transported. Studies of captive MSB may be permitted to examine ecological, behavioral, physiological, reproductive, and developmental biology of the species. Permits may allow for MSBs to be removed from their natural environments to be studied in a controlled laboratory setting or to be released in nearby suitable habitat (see also Description of Proposed Action section). In addition to the take associated with capture and handling (discussed above), there may be additional risks when butterflies are held in captivity. Butterflies held in captivity may be susceptible to increased predation, stress, and abnormal fluctuations in temperature and humidity. Incidental take, in the form of injury or mortality, can be expected to occur in no more than 1 in every 10 butterflies. Tissue sampling for scientific research In addition to the impacts from capture and handling discussed above, tissue sampling may include take in the form of injury and mortality. Whether intentional or accidental, the breakage of legs, antennae, wings, and removal of tissue or parts of individuals may also disrupt essential behaviors and reduce the individuals’ survival upon release. The permanent removal of individuals from the breeding population reduces the effective breeding population, which could render the population more susceptible to stochastic events. Conservation measures will be implemented to reduce the impact of this removal, including stipulations that specimens should only be removed from robust populations at the end of the flight season to allow them opportunity to breed. When possible, death will be avoided. Efforts will be made to use butterflies incidentally injured during other activities for these studies, when possible. No more than 15 MSB adults may be purposely injured or killed per year, and of those 15, no more than 5 may be female. An additional 15 MSB eggs or larvae may be purposefully taken annually for scientific studies. There are several sites where populations are estimated to have over 500 individuals, and it is expected that individuals would be collected at only one or two of these sites during a given year. Removal of a few individuals from these robust populations will likely have little effect on the population. Collection for rearing and propagation purposes and release This activity may include the potential adverse effects associated with capture, handling, holding, and transporting, as discussed above. Purposeful take, in the form of harassment and capture, is expected to occur for all butterflies collected and held for rearing and propagation. Incidental take may include accidental injury and mortality. Take will be similar to that discussed previously for MSBs held in captivity.

27

Habitat evaluation, manipulation, restoration, or enhancement activities The positive effects of habitat management must always be weighed against any negative impacts to the MSB. In general, habitat evaluation, manipulation, restoration, and enhancement activities will result in an overall benefit to the survival and recovery of MSB. However, activities associated with habitat management (e.g., trampling, fire, brush removal, etc.) may result in incidental take in the form of harm, harassment, and mortality. Prior to management, it is extremely important to understand the spatial distribution of MSBs at the site in order to design management efforts to avoid or minimize impacts. In particular, areas with high concentration of females should be avoided to the extent practicable in order to protect oviposition areas. Pre-management monitoring data can not only be used to minimize impacts to the populations, but it can also aid in determining the effectiveness of management protocols by comparison with post-management data. Management standards will be based on whether there is sufficient pre-management data to determine spatial distribution of the population, including sex data. In many cases, “sufficient” survey data will require at least 3 days of survey data from the year prior to management, although there may be exceptions in some cases. For sites without good pre-management monitoring data, management efforts will need to be more conservative. This may mean presuming presence at areas with adjacent occupied habitat (and thereby applying the conservation measures necessary to minimize potential impacts to the MSB). It is also important to have a plan for what the management target, or goal, of the site is and how to achieve that target. Site conservation plans are being developed to aid land managers in stewardship efforts at occupied MSB sites. Management should be undertaken in a conservative and thoughtful manner in order to minimize the impact to the satyr while maximizing the benefit. For sites where the habitat is being rapidly degraded (e.g., by nuisance plant species invasions), more aggressive efforts may be prudent in order to avoid losing the site. Conservation measures will be implemented to reduce the extent of incidental take. Management should occur only during the dormant season, when MSBs are presumably burrowed under the ground, and occur using the least destructive means available. Because of this, heavy machinery and highly destructive equipment will not be allowed at occupied sites. Intensive management activities that are likely to result in considerable take over the area of treatment, such as a prescribed burn, will not be conducted on more than approximately 1/5 of the occupied habitat area at any given site (for sites where we have good pre-management information). This will allow for individuals from the remaining occupied habitat areas to re-colonize the treated area and minimize loss of eggs and larvae in the burned area. Intensive management of this nature will occur infrequently and is expected to occur on no more than one or two sites per year. In addition, this type of management should only occur at sites with robust populations. The effects of prescribed burning on MSB and its habitat are still largely unknown. Before this type of management will be recommended for implementation on a larger scale, more research is needed to understand the potential benefits to the habitat and risks to the MSB. Other activities necessary to conduct various ecological studies aimed at recovery of Mitchell’s satyr Ecological studies and monitoring activities may include temporary disturbance of adults, pupae, and larvae in the course of walking and sampling occupied habitat. Incidental take in the form of injury and death could occur from trampling of pupae, larvae and eggs. However, pertinent conservation measures will be applied, and adverse effects will be minimized to the extent that the long-term persistence of the targeted population will not be compromised. Discussion of Effects:

28

Insect conservation is based on different premises than traditional vertebrate conservation efforts (Scott 1986). Many vertebrate species are typically long-lived animals with long generation times. As such, vertebrate population management is necessarily focused on survival of individuals. Invertebrate species, such as the MSB, however, are adapted to survive by producing relatively large numbers of progeny and large populations with short individual lifespans and frequent generation turnovers. Thus, population management of invertebrates such as the MSB is focused on the maintenance of conditions conducive to metapopulation survival rather than on the survival of particular individuals within a population. Habitat conservation is therefore key to butterfly conservation. A focus on habitat conservation and the success of populations rather than individuals is central to the Service’s conservation strategy and recovery efforts for MSB. The effects due to the proposed action, discussed above, may result in harassment, harm, or in rare cases, mortality, of individuals, but the effect is not likely to be sufficient to affect the population’s or species’ viability. Population surveys will likely occur at each occupied site and will result in only a small risk of injury to individuals. Techniques involving capture, marking, tagging, holding, translocation, and release of individuals will not occur at high frequency and will likely only be conducted at few sites. In addition, only robust populations will be considered for these types of studies. Removal of individuals from a population (e.g., when conducting tissue sampling for scientific research or collection for rearing and propagation purposes and release) may reduce the effective breeding population and may reduce survival of individuals after release; however, numbers removed are expected to be small relative to population size. In addition, removal of individuals will only occur at sites with healthy, robust populations in order to reduce the impact of such studies on the population. Habitat restoration may occur at all sites, but will occur in small areas of occupied habitat or in areas adjacent to occupied habitat. For all actions, conservation measures intended to minimize the potential for broad-scale risk to sites will be implemented. Summary Conservation efforts are impeded by the lack of understanding of MSB habitat needs and life cycle requirements. Information is vital for determining how a population might respond to environmental stress and/or habitat management. The issuance of 10(a)(1)(A) permits and grants to the States will allow for research intended to discover new information about the butterfly, or for recovery actions, to further conservation of the species. In addition, habitat management and monitoring are necessary in order to maintain and create suitable habitat for MSB. Habitat loss due to a variety of factors (as discussed previously) has occurred throughout the range of the species and continues to occur at occupied sites. During habitat management activities, individuals may be inadvertently injured or killed. When activities occur that may result in harm to individuals, the levels of direct and incidental take will be carefully assessed and managed at the minimum possible levels necessary to meet conservation objectives. The intended and incidental effects of permitting actions will occur for a relatively small number of individual specimens and is not likely to result in effects at the population level. Any action authorized under section 10 or funded through the Services Recovery Grant program must be for the purpose of furthering the conservation of listed species. The aggregate effects of the proposed action are expected to be positive. Anticipated adverse effects are likely to be short term and temporary, and are likely to result in an improvement in the conservation status of the MSB. Adverse effects of the action are likely to occur to individuals and are not expected to reach the population-level.

29

The proposed action will result in take of MSB, but the associated adverse effects will be minor and short-term in duration. These proposed actions are for the purpose of species recovery and will provide significant benefits for the species and its habitat. The conservation measures on pages 8-9 are expected to minimize the potential for direct and indirect impacts to the species. However, some purposeful and incidental take of MSB will occur as a result of research and recovery related activities. Such take, however, is not anticipated to impair the survival and recovery of the MSB within the action area. In fact, activities that may occur as a result of the issuance of 10(a)(1)(A) permits and/or funded through the Service’s Recovery Grant program are necessary for recovery plan implementation. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this programmatic Biological Opinion. Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. The Service is unaware of any specific action that is occurring or is reasonably certain to occur within occupied MSB habitat that would contribute to cumulative effects. However, it is likely that some activities will occur in the future, including rural and suburban development, pesticide usage, pollution, highway and road construction, alterations to hydrology, utility projects, livestock grazing, and fire suppression. However, as we have no information about the certainty of these actions occurring nor the locality if they were to occur, we are unable to assess the cumulative effects associated with future actions. Conclusion After reviewing the current status of MSB, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed actions, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s Biological Opinion that the Service’s proposed actions (approval of grant proposals and issuance of 10(a)(1)(A) permits) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of MSB. No critical habitat has been designated for the species; therefore, none will be affected. The intent of the section 10(a)(1)(A) program and the Service’s Recovery Grant program is to facilitate the survival and recovery of listed species. Thus, the long-term effect of the proposed actions will provide for continued persistence of the species. As such, by definition the Service may not grant monies or issue section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for projects that are not expected to contribute to the conservation of MSB. That is, in permitting or funding recovery actions, the Service must analyze whether such actions are beneficial for the species being targeted. In meeting this end, we will evaluate whether 1) the proposed activities have been contemplated in a Biological Opinion, 2) the appropriate conservation measures identified within the Biological Opinion have been incorporated into the project design, 3) the effect of the project is commensurate with what was anticipated in the Biological Opinion (given any changes in the environmental baseline at the time it’s proposed), 4) the type and amount of take does not exceed the level identified in the Biological Opinion, and 5) the appropriate terms and conditions have been incorporated into the project design. Furthermore, the temporary adverse effects will be minimized by incorporating conservation measures into the project design and requiring monitoring and reporting through permit terms and conditions. All information collected will be analyzed and used to better design and implement recovery actions in the future. All funded or permitted activities are intended to contribute to the conservation of the species. For these reasons, we believe that the unavoidable short-term adverse

30

effects will not jeopardize the continued existence of MSB. In fact, these proposed actions will contribute substantially to the survival and recovery of the MSB. Incidental Take Statement Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to and not the purpose of the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7 (o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the Service so that they become binding conditions of any permit issued for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) of the ESA to apply. The Service has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Service (1) fails to require the permittee/grantee to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, and/or (2) fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the permittee/grantee must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)] Amount or extent of take anticipated This section details the amount or extent of incidental take anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action. Although the effects of both purposeful and incidental take are considered in the effects section, only the take that is incidental to the proposed action is discussed in this section. Adult MSBs The Service anticipates that no more than a total of 20 adult MSB will be incidentally taken, in the form of injury or mortality, each year as a result of the proposed action. Incidental take of adults during MRR studies will be ≤ 10 per year. In addition, no more than 5 butterflies will be incidentally taken each year as a result of studies requiring holding and transport, including captive rearing studies. Lastly, no more than 5 butterflies will be taken annually in all other activities, including surveys and monitoring. Early life stages The Service anticipates incidental take of MSB eggs and larvae will be difficult to detect because of their small size and uncertain location. MSB eggs and larvae have been difficult to locate in the field even when oviposition sites are known. Larvae and eggs are known to be susceptible to harm during fire and prolonged flooding. It is unknown to what extent other activities will result in incidental take of eggs and larvae, although there is the potential that trampling of habitat could potentially crush eggs and larvae. Because we are not able to meaningfully detect eggs and larvae, we will base incidental take on loss of habitat that occurs during intensive management activities such as fire or flooding, where incidental take

31

is likely to occur. Incidental take for eggs and larvae is expected to occur on less than 1/5 of occupied habitat areas (per site) during these management activities; however only 1-2 sites per year (if any) will likely be managed using these destructive methods. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Service must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures. Reasonable and Prudent Measures We believe the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize the incidental take authorized by this programmatic Biological Opinion. (1) Assure that proposed permit or grant activities will result in the maximum scientific value and least possible levels of direct and incidental take necessary to support or accomplish recovery objectives. (2) Monitor the extent of take occurring under authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) permits issued by the Regional Office and modify permitted or funded activities as necessary or appropriate to minimize adverse effects (responsible parties: permit holder/grantee and Service). Terms and conditions In order to be exempted from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above, must be established and appropriately included in any section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the Service for activities permitted for MSB. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

Terms and Conditions to fulfill RPM #1 1-1. Subsequent to receiving an application for a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit or prior to funding a grant proposal under the Service’s Recovery Grant programs, the Regional Office will consult with the Lead Field Office (East Lansing Field Office) and any other appropriate Field Offices and recognized experts to evaluate the validity of the proposed activities and determine the appropriate level of permitted take for the activities and for each study site identified in the permit application. 1-2. The Service, prior to issuing any permits, will coordinate with appropriate state natural resources agencies to seek State input on potential effects and to determine whether any state-authorized research or other actions that may affect the species are underway. 1-3. Authority to capture and handle MSB will be granted only to persons experienced in the handling and the biology of the species. Any assistants not specifically named in the permit must work under the direct on-site supervision of named permittees. The Service will require permittees/grantees to employ current accepted scientific techniques. 1-4. At the discretion of the Service, a Service employee may inspect the facilities or accompany any permittee during any activity conducted under this permit. Permittees/grantees must allow Service personnel complete and immediate access to any materials and information generated as a result of such

32

permit (50 CFR 13.21(e)(2)). Any refusal, obstruction, or hindrance of Service participation in such work shall be grounds for permit suspension or revocation, if applicable, in accordance with 50 CFR 13.27 or 50 CFR 13.28. 1-5. Any accidentally killed or freshly dead specimens found during permitted/funded activities should be preserved according to standard museum practices and transferred to the University of Michigan or Michigan State University. Specimens obtained under this permit remain the property of the United States Government and must clearly be identified as such.

Terms and Conditions to fulfill RPM #2

2-1. The Service will ensure that pre- and post monitoring protocols have been submitted as part of the permit or grant application. 2.2 The Service will consult internally and externally, using all appropriate sources of information, on an ongoing basis as necessary to assure the MSB population baseline remains at or above levels considered in this opinion. 2-3. The Service will reassess permit/grant activities promptly if new information suggests the MSB population has declined from the baseline level considered in this opinion. 2-4. In the event that the total annual number of injuries/mortalities anticipated in this incidental take statement is met, the Service will cease all permitted/funded activities and reinitiate consultation. 2-5. Permittees must file annual reports of activities conducted under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. Such report should identify the extent of purposeful take (e.g., number of animals captured) and any incidental take (injuries or mortalities). 2-6. Activities funded under the Service’s Recovery Grant program will include similar requirements for monitoring and annual reporting, including identifying the extent of purposeful and incidental take. 2-7. Incidental injuries or mortalities must be reported within 2 business days to the Regional Permit Coordinator or to the East Lansing Field Office. 2-8. The Service must annually review the extent of intentional and incidental take of MSB in Region 3 that occurs in conjunction with the issuance of section 10(a)(1)(A) permits and the Service’s Recovery Grant program to ensure that the level of take anticipated in this Biological Opinion is not being exceeded. Reinitiation - Closing The Service believes that no more than 20 MSB adults will be incidentally taken annually as a result of the proposed action. Incidental take for eggs and larvae is expected to occur on less than 1/5 of occupied habitat area (per site) during destructive management activities (e.g., prescribed burning or controlled flooding); these activities are likely to occur on only 1-2 sites per year (and in many years no management of this type will occur). The incidental take is expected in the form of harm or death by actions incidental to the permitted action. In addition, purposeful take, in the form of harm or death, is expected for no more than 15 adults (up to 5 females) and/or 15 eggs or larvae for tissue sampling/other scientific studies.

33

The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures. This concludes formal consultation on the action described above. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

34

Literature Cited Andreas, B. K. and J. D. Knoop. 1992. One hundred years of changes in Ohio peatlands. Ohio J. Sci. 92:130-138. Badger, S. F. 1958. Euptychia mitchellii (Satyridae) in Michigan and Indiana tamarack bogs. J. Lepid. Soc. 12:41-46. Barton, B. 2003. Population ecology of the Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii): Grand River Fen, Jackson County, Michigan. 28 pages + addendum. Darlow, N. 2000. Behavior, habitat usage, and oviposition of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Neonymoha mitchellii. A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of New York, United Kingdom. 43 pp. Hyde, D. A., Rabe, M. L., Cuthrell, D. L., and M. A. Kost. 2001. Surveys for recovery of Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) in Michigan: Final report – 2000. Report to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3 Office, Fort Snelling, MN. 36 pp. + appendix. Iftner, D., J. A. Shuey, and J. V. Calhoun. 1992. Butterflies and skippers of Ohio. Ohio Biol. Survey Bull. Vol. 8 No. 1. Legge, J. T. and M. L. Rabe. 1996. Observations of oviposition and larval ecology in caged Mitchell’s satyr butterflies (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 Office, Fort Snelling, MN. 17pp. MacKinnon, W. A. and D. A. Albert. 1996. Mitchell's satyr historical habitat analysis. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field Office, Ecological Services, Michigan. 21 pp. + addendum. Martin, M. L. 1987. Mitchell's satyr (Neonympha mitchellii) in Indiana. Report submitted to Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Preserves. 6 pp. McAlpine, W. S., S. P. Hubbell, and T. E. Pliske. 1960. The distribution, habits, and life history of Euptychia mitchellii (Satyridae). J. Lepid. Soc. 14 (3):209-226. Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and D.K. Parshall. 1999. 1998 survey for Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii) in Ohio. Final report to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Reynoldsburg Field Office, Ecological Services, Ohio. 8 pp. + appendices. Pallister, J. C. 1927. Cissia mitchelli (French) found in Ohio with notes on its habits. Lepidoptera: Satyridae. Ohio J. Sci. 27 (4):203-204. Rutkowski, F. 1966. Rediscovery of Euptychia mitchellii (Satyridae) in New Jersey. J. Lepid. Soc. 20(1):43-44. Schweitzer, D. F. 1989. A review of Category 2 Insecta in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 3, 4, and 5. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Gateway Center, Newton Corners, MA.

35

Submitted 20 July, 1989. 150 pp. + appendices. Schweitzer, D. F. 1996. Historic record of Mitchell's satyr in New Jersey. Letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field Office. 2 pp. Scott, J.A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America. A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 583+ Shuey, J. A. 1986. The ecology and evolution of wetland butterflies with emphasis on the genus Euphyes (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Ph.D. Dissert. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 157 pp. Shuey, J. A. 1997. Conservation status and natural history of Mitchell=s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii French) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Natural Areas Journal 17:153-163. Shull, E. M. 1987. The butterflies of Indiana. Indiana Acad. Sc. and Indiana Univ. Press., Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana. 262 pp. Szymanski, J. A. 1999. Population and spatial ecology of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Neonympha m. mitchellii French, in southwestern Michigan. A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota. 78 pp. Szymanski, J. A. and J. A. Shuey. 2002. Conservation strategy for Mitchell’s satyr butterfly at Blue Creek Fen, Berrien County, Michigan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, Fort Snelling, MN. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Mitchell's Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii French). Ft. Snelling, MN. viii + 71 pp. Wilsmann, L. A. and D. Schweitzer. 1991. A rangewide status survey of Mitchell's satyr, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. 25 pp.

36

Appendix A. Section 6 Priority Activities for Mitchell’s Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) Developed by the Mitchell’s Satyr Working Group, 2001 Activities: Priority 1 Surveys

1. Survey potential habitat and evaluate threats. a. Expand searches in potential habitat near occupied sites and historical sites in Michigan (i.e.,

Kalamazoo Co.: Kellogg Biological Station; Kent Co.: East Grand Rapids) and especially in the vicinity of newly discovered or rediscovered sites (Jackson Co. West, St. Joseph Co. East, Van Buren Co. Northeast and Washtenaw Co. West).

b. Evaluate threats for each site including off-road vehicles, non-native species, ownership pattern, past land use history, altered hydrology, vegetative succession, and point and non-point source pollution.

2. Identify high quality or high potential habitat complexes for recovery. a. Refine site criteria and GIS habitat model for selection of potential reintroduction sites. b. Conduct habitat model using most current land coverage and biological data. Evaluate

changes in site rankings. c. Visit sites to determine whether they meet criteria established for possible reintroduction.

Evaluate microhabitat variables at potential sites as well as factors such as presence of invasive species, size and quality of habitat, landscape context and ownership.

d. Select reintroduction sites that will be used to meet the Federal Recovery Plan goals.

Management 1. Initiate priority management activities.

a. Evaluate the importance of a disturbance regime (i.e., fire and grazing) for maintaining suitable habitat for Mitchell’s satyrs.

b. Identify long-term management actions that prevent or mitigate the establishment of non-native and invasive species.

c. Experiment with management techniques to identify effective ways of mimicking natural disturbance regimes and controlling non-native species. Techniques would include shrub removal, herbicides, spot burning, prescribed burns, grazing, and other techniques at both occupied and unoccupied sites.

d. Monitor impacts of experimental work on Mitchell’s satyr, other associated rare flora and fauna, and the vegetation.

2. Meet with species experts and USFWS to develop introduction/reintroduction methodology. 3. Work with public and private land managers.

a. Provide education and training to public and private land managers, public utilities and transportation authorities that have occupied sites.

b. Work cooperatively to develop management recommendations, agreements and management and monitoring plans to ensure the long-term viability of the Mitchell’s satyr at occupied sites.

c. Provide land managers with most recent information about important activity areas used by Mitchell’s satyr (i.e., oviposition sites, adult nectar sites) to guide management activities.

4. Landowner contact.

a. Educate private landowners at new and rediscovered sites as well as adjacent landowners about the Mitchell’s satyr, its life history, habitat needs and threats to its survival. Also provide ongoing education to new landowners at occupied sites.

37

b. Initiate stewardship agreements and work cooperatively with private landowners to develop management and monitoring plans to ensure the long-term viability of Mitchell’s satyr.

Research and Monitoring 1. Continue studies to improve the understanding of Mitchell’s satyr biology under natural conditions

and conditions for a viable population. a. Identify important microhabitats and activity areas used by adults, especially by ovipositing

females and individuals feeding on nectar plants (ideally a multi-year study since results may vary with weather conditions). Examine adult population structure, movement and dispersal between and within habitats (i.e., mark-release-recapture studies). Determine if there is a botanical component for Mitchell’s satyr presence or absence. Determine the degree that adults tolerate/depend on shrubs (i.e., cover).

b. Initiate in situ larval studies to increase the understanding of larval ecology and to further identify important microhabitats. Identify overwintering larval habitat and evaluate factors that affect larval survival. Determine larval response to management and disturbance (i.e., burning, invasive species control, grazing and flooding).

c. Intensively monitor Mitchell’s satyr numbers at selected sites (especially those sites undergoing active management) over an extended time period (includes establishment of baseline densities and trends) and determine more precise distributions of satyr populations at known sites. Determine adult response to management activities such as invasive species control, burning, and grazing.

d. Evaluate genetic diversity of several populations at large and small sites across the species’ range; determine whether inbreeding is a problem. Data obtained will improve our knowledge and ability to protect and manage Mitchell’s satyr; however, this data is not essential to initiating a reintroduction program.

4. Research and develop techniques and protocols for captive rearing and release. This could include work with surrogate species and collaboration between universities, zoos, biodiversity centers, etc.

5. Develop a pilot introduction study with a minimum of three years’ follow-up monitoring. Priority 2 Surveys Continue surveys for other State-listed or declining species that occur in association with Mitchell’s satyr and are most likely to be affected by management activities (i.e., Blanchard’s cricket frog, Blanding’s turtle, eastern box turtle, eastern massasauga, Kirtland’s snake, leafhoppers, marsh wren, powesheik skipper, snails, spotted turtle, and tamarack tree cricket). Management 1. Examine successional pathways that create and destroy suitable habitat for Mitchell’s satyr. 2. Evaluate the importance of large, interconnected, or diverse habitat for Mitchell’s satyr persistence. Research and Monitoring 1. Examine taxonomic relationships of Neonympha at various sites in different States, with particular

focus on Neonympha m. mitchellii. Determine whether Neonympha m. mitchellii is monophyletic. 2. Examine the impacts of cattle grazing at occupied satyr sites.

a. Determine if and why there are more butterflies at grazed sites. b. Determine if they are simply easier to observe or whether grazing affects the nutritional quality of

the larval foodplant (i.e., narrow-leaved sedges).


Appendix B: US FWS. Section 7 Programmatic Consultation on Issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Take Permits, and Providing Funding for and/or Carrying out Conservation Activities that Benefit Karner Blue Butterfly.

Region 3 Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Transmittal Form … Prop… · · 2009-08-31Key: X...

Documents

Transcript of Region 3 Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Transmittal Form … Prop… · · 2009-08-31Key: X...