CHAPTER 1: TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR SPECIES OF GREATEST
CONSERVATION NEED
PROJECT STATEMENT: Threatened, endangered and listed species reviews and permits.
SUMMARY:
The Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provides
guidance on wildlife issues, including reviewing projects that will affect Species of Greatest
Conservation Need (SGCN) included in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP). Review of
projects includes Division staff, as well as consultation with the Michigan Natural Features
Inventory (MNFI), which specializes in “at risk” species status and management needs.
Additionally, this information is used by other MDNR staff when developing strategic and
operational plans for species and habitats. The Division also biannually reviews the state list of
threatened and endangered species.
NEED:
MDNR has the statutory authority for the protection of state listed threatened and endangered
species. All of the state listed species are also SGCNs identified in the WAP. In 2011 and
previously, from 2,000 to 4,000 reviews of projects that may affect state listed species and or
their associated habitats were conducted annually. If potential effects to protected species were
identified, negotiations were conducted to either modify the project design or mitigate the
effects.
Under state law, a biannual review of state listed species is required to identify species to add,
reclassify or remove from the list. Input into federal endangered species rule changes is also
necessary to ensure Michigan’s interests are represented.
Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Needs
All federally and state listed species are included as SGCNs in the WAP. Maintenance of these
lists, therefore, is needed for future revisions of the WAP. Incorporating added scientific
knowledge into species protection is a conservation need to address the threat of lack of
scientific knowledge as identified on page 65 of Section 1. Introductory Text & Statewide
Assessments of the WAP. Incorporating this knowledge into projects or permit requests that will
affect listed species is needed at the project review phase to incorporate protection measures
before work is conducted.
OBJECTIVES:
Objective 1.
Threatened and endangered species impacts review
To evaluate impacts on state listed wildlife species when species are known to occur and
individuals will be impacted. Additionally, consult and cooperate with federal agencies on
activities affected by the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Objective 2.
Endangered species list review
To coordinate the biannual review of the state threatened and endangered species list, and to
provide input into federal endangered species rule changes under the Federal Endangered
Species Act.
EXPECTED RESULTS OR BENEFITS:
Those SGCNs that are state listed species will benefit from project reviews to determine
potential project impacts on those species. Numerous project reviews used to be done by MDNR
staff but due to budget cuts these reviews are know being done by MNFI staff, with MDNR staff
only getting involved if known rare species will be impacted. The discussion on how to mitigate
impacts and protect as many rare species that will be impacted helps increase public awareness
of habitat requirements of the species. The result of transplant and monitoring success/failure, if
undertaken, improves scientific understanding of species tolerance to disturbance. The issuance
of Endangered Species Permits is often tied to activities related to mitigating effects on listed
species but is not part of this objective.
By reviewing the state list of endangered and threatened species every two years, the MDNR
continues to monitor rare wildlife populations, distributions, habitat needs, and limiting factors.
This also satisfies the Department’s statutory requirements under Michigan’s Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection Act (Act 451 of 1994).
All of these activities taken together will benefit SGCNs, their habitats, natural communities and
ecosystems.
APPROACH:
Approach 1.
Threatened and endangered species impacts review
The environmental review program and funding for it was removed from the 2012 state budget,
so the Department’s involvement in reviewing for potential impacts to protected species has been
reduced greatly. While MDNR is still able to provide input in critical cases, reviews are limited
to projects that have known direct impacts to species because it has been determined that an
Endangered Species Permit to either take or transplant the species is necessary. MNFI may
review projects for potential impacts for a fee from the requestor, and subsequently consult with
MDNR staff on potential impact and need for permitting. MNFI staff possesses significant
expertise on various “at risk” wildlife species, their habitat requirements and the niche occupied
by these species within their ecosystems. MDNR receives project reviews from MNFI if known
impacts are expected to occur to SGCN that are listed as state threatened or endangered. Project
alterations may be required to reduce or mitigate effects on listed species and the need for a state
Endangered Species Permit is determined. The parameters of the permit are negotiated with the
landowner, although actual issuance of permits is not included as part of this objective.
The MDNR still maintains the Endangered Species Assessment website
(http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/esa/), which provides a preliminary evaluation of whether
endangered, threatened, or special concern species, high quality natural communities, or other
unique natural features have been known to occur at or near a site of interest.
The state will also provide input and cooperation in endangered species activities related to the
Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11). These activities include input into federal
endangered species rule changes to ensure Michigan’s interests are represented.
Approach 2.
Endangered species list review
The Wildlife Division’s Endangered Species Coordinator and other experts will participate in the
biannual review of the state list. This review involves recommendations for species additions,
status modifications and removals from the list. Michigan’s next list review is scheduled for
2013. In 2012, technical committees for birds, mammals, herptiles and invertebrates will be
established. Committees will be comprised of experts and specialists with knowledge in the
various animal groupings. Discussions will determine if the existing list needs a revision. The
committees will review information, studies, and data collected since the last state review and
recommend changes to state species status. MDNR will review the recommendation and submit
a final list of classification changes through a formal rule making process in the state. The
revised list will then be approved by the MDNR Director and proceed to legislative approval if
needed.
The following activities will be used to track and report performance for these objectives:
Project Title
Objective
SWG WAP Revision 1. Threatened and endangered
and Implementation species impacts review
2. Endangered species list review
Reporting Units
Number of environmental
reviews conducted
Status and outcome of list
revision
LOCATION:
Project activities will occur primarily in MDNR offices in Lansing, Michigan, and potentially in
other office settings during meetings with project partners.
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Costs may vary by Grant Segment. The estimates provided below may include salaries and
wages, contractual services, supplies, travel expenses and equipment. Specific work activities
and direct cost categories may vary from segment to segment; these activities and cost detail are
provided in the budget narrative for this segment included as Appendix A.
Objectives
FY 2012 Segment 3
1. Threatened and endangered species impacts
review
2. Endangered species list review
Totals
$100,000
$50,000
$150,000
PROJECT PERSONNEL:
Federal Aid Coordinator
Eric Sink
MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator
Budget and Support Services
(517) 335-1064
Grant Coordinator
Christine Hanaburgh
Acting Wildlife Division Federal Aid
Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-9333
Project Leader and Objectives Coordinator
Dan Kennedy
Endangered Species Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 241-3944
PROJECT STATEMENT: Maintenance of biodiversity databases.
SUMMARY:
The compilation of information and its availability to biologists and other users is essential for
wildlife management and protection. MDNR relies on a number of databases to organize and
provide for efficient retrieval of data related to biodiversity and its conservation. The foundation
of these databases is the collection of element occurrence data (geo-referenced species
populations or ecological communities) and associated information that was begun as the
Biodiversity Conservation Database and is now generally referred to as the Biotics database.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) maintains the Biotics database and is a part of a
natural heritage network that encompasses all 50 states. The Biotics database has continued to
evolve; tabular data continues to be transformed into geo-referenced attribute data. Work is
continually needed on this core biodiversity database to ensure new information is integrated and
functionalities are updated, data access is improved, and users understand the appropriate use of
the data.
NEED:
The MNFI provides and maintains data, information, and expertise on rare and imperiled species
and rare and high quality natural communities. The Biotics database, maintained and operated by
the MNFI, is unique in the state and represents the best and most comprehensive information
available on the distribution and condition of rare species and high quality natural communities
(linked to WAP Landscape Features and SGCNs) in the state of Michigan.
Wildlife Division is responsible for implementation of the WAP which designates a variety of
species as SGCN. Additionally, the WAP designates various Landscape Features whose
conservation is important to the management of SGCNs. The ability of MDNR to plan for the
conservation of SGCNs is greatly enhanced by the availability of MNFI’s data, information, and
expertise on Michigan’s imperiled species and natural communities.
The MNFI’s staff expertise and Biotics database are unique and invaluable tools to facilitate this
evaluation and to ensure efficient and scientifically-based natural resource conservation. MNFI
resources and expertise are essential to the MDNR’s efforts to promote the conservation of
SGCNs. There is also a need for MNFI to better define the backlog of data with respect to the
Biotics database and to develop a process for shortening the time for data entry/updates into the
database.
Additionally, the information provided to MDNR that is not sensitive or otherwise restricted is
also made available to other land managers and the public. This access to information allows
other land managers to ensure conservation needs for SGCNs and their habitats are being
addressed in land use planning throughout Michigan and not just on state-owned lands.
Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Needs
Research, monitoring and adaptive management are identified as ongoing needs in the WAP to
measure progress, success and failure of conservation actions. The WAP notes that collecting,
storing and assessing information on individual species will always be necessary to prevent
extinction and to evaluate the condition of more specific ecosystem components on page 83 of
Section 1. Introductory Text & Statewide Assessments. Additionally, this information will be
needed to make further revisions to the WAP.
The following needs will be addressed by the objectives listed below from this project statement:
Species Monitoring - Collecting, storing, and assessing information on individual species
will be necessary to prevent extinction and to evaluate the condition of more-specific
ecosystem components.
Existing Monitoring & Research Efforts - Many monitoring and research efforts within
Michigan and the Great Lakes region already assess the status and condition of
Michigan’s ecosystems, natural communities, and wildlife populations. Whenever
possible, these efforts should be used to address the needs identified in the WAP. For
example, the MDNR, often in partnership with other agencies and organizations, already
conducts surveys, research, and monitoring on the status and distribution of threatened,
endangered and otherwise imperiled species.
OBJECTIVES:
Objective 1.
Maintain and update the Biotics database.
MNFI will continue to enter new natural heritage data, update existing data, and provide quality
control of data in the Biotics database.
Objective 2.
Database access
MNFI will facilitate accessibility for database users by supporting access to natural heritage data
through MDNR’s IFMAP GIS and through web access to outside users.
EXPECTED RESULTS OR BENEFITS:
The information, expertise, and services that MNFI will provide to the MDNR Wildlife Division
through this project are essential for the Wildlife Division and other MDNR Divisions to address
the conservation of SGCNs. The following results and benefits are expected from this project:

Maintenance of the Biotics database, including maintaining a liaison with federal and
state agencies that have interest in the Biotics database

Review and updating of element occurrence data from sources other than Wildlife
Division or MNFI specific activities

Provide access to natural heritage information (may require fee for access)

Provide technical consultation and assistance with biodiversity conservation efforts and
issues

Provide critical information and a sound scientific basis for the Division’s conservation
of SGCNs.

Portions of the WAP-related information and services that will be developed, maintained,
and provided as part of this project will be accessible to other MDNR divisions as
appropriate. This accessibility will help support additional natural resource management
and biodiversity conservation efforts throughout the state.
This work directly addresses important elements of the WAP. This project will help address the
following WAP elements:
1. The statewide priority threat of lack of scientific knowledge (WAP, pg. 64).
2. The priority issue of rarity (WAP pg. 75).
3. The priority conservation need of identification and elimination of significant information
gaps for SGCN and landscape features (WAP, pg. 86) by assessing species status and trends
using the Biotics database.
APPROACH:
Approach 1.
Maintain and update the Biotics database.
MNFI will maintain a statewide database on natural heritage element occurrences. They will
also review and enter element occurrence records into the database from field surveys and
outside reports. Old element occurrence records with new information or assessments will be
updated, and database errors encountered will be corrected. It is also expected that the database
design will be kept current with new technologies or new national standards.
In cooperation with the Wildlife Division, MNFI is assessing the current process of receiving
and processing natural heritage information in 2012. Assessment includes identification of
information sources, quality of information from each source, advisability of including such
information in the natural heritage database, and examining other approaches and adjuncts to the
natural heritage database, such as establishment of an observational database in addition to, or
incorporation into, the Biotics database.
Approach 2.
Database access
MNFI will make information available to the MDNR, other land management agencies,
researchers and the public. This access will include tailored products generated from the
Biotics database. MNFI will make available summaries or access to information on the locations
of natural heritage elements occurrences on lands managed by MDNR divisions, other agencies,
private individuals, or non-governmental or organizations (NGOs) upon request. MNFI may
charge a fee for access to this data for other natural resource agencies/divisions and outside
users.
As needed, MNFI will assist MDNR staff with the use of the Biotics database. MDNR and
MNFI staff may consult on land management issues where SGCN are potentially impacted and
specifically help them understand the nature of element occurrence records in the database.
MNFI will develop and deliver information products and services pertaining to SGCNs and their
habitats upon request by the MDNR. MNFI staff will also provide consultation and expertise on
MDNR projects that could affect SGCNs and their habitats as requested by MDNR staff.
LOCATION:
Project activities will occur primarily in MDNR offices in Lansing, Michigan.
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Costs may vary by Grant Segment. The estimates provided below may include salaries and
wages, contractual services, supplies, travel expenses and equipment. Specific work activities
and direct cost categories may vary from segment to segment; these activities and cost detail are
provided in the budget narrative for this segment included as Appendix A.
Objectives
FY 2012 Segment 3
1. Maintain and update the Biotics database
2. Database access
$265,000
$35,000
Totals
$300,000
In-Kind Match
Some of the jobs in this study may generate in-kind match from sources outside the Department.
These sources may include volunteer services, donated employee time from outside
organizations and supplies. When these matches are received, they will be valued using the
following methods in accordance with 43 CFR 12.64:
Volunteer labor – Unpaid services will be valued at the pay for similar work conducted
within the Wildlife Division. The per hour rate will be calculated by dividing the total
reported cost of similar activity conducted by full time classified professional employees
during the previous year by the total reported hours of similar activity conducted by full
time classified professional employees. This rate will be multiplied by the total reported
volunteer hours to obtain a final value.
Employees of other organizations – These services will be valued at the employee’s
regular rate of pay exclusive of fringe benefits and overhead costs.
Supplies – Supplies will be valued at their fair market value at the time of donation.
PROJECT PERSONNEL:
Federal Aid Coordinator
Eric Sink
MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator
Budget and Support Services
(517) 335-1064
Grant Coordinator
Christine Hanaburgh
Acting Wildlife Division Federal Aid
Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-9333
Project Leader and Objectives Coordinator
Michael Donovan
Research Specialist
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-7027
CHAPTER 2: SURVEYS AND MONITORING FOR SPECIES OF
GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED
PROJECT STATEMENT: Surveys and monitoring for species of greatest conservation need.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
This project provides support for surveys and monitoring to address information needs for
SGCNs. Specifically, this project provides support for MDNR’s annual frog and toad survey,
development and completion of the second statewide Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan, and
Karner blue butterfly population and habitat monitoring as a component of implementing
Michigan’s Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
PROJECT NEEDS:
Most monitoring activities in this study are designed to determine trends in population levels
over time or to determine population responses to management or environmental conditions.
This information is needed to better prioritize management efforts to address limiting factors on
those areas where management will have the biggest impact, and to evaluate ongoing
management efforts to determine if they need to be modified. In some cases, these studies are
needed to ensure land use activities unrelated to managing for the species are not putting the
species in jeopardy.
The results from all studies will be made available to MDNR staff along with the management
implications and recommendations based on the findings. This information will be incorporated
into site management plans, ecoregional plans, and as part of the adaptive management
component of MDNR’s ecosystem management and planning efforts. Monitoring data is also
needed to revise Michigan’s list of SGCN; recovered species will be removed and species that
are declining may have to be added.
Michigan is home to 13 native species of anurans (frogs and toads). The status, distribution and
population trends of frogs and toads statewide are not well known. These species are often
sensitive indicators of environmental change or contamination. There is a variety of anecdotal
and a growing body of scientific information documenting declines in these species globally,
statewide and at a local level. This concern is not only for the species themselves, but also for
the ecosystems on which they depend. Frogs and toads, like many other aquatic organisms, are
sensitive to changes in water quality and adjacent land use practices, and their populations
undoubtedly serve as an index to environmental quality. Populations need to be systematically
surveyed to determine their status, distribution and population trends. Most of these species in
Michigan are already listed as species of greatest conservation need; all may be heading towards
that designation with few exceptions. This information is needed to update the WAP, but also to
make habitat management recommendations.
In 1983, the Department initiated Michigan’s first comprehensive statewide breeding bird
survey, leading to the publication of the first statewide Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan in
1991. This information provided a reference point for the abundance and distribution of birds
statewide. Since its publication, the book and data have provided vital information for a number
of planning and management projects. This information was vital in developing the species of
greatest conservation need list as well as priority threats and conservation needs for many avian
species in original version of the WAP. This original information is now out-of-date and needs
to be updated to ensure accuracy for use in planning initiatives.
The information compiled into the Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan is needed to address a
number of planning initiatives that will guide management activities for avian species of greatest
conservation need. These include, but are not limited to:
1. Identify high priority sites in Michigan that are important to the reproductive success of
several declining bird species so they can be included in plans for protection and
management.
2. Collect baseline data using an accepted protocol that will allow for long-term monitoring
of trends.
3. Gathering information on the habitat use of nesting species at the landscape level that can
be used in conservation planning and management.
4. Identify important bird habitats in Michigan that occur on private lands to be included in
planning and establishing priority areas of focus for MDNR’s Landowner Incentive
Program (LIP).
All the information gathered from this project addresses information needs necessary to design
management activities, update the list of SGCNs and to revise the WAP.
The Karner blue butterfly (KBB) is a federally endangered species that occupies oak savannah
and barrens, which are some of the rarest and most threatened ecosystems in Michigan. The
historical distribution of Karner blues was widespread in the western and southern Lower
Peninsula, but populations declined as the amount of available habitat was reduced. Surveys
completed by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory indicated that the butterflies are currently
present in at least 10 Southern Michigan counties - Allegan, Ionia, Kent, Lake, Mason, Mecosta,
Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Oceana - though other counties still contain potential
habitat. This reduction in habitat resulted from development, incompatible land uses, and fire
suppression. Without fire, the former open-canopy habitats that lupine requires have undergone
succession to become overgrown or closed-canopy systems. Today the Karner blue persists in
remnants of savanna and barrens, degraded openings, old fields, and utility and highway rightsof-way. Karner blue butterfly habitat is intensively managed, and annual surveys of KBB are
essential to gauge the success of current management efforts and for determining future research
and management for the population.
Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Needs
A significant number of SGCNs have identified needs that include determination of population
status, abundance and distribution. In addition, the following needs identified in Section 1.
Introductory Text & Statewide Assessments will be addressed by this study:
Research & Surveys (page 80) - A statewide status assessment of wildlife distributions
and abundance is necessary to identify baseline conditions for wildlife conservation, a
need that is clearly identified as a priority in the SGCN Status & Species Specific
Information section.
Species Monitoring (page 83) - Collecting, storing and assessing information on
individual species will always be necessary to prevent extinction and to evaluate the
condition of more-specific ecosystem components.
Research and Monitoring Needs (page 88) - Listed needs include the following:

Complete a statewide baseline assessment of wildlife distribution and abundance.

Assess species status and trends using MNFI’s Biotics database, MDNR Fisheries
status and trends databases and other species-assemblage monitoring data.

Conduct more specific and strategic monitoring for individual species that are
imperiled, known indicators of ecological integrity, or known to have specific
requirements that are not assessed by landscape feature monitoring.

Determine habitat use by and threats to SGCN for which basic life-history
information is unavailable.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES:
The goal of this project is to provide land managers and planners with information on SGCNs
necessary to ensure these species remain a component of Michigan’s biodiversity. This goal will
be addressed by the following objectives:
Objective 1.
Annual frog and toad surveys
To conduct annual frog and toad surveys along all established routes and establish new routes as
necessary to provide sufficient survey coverage
Objective 2.
Breeding Bird Atlas coordination and avian population monitoring
To review species accounts and compile data in support of publication of the second volume of
The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Michigan, and monitor breeding activity of selected bird species
Objective 3.
Karner blue butterfly population and habitat monitoring
To conduct annual monitoring of Karner blue butterfly populations and habitat on State lands
PROJECT EXPECTED RESULTS OR BENEFITS:
Information will be used in revising the WAP. Species will be added to or removed from the
SGCN list when appropriate. As part of adaptive management, this information will allow
determination of which activities are having desired effect and which ones need to be modified.
Over the years, the Michigan Frog and Toad Survey is expected to continue to provide a wealth
of information on the status of Michigan frog and toad populations and help monitor the quality
of our environment. The results of annual frog and toad surveys will be used to update the WAP
and incorporate the management needs of frog and toad species into land management plans.
This project will help ensure that our list of the species of greatest conservation need remains
current and that limited resources are directed to management of those species of greater priority.
Additionally, this information will be used in conservation planning, ecoregional planning and
plans to implement the WAP.
Currently The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan (Atlas) is the most comprehensive source of
information on the birds that breed in the state. Periodic updates of the Atlas, such as the
ongoing Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas (MBBA) II project, are necessary to keep the information
current, monitor trends in breeding bird populations and ensure that proper conservation actions
are taken. The MBBA II effort also provides an opportunity to improve and increase the data
collected on species or guilds that are rare, were under surveyed in the initial project, or are
inherently difficult to survey.
The DNR recently received approval from the US Fish and Wildlife Service of our statewide
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis;
KBB). This (HCP) has been developed to facilitate the conservation of oak savanna ecosystems,
Karner blue butterfly, and other associated SGCN on non-federal land in Michigan. It outlines
activities that will be conducted to maintain the early-successional habitat conditions necessary
to support savanna species and communities. The HCP also integrates diverse land uses with
conservation objectives by outlining measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of KBB and
other species that could be caused by activities in occupied KBB habitat. KBB surveys are
called for in this plan to verify that individual KBB are not present on a site during habitat
treatments and to provide data for species management planning.
Approach 1.
Annual frog and toad surveys
This cooperative frog and toad survey is modeled after the very successful Wisconsin Frog and
Toad Survey, which was begun in 1981. Since 1996, when the annual frog and toad survey
began, data has been submitted from all 83 Michigan counties, with an average of nearly 200
survey routes reporting each year.
Surveys are conducted by trained and experienced staff and volunteers that annually review their
knowledge of frog and toad calls. The frog and toad survey begins in April and continues
through early summer. Volunteers travel along an established 10 stop route, driving for a half
mile, then stopping and listening for five minutes. They record what they hear on a scale from 0
(nothing) to 3 (too noisy to count individual calls) for each species. Routes are less than 35
miles, with each stop along the route being at least one half mile apart. Established protocols
call for surveying each route three times within time periods that coincide with latitude based
phenology. Protocols include threshold limits for climatic and noise variables. A minimum of
two weeks must separate each route survey.
When survey routes become unsuitable for data collection due to development or increased
disturbance, new route locations are grossly identified by analysis of habitat layers in GIS
compared with established routes. Then routes are specifically determined based on wetland
habitat availability determined from local maps and wetland knowledge of the area. Busy streets
or highways, certain industrial sites, and farms with barking dogs are avoided, as are any other
areas with excessive background noise.
Volunteer coordination occurs via an email listserv maintained by Wildlife Division staff in
Lansing. This listserv is intended as a communication tool between survey volunteers and with
the Survey Coordinator. It provides an easy way of communicating announcements or updates
to everyone at once, and for volunteers to report problems or questions encountered during the
survey. Data is compiled and analyzed by Wildlife Division staff, and a final report is produced
and made available on the DNR web site.
Approach 2.
Breeding Bird Atlas coordination and avian population monitoring
Development of the second Breeding Bird Atlas has been a joint effort between MDNR and the
Kalamazoo Nature Center, which was responsible for coordination of the first breeding bird
survey. The second breeding bird atlas was initiated in 2002 as a 7-8 year project. The first five
years were focused on comprehensive statewide surveys to determine distributions and habitats
of Michigan breeding birds. Following completion of surveys, the atlas project focused on data
verification and compilation. The final, currently ongoing phase, includes manuscript
development and publication of the second statewide breeding bird atlas.
In FY 2012, DNR staff will be involved in editing and reviewing approximately 42 species
accounts, along with the chapters on methods, results, conservation partnerships, and the
Important Bird Areas Program for the second Breeding Bird Atlas. Significant time will also be
spent on quality control of the bird observation database that contains the Atlas survey data.
There is also a geospatial component to the database that Wildlife Division GIS staff are
updating with more modern data layers than the ones used to develop the database at the
beginning of the BBA project. As part of updating the database and implementing quality
control, Wildlife Division staff are creating an accompanying metadata document explaining the
survey methodology, data field definitions and criteria, and data entry processes.
Wildlife Division also coordinates statewide monitoring of peregrine falcon breeding activity.
This includes ordering and distributing bird bands, tracking the status of nest sites, data
collection from nest locations in the Upper Peninsula, southeast Michigan, and the west side of
the state, and following up with building managers where peregrines have been sited to
encourage future monitoring of the birds. These activities are done in partnership with the
Midwest Peregrine Falcon Restoration Project, and Michigan prepares and submits an annual
status report on peregrine breeding activity.
Approach 3.
Karner blue butterfly population and habitat monitoring
Monitoring will be conducted to help evaluate KBB distribution and to assess effects of HCP
activities on KBB populations and habitat on MDNR lands.
The objectives of monitoring will be to:
• quantify habitat conditions before and after treatment/disturbance
• assess KBB numbers before and after treatment/disturbance
• evaluate techniques for their success in enhancing KBB habitat
• evaluate techniques for compatibility with KBB persistence
• assess success of mitigation efforts
• track KBB take at the statewide level
Monitoring will include two components: habitat monitoring and population monitoring. Data
for both components will be collected prior to treatment/disturbance and during years 1 and 2
following treatment/disturbance. Habitat monitoring and population monitoring will be
conducted at least once during the second KBB flight (July–August) in FY 2012.
Population monitoring will document presence/absence and relative abundance (if present) of
KBB. Prior to conducting habitat management activities for KBB, presence/absence surveys will
be used to determine the presence and distribution of KBB within proposed treatment areas
where the species is likely to occur. Whenever pre-treatment surveys are not conducted in areas
where the species has been observed recently (i.e., in the past 5 years), presence of KBB
throughout the treatment areas will be assumed. Pre-treatment habitat assessments will also be
used to identify the most degraded habitat portions on which to focus treatment. Selected sites
with potential KBB habitat but which have not been occupied during previous surveys will be
walked until a KBB is spotted. If a site is vacant, a return visit will be made every 3-4 days to
assess again until flight season is over. Habitat monitoring will quantify the area and estimated
density of lupine and nectar plants.
The following activities will be used to track and report performance for objectives within this
project statement:
Project Title
Surveys and
monitoring for
species of greatest
conservation need.
Objective
1. Annual frog and toad surveys
2. Breeding Bird Atlas
coordination and avian
population monitoring
3. Karner blue butterfly
population and habitat
monitoring
LOCATION:
Project activities will occur statewide.
Reporting Units
Number of survey routes
completed
Number of species accounts
finalized
Status of Breeding Bird Atlas
completion
Number of population and habitat
surveys
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Costs may vary by Grant Segment. The estimates provided below may include salaries and
wages, contractual services, supplies, travel expenses and equipment. Specific work activities
and direct cost categories may vary from segment to segment; these activities and cost detail are
provided in the budget narrative for this segment included as Appendix A.
Objectives
FY 2012 Segment 3
1. Annual frog and toad surveys
TBD
2. Breeding Bird Atlas coordination and avian population
monitoring
TBD
3. Karner blue butterfly population and habitat monitoring
TBD
Totals
PROJECT PERSONNEL:
Federal Aid Coordinator
Eric Sink
MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator
Budget and Support Services
(517) 335-1064
Grant Coordinator
Christine Hanaburgh
Acting Wildlife Division Federal Aid
Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-9333
Project Leader and Objectives Coordinator,
Objective 1
Lori Sargent
Resource Analyst
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-9418
Project Leader and Objectives Coordinator,
Objective 2
Karen Cleveland
All Bird Biologist
Wildlife Division
(517) 241-2450
Project Leader and Objectives Coordinator,
Objective 3
Dan Kennedy
Endangered Species Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 241-3944
CHAPTER 3: HABITAT MANAGEMENT FOR SPECIES OF GREATEST
CONSERVATION NEED
PROJECT STATEMENT: Control of invasive species that threaten the integrity and
sustainability of habitat required by species of greatest conservation need.
SUMMARY:
Invasive species of a non-native origin have significantly affected the landscape in Michigan.
Native species have been displaced and in some cases ecosystem processes and functions have
been disrupted. There is also a looming threat of even more introductions of non-native species
that may become invasive and harmful to native biodiversity given the global nature of today’s
society. This project is designed to combat those invasive species already present through direct
habitat management and technical support to managers.
NEED:
Beginning with European settlement of North America, the intentional and unintentional release
of invasive exotic species has caused some of the most significant landscape impacts. High
speed international travel has only increased the risk of establishing new species. Estimates
place the number of established invasive exotics since the 1800s in Michigan at 160 with
additional species projected to occur in the near future. The introduction of many non-native
species has severely affected native species and their associated habitats. In some cases invasive
species threaten the existence of native wildlife. Michigan has experienced significant impacts
from many invasive species including: zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), common reed (Phragmites australis),
kudzu (Pueraria montana), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), round gobies (Neogobius
melanostomus), sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus), European ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus),
Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia), tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), emerald ash borer (Agrilus
planipennis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and others.
Control of invasive species is essential to protect native biodiversity. Research into different
controls and management techniques has identified opportunities and protocols for controlling or
eliminating some invasive species. Application of these findings and evaluation of activities on
various sites will assist in control of invasive species.
Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Needs
Invasive species are identified in Michigan’s WAP as a priority threat in every Michigan
ecoregion in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Consequently, a Priority Conservation Action
(PCA) in virtually all landscape features is to institute invasive species monitoring and to
implement prevention and control programs.
OBJECTIVES:
The goal of this project is to reduce the impacts of invasive species on native communities and to
limit the introduction of new invasive species. This will be accomplished by the following
objectives:
Objective 1.
Invasive species program administration
To provide ongoing administrative support of the MDNR’s invasive species control program and
to provide technical assistance to invasive species control practitioners.
Objective 2.
Invasive species control
To reduce invasive species impacts on wildlife and their habitats by implementing approved
control methods on State lands.
EXPECTED RESULTS OR BENEFITS:
The control of invasive species, whether they are plant or animal, will protect native wildlife
species and their associated habitats. Continued evaluation will provide additional resources and
management tools to control or eliminate invasive exotic species.
APPROACH:
With support from this grant, Wildlife Division will continue to develop our invasive species
control program. The purpose of the program is to compile information on exotic invasive
species, determine the severity of their threat to native species and communities, coordinate
information on effective control techniques, identify research needs on control methods, provide
technical support to field units, and continually update and revise information based on an
adaptive management strategy. Implementation of control techniques is provided by field units
and this grant will provide necessary financial support for control measures.
Approach 1.
Invasive species program administration
The administration of the invasive species program will be conducted by the Planning and
Adaptation Section of the Wildlife Division. This unit will be responsible for compiling
information on invasive species of concern and disseminating this information to other sections
and the Department. Activities included in the administration of this program include:

Develop and maintain a list of invasive species of concern to Michigan’s species of
greatest conservation need and their habitats

Pursue partnerships and grant funds to meet and further develop invasive species program
goals

Assist in indentifying surveys and monitoring needs for the species as well as compiling
surveys and monitoring data.

Assist in identifying research needs on control and eradication methods

Evaluate threats and prioritize control activities

Consolidate control methods and provide control information to field units

Address legal and regulatory issues
Approach 2.
Invasive species control
Field personnel will identify areas with significant impacts from invasive species and implement
control activities using the appropriate techniques and protocols. Activities available for
implementation will vary with species and location. Control activities may include one or more
techniques from the following four categories: biological, chemical, physical and prescribed fire.
Adaptive management will be used to monitor efficacy of control methods and adjust as
necessary or as new information becomes available.
Biological Controls: These control activities include introducing a biological agent to control
the target species. Biological agents may include other organisms or viruses. These agents may
be native to systems where they are being released or they may be of a non-native origin. The
use of biological agents will follow all applicable state and federal laws, regulations and
procedures. Procedures will be developed and followed to ensure there are no or minimal impact
on non-target species both before and after release into native systems. This type of control can
be very effective, particularly for some plant species.
Chemical Controls: These activities include the use of various organic and inorganic pesticides.
The use of pesticides is governed by appropriate state and federal laws, regulations, policies and
rules. Wildlife technicians and assistants involved in the use of pesticides must be accredited
through the Michigan Department of Agriculture as certified pesticide applicators as a condition
of employment. A certified pesticide applicator must be on site whenever pesticides are being
used. Pesticide use will be restricted to approved chemicals at appropriate application rates and
will follow all label instructions.
Based on findings of research studies on garlic mustard control, a 1% Glyphosate has been
shown to mimic damage caused by weevils and cause significant mortality. Applications will be
applied to coincide with the natural occurrence of weevils. Sites will be monitored and
compared to non-treated areas to determine the effectiveness of this method of control.
Physical Controls: These activities include direct control methods by hand or mechanical
device, such as mowing, disking, plowing, chopping or other methods. In addition, manipulating
environmental conditions by mechanical means may be included such as fluctuating water levels,
particularly for controlling nonnative Phragmites.
On sensitive areas such as designated Natural Areas, invasive species control may involve nonmechanized activities. On these sites control of garlic mustard requires manual labor to pull
plants. To be successful in the long term this method may require the establishment of local
volunteer stewardship efforts to assist in control activities. Plants removed from these sites will
be destroyed using recommended methods to ensure no viable material remains. Established
protocols to ensure that neither seeds nor any regenerative plant parts are transferred off infected
sites will be implemented.
Mechanical cutting is the best techniques for controlling invasive shrubs like autumn olive and
buckthorn are. Mechanical control of shrubs is generally followed by direct herbicide
application to the stumps. Additional treatment may include prescribed burning to reduce
sprouting of new plants.
Prescribed Fire: Prescribed fire can be an excellent primary and followup technique for
controlling invasive shrubs and nonwoody vegetation such as Phragmites and reed canary grass.
The use of prescribed fire follows strict MDNR policies and procedures. Prescribed burning to
control invasive plants will not be conducted on areas with populations of federally listed
species.
The following activities and accomplishment units will be used for tracking and performance
reporting on these Project objectives:
Project Title
Objective
Control of invasive species that
threaten the integrity and
sustainability of habitat required by
species of greatest conservation
need
Reporting Units
Hours spent administering
program
1. Invasive species
program administration
2. Invasive species control
Acres of invasive species
treated
LOCATION:
Project activities will occur on State lands statewide.
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Costs may vary by Grant Segment. The estimates provided below may include salaries and
wages, contractual services, supplies, travel expenses and equipment. Specific work activities
and direct cost categories may vary from segment to segment; these activities and cost detail are
provided in the budget narrative for this segment included as Appendix A.
Objectives
1. Invasive species program administration
2. Invasive species control
FY 2012 Segment 3
$40,000
$430,000
Totals
$470,000
PROJECT PERSONNEL:
Federal Aid Coordinator
Eric Sink
MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator
Budget and Support Services
(517) 335-1064
Grant Coordinator
Christine Hanaburgh
Acting Wildlife Division Federal Aid
Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-9333
Objectives 1-2 Coordinator
Sue Tangora
Invasive Species Specialist
Wildlife Division
(517) 241-1153
PROJECT STATEMENT: Grassland restoration and management.
SUMMARY:
Though never dominated by grasses, Michigan contained an estimated 2.3 million acres of
grasslands before European settlement. These grassland ecosystems included several plant
communities such as wet prairies, tall grass prairies, pine barrens, oak barrens and oak savanna.
The majority of large contiguous acreage of grasslands occurred primarily in the glacial
interlobate regions of southern Michigan. Approximately 99% of these original grasslands have
been lost or relegated to small remnant patches due to agriculture, urban sprawl, fire suppression
and forest succession.
NEED:
The loss of grassland communities and the resultant impact on ecosystems has been severe.
Remaining grasslands are relegated to small remnant patches where their continued existence is
threatened by lack of management and restoration of natural processes. The grassland systems
of particular concern and facing immediate threats are those along the prairie-savanna
continuum. This includes communities dominated by native grasses where tree canopy cover
ranges from less than 5% for prairies to 5-60% for savannas.
Many of the prairies in the Southern Lower Peninsula have been lost due to development,
conversion to agriculture, or lack of disturbance leading to vegetative succession. Currently,
most of the prairies in the Southern Lower Peninsula are considered to be degraded or highly
degraded (>80%). Very few, roughly 5%, remain in good or excellent condition. Many of these
natural communities are classified as imperiled or critically imperiled within the state or globally
(e.g., lakeplain mesic sand prairie, mesic prairie), due to high or extreme rarity.
Most remaining savanna in the Southern Lower Peninsula is considered to be degraded or very
degraded (~90%) due to vegetative succession and development. Several savanna natural
communities are classified as imperiled or critically imperiled within the state and globally (e.g.,
lakeplain oak openings) due to high or extreme rarity.
The significant loss of contiguous habitat has affected many grassland interior species. Notably,
populations of Henslow’s sparrow, savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper,
bobolink and short-eared owl have declined drastically. Plants such as prairie smoke, prairie
Indian plantain, prairie dropseed and eastern prairie-fringed orchid depend on grassland
communities and have become rare. Other species that depend on grasslands for a portion of
their life history are also affected including animals such as the eastern fox snake, prairie warbler
and Eastern wild turkey.
The restoration of large contiguous grasslands is necessary to restore and maintain grassland
species in Michigan. Grassland restoration is also necessary to restore proper community
composition to interlobate ecosystems primarily in southern Michigan. These communities
contain 96 species of greatest conservation need identified in the WAP consisting of 44 insects, 6
amphibians, 11 reptiles, 30 birds and 5 mammals.
Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Needs
The land management conservation actions needed as identified in the WAP for these grasslands
that will be addressed by this proposal are:

In remaining habitats manage to approximate natural disturbance regimes using
prescribed fire, managed grazing or mowing.

Institute invasive species monitoring, prevention and control programs.

Provide contiguous dry and mesic grassland areas of at least 250 acres.
Additionally, a propagation program is needed to provide the seed source for grassland
restorations. The collection and propagation of local genotypes will help ensure a bank of native
biodiversity exists to mitigate the further loss of remnant grassland patches.
OBJECTIVES:
Objective 1.
Native grassland restoration and maintenance
Up to 500 acres of native grasslands will be established, restored or maintained on MDNR
managed lands. Whenever possible, grassland management will focus on using, restoring and
protecting native genotypes.
Objective 2.
Local genotype collection and propagation
To collect seeds for use in native genotype propagation programs to provide seed source for
other restoration efforts.
EXPECTED RESULTS OR BENEFITS:
Restoration of grassland on public and private lands will enhance the populations of grassland
dependent birds and other wildlife species associated with grassland habitats. The collection of
local genotypes will provide a seed source for restoration projects and help preserve Michigan’s
native biodiversity. From the WAP, the associated natural communities that will be restored,
managed and maintained are:
Bur Oak Plains
Dry Sand Prairie
Hillside Prairie
Lakeplain Mesic Sand Prairie
Lakeplain Wet Prairie
Lakeplain Wet-mesic Prairie
Lakeplain Oak Openings
Mesic Prairie
Woodland Prairie
Mesic Sand Prairie
Wet Prairie
Wet-mesic Prairie
Great Lakes Barrens
Oak Barrens
Oak Openings
Oak-Pine Barrens
Pine Barrens
Northern Bald (Krummholz ridgetop)
From the WAP the associated species of greatest conservation need that will benefit from this
project are:
INSECTS
barrens locust (Orphulella pelidna pelidna)
a spur-throat grasshopper (Melanoplus
eurycercus)
blue-legged locust (Melanoplus flavidus)
Hebard's green-legged locust (Melanoplus
viridipes)
Atlantic-coast locust (Psinidia fenestralis
fenestralis)
secretive locust (Appalachia arcana)
conehead grasshopper (Neoconocephalus
retusus)
delicate meadow katydid (Orchelimum delicatum)
Davis's shield-bearer (Atlanticus davisi)
tamarack tree cricket (Oecanthus laricis)
angular spittlebug (Lepyronia angulifera)
great plains spittlebug (Lepyronia gibbosa)
a spittlebug (Philaenarcys killa)
red-legged spittlebug (Prosapia ignipectus)
a leafhopper (Dorydiella kansana)
a leafhopper (Flexamia delongi)
Huron River leafhopper (Flexamia huroni)
a leafhopper (Flexamia reflexus)
American burying beetle (Nicrophorus
americanus)
wild indigo duskywing (Erynnis baptisiae)
persius duskywing (Erynnis persius persius)
grizzled skipper (Pyrgus wyandot)
poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek)
ottoe skipper (Hesperia ottoe)
dusted skipper (Atrytonopsis hianna)
pipevine swallowtail (Battus philenor)
northern hairstreak (Fixsenia favonius ontario)
northern blue (Lycaeides idas nabokovi)
Karner blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis)
Henry's elfin (Callophrys henrici)
frosted elfin (Callophrys irus)
regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia)
gorgone checkerspot (Chlosyne gorgone carlota)
tawny crescent (Phyciodes batesii)
Mitchell's satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii)
barrens buckmoth (Hemileuca maia)
Sprague's pygarctia (Pygarctia spraguei)
boreal fan moth (Brachionycha borealis)
three-staff underwing (Catocala amestris)
quiet underwing (Catocala dulciola)
Doll's merolonche (Merolonche dolli)
Newman's brocade (Meropleon ambifusca)
blazing star borer (Papaipema beeriana)
golden borer (Papaipema cerina)
maritime sunflower borer (Papaipema maritima)
Culvers root borer (Papaipema sciata)
silphium borer moth (Papaipema silphii)
regal fern borer (Papaipema speciosissima)
phlox moth (Schinia indiana)
spartina borer moth (Spartiniphaga inops)
AMPHIBIANS
smallmouth salamander (Ambystoma texanum)
eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum
tigrinum)
Fowler's toad (Bufo fowleri)
Blanchard's cricket frog (Acris crepitans
blanchardi)
pickerel frog (Rana palustris)
northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens)
REPTILES
Kirtland's snake (Clonophis kirtlandii)
blue racer (Coluber constrictor foxii)
eastern fox snake (Elaphe gloydi)
black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta)
western fox snake (Elaphe vulpina)
eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos)
smooth green snake (Liochlorophis vernalis)
six-lined racerunner (Apidoscelis sexlineatus)
eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus
catenatus)
spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata)
Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina)
BIRDS
Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors)
Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus
phasianellus)
Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus)
American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Merlin (Falco columbarius)
Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Barn Owl (Tyto alba)
Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)
Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)
Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes
erythrocephalus)
Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)
Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)
Least Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus)
Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus)
Migrant Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus
migrans)
Northern Shrike (Lanius excubitor)
Purple Martin (Progne subis)
Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis)
Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum)
Kirtland's Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii)
Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor)
Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)
Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla)
Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus)
Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)
Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii)
Dickcissel (Spiza americana)
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)
Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna)
Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
least shrew (Cryptotis parva)
Indiana bat or Indiana myotis (Myotis sodalis)
least chipmunk (Tamias minimus)
prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster)
woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum)
southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi)
deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis)
MAMMALS
APPROACH:
Approach 1.
Native grassland restoration and maintenance
Remnant prairie and savanna patches will be identified and prioritized for restoration. Most
restoration activities will take place on southern Michigan Wildlife Management Areas, State
Parks, and State Recreation Areas. Up to 500 acres are expected to be targeted under this
objective. Restoration will include the use of prescribed fire, herbicides, mowing and other
mechanical techniques, hand clearing of undesirable or exotic vegetation and seed augmentation
as individual site needs dictate. Prescribed fire on state lands will be conducted in conjunction
with MDNR’s Forest Resources Division and will follow an approved burn plan.
Areas no longer having original plant material will be planted to native grasses using special
native grass planters and seed purchased in cooperation with private conservation groups.
Approach 2.
Local genotype collection and propagation
Parks and Recreation Division staff will collect grass and forb seed from remnant grasslands and
established propagation fields to be used as foundation stock for the propagation of local
genotype sources. Original seed source collections will be completed by hand through volunteer
projects. Because volunteer work is very dependent on weather and turnout, it is difficult to
project how much will be accomplished through volunteer labor. Seeds produced from this
source will be used on other public land restoration and establishment projects.
The following activities and accomplishment units will be used for tracking and performance
reporting on these Project objectives:
Project Title
Objective
Grassland restoration and
management
1. Native grassland
restoration and maintenance
2. Local genotype collection
and propagation
LOCATION:
All project activities will occur statewide.
Reporting Units
Acres of grasslands restored,
enhanced or maintained
Pounds of seed collected and
produced
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Costs may vary by Grant Segment. The estimates provided below may include salaries and
wages, contractual services, supplies, travel expenses and equipment. Specific work activities
and direct cost categories may vary from segment to segment; these activities and cost detail are
provided in the budget narrative for this segment included as Appendix A.
Objectives
FY 20012 Segment 3
1. Native grassland restoration and
maintenance
$170,000
2. Local genotype collection and propagation
Totals
$8,000
$178,000
PROJECT PERSONNEL:
Federal Aid Coordinator
Eric Sink
MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator
Budget and Support Services
(517) 335-1064
Grant Coordinator
Christine Hanaburgh
Acting Wildlife Division Federal Aid
Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-9333
Project Leader
Mark Sargent
Private Lands Specialist
Wildlife Division
(517) 241-0666
PROJECT STATEMENT: Jack pine forest regeneration, maintenance, and management.
SUMMARY:
The jack pine forests of Michigan’s Northern Lower Peninsula are part of a uniquely adapted
system that developed on the dry sand outwash glacial plains. Historically, the most important
process maintaining this system has been periodic wildfire. The goal of this project is to
reestablish the disturbance regime necessary to provide a sufficient amount of early successional
jack pine forest to maintain dependent species and aid in the recovery of the Kirtland’s Warbler.
As part of adaptive management this work will be monitored, assessed and modified as
necessary to ensure proper application of techniques. This information will be used in planning
efforts and as part of the recovery of the Kirtland’s Warbler.
NEED:
The recovery of the federally listed Kirtland’s Warbler is dependent on sufficient acreage of
early successional jack pine habitat. Historically, this habitat was created and maintained by
periodic wildfires. Jack pine and other commensal plant species evolved to take advantage of
this ecological process. In turn, wildlife species also adapted to the changes initiated by and
successional stages maintained by fire. Over a century of fire suppression has interrupted the
disturbance regime of the jack pine forest and eliminated the maintenance of much of the early
successional stage on the landscape. Consequently, those species dependent on young jack pine
stands also declined. Most notable of these declines is the federally listed endangered Kirtland’s
Warbler, but other species such as the Black-backed Woodpecker, which depends on the
standing dead pine left after burns, also declined.
Prescribed fires need to be used to mimic this ecological process. Development in the area,
however, restricts the extent to which prescribed fires can be used. Therefore, other mechanical
techniques need to be developed and used to recreate the necessary disturbance regime within the
parent ecosystem. In the absence of fire, seeding and planting needs to occur to generate new
stands of jack pines.
Monitoring and evaluation of regeneration techniques is needed along with additional research in
new techniques as part of an adaptive management approach. The management of jack pine is
still experimental; therefore, techniques used must be evaluated to ensure they are having the
desired effect. The results of monitoring and evaluation need to be incorporated into a planning
system to make sure management is suitably adapted to changing information.
Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Needs
The Kirtland’s Warbler is a SGCN listed in the WAP. The SGCN Status & Species-Specific
Issues section of the WAP on page 198 lists altered fire regime, fragmentation and forestry
practices as threats to this species. The habitat work supported by this statement is needed to
address these species-specific threats. Additionally, the WAP notes the Kirtland’s Warbler is
very selective in regards to both vegetation species composition and structural composition of
nesting sites.
OBJECTIVES:
The goal of this project is to restore and maintain the jack pine forests, which requires restoration
of disturbance regimes and successful regeneration of the jack pine stands. This will be
accomplished by the following objectives:
Objective 1.
Regeneration of jack pine
To regenerate and/or maintain 1000 acres of jack pine annually by preparing sites, planting and
seeding.
Objective 2.
Jack pine management
To annually assess impacts and benefits of current jack pine barrens management and
recommend alterations for improvement. Includes conducting a regeneration analysis of acres
treated under Objective 1.
EXPECTED RESULTS OR BENEFITS:
Jack pine forests occur within the dry conifer ecosystem of Michigan’s Northern Lower
Peninsula. With its obvious importance to the federally listed endangered Kirtland’s Warbler,
this ecosystem component has global significance. This management will also benefit other
species of greatest conservation need within this ecosystem that depend on this community type.
From the WAP, the associated natural communities where early successional jack pine forest can
occur are:
Boreal Forest
Dry Northern Forest
Dry-mesic Northern Forest
Wooded Dune and Swale Complex
From the WAP, the associated species of greatest conservation need that occur within these
communities are:
INSECTS
secretive locust (Appalachia arcana)
dusted skipper (Atrytonopsis hianna)
gorgone checkerspot (Chlosyne gorgone carlota)
pine imperial moth (Eacles imperialis pini)
boreal fan moth (Brachionycha borealis)
AMPHIBIANS
blue-spotted salamander (Ambystoma laterale)
REPTILES
black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta)
eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos)
smooth green snake (Liochlorophis vernalis)
eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina)
BIRDS
Spruce Grouse (Falcipennis canadensis)
Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
Merlin (Falco columbarius)
Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus)
Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)
Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus)
Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)
Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum)
Kirtland's Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii)
Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor)
Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis)
Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)
Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra)
White-winged Crossbill (Loxia leucoptera)
Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus)
MAMMALS
pygmy shrew (Sorex hoyi)
red bat (Lasiurus borealis)
hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)
American marten (Martes americana)
northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus)
woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum)
southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi)
deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis)
snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus)
APPROACH:
Approach 1.
Regeneration of jack pine
Sites will be selected based on appropriateness for regeneration. Regeneration efforts include
site preparation that can involve roller chopping or prescribed fires to prepare the seedbed. Soil
disking and trenching may also be required. If an adequate seed source does not exist then the
site will be planted with 2-3 year old jack pine seedlings. A total of 1000 acres will be
regenerated annually.
Any prescribed fires used as part of the site preparation on state owned lands will have burn
plans developed in cooperation with MDNR’s Forest Resources Division. Prescribed fires will
be conducted in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
Approach 2.
Jack pine management
Regeneration evaluations will be conducted on previously planted sites to determine need for
additional plantings. Growth and stem density factors will be used determine the need for
additional plantings to meet optimum stem densities (minimum 1,200 stems/acre) identified for
Kirtland’s Warbler nesting habitat. Management activities will be coordinated with other state
and federal agencies through the federal Kirtland’s Warbler recovery team. It is estimated that
1,000–1,500 acres will be affected each year.
The following activities and accomplishment units will be used for tracking and performance
reporting on these Project objectives:
Project Title
Jack pine forest
regeneration, maintenance
and management
Objective
1. Regeneration of jack pine
Reporting Units
Acres regenerated
2. Jack pine management
Acres surveyed
LOCATION:
Kirtland’s Warbler management areas in the northern portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula.
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Costs may vary by Grant Segment. The estimates provided below may include salaries and
wages, contractual services, supplies, travel expenses and equipment. Specific work activities
and direct cost categories may vary from segment to segment; these activities and cost detail are
provided in the budget narrative for this segment included as Appendix A.
Objectives
FY 2012 Segment 3
1. Regeneration of jack pine
$450,000
2. Jack pine management
$15,000
Totals
$465,000
PROJECT PERSONNEL:
Federal Aid Coordinator
Eric Sink
MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator
Budget and Support Services
(517) 335-1064
Grant Coordinator
Christine Hanaburgh
Acting Wildlife Division Federal Aid
Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-9333
Objectives 1 and 2 Coordinator
Rex Ainslie
Northern Lower Region Supervisor
Wildlife Division
(989) 684-9141
CHAPTER 4: POPULATION MANAGEMENT FOR SPECIES OF
GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED
PROJECT STATEMENT: Conservation of individuals and/or populations to ensure
perseverance of populations of species of greatest conservation need identified in the Wildlife
Action Plan.
SUMMARY:
For certain species, habitat components necessary to complete their life cycle or protect stages of
their life cycle are needed. Coarse filter habitat management efforts would miss these speciesspecific needs. In 2012, this project supports protection of beach nesting sites of piping plovers.
NEED:
Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Needs
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) reproductive success is affected by human disturbance on
the open sandy beaches where they nest. The WAP identifies protection of breeding pairs and
nest sites and public education and awareness as key components for successful reproduction and
recovery of the species. A nest protection program is needed to identify nesting areas, enclose
individual nests to prevent trampling and predation of the camouflaged eggs, and band chicks
and adults to determine reproductive outputs.
Objective 1.
Piping plover recovery management
To annually partner in the coordination of piping plover information dissemination, management
planning, education, nest site protection, and banding activities.
EXPECTED RESULTS OR BENEFITS:
Long-term, this project will ensure the stability of piping plover populations in Michigan.
Selected habitat enhancement techniques will shorten the time until full restoration and
protection of piping plovers can be assured. These activities will provide acceptable substitutes
for natural processes or features lacking in suitable habitats. Coordination support among
organizations involved in piping plover recovery will help ensure that resources are used
efficiently and opportunities to assist species recovery are maximized.
APPROACH:
Approach 1.
Piping plover recovery management
MDNR’s participation in piping plover recovery management will be accomplished through
three main activities:
Piping Plover Recovery Coordination: MDNR staff, primarily the Threatened and Endangered
Species Coordinator and the Upper Peninsula Regional Wildlife Ecologist, attend pre and post
breeding season meetings to build and maintain relationships with other piping plover
management partners. Information about last year’s breeding season, activities on the wintering
grounds, disease and predation issues, and activities for the current year’s season are discussed
and provide valuable information to the agency. MDNR staff also coordinate distribution of
field supplies among agency staff and volunteers involved in piping plover recovery activities.
Piping Plover nest protection: MDNR staff conduct nest exclosure activities with partners and
provide support to volunteer monitors as needed. Once nests have been found, temporary and
permanent predator exclosures will be erected over the nest. The nest will be monitored to
ensure continued access to nesting adults. Nest sites will be monitored and abandoned eggs will
be recovered for potential incubation and hatching. Incubation will occur at the University of
Michigan Biological Station in Pellston. Non-viable eggs will be submitted for contaminant
level analysis.
Psychological fencing used to protect nesting, foraging, and brood rearing areas will consist of
stakes, posts and twine. These sites will also be posted with signs indicating the use of the area
by piping plovers. The sites will be periodically monitored to ensure that human activity does
not occur within the fenced area. Volunteer beach monitors will make contacts with humans
whose activity violates any closures. They will provide information on the piping plovers,
purpose and need for closures, and answer questions about plover management.
All surveys, exclusion construction and placement, egg collection, and chick rearing will be
conducted according to protocols established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for piping
plover recovery activities.
Piping Plover banding: Piping plover banding is conducted by the University of Minnesota
under a separate grant agreement with MDNR.
All identified activities are included in the Piping Plover recovery plan. Many of the activities in
this project involve the use of volunteers, seasonal and short term employees and contracted
individuals. Contract employees will need to meet the following minimum qualifications: (1)
Proven expertise not less than 5 years in working with piping plovers or a related species; (2)
Expertise and knowledge of the piping plover recovery efforts in Michigan; (3) Proven expertise
in working with multiple state and federal agencies, conservation organizations and private
individuals (volunteers); and (4) Experience in coordinating projects across wide geographic
areas.
The following activities will be used to track and report performance for objectives within this
project statement:
Project Title
Objective
Reporting Units
Conservation of individuals and/or
populations to ensure perseverance of
populations of species of greatest
conservation need identified in the
WAP.
1. Piping plover
recovery
management
Number of coordination
meetings
Number of nest exclosures
constructed
LOCATION:
Piping plover nest protection will occur in occupied costal areas primarily in the Northern Lower
Peninsula and the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Coordination activities will occur
statewide.
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Costs may vary by Grant Segment. The estimates provided below may include salaries and
wages, contractual services, supplies, travel expenses and equipment. Specific work activities
and direct cost categories may vary from segment to segment; these activities and cost detail are
provided in the budget narrative for this segment included as Appendix A.
Objectives
FY 2012 Segment 3
1. Piping Plover recovery management
$2,000
Totals
$2,000
PROJECT PERSONNEL:
Federal Aid Coordinator
Eric Sink
MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator
Budget and Support Services
(517) 335-1064
Grant Coordinator
Christine Hanaburgh
Acting Wildlife Division Federal Aid
Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-9333
Project Leader and Objectives Coordinator
Dan Kennedy
Endangered Species Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 241-3944
CHAPTER 5: WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN REVISIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PROJECT STATEMENT: Revising and implementing Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan.
SUMMARY:
Michigan's Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) is the first ever attempt to consider the conservation
needs of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife that are representative of the full diversity of our state's
wildlife populations and their habitats, in a manner that is consistent throughout the entire state.
The first edition of Michigan’s WAP provided a key assessment on 404 species of greatest
conservaion need, their habitats, threats, and needs. This project will continue to implement the
Wildlife Action Plan, revise it to be more effective, continue to take a collaborative approach
with partners, and develop materials and conduct activities to support integration and
implementation.
NEED:
Michigan's WAP is based on the best scientific knowledge that was available as the action plan
was developed. Through ongoing research, monitoring, and management, new information is
continually amassed about species, habitats, threats, and needs. For example, we have
significantly more information on potential impacts of climate change and the need for
adaptation strategies than was available when the WAP was first developed. As such, the plan
needs to be modified accordingly. Further, the first version of the WAP was more of an
assessment of species of greatest conservation need and their habitats. The plan provided a full
report of the needs. However, the size of the overall document has proven to be a stumbling
block to full implementation. To make implementation more effective, a revision of the plan is
needed to prioritize and focus efforts. Wildlife Action Plans are also required to be reviewed at
least every ten years; Michigan’s review is due in 2015.
The engagement of key partners and the public must continue to conserve species of greatest
conservation need and their habitats in Michigan. Sucessful implementation of the action plan
can only be achieved through cooperation with and active participation from the diverse
community of conservation partners concerned with Michigan's wildlife. Congress recognized
this when they included broad public participation as an essential element of developing and
implementing these action plans. To ensure that partners and the public are more engaged in the
implementation of the WAP, they need to be informed about what it is and how to use it.
Administrative support and informational tools are also needed to guide and coordinate
implementation efforts by the Department. To ensure successful implementation of priorities in
the Wildlife Action Plan, they need to be communicated to and understood by all parties
involved in WAP implementation. Creating easy to read materials to help partners and
individuals include plan priorities into their work is important. It is also important to ensure that
the information in Wildlife Action Plan is easily accessible to partners and the public and that
Department staff have the tools and administrative support needed to effectively implement the
WAP.
To maximize the implementation of the WAP, the Wildlife Action Plan needs to be integrated
and incorporated into other land use plans, planning initiatives, conservation approaches, and
operational efforts. MDNR has a variety of statewide, regional and site specific land use plans
and planning initiatives for Department owned and controlled lands. Working within already
established efforts will be the fastest way to implement the Wildlife Action Plan.
OBJECTIVES:
The goals of this project are to ensure the WAP remains up-to-date with the latest scientific
information, the actions called for in the plan are successfully implemented, SWG funds to
implement the plan are appropriately and efficiently used, and the public and partners are active
participants in the conservation of Michigan’s biodiversity. Progress towards these goals will be
made by addressing the following objectives:
Objective 1.
Wildlife Action Plan revision
To conduct activities in preparation for the 2015 revision of Michigan’s WAP.
Objective 2.
Wildlife Action Plan partner engagement
To engage key partners in the revision and implementation of the WAP.
Objective 3.
Wildlife Action Plan implementation support
To develop administrative processes and communication tools which will guide implementation
of the WAP by MDNR staff, partners, and the public.
Objective 4.
Planning integration and implementation
To ensure successful implementation of priorities in the Wildlife Action Plan, by integrating with
other planning and operational efforts within the Department.
EXPECTED RESULTS OR BENEFITS:
A focused and more user-friendly plan will make it easier for staff and partners to use in their
work. By continuing to revise the action plan on a regular, periodic basis, it will remain relevant
and useful to all of Michigan's conservation partners and will continue to help guide
conservation of SGCN and their habitats into the future. These efforts will increase the use of
the action plan, ensure that the best available knowledge is used to make management deicsions,
and further the effectiveness of implementation efforts.
Improved communication and cooperation with conservation partners will lead to more effective
management of Michigan’s lands and waters, which in turn will benefit the full diversity of
Michigan’s wildlife species and the landscapes they use. By involving conservation partners in
revising the Wildlife Acton Plan, they will have more buy-in to the plan, be aware of identified
priorities, and become more likely to become active participants in implementing activities to
address those priorities.
By prioritizing efforts in the revision of the plan, the work that the Department does to
implement the plan will be more strategic. This project will shift State Wildlife Grant activities
to more focused priorities. As priority conservation needs are successfully implemented,
Michigan will see improvement in the status of its SGCN and their habitats. At the same time,
species presently considered common will benefit from the conservation of those habitats. By
creating conservation tools that will guide this implementation, we will reach our goals in a more
effective and efficent manner, finding the best uses for SWG and other funds.
APPROACH:
All activities in this project are directly related to revision of the WAP and providing operational
planning guidance to implement the WAP. Consequently, all activities are considered planning
and will be reimbursable with 75% federal funds.
Approach 1.
Wildlife Action Plan revision
Much of the work under this objective is in preparation for the actual revision of the plan, since
the revision process has not been formally initiated. Following the Federal and National
Acceptance Advisory Team (NAAT) guidelines for Wildlife Action Plans, AFWA guidance and
best practices will be included in WAP revisions, where feasible.
Databases containing WAP data will be maintained and updated. The primary database is a
relational database that documents identified associations among SGCN, the landscape features
(habitats) they use, threats to SGCN and landscape features, conservation actions, research and
monitoring recommended to address identified threats. Geographic information system (GIS)
data to assist with assessing and updating the plan also needs to be maintained and updated.
The list of species of greatest conservation need is periodically reviewed and updated to reflect
current information. A process for updating the list will be developed and documented with help
from partners. Experts, published literature, gray literature, and available data will be used to
base decisions. These review efforts will be prioritized every 5 years. A process will be
developed to make decisions on priorities with explicit criteria for documenting rationales and
decisions.
There is a recently recognized need to develop a climate change adaption framework to be
included in the Wildlife Action Plan. This will be done in cooperation with partners, which may
entail workshops, meetings, conference calls, webex meetings, and emails. Wildlife Division
work on SGCN vulnerability to climate change will be incorporated into the next WAP revision.
WAP conservation opportunity areas are planned to be included into the revision of the WAP. It
is expected that we can work synergistically with the core team for the existing Department
biodiversity planning process to develop the set of conservation opportunity areas.
One goal of updating the Wildlife Action Plan document will be to make it shorter and more
user-friendly. The plan revision will include both a short, user-friendly priority-based action
plan and the full assessment of all species of greatest conservation need and their habitats. The
priorities effort will be used to update the first part of the WAP. Updates to the database will be
used to update the current version of the WAP which will become the appendix.
Approach 2.
Wildlife Action Plan partner engagement
This objective includes diverse efforts to create opportunities for partners to interact and provide
input. Partners will be engaged to participate in developing priorities for the Wildlife Action
Plan through meetings, workshops, conference calls, webinars, one-on-one phone calls, and
emails. The WAP revision will also require significant engagement of and input from partners
through a variety of communication venues.
Communication with WAP stakeholders to keep them apprised of important issues to species of
greatest conservation need will also occur. This will focus on periodic emails updating
stakeholders about WAP updates, up-coming workshops, meetings, etc. Partnerships and
opportunities to interact with partners often come opportunistically as well, and might include
attending partner meetings and collaborating on grant proposals developed by other agencies.
The Department WAP Steering Committee will be engaged in preparation for WAP revision.
Each of the resource divisions has a representative on this committee. This is one established
vehicle to work on buy-in, integration, and implementation of WAP priorities through meetings
and emails communications.
Approach 3.
Wildlife Action Plan implementation support
Activities to accomplish this objective will include development and delivery of communication
tools and administration efforts to facilitate WAP implementation. Communication efforts that
are planned include an annual Department report of State Wildlife Grant projects, highlight
reports of implementation efforts, and discussions and communications with Department staff to
enhance understanding of WAP priorities and implementation steps. The WAP coordinator will
also respond to MDNR and non-MDNR requests for data and information pertinent to the action
plan. Responses will preferentially be handled electronically, but may require paper
correspondence or face-to-face meetings.
Implementing and revising the WAP will require the support of administrative processes such as
tracking time and expenditures, establishing contracts with vendors, following state and federal
procedures when purchasing necessary goods and services, tracking inventories of equipment
and supplies, preparing state and federal progress reports, and preparing and monitoring federal
grant documents.
The WAP coordinator will also coordinate with DNR staff to maintain and update DNR web
pages to provide useful information on the Wildlife Action Plan. This may include the
development and maintenance of web applications to serve WAP data and information.
Approach 4.
Planning integration and implementation
The Wildlife Action Plan is the state’s plan, not just an agency plan. Once a prioritized list of
non-game wildlife management needs for the Division in developed, the Division will make
decisions about which parts we will take ownership. This will require internal meetings. In
addition, specific conservation tools need to be developed to guide implementation efforts by the
Department and partners. The details of the specific tools will be determined based on the list of
priorities that is being developed for the WAP. As these tools and priorities are identified, there
may be opportunities to achieve implementation through additional funding sources. As
opportunities arise, MDNR staff may develop grant proposals to seek additional resources to
implement priorities in the Wildlife Action Plan and benefit SGCN.
Work to integrate WAP priorities into other Division and Department plans will also occur in FY
2012. Plans may include: habitat management guidance, featured species planning, state game
area master plans, ecoregional plans, and MDNR compartment review process for forest
management operational planning. Wildlife Division is also developing a process to annually
review progress and outcomes of the Wildlife Action Plan program. This will include using
Wildlife TRACS to track accomplishments of State Wildlife Grants for USFWS reporting, but it
may be necessary to develop a secondary process for annually assessing implementation progress
and deciding where to focus efforts in future years.
The following activities and accomplishment units will be used for tracking and performance
reporting on these Project objectives:
Project Title
Revising and
implementing
Michigan’s
Wildlife Action
Plan
Objective
1. Wildlife Action Plan
revision
Reporting Units
Status of completion of developing
priorities
Number and types of updates to databases
Status of completion of the climate
change adaptation framework
2. Wildlife Action Plan partner
engagement
Number of meetings with partners
participating
Number of partners engaged
Number of collaborative efforts
3. Wildlife Action Plan
implementation support
# of products developed
4. Planning integration and
implementation
List of priorities for Division developed
% of annual priorities that were met
# of tools developed or updated
LOCATION:
The planning activities supported under this project may occur statewide, but will primarily
occur within the Division’s offices in Lansing.
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Costs may vary by Grant Segment. The estimates provided below may include salaries and
wages, contractual services, supplies, travel expenses and equipment. Specific work activities
and direct cost categories may vary from segment to segment; these activities and cost detail are
provided in the budget narrative for this segment included as Appendix A.
Objectives
FY 2012 Segment 3
1. Wildlife Action Plan revision
2. Wildlife Action Plan partner
engagement
3. Wildlife Action Plan implementation
support
4. Planning integration and
implementation
$40,000
$30,000
$230,000
$70,000
Totals
$370,000
PROJECT PERSONNEL:
Federal Aid Coordinator
Eric Sink
MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator
Budget and Support Services
(517) 335-1064
Grant Coordinator
Christine Hanaburgh
Acting Wildlife Division Federal Aid
Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 373-9333
Project Leader and Objectives Coordinator
Amy Derosier
Wildlife Action Plan Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 335-3843