Download I-8-T-1 Proposal and Segment 1

MICHIGAN’S LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM – TIER 2
I-8-T-1
LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM
GRANT PROPOSAL AND SEGMENT 1
FOR THE PERIOD: SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Dusted skipper
Eastern massasauga rattlesnake
Eastern prairie fringed orchid
Kirtland’s warbler
Mitchell’s satyr butterfly
All photographs taken at sites funded by Michigan LIP and by LIP staff.
SUBMITTED:
FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT STATEMENT: A Landowner Incentive Program that targets at-risk species on
private lands and takes action to conserve, protect and enhance habitat for these species using
both technical and financial assistance to landowners. ................................................................... 4
SUMMARY: ................................................................................................................................4
Michigan’s Successful Landowner Incentive Program .......................................................... 4
Michigan LIP Accomplishments to Date ............................................................................ 5
NEEDS: .......................................................................................................................................6
Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands Priority Area ..................................... 7
Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake ....................................... 7
Copperbelly Watersnake ..................................................................................................... 8
Karner Blue Butterfly ......................................................................................................... 8
Eastern Prairie Fringed-Orchid ........................................................................................... 8
Jack Pine Highlands Priority Area......................................................................................... 9
Kirtland’s Warbler .............................................................................................................. 9
Dusted Skipper, Secretive Locust and Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake ........................... 9
Lake Superior Forest Priority Area ...................................................................................... 10
Canada Lynx ..................................................................................................................... 10
Red-Shouldered Hawk, Northern Goshawk and Cerulean Warbler ................................. 11
OBJECTIVES: ...........................................................................................................................11
Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands Priority Area ................................... 11
Objective 1. Wetlands .................................................................................................... 11
Objective 2. Prairies and Savannas ................................................................................ 11
Jack Pine Highlands Priority Area....................................................................................... 12
Objective 3. Jack Pine Forests And Barrens .................................................................. 12
Lake Superior Forest Priority Area ...................................................................................... 12
Objective 4. Mesic Conifers .......................................................................................... 12
EXPECTED RESULTS AND BENEFITS: ..............................................................................12
Preventing extinction ............................................................................................................ 15
APPROACH: .............................................................................................................................15
Program Implementation: Conservation priorities for Michigan’s LIP; addressing local,
state, regional and national conservation plans ................................................................... 15
Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands Priority Area................................. 16
Jack Pine Highlands Priority Area .................................................................................... 16
Lake Superior Forest Priority Area ................................................................................... 16
Program Implementation: Specific types of conservation projects, actions and activities .. 17
Detailed Description of Activities ......................................................................................... 18
Prescribed Burning............................................................................................................ 18
Mechanical Shrub Control ................................................................................................ 18
Removal of Invasive Plants .............................................................................................. 19
Wetland Restoration.......................................................................................................... 19
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 2 of 38
Tree Planting ..................................................................................................................... 20
Fiscal Administrative Procedures: Process to ensure contractual and fiscal accountability
............................................................................................................................................... 20
Fiscal Administrative Procedures: State has approved legal instrument to enter into
agreements ............................................................................................................................ 21
System for Fund Distribution: Describe State’s selection or ranking criteria and process to
select projects........................................................................................................................ 21
System for Fund Distribution: Ranking criteria are adequate to select projects based on
conservation priorities identified in proposal....................................................................... 21
System for Fund Distribution: Objective selection procedure ............................................. 21
Monitoring: Compliance Monitoring ................................................................................... 21
Monitoring: Biological monitoring ...................................................................................... 22
ESTIMATED COST: ................................................................................................................22
Percentage of LIP tier 2 funds used on private lands as opposed to administrative costs .. 22
Non-federal cost sharing ...................................................................................................... 23
Previous LIP funds expended or encumbered ...................................................................... 23
COMPLIANCE: ........................................................................................................................23
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ........................................................................ 23
Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA) ............................................................................ 25
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ........................................................................ 25
Other Federal Compliance Issues ........................................................................................ 25
PROJECT PERSONNEL: .........................................................................................................26
LITERATURE CITED: .............................................................................................................26
APPENDIX A:
Segment 1 Accomplishment and Budget Detail for the Expenditure Period 30
September 2008 through 30 September 2010 ............................................................................... 28
APPENDIX B:
At-risk species that are expected to benefit from Michigan LIP. ................. 30
APPENDIX C:
LIP Landowner Agreement........................................................................... 33
APPENDIX D:
LIP Project Description Form ....................................................................... 35
APPENDIX E:
MDNR In-kind Match Form ......................................................................... 36
APPENDIX F:
LIP Funding Evaluation Form ...................................................................... 38
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 3 of 38
PROJECT STATEMENT: A Landowner Incentive Program that targets at-risk species on
private lands and takes action to conserve, protect and enhance habitat for these species using
both technical and financial assistance to landowners.
SUMMARY:
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Wildlife Division is requesting
$765,760 in federal funds through this Tier 2 Landowner Incentive Program grant proposal. This
proposal identifies 12 species at-risk and their associated habitats as our conservation priorities
based on their urgency and need for immediate conservation action, their dependency on private
land and their listing as species of greatest conservation need in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan
(WAP). To focus our efforts and maximize benefits for our 12 conservation priorities, we
propose to provide financial and technical assistance to private landowners in 3 priority regions
across the state:
1) Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands,
2) Jack Pine Highlands and
3) Lake Superior Forest.
In the Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands priority region we propose to restore
wetlands for the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii), the eastern
massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus cantenatus) and the copperbelly watersnake
(Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta). Prairie and savanna will be restored in this priority region for
the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) and the eastern prairie fringed orchid
(Platanthera leucophaea). In the Jack Pine Highlands we propose to restore jack pine and jack
pine barrens for Kirtland’s Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii), dusted skipper (Atrytonopsis hianna),
secretive locust (Appalachia arcana) and the eastern massasauga rattlesnake. In the Lake
Superior Forest we propose to restore mesic conifers for Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis),
Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea), Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and the Redshouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus). Conservation actions proposed to benefit our 12
conservation priorities include prescribed fire, mechanical shrub removal, removal of invasive
plants, prairie planting, wetland restoration and tree planting. Benefits to the targeted species atrisk include minimizing the potential for the extinction of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Karner
blue butterfly and the copperbelly water snake and increasing the population viability of the
remaining nine species at-risk. Overall, the MDNR will provide financial assistance to
landowners managing or restoring 2,800 acres of habitat for 12 target at-risk species as well as
79 associated at-risk species.
Michigan’s Successful Landowner Incentive Program
The Michigan Landowner Incentive Program conserves, protects and enhances habitat for
species at-risk 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. This approach compliments the structure of the habitat-based Wildlife
Action Plan, developed as part of Michigan Department of Natural Resource’s participation in
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 4 of 38
the State Wildlife Grant program. Consequently, Michigan’s LIP is an important tool for
implementing MDNR’s Wildlife Action Plan. In addition, these priority habitat focus areas were
developed in cooperation with MDNR’s Wildlife Division Management Team and regional
steering committees comprised of natural resource professionals from federal and state agencies
along with non-profit organizations.
Michigan’s LIP was initiated in 2003 with MDNR’s first successful LIP grant from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Before LIP, MDNR’s private lands program was information
based and did not provide direct assistance to landowners. The addition of LIP funds has
allowed us to manage for at-risk species directly by providing financial assistance along with
technical guidance for habitat management. Successful LIP grants have allowed us to add five
full time employees (four regional biologists and a LIP program coordinator) to address private
lands habitat specifically for at-risk species. By 2006, demand for LIP assistance had already
outpaced funding with many needed restoration projects being delayed until 2007 and 2008
because of insufficient funds. Without additional Tier 2 funding, these restoration projects will
not be conducted.
Michigan LIP Accomplishments to Date

Restored more than 5,700 acres of
grassland and wetland habitat for atrisk species in southern Michigan.

Managed 73% of 15 known private
lands sites for Mitchell’s satyr
butterfly in Michigan. The amount of
satyr habitat has more than doubled at
many sites where LIP provided
technical and financial assistance
(Figure 1).
Figure 1. Locations of all known Mitchell’s satyr butterfly
populations worldwide and those managed with Michigan’s
LIP.

Provided technical or financial assistance to 13 landowners with Karner blue butterflies. One
landowner had over 3,000 Karner blue butterflies on his property in 2006.

Planted over 480,000 jack pine seedlings and created approximately 400 acres of habitat for
the federally endangered Kirtland’s Warbler.

Approximately 1,300 acres of barrens habitat has been restored using prescribed burning,
brush removal and invasive exotic species removal for at-risk species such as dusted skipper
and eastern massasauga rattlesnake.

Over 1.1 million mesic conifers have been planted in the Upper Peninsula on nearly 4,300
acres for species at-risk such as Northern Goshawk and Red-shouldered Hawk.

Documented 79 new occurrences of rare and declining species and 7 new occurrences of
natural communities on private lands. One LIP project site was newly documented as the
largest pine barren natural community in the state.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 5 of 38

Have spent more than $500,000 annually to restore, enhance and manage more than 12,000
acres for at-risk species since 2004 (Figure 2).
LIP Fiscal Year Expenditures and Cumulative Acres
2004-2007
Dollars
Cumulative Acres
Dollars
12,000
10,000
$600,000
8,000
$400,000
6,000
4,000
$200,000
Cumulative Acres
14,000
$800,000
2,000
$0
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
Figure 2. LIP fiscal year expenditures and cumulative acres.
AAcresAcres.
NEEDS:
Loss of habitat through succession, invasive species, timber cutting and agriculture threaten most
of the 655 species listed as threatened, endangered or special concern by MDNR and USFWS.
Many of these species are only found in globally rare habitats such as prairies, savannas and
barrens, which have declined by 99% since the early 1800s. In the Upper Peninsula, over 78%
of the conifer forests have been lost and many of the mixed northern forests have also lost their
conifer component.
Michigan is 79% private land. Many of Michigan’s rarest federally listed species depend almost
entirely on private land, and for those species that occur on both public and private land, Federal
Recovery Plan goals cannot be met without the assistance of private landowners. For example,
there are only 19 known occurrences of the federally endangered Mitchell’s satyr butterfly
worldwide; 15 of those sites are on private land in Michigan. Of the four known sites worldwide
with the northern subpopulation of copperbelly water snake, three are on private land in
Michigan. Overall, more than 75% of the 13,150 occurrences of state and/or federally listed
species in Michigan are located on private land, despite the fact that surveys have traditionally
targeted public land.
Despite the importance of private lands to endangered species and overall biodiversity in the
state, only a small fraction of Michigan’s private lands are actively managed to enhance or
protect habitat for at-risk species. However, technical and financial support from Michigan’s
LIP is critical to these management efforts. Without federal LIP funding, assistance to private
landowners will be drastically reduced due to budget constraints within MDNR (Reeves, MDNR
Wildlife Division Assistant Chief, 2007, pers. com.). This directly affects the continued
existence of critically rare species like the Mitchell’s satyr and copperbelly water snake, which
Michigan LIP is actively funding habitat management at more than 50% of occupied sites in the
world.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 6 of 38
The importance of private lands for species in decline is documented and supported in several
recent planning efforts. Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) was formally approved by
USFWS in 2005. The Michigan WAP states that “private lands play a pivotal role in meeting
Michigan’s Wildlife Conservation strategies of protecting statewide wildlife diversity” (Eagle et
al. 2005). The Michigan WAP identifies the species of greatest conservation need and priority
habitats. Using coarse and fine scale information from the WAP, Michigan’s LIP has developed
a list of key target species and ecosystems. The implementation of LIP is a key component for
the WAP. Michigan has taken a prioritized regional approach to LIP and has grouped the
species and habitats into the following priority areas:
1) the Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands,
2) the Jack Pine Highlands of northern Lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula and
3) the Lake Superior Forest region.
Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands Priority Area
Michigan has lost over 99% of its prairies and savannas and over 50% of its non-forested
wetlands. Much of this loss has occurred in the southern part of the state. Prairies, savannas and
unique wetlands like prairie fen are home to more rare and declining species than any other
habitat type in Michigan (Eagle et al. 2005), including federally threatened and endangered
species such as the Mitchell’s satyr, Karner blue butterfly and eastern prairie fringed orchid.
These ecosystems are extremely rare and are more endangered than tropical rain forests (Noss et
al. 1995).
What little habitat remains will continue to decline in the absence of management, putting further
pressure on at-risk species. 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. Many wetlands and barrens areas have been converted to agriculture with
marginally fertile soil. Overall, species that require open habitat are being pushed to the edge of
extinction.
Continued funding of Michigan’s LIP is needed to continue to build on past successes in
1) reducing these threats by targeting projects to occupied or potential sites and
2) improving habitat and population viability through habitat restoration activities, which
includes prescribed burns and other treatments that set back succession, remove invasive
species, restore prairie and savanna in agricultural ground and restore and enhance
wetlands.
Examples of at-risk species most in need of continued funding, along with their primary habitat
threats, are listed below:
Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake
Habitat and threats: Prairie fen, a type of wetland unique to the glaciated Midwest with
vegetation of both tall grass prairies and calcareous fens. Threats include fire suppression and
invasive species.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 7 of 38

19 populations of Mitchell’s satyr butterfly remain worldwide, 15 of which occur entirely on
private land in Michigan.

Three populations of Mitchell’s satyr have been extirpated since 1990 and an additional six
sites had less than five satyrs observed in 2006, putting them in imminent danger of
extirpation.

Michigan’s LIP provides the primary source of funding for Mitchell’s satyr butterfly habitat
management at more than half of the known populations in the world. Continued funding
will help prevent extinction of the species.

Michigan is the last stronghold for the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and 87% of occupied
sites are on private land in southern Michigan.

Continued habitat management will help prevent federal listing of the eastern massasauga
through Michigan’s participation in a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances
(CCAA).
Copperbelly Watersnake
Habitat and threats: Diversity of wetland types in close proximity in the landscape with vegetated
travel corridors in between. Threats include wetland modification, conversion to agriculture and
persecution.

Only four sites for the listed population remain, three of which are on private land in
Michigan.

LIP compliments a recent Preventing Extinction Grant awarded to the East Lansing USFWS
Field Office for recovery of the copperbelly water snake.
Karner Blue Butterfly
Habitat and threats: Oak savanna with wild lupine, the only known larval host plant. Habitat is
threatened by fire suppression and resulting succession of savanna to closed canopy oak forest.

Only 0.02% of Midwest savannas remain (Nuzzo 1986).

Michigan is one of the last strongholds for this species.

The Recovery Plan sets goals for population and habitat for specific metapopulations. The
Bigelow Creek metapopulation, one of Michigan’s largest, exists entirely on private land.
Delisting cannot occur without significant participation by private landowners.
Eastern Prairie Fringed-Orchid
Habitat and threats: Lakeplain prairie, located on flat plains near the Great Lakes. Habitat is
threatened by fire suppression, shrub invasion and invasive species.

80% of occurrences are on private land.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 8 of 38

LIP is funding habitat management at one site identified as critical in the Recovery Plan.

With continued funding and management, progress will be made toward meeting delisting
criteria.
Jack Pine Highlands Priority Area
Historically, nearly 270,000 acres of pine barrens existed in the state, primarily in northern
Lower Michigan where 74% of the land is privately owned. Barrens also are found in portions
of the Upper Peninsula. Approximately 99% of Michigan’s barrens habitat has been lost and
only a few hundred acres of high quality habitat remain. Forested areas of early successional
jack pine (Pinus banksiana) have also severely declined. Historically, wildfire maintained a
mosaic of open barrens and dense stands of jack pine. Fire suppression has caused these habitats
to convert to closed canopy forest and many species that depend on these communities have
declined and are no longer sustainable.
Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan identifies pine barrens and jack pine forests as critically
important habitats for at-risk species. There are more globally rare (G3 or rarer) species
associated with pine barrens than any other single habitat in northern Lower Michigan; including
the federally endangered Kirtland's Warbler, the dusted skipper, the eastern massasauga
rattlesnake and the secretive locust. The Kirtland’s Warbler is the most imperiled of these
species and its nesting habitat is currently endemic to just a few counties in Michigan’s northern
jack pine forests. Progress has been made in managing habitat for this species, but the Kirtland's
Warbler Recovery Plan (USFWS, 1985) highlights the need for additional management on
private land. Examples of at-risk species most in need of continued funding, along with their
primary habitat threats, are listed below:
Kirtland’s Warbler
Habitat and threats: Nests in young, dense jack pine forests with scattered openings. Threats
include fire suppression and conversion of suitable nesting habitat to mature forest.

Michigan provides the only nesting habitat in the world, much of which occurs on private
land.

Additional habitat on private land is needed according to USFWS Recovery Plan.
Dusted Skipper, Secretive Locust and Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake
Habitat and threats: Jack and oak pine barrens with a 5 to 60% canopy and a diversity of grasses
and forbs. Threats include: fire suppression, succession and intensive forestry practices.

Over 50% of dusted skipper occurrences and 75% of massasauga rattlesnake occurrences are
on private land in the northern Lower Peninsula.

Secretive locust is endemic to Michigan and has recently been discovered at numerous
private sites.

Prescribed burning is necessary to restore and maintain habitat.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 9 of 38

Private landowners are reluctant to take on expensive habitat management without LIP
assistance.
Lake Superior Forest Priority Area
Michigan’s Upper Peninsula contains some of the Midwest’s largest remaining tracts of forested
land. While 74% of the land is forested, much of it has undergone a dramatic transition over the
past 150 years. Mesic conifers, consisting primarily of white pine (Pinus strobus) and hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis), were once important components of the northern hardwood forest but were
over-harvested due to their value for lumber and leather tanning purposes. Poor logging
practices resulted in severe slash fires that destroyed remaining regeneration. As a result, over
85% of Michigan’s mesic conifer composition has been lost. Because few seed trees remain in
many areas today, the only means to reestablish these species is through manual under-planting.
Widespread loss of forest cover resulted in the precipitous decline or outright loss of numerous
species. As forests have recovered, some species, like the gray wolf, have rebounded. However,
other species that require the greater diversity and structure provided by mesic conifers have not
recovered. The loss of mesic conifers has resulted in the decline of many neotropical migrant
birds and raptors, including the Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea), Northern Goshawk
(Accipiter gentilis) and Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus). Without mesic conifers on the
landscape, the recovery potential for these species is uncertain. On the other hand, the recent
documentation of a Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the recovering forest in the Upper
Peninsula suggests these forests may provide previously unrecognized potential habitat for this
species.
Without private land management, restoring forest diversity necessary to sustain at-risk species
cannot succeed. While public land managers are seeking to gradually restore white pine and
hemlock through programs like the Mesic Conifer Initiative, the initiative offers few resources
for private landowners. LIP fills this critical conservation need to assist with the restoration of
mesic conifers on private land. Land ownership patterns in the Upper Peninsula are also rapidly
changing as corporate timber companies sell large blocks of land to private individuals. This
changing ownership represents a critical window of time to educate landowners on the
importance of mesic conifers and to assist with planting and retention efforts to benefit species
at-risk. Examples of at-risk species most in need of continued funding, along with their primary
habitat threats, are listed below:
Canada Lynx
Habitat and threats: Extensive landscapes of conifer or mixed forest. Threats include forestry
practices that reduce the conifer component in the forest (Hoving et al. 2005).

Canada lynx occurred historically in Michigan. Because only one specimen has been
verified in the state since 1983 (Beyer et al. 2001), no critical habitat was designated in
Michigan.

Michigan is within dispersal distance of lynx populations in Minnesota and Canada, but
extensive habitat with mesic conifers is lacking.

Both private and public land is critical due to large home ranges (6,000 – 25,000 acres).
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 10 of 38

Planting mesic conifers will restore lynx habitat lost over a century ago.
Red-Shouldered Hawk, Northern Goshawk and Cerulean Warbler
Habitat and threats: Large blocks of core nesting habitat in mature, closed canopy hardwood
forest with conifer component. Threats include forest fragmentation and lack of tree and prey
diversity.

Population loss of Red-shouldered Hawk has been estimated at 94% (Brown 1971).

A significant number of goshawk and Red-shouldered Hawk nest sites occur on private land
in Michigan.

Nest productivity is higher in areas with greater mesic conifer abundance and diversity (D.
Cuthrell 2006, pers. com).

LIP compliments mesic conifer restoration efforts on public land, and is the only program
specifically addressing private adjacent land and in-holdings.
OBJECTIVES:
Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands Priority Area
Objective 1.
Wetlands
Restore or enhance 200 acres of prairie fens and emergent wetlands to benefit Mitchell’s satyr
butterfly, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, copperbelly water snake and other associated at-risk
species within the grant timeframe. The outcomes of this objective are to:

Improve suitable habitat on at least five privately owned prairie fens that harbor Mitchell’s
satyr butterfly, thereby preventing the extinction of the species.

Improve suitable habitat on three sites for the copperbelly water snake, which will increase
connectivity between isolated patches of occupied habitat.

Restore or enhance suitable habitats in at least 10 prairie fens for the eastern massasauga
rattlesnake.

Restore or enhance suitable habitat on 20 sites for 23 additional prairie fen and emergent
wetland at-risk species (Appendix A).
Objective 2.
Prairies and Savannas
Restore or enhance 600 acres of savanna and prairie to benefit Karner blue butterfly, eastern
prairie fringed-orchid and other associated at-risk species within the grant timeframe. The
outcomes of this objective are to:

Increase suitable habitat in two metapopulations of the Karner blue butterfly in Michigan.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 11 of 38

Restore or enhance two lakeplain prairie sites occupied by the eastern prairie fringed orchid.

Restore or enhance suitable habitat on 15 sites for 29 additional prairie and savanna at-risk
species (Appendix A).
Jack Pine Highlands Priority Area
Objective 3.
Jack Pine Forests And Barrens
Restore or enhance 500 acres of jack pine and oak/jack pine barrens for Kirtland’s Warbler,
dusted skipper, secretive locust, eastern massasauga rattlesnake and other associated at-risk
species within the grant timeframe. The outcomes of this objective are to:

Increase suitable habitat on five sites for the dusted skipper and the secretive locust.

Increase foraging/basking sites for eastern massasauga rattlesnakes on two sites.

Increase suitable habitat for the Kirtland’s Warbler on five private in-holdings in state and
federal Kirtland’s Warbler Management Areas.

Restore suitable habitat on 10 sites for 20 additional jack pine and oak/jack pine barrens atrisk species (Appendix A).
Lake Superior Forest Priority Area
Objective 4.
Mesic Conifers
Restore or enhance 1,500 acres of mesic conifers for Cerulean Warbler, Canada lynx, Northern
Goshawk, Red-shouldered Hawk and other associated at-risk species within the grant timeframe.
The outcomes of this objective are to:

Increase landscape connectivity of suitable habitat for Canada lynx.

Increase nesting and foraging habitat for Cerulean Warbler, goshawk and Red-shouldered
Hawk on 10 sites.

Restore suitable habitat on 10 sites for 17 additional mesic conifer at-risk species (Appendix
A).
EXPECTED RESULTS AND BENEFITS:
By completing the objectives of this grant, progress will be made towards the overall goal of
Michigan’s LIP to conserve and restore at-risk species. The conservation actions identified in
this proposal are expected to benefit 91 at-risk species (Appendix A). Because of their urgency
and need for conservation, however, 12 target species have been chosen as priority species for
the program. These 12 at-risk species have specific habitat requirements, threats identified in the
literature (including the Michigan WAP), conservation actions that are needed and short and
long-term benefits (Table 1).
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 12 of 38
Table 1. Expected results and benefits for target species in each priority area.
Ranking
Criteria:
Priority
Area
4a
Species and
Status1
4b
Habitat
Requirements
Mitchell’s satyr Prairie fen
Southern
butterfly
interspersed with
Prairies,
tamarack
Savannas, & (E, SE)
Wetlands
Karner blue
butterfly
(E, SE)
Oak barrens with
lupine
Copperbelly
watersnake
(northern
population)
(T, ST)
Diversity of
wetland types in
close proximity;
travel corridors
with vegetative
cover
Prairie fen and
associated upland
savanna
Eastern
massasauga
(C, SC)
4c
Threats identified in
literature including
Michigan WAP
Invasive plants;
Altered fire regime;
Habitat fragmentation
Conservation Actions
Remove invasive plants;
Conduct prescribed burns;
Reconnect fragmented
habitat through corridors
4d
Short-term Benefits
(0-10 years)
Improve habitat quality at
25% of occupied satyr sites
in the world;
Increase amount of habitat;
Improve genetic diversity
in fragmented populations
Altered fire regime;
Conduct prescribed burns; Increase host plant
Conversion of habitat Remove pine plantations
abundance; Improve habitat
to pine plantations;
and restore barrens; Requality and quantity;
Habitat fragmentation connect fragmented habitat Improve genetic diversity
Wetland modification; Restore and enhance
Improve habitat quality for
Conversion of upland wetlands;
75% of the listed populahabitat to agriculture
Restore uplands to native tions in the world; Reduce
disrupting travel
vegetation;
mortality by improving
corridors and foraging; Educate private
vegetative cover in travel
Indiscriminant killing landowners
corridors; Reduce killing
Altered fire regime;
Conduct prescribed burns; Improve habitat by setting
Habitat loss through
Remove shrubs;
back succession;
succession;
Reconnect fragmented
Improve habitat
Habitat fragmentation; habitat through corridors; connectivity between
Indiscriminant killing Educate private
wetland hibernation sites
landowners
and upland basking sites;
Reduce killing
4e
Long-term Benefits
(10+ years)
Increase viability of
populations;
Prevent imminent
extinction of species at
one or more sites
Meet and exceed federal
recovery plan delisting
criteria for one or more
metapopulations
Improve population
viability;
Prevent imminent
extinction of subspecies
Improve population
viability; Compliment
Candidate Conservation
Agreement with
Assurances (CCAA)
actions on public land;
Prevent federal listing
of species
Eastern prairie Open lakeplain
Altered fire regime;
Conduct prescribed burns; Increase habitat by setting Improve population
fringed orchid
prairie
Habitat loss through
Remove shrubs;
back succession,
viability;
(T, ST)
succession and
Restore agricultural land to preventing imminent local Meet federal recovery
conversion to
prairie
extinction;
plan goals for one or
agriculture
Increase available habitat
more populations
1
Status abbreviations: E: Federal Endangered, T: Federal Threatened, C: Federal Candidate, SE: State Endangered, ST: State Threatened, SC: Special Concern.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 13 of 38
Table 1 (continued). Expected results and benefits for target species in each priority area.
Ranking
Criteria:
Priority
Area
4a
Species and
Status1
Kirtland’s
warbler
(E, SE)
4b
Habitat
Requirements
Threats identified in
literature including
Michigan WAP
Large tracts of
Replacement of jack
young, dense jack pine with other tree
pine with scattered species;
openings
Altered fire regimes;
Habitat fragmentation
Upland pine
Altered fire regime;
barrens in close
Habitat loss through
proximity to
succession;
lowland cedar
Habitat fragmentation;
swamps
Indiscriminant killing
Jack pine and oak Altered fire regime;
barrens with little Conversion of habitat
bluestem
to closed canopy forest;
Habitat fragmentation
4c
Conservation Actions
4d
Short-term Benefits
(0-10 years)
4e
Long-term Benefits
(10+ years)
Increase habitat by 100
Help maintain high,
acres; Increase core area of stable population;
nesting habitat by targeting Help meet federal
sites near existing manage- recovery plan goals for
ment units on public land
population and habitat
Eastern
Improve habitat quality and Improve population
massasauga
quantity by setting back
viability; Compliment
(C, SC)
succession; Improve habitat CCAA actions on public
connectivity;
land; Prevent federal
Reduce killing
listing of species
Dusted skipper
Restore and enhance
Improve population
(ST)
habitat at 5 or more
viability;
occupied sites; Reconnect Increase potential for
fragmented habitat and
downgrading or
improve genetic integrity
delisting species
Secretive locust Jack pine and oak Altered fire regime;
Conduct prescribed burns; Restore and enhance
Improve population
(SC)
barrens, often with Conversion of habitat Restore oak and pine
habitat at 5 sites
viability; Prevent
bog depressions
to closed canopy forest barrens
federal listing
Canada lynx
Extensive
Forestry practices that Restore and enhance forest Restore habitat on 500
Improve habitat
Lake
(T, SE)
landscapes of
reduce conifer
by planting conifers in
acres;
suitability for this
Superior
forest with conifer component;
cutover areas; Educate
Retain conifer trees that
species; Help meet
Forest
component
Fragmentation of large landowners on importance landowners routinely cut; recovery potential.
forest landscapes
of retaining conifers
Increase prey base
Red-shouldered Mature closed
Fragmentation of forest Restore and enhance forest Restoring habitat on 500
Improve viability of
hawk (ST),
canopy hardwood reducing core nesting
by planting conifers in
acres;
population;
goshawk (SC), forest with conifer areas; Lack of tree
cutover areas;
Retain conifer trees that
Increase likelihood of
and cerulean
component
diversity in forest
Educate landowners on the landowners routinely cut; downgrading species
warbler (SC)
which threatens proimportance of retaining
Improve nest productivity;
ductivity; Lack of prey conifers
Increase prey base
1
Status abbreviations: E: Federal Endangered, T: Federal Threatened, C: Federal Candidate, SE: State Endangered, ST: State Threatened, SC: Special Concern.
Jack Pine
Highlands
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Plant jack pine on private
in-holdings and at sites
adjacent to public land
managed for this species;
Conduct prescribed burns
Conduct prescribed burns;
Reconnect fragmented
habitat by restoring
barrens; Educate private
landowners
Conduct prescribed burns;
Restore oak and pine
barrens; Reconnect
fragmented habitat
Page 14 of 38
Preventing extinction
Mitchell’s satyr butterflies are restricted to prairie fens, which are unique and globally rare
wetlands. Hydrology and fire historically maintained zones of tamarack savanna that graded into
open fen. Altered hydrology, invasive exotic shrub species and lack of periodic fires imperil the
survival of the satyr. In the past 15 years, 3 Mitchell’s satyr sites have been extirpated and half
of the remaining sites are threatened with imminent extinction due to dwindling habitat. The
Mitchell’s Satyr Recovery Team, involving leading scientists from federal and state agencies,
universities and non-profit conservation organizations, has concluded that it is critical to retain
every population to reduce a potential genetic bottleneck that is an immediate threat to the
survival of the entire species. Michigan’s LIP has initiated work on 11 of the 15 privately owned
Mitchell’s satyr sites, and in most cases is the sole source of funding for management activities.
Management on these lands includes prescribed burns, shrub removal and invasive species
control on over 400 acres. Without this habitat management, the Mitchell’s satyr population will
continue to collapse towards extinction.
The federally listed population of the copperbelly water snake is found only along the
Michigan-Indiana-Ohio border in sites with numerous, diverse types of wetlands concentrated in
a forested landscape matrix. Occurring in agricultural landscapes, the species is threatened by
draining and filling of wetlands, unsuitable travel corridors between remaining wetlands and
persecution. Eight populations have become extirpated within the past 25 years in Michigan
alone. The northern subpopulation of the copperbelly watersnake remains in only four sites,
three of which occur on private land in Michigan. Surveys over the past 20 years indicate these
populations are also declining due to habitat loss. Michigan’s LIP is active at two of the three
sites, working to restore and enhance wetlands, restore suitable travel corridors and educate local
landowners in partnership with the East Lansing USFWS Field Office, which recently received a
Preventing Extinction Grant to avert the imminent loss of the species. Without active
management, this population of copperbelly watersnake will continue to decline and may
become extinct in the near future.
The federally endangered Karner blue butterfly is dependent on remnant oak savanna.
Historically, frequent fires maintained the open conditions and grassy understory characteristic
of savannas. Wild lupine (Lupinus perennis), the only known food source for Karner larvae, is
found in remnant oak savanna patches. In addition to dwindling core habitat, critical corridors
that connect habitat fragments are in jeopardy. Michigan’s LIP is active at several
metapopulations, including one that is located entirely on private land, where post-management
monitoring shows progress is being made towards meeting delisting criteria. LIP is providing
funding to manage this site and failure to continue habitat management will result in succession,
a reduction in the host plant and will threaten the survival of the metapopulation.
APPROACH:
Program Implementation: Conservation priorities for Michigan’s LIP; addressing local, state,
regional and national conservation plans
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 15 of 38
Twelve at-risk species and their habitats were selected as conservation priorities for Michigan’s
LIP. These species were selected based on the following criteria: their urgency and need for
immediate conservation action, the potential for these species to benefit from habitat restoration
work, their dependency on private lands and their listing as species of greatest conservation need
in the Michigan WAP. These at-risk species are listed with their habitat type and organized by
their priority area:
Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas
and Wetlands Priority Area
See Figure 3:

Mitchell’s satyr butterfly and
eastern massasauga rattlesnake in
prairie fens

Karner blue butterfly in savannas

Copperbelly watersnake in wetland
Figure 3. Locations of Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and
complexes

Eastern prairie fringed orchid in
lakeplain prairie
Wetlands Priority Area and location of at-risk species and
communities.
Jack Pine Highlands Priority Area
See Figure 4:

Kirtland’s Warbler, eastern
massasauga rattlesnake, dusted
skipper and secretive locust in pine
barrens and early successional jack
pine forests
Lake Superior Forest Priority Area
See Figure 5:

Figure 4. Locations of Jack Pine Highlands Priority Area, at-risk
species and Kirtland’s Warbler recovery areas.
Canada lynx, Red-shouldered
Hawk, Northern Goshawk and Cerulean Warbler in areas historically dominated by mesic
conifers
The above listed priority areas were selected based on the known locations of the target at-risk
species, the historical locations of priority habitats, the proportion of private lands and the ability
to partner with larger-scale conservation efforts. An integral component of Michigan’s LIP is
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 16 of 38
the ability to work with these
conservation efforts including the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for
Wildlife Program Focus Areas, The
Nature Conservancy portfolio sites, the
Upper Peninsula Mesic Conifer
Initiative and the Recovery Plans for
the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Karner
blue butterfly, copperbelly watersnake,
eastern prairie fringed orchid, and
Kirtland’s Warbler. This approach
provides the framework for our
program to work on lands with the best
Figure 5. Locations of Lake Superior Forest Priority Area and
potential to positively affect the 12
private lands that were historically dominated by mesic conifers.
target at-risk species as well as 79
associated at-risk species. There are
numerous conservation efforts that Michigan’s LIP is complementing on a local level and
include working through land conservancies, townships and watershed groups.
The Michigan WAP was developed to provide an ecological, habitat based framework to aid in
the conservation and management of species of greatest conservation need. Michigan’s LIP is
addressing the following statewide priorities and threats identified in the WAP:

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.

Provide education to the public about primary threats to species at-risk.

Reduce invasive species and fragmentation, which are the two top priority threats to species
at-risk as identified by the Michigan WAP.
Program Implementation: Specific types of conservation projects, actions and activities
Michigan’s LIP implements a variety of conservation projects and actions to restore or enhance
habitat for targeted at-risk species. The LIP biologist determines specific conservation actions to
implement based on site-specific threats to multiple species at-risk. To address these threats, the
LIP biologist applies one or a combination of the following conservation actions: prescribed
burning, mechanical shrub control, removal of invasive plants, prairie planting, wetland
restoration and tree planting. Each conservation action helps restore suitable habitat for multiple
targeted at-risk species (Table 2).
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 17 of 38
Table 2. Specific conservation projects, actions and activities to benefit target at-risk species.
Priority Species in each
focus area
Activity 1:
Prescribed
burning
Activity 2:
Activity 3:
Mechanical Removal of
shrub control
invasive
plants
Southern Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands
Mitchell’s satyr
X
X
X
Karner blue butterfly
X
X
X
Copperbelly watersnake
X
Eastern massasauga
X
X
X
Prairie fringed orchid
X
X
X
Jack Pine Highlands
Kirtland’s warbler
X
Eastern massasauga
X
X
X
Dusted skipper
X
X
X
Secretive locust
X
X
X
Lake Superior Forest
Canada lynx
Red-shouldered hawk
Goshawk
Cerulean warbler
Activity 4:
Prairie
planting
Activity 5:
Wetland
restoration
Activity 6:
Tree
planting
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Detailed Description of Activities
Prescribed Burning
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 rare and declining species, has increased shrub invasion and has
exacerbated the spread of invasive species. Prescribed burning is conducted according to a
carefully designed plan that maximizes benefits to the habitat while minimizing adverse impacts
to rare species. For federally listed species, all guidelines are followed regarding amount of
occupied habitat that is burned in any given year.
Prescribed burns that occur for Michigan LIP projects are conducted by professional contractors.
Typically, the LIP biologist meets with the contactor and private landowner to review the
management objectives, burn units and weather parameters. Most burns are conducted in the
spring and fall. Cost-share is occasionally provided through in-kind match by the landowner for
site preparation activities (e.g., establishing fire breaks).
Mechanical Shrub Control
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 prairies,
savannas, barrens and fens due to fire suppression and altered hydrology, virtually eliminating
habitat for many rare and declining species like the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly.
Shrub control on Michigan LIP projects is conducted by qualified landowners and professional
contractors. Activities include using heavy equipment and methods such as brush-hogging and
hydroaxing or hand-operated tools such as brush saws and loppers. Methods are selected based
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 18 of 38
on cost efficiency and sensitivity of the site (i.e. wetlands, steep slopes, presence of T/E species,
etc.). Where it is appropriate, approved herbicide is applied to cut stumps to prevent resprouting.
Landowners frequently take an active interest in their property and conduct the work themselves,
with the Michigan LIP program providing training and supplies. Cost-share is provided through
in-kind match by landowners. Timing of shrub control is dependent on the biology of the
species and ecology of the site but is typically conducted from summer through winter.
Removal of Invasive Plants
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 reduced available habitat for federally endangered species by 99% and
species recovery is dependent upon immediate removal of invasives.
Removal of invasive plants is conducted similar to shrub control -- by the landowner or by a
contactor that specializes in natural areas restoration. Plants are controlled using one or more of
the following techniques: manual, mechanical, chemical, biological and prescribed fire. In all
cases, care is taken to maximize control while minimizing non-target damage to other plants and
animals. As with mechanical shrub control, landowners may conduct the work themselves, with
the Michigan LIP program 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 literature and by practical experience.
Prairie Planting
Prairie planting is conducted in former agricultural areas and each project is carefully selected to
maximize benefits to target at-risk species. Planting is conducted by a contractor or the
landowner. Frequently, the landowner provides cost-share through site preparation and followup activities like mowing and herbicide application. Supplies and seed are also provided to
Conservation Reserve Program landowners in specific areas to increase effectiveness and plant
species diversity, enhancing benefits to target at-risk species. Though the landowner has an
obligation to maintain a site for the duration of the contract, care is used to ensure planted sites
have a high probability of remaining in prairie for perpetuity.
Wetland Restoration
Wetland restoration is used to reverse draining, filling and hydrologic disruption of wetland
ecosystems. Restoration activities may include breaking drain tiles in agricultural fields,
plugging ditches and in some cases wetland creation. Overall, wetland restoration is reserved for
those sites with a rare species in critical need of additional habitat, such as the copperbelly water
snake. Existing wetlands may also be enhanced by removing shrubs and invasive species.
Wetland restorations are typically done by contractors through a bidding process, while wetland
enhancement is done by both contractors and landowners. Timing of work is dependent on the
nature of the work, but may be done year round.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 19 of 38
Tree Planting
Tree planting is used when natural regeneration is insufficient to provide the necessary habitat
for rare and declining species. To restore vegetated travel corridors between wetlands occupied
by the copperbelly water snake, native, fast growing tree seedlings are planted to provide the
necessary connectivity in the landscape. To create nesting habitat for the Kirtland’s Warbler,
jack pines are planted in trenches at a rate of 1,200 seedlings per acre in a weave pattern, leaving
approximately 25% of the land within the planting area in openings for ground nesting and insect
foraging. To restore mesic conifers in the Lake Superior Forest region, areas are selected that
have a target basal area of approximately 60-80 feet in order to provide enough light for the
planted seedlings. White pine and hemlock are the primary species planted with some associated
hardwoods to diversify the stand. Seedlings are hand-planted at a rate of 300-400 per acre,
targeting canopy gaps and a general spacing of 8 x 12 feet.
Fiscal Administrative Procedures: Process to ensure contractual and fiscal accountability
When the landowner and LIP biologist agree to implement a project to benefit at-risk species,
both will sign a Landowner Agreement (Appendix B). This Agreement is an approved legal
contract between the State of Michigan and the landowner. The Agreement references the
Project Description (Appendix C), which contains specific contractual items that dictates the
roles and responsibilities for all parties involved. Once the Landowner Agreement has been
signed and the Project Description form completed, the project will be implemented. Funding
for the project will be distributed via one of the following three processes:

Landowner initiated – the landowner will be reimbursed for expenses authorized through the
Landowner Agreement and Project Description.

State initiated – the State will contract with qualified vendors through authorized purchasing
procedures. Contracts for individual properties or groups of properties will be acquired
through a bid process.

State materials – the State will provide the materials directly to the landowner or a contractor
for use on a project.
To ensure fiscal and contractual accountability, each project will be reviewed and certified by a
LIP biologist before the release of funds to either a landowner or contractor. The LIP biologist
ensures the project adheres to the terms of the Landowner Agreement and Project Description. If
any deviation is found, a committee will review the project for compliance with intended
outcomes. For example, tree plantings will be inspected for proper planting and spacing.
A total of 36% non-federal match will be supplied to the program, with the State of Michigan
providing 29% of non-federal match through internal funds, and the remaining 7% match coming
from landowners. Landowners will be encouraged to donate their own labor, equipment and
funds. Cost-share provided through in-kind match is accounted for using standard federal
guidelines and is entered on a “record for professional services or skilled labor donation of time,
materials or equipment” form (Appendix D).
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 20 of 38
Fiscal Administrative Procedures: State has approved legal instrument to enter into agreements
The MDNR has developed a Landowner Agreement (Appendix B) specifically for LIP. This
document was approved in 2004 by the Department’s legal staff and the Wildlife Division
Management Team. It is a legally binding agreement between the State and the landowner and
details the responsibilities, costs and liabilities of the State and the landowner.
System for Fund Distribution: Describe State’s selection or ranking criteria and process to
select projects
The LIP biologist selects projects to fund through a decision making process guided by the
results of the Funding Evaluation form (Appendix E). The LIP biologist visits with numerous
private landowners and evaluates many potential projects throughout the year. The Funding
Evaluation form clearly identifies the specific criteria used by the LIP biologist and is completed
for each landowner. These criteria were developed in cooperation with the regional steering
committees and are identified below:

Presence of target at-risk species (on site or adjacent)

Presence of target habitat (existing or potential)

Location of project in a LIP Priority Area

Cost-benefit evaluation (short-term and long-term)

Threats and opportunities

Landowner/partner match
System for Fund Distribution: Ranking criteria are adequate to select projects based on
conservation priorities identified in proposal
Each LIP biologist will prioritize and select projects based on funding availability and the above
criteria. Priority will be given to the 12 target at-risk species identified as conservation priorities
for Michigan’s LIP and projects that have potential to achieve the greatest ecological benefit. By
focusing on the best possible impact to at-risk species, this qualitative ranking process will be
objective and allow experienced professionals to choose the best projects with the least
administrative cost to the program.
System for Fund Distribution: Objective selection procedure
As a final step in project selection, an internal committee reviews the slate of projects proposed
for funding and the results of the Funding Evaluation forms. This committee is comprised of
LIP staff, the MDNR’s private lands coordinator and federal aid coordinator and staff from the
Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Monitoring: Compliance Monitoring
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 21 of 38
Projects will be monitored for compliance immediately upon project completion and at least
once thereafter until the end of the agreement (averaging 10-15 years). Landowners that fail to
meet the requirements of the Landowner Agreement will be subject to investigation. If the
investigation shows the landowner did knowingly alter the habitat from the original intention of
the Agreement, then they will be required to reimburse the State’s LIP funds.
Monitoring: Biological monitoring
A LIP biological monitoring plan has been developed for LIP based on protocol used by the U.S.
Forest Service and this plan is currently being implemented on a pilot basis. 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 LIP biologists as well as by conservation partners such as the Michigan
Natural Features Inventory 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 due to 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 utilized to track
progress toward specific restoration goals.

On sites with potential habitat or old records for listed species, a presence/absence survey
will be conducted with the assistance of the Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

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 federally listed species, all monitoring will be done in conjunction with established
protocols to guarantee compatibility with data collected by other public agencies and nongovernmental 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 LIP effects will be monitored well beyond the scope of this proposal.
ESTIMATED COST:
Percentage of LIP tier 2 funds used on private lands as opposed to administrative costs
Only 2 % of the total budget is spent on administrative costs. A majority of the funds (98%) will
be used directly for providing technical and financial assistance. Additional administrative costs
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 22 of 38
such as presentations, meetings, planning and staff support will be implemented using Tier 1
funds.
Non-federal cost sharing
The following estimated costs cover the period from October 2007, through September 2009.
The total non-federal match is found below, amounting to $430,740 (36%). Landowners may
provide in-kind match on their individual agreements up to 25% of the agreement costs that will
provide an estimated $86,702. All of the state match provided to this proposal will be cash. We
will accept partial funding if full funding is not available.
FY 08-09
Segment 1
Objectives
1. Prairie fens and emergent wetlands
$325,000
2. Savannas and prairies
$325,000
3. Jack pine forests and barrens
$250,000
4. Mesic conifers
$296,500
Totals
$1,196,500
Federal Share (64%):
State Share (29%):
Other Share (7%):
$765,760
$344,038
$86,702
Previous LIP funds expended or encumbered
Previously awarded federal Tier 2 funds from 2003 total $1,351,717, and from 2005 total
$475,000. To date 79% of these funds have been encumbered or spent. A portion of funds will
be spent on staff salary yet this fiscal year in order to implement projects, but are not reported as
encumbered. Last year, an additional $765,760 Tier 2 grant was awarded to Michigan’s LIP
program.
COMPLIANCE:
In developing the Michigan LIP, methods for complying with state and federal statutes have
been developed and used. 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 landowner. Implementation
of this program occurs 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
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 23 of 38
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:
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.
1.4A(3) The issuance and modification of procedures, including manuals, orders,
guidelines, and field instructions, when the impacts are limited to administrative effects.
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.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 24 of 38
1.4B(8) Consultation and technical assistance activities directly related to the conservation
of fish and wildlife resources.
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)
During the first phase of Tier 2 implementation, we found it necessary for long-term survival of
federally listed endangered species to work in occupied habitat. 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 management methods will not have any effects 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, cultipacking, 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.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 25 of 38
PROJECT PERSONNEL:
Federal Aid Coordinator
Eric Sink
MDNR Federal Aid Coordinator
Financial Services Division
(517) 335-1064
Grant Coordinator
Stephen Beyer
Wildlife Division Federal Aid Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 241-3450
Project Leader
Mark Sargent
Private Lands Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 241-0666
Objectives Coordinator
Susan Tangora
LIP Coordinator
Wildlife Division
(517) 241-1153
LITERATURE CITED:
Beyer, D.E. Jr, B.J. Roell, J.H. Hammill, R.D. Earle. 2001 Records of Canada lynx, Lynx
canadensis, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 1940-1997. Canadian Field-Naturalist
115 (2) 234-240.
Brown, W.H. 1971. Winter population trends in the Red-shouldered Hawk. Am. Birds 25:81317.
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
Hoving, C.L., D.J. Harrison, W.B. Krohn, R.A. Joseph, and M. O’Brien. 2005. Broad-scale
determinates of Canada lynx occurrence in eastern North America. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 69:739-751.
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.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 26 of 38
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Kirtland’s warbler recovery plan (updated 1985). An
unpublished report prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1997. Recovery plan for Mitchell’s satyr butterfly
(Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii French). Ft. Snelling, MN.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency Draft Indian Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised
Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera
leucophaea) Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 62pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final Recovery Plan for the Karner Blue Butterfly
(Lycaeides melissa samuelis). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
122pp.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 27 of 38
APPENDIX A: Segment 1 Accomplishment and Budget Detail for the Expenditure Period 30
September 2008 through 30 September 2010
SUMMARY:
This Grant Segment supports the continued expansion of MDNR’s Landowner Incentive
Program to address at-risk species’ needs on private lands. This Segment targets 12 species atrisk and their associated habitats as our conservation priorities based on their urgency and need
for immediate conservation action, their dependency on private land and their listing as species
of greatest conservation need in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. To focus our efforts and
maximize benefits for our 12 conservation priorities, we will provide financial and technical
assistance to private landowners in 3 priority regions across the State:
1) Southern Michigan Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands,
2) Jack Pine Highlands and
3) Lake Superior Forest.
PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS BY PROJECT STATEMENT
OBJECTIVES:
Project Statement and Objectives
Planned
Accomplishments
Reporting
Units
Estimated
Cost1
A Landowner Incentive Program that targets at-risk species on private lands and takes action to
conserve, protect and enhance habitat for these species using both technical and financial assistance to
landowners.
1. Prairie fens and emergent wetlands
200
Acres
$325,000
2. Savannas and prairies
600
Acres
$325,000
3. Jack pine forests and barrens
500
Acres
$250,000
1,500
Acres
$296,500
4. Mesic conifers
Project Total
$1,196,500
1
The 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.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 28 of 38
BUDGET SUMMARY: Expenditure Period: 30 September 2008 – 30 September 2010
Salaries and Wages
$123,915
Fringe Benefits (38%)
$47,088
Salary Sub-total
Indirect Rate (18.11%)
$171,003
$30,969
Total Salaries
Contracts
$201,971
$725,000
Travel
$5,000
Equipment
$10,000
Supplies, Services and Materials
$250,000
Project Sub-total
Indirect for Audit (0.38%)
$1,191,971
$4,529
TOTAL COST
$1,196,500
Federal Share:
$765,760
Other Share:
$86,702
State Share:
$344,038
SEGMENT CONDITIONS REQUEST
1. MNDR 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.”
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 29 of 38
APPENDIX B: At-risk species that are expected to benefit from Michigan LIP.
(91 species total, target species in bold.)
Southern Prairies, Savannas and Wetlands (52 species, targeted species bold)
Common Name
Animals
American bittern
Angular spittlebug
Black rat snake
Blanchard's cricket frog
Blanding's turtle
Blazing star borer moth
Copperbelly water snake
Culver's root borer moth
Dickcissel
Eastern box turtle
Eastern fox snake
Eastern massasauga
Frosted elfin
Grasshopper Sparrow
Henslow's Sparrow
Karner blue butterfly
King Rail
Kirtland's snake
Land snail
Leadplant flower moth
Least shrew
Maritime sunflower borer
Marsh Wren
Loggerhead Shrike
Mitchell's satyr
Newman's brocade
Ottoe skipper
Persius duskywing
Phlox moth
Poweshiek skipperling
Prairie vole
Regal fritillary
Short-eared Owl
Silphium borer moth
Spartina moth
Spotted turtle
Swamp metalmark
Tamarack tree cricket
Tawny crescent
Three-staff underwing
Woodland vole
(continued)
Scientific Name
Botaurus lentiginosus
Lepyronia angulifera
Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta
Acris crepitans blanchardi
Emys blandingii
Papaipema beeriana
Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta
Papaipema sciata
Spiza americana
Terrapene carolina carolina
Elaphe vulpina gloydi
Sistrurus catenatus catenatus
Incisalia irus
Ammodramus savannarum
Ammodramus henslowii
Lycaeides melissa samuelis
Rallus elegans
Clonophis kirtlandii
Catinella exile
Schinia lucens
Cryptotis parva
Papaipema maritima
Cistothorus palustris
Lanius ludovicianus migrans
Neonympha mitchellii
mitchellii
Meropleon
ambifusca
Hesperia ottoe
Erynnis persius persius
Schinia indiana
Oarisma poweshiek
Microtus ochrogaster
Speyeria idalia
Asio flammeus
Papaipema silphii
Spartiniphaga inops
Clemmys guttata
Calephelis mutica
Oecanthus laricis
Phyciodes batesii
Catocala amestris
Microtus pinetorum
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
MI
Status
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
E
SC
SC
SC
T
SC
T
SC
T
T
E
E
SC
E
T
SC
SC
E
E
SC
T
T
E
T
E
E
E
T
SC
T
SC
SC
SC
E
SC
US
Status
SOC
LT
SOC
C
PS
SOC
LE
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
LE
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
GRank
G4
G3
G5T5
G5T5
G4
G3
G5T2T3
G3G4
G5
G5T5
G5T3
G3G4
G3
G5
G4
G5T2
G4
G2
G2
G4
G5
G4
G5
G4T3
G1G2
G3G4
G3G4
G5T1T3
G2G4
G2G3
G5
G3
G5
G3G4
G2G4
G5
G3G4
G1G2
G4
G4
G5
Wetland
Prairie/
Savanna
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 30 of 38
Common Name
Plants
Edible valerian
Leiberg's panic-grass
Kitten-tails
Mat muhly
Pale moonwort
Prairie fringed orchid
Prairie smoke
Skinner's gerardia
Sullivant's milkweed
Tall green milkweed
White lady-slipper
Scientific Name
Valeriana edulis var. ciliata
Panicum leibergii
Besseya bullii
Muhlenbergia richardsonis
Botrychium pallidum
Platanthera leucophaea
Geum triflorum
Agalinis skinneriana
Asclepias sullivantii
Asclepias hirtella
Cypripedium candidum
MI
Status
T
T
T
T
SC
E
T
E
T
T
T
US
Status
SOC
SOC
LT
SOC
GRank
G5T3
G5
G3
G5
G2G3
G2
G5
G3
G5
G5
G4
Wetland
Prairie/
Savanna
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jack Pine Highlands (24 species, targeted species bold)
MI
Status
US
Status
Nicrophorus americanus
Papaipema beeriana
Merolonche dolli
Atrytonopsis hianna
Sistrurus catenatus catenatus
Incisalia irus
Lepyronia gibbosa
Pyrgus wyandot
Dendroica kirtlandii
Hesperia ottoe
Erynnis persius persius
Eacles imperialis pini
Dendroica discolor
Prosapia ignipectus
Appalachia arcana
Tympanuchus phasianellus
Pygarctia spraguei
Falcipennis canadensis
H
SC
SC
T
SC
T
T
SC
E
T
T
SC
E
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
LE
Prunus alleghaniensis var.
davisii
Asclepias ovalifolia
Cirsium hillii
Agoseris glauca
Festuca scabrella
Juncus vaseyi
SC
Common Name
Scientific Name
Animals
American burying beetle
Blazing star borer
Doll's merolonche
Dusted skipper
Eastern massasauga
Frosted elfin
Great plains spittlebug
Grizzled skipper
Kirtland's Warbler
Ottoe skipper
Persius duskywing
Pine imperial moth
Prairie Warbler
Red-legged spittlebug
Secretive locust
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Sprague's pygarctia
Spruce Grouse
Plants
Alleghany plum
Dwarf milkweed
Hill's thistle
Pale agoseris
Rough fescue
Vasey’s rush
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
E
SC
T
T
T
C
SOC
SOC
LE
SOC
SOC
GRank
G2G3
G3
G3G4
G4G5
G3G4
G3
G3G4
G1G2Q
G1
G3G4
G5T1T3
G5T3
G5
G4
G2G3
G4
G5
G5
G4T3
SOC
G5
G3
G4G5
G5
G5
Page 31 of 38
Lake Superior Forest (21 species, targeted species bold)
Common Name
Animals
Bald Eagle
Cerulean Warbler
Cooper's Hawk
Gray wolf
Land snail
Long-eared Owl
Lynx
Merlin
Moose
Northern Goshawk
Rapids clubtail
Red-shouldered Hawk
Spike-lip crater
Wood turtle
Scientific Name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Dendroica cerulea
Accipiter cooperii
Canis lupus
Vertigo paradoxa
Asio otus
Felis lynx
Falco columbarius
Alces alces
Accipiter gentilis
Gomphus quadricolor
Buteo lineatus
Appalachina sayanus
Glyptemys insculpta
MI
Status
T
SC
SC
T
SC
T
E
T
SC
SC
SC
T
SC
SC
US
Status
SOC
LT
SOC
GRank
G4
G4
G5
G4
G3Q
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G3G4
G5
G5
G4
Plants
Assiniboia sedge
Fairy bells
Goblin moonwort
Hart's-tongue fern
T
E
T
E
Large toothwort
Carex assiniboinensis
Disporum hookeri
Botrychium mormo
Asplenium scolopendrium var
americanum
Dentaria maxima
T
G5Q
Three-birds orchid
Walking fern
Triphora trianthophora
Asplenium rhizophyllum
T
T
G3G4
G5
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
SOC
LT
G4G5
G5
G3
G4T3
Page 32 of 38
APPENDIX C: LIP 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.
LANDOWNER 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Assume responsibility for securing federal, state and local permits needed to carry out the
proposed habitat development project.
Allow the wildlife habitat development project described in the Project Description to remain in
place for a period of __________ years from the date of the Cooperator’s signature on this
Agreement.
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.
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.
Complete all Cooperator(s) responsibilities as listed in Section ____ of the Project Description.
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.
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 33 of 38
LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM - WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT
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
Cooperator
Signature – Cooperator
Printed name
Date
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 34 of 38
APPENDIX D: LIP 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
Jack Pine
acres
Mesic Conifers
acres
Barrens
acres
Provide a brief narrative of the project. (please print)
The DNR will:
The Cooperator(s) will:
IV. FUNDS
Partner
Equipment
Materials
Funds
Total Cost
In-kind
$
$
$
$
Total DNR Cost: $
Total Project Cost: $
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 35 of 38
APPENDIX E: MDNR In-kind Match Form
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Wildlife Division
Record for Professional Services or Skilled Labor Donations of Time, Materials and
Equipment
INSTRUCTIONS: This form must be used by DNR Bureaus/Divisions/Offices for DNR projects that use
volunteers when the project is supported with federal funds and/or the volunteer’s time is being used as part of
the DNR’s match toward a federal grant. This form or a similar form must also be used by subrecipients of a
federal grant made available to another organization by the DNR. The completed form must be submitted to the
DNR Wildlife Division in compliance with financial reporting procedures, generally along with a payment
request. A copy should be retained by the grant subrecipient. Completed form will also be maintained in the
project file of the Wildlife Division along with a copy to the DNR Federal Aid Coordinator.
Separate forms shall be completed for each non-DNR person donating professional services or skilled
labor to the project
MAKE ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS FORM AS NEEDED
DNR Project
OR
Subrecipient Project
FOR ALL PROJECTS:
Federal Grant Number and Title:
DNR Project Manager:
DNR Grant Coordinator:
DNR Project/Activity Code:
FOR SUBRECIPIENT PROJECTS:
Subrecipient Organization:
Subrecipient’s Representative:
DONATIONS OF TIME
Name of Company or Organization:
Person Donating Services:
Profession or Skill Area:
Description of Work Performed:
PROVIDE THE DATE AND HOURS WORKED FOR EACH DAY THAT TIME WAS DONATED TO THE PROJECT:
Date
Hours
Date
Hours
Date
Hours
Date
Hours
Date
Hours
Date
Hours
Date
Hours
Date
Hours
Valuation Method (for example – Hourly Rate X Total Hours), include notes/comments if necessary:
Total Value of Time Donations:
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 36 of 38
OTHER DONATIONS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY/PERSON ABOVE TOWARD THE PROJECT:
MATERALS AND SUPPLIES
Description/Amount
How Used in Project
Valuation Method
Value
Notes/Comments:
Total Value of Materials and Supplies Donated: $ 0.00
EQUIPMENT
Description
How Used in Project
Date
Hours
Hourly Rate
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Notes/Comments:
Total Value of Donated Equipment Use: $ 0.00
TOTAL VALUE OF ALL DONATIONS: $ 0.00
CERTIFICATIONS
Person Donating Services
Printed Name
Signature
Date
Signature
Date
Signature
Date
Signature
Date
Signature
Date
Company or Organization Official
Printed Name
DNR Grant Coordinator
Printed Name
FOR DNR PROJECTS:
DNR Project Manager
Printed Name
FOR SUBRECIPIENT PROJECTS:
Subrecipient’s Representative
Printed Name
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Page 37 of 38
APPENDIX F: LIP Funding Evaluation Form
Michigan Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Division
LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM
PROJECT FUNDING EVALUATION
Requested under authority of Act 451 of PA of 1994, as amended.
What is the overall impact of the project?
What is project size?
What is project cost effectiveness ($ per acre)?
Is the project technically feasible?
Yes
No
What element occurrences are present?
What remnant habitats are present?
What is long-term viability of project?
What other extenuating circumstances may affect ability to fund?
What partners and/or funding sources are involved?
Does this project warrant funding?
Yes
No
If yes, what is reason for funding?
If no, should project be re-evaluated next year?
Yes
No
EVALUATED BY (please print)
Signature
I-8-T-1 Michigan’s Landowner Incentive Program – Tier 2, MI DNR
Date
Page 38 of 38