Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Fen and the Art of
Document related concepts
Conservation movement wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Habitat Conservation Plan wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Fen and the Art of Mitchell’s Satyr Maintenance A DRAFT of the FEN COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN With special reference to MICHIGAN & INDIANA DRAFT Rev. July 29, 2010 Table of Contents 1. 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 3. 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 4. 4.1. 4.2 4.3 5. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.4 Introduction.............................................................................................................1 Overview of Prairie Fens in Michigan and Indiana..................................................2 Whatisafen?............................................................................................................2 LandscapeContext....................................................................................................3 PhysicalFeatures.......................................................................................................4 Geologyandhydrology.............................................................................................4 Regionalclimate........................................................................................................5 Microclimate.............................................................................................................5 Microtopography...............................................................................................................5 EcologicalProcesses...................................................................................................5 Wildfireandaboriginalburning................................................................................6 Beaverfloodings........................................................................................................6 Grazingandbrowsing...............................................................................................7 Insect/diseaseoutbreak............................................................................................13 BiologicalDiversity.................................................................................................13 Vegetation...............................................................................................................13 Animals...................................................................................................................14 Fungi,protists,bacteriaandviruses.........................................................................14 Threats to Prairie Fens in Michigan & Indiana......................................................14 LossofLandscapeIntegrity.....................................................................................14 Socialattitudesandlandusechanges.......................................................................15 Habitatlossandfragmentation......................................................................................15 Climatechange.......................................................................................................16 LossofEcologicalProcesses.....................................................................................18 Alteredflowofgroundwaterandwaterquality.......................................................18 Alteredfireregimes..................................................................................................19 Alteredgrazingandbrowsingregimes.....................................................................20 LossofBiologicalDiversity.....................................................................................22 Invasivespecies........................................................................................................22 Incompatiblerecreationalactivities..........................................................................27 Extinctionandextirpation.......................................................................................28 Goals and Objectives..............................................................................................29 MaintainandRestoreFenDistributionandContext..............................................29 RestoreorMimicNaturalProcesses........................................................................29 MaintainorRestoreNativeBiologicalDiversity....................................................29 Conservation Strategies..........................................................................................29 ProtectPrairieFens,AssociatedUplandHabitats,andLandscapeConnections.......29 IncreasePublicAwarenessandUnderstandingofPrairieFens..................................31 Incorporatepredictedclimatechangeintoconservationplanningforprairiefens....31 Adjustmanagementactionstoaddresspredictedeffectsofclimatechangeonfens.31 Protectandrestorenaturalsurfaceandgroundwaterflowandfloodingregime.......33 * ii * Table of Contents 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 7. 7.1 7.2 8. Minimizeadversechangestowaterquality..............................................................34 UseFireasaManagementTooltoRestoreorMaintainFensandLandscape..........36 Limitgrazingandbrowsing,exceptinalreadydamagedfens...................................38 Manageinvasivespecies...........................................................................................48 MinimizeAdverseImpactsofRecreationalActivities...............................................49 ReintroduceMissingPrairieFenComponents.........................................................50 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management..............................................50 ContinueMappingandMonitoringtoAssessStatusandHealthofFens.................50 ConductActiveResearchtoSupportScience-basedPrairieFenConservation.........51 AdaptiveManagement.............................................................................................51 Implementation......................................................................................................52 PartnerParticipation...............................................................................................52 PublicInvolvement.................................................................................................52 Literature Cited......................................................................................................52 Two-StateHabitatConservationPlanfortheMitchell’sSatyrButterfly A1. Introduction.........................................................................................................A-1 A1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................A-1 A1.2 Background...........................................................................................................A-2 A1.3 PermitDuration....................................................................................................A-3 A1.4 Regulatory/LegalFramework.................................................................................A-3 A1.5 AreaToBeCoveredbyPermit...............................................................................A-4 A1.6 SpeciesToBeCoveredbyPermit...........................................................................A-4 A2. Mitchell’s Satyr Biology and Status......................................................................A-4 A2.1 PhysicalDescription..............................................................................................A-4 A2.2 Habitat..................................................................................................................A-5 A2.3 FoodHabits..........................................................................................................A-5 A2.4 LifeCycle..............................................................................................................A-5 A2.5 Dispersal...............................................................................................................A-5 A2.6 DistributionandAbundance................................................................................A-8 A3. Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................A-8 A3.1 PropertyAcquisition..............................................................................................A-8 A3.2 Maintainexistingprocessesandconnectivity.........................................................A-9 A3.3 Restoredegradedprocessesandconnectivity......................................................A-10 A3.4 Restoreforreintroduction...................................................................................A-11 A4. Project Description and Activities Covered under Permit..................................A-12 A4.1 ProjectDescription..............................................................................................A-12 A4.2 ActivitiesCoveredbyPermit...............................................................................A-12 A4.2.1RestoreHydrology..............................................................................................A-12 A4.2.3Mowing/Hydroaxing...........................................................................................A-13 A4.2.4VegetationRemoval............................................................................................A-13 * iii * Table of Contents A4.2.6BiologicalControl.............................................................................................A-13 A4.2.7LivestockGrazing...............................................................................................A-14 A4.2.8SeedingandPlanting..........................................................................................A-14 A4.2.9TreatmentCombinations....................................................................................A-14 A5. Measures to Minimize Adverse Impacts.............................................................A-14 A5.1 General...............................................................................................................A-14 A5.2 RestoreHydrology..............................................................................................A-14 A5.3 PrescribedBurning..............................................................................................A-15 A5.4 Mowing/Hydroaxing...........................................................................................A-15 A5.5 VegetationRemoval.............................................................................................A-16 A5.6 BiologicalControl...............................................................................................A-17 A5.7 LivestockGrazing................................................................................................A-17 A5.8 SeedingandPlanting...........................................................................................A-18 A5.10 AdaptiveManagement.........................................................................................A-18 A6. Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment...................................................A-19 A6.1 DirectImpacts.....................................................................................................A-19 A6.2 IndirectImpacts..................................................................................................A-19 A6.3 AnticipatedTake:WildlifeSpecies......................................................................A-19 A6.3.1Mitchell’sSatyr...................................................................................................A-19 A6.3.2OtherFederallyListedandCandidateWildlife...................................................A-20 A6.3.3State-listedWildlife.............................................................................................A-20 A6.4 AnticipatedImpacts:Plants................................................................................A-20 A6.4.1FederallyListedPlants........................................................................................A-20 A6.4.1State-listedPlants................................................................................................A-20 A.6.5 CumulativeImpacts............................................................................................A-20 A7. Monitoring and Reporting.................................................................................A-21 A8. Funding..............................................................................................................A-21 A8.1 FundingforHCPAdministration.......................................................................A-21 A8.2 FundingforHCPImplementation......................................................................A-21 A9. Alternatives.........................................................................................................A-22 A9.1 AlternativeA:PrivateLandandProtectedLandHCP(Preferred)........................A-22 A9.2 AlternativeB:Public-landsHCP........................................................................A-22 A9.3 AlternativeC:StatusQuoorNoNewAction.....................................................A-22 A10. HCP Implementation, Changed and Unforseen Circumstances........................A-22 A10.1HCPImplementation..........................................................................................A-23 A10.2 ChangedCircumstances......................................................................................A-23 A10.3UnforeseenCircumstances...................................................................................A-23 A10.4OtherMeasuresasRequiredbytheDirector........................................................A-23 A11. Literature Cited..................................................................................................A-24 Appendix B: Directions to Make your own Herbicide Wand...........................................B-1 * vi * Table of Contents AppendixC:Methods and Guidelines for Assessing Restoration Progress in Prairie Fens Using Coarse-Level Metrics..................................................................................... C-1 AppendixD:Implementing Agreement........................................................................... D-1 AppendixE.Considerations and Caveats of the Fire and Species Phenology Tables........E-1 AppendixF.Techniques and timing to manage some common invasive exotic plants..... F-1 * vii * Introduction 1. Introduction Fensprovidehabitatforadisproportionateamount ofourStates’plantandwildlifespecies.Th emanagement ofprairiefensinMichiganandIndianaiscriticaltothe biodiversityofthisregion.Th isplanprovidesstrategicand operationalguidancetolandmanagerswhoareresponsible forprairiefencomplexes.Th eplanisatooltohelpmanagers to:1)maintainorincreasetheexistingnumber,areaand distributionoffunctioningprairiefencomplexes;2) maintain,restore,andsimulateecologicalprocessesinprairie fens;and3)maintainorincreasenativebiologicaldiversity andoverallhealthofprairiefencomplexes. Diverseconservationpartnerscollaboratedtowrite thisplan.Th eplanreflectsaconsiderableinvestmentoftime andenergyonthepartofmanyfederalandstateagencies, non-governmentalorganizations,consultantsandother privateinterests.Itprovidesguidancetothemanytypesof managerswhohaveaninterestintheconservationofprairie fencomplexesinMichiganandIndiana. Th roughitsfocusonlandscapedistribution, ecologicalprocesses,andbiologicaldiversity,theFen ConservationPlan(FCP)providesanaturalcommunity contextfortheMitchell’sSatyrHabitatConservationPlan (HCP;AppendixA).Th eHCPoutlinesmeasurestoavoid, minimizeandmitigatetakeofthefederallyendangered Mitchell’ssatyrbutterfly(Neonymphamitchelliimitchellii) duringmanagementactivitiesinoccupiedhabitat,asrequired fortheissuanceofanIncidentalTakePermit(ITP,)pursuant toprovisionsofSection10oftheFederalEndangeredSpecies Act.Th eFenConservationPlanoutlinesgoalsandstrategies fortheconservationoffencomplexesandtheircomponents, includingMitchell’ssatyrbutterflies;theHCPensuresthat associatedmanagementactivitieswillnotjeopardizelocal Mitchell’ssatyrpopulations. Th isplanintegratesadiversecollectionofstrategic plansthathavebeendevelopedtoguidenaturalresource conservationinMichiganandIndiana.Someofthose plansincludetheFederalRecoveryPlanforMitchell’s SatyrButterfly(U.S.FishandWildlifeService1998),the IndianaWildlifeActionPlan(Anonymous2006),the MichiganWildlifeActionPlan(Eagleetal.2005),and theConservationPlan[forthe]NorthCentralTillplain Ecoregion(Th eNatureConservancy2003).Th isplanwill *1* Overview helpimplementtheseotherplansbygivingtargeteddirection, speciesincludeprairiegrassessuchasAndropogongerardii addressingkeythreats,andprovidingquantitativegoalsfor andSpartinapectinatawithprairieforbsandsedges(Carex prairiefens. spp.).CommonshrubspeciesincludeDasiphorafruticosa ssp.floribunda,Cornusspp.,andSalixspp.”(NatureServe 2008)Inlesstechnicalterms,fens are unforested, grassy Groundwater conservation is the key to fen conservation. 2. Overview of Prairie Fens in Michigan and Indiana 2.1 What is a fen? Afenisatypeofwetland.Groundwateristhemain watersource.Inprairiefens,thegroundwaterhasbeenin contactwithcalciumandmagnesiumrichsoilorbedrock, whichresultsinhighmineralcontentandlowplantnutrients (BedfordandGodwin2003,Grootjansetal.2006).Species associatedwithfensvaryfromregiontoregionandfrom continenttocontinent,butfensworldwidesharesimilar landscapecontexts,plantcommunities,andconservation threats(vanDiggelenetal.2006).Fensaresedge-dominated peatlands,oftenwithscatteredtreesandshrubs,andhave greaterspeciesdiversitythansurroundinglandscapes. Th isplanisfocusedonwhatNatureServe(2008) definesasaNorth-CentralInteriorShrub-Graminoid AlkalineFen:a“fensystem…foundintheglaciatedportions oftheMidwestandsouthernCanada.Examplesofthis systemcanbelocatedonleveltoslopingseepageareas,in pittedoutwashorinkettlelakesassociatedwithkettle-kamemorainetopography.Groundwaterflowsthroughmarlsand shallowpeatsoils,andgroundwateristypicallyminerotrophic andslightlyalkaline.Examplesofthissystemcontainacore fenareaofgraminoidssurroundedbyshrubswithafairly continuoussphagnummosslayer.Herbaceousandshrub coverisvariablewithlittletonotreecover.Characteristic Fens are sedgedominated peatlands, often with scattered trees and shrubs. wetlands, and have muck soil with very hard water.Th e classificationinMichiganis“prairiefen”(Kostetal.2007) and“fen”inIndiana.Th eterms“fen”and“prairiefen”are usedinterchangeablythroughoutthisPlan.Shrub-Graminoid AlkalineFensoccurinabandfromthemiddleofIndianato themiddleofsouthernLowerMichigan(Figure1).Other typesoffenoccurbothnorthandsouthofthiszone. Expertswhostudycommunitysystematicsdefine prairiefenindifferentways.Someexpertsdefinefensonlyin termsofaparticularsubsetoffenzones(see2.4.1)orinterms ofparticularindicatorspecies.Hereabroaderdefinition isadopted.Forthepurposeofthisplan,fenincludesthe fullrangeofzonesfromtheinundatedzonethroughthe savannazone.Th isplanalsofollowsKostetal.2007by differentiatingprairiefenfromforestedwetlandbasedon canopycoverage.Fenshavelessthan25%canopycoverage producedbymaturetreesorlessthan50%canopycoverage producedbytallshrubsandtrees.Th edefinitionispragmatic becausemuchofthisplanconcernsrestoringprairiefenfrom forestedwetland(usuallyshrub-carr). Figure1.Fenhydrologyincludesrechanrgeareas,whichareoftenmiles fromthefenitself. *2* Overview tamarackswamps.Increasingly,prairiefensarefoundas smallfragmentsoflandscapesdominatedbyshrub-carror hardwoodswamp.Fensarefrequentlyfoundadjacenttolakes oralongstreams. PrairiefensarerankedasaG3communityby NatureServe.Th eyaredeemedvulnerabletoextinctionor extirpation,bothonaglobalscaleandwithinMichiganand Indiana.InMichiganotherG3communitiesincludeprairies (drysand,dry-mesic,andwetprairies)anddunes(opendune anddune/swalecomplexes).Asof2008,142prairiefenswere knownfromMichiganand66fensfromIndiana. Th edistributionofprairiefensisdeterminedby geomorphologyandhydrology(Amonetal.2002,Miner andKettering2003).However,prairiefensoccurinthe contextofothernaturalcommunitiesandlanduses.Th e integrityofprairiefensisdependantonthecompositionand configurationofsurroundingcommunitiesandlanduse. Prairiefenssharespeciesincommonwithprairies andsavannas.Bycomparingcirca1800landcover(Comer etal.1995)andcontemporarydistributionsofprairiefensin Michigan(Bioticsdatabase,MNFI,accessed10/08/2009,) 89%ofprairiefensinMichiganoccurredwithinonemile (1.6kilometers)ofprairiesorsavannas(Figure2).Many prairie/savannaspeciesthatarenowfoundmainlywithin prairiefens(suchaspurplemilkweed,Asclepiaspurpurascens) wereoncepartoflarger,contiguouspopulationsthatspanned bothfenandsurroundinguplands.Fortheseprairie/savanna species,prairiefensrepresentsmallfragmentsorremnantsof whatwereoncemuchlarger,unbrokenhabitats. Similarly,prairiefenssharemanyspeciesincommon Figure2.Fensoccurinspecificbandswithrollingtopographyand coarsesoils 2.2 Landscape Context PrairiefensoccurthroughouttheMidwestonglacial outwashfromOhioandOntariotoIowaandMinnesota (Amonetal.2002).Historically,theyoccurredinthecontext offire-dependentcommunities,suchasprairie,oaksavanna oroakwoodlands.Today,theymostoftenoccurinthe contextofclosedcanopyoakforestoragriculture.Prairie fensrarelyoccurinisolationofotherwetlandcommunities, butratherformonetypeofwetlandcommunitywithin thecontextofemergentmarshes,sedgemeadows,and Figure3.Differenttypesofprairiefenoccurindifferentpartsofthe landscape *3* Overview 1999,Kostetal.2007).Th ehydrologyofthesewetlandsis maintainedthroughinputsofminerotrophicgroundwater. Th isgroundwaterpassesthroughcoarseglacialdepositsand picksupsignificantmineralloads.Th eresultantgroundwater iscold,richinminerals,lowinplantnutrients,andhasahigh pH(alkaline). Th egroundwateroccursnearthesurfaceofthefen, eitherthroughseepsorsheetflow.Mostfensoccuradjacent tosteephillsandrollingglacialtopography;however,many fensalsooccurasupwellingswithinotherwiselevelwetlands. Becausefensaredependantongroundwater,precipitation eventsanddroughtshavelittleeffectontheamountofwater infensoils.Th ewatertableinfensisremarkablyconstantand consistentlyhigh.Th efencommunityevolvedinasystem thatneitherdriesnorfloodsasmuchasotherwetlands. Becausefenssorarelydry,plantmatterdecomposesslowly andaccumulatesaspeat,asinbogs,andsimilartobogs, thelackofdecompositionlimitstheavailabilityofplant nutrients.Th econsistenthighwatertablealsolimitsmost treesandshrubsfromestablishinginfens. Figure4.PriortolandscapechangesassociatedwithEuropean Americansettlement,fenswereoftenfoundinassociationwithoak savannasandotherfiredependentcommunities withotherwetlandsinMichiganandIndiana.Th esewetland specieswereonceconnected,atleastintermittently,tolarger landscapesofwetlands.Populationsofcommonwetland plants,suchastussocksedge(Carexstricta),occurredacross manywetnaturalcommunities;thesecommonplantswere oncepartsoflargerpopulationsthatarenowseparatedby landusesthatfunctionasbarrierstogeneticexchangeand dispersal. 2.3 Physical Features 2.3.1 Geology and hydrology Fensarepeatwetlandsthatreceivemostoftheir waterthroughgroundwater(BedfordandGodwin2003, Grootjansetal.2006),ascomparedtobogs,whichare peatwetlandsthatreceivemostoftheirwaterthrough precipitation.PrairiefensintheMidwesternUnitedStates occuronpoorlydrainedoutwashplains(Spielesetal. Figure5.Fensareassociatedwithhighvelocitygroundwater,as predictedfromthe“Darcymodel”forMichigan.. *4* Overview Th egroundwaterthatfeedsfensisrichinions,such ascarbonates,magnesiumandiron,whichthegroundwater picksupfromtheglacialoutwashthroughwhichitpercolates. However,plantnutrients,suchasnitrogenandphosphorus, arenaturallylimitedinfens.Th eterminologyofprairiefens as“rich”fenscanbeconfusing.Inothercontexts,“rich” connotessoilshighinplantnutrients.Prairiefensare“rich”in plantdiversityandionsinthewater,butarenaturallypoorin thekeyplantnutrientsofphosphorusandnitrogen(Wheeler andProctor2000,BedfordandGodwin2003). Prairiefensareuniqueamongwetlandsinthat theyoftenhaveadiscernibleslope.Withtheexceptionof upwellings,thelowestpartoftheslopeendsinanemergent marsh,streamorlake.Incontemporaryprairiefens,the lowestpartofthefenisoftenthemostopen;shrubsandtrees becomemorecommonhigherontheslope.Historically,fires burningfromtheprairieandsavannasprobablythinnedtrees andshrubsalongthefenmargin,andthezonesfromopento woodedfenwereprobablylesspronounced. higherhumiditythanthesurroundinglandscape.Visitors tofensoftenremarkthattheyfeelhotterinthesummer. Th econstantgroundwaternearthesurfacealsodampens extremesinhumidityandtemperature,bothonadailyand seasonalbasis.Relativehumiditynearthesoilsurfaceismore consistentlydamp,comparedtogreaterswingsinhumidity fromdrytowetinadjacentecosystems.Soiltemperatures donotgetaswarmorascoldasthesoilsinsurrounding ecosystems.Fensoilsrarelyfreeze,whichlimitsuseof heavymechanizedequipmentinmanagement,evenduring exceptionallycoldwinterweather. 2.3.4 Microtopography Oneofthedominantplantsinfensisthetussock sedge(Carexstricta).Tussocksedgesproducenewvegetation ontopofolderplantgrowthtoformcharacteristicpillars, ortussocks.Th esetussocksprovideavarietyofdifferent nichesforfenvegetation(Figure3).Eachtussockhasa moisturegradient:saturatednearthepeatanddriertoward thetop.Eachtussockalsoexperiencesafullrangeofdaily 2.3.2 Regional climate sunexposures:southernsidestendtobewarmerandnorthern Prairiefensoccurinanarrowclimaterange.Th e sidestendtobecooler.Th esevariouszonesprovideunique combinationofprecipitationandtemperatureprevents moistureandaspectnichesandresultinhighplantand soilevaporationfromexceedinggroundwaterinputs. insectdiversity.Furthermore,thepresenceoftussocksedges Whereprairiefensoccur,precipitationishighenoughand increasesthesurfaceareaoffens,whichcanbeusedbya temperaturesarelowenoughforsaturatedpeattoaccumulate. diversityofplants,insectsandotheranimals. Th ispeataccumulationisbalancedbytemperaturesthatare highenoughandprecipitationlowenoughtofosteraprairie orsavannalandscapecontext. 2.4 Ecological Processes PrairiefensinIndianaandMichiganoccuracross aclimaticgradientfromthewarmerandwettermiddleof Ecologicalcommunitiesaremaintainedbythe IndianatothecooleranddriermiddleofMichigan’sLower frequencyandextentofdisturbancesorecologicalprocesses. Peninsula.Temperaturesforthisregionare:averageJanuary Whenthefrequencyandextentofecologicalprocesses minimum13°to19°F(-7°to-11°C);averagemaximumJuly change,communitieschange.Th ischangeisoftencalled 83°to87°F(28°to31°C);with11–16dayswithmaximum “succession.”Th efrequencyandextentofprocessesthat temperaturesabove90°F(32°C);and113–160dayswith historicallyproducedandmaintainedprairiefencommunities minimumtemperaturesbelow32°F(0°C).Precipitationfor havechanged,andthosechangesareresultinginwidespread thisregionis:averageannualtotalof34–45inches(86–114 conversiontomorecommonandlessdiverseecological cm);andaverageannualsnowfallof18–86inches(46–218 communities,suchasshrub-carrandhardwoodswamp. cm). Unlesshydrologyorgrazingregimesarealtered, 2.3.3 Microclimate Fenshaveamicroclimatethatsetsthemapartfrom thesurroundinglandscape.Prairiefensconsistentlyhavea intactfensdonotproceedthroughthetypicalsuccessional trajectoryofoldfieldtoforest,ordosoveryslowly.Th e groundwaterinputstomostfensinMichiganandIndiana havebeenaltered,andmosthaveexperiencedgrazing, *5* Overview toagreaterorlesserdegree.Th esefenswillexperiencea successionaltrajectorytoshrubland,andmaybetohardwood swamp,unlesswoodyvegetationismanagedappropriately. 2.4.1 Fens existed within a prairie and savanna landscape that burned frequently. Wildfire and aboriginal burning Large,landscapefireswerecommoninsouthern MichiganandIndianabeforesettlementbyEuropean Americans(Chapman1984,Nuzzo1986,Whitney1994). Th esefiresburnedbothuplandsandadjacentwetlands, includingprairiefens(Kostetal.2007).Indeed,manyofthe plantsofprairiefenscompetepoorlywithtreesandshrubs, andonlypersistinareasthatarekeptfreeofsuchwoody vegetationthroughsaturatedsoil,fire,orotherecological processes(Spieles1999,Kostetal.2007). Fensexistworldwideinaspecificgeomorphology thatcreatesaconstantinputofgroundwaterattherootzone ofplants(Amonetal2002,Gootjansetal.2006).Th us, hydrologyappearstobetheprimaryecologicalprocess structuringfens.However,theprairiecharacteroffensin MichiganandIndianaisderivedfromalandscapecontextof prairieandsavannacommunities.Fireandclimateinteracted tostructureprairieandsavannaecosystems(Whelan1995, Anderson2006). Th epresenceofprairieflorainmostextantprairie fensindicatesthattheywereassociatedwithprairiesand savannas.Mapsofpresettlementvegetation(Comeretal. 1995)alsoshowsavannasnearoradjacenttomodernfens. Wetlandsingeneralburnlessoftenandlessintenselythan surroundinguplands,butthispatterndoesnotholdforfens. Fireintensityobservedinmodernfenscanbesimilartofire intensityonprairiesandsavannas.Th emorphologyofC. strictatussocksholdsfinefuelssuspendedintheaircolumn, whichmakesthefueldrierandmoreflammable.Th us,fens willoftenburnwhensurroundinguplandswillnot,andfens areespeciallyflammablewhensurroundinguplandswillburn. Naturalfuelbreaks,suchasmarlseeps,springs,andstreams, likelycausedfens(especiallylargerfens)toburninamosaic withfrequentskipsandunburnedareas. Firehasprofoundeffectsonmanyecologicalservices, includingvegetationstructure,plantdiversity,predator/prey dynamics,herbivory,plantreproduction,andnutrientcycling (Whelan1995).Asoneoftheoldestecosystemmanagement tools,humanshavecreatedalargestoreofappliedknowledge inapplyingfiretoachievespecificfireeffects.Scientific literature(Whelan1995,Panzer2002,AndrewandLeach 2006,Middletonetal2006b,Langfordetal.2007). Managementguidance(Andersonetal.2001,O’Connor 2007)onthespecificeffectsofdifferentfiresabounds.A usefulentryintothevoluminousliteratureonfireeffects istheU.S.ForestService’sFireEffectsInformationService (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/).Byalteringtheignition pattern,seasonoftheburn,etc.,afiremight,forexample, stimulatewoodyvegetationorsetbackwoodyvegetation. Becausefireeffectsvaryandtheresultsofaburnarecomplex, profound,and(usually)predictable,fenmanagerswho employthistoolshouldhaveeitherdetailedknowledgeof fireeffectsinfensortheyshouldworkwithprescribedfire professionalswhocancraftprescriptionstomeetspecific managementgoals. 2.4.2 Beaver floodings Intermittentfloodingbybeavers(Castorcanadaensis) hasbeenpositedasoneecologicalprocessthatmaintained theopencharacterofprairiefensandmaintainedhabitatfor somerarespecieswithinfens,includingtheMitchell’ssatyr butterfly(USFWS1998).Th ehistoricalandrecenteffectof beaveractivityonfensiscomplex. Th ebeaverisakeystonespeciesandecosystem engineer(Naimanetal.1988,Jonesetal.1994,Wrightand Jones2006).Beaverswillbuilddamstoimpoundriparian areasandcreateemergentmarsh,oftenattheexpenseof otherwetlandcommunities(Naimanetal.1988).Th ese damsareoftentemporary,andimpoundmentswillrevert towetmeadowbeforereturningtoshrubsorforest.Th e shiftingmosaicofemergentmarsh,wetmeadow,andforest cancreatealandscapethatincreaseshabitatforamphibians (Cunninghametal.2006)andgrasslandbirds(Askins2002), changesbiogeochemicaldynamics(Naimanetal.1994), andincreasesoverallspeciesrichness(Wrightetal.2002). Oneearlysurveyorandgeologistestimatedthat“fullyone- *6* Overview fifthpart”(~20,000acres)ofthelandscapesurrounding Detroitwasaffectedbybeavers(Hubbard1887quotedin Whitney1994).Beaveractivityincreasesoveralllandscape heterogeneity(Remillardetal.1987).Concerningwetland andespeciallywetmeadowcommunities,beaveractivity decreasesisolation,animportantmetricoflandscape fragmentation. Historically,beaveractivityinMichiganandIndiana affectedthelandscapecontextofprairiefensbydecreasing thedistancebetweenpatchesofgrassywetland.However, floodingscreatedbybeaversprobablyhadlittleeffecton prairiefensthemselves.Fensaredistinguishedfromother wetlandtypes,inpart,intheirremarkablystable,flood resistant,watertable(Amonetal2002,Grootjansetal. 2006).Fensoftenoccurhighinwatershedsandusuallyhave adiscernibleslope,twocharacteristicsavoidedbybeavers, whichusuallyimpoundareaslowinwatershedsandwithlittle slope(Cunninghametal.2006).Beaveralsoappeartoavoid areassubjecttoregularfire(Cunninghametal.2006,Hood etal.2007),whichmightdiscouragetheiractivityinprairie andsavannalandscapes.Forthesereasons,beaveractivity probablyexistedinandaroundfens,butatlevelslowerthan inthelandscapeasawhole. Contemporarybeaveractivityismoreclosely associatedwithprairiefens.Manyfensnowexistin landscapeswithlittleornofiremanagement.Large,level areasthatmighthavebeenusedbybeaversinthepasthave Figure6.Unlikeemergentwetlands,fensarenotcreatedbybeaver activity.Beaveractivitycansetbackwoodyvegetationinfens. nowlargelybeenconvertedtootherlanduses,mostnotably urbandevelopmentandagriculture.Fens,whichareoften remoteandlessvisitedbypeople,arenotidealhabitatfor beavers,buttheyareavailablehabitat.SeveralprivatelyownedfensmanagedthroughtheMichiganLandowner IncentiveProgramhaveorrecentlyhavehadbeaveractivity inor(moreoften)adjacenttothefen(C.Hoving,personal communication).AsimilarpatternisevidentattheFort CusterMilitaryTrainingCenterinsouthwesternMichigan (M.Richards,personalcommunication).Beaverscandestroy smallfensthroughpersistentflooding(ReddochandReddoch 2005),butthesmallandephemeralfloodingsinsouthwestern Michiganappeartosetbackwoodyshrubs,including buckthorn,inthelandscapesurroundingprairiefens. Beavers do not create fens, but their floodings can set back woody succession. 2.4.3 Grazing and browsing Th eflora(andfauna)ofprairiefensevolvedina landscaperichinherbivores.Grazers,suchasbison,muskoxen,moose,caribou,elk,andhorses(Holman2001)fed primarilyongrassesandsedges;whereasbrowsers,suchas deer,camelids,mammothsandmastodontsselectedforbs andtwigsoftreesandshrubs(Homan2001).Attheendof thePleistoceneErathediversityoflargeherbivoresdecreased markedly,coincidingwiththeextinctionofmostlarge predators,andfirebecamemoreprevalent(Anderson2006). PriortoEuropeanAmericansettlement,white-taileddeer (Odocoileusvirginianus),elk(Cervuselaphus)andbison(Bison bison)werepresentandlocallycommoninMichiganand Indiana(Allen1942,Seton1929,Whitney1994).Th ese specieswerecommontosavannasandprairies,buttheiruse ofpeatlands,suchasfens,isunknown.Grazingbybison andelkhadprofoundeffectsonthestructureofecological communitieswheretheyoccurred(Steuter1997,Anderson 2006).However,earlyobserversnotedthatbisonwerepoorly adaptedtocrosswetlands(Seton1929).Smallfeet,shortlegs, andtheheavybodiesofbisonmakethempoorlyadaptedto *7* Overview Table1.StatelistedplantsofprairiefensinMichiganandIndiana.Threatenedandendangeredplantsareprotected; staterare,watchlist,andspecialconcernaretrackedthroughnaturalheritagedatabases,biutarenotlegallyprotected. Common name Scientific name Indiana Status Michigan Status Purple milkweed Asclepias purpurascens Rushlike aster Aster borealis Willow aster Aster praealtus Special concern Cut-leaved water parsnip Berula erecta State threatened Prairie Indian plantain Cacalia plantaginea Special concern Narrow-leaved reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta State threatened Yellow sedge Carex flava State threatened Livid sedge Carex livida State endangered Hemlock parsley Conioselinum chinense State endangered Small yellow lady’s-slipper Cypripedium calceolus var. parviflorum State rare Small white lady’s-slipper Cypripedium candidum Watch list Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa State rare Shooting star Dodecatheon meadia State endangered English sundew Drosera anglica State threatened Variegated horsetail Equisetum variegatum State endangered Narrow-leaved cotton-grass Eriophorum angustifolium State rare Slender cotton-grass Eriophorum gracile State threatened Green-keeled cotton-grass Eriophorum viridicarinatum State rare Rattlesnake master Eryngium yuccifolium Queen-of-the-prairie Filipendula rubra Whiskered sunflower Helianthus hirsutus Great St. John’s-wort Hypericum pyramidatum State threatened Baltic rush Juncus balticus var. littoralis State rare Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis Northern witchgrass Panicum boreale State threatened State rare State threatened State threatened Watch list State threatened Special concern State threatened State rare *8* Overview Table 1 continued. Common name Scientific name IN Status MI Status State threatened State threatened Leiberg’s witchgrass Panicum leibergii Wild sweet William Phlox maculate Leafy white orchis Platanthera dilatata State endangered Leafy northern green orchis Platanthera hyperborean State threatened Prairie white-fringed orchid Platanthera leucophaea Federal threatened Federally threatened Jacob’s ladder Polemonium reptans State threatened Broad-leaved mountain-mint Pycnanthemum muticum State threatened Autumn willow Salix serissima State threatened Canada burnet Sanguisorba canadensis State endangered Calamint Satureja glabella var. angustifolia State endangered Rosinweed Silphium integrifolium Shining ladies’-tresses Spiranthes lucida State rare Hooded ladies’-tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana State threatened Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis False asphodel Tofieldia glutinosa State rare Marsh arrow-grass Triglochin palustris State rare Horned bladderwort Utricularia cornuta State threatened Lesser bladderwort Utricularia minor State threatened Hairy valerian Valeriana edulis State endangered Marsh valerian Valeriana uliginosa State endangered White camas Zigadenus elegans var. glaucus State rare Wild rice Zizania aquatica var. aquatica State threatened State endangered State threatened Special concern *9* State threatened State threatened Overview Table2.StatelistedanimalsofprairiefensinMichiganandIndiana.Threatenedandendangeredanimalsareprotected; staterare,watchlist,andspecialconcernaretrackedthroughnaturalheritagedatabases,biutarenotlegallyprotected. Common name Scientific name IN Status MI Status Blanchard’s cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardi Spatterdock darner Aeshna mutata State threatened Black-tipped darner Aeshna tuberculifera State threatened No common name? Agrotis stigmosa State threatened Opalescent apamea Apamea lutosa State endangered Black-dashed apamea Apamea nigrior State rare A noctuid moth Bellura densa State threatened Silver-bordered fritillary Boloria selene myrina State threatened Swamp metalmark Calephelis muticum State threatened A noctuid moth Capis curvata State threatened Praeclara underwing Catocala praeclara State rare Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata State endangered State threatened Kirtland’s snake Clonophis kirtlandii State endangered State endangered Star-nosed mole Condylura cristata State special concern Brown spiketail Cordulegaster bilineata State endangered Arrowhead spiketail Cordulegaster obliqua State rare Two-lined cosmotettix Cosmotettix bilineatus State threatened Catocaline dart Cryptocala acadiensis State threatened A moth Dasychira cinnamomea State rare Racket-tailed emerald Dorocordulia libera State endangered Kansan spikerush leafhop- Dorydiella kansana State threatened Special concern Blanding’s turtle Emydoidea blandingii State endangered Special concern Baltimore checkerspot Euphydryas phaeton State rare Sedge skipper Euphyes dion State rare Scarce swamp skipper Euphyes dukesi State threatened State threatened * 10 * Special concern State threatened Overview Table 2 continued. Common name Scientific name IN Status Pitcher window moth Exyra rolandiana State endangered Marsh fern moth Fagitana littera State threatened Leafhopper Flexamia delongi Special concern Huron river leafhopper Flexamia huroni State threatened Indiangrass flexamia Flexamia reflexus Watercress snail Fontigens nickliniana Rapids clubtail Gomphus quadricolor State threatened Skillet clubtail Gomphus ventricosus State threatened Dragonhunter Hagenius brevistylus State rare Barrens buckmoth Hemileuca maia Midwestern fen buckmoth Hemileuca sp. 3 State threatened A noctuid moth Homophoberia cristata State rare A noctuid moth Iodopepla u-album State rare Angular spittlebug Lepyronia angulifera State threatened A moth Leucania inermis State rare No common name? Leucania multilinea State rare Dorcas copper Lycaena dorcas dorcas State rare Purplish copper Lycaena helloides State rare A moth Macrochilo absorptalis State rare A noctuid moth Macrochilo hypocritalis State rare Shadowy arches Melanchra assimilis State endangered Huckleberry eye-spot moth Melanomma auricinctaria State rare Newman’s brocade Meropleon ambifuscum State threatened Dwarf skimmer Nannothemis bella State endangered Sphagnum sprite Nehalennia gracilis State endangered State threatened MI Status State special concern Special concern State special concern Special concern * 11 * same as Hemileuca Special concern State special concern Overview Table 2 continued. Common name Scientific name IN Status MI Status Mitchell’s satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Federal endangered Federal endangered Poweshiek skipper Oarisma poweshiek State extirpated State threatened Elegant prominent Odontosia elegans State rare Tamarack tree cricket Oecanthus laricis Pitcher plant borer moth Papaipema appassionata State endangered Beer’s blazing star borer Papaipema beeriana State threatened Golden borer moth Papaipema cerina Ironweed borer moth Papaipema limpida State rare St. John’s wort borer moth Papaipema lysimachiae State rare Special concern Special concern Special concern Giant sunflower borer moth Papaipema maritima State threatened Special concern Culvers root borer Papaipema sciata Silphium borer moth Papaipema silphii State threatened State threatened Royal fern borer moth Papaipema speciosissima State threatened Special concern A moth Parasa indetermina State rare Eastern veined white Pieris oleracea State endangered Big broad-winged skipper Poanes viator viator State threatened Red-legged spittlebug Prosapia ignipectus Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Special concern Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus catenatus Federal candidate Clamp-tipped emerald Somatochlora tenebrosa State rare Included cordgrass borer Spartiniphaga includens State threatened Spartina moth Spartiniphaga inops Riverine clubtail Stylurus amnicola State threatened Band-winged meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum State rare Gray petaltail Tachopteryx thoreyi State rare Eastern box turtle Terrapene c. carolina Special concern Special concern Federal candidate Special concern State special concern State threatened Special concern * 12 * Overview grazingpressurefromlivestockandthento3)highbrowsing pressurefromdeerhasaffectedplantcommunities,invasive species,andsuccessionaltrajectoriesinprairiefens. 2.4.4 Figure7.Thesoftgroundoffensisinappropriateforlivestockgrazing. Fensalreadydamagedbylivestockgrazingcanbegrazedlightlyinlate summerorfalltomanagewoodyvegetationandinvasivespecies. deepsnow(TeflerandKelsall1984),andwouldhavebeen asimilarliabilityinthewetpeatsoilofprairiefens.Even humans,withfoot-loadings2-3timeslessthanbison,can becomemiredinprairiefens. Domesticatedlivestockgrazedinmanyfensinthe 1800sandtheearly1900s.Pigs,sheep,andcattlewerea significantforceinmaintaininganopenlandscapeinthisera (Whitney1994),andmayhavecontributedtoseeddispersal acrossthelandscape(Middletonetal.2006a).Grazingby sheepandcattlemaintainedanopenlandscape,butgrazingat theintensitynecessarytosuppresswoodyvegetationmayhave hadanegativeimpactonspeciesofplantsthataresensitiveto grazing.Grazinginprairiefensfacilitatedlatershrubinvasion ofthesewetlands.Deerpopulationsintheregionwerelocally extirpatedorverylowduringthisera(Whitney1994). Sincethemid-1900s,grazinginfensbylivestockhas lessened,butdeerpopulationshaveincreaseddramatically. Th eseshiftsfrom1)littlegrazingorbrowsingto2)high Insect/disease outbreak Insectoutbreakisaminorprocess within existing prairiefencommunities.However,itcanbeasignificant processwhenitcauseshighlevelsoftreemortalityinnearby richtamarackswamps(relictconiferswamps)oruplandoak forest.Tamaracktreesareshadeintolerant,andlikemany shadeintolerantspecies,areadaptedtoperiodic,standreplacingdisturbance.Outbreaksofthenativelarchsawfly (Pristiphoraerichsonil)andeasternlarchbeetle(Dendroctonus simplex)andtheinvasiveexotictamarackcasebearer (Coleophoralaricella),occurperiodically.Th eseinfestations causeasynchronizeddeathofmaturetrees,thusopening theseedbanktofullsunlightandconditionsinwhichshadeintoleranttamarackscansuccessfullycompete. Diseaseoutbreaksandtheopencanopyalsocause asignificantbuild-upoffineandcoarsefuels.Disease outbreaksprobablyinteractedwithperiodicfiretolengthen thetimethatparticularareasremainedopenprairiefen.Th e interactionmayhavecompetitivelyfavoredtamarackover redmaple(Acerrubrum),otherhardwoodtrees,andmany commonshrubs. 2.5 Biological Diversity Prairiefensdeservespecialconservationstatusand managementeffortbecausetheycontainadisproportionate numberofrare,threatened,andendangeredplantsand animalscomparedtotheirnumberandsize(Th eNature Conservancy2003).Maintaininghealthyfensisaneffi cient waytoconserveawidevarietyofspeciesonarelativelysmall amountofland. 2.5.1 Vegetation Prairiefenscompriseabout4790acresor0.01% inMichigan,butprovidehabitatfor5%ofthethreatened orendangeredplantsinthestate.FensinIndianacomprise 0.005%ofthestate,butprovidehabitatfor2%ofthestate’s listedplants(Table1).FensinMichiganandIndianathus have500(MI)and300(IN)timesmorerarespeciesthanthe * 13 * Overview averageacreoflandinthatstate.Th isisaminimumestimate ofdiversityofrareplantsinfens.Whenallrecordsofrare plantsinandnearfensareconsidered,theproportionsare considerablyhigher.Ofthe362plantspeciesclassifiedas threatened,endangeredorspecialconcerninMichigan,26% ofthespecies(94)occuronornearoneoftheprairiefens. Th us,managementdollarsinvestedinthehealthoffensand theirsurroundinglandsprotectsadisproportionatelylarge numberofthreatenedandendangeredplants. Althoughsomecommonplantsexistthroughout muchofthefen,manyplantscanbefoundindistinctzones (Kostetal.2007).Th esezonesexistalonghydrological andchemicalgradients,andincludefromwettesttodriest: aninundatedflatnearthelakeorstreammargin,asedge meadow,andawoodedzonethatoftengradesintorich tamarackswamp.Manyfensalsocontainsparselyvegetated marlflatswheregroundwaterisparticularlycalcareous.All zonesdonotoccurinallfens. 2.5.2 Animals Th ediversityofrareanimalsinfensissimilarto thatofplants.PrairiefensinMichigancomprise0.01%of thestate,butprovidehabitatfor5%ofthelistedanimalsin thestate.FensinIndianacomprise0.005%ofthestate,but providehabitatfor1.6%ofthestate’slistedanimals(both vertebratesandinvertebrates)(Table2).Whenallrecordsare considered,25(or24%)oftheanimalspeciesoccuronor nearaprairiefeninMichigan.Similartoplantdiversityand conservation,managementdollarsinvestedinthehealthof fensprotectsadisproportionatelylargenumberofthreatened andendangeredanimals. Fensprovidehabitatformanyinsectsandreptiles. Th einsectsusethehighdiversityofplantsandunique microclimatethatfensprovide.Reptilesusefensforavariety ofneeds;thepresenceofmovinggroundwaternearthe surfaceisespeciallyimportantforhibernatingsnakes,such astheeasternmassasaugarattlesnake(Sistruruscatenatus catenatus). Th osethathuntforturkeyanddeerinfensknow thatfensareusedbygameanimalsaswell.Fensoftenoccur asgrassyopeningsinotherwisedenseswamps,andprovide especiallyvaluablenestingandfawningareasforturkeysand white-taileddeer.Fensarerarelyvisitedbyhumans,andoffer auniqueandqualityrecreationalopportunity. 2.5.3 Fungi, protists, bacteria and viruses Th ebulkofbiologicaldiversityinanyecological community,includingfens,ismicroscopic.Th isdiversityis fungi,protists,bacteria,andviruses.Th eimportanceofthese organismsinthefunctionofecologicalcommunitiesisonly recentlybecomingapparent.Th ediversityofmycorrhizal fungi,forexample,maybeadeterminantofplantdiversity (vanderHeijdenetal.1998,Beveretal.2001),andviruses maymediatetheinvasivenessofexoticplants(Malmstrom etal.2005).Norarefen-dependantmicroorganismsare currentlylistedinMichiganorIndiana,probablybecause surveydataandbenchmarksarelackingfortheseorganisms. However,giventhehighproportionofrareplantsand animalsinhealthy,functionalfens,itisreasonableto assumethatthesefensalsosupportraremicroorganisms. Conservationmycologistspromotecommunity-level conservationasasurrogateforconservingindividualspecies ofrarefungi(Staley1997,Courtecuisse2001). 3. Threats to Prairie Fens in Michigan & Indiana Th reatstofensarediverse,interrelated,andoften interconnected.Liketaxonomyofspecies,threatsdefy classification,oratleastdefyagreementonclassification schemes.Th reatsinthisplanfollowahierarchicalapproach inwhichbroad-scale,high-levelthreatsarediscussedfirst, followedbythreatstoecologicalprocesses,andthenspecific threatstospecies,genotypes,andgeneticdiversity. 3.1 Loss of Landscape Integrity Landscapelevelthreatstofensincludehuman attitudestowardwetlands,landusechange,habitat fragmentation,andclimatechange.Th eseprocessesoccur overlargeareasoroverlongperiodsoftime.Assuch,these threatsarenotalwaysincludedinplansbecausechangesto thesehighlevelthreatsarebeyondthepowerofindividual landmanagerstoaddresswithashort-termplans.However, thesethreatsprovideanimportantcontexttorealistic * 14 * Overview tocoldwaterfish,suchastrout.Peoplevaluebiological diversityanddesiretoseerarespeciespreserved.Prairiefens arehighlydiverseandprovidehabitattomanyendangered species,faroutofproportiontotheiracreageonthe landscape.Finally,prairiefensareaestheticallyvaluable. Th ecolorsoffensarediverseandvarywiththeseasons, fromwildflowersinspringandsummer,tofallfoliage,to therollingtussocksunderwintersnow.Fensarevaluableto societyinmanyways,butmanycitizensdonotyetrecognize thatthosethingstheyvalueareconcentratedinprairiefens. Th evastmajorityofcitizensinMichiganand Indianacoulddrawaforestoraprairiebythetimetheyare ingradeschool.Mostadultswouldbechallengedtoprovide evenaroughsketchofa“fen.”Th osewhohaveencountered fensoftenhaveanegativeexperience;eitherbecausethey encounterpoisonsumac,havediffi cultywalkingtheuneven terrain,orarefrustratedthatthepropertyisnotdrierand Figure9.Becauseoftheirsmallsize,lackofopenwater,andlack moreamenabletorecreation,agriculture,ordevelopment. ofsurfacewaterinput,fensarepoorlyprotectedfromdrainingand Ironically,manypeopleavoidfensoutofafearofmosquitoes developmentprotection,especiallyunderfederalwetlandregulations. andbitinginsects,whicharelesscommoninfensthanother wetlandsbecauseofthescarcityofstanding,stagnantwater. managementandplanning.Includingthesethreatsalso Alackofpublicappreciationforprairiefensandthe highlightstheimportanceandneedforbroaderscalesolutions benefitstheyprovidecanimpedeeffortstogeneratesupport fordecision-makersatthestate,national,andinternational forconservationefforts.Evenworse,negativeattitudescan level. leadtoactionsthatdirectlythreatenprairiefens.Someof theseactionscanincludemanyoftheconservationthreats 3.1.1 Social attitudes and land use changes notedinothersections,including:habitatfragmentation, Fensprovidesocietywithmanybenefits(Braggand over-grazing,introductionofinvasivespecies,waterquality Lindsay2003).Fensareakindofpeatland,andpeatlands changes,orinterruptionofgroundwaterdynamics,orneglect worldwideaccountfor70%ofthecarbonstoredinbiotic ofneededmanagement. systems(morethanalluplandforestsandgrasslands Ecologicalhistorianshavenotedthatlandscapes combined).Th us,fensplayakeyroleinregulatingglobal aresocialconstructs(Cronan1996).Th us,thepatternof greenhousegasesandclimate.Intactfenspurifywater,keep landusesurroundingandimpactingprairiefensisasocial sedimentsoutofstreams,andreducefloodingdownstream. phenomenon,andthelong-termpersistenceofprairiefens Th econstantlycoldgroundwateroffenscanprovidehabitat andtheirsurroundinglandscapewilldependonsociety’s awarenessandvalueofprairiefensandtheirlandscape context. Fens are small parts of the landscape with a high proportion of the State’s endangered species. 3.1.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation InMichigan,approximately50%ofthestate’s wetlandshavebeenconvertedtoupland.InIndiana,the estimateisthat86%havebeenlost(Dahl1990).Acrossthe Midwest,99.98%ofoaksavannashavebeenlost(Nuzzo 1986).Urbanizationhaseclipsedagricultureasthemain * 15 * Threats turtle(Terrapenecarolinacarolina)usefensandadjacent uplandsandwetlandstocompletetheirlifecycle.However, rattlesnakeswillrarelycrossimprovedroads(Shepardetal. 2008)andturtlesfacesignificantmortalitywhentryingto crossroads(GibbsandShriver2002).Th isdirecteffectof fragmentationonthesurvivalormovementofanimalsis probablysharedbyotherspeciesofreptiles,amphibians,and someinvertebrates,suchassnails. Habitatfragmentationcompoundsother causeofwetlandlossinmanypartsofthecountry(Syphard conservationthreats.Fragmentedlandscapesalter andGarcia2001).Indeed,conversionofagriculturalland groundwaterrechargeandcouldcausefenstobecomedrier. backtowetlandsundertheFarmBillandprogramslikethe LandownerIncentiveProgramhasresultedinanetincreasein Invasivespeciesdispersealongroadsthatfragmentthe landscape.Fragmentationlimitstheabilityofmanyplants wetlandsnationwideinrecentdecades(Dahl2006). andanimalstodisperseinthewakeofclimatechange. Muchofthelossandfragmentationofnatural communitiesistheresultofpoorlyplanneddevelopment 3.1.3 Climate change (PaskusandHyde2006),butthelossofbeaverflooding Human-inducedclimatechangeisrecognizedto dynamicshasalsoisolatedpopulationsofsomecommon wetlandplantsandanimalsfromeachother.Th islossof wetlands,prairies,savannas,andintermittentbeaverfloodings hasisolatedpopulationsofplantsandanimalsnowfoundin prairiefens. Fragmentationofhabitataffectsmanyspecies,and isnotlimitedtoedge-sensitivespecies,suchasforest-interior birds(Wilcove1987,EwersandDidham2006,Cozzietal. 2008).Edgeisonlyonemeasureoffragmentation.Other importantaspectsoffragmentationincludehabitatarea, edge,shapecomplexity,isolation,andmatrixquality(Ewers andDidham2006).Evencommonwetlandplantscanbe adverselyaffectedbyfragmentation(HooftmanandDiemer 2002). Th equalityofnon-habitatmatrixcanaffect biologicaldiversitywithinpatchesofhabitat.Aprairie fenisolatedinanagriculturallandscapewillsupport fewerfenspeciesthanafeninamoreintactlandscapeof prairie,savanna,andotherwetlands.Recentresearchon fendependantbutterfliesinEuropehasshownthatthe proportionofnon-fen,non-habitatwetlandonthelandscape aroundafenpredictedthepresenceofthreefendependant butterflies.Th eeffectwaslessstrongthanaltitude,but strongerthanmanagementregime(Cozzietal2008). Figure8.Predictedtemperaturechangeby2080.Thispredicitonisfrom Th elossofwetlands,prairies,andsavannain themedianmodel.Halfofallmodelspredictedgreatertemperature thelandscapesurroundingprairiefenscanhavedirect change,halfpredictedlessextremechange.Allmodelspredictedan andindirectnegativeeffectsonvertebratesinprairie increaseintemperature.MapcreatedbyTheNatureConservancy’s fens.Th eeasternmassasaugarattlesnakeandeasternbox ClimateWizard. Historically, draining of fens for agriculture and development were the greatest threats to fens. * 16 * Threats Figure10.Current(laft)andpredictedfuture(right)climateenvelopesfortamarack,animportanttreespeciesoftenfoundinprairiefens. Althoughcoarseanalysessuchasthesearegrimformanyfenspecies,groundwatermaypreservesuitablemicroclimatesinfens,independentof changingairtemperatures. exist(IPCC2007)andisincreasinglyrecognizedasathreat tonativebiodiversity(Hannahetal.2002,Greenetal.2003, Th omasetal.2004,LovejoyandHannah2005).Impactsto biodiversityarepredictedtobemostsevere: 1) inregionswhereclimatechangesmorethanthe globalaverage, 2) onspecieswithlimiteddistributions,or 3) onspecieswithlimitedabilitiestodisperse. Extinctionsratescouldbegreaterthanone-thirdforregions orspeciessensitivetoclimatechange(Th omasetal.2004). Th eseexacerbatingcircumstancesapplytomanyspecies foundinfens,includingtheMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly. Managersandplannersstruggletoadaptto climatechange(Inkleyetal.2004).Ourusualapproach toconservationthreatsistoremovethethreatortobuffer theconservationtargetfromthethreat.Climatechangeis notwithinanyonemanager’sabilitytocontrol.Norcana managerbufferprairiefensfromclimatechange.Instead managersmustseektoadaptconservationplanstoconsider aclimatethatwillchange,whilecommunicatingtoother policy-makerstheimportanceofreducingthehumaninducedcausesofclimatechange.Climatecanbemeasured inmanyways.ForthepurposeofthisPlan,threevariables willlikelyhavethegreatestimpactonfenconservation andmanagement:changesintemperature,changesin precipitation,andchangesincarbondioxideconcentrations. Th emeantemperatureinIndianaandMichigan isexpectedtowarmfrom5°–20°Fby2100(Klingetal. 2003,IPCC2007).)AsnotedinSection2.2.2,prairiefens currentlyexistwithinameantemperaturerangeof4°–6° F.Th us,in100years,theclimateofthenorthernmostprairie fenswillbeslightlyorextremelywarmerthantheclimate nowexistinginthesouthernmostfens.Atfirstglanceitappears that,inthelongterm,prairiefenscannotbepreserved withintheircurrentgeographicrange.However,climateis nottheonlydeterminateofecologicalcommunities.During periodsofclimatechangeinthepast,speciesmovedatwidely variablerates(Pielou1992),andmicroclimates(suchascold groundwaterseeps)couldprovidearefugeforrarespecies. Whileoverallprecipitationispredictedtoincrease * 17 * Threats 3.2 Loss of Ecological Processes Cold groundwater may make fens a refuge for many species threatened by climate change. 3.2.1 quality Altered flow of ground water and water Fensexistasrelativelynutrientpoorwetlands withaconstantlyhighwatertable.Changesinthe quantity,seasonality,orchemistryofwaterenteringand flowingthroughfensisamajorthreattotheseecological communities. Mostfensworldwidehaveanalteredhydrology andaretoodry(BraggandLindsay2003).Manyfens slightly,theincreaseisexpectedtooccurduringtheseason existinlandscapeswheretheflowofgroundwaterhasbeen whenmostvegetationisdormant(IPCC2007).Because changed.Th epotentialcausesofthesechangesarediverse, ofhighertemperatureandchangedseasonalpatternsof butincludeditchinginagriculturallandscapes,gravelmining, precipitation,soilmoistureduringthegrowingseasonis pondcreation,ormoresubtlythroughtheproliferationof expectedtodecrease.Modelsoftreespeciesresponseto impervioussurfaceslikeasphaltandlawn.Acurrenttrend changesintemperature,precipitation,soilmoisture,and inruralpropertydevelopmentistodigponds(legallyin growingseasonlengtharediscouragingforthefutureof uplandareasorillegallyinwetlands)wherethewatertableis tamarackinMichiganandIndiana(Figure4).However, shallow.Whendugnearfens,thismaydisturbsprings,alter precipitationpatternchangesshouldaffectwetlandswith groundwaterdynamics,andincreaseevaporation,andthus groundwaterrechargelessthanwetlandswithsurfacewater causedryingofthefen. rechargebecausesurfacewaterswillbemoreproneto Drierconditionscausepeatformationtocease. evaporation.Reducedhydraulicpotentialfromdecreased Evensmallhydrologicalchangescancausepeatto groundwaterinputs,atleastduringthesummer,couldchange begintodecompose,thusreleasingmanynutrientstothesoil fenhydrologyandchangesuccessionpatternsbyfavoring woodyshrubsandtrees(Siegel2006). Asclimatechanges,somespeciesofplantsand animalswithinthefenwillfindthemselvesinalessthan optimumclimate.Th eseplantsandanimalswillbestressed andwillcompetepoorlywithotherspecies,especially introducedspeciesthatwillbebetteradaptedtothechanging climate.Th isprocesswilloccurprogressivelyoveranumber ofyears.Foranygivenfen,theresultwillbethatinvasive specieswillbecomeincreasinglyinvasiveandnativeplantswill becomeincreasinglypoorcompetitors. Climatechangeasathreattospecificspeciesor ecologicalcommunitiesisonlybeginningtoberecognized. Whiletherearemanyunknownsregardingecologicaleffects, thecertaintyregardingtheactualchangestoclimateis increasing.Climatechangewilllikelyhaveasynergisticeffect withotherconservationchallenges,amplifyingtheeffectsof habitatfragmentationandinvasivespeciesespecially. Figure11.Thewaterinfenwetlandsarrivesunderground.Intercepting thiswaterinditchesorpondscanseriouslydegradeadjacentfens. * 18 * Threats andlargeamountsofgreenhousegasestotheatmosphere. Smallchangestowardadrierhydrologycanshiftplant communitiestowardlessdiversesedgemeadowsorfacilitate theinvasionofexoticplants. Evenasmanyfenshavelessgroundwaterinput,they alsoexperienceincreasedsurfacewaterflowandflooding. Wetlanddestructionelsewhereonthelandscapeandthe proliferationofimpervioussurfaceshascausedstreams associatedwithfenstobecomewarmerandmoreprone tofloodevents.Th esefloodscanintroducesedimentand reducethetussockmicrotopographyuniquetofens(Figure 5).Anotherthreattofensispermanentfloodingfrompoorly designedroads(smallorperchedculverts)orpoorlyplanned wetlandmanagement.Overzealouspropertyownersor managerssometimesmistakefensthatlackopenwaterfor degraded(siltedinordrained)emergentmarshes.Th eythen impoundwateroverprairiefensthathadnohistoryofopen water,andreplaceararer,morediversewetlandwithamore common,lessdiversewetland. Th equantityofwaterinfensisnottheonlywaterrelatedthreat.Th equalityofthewaterisalsothreatened. Twoaspectsofwaterqualityareespeciallyimportanttofens: sedimentsandnutrients.Th etwoarerelatedinthatsediments arethemainsourceofproblematicnutrients.Fensexistin peatsoils,whichhaveahighorganiccontentandlittletono mineralsoiloravailablenutrients.Poorlandmanagement elsewhereinthewatershedoftenresultsinsignificanterosion andfloodinginfens.Th efloodwatersdepositalayerof mineralsedimentovertheorganicpeat.Th issedimenthas profoundeffectsontheplantcommunity:thefenseedbank isburiedandanovelsoiltypeandseedsareintroduced. Sedimentationoffensfacilitatesinvasionoffensbyexotic plantspecies. Sourcesofsedimenttofensvary.Sedimentscan alsobeintroducedtothefenthroughdrainsfromadjacent roadsoragriculturalfields,orfromsheetflowacrossadjacent roadwaysandagriculturalfieldsthemselves. Anotherpotentialsourceofsedimentsistheforested hillsidessurroundingthefen.Fensareoftensurroundedby steepbluffsofglacialdeposit,whichusuallyconsistofgravel, sand,orothercoarsesediment.Historically,thesecoarse depositswouldhavebeendroughtandfireprone,andthe vegetationwouldlikelyhavebeengrassesandwildflowers typicalofprairiesorsavannas.Th efine,deeprootsofthese prairieplantswouldhaveheldthesteephillsidesinplace moreeffi cientlythantheclosedcanopyforestandephemeral springvegetationsurroundingmanymodernfens.Th us, restoringthenaturalfireregimeinthefenandsurrounding landscapeshouldimprovewaterqualityinthefen. Nutrientscanenterthefenthoughmanyvectors. Nutrientscanbeintroducedtothefenwaterandby sediments.Th us,flooding,erosion,ditching,androadrunoffareallcontributorsofnutrients.Fensoftenoccurinrural areaswheremostresidencesareservedbysepticsystems. Nutrientscanleachfromold,poorlydesigned,orineffective septicsystemsinthefenwatershed(SzymanskiandShuey 2002).Accidentalreleasesofmanurefromconfinedanimal feedingoperations(CAFOs)arealsoapotentialthreatto nearbyfens.Likeindividualsepticsystems,theprimaryissue withCAFOsisnotthefacilityorthedevelopmentitself, butratherpoorlydesignedorpoorlyimplementedmanure managementplans.Poorfertilizermanagement(inlawns,golf courses,oragriculturallands)canalsoimpactlocalwaterways andwetlands,includingfens. Th ediverseplantandanimalcommunitythat comprisestheprairiefenhasevolvedtothriveinextremesof alkalinity,lownutrients,andconstantlysaturatedsoils.Th is highlyalkaline,lownutrientenvironmentdependsonhigh waterquality.Evensmallchangestothewaterqualityand nutrientavailabilityinprairiefenscanhaveprofoundnegative consequencesforthefenitself.Th eprairiefencommunity existsbecausemanyoftheorganismsinthiscommunitycan onlycompeteinalownutrientenvironment.Anincrease innutrientloadstothefenfacilitatesinvasionofthefenby invasiveplants.Th isinvasionresultsinasimplificationofthe vegetationcommunity,ashifttowardmonocultures,anda lossofbiodiversity(seesection3.3.1.onInvasiveSpeciesfor moredetails). 3.2.2 Altered fire regimes Byonemeasureofconservationneed,theworld’s temperategrasslands,includingtheoaksavannaandprairie landscapearoundfens,arethemostimperiledbiomeonthe globe.Temperategrasslandshaveseenmoreconversionand arelessprotectedthananyotherbiome.Bythismeasure, savannasrequireconservationmorethanarctictundraor tropicalrainforest(Hoekstraetal.2005).Onereason(of many)fortheconversionofgrasslandstoothertypesis firesuppression.Althoughmanygrasslandsaremaintained * 19 * Threats Fire played a complex role in fens historically. In contemporary landscapes, it is an important conservation tool. intolerantplants,birdsandmammalsthatpreferanopenor semi-openhabitatstructure,andreptilesandamphibians, whichdependonsunlighttoregulatetheirbodytemperature. Plants,suchasthesmallwhiteladyslipper(Crypripedium candidum)andpoikilotherms(“cold-blooded”organisms), suchastheeasternmassasaugarattlesnakeandtheMitchell’s satyrbutterfly,areoftenthefirstspeciestodisappearfrom fenswhengroundlevelsunlightbecomesrestrictedbyshrubs andtrees. Directmortalityofrareanimalsfromprescribed fireisaconcerntomanyconservationists,whoworry thataggressiveuseofprescribedfiremayactmoreasa conservationthreatthanconservationstrategy.Fireeffectson rarespeciesaresometimesnegative(Panzer2003,Durblan 2006,SwengelandSwengel2007),sometimesneutral Figure12.Manyspecieswithinprairiefensreactpositivelycertain (AndrewandLeach2006)andsometimespositive(Panzer disturbanceregimes,suchasfire. 2002,PickensandRoot2009).Anextensivereviewoffire relatedliteratureintheGreatLakesregionconcludedthatfire throughenvironmentalextremes(verywet,verydry,very acid,orverybasicsoils)orotherdisturbanceregimes(grazing, effectsacrossmanytaxaofanimalswasspecies-specificand variedbytiming,burnextent,andpattern(RoloffandDoran, highwinds,frequentbeaverflooding),firehasbeenamajor InPrep). determinantofthelandscapedistributionofgrasslandsuntil recently(thepast100–200years). 3.2.3 Altered grazing and browsing regimes Th elackoffireingrasslandlandscapes,including Th eeffectsofallherbivoresonprairiefensarenot fens,hasallowedmanyhistoricallyopengrassywetlandsto thesame.Invertebratesdiff erfromvertebrates.Browserseat converttoshrubsorforest.Mostfiresthatoccurwithinthe morewoodyplantsandfl oweringplants,andeatlessgrass geographicrangeoftheprairiefenarewildfires.Th eyare andsedges.Grazersconcentrateongrassesandsedges,and ignitedaccidentallyormaliciously,withoutplanningfor consumelesswoodyvegetationorflowers. safety,control,andsmokemanagement.Th esewildfiresare appropriatelysuppressed,sometimesatasignificantcostto Grazers society. Isthelong-termcompositionofplantcommunities Th econversionoffenstoshrub-carrorforested dependantonlarge,vertebrategrazers,suchasbisonandelk? wetlandsreduceshabitatformanyspecies,includingshade- * 20 * Threats Cancattlegrazingmimicgrazingbynativeherbivores,or isgrazingbydomesticlivestockitselfathreat?Asdiscussed intheOverview,grazingbylargevertebrateswasprobably minimalpriortosettlement,andthus,thelackoflarge vertebrategrazersdoesnotposeaconservationthreat. Manyoftheecosystemservicesprovidedbygrazingare alsoprovidedbyfire,includinggreaterlightpenetration Grazing regimes in fens should be changed with caution and only with careful planning. wheregrazinghadceased,theactivelygrazedfenshad significantlymorenativegrasses,sedges,forbs,andmosses andsignificantlylesstallwoodyvegetation;activelygrazed fensalsohadsignificantlyshorterinvasiveplantscompared toformerlygrazedfens(TesauroandEhrenfeld2007).Th us, re-initiatinggrazingmaybeavaluablemanagementtoolto controlinvasiveplants,whenandwhereothermanagement toolsareeitherunavailableoraredeemedtooexpensive. Browsers Incontrasttograzing,thehistoricaland contemporarylevelsofbrowsinginfensarebetterestablished. White-taileddeermakeuseoffensforfoodandasescape cover.Deertrailsareubiquitousinprairiefens,anditis likelythatthesepatternsofusehavenotchangedgreatly overthepastseveralthousandyears.Th enumbersofdeer, andsubsequentbrowsingpressure,however,havechanged throughtime.PriortoEuropean-Americansettlement, deerpopulationswereabundant,althoughlessabundant thancontemporarypopulations.Unregulatedhuntingand totheseedbankandthecreationofspatialandtemporal heterogeneitywithinthefen.Becausegrazingbybisonwas probablyminimal,cattlegrazinginfensprobablydonot mimicapreviousnaturalprocess.Finally,thedegreeto whichgrazingisathreatorusefulmanagementtoolwill likelyvaryfromfentofen.Grazingbycattlechangesthe successionalpathwayofprairiefens(Middleton2002)and isthusnotappropriateforfensthathavenotbeengrazed uponpreviously(Middletonetal2006b).Infenswithlittle ornograzinghistory,hydrologyandfirearesuffi cienttolimit theencroachmentofwoodyvegetation.Grazingbycattle damagesthetussockandsoilstructureoffens,andallows woodyvegetationtoinvade.Continuedgrazingwillsuppress thewoodyshrubs,butwhenlivestockareremovedfromthe system,thesuppressedwoodyshrubsrapidlyshadethenative fenvegetation(Middleton2002). Livestockshouldnotbeusedasamanagementtool infenswithoutadocumentedhistoryofgrazing.Grazing damagesfens.However,oncegrazinghasoccurred,the damageisdone.Ceasinggrazing(atalowtomoderateanimal stockingdensity)thenbecomesaconservationthreat,unless considerableresourcesareavailabletocontrolinvasiveplants andwoodyvegetation. Infenswheregrazingoccurredandhasnow ceased,bothwoodyandherbaceousinvasiveplantsbecome problematic.Th eyoftenoutcompetenativeplantsby Figure15.Fenscanoftenbeburnedwhenburningadjacentuplands, growingtallerandshadingnearbynativevegetation.In suchasthisoaksavanna comparingfensgrazedbylivestockatlowintensitytofens * 21 * Threats commercialexploitationreducedpopulationsdramatically by1900,whendeerwereextirpatedfrommuchofnorthern IndianaandmuchofsouthernMichigan(Bartlett1937). RestockingeffortswereinitiatedinMichiganandIndiana in1934.Th roughcarefulmanagement,deerpopulations rebounded.Bymid-centurydeerpopulationswereabundant enoughthatprotectionsonantlerlessdeer(femalesand0.5 yearoldmales)wereremovedinsomecountiesinMichigan (Ryeletal.1980,Langenau1994).Deerpopulations continuedtoincrease,anddeerareconsideredtobeoverabundantthroughouttherangeofprairiefensinIndiana andMichigan.InnorthernIndiana,deerpopulationsare consistently5%–10%abovedesiredlevels.Insouthern Michigan,theestimatedpopulationin2005(868,000)was 53%abovethe1999goal(566,000).Heavydeerbrowsing cansignificantlydecreaseplantdiversityingrasslandsystems (Andersonetal.2005).Th us,thepresenceofnativebrowsers inprairiefensisnotaconservationthreat,buttheircurrent populationdensitiesdoconstituteasignificantthreattothe biologicaldiversityofprairiefens. Invertebrates Mostspeciesofherbivoresinprairiefensare invertebrates.Relativelylittleisknownoftheirhistoricor currentrolewithintheprairiefencommunity.Herbivory byinvertebratesonlyconstitutesathreatwhenrelatedto invasiveexoticinvertebrates,suchasthetamarackcasebearer (Coleophoralaricella). 3.3 Loss of Biological Diversity 3.3.1 Invasive species Invasivespeciescausesignificanteconomicand environmentaldamageintheUnitedStateandaround theworld.Non-nativeinvasivespeciescauseanestimated $120billiondollarsineconomiclossesintheUnitedStates, annually(Pimentaletal.2005).Th eseeconomicdamages includedecreasedcropyields,lossofrangeland,damageto lawns,deathofshadeandornamentaltrees,termitedamage tostructures,andmusseldamagetoelectricalpowerplants. Invasivespeciesarethesecondleadingcauseofbiodiversity loss,afterdirecthabitatdestruction,andoverhalfofthe specieslistedunderthefederalEndangeredSpeciesActare Figure13.Caremustbeexercisedinusingfirewithinfenecosystems. Somespeciesoffensaresensitivetofire,especiallyatcertaintimesofthe year. threatenedinwholeorinpartbyinvasivespecies(Wilcoveet al1998). Invasivenon-nativespeciesposeagravethreat tobiodiversity(Vitouseketal.1997,Simberloff2005). Althougheachnewinvasivemaytemporarilyandlocally increasespeciesrichness,thelong-termandbroad-scale effectsonspeciesrichnessaregenerallynegative(Simberloff 2005).Furthermore,biodiversityisnotasimplemeasure ofthenumberofspeciesinanarea,butincludesgenetic, species,andecosystemdiversity(GastonandSpicer2004). Wetlandsarethreatenedbymorenon-nativeplantsthan uplands,andinvasiveplantsinwetlandsaremorelikely tocausemonocultures(ZedlerandKircher2004).Prairie fensinMichiganandIndianaarenotanexception,andare threatenedbyawidearrayofinvasiveplantsandinsects (Spielesetal.1999,Eagleetal.2005,Anonymous2006,Kost etal.2007;Table3). Invasivespeciesaremostoftenaprobleminnatural communitiesthathavebeendisturbedinsomewaybyhuman activities.Mostfensworldwidehavebeensubjectedtosome formofdisturbance,eitherindirectlythroughlandscape changedinhydrology,changingclimate,CO2fertilization, andhistoricuseaspastureforlivestock(BedfordandGodwin * 22 * Focus on Invasive Plants Eurasianbuckthorns (RhamnuscatharticaandR.fragula) Buckthornsinvadefens,eventhosethat arerelativelyundisturbed.Glossybuckthorn isaprobleminfensmoreoftenthancommon buckthorn.Buckthornsareafastgrowing treethatcanspreadrapidly.Adultbuckthorns createadeepshadethatkillsmostnativefen vegetation.Th eyarealsoeffi cientnitrogenfixers. Th eleavesarerichinnitrogenandwillgreatly acceleratedecompositionofvegetationand eliminatefuelforfire.Th enutrientenrichment ofthesoilpavesthewayforotherinvasiveplants toinvadewhatisotherwiseanitrogenlimited ecologicalcommunity.Adultbuckthornare notsensitivetofire,butfireisoftenanecessary tooltomanagebuckthorninvasions,especially expressionofthebuckthornseedbank. Narrow-leafcat-tail (Typhaaugustifolia)andhybrids Narrow-leafcat-tailisasignificantandrapidly spreadingthreattoprairiefens.Narrow-leafcat-tailscan formdensemonoculturesthatdecreasetheareaavailable tonativeplants.Becausecat-tailleavesandstemsare highlysucculent,theydonotburnwellwhengreenand monoculturescanprecludegrowingseasonburns.Cat-tails respondquicklytochangesinnutrients,andareagood indicatorofwaterqualityissues.Invasioncanalsoindicate aslight(ornotsoslight)dryingofthesoil,eitherfrom climateorchangesinthegroundwater. Narrow-leafcat-tailhybridizeswithnativecat-tails (T.latifolia)easily.Hybridcat-tails(T.xglauca)canbeas invasiveasormoreinvasivethanpurenarrow-leafcat-tail. RecentsurveysofgeneticmaterialfromseveralNational ParksintheGreatLakesfailedtofindpurenativecattailindividuals,exceptinVoyageursNationalPark.Th ey foundonlynarrowleafcat-tailandhybridcat-tail(Travis etal.2006).Th enativecat-tailmaybeextirpatedfromthe geographicrangeofprairiefensinMichiganandIndiana. All cat-tail populations in prairie fens now should be considered invasive hybrids and should be monitored. They should be managed if they show signs of invasion. * 23 * Focus on Invasive Plants Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) The status of reed canary grass as an invasive native or exotic species is uncertain. Many strains are invasive over a wide variety of conditions (Galatowitsch et al. 1999). Reed canary grass spreads rapidly via seed and rhizome, and quickly forms a monoculture. In wetlands, reed canary grass is difficult to control without damaging the fen community. This species should be monitored and managed when only scattered individuals are present. Multiple years of follow-up are often necessary because the seedbank persists. Fire may help keep the species out, but does not harm established populations. Repeated herbicide applications are the most efficent management tool. Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) Multiflora rose is a rapidly growing shrub that is native to Europe. It is commonly used as an ornamental, a wildlife food. Native roses do grow in fens, but lack the curved thorns and “beard” at the base of each leaflet. Multiflora rose will be set back by fire,. Herbicide treatment is effective, but painful. * 24 * Focus on Invasive Plants Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) Japanese knotweed is currently invading southern Michigan, and has not yet been detected invading fens in this region. However, in the United Kingdom, it is listed as the invasive plant that most threatens fens in that country. For this reason, Japanese knotweed should be considered a serious potential threat to fens in this region. Herbicide is the best management tool, and often must be repeated for several years. Pieces of plant material will root in moist soils. Mechanical treatment is discouraged. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Purple loosestrife is invasive in prairie fens and will form monocultures. However, a biological control, beetles of the genus Galuracella has been released widely in southern Michigan and northern Indiana. The Galuracella beetles can disburse naturally across the landscape, and many fens now have small Galuracella beetles in the fen or nearby. For this reason, loosestrife invasions of fens are becoming less common. However, where beetles have not naturally dispersed, or where introductions have failed, further reintroductions should be encouraged. At one Mitchell’s satyr butterfly site where beetles were introduced, the loosestrife population has continued to expand. * 25 * Focus on Invasive Plants Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) Japanese barberry is a widely planted ornamental shrub. Birds and small mammals spread the berries to natural areas. The ecology of barberry invasions is similar to buckthorn. The barberry vegetation shades nearby vegetation and adds nitrogen to the soil, thus decreasing plant diversity and fuel for fires. Problematic invasions of barberry have been found in only a few fens, but this may change as more barberry shrubs are planted as landscaping. Phragmites or Common Reed (Phragmites autralis) Phragmites may be the most widely distributed flowering plant on Earth, and is native to every continent except Antarctica. The genetic strain from Eurasia is invasive on other continents, and tends to form extensive, dense monocultures, which displace native wetland vegetation. Native phragmites occurs in fens; the invasive strain is a serious threat to fens. Invasive phragmites differs from native phragmites in several ways. No one character is diagnostic, but the combination of characters is useful. Invasive phragmites has: 1) greater height (greater than 8 feet), 2) blue-ish green vegetation 3) higher stem density 4) thicker stems 5) a denser, bushy plume 6) vertical ridges around the stem 7) leaf sheaths that stay on the stem through winter 8) lack a red chestnut color near the base 9) lack stem spots * 26 * Threats LandownerIncentiveProgram,therecreationalactivitiesmost oftenmentionedarehunting,fishing,andwildlifeviewing. Fensarealsovisitedbyentomologists,herpetologists,and botanistsinterestedinfindingorcollectingrarespecimens ofvarioustaxa.Aslongastheserecreationalactivitiesare conductedinaccordancewiththelaw,theseactivitiesarenot consideredathreattothehealthofthefen. Incompatiblerecreationalactivitiesarethosethat haveeitherashort-orlong-termnegativeimpactonthe ecologicalfunctionoffens.Th eseincludeoff-roadvehicle (ORV)use,horseuse,andsnowmobiling.Th eremaybe 2003,vanDigglenetal.2006).Intheory,atleast,afew mannersandintensitiesoftheserecreationalactivitiesthat invasivespeciesarecapableofinvadinganddamaginghigharecompatiblewithfenmanagement,butconsiderable quality,“undisturbed”ecologicalcommunities.Non-native alterationstothenormalrecreationalactivitywouldbe speciesinvasionsoccurredrepeatedlyingeologicalhistoryas necessary.Th eseincompatiblerecreationalactivitiesbecome landbridgesformedbetweenNorthAmericaandEurasia, lesscompatiblewithincreasingintensityofuse.Forexample, causingwidespreadlossofnativefloraandfaunabefore onesnowmobilecrossingafenoverdeepsnowwithawellhumanswerepresentonthiscontinent(Flannery2001). developedbaseisunlikelytocausedamage.Atrailwithhigh Forthesereasons,invasivespeciesshouldbeconsidereda cvolumeonmarginalsnowconditionsislikelytoaffect significantthreattoallfens,andnotonlythosethathavebeen traffi hydrologythroughruts,damagevegetation,andintroduce impactedbyotherconservationthreats,suchasdraining, invasiveplantsfromotherareas. overgrazing,orwaterpollution. AlthoughtheycaninvaderelativelypristinehighOff-RoadVehicles(ORVs) qualityfens,invasivespeciesaremoreoftenasymptomofa ORVsaredesignedtoserveasallterrainvehicles,are deeperprobleminthecommunity.Th esedeeperproblems usuallywheeledvehiclessupporting3ormorewheels,and inthecommunityarelargelyaddressedinothersectionsof arecapableofnegotiatingroughterrain.Somedefinitions theplan,andincludesedimentation,septicdischargefrom adjacentdevelopment,roadsalts,agriculturalrun-off,climate alsoincludemotorcyclesinthisgroupastheyhavesimilar change,CO2fertilization,firesuppression,alteredhydrology, capabilities.Infens,ORVsarecapableofcrushingvegetation, compressinganddisturbingsoils,disturbinghummocks,and drying,intermittentflooding,incompatiblerecreation,or suppressingrevegetation.ImpactsaremagnifiedwhenORV habitatfragmentation.Ifpossible,managementshouldbe useisrepetitiveoverthesametrailsorareas.Impactsare directednotonlytowardtheinvaders,butalsothereason primarilyonhabitatsandcommunities,althoughcrushing fortheinvasion.Inmanycases,thereasonfortheinvasion andkillingstateorfederallylistedinsectsandplantsis cannotbeeasilychanged(e.g.,apavedroadthroughthefen possible. thatcontinuestoalterhydrology).Inthesecases,invasive ORVuseonadjacentuplandshasthepotential speciesmanagementwillnotbeaone-timesolution,but toincreaseerosionintothefens.Italsoimpactsplant willrequirelong-termmanagementtopreservethefen communitiesthatsupportcorridorsbetweenhabitatsites, community. andfacilitatesinvasionsofexoticplants.Th eremoval ofvegetationbyORVusecanalsocontributetogreater 3.3.2 Incompatible recreational activities waterrunoffandlesserwaterrechargeintothesoil.Th is Fensarenotcommonlyusedforrecreational phenomenoncanalsocontributetoincreasedsoil/water activities.Th euneventerrain,lackofmineralsoil,presenceof poisonsumac(andsometimesrattlesnakes),andconstanthigh temperatureswithinthefen. watertablediscourageusebymotorizedornon-motorized HorseUse vehicles.Inconversationswithprivatelandownersinthe HorseactivitywithinfensissimilartoORVs.It Invasive plants often indicate other threats, such as water contamination or past grazing. * 27 * Threats hasthepotentialtocrushvegetation,compressanddisturb soils,stirsoilorganicandinorganiccomponents,disturb hummocks,andsuppressrevegetation.Impactsarealso magnifiedwithincreasedactivity.Inadditionthroughtheir droppings,horsescaninadvertentlyintroduceexoticplant speciestofen,especiallybecausesoildisturbancebyhorses’ hoovespredisposesthetrailtoexoticplantinvasion.Horse activitycanhaveimpactonadjacentuplandsimilartoORV impact.However,horseactivityisgenerallyassessedtohave lesserimpactthanthatfromORVs. Snowmobiling Snowmobilingcanhaveimpactstofensthrough thecrushingofvegetation,especiallywoodyvegetation. Snowmobilescanalsodisturbhummocksandimpactsoils ifthemachinebreaksthroughthesnowlayerandcomes intocontactwiththesoil.Wherethesnowlayerisbroken, soilsareexposedtoagreaterdegreeoffreezingandthawing thatcancompromisebothfloraandfauna.Th eaction ofthemachinesalsocompressesandcondensesthesnow layerresultingindelayedthawinginthespringanddelayed naturalcommunityresponse.Unlesssnowmobileactivityis concentratedinfens,thisactivityisgenerallyassessedtohave lessimpactthanhorsebackridingandORVuse. 3.3.3 areparticularlydiffi culttosurvey,andpopulationsmaybe irruptive.Th us,furtherresearchwillneedtobedoneto confirmthewidespreadextirpationofthisbutterflyandthe relativeimpactsofseedweevils,shrubencroachment,and invasiveplants.) Sometimesaspeciesmaypersist,butacriticallife stageorformcanbelost.TussocksofCarexstrictaplayakey roleinthebiodiversityofprairiefens(PeachandZedler2006; seeFigure3).Siltation(seeFigure5)orheavygrazingcan destroythetussocktopographyandremovemanyecological nichesfromthewetlandthatarecriticaltothepersistence ofmanyplants.Tussocksformslowlyover50yearsormore. Th us,thelossofthisonespecies(orformofthisspecies)can havelong-termeffectsonthebiologicaldiversityoftheprairie fen. Extinction and extirpation Th elossofbiodiversityisusuallythoughtofasa negativeoutcomeofconservationthreats,suchasinvasive speciesorfragmentation.Extirpationofspeciesfromspecific fensorextinctionofspeciesacrossallfensisnotgenerally categorizedasathreatitself.However,thelossofspecies, locallyorglobally,canaffectotherspecieswithinafen system.Th eseprocessesincludeflower/pollinatorinteractions, larvalhostplants,predator/preydynamics,andmycorrhizal associations. Th eswampmetalmark(Calephelismuticum)isa tiny(2.5–3cmwingspan)butterfly,whoselarvaefeed Figure14.Theswampmetalmarkisoneofmanyrarespeciesthatoccur solelyonrosettesoftheswampthistle(Cirsiummuticum). inprairiefens. RecentreportsoffeedingofseedweevilsRhinocyllusconicus (abiocontrolintroducedinthe1960stocontrolinvasive muskthistle,Caardusnutans)onnativeswampthistlehave coincidedwithsurveyssuggestingthatswampmetalmarks mighthavebeenextirpatedfrommanywetlandswhere theyoccurredinMichigan.(However,swampmetalmarks * 28 * Goals sources and connections to wetlands 4. Goals and Objectives 4.2.3 Increase the use of prescribed fire as a management tool in fens and the surrounding landscape matrix, where appropriate. 4.1. Maintain and Restore Fen Distribution and Context Goal:Maintainorincreasethespatialdistributionof functioningprairiefencomplexes(andassociateduplandand wetlandbuffers). 4.2.4 Protect fens from changes in grazing regime, and bring browsing pressure down by decreasing deer densities in accordance with regional deer population goals Objectives: 4.3 Maintain or Restore Native Biological Diversity 4.1.1 Work with partners to protect prairie fen complexes through acquisitions and easements. 4.1.2 Maintain or restore connectivity of prairie/savanna/wetland landscapes around fens through acquisitions and easements at a 3:1 ratio of prairie/savanna/wetland to prairie fen. Goal:Maintainorincreasenativebiologicaldiversityof prairiefencomplexes. Objectives: 4.3.1 Monitor for invasive species on managed fens on both private and public lands 4.1.3 Increase public awareness of the value of prairie fens in fen surface watersheds and ground watersheds through targeted outreach and education 4.3.2 Manage invasive species on fens on both private and public lands 4.1.4 Research the threat of predicted climate change to rare species in prairie fens, and the possibility that fens could act as a climate refuge for rare species. 4.3.3 Manage motorized and equine recreation activities to avoid impacts prairie fens 4.3.4 Reintroduce missing prairie fen species 4.2 Restore or Mimic Natural Processes Goal:Maintain,restore,andsimulateecologicalprocessesin prairiefens. Objectives: 4.2.1 Use groundwater protection models and evaluation tools to determine threats to rare species in prairie fens 4.2.2 Support policies to protect the groundwater * 29 * 5. Conservation Strategies 5.1 Protect Prairie Fens, Associated Upland Habitats, and Landscape Connections 5.1.1 Refine priorities for the protection and management of prairie fens and adjacent lands. Conservation Strategies Priorityisdiffi culttoquantify.Landmanagersmust weighseveralfactorsindeterminingwhatprioritytogiveto fenswithintheirjurisdiction.Factorssuchasopportunity, long-termcommitmentonthepartofthelandowner,viability ofthefenitself,thepresenceofthreatenedorendangered species,andotherfactorsallmustbeconsidered. Th eviabilityofthefenandthepresenceof endangeredspeciescanbeevaluatedthroughNaturalHeritage databases.Elementoccurrencesforfens(inIndiana)orprairie fens(inMichigan)willincludeanalphabeticalrankfromA (mostviable)toE(leastviable).Ingeneral,itismostcosteffectivetomanageareatomaintainahighrank,ratherthan managetoimprovealowrank.However,whereopportunity andlong-termprotectionexist,themanagementand restorationoflowrankfensmaybeapriority. Protectionofadjacentlandsshouldalsobeapriority. Focusshouldbeonmaintainingorimprovingwaterquality inthesurfacewatershedofthefenitself.Th ewaterqualityof watershedofthestream,riverorlakeofthefenisimportant, butsecondary. Th egroundwatershouldalsobeprotected,although newtoolswillbeneededformanagerstoevaluatethreatsto thegroundwaterofspecificfens.Th egroundwatershedofthe fenmayextenduptoseveralmilesfromthefenitself. 5.1.2 Work with private landowners and public agencies to identify protection options. Protectinglandsrequirestargetedoutreachtoprivate landowners.Landownersoftenhavemanyquestionsandneed todevelopaleveloftrustwithorganizationsandagencies beforefeelingcomfortablestafforconservationpartners. 5.1.3 Identify funding sources for land acquisition and for staff capacity to administer grants and purchased lands or easements. Th eMitchell’sSatyrButterflyHabitat ConservationPlan(AppendixA)willallowstateagencies inIndianaandMichigantoseekgrantfundstoprotect landstoconserveMitchell’ssatyrhabitat.Th esefunds willbelesscompetitivethantraditionalSection6funds. However,carefulthoughtandplanningwillneedtogo intothestaffcapacityneededtoadministerthesegrants andtoadministerthelandsoncetheyarepurchased. 5.1.4 Acquire land or protect with conservation easements Approximately,one-third(1610acres)ofprairie fensarecurrentlyonpubliclandoronlandsownedby conservationorganizations.Th us,toprotectonehalfof fens,approximately800acresofprairiefenswillneedtobe protected. Untilrecently,landandconservationeasement acquisitionhasfocusedonprotectingpartsoffens.Upland propertiessurroundingfenshavebeenalowerpriority. However,giventhreatstowaterqualityandtheimportant effectsofhabitatmatrixonthefenitself(Cozzietal.2008), equalpriorityshouldbegiventoprotectinggroundwater rechargeareasandadjacentuplands.Th eprairiefen,adjacent uplands,andgroundwaterrechargeareasareonesystem, andshouldbeprotectedassuch.Th eminimumratioof surroundingprotectedareashouldbeatleast3:1forany givenfen. Becauseresourcesforlandacquisitionarelimited, thisstrategywillresultinfeweracresofprairiefenprotected andmoreacresofnearbyuplandprotected.Effortsshould befocusedonthehighestqualityfens,fenswithviable populationsoflistedspecies,andfensinlandscapesalready targetedforotherconservationvalues(headwatersinitiatives, waterquality,landconservancypriorities,etc).Developing creativewaystoprotectprioritylandswillallowlimited resourcestobeusedmosteffectively. 5.1.5 Restore prairie, savanna, and wetlands surrounding fens Almostnofenscurrentlyoccurinanecologically functionallandscapeofwetlands,savannas,andprairies. Naturalvegetationisrareandscattered(Th eNature Conservancy2003).Prairies,savannas,andwetlandsshould berestored,wheresoilsandhydrologyareamenableto restoration,withinthesurface-watershedandgroundwatershedoffens. Prairieandsavannaplantsaredeep-rootedand promoteinfiltrationofrainandsnowmelt.Th ishelps decreasesedimentationandmaintainwaterquality.Because someprairiefenplantsandanimalsexistbothinthefenand prairie/savanna,restorationwillincreasepatchsize,decrease isolation,andfacilitatedispersal.Restoredsavannasand * 30 * Conservation Strategies prairiesareimportanthabitatformanyrarespecies,butalso providequalityhabitatfordeer,turkey,andpheasants. Restoringwetlandswilldecreaseisolation,improve geneticexchange,andfacilitatedispersalofwetlandspecies. Th erestoredwetlandswillprovidehabitatforrareplants andanimals,aswellasimportantbreedinghabitatfor waterfowl.Inaddition,therestoredwetlandswillimprove waterqualityinthewatershedandcoulddecreaseflooding (andsedimentation)infens.Between1998and2004there wasanetincreaseinwetlandsintheUnitedStates;forthe firsttimeinrecenthistory,wetlandrestorationsoutpaced wetlandloss(Dahl2006).Continuingrestorationwillmake reducingwetlandisolationatthelandscapescalearealistic managementgoal. Restorationefforts,likelandacquisition,shouldbe prioritizedaccordingtofenquality,distancefromaviablefen community,andlikelihoodofsuccessfulrestoration. optionsconsidered.Matforminggrasses,especiallymowed lawn,shouldalsobeavoidedandreplacedwithclump forminggrasses. Manyconservationstrategiestoimprovewater quality,suchasfilterstripsinagriculturalfieldsor watergardenstomanagestormwater,willalsoreduce fragmentationandcreateconnectivityacrossthelandscape. 5.2 Increase Public Awareness and Understanding of Prairie Fens and Associated Conservation Issues. 5.2.1 Develop and implement an education and information program focused on prairie fens. 5.2.2 Support training opportunities for staff and conservation partners. 5.1.6 Manage beaver activity to promote the long-term health of prairie fens. Beaveractivityshouldnotbediscouraged,exceptin verysmallorgentlyslopedfenswherethefloodingthreatens tosubmergesignificantareasoffenvegetation.Beaveractivity cansetbackwoodysuccessionandcounteractdryingofthe fen,butcanalsocausesedimentation,whichcanupsetthe nutrientbalanceoffensandfacilitatefutureinvasionsof exoticplants.Impoundmentstomimicbeaveractivityare notthepreferredmanagementoptioninmostcases,butcan beusefulincertaintopographiesortoachieveshrubcontrol. Waterlevelsshouldbedrawn-downmoreoftenthanflooded whereimpoundmentsexistspecificallytomaintainprairie fens. 5.1.7 Maintain natural vegetation and promote groundwater recharge MostfensinMichiganandIndianaoccuron privateland,andprivatelandownerswillnotalwayshavethe resourcesortheabilitytorestoreprairie,savanna,orother wetlands.Also,fensarenotalwayssurroundedbydegraded prairieorsavanna.Somefensarebordered,atleastinpart,by highqualityforestedcommunities.Whereprairie,savanna, orwetlandrestorationisnotaviablemanagementoption, areasshouldbemaintainedtopromotegroundwaterrecharge. Impervioussurfacesshouldbelimited,orlessimpervious * 31 * 5.2.3 Evaluate the effectiveness of the education and information program. 5.3 Incorporate predicted climate change into conservation planning for prairie fens 5.3.1 Adjust management actions to address predicted effects of climate change on fens Th etoolsnecessarytoaddressclimate changearesimilartoothertoolscommontogood conservationplans:usingscientificresearchto guideconservationactions,reducingfragmentation ofnaturalcommunities,combatingalieninvasive species,monitoring,andadaptivemanagement.Th us, climatechangedoesnotrequireafundamentallynew approach.Instead,thepredictedeffectsofclimate changeneedtoinformtraditionalconservation planningwiththegoalofreducingtheimpactof climatechangeandassistingspeciesandcommunities inadaptingtoinevitableclimatechange. Predictedeffectsofclimatechangeinclude: • Increasedinvasivenessofinvasivespecies Conservation Strategies • Increasedweedinessofcommon,easily dispersedspecies • Increasedcompetitionfromspeciesat thenorthernedgeoftheirrange(i.e., tulippoplar)anddecreasedfitnessfrom speciesatthesouthernlimitoftheir range(i.e.,tamarack) 5.3.2 Predict climate sensitivity and future geography of conservation targets based on regional climate models (if available) or global climate models Specieswithinecologicalcommunitieswill notresponduniformlytoclimate.Instead,species’ responseswillbespeciesspecific.Th us,toconserve allcommunitycomponents,eachspeciesshould beevaluatedforitssensitivitytopredictedchange. Whilethisisnotfeasibleforeveryspecieswithinthe community,itisimperativeforthosespeciesthatare conservationtargets(stateandfederallylistedplants andanimals)orthatappeartoplayasignificantrole inthecommunity(tamarack,Carexstricta). Sometraitstoevaluateincludegeographic breadth(widelydistributedorlocalizedand endemic),placementincontextofrange(northend ofrangeorsouthend),dispersalability(coeffi cientof conservatisminplants?),populationsize,andhabitat fragmentation. 5.3.3 Identify trigger points to begin planning the facilitated migration (introductions) of dispersal-limited species to northern fens Facilitatedmigrationshouldbeameasureof lastresort,andtriggerpointsshouldconsequentlybe sethigh.Metricsshouldbestatisticallyrigorous(as muchaspossiblegiventhelownumberofsitesfor manyspecies).Forexample,thelossofoneMitchell’s satyrsiteatthesouthernextremeofthegeographic rangedoesnotjustifyfacilitatedmigration.However, lossofseveralsitesinIndianaandthesoutherntier ofMichigancountieswouldbeanothermatter.(Th is iscomplicatedbytheuniquegeographyoftheGreat Lakes:precipitationandtemperaturepatternsarenot orientedstrictlynorth-south.Th us,sitesneedtobe rankedbyclimate,notlatitude.) Th ekeyistodeveloptriggerpointsbefore facilitatedmigrationisnecessary.Th edirecteffects ofclimatewillnotlikelybeobvious.Instead,the indirecteffectsaremorelikelytodominate(increased Figure16.Manyfensweregrazedhistorically,butmodernconservationpracticeslimitlivestockuseofwetlandsandstreams.Fenswithagrazing historycanbegrazed,butwithcaution.Fenswithoutagrazinghistoryshouldbemanagedwithothertools. * 32 * Conservation Strategies 5.4 Protect and restore natural surface and ground water flow and flooding regime. invasivenessofnon-nativeinvasivespecies,for example).Ifwewaittosettriggerpointsuntil extirpationhasbegun,thentherewilllikelybea lengthydebateonthedirectandindirectcausesof individualextirpations. Facilitatedmigrationshouldbeused cautiously.Th ereissignificantrisktothosesystems receivingthemoresoutherlyendangeredspecies. Asuccessfulfacilitatedmigrationwillresultinthe “invasion”ofthenorthernsystembyaspeciesof moresoutherndistribution.Th iswouldthenstress conservationtargetsinthenorthernsystem. Prairiefensareuniquewetlandsthatrarelyflood; soilisconstantlysaturatedthroughouttheyear.Th us,many managementpracticesdifferforfensascomparedtoother wetlands.Permanentwatercontrolstructures,suchasdams, areinappropriateforfens,andlong-termorseasonalflooding willreplacetherarefencommunitywiththemorecommon emergentmarshcommunity.Small,temporarystructures tofloodportionsofafencanbeusedtosetbackwoody successioninfensalreadydegradedbyahistoryoflivestock grazing. 5.3.4 Reduce non-climate stressors on the prairie fens Climatechangeislikelytoimpact disproportionatelythosespeciesalreadyinneedof conservationwhilesimultaneouslyfavoringcommon orinvasive“weedy”species.Climatechangewill likelymagnifythenegativeeffectsofotherthreats. Th us,theconservationstrategiesoutlinedinother sectionsofthisPlanwillalsoaddressthethreatof climatechange. 5.4.1 Identify and protect regions of critical groundwater recharge around fens Fensexistwheresignificantamountsofgroundwater isunderpressure,eithercausinglateralmovementor upwelling.Th ispressureiscausedbytopographicrelief. Th esignificantamountsofgroundwatercomefromdeep coarsesoils,suchassandorgravel.Th us,deepcoarsesoils atelevationssignificantlyabovethefenarethecritical groundwaterrechargeareasforthefenitself.Th eseareas ofrechargemaybemanymilesfromthefen.Impervious surfaces,suchaspavement,rooftop,andlawn,inthese areascandecreasegroundwaterpenetration.Conversely, deeprooted,nativesavannaandprairieplantscanincrease groundwaterpenetration. 5.4.2 Restore native upland savanna and prairie over groundwater recharge areas Th erestorationofnativeplantcommunitiesinthe landscapesurroundfenscanallowprecipitationtopenetrate thesoilsurface.Inadditiontobenefitingbiodiversitythrough reducinglandscapefragmentation,nativevegetationfacilitates groundwaterrechargeandreducesflooding.Th euseofsocalled“raingardens”andotherlow-impactdevelopment methodstomanagestormwatershouldbeencouragedin communitieswithinthegroundwatershedofprairiefens. Figure17.Caremustbeexercisedinusingfirewithinfenecosystems. Somespeciesoffensaresensitivetofire,especiallyatcertaintimesofthe year. * 33 * 5.4.3 Limit activities in uplands that interrupt groundwater flow Conservation Strategies Worldwide,fensareprimarilythreatenedbydraining orreductioningroundwaterinputstothefenitself(Bragg andLindsay2003,Grootjansetal.2006).Historically,many fenswereditchedortiledtofacilitateagriculture.Current regulationsintheUnitedStatesprohibitsuchactions, andtheseregulationsshouldbeenforced.Amuchmore commonthreattofenhydrologyisthecreationofpondsin uplandsadjacenttofens.Th iscandisruptspringsthatfeed thefen.Th eflowofgroundwaterintoorthroughafenis altered,whichchangesplantdiversity,insectdiversity,or facilitatesinvasionbyexoticplantspecies.Excavationintothe groundwateradjacenttofensshouldnotoccur. 5.4.4 Remove barriers to groundwater flow, where feasible Openwaterpondsthathavebeenexcavatedadjacent tofenscancutthegroundwaterconnectionbetweenthe mineralsoilsunderuplandsandpeatsoilsunderthefen. Th isreducesthehydraulicpotentialtothesubsurfacepeat, andconvertsagroundwatersystemtosurfacewatersystem. Fillingexcavatedareaswithpeathasbeensuccessfulinsome restorations(i.e.IvesroadFeninMichigan),butfillingof pondsisstillexperimental.Th equantityandtypeofpeat necessaryarenotknown. Poorlydesignedculvertsonroadsdownstreamoffens cancausefloodingandaconversionoffentoanemergent marsh.Roadsandculvertsupstreamcancausedryingand shruborcat-tailinvasions.Extensiveearthmovingand roadredesignisrarelyfeasibleforthesolepurposeoffen restoration.However,managersshouldworkwithroad commissionstore-designculvertsanddrainageswhenmajor roadworkorculvertreplacementisalreadyscheduled.Simply movingtheculvertupordowninelevationmayrestoreat leastsomenaturalhydrologytothefen. 5.4.5 Restore non-fen wetlands in the landscape around fens to reduce landscape isolation 5.5 Minimize adverse changes to water quality. 5.5.1 Figure18.Marlsflats,seeps,springs,andsmallheadwaterstreams createanaturalpatchinesstoprairiefenburns.Prescibedburnplans shouldexplicitlyrecommendpatchiness federal regulations regarding water quality in watersheds of prairie fens. Th equalityofwaterinIndianaandMichiganis protectedunderseveralstatutes,includingprovisionsof Michigan’sPublicAct451,IndianaCode13-18et.seq. (WaterPollutionControl),andthefederalCleanWater Act.Th eregulatorofwaterqualityinIndianaistheIndiana DepartmentofEnvironmentalManagement(IDEM); Questionsregardingwaterqualityshouldbedirectedto IDEMat317-232-8603.Th eregulatorsofwaterqualityin MichiganaretheMichiganDepartmentofNaturalResources andtheEnvironment(DNRE).Regulationsareonlyeffective iftheycanbeenforced.Inaneraofstreamlinedstaff,itis imperativethatmanagersofprairiefensworkcloselywith staffresponsibleforenforcingwaterqualityregulations. Aclosecollaborationacrossagenciescanhelpmanagers understandthelimitsandopportunitiesthatregulators possess,andwillallowregulatorstolearnthevalueof particularlybiologicallydiverseandfragilewetlands,suchas prairiefens. 5.5.2 Identify and minimize salt and sediment inputs from roads. Support strict enforcement of state and * 34 * Conservation Strategies contaminatethesoilimmediatelyaroundseptictanks.Th e distancefromthetanktothefenissignificant,buttanks inthesteepbluffsthatoftensurroundfensareofparticular concern.Th eamountofcontaminationcandependagreat dealofhowthesepticsystemisdesignedandhowwellitis maintained.Th epotentialfornutrientcontaminationfrom septicsystemsvariesfromsitetosite.Fenswithoutresidential developmentnearbywillnotlikelybeaffectedbythissource. Muchlikeatmosphericdeposition,thissourceislesstractable forthelandmanagerofthefen. Contaminationfromlivestockoperationsand fertilizerrun-offareeasiertoaddress.Considerableresources existwithintheFood,Conservation,andEnergyActof2008, morecommonlyreferredtoastheFarmBill.Withinthe FarmBilltherearemanyprograms,eachgearedtospecific Figure19.Crayfishburrowsor“chimneys”areoftenfoundinuplands eNRCSdistrictconservationistineachcounty’s adjacenttofens.Theseareoftenusedahiberanculaforraresnakes,and goals.Th USDAServiceCentershouldbeabletoguideindividual shouldbeburnedrarelyandwithextremecaution. farmersthroughtheprocessofsigningupforthecorrect Cat-tails(Typhaspp.)cantoleratehighersalt program.Th osewhoadministertheseprogramsareoften concentrationsthanmanyplantsnativetoprairiefens.Infens limitedintimeandstaff;anyhelpamanagercanoffer innortheasternIllinois,cat-tailmonoculturescoincidedwith (writingamanagementplan,solicitinginformationfromthe groundwaterplumesofNa+andCl-,consistentwithprivate landownerforanapplication,etc.)willincreasethechance septicsystemsandroadwayde-icingagents(Pannoetal. 1999).AtmanyfensinMichigan,cat-tailmonoculturesare oftenadjacenttoroadsorsepticsystems(Hoving,personal communication.)Whiletreatmentofcat-tailsasaninvasive speciesiswarrantedatthesesites,along-termsolutionmust includeminimizingsaltandsedimentrun-offfromroads. 5.5.3 Identify and minimize artificial nutrient inputs through an array of water quality initiative and private lands programs. NutrientinputstofensinMichiganandIndiana comefromfivemainsources: • atmosphericdepositionfrompowerplants,heavy industry,andagriculture, • septicsystemsdischargingadjacenttofens • animalwastefromlivestockoperationsnearfens • fertilizerandsedimentsfromagriculturalfieldsnear fens • fertilizerandsedimentsfromurban/suburbanlawns nearfens Atmosphericdeposition,whileaproblem,isbeyond thepurviewofthelandmanager. Nitrogen,salts,andphosphoruscommonly Figure20.Manyspecies,suchasthisboxturtle,areinsensitivetofire duringsomeseasonsandextremelysensitiveduringotherseasons. * 35 * Conservation Strategies thattheprojectwillbefunded.Wastewatertreatmentfacilities forlivestockoperations(throughEQIP)andbufferstrips (throughContinuousCRP)aremostlikelytohavethemost dramaticincreaseinwaterquality. Somefensoccurinwatershedsthatareurbanor suburban.LambertonFen,forinstance,occurswithinthe limitsofMichigan’ssecondlargestcityandisborderedon onesidebyanInterstatehighwayandontheotherbywellmanicuredlawn(Figure6).Insuchareas,neighborstothefen andlocaloffi cialsshouldbetaughttheimportanceofwater qualityandhowtomaintainit.Smartmanagementoflawn herbicidesandfertilizerscangoalongwayinprotectingthe waterqualityofthesefens. Privatelandsprogramsthatcanimprovewaterqualitynear prairiefensinclude: MichiganNaturalResourcesConservationService 517)324-5270 MichiganFarmServiceAgency (517)324-5110 MichiganDNRE(517)373-1263 Figure22.Seedsofinvasiveplants,suchasreedcanarygrassseedson thisboot,aresometimesaccidentallyintroducedtohigh-qualityfensby researchersandmanagers.Toolsandclothingshouldbewashedafter everyvisittoafen(orothernaturalcommunity). USFWSPartnersforFishandWildlife 517-351-6236 5.6 Use Fire as a Management Tool to Restore or Maintain Fens and Landscape. Toavoidorminimizetake,landmanagersworking inhabitatoccupiedbyMitchell’ssatyrbutterfliesshouldrefer toAppendixA,theMitchell’ssatyrHCP,formanagement guidelines. 5.6.1 Conduct prescribed burns in prairie fens and surrounding landscapes. Figure21.Thelandscapecontextofafenisimportant.Bothsurface waterandgroundwaterinputsshouldbeconsidered. Restoringthefullfireregimethatexistedhistorically inprairiefensandthesurroundinglandscapematrixisneither practicalnordesirable.Pastfireswerelargeandoftenintense. Acenturyoffiresuppressionhaschangedlandscapestructure andfuelmodels;non-nativespecieshavebeenintroduced; * 36 * Conservation Strategies afullsuiteofnativespeciesappropriatetothatecological community.Th us,thelossofsomeindividualsofarareinsect isappropriateifitisnecessarytoallowtheseedsofseveral speciesofplantstogerminateandreproduce,assuming thattherareinsectisnotextirpatedfromthesystemorthe populationisnotimpactedtooseverely. Th elossofindividualsfromfiretoincrease populationsisappropriateforshort-lived,prairieorfendependantspeciesthathavehighreproductiveoutput. However,thevalueofadultsofspeciesthatarelong-lived, havelowreproductiveoutput,andoccurin(butarenot dependentupon)fire-driveecosystemsisdifferent.For example,easternboxturtlesoccurthroughoutawide rangeofecologicalcommunitiesinMichiganandIndiana, includingprairiefens.Individualscanlive(incaptivity)to beover100yearsold.Recruitmentfromeggtoreproductive Figure23.Becausefensaresmallanddifficulttoaccesswith adultisnaturallylow.Th econservationvalueofolderbox mechanizedequipment,managementoftenoccursatasmallscale. turtlesisveryhigh.Lossofevenoneindividualadultfemale andrarespeciessometimesrequirespecialaccommodation. fromapopulationeveryfewyearscouldeffectivelysendthe Certainaspectsofthehistoricalfireregimeare populationtoextinction.Forlong-livedspecies,thelossof informative,andshouldbereproducedasmuchaspossible. individualsmightnotalwaysincreasetheoverallpopulation. Forexample,firemostoftenoccurredinfenswhenthe Inthesesituationsmanagersmustmakediffi cultand surroundinglandscapewasdry.Th us,prescribedburnsduring sometimescontroversialdecisions. periodsoflowrainfallandlowhumidityaremorelikelyto Discussionsoftherelativeimpactsoffire(orother favorthefencommunity.Similarly,lightningignitedfires managementtools)todifferentplantsoranimalsoftenoccur inJulyandAugustinthisregion,andthus,growingseason onahypotheticallevel.Ideallymanagementdecisionsshould burnsmaybeappropriate. bemadeonthebasisofon-going,long-termmonitoring. Becauseofchangesinlandscapestructure,fuel Managersofprairiefensshoulduseanadaptivemanagement models,invasivespecies,andrarespecies,theprescription framework.Manymanagersobjecttomonitoringbecause forfireinandaroundfensshouldbeplannedcarefully ittakesvaluableresourcesfromothermanagementprojects, (O’Connor2006)(Table5).Allmanagement,including especiallyifthemonitoringistoodetailedorpoorlyplanned. managementusingfire,entailssomerisktoindividuals, However,thelevelofmonitoringcanbescaledtothe populations,andaspectsoftheprairiefencommunity.A resourcesavailable(O’Connor2007)Conservationpartners, goodmanagerwillweighthoserisksofmanagementagainst especiallyinacademia,mightbeusedtocompletemonitoring therisksofapplyingnomanagement. projects.Th ewisestuseoftimeandmoney,inthelongterm, Th emanagementofecologicalcommunitiescan istomonitortheeffectivenessofmanagementtoolssuchas becounterintuitivetothosefocusedontheconservation fire.Moreimportantly,monitoringcanalsoaddressthereal ofspecificrarespecies.Managersmustoftenemploytools effectthatfirehasonpopulationsthoughttobethreatenedby thatkillindividualsforthelongtermbenefitofrarespecies. orthoughttobenefitfromfire. Th eecosystemmanager’sgoalmaybeverydifferentfrom thosewhowouldliketoseethepopulationofagiven 5.6.2 Mimic effects of fire in fens and speciesmaximizedandmortalityofthatspeciesminimized surrounding landscapes inallsituationsandatalltimes.Th egoaloftheecosystem Prescribedfirehaslongbeenrecognizedasthemost manageristopreservefluctuating,dynamicpopulationsof cost-effectivewaytomanageprairiefensandotherecological * 37 * Conservation Strategies communities(Jenkins1954).Costsperacreforaburnover afewacresinsizerangewidelyfrompubliclandtoprivate land.Althoughthecostmayseemhigh,lessexpensive alternativesareunlikelytomimicalloftheecosystemservices ofafire. Whenandwherefirecannotbeused,severaltoolsare availabletomimictheeffectsofprescribedfire.Fordegraded fenswithagrazinghistory,restoringlivestocktothefenmay bethequickestandleastexpensivewaytomimictheeffects offire.Seesection5.5formoreongrazing.Grazingshould neverbestartedinfenswherethereisnotaclear,documented historyofgrazingbylivestock. Anothergoodoptionistocutaggressivewoody vegetationwhileminimizingsoildisturbance.Th isapproach canbeexpensive.Successiontoshrubcarr,especiallynative shrubs,likelyindicatesdamagefrompastlivestockgrazing. Ifgrazingandfirearenotmanagementtools,woodyspecies shouldbecutandstumpstreatedwithherbicidelabeledfor useoveropenwater.Anherbicidewand(AppendixB)will allowtargetedherbicideapplicationwithoutharmingrare plants.Shrubscanbepiledandthenburned,orlefttorot. Ifthefenhasdriedsomewhatandthetussockmicro topographyhasbeenlost,thefencanbehayed.Th isisa commonmanagementpracticeinEurope.Hayingmustbe annual(ornearlyso)tokeepwoodyspeciesincheck.Haying cutstallspecies,removedbiomass,andallowssunlightto reachplantsofshorterstature.Mowingwillcutthetall vegetation,butthecutvegetationtendstosmothershorter statureplants.AsmentionedintheInvasiveSpeciessection 5.8.itisimperativethatallequipment(saws,herbicide applicators,mowers,tractors,etc)bethoroughlycleaned beforebeingbroughtintoafen.Cuttingwoodyvegetation willnotimprovethequalityofthefenifherbaceousinvasive plantsareintroducedbythecuttingequipment. 5.7 Limit grazing and browsing, except in already damaged fens 5.7.1 history Limit grazing on fens that lack a grazing Livestockgrazingalterstothesuccessionaltrajectory ofprairiefens(Middleton2002).Fenswithoutgrazing historyexistonthelandscape,butarerelativelyrare.Th ose fenswithnograzinghistoryarelesslikelytobeinvaded byshrubs,andwillthushavemuchlowermanagement costs.Th esefensshouldbeprotectedfromlivestockgrazing (Middletonetal.2006b). 5.7.2 Maintain grazing on fens where it currently occurs Grazingcreatesanicheforshrubsandotherinvasive plantstoinvadeprairiefens.Italtersthesuccessional trajectoryofprairiefens,andwedonotcurrentlyhave managementtoolsthatcanundothiseffect.However,light tomoderateseasonalgrazingcankeepshrubsandinvasive herbaceousplantsfromspreading.Th us,grazingwhere grazinghasalreadyoccurredcanmaintainafeninanopen conditionwithadiversityofplants(TesauroandEhrenfeld 2007). Grazingisaviableandvaluablemanagementtool forthosefensalreadydegradedbygrazing.However,because grazinghasnegativeeffects,itshouldonlybeusedwhenother managementtechniques(fire,shrubcontrol,herbicide,etc.) arenotavailable.Grazingadegradedfenispreferabletono management,butlesspreferablethanfireandothertools. 5.7.3 Encourage hunting in and around prairie fens to manage for healthy populations of deer, turkey, and other game species. Huntingisavaluablepartofprairiefenmanagement, anditshouldbepromotedonlandswhereprairiefenand biodiversityarethemaingoals.Fensandotherdensely vegetatedwetlandsareoftenusedbydeerandturkeyfor fawning/nestingcover,asescapecover,andforfood.Fensare especiallyvaluablehabitatinlandscapesdominatedbyurban developmentorextensiveagriculture. Justashighdensitiesoflivestockcandamagefens, highdeerdensitiescanalsobeathreat.Forfenvegetation andthehealthofthedeerherditself,deerdensitiesshould bemanagedtomaintainpopulationlevelsinbalancewith theirhabitat.Recreationalhuntingshouldbeencourgaedin andaroundprairiefens,andhuntersshouldbeencouragedto harvestantlerlessdeer. Th eexactdensityofdeerthatwillnotdamagefens willvaryfromonelandscapetoanother.Ingeneral,developed landscapesthatfocusdeeractivityinfenswillhavelower densitythreshholds.Landscapesinwhichdeercanbemore * 38 * Focus on Prescribed Fire Wetlandscanbeburned,andfireisoftenavaluable managementtool.Considertheregeneralmanagement recommendationswhenusingprescribedfireasa managementtool.Th esespecialconsiderationsshould alwaysbebalancedagainstthethreattothespeciesand otherspeciesifnomanagementactionistaken. 1, Avoidsoildisturbanceinfensoradjacent wetlands.Usenaturalburnbreaks(streams, shrub-carr,etc)orexistingfeatures(roads,trails, etc.)whereverpossible(Figures24and25). 2. Timingburnsatthesametimeofyear,everyyear, willlikelyreducespeciesdiversity.Varythetiming toincludespring,summer,fall,andwinterburns. Pyro-diversityequalsbiodiversityinsystemswith diversefirehistories. Figure24.Existingburnbreakscanbeutilizedinprairiefens. Createdburnbreaksoftenconsistoflanesclearedwithaweedwhip andthensprayedwithwater.Pumpsandhosecanoftenprovide amplewater. * 39 * o Dormantseason,springburnsfavor grasses,sedges,turtle,andsnakesover wildflowers.Th eydolittletocontrol woodyvegetation. o Shrubs,turtles,andsnakesaremost sensitivetofireaftergreenleaveshave emerged. o Summerburnsareusuallymorepatchy andsmoky. o Aburnwillfavorthoseplantsand animalsthataredormantornotgrowing quicklyatthetimeoftheburn.Th e burnwillsetbackorkillthoseplantsand animalsthatarefloweringorotherwise attemptingreproduction. o Th etimingofburnsshouldbedriven,in part,bythescienceoftimingburnsand theeffectofthattimingonbiodiversity, andnotentirelyonconveniencefor recreationalactivity,wildfireactivity,or easeofpredictingfireweather. o Tamaracktreesareespeciallyimportant tospecificplantsandinsects,andshould notbetargetedwithaggressiveignition patterns(i.e.,ringsaroundthetree). 3. Invasivespeciesrequirespecialplanning,for example: o Likemanyfenshrubs,exoticinvasive buckthorn(Rhamnusspp.)isnotsensitive tofireinanyseasononceitisover oneyearofage.Seedlingsarehighly susceptibletofire.Th us,fireiseffective uptooneyearaftermechanical/chemical removalofadultbuckthorn,afterthe buckthornseedbankhasexpresseditself. o JapanesebarberryBerberisthunbergiiis sensitivetofireinmostseasonsandmost agegroups. o Onceestablished,manyinvasive shrubsandtrees(blacklocustRobinia pseudoacacia,autumnoliveElaeagnus umbellata,orJapanesebarberryB. thunbergii)increasesoilnitrogenandthus Focus on Prescribed Fire o Forrarespecieswithhighreproductive potential(mostinsects,manyplants)and thataresuspectedtobesensitivetofire, nomorethan1/3oftheavailablehabitat forthatspeciesshouldbeburnedinany oneyear. Forrarespecieswithlowreproductive potentialandthataresuspectedtobe sensitivetofire,mostfiresshouldoccur onlyduringthedormantseason.Th e exceptionwouldbeafiretomanagea moreimmediatethreattothatspecies, suchasabuckthorninvasion. o Ingeneral,aslowfirewillbelesspatchy, havelowerpeaktemperature,but generatemorenetheat(fewerrefuges inburnunit,butmayallowspeciesto moveoutoftheburnarea.)Afastfire willbemorepatchy,reachhigherpeak Figure25.Theuseofexistingburnbreakshastheaddedadvantage ofrestoringadjacentuplandcommunities,suchas400acresof degradedoaksavannaaroundthissmallprairiefen acceleratethebreakdownoffuelintheir immediatevicinity,effectivelycreatingtheir ownburnbreak. o Fireprovidesanutrientpulsetothesoil, whichcancauseanincreaseinherbaceous invasiveplants,especiallycat-tails(Typha spp.)Ifwaterqualityisdegradedinthefen, thenutrientpulsemaymaketheinvasive plantproblemworse. o Targetedchemicalormechanicalcontrol ofherbaceousplantsduringthegrowing seasonimmediatelyafteraburnishighly recommendedforallfenburns. 4. Rarespeciesrequirespecialconsiderationintiming, extent,andintensityofprescribedburns. o Fireismorelikelytoharmrarespecieswhen Figure26.Thisboxturtlesurvivedtheinitialfirebutitslongterm theyareattemptingtoreproduce.(Tables3 injuriesareunknown.Specialcaremustbetakentoavoidimpactsto and4) rare,sensitive,orslowlyreproducingspecies * 40 * Focus on Prescribed Fire temperature,butcreatelesstotalheat overtime(morerefugesinburnunit, butmaykillspeciesthattrytofleerather thanseekrefuge). o Toavoidorminimizetake,land managersworkinginhabitatoccupied byMitchell’ssatyrbutterfliesmustabide byAppendixA,theMitchell’ssatyr HCP,formanagementrestrictions.Th ese restrictionsconstitutethetermsofan IncidentalTakePermit. when evaluating fine filters and considering the timing and configuration of prescribed burns. For more information on how the phenology tables were pulled together and the differing definitions of vulnerability, see Appendix E. Fire Sensitivity and the Phenologies of Rare Species Fire sensitivity is a hot topic among biologists, ecologists, and land managers. Fire kills individuals, and poorly timed or poorly planned fires can wipe out local populations. Fire is also an natural process, and forgoing fire can change successional trajectories and wipe out local populations. To complicate matters, the effects of timing or configuration of fire on individual species is difficult to research, and results are sometimes contradictory. In order to help land managers plan fire in fens responsibly, the following tables have been constructed. For the most part, they reflect initial hypotheses regarding relative sensitivity of different life history stages. A salamander hibernating in oak leaf litter is more sensitive than salamanders breeding in a pond. A lupine plant is more sensitive to fire when flowering than when dormant. However, sensitivity varies greatly among species, and that variation is not captured in these tables. For example, salamanders are much more sensitive to fire than lupine throughout the season. Management of fens, like other systems, requires one to balance coarse and fine filters. These tables are one tool for land managers to consider * 41 * Focus on Prescribed Fire Table3.Hypothesizedplantsensitivitytofirebasedonlifehistoryandphenology.Onlyshort-termacutesensitivities toindividualsareconsideredinthistable.Sensitivityalsovariesfromspeciestospecies,byfireintensityandignition pattern,andaccordingtotimescalesconsidered. Plant Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity Plant Guilds Forbs Annuals - early season Annuals - late season Biennials - early season Biennials - late season Perennials - early season Perennials - late season Sedges Annuals-early season Annuals-late season Perennials-early season Perennials-late season Grasses Annuals-cool season Annuals-warm season Perennials-cool season Perennials-warm season Vines Early season Late season Trees Early season Late season Rare Plant Species Purple milkweed Asclepias purpurascens JAN FEB MAR D MAY E JUNE JULY FL FR D E FL E FL D D FL E D FL E E D FL FL E E MAR APR E D E FL FR SD FR E D SD D FR SD D E FR D SD AUG SEPT FR FR FR D OCT SD D SD D D FR FL DEC D SD FL NOV SD FR FL E D SD FR FL FL FL D D FL FL D * 42 * SD D JUNE JULY E D FR SD E Rattlesnake master Eryngium yuccifolium FL SD FL MAY D D SD FR E D SD FR SD FL FL D D D FL E D D SD SD FR D SD FR E D D D E E SD FR FL FR D D FL FR D White lady-slipper Cypripedium candidum SD DEC D E D D FR NOV D FR E D Prairie Indian plantain Cacalia plantaginea SD FR D FEB FR OCT D FL E D SEPT SD E D JAN AUG E D Cut-leaved water parsnip Berula erecta Queen-of-the-prairie Filipendula rubra APR FR SD SD D SD SD D Focus on Prescribed Fire Plant Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity Rare Plant Species - Continued JAN Whiskered sunflower Helianthus hirsutus FEB MAR APR MAY D Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis E D Wild sweet William Phlox maculata E Rosinweed Silphium integrifolium Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis Edible valerian Valeriana edulis var. ciliata E D Critical Food Plants for Rare Insects Swamp thistle Cirsium muticum (Swamp metalmark) Blazing star Liatris spp. (Blazing star borer moth) Regal fern Osmunda spp. (Regal fern borer moth) Giant sunflower Helianthus giganteus (Maritime sunflower borer moth) Culver's root Veronicastrum virginicum (Culver's root borer moth) D E E FL FR E E E D E D SD D E D E Phenology Key Dormant D Emergent E Flowering FL Fruiting FR Seed Dispersal SD Fire Sensitivity Key Vulnerable Potentially Vulnerable Not Vulnerable * 43 * E SD SD D D SD D FR FL FR FL FL D SD D SD SD E E SD D FR FL E D D FR FR DEC D D FR SD SD SD FL FL NOV SD SD SD SD E OCT SD FR FR FR E D FL FL FL D SEPT FR E E E D AUG FL E D Jacob's ladder Polemonium reptans JUNE JULY E SD SD SD D D Focus on Prescribed Fire Table4.Hypothesizedanimalsensitivitytofirebasedonlifehistoryandphenology.Onlyshort-termacute sensitivitiestoindividualsareconsideredinthistable.Sensitivityalsovariesfromspeciestospecies,byfi reintensity Animal Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity andignitionpattern,andaccordingtotimescalesconsidered. BIRDS Ground- nesting American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus JAN FEB MAR American woodcock Solopax minor A AN Blue-winged teal Anas discors APR MAY JUNE A N NY N NY A Northern harrier Circus cyaneus A Virginia Rail Rallus limicola A N A Cavity- nesting Northern flicker Coaptes aurautus A Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens JAN FEB Blanding's turtle Emydoidea blandingii Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata MAR APR HT HA NY MAY JUNE HT NT BT BA P Y JULY P AUG * 44 * SEPT M A/E NT NT P P Y BA BA HT Y Y NY N NOV P NY A HA HT Y N OCT P NY A P Y N A P NY NY N Tree-nesting Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Y NY A Green heron Butorides virescens P N N Shrub-nesting Black-&Yellow-billed cuckoos Coccyzus spp P P NY N A Y Y A Sora Porzana carolina P Y N Sedge wren Cistothorus plantensis Eastern box turtle Terrapene c. carolina Y NY DEC P NY N NOV P Y NY OCT P N A Wilson's snipe Gallinago delicata HERPETOFAUNA Blanchard's cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardii N A SEPT Y NY A Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii AUG Y N Blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus JULY A E E/M E A E E/M BT/M M DEC HT A A HA HT HA HT Focus on Prescribed Fire Animal Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity HERPETOFAUNA Continued Eastern massasauga rattlesnake Sisturus c. catenatus JAN FEB MAR Kirtland's snake Clonophis kirtlandii MAY A H A A? FEB OCT APR A MAY JUNE E JULY AUG L Blazing star borer moth Papaipema beeriana E L Culver's root borer moth Papaipema sciata E L Duke's skipper Euphyes dukesi E L Maritime sunflower borer moth Papaipema maritime E L Mitchell's satyr Neonympha m. mitchellii L L L E L Siphium borer moth Papaipema silphii E L Spartina moth Spartiniphaga inops E L H OCT P A E A E E A E L P A E E L L P L P P A DEC E E A NOV A L A P * 45 * A? L P L L H E L P Regal fern borer moth Papaipema speciosissima P A L Poweshiek skipperling Oarisma poweshiek A? A L P E H SEPT P L P Golden borer moth Papaipema cerina A? P L L HT H A MAR DEC HT A A A? NOV BT NT A? H JAN SEPT NT BT H Snail (no common name) Euconulus alderi AUG A Six-whorl vertigo Vertigo morsei Swamp metalmark Claephelis mutica JULY H Pleistocene cantinella Catinella exile Newman's brocade Meroplean ambrifusca JUNE BT HT SNAILS Watercress snail (aquatic) Fontigens nickliniana INSECTS Butterflies and Moths Barrens buckmoth Hemileuca maia APR HT E A E A E A E L Focus on Prescribed Fire Animal Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity INSECTS Continued Beetles Cantrall's bog beetle Liodessus cantralli JAN FEB N P MAR APR A (aquatic) Stenelmis douglasensis MAY JUNE E N JULY P A A Huron R, leafhopper Flexamia huroni SEPT N P Cicadas and Leafhoppers Angular spittlebug Lepyronia angulifera AUG A NOV E DEC N E N/A E OCT N A N A E Leafhopper Flexamia delongi E N A E Leafhopper Flexamia reflexa E N A E A E Kansan spike-rush leafhopper Dorydiella kansana E Red-legged spittlebug Prosapia ignipectus E N Dragonflies Gray petaltail Tachopteryx thoreyi Red-faced meadow katydid Orcheliimum concinuum Tamarack tree cricket Oecanthus laricis MAMMALS Southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi N N Grasshoppers and Crickets Bog conehead Neonconocephalus lyristes Hoosier locust Paroxya hoosieri N E A E E A E N A N E E B? E A E N A N A B * 46 * N E E B? Focus on Prescribed Fire Animal Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity Fire Sensitivity Vulnerable Potentially Vulnerable Not Vulnerable Unknown Bird Phenology Pre-nesting Period A Nesting Period N Flightless Young Y Post-nesting Period P Herp Phenology Active A Breeding-Aquatic/Terrestrial BA/BT Nesting, eggs, young Aquatic/Terrestrial NA/NT Metamorph,Hatchling Emigration,Emergence M Aestivation E Hibernation-Aquatic/Terrestrial HA/HT Snail Phenology Hibernation H Active A Insect Phenology Adult flight/active A Larvae/nymphs L/N Pupae P Eggs E Mammal Phenology Breeding/Nesting B * 47 * Conservation Strategies evenlydistributedacrossthelandscapewillbeabletosupport ahigherdensityofdeer. 5.7.4 A note on insect/disease outbreak Diseaseoutbreaksandinsectinfestationsare commoninprairiefens,especiallyinmaturetamaracktrees. Diseaseandinsectoutbreaksdonotrequiremanagementor conservationactions.However,managementshouldfocuson promotingthesuccessfulregenerationoftamaracktreesin prairiefensandrichtamarackswamps. Tamaracktreesareanimportantpartoftheprairie fencommunity.Manyplantsandinsects(includingthe Mitchell’ssatyrbutterfly)areassociatedwithtamaracks. Tamaracksareshadeintolerant,andwillnotgerminateor persistintheshadeofdeciduoustreesandshrubs.Manyfens andtamarackswampscontainmaturetamaracktreeswith anunderstoryofdeciduoustreesandshrubs.Ifthemature tamaracktreessuccumbtoinsectsordiseaseandarenot replacedbyyoungregeneratingtamaracks,thisimportant componentofthefencommunitycouldbelost. Managementoffenswithmaturetamaracktrees shouldfocusonmaintainingtamarackregenerationand suppressingorremovingdeciduoustreesandshrubs.Where thetamarackcomponenthasalreadybeenlost,deciduous treesandshrubsshouldberemovedandtamaracktrees shouldbeplanted. Th ethreatofinvasivespeciescanbeoverwhelming; thecompleteeradicationofallinvasiveexoticspeciesfromall managednaturalareasisnotpossible.Itispossibletowaste considerableresourcesattemptingunsuccessfullytomanage entrenchedinvasivespecies.Infact,eradicationeffortsthat areunsuccessfulcancauseenoughdisturbancetostimulate furtherinvasions.However,withcarefulplanning,invasive speciesoftencanbemanagedsuccessfullywithreasonable amountsoftimeandmoney. Th eleastexpensivemethodtocontrolaninvasive 5.8.2 Refine and implement best management practices to limit spread of invasive species. Inadditiontopoliciesandtoolstolimitthe introductionofinvasivespeciesfromoutsideajurisdiction, wealsoneedtolimitintroductionfromnearbywetlandsor uplandstoagivenprairiefen.Avectoruniquetowetlands isthespreadofseeds,roots,orviableplantfragments throughthewater.Th us,specialattentionshouldbemade tothepresenceofinvasiveplantsupstreamoffens.Roads arealsocommoncorridorsforinvasiveplants.Finally,an effi cientvectortotransferviableseedsfromfentofenisthe transportonbootsandsawsoffenmanagersandresearchers. Th us,astandardsetofguidelinesforcleaningboots, clothing,equipment,andvehiclesshouldbedevelopedand implementedtolimitthespreadofinvasivesdirectlyfromone fentoanotherandalsowithinthesamefen. 5.8.3 Monitor fens regularly to detect new invasions early in the process of invasion 5.8 Manage invasive species. 5.8.1 Support modifications in law, policy or enforcement that could more effectively prevent the spread of invasive species. speciesistopreventitsintroduction(McNeelyetal.2001). Roughlyoneinonethousandexoticspecieswillprove tobeinvasiveandcausesignificantecologicaldamage (WilliamsonandFitter1996,Lockwoodetal.2001).Th us, ifintroductionsofnewexoticspeciesarenotmanaged,new invasivespeciesofsimilarimpacttoglossybuckthornor narrowleafcat-tailwillbecomeestablishedinthefuture. AustraliaandNewZealandhavepioneeredmanypoliciesand modelstosignificantlyslowtheintroductionofnewinvasive species(Gordonetal.2008a,2008b). Earlydetectionandrapidresponseismoreexpensive thanprevention,butconsiderablymorecosteffectivethan othermanagementefforts.Itisawiseruseofresourcesto monitora2acrefenannuallyandtocutandkillthefirstfive buckthorninvaders,thantowaittocutthe50,000buckthorn invadersthatfillthatsame2acrefen. Resourcesandprotocolsshouldbedevelopedto directearlydetectionandrapidresponse,onpublicand privatelands,andinwetlandsanduplands. 5.8.4 Provide the public with information on invasive species. Manymanagersarenowcognizantofthethreatof invasivespeciesandcanidentifythemostaggressiveinvaders. However,manyprivatelandownerslackthisexpertise.Th us, * 48 * Conservation Strategies Figure26.Prairiefensoccurredinlandscapesthatburnedonaregularbasis.Thehighloadsoffinefuelsinfenswouldhavebeensuceptibletofire aswell.Today,fireisausefultooltomanagewoodysuccessioninfens. ebookcontainsmany itisimportantthatoutreachmaterialsreachownersofprairie geographicrangeoftheprairiefen.Th usefulpicturesofecologicallysignifi cantinvasivespecies,and fenssothat1)theyrecognizethatinvasivespeciesthreaten givesmuchusefulinformationoncontroltechniques. valuestheyholdintheirproperty,and2)theyaretaughtto Th eMichiganNaturalFeaturesInventoryisinthe identifytheinvasiveplantsthatmaythreatentheirprairiefen. processofcreatingahandbookGuidetotheInvasivePlant SpeciesofMichigan(Borlandetal.inpress).Th ehandbookis 5.8.5 Reduce distribution and abundance of gearedtowardidentifi cation.Itcontainssuccinctinformation problematic invasive species onmanagement,butdoesnothavedetailedinformationon Toavoidorminimizetake,landmanagersworking treatment,herbicides,etc. inhabitatoccupiedbyMitchell’ssatyrshouldreferto Th ewebsitefortheTNCGlobalInvasiveSpecies theMitchell’ssatyrHCPformanagementguidelines.In Initiative(Th eNatureConservancy2008)isanotherexcellent Michigan,landmanagersworkinginareasoccupiedby resourceformanagers.Th egeographicscopeofthisresource easternMassasaugarattlesnakesshouldrefertotheguidelines islarge,buttheManagementLibrarysectiondoesallow intheCandidateConservationAgreementwithAssurances managerstosearchbyspecies.Th especiesaccountsarelong forthisspecies,orthelatestdraft.InIndiana,thisspeciesis andexhaustive.Th edetailedinformationonmanagement statelistedandtheIndianaDepartmentofFishandGame techniquesandtheecologicaleffectsofherbicidesintheWeed shouldbeconsulted. ControlMethodsHandbook(Tuetal.2001)isespecially Manygoodresourcesontheidentificationand handy. controlofinvasivespeciesareavailabletolandmanagers. Inadditiontotheseresources,thefollowingsectionsreflect thepracticalexperienceofmanylandmanagerswithalong historyofmanaginginvasivespecieswithinandnearprairie 5.9 Minimize Adverse Impacts of fens. Recreational Activities. InvasivePlantsoftheUpperMidwest(Czarapata2005) providesagoodoverviewofspecificinvasiveplantsacrossthe 5.9.1 Minimize and guide trail development. * 49 * Conservation Strategies Prairiefensareinappropriateformostrecreational trails.Th esubstrateisuneven,unstable,andwaterlogged. Footingforhumansandhorsesalikeistreacherous.Using mineralsoiltofillthetrailisaviolationofwetlandstatutes andisrarelyeffective.Becauseofthesheetflowofwater throughthefen,waterwillpoolontheup-slopesideofthe trailuntilthefilledsectionisagaininundated.Culvertsare ineffectivewiththefenitselfbecausetheywouldneedtobe constantlymovedtoreflectedchangesinsheetflow.Poison sumaccanseriouslyharmtrailusers.Th erashfrompoison sumacismoreseriousthanpoisonivy,andoftenrequires medicalattentionandprescriptiondrugs. Cross-countryskitrailsmaybeappropriatewhere snowisreliablydeepenoughtocoverthetussocktopography ofthefen.Th isisunlikely,exceptinthelakeeffectsnowbelt eastofLakeMichigan. Boardwalkscanbeinstalledinfens,butmustbe carefullydesignednottoaltersheetflow,violatewetland statutes,orcreatenichesand/orvectorsforinvasive plants.Whereappropriateboardwalkscanprovideagood opportunityforpeopletolearnaboutfenecology. 5.9.2 Restrict access by off-road vehicles. 5.10.2 Assess the need and feasibility of a species reintroduction program. Reintroductionprogramsarenotsimple.Many variablesmustbeconsidered,including • geneticeffects(founderseffects,idealpopulationsize ofreintroducedpopulation,sourcegenetics) • bestlifestagetoreintroduce(gravidfemales,eggs, larvae?) • socialaspects(areneighborsreadyforanendangered speciesthatmightspreadtotheirproperty?) • thepresenceandstrainsofdiseasesinthepopulation, suchasWolbachia(Werrenetal.2008,Niceteal. 2009,HammandLandis,unpublishedreport) • andconservationthreats(hastheoriginalreasonthat satyrsdisappearedbeenfixedatthissite?) 5.10.3 Prioritize components and areas for species reintroduction. Whatarethemostappropriateareasfor introduction?Isthesiteownedbyapublicentityor conservationorganization? PrairiefensofferpoorrecreationforATVridersand off-roadvehicles,andthusthereislittledemandordamage fromthethreat.However,avehiclestuckandthentowed outofafencancausesignificantdamage.TrailsforATVs andoff-roadvehiclesshouldbeplannedawayfromfens,and recreationistsshouldbeencouragedtoavoidprairiefens. 5.10 Reintroduce Missing Prairie Fen Components 5.10.1 Identify missing prairie fen components. Detailedplantlistsexistformanyprairiefensin MichiganandIndiana.Manyfenshavebeensurveyed repeatedlyforrarebutterflies.Somereptileandamphibian assemblageshavebeenmadeforsomefens,butdistribution ofcrypticorfossorialspeciesarelesswellknown.Other importantgroups,suchasnativepollinatorsandmollusks havebeenlessstudied,andnearlynoinformationisavailable onfungiorbacteriadiversityinuniquefensoils.Th us,weare likelytodetectextirpationofsometaxa,butnotothers. 5.10.4 If necessary and feasible, develop, test and implement a species reintroduction program. 6. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Fensaresensitivetolandmanagementwithinthe fen,inadjacentwetlands,andinuplandssurroundingthefen. Poorlandmanagementwillresultinadegradedfen.Good landmanagementwillprotecttheintegrityofthefen.Th is sensitivitymakesfensbothagoodconservationtargetand agoodindicatoroftheecologicalhealthofthesurrounding landscape.Th issensitivityalsomakesmonitoringoffen healthandintegrityapriorityforalllandmanagers,and notonlythoseinterestedinparticularendangeredplants, butterflies,orreptiles. * 50 * 6.1 Continue Mapping and Monitoring to Monitoring Assess Status and Health of Fens onfenintegrity. 6.1.1 Monitor and map fen communities and populations of rare species within fen communities Prairiefensprovidehabitatforadisproportional numberofrareplantandanimalspecies.Boththestatusof thecommunityandpopulationsofrarespecieswithinthe communityshouldbemonitored.Presence/absencesurveys forsomefenspecieshavebeenconductedasresourceshave beenavailablefordecades.Overthepasttenyears,annual surveyshavebeenconductedfortheMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly. Recently,communitylevelprotocolshavebeendeveloped specificallyforprairiefens(PearsallandWoods2006in AppendixC,O’Connor2007). Monitoringresultsshouldbecommunicatedtothe landmanager(usuallytheprivatelandowner)responsiblefor thefen.Whenmanagementiswarranted,themonitoring resultsmustbecommunicatedinthecontextofspecific managementactions.Monitoringwithoutrecommending management(whenandifneeded)doeslittlemore thandocumentthelossofthesystem.Recommending managementinvague(“Youshouldspraythat.”)ratherthan specific(“Youshouldspraythisplantwith20%solutionof AquastarorRodeoinJunethisyear.”)termsaccomplishes littleformostprivatelandowners.Recommendations toexperiencedlandmanagerscanbemorevaguethan recommendationstothoseinexperiencedprivatelandowners whomanagemostfens. Appropriaterecommendationsnowaccompanymany monitoringsurveyresultsthatarereportedtoprofessional landmanagers.LandownerIncentiveProgrambiologists provideappropriaterecommendationstomanyprivate landownersinMichigan.Th iscommunicationamongthose monitoring,thosemanaging,andthoseinprivatelands programsisvaluableandshouldcontinue. 6.1.2. Map connectivity between fens and among adjacent natural communities Fensdonotpersistindependentofthelandscape contextinwhichtheywereformed.Forthisreason, monitoringprogramsforfensshouldexplicitlyinclude uplandsandwetlandsonthesurface-watershedandthe ground-watershedofthefen.Landuseintheseareasshould bemapped,andcategorizedbyitspositiveornegativeimpact 6.2 Conduct Active Research to Support Science-based Prairie Fen Conservation. Someprofessionalmanagersandsomeprivate landownershaveamassedconsiderableknowledgeofprairie fenmanagementoverthepastseveraldecades.Wenow knowsomeofthecorrect(andincorrect)waystocontrol buckthorn,dogwood,orphragmites.WeknowthatMitchell’s satyrbutterfliesrequiresomewoodyvegetation,andthatthey areverysensitivetochangesinhydrology. Th ereisstillmuchthatwedonotknow.Which changesinhydrologyaffectMitchell’ssatyr,andwhy?What levelofgrazingcankeepadegradedfenfrombecominga shrub-carrorinvasivemonoculture?Aretheremanagement techniquesthataremoreeffi cient(lesstimeormoneyforthe sameorbetterecologicaloutcome)?Canthecommunitybe conservedwithouttheresponsibleuseofprescribedfire?Can allspeciesbeconservedwiththeresponsibleuseofprescribed fire?Howmuchistoomuchortoolittleofanymanagement tool(fire,herbicide,mowing,grazing)? Th echallengesforthefuturearetomentorandtrain youngermanagerswhileatthesametimequantifyingand documentingtheresultsofourmanagement.Th iswillensure thatfuturefenmanagersarebuildingonourhard-earned knowledgeandnotrepeatingourpastmistakes. 6.3 Adaptive Management 6.3.1 Monitor the effectiveness of management to maintain fens Justasmonitoringwithoutfollow-upmanagement (whenneeded)isineffective,soalsoismanagementwithout follow-upmonitoring.Forexample,clearingpartofa fenofwoodyshrubsmayofferanobviousanddramatic improvement,butwithoutmonitoringonecannotknowthe extentofwoodyresproutsandseedlings.Perhapsherbicide concentrationsneedtobechanged,ormaybeafewhoursof follow-uptreatmentisnecessary.Monitoringcanprotectthe investmentofsignificantresourcesinrestorationandimprove futuremanagement. Examplesoffensthatwerenothelpedorwere * 51 * Monitoring harmedbymanagementwithoutmonitoringabound.In onefen,thematurebuckthornshrubswerecut,andstumps weretreatedwithherbicide.However,nomonitoringwas conducted.Th eseedsofthebuckthornsprouted,andwithin afewyearsthesetreeshadreplacedtheolderbuckthorn,but atahigherstemdensitythanpreviously.Similarly,afenwas burnedintheearlyspring,andmonitoringinthatsummer indicatedthatshrubcoverwasdecreasedandherbaceous coverincreased.However,themonitoringdidnotcontinue intosubsequentyears.Th eshrubsresproutedandstem densityincreased.Inanothersmallfen,annuallyrepeated latespringandearlysummerburnseffectivelyreducedshrub cover,buttheabundanceofspringbloomingplantsand someanimalsweregreatlyreduced.Th esearehypothetical examples,basedontheexperiencesofmanymanagersand researchers. Managerscannotmonitorallfens,inallyears,for allspecies.However,managersshouldmonitorsomefensin someyears.Rarespeciesinthesefensshouldbemonitoredby themanagerorbyresearchers,suchasnaturalfeaturesstaff. Ifspecialistsmonitorforrarespecies,itiscriticalthatthey communicatetheirresultstomanagersinatimelyfashion. Formanagerswithlimitedtimetodevoteto monitoring,aprotocolisneededthatissensitivetofenhealth andintegrityandthatisalsoquickandeffi cient.Th eNature ConservancyincooperationwiththeMichiganDNREhas developedacommunity-basedmonitoringstrategy(Pearsall andWoods2006)thatisrelativelysimple,withonlythree metricstoestimatepermanagementunitoffen(Appendix C). reasontomonitorchanges.Finally,aclimaterelatedrange contractionwithoutanaccompanyingrangeexpansionmay triggerotherconservationactionsforaparticularspecies. 6.3.2 Change management as necessary to meet plan objectives Adaptivemanagementrequiresmanagerstochange approachesbasedontheresultsofmonitoring.Th ismay beassimpleasworkingfollow-upherbicidetreatmentsfor herbaceousinvasivesintoplansforprescribedburns.Itmay beasprofoundastoreplaceprescribedfirewithlowintensity grazingasthemaindisturbanceregime,ifmonitoringand researchwarrantsuchachange.Adaptivemanagementis popularonpaper,butmanagerstendtoresistexchanging familiarpracticeswithnewones. 7. Implementation 7.1 Partner Participation InIndianaandMichigan,approximately60%offens occuronentirelyonprivateland,and40%occurpartiallyor entirelyonpubliclands.Ofthosefensonprivateland,about one-fifth(usuallythelargestandhighestqualityfens)are managedorprotectedbyconservationpartners,suchasland conservanciesorbirdsanctuaries.Conservationpartnersare thuscriticaltotheimplementationofthismulti-stateplan. 6.3.2 Explicitly include monitoring and adaptation for a changing climate. Asclimatechangesonewouldexpectthegeographic rangesofsomespeciestoshift.Th eseshiftsmaybeassociated withmeansorextremesoftemperatureorprecipitation. Rarespeciesatorneartheirgeographicrangelimitshouldbe sensitivetoclimatechange.Th esespeciesshouldbemapped, andchangesindistributionmonitored.Ourbestguessisthat thiswillbealong-termslowchangethatmaynotbeapparent withoutexplicitlong-termmonitoring.However,becausethe rateofchangeingreenhousegasesisunprecedentedinrecent history,therateofclimatechangeandecosystemresponsesis essentiallyunknown.Th isuncertaintyisanotherimportant 7.2 Public Involvement Manypeople,especiallylandownerswithfens,were eagertobeinvolvedintheconservationofprairiefens.Th us, thisplanwillneedtohaveanoutreachandprivateland assistancecomponent.Withoutthesetheplanwillnotbe adopted,used,andimplementedbythemanagers(private landowners)whoownandprotectoverhalfofallfens. * 52 * 8. Literature Cited Implementation Allen,G.M.1942.ExtinctandVanishingMammalsofthe WesternHemispherewiththeMarineSpeciesofAllOceans. AmericanCommitteeforInternationalWildlifeProtection, SpecialPubl.11,620pages(reprintedin1972byCooper SquarePublishers,NewYork). Bever,J.D.,P.A.Schultz,A.Pringle,andJ.B.Morton.2001. Arbuscularmycorrhizalfungi:morediversethanmeetsthe eyeandtheecologicaltaleofwhy.BioScience51(11):923931. Amon,J.P.,C.A.Th ompson,Q.J.Carpenter,andJ.Miner. 2002.TemperatezonefensoftheglaciatedMidwesternUSA. Wetlands22(2):301-317 Anderson,L.D.,R.G.Clark,J.Findley,R.C.Hanes,L. Mahaffey,M.Miller,K.Stinson,andG.T.Zimmerman. 2001.NWCGFireEffectsGuide.NFES2394.National InteragencyFireCenter,Boise,ID.313pp.onlineat:http:// www.nwcg.gov/pms/RxFire/FEG.pdf Bond,W.I.Woodward,G.Midgley.2003.Tree/grass dynamicsinachangingworld.Pages7-9InGreen,R.H., M.Harley,L.Miles,J.Scharlemann,A.Watkinson,O. Watts(Eds.).Globalclimatechangeandbiodiversity.RSBC, Bedfordshire,UK.36pp. Borland,K.,S.,Campbell,B.Schillo,andP.Higman.In Press.InvasivePlantSpeciesofMichigan.MichiganNatural FeaturesInventory,Lansing,MI.44pp. Anderson,R.C.2006.EvolutionandoriginoftheCentral GrasslandofNorthAmerica:climate,fire,andmammalian grazers.JournaloftheTorreyBotanicalSociety133(4):626647. Bragg,O.andR.Lindsay.2003.StrategyandActionPlanfor MireandPeatlandConservationinCentralEurope.Wetlands International,Publication18.101pp. Anonymous.2006.IndianaComprehensiveWildlifeStrategy. DevelopedbyD.J.CaseandAssociates.CoordinatedbyC. Gremillion-Smith.IndianaDepartmentofNaturalResources, DivisionofFishandWildlife.154pp. Courtecuisse,R.2001.Currenttrendsandperspectivesfor theglobalconservationoffungi.Pages7-18inD.Moore, M.M.Nauta,S.E.Evans,andM.Rotheroe,Eds.Fungal Conservation:IssuesandSolutions.CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge,UK.262pp. Chapman,K.A.1984.Anecologicalinvestigationofnative Anderson,R.C.,D.Nelson,M.R.Anderson,andM.A. grasslandinsouthernLowerMichigan.UnpublishedMaster’s Rickey.2005.White-taileddeer(Odocoileusvirginianus) thesis,WesternMichiganUniversity,Kalamazoo.235pp. browsingeffectsontallgrassprairieforbs:diversityandspecies abundances.NaturalAreasJournal25(1):19-25. Comer,P.J.,D.A.Albert,H.A.Wells,B.L.Hart,J.B.Raab, D.L.Price,D.M.Kashian,R.A.CornerandD.W.Schuen. Andrew,C.andM.K.Leach.2006.ArePrescribedFires 1995.Michigan’spresettlementvegetation,asinterpreted EndangeringtheEndangeredSilphiumBorerMoth fromtheGeneralLandOffi ceSurveys1816-1856.Michigan (Papaipemasilphii)?EcologicalRestoration24(4):231-235 NaturalFeaturesInventory,Lansing,MI.Digitalmap. Askins,R.A.2002.RestoringNorthAmerica’sBirds:lessons fromlandscapeecology.YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven, CT.352pp. Bartlett,I.H.1937.DeerLecturetotheBrooklynBoosters Club.MichiganDNRWildlifeDivisionReport#795.3pp. Bedford,B.L.andK.S.Godwin.2003.FensoftheUnited States:distribution,characteristics,andscientificconnection versuslegalisolation.Wetlands23(3):608-629. Cozzi,G.,C.B.Müller,andJ.Krauss.2008.Howdolocal habitatmanagementandlandscapestructureatdifferent spatialscalesaffectfritillarybutterflydistributionon fragmentedwetlands?LandscapeEcology23:269-283. Cronan,W.1996.UncommonGround.W.W.Nortonand Company,NewYork,NY.561pp. Cunningham,J.M.,A.J.K.Calhoun,andW.E.Glanz.2006. PatternsofbeavercolonizationandwetlandchangeinAcadia * 53 * Literature Cited NationalPark.NortheasternNaturalist13(4):583-596. 16(6):1647-1652. Czarapata,E.J.2005.InvasivePlantsoftheUpperMidwest: anillustratedguidetotheiridentificationandcontrol. UniversityofWisconsinPress,Madison,WI.215pp. Gordon,D.R.,D.A.Onderdonk,A.M.Fox,R.K.Stocker. 2008a.ConsistentaccuracyoftheAustralianWeedRisk Assessmentsystemacrossvariedgeographies.Diversityand Distributions14:234–242. Dahl,Th omasE.1990.WetlandslossesintheUnitedStates 1780’sto1980’s.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,Fish andWildlifeService,Washington,D.C.Jamestown,ND: NorthernPrairieWildlifeResearchCenterOnline.http:// www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss/index.htm (Version16JUL97). Dahl,T.E.2006.Statusandtrendsofwetlandsinthe conterminousUnitedStates1998to2004.U.S.Department oftheInterior;FishandWildlifeService,Washington,D.C. 112pp. Durblan,F.E.2006.Effectsofmowingandsummerburning onthemassasauga(Sistruruscatenatus).AmericanMidland Naturalist155(2):329-334 Eagle,A.C.,E.M.Hay-Chmielewski,K.T.Cleveland,A.L. Derosier,M.E.Herbert,andR.A.Rustem.2005.Michigan’s WildlifeActionPlan.MichiganDepartmentofNatural Resources,Lansing,MI.1592pp.http://www.michigan.gov/ dnrwildlifeactionplan Ewers,R.M.andR.K.Didham.2006.Confoundingfactors inthedetectionofspeciesresponsestohabitatfragmentation. BiologicalReview81:117-142. Flannery,T.2001.Th eEternalFrontier:anecologicalhistory ofNorthAmerica.GrovePress,NewYork.404pp. Galatowitsch,S.M.,N.O.Anderson,andP.D.Ascher.1999. InvasivenessinwetlandsplantsintemperateNorthAmerica. Wetlands19:733-755. Gaston,K.J.andJ.I.Spicer.2004.“Biodiversity:an introduction”BlackwellPublishing. Gibbs,J.P.andW.G.Shriver.2002.EstimatingtheEffectsof RoadMortalityonTurtlePopulations.ConservationBiology Gordon,D.R.,D.A.Onderdonk,A.M.Fox,R.K.Stocker, andC.Gantz.2008b.PredictinginvasiveplantsinFlorida usingtheAustralianWeedRiskAssessmentsystem.Invasive PlantScienceandManagement1:178–195. Green,R.H.,M.Harley,L.Miles,J.Scharlemann,A. Watkinson,O.Watts(Eds.).2003.Globalclimatechange andbiodiversity.RSBC,Bedfordshire,UK.36pp. Grootjans,A.P.,E.B.Adema,W.Bleuten,H.Joosten,M. Madaras,andM.Janáková.2006.Hydrologicallandscape settingsofbase-richfenmiresandfenmeadows:anoverview. AppliedVegetationsScience9:175-184. HalseyL.A.,VittD.H.,GignacL.D.2000.SphagnumdominatedPeatlandsinNorthAmericaSincetheLastGlacial Maximum:Th eirOccurrenceandExtent.Th eBryologist: 103,No.2pp.334–352 Hannah,L.,G.F.Midgley,T.Lovejoy,W.J.Bond,M.Bush, J.C.Lovett,D.Scott,F.I.Woodward.2002.Conservation ofbiodiversityinachangingclimate.ConservationBiology 16(1):264-268. Inkley,D.B.,M.G.Anderson,A.R.Blaustein,V.R. Burkett,B.Felzer,B.Griffi th,J.Price,andT.L.Root. 2004.GlobalclimatechangeandwildlifeinNorthAmerica. WildlifeSocietyTechnicalReview04-2.Th eWildlifeSociety, Bethesda,Maryland,USA.26pp. IPCC2007Report–citeeachsectionorwholereport? Jenkins,B.C.1954.ControlledburninginMichigan. MichiganDNRWildlifeDivisionReport#1193.Lansing, MI.6pp. Jones,C.G.,J.H.Lawton,andM.Shachak.1994.Organisms asecosystemengineers.Oikos69:373-386. * 54 * Literature Cited indirectlyincreasevirusincidenceinCalifornianative Hoekstra,J.M.,T.M.Boucher,T.H.Ricketts,andC.Roberts. perennialbunchgrasses.Oecologia145(1):153-164. 2005.Confrontingabiomecrisis:globaldisparitiesofhabitat lossandprotection.EcologyLetters,8:23-29. McNeely,J.A.,H.A.Mooney,L.E.Neville,P.Schel,and J.K.Waage(eds.)2001.AglobalStrategyonInvasiveAlien Holman,J.A.2001.InQuestofGreatLakesIceAge Species.IUCNGland,SwitzerlandandCambridge,UK Vertebrates.MichiganStateUniversityPress,EastLansing, 50pp. Michigan.230pp. Middleton,B.2002.Nonequilibriumdynamicsofsedge Hood,G.A.,S.E.Bayley,andW.Olson.2007.Effects meadowsgrazedbycattleinsouthernWisconsin.Plant ofprescribedfireonhabitatofbeaver(Castorcanadensis) Ecology161:89-110. inElkIslandNationalPark,Canada.ForestEcologyand Management239:200-209. Middleton,B.,R.vanDiggelen,andK.Jensen.2006a.Seed dispersalinfens.AppliedVegetationScience9:279-284. Hooftman,D.A.P.andM.Diemer.2002.Effectsofsmall habitatsizeandisolationonthepopulationstructureof Middleton,B.,B.Holsten,andR.vanDiggelen.2006b. commonwetlandspecies.PlantBiology4:720-728 Biodiversitymanagementoffensandfenmeadowsby grazing,cuttingandburning.AppliedVegetationScience9: Kling,G.W.,KHayhoe,L.B.Johnson,J.J.Magnuson,S. 307-316. Polasky,S.K.Robinson,B.J.Shutter,M.M.Wander,D.J. Wuebbles,D.R.Zak,R.L.Lindroth,S.C.Moser,M.L. Miner,J.J.andD.B.Ketterling.2003.Dynamicsofpeat Wilson.2003.ConfrontingclimatechangeintheGreatLake accumulationandmarlflatformationinacalcareousfen, region:impactsonourcommunitiesandecosystems.Union MidwesternUnitedStates.Wetlands23(4):950-960. ofConcernedScientists,Cambridge,MA.AndEcological SocietyofAmerica,Washington,DC.92pp. Myers,J.A.,M.Velland,S.Gardescu,andP.L.Marks.2004. Seeddispersalbywhite-taileddeer:implicationsforlongKost,M.A.,D.A.Albert,J.G.Cohen,B.S.Slaughter,R.K. distancedispersal,invasion,andmigrationofplantsineastern Schillo,C.R.Weber,andK.A.Chapman.2007.Natural NorthAmerica.Oecologia139:35-44. CommunitiesofMichigan:ClassificationandDescription. MichiganNaturalFeaturesInventory,ReportNumber2007Naiman,R.J.,C.A.Johnston,andJ.C.Kelley.1988. 21,Lansing,MI.314pp. AlterationofNorthAmericanstreamsbybeaver.Bioscience 38(11):753-762. Langenau,E.1994.100YearsofDeerManagementin Michigan.MichiganDNRWildlifeDivisionReport3213.16 Naiman,R.J.,G.Pinay,C.A.Johnston,andJ.Pastor. pp. 1994.Beaverinfluencesonthelong-termbiogeochemical characteristicsofborealforestdrainagenetworks.Ecology Lockwood,J.L.,D.Simberloff,M.L.McKinney,andB. 75(4):905-921. VonHolle.2001.Howmany,andwhich,plantswillinvade naturalareas.BiologicalInvasions.3:1-8. NatureServe.2008.NatureServeExplorer:Anonline encyclopediaoflife[webapplication].Version7.0. Lovejoy,T.E.andL.Hannah.2005.ClimateChangeand NatureServe,Arlington,Virginia.Availablehttp://www. Biodiversity.YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT.418pp. natureserve.org/explorer.(Accessed:July10,2008). Malmstrom,C.M.,A.J.McCullough,H.A.Johnson,L.A. Newton,andE.T.Borer.2005.Invasiveannualgrasses Nice,C.C.,Z.Gompert,M.L.Forister,andJ.A.Fordyce. 2009.Anunseenfoeinarthropodconservationefforts:Th e * 55 * Literature Cited caseofWolbachiainfectionsintheKarnerbluebutterfly. BiologicalConservation142:3137–3146 Nuzzo,V.A.1986.ExtentandStatusofMidwestOak Savanna:Presettlementand1985.NaturalAreasJournal.6: 6-36. O’Connor,R.P.2006.ALandManager’sGuidetoPrairies andSavannasinMichigan:History,Classificationand Management.Report2006-18.MichiganNaturalFeatures Inventory.Lansing,MI.58pp. theenvironmentalandeconomiccostsassociatedwithalieninvasivespeciesintheUnitedStates.EcologicalEconomics 52:273-288. Prasad,A.M.,L.R.Iverson.,S.Matthews.,M.Peters.2007ongoing.AClimateChangeAtlasfor134ForestTreeSpecies oftheEasternUnitedStates[database].http://www.nrs. fs.fed.us/atlas/tree,NorthernResearchStation,USDAForest Service,Delaware,Ohio. Reddoch,JoyceM.,andAllanH.Reddoch.2005. ConsequencesofBeaver,Castorcanadensis,floodingona smallshorefeninsouthwesternQuebec.CanadianFieldNaturalist119(3):385-394. O’Connor,R.P.2007.DevelopmentofMonitoringStrategies andMethodsfortheDNRLandownerIncentiveProgram. ReportfortheMichiganDept.ofNaturalResources,Wildlife Division,LandownerIncentiveProgram.MichiganNatural Remillard,M.M.,G.K.Gruendling,andD.J.Bogucki.1987. FeaturesInventoryreportnumber2007-15.20pp. Disturbancebybeaver(CastorcanadensisKuhl)andincreased landscapeheterogeneity.InM.G.Turner(Ed.)Landscape Panzer,R.2002.Compatibilityofprescribedburningwith HeterogeneityandDisturbance.Springer-Verlag,NewYork. theconservationofinsectsinsmall,isolatedprairiereserves. 239pp. ConservationBiology16(5):1296-1307 Ryel,L.A.,C.L.Bennett,Jr.,M.L.Moss.1980.Ahistoryof Panzer,R.2003.Importanceofinsitusurvival, deerhuntinginMichigan.MichiganDNRWildlifeDivision recolonization,andhabitatgapsinthepostfirerecoveryof Report2868.91pp. fire-sensitiveprairieinsectspecies.NaturalAreasJournal 23(1):14-21 Seton,E.T.1929.LivesofGameAnimals.VolumeIIIPartII HoofedAnimals.Doubleday,Doran,andCompany,New Paskus,J.andD.Hyde.2006.Minimizingthenegative York,USA.780pp. impactsofdevelopmentpatternsonMichigan’snatural resources:thepotentialroleoftheMDNRand/orWildlife Shepard,D.B.,A.R.Kuhns,M.J.Dreslik,andC.A.Phillips. Division.MichiganNaturalFeaturesInventoryReportforthe 2008.Roadsasbarrierstoanimalmovementinfragmented MichiganDepartmentofNaturalResources.85pp. landscapes.AnimalConservation11:288-296 Peach,M.andJ.B.Zedler.2006.Howtussocksstructure sedgemeadowvegetation.Wetlands26(2):322-335 Siegel,D.I.2006.Potentialeffectsofclimatechangeon springfensandtheirendangeredfloralspecies.Geological SocietyofAmericaAbstractswithPrograms,Vol.38,No.7,p. 328 Pickens,B.A.andK.V.Root.2009.Behaviorasatoolfor assessingamanagedlandscape:acasestudyoftheKarnerblue butterfly.LandscapeEcology24(2):243-251 Simberoff,D.2005.Non-nativespeciesdothreaten thenaturalenvironment!JournalofAgriculturaland Pielou,E.C.1992.AftertheIceAge:Th eReturnofLife EnvironmentalEthics18:595-607. toGlaciatedNorthAmerica.UniversityofChicagoPress, Chicago,IL.376pp. Spieles,J.B.,P.J.Comer,D.A.Albert,andM.A.Kost.1999. Naturalcommunityabstractforprairiefen.MichiganNatural Pimentel,D.,R.Zuniga,D.Morrison.2005.Updateon FeaturesInventory,Lansing,MI.4pp. * 56 * Literature Cited Staley,J.T.1997.Biodiversity:aremicrobialspecies threatened?CurrentOpinionsinBiotechnology8(3):340345 Steuter,A.A.1997.Bison.InPackard,S.andC.F.Mutel. TheTallgrassRestorationHandbook.IslandPress,Washington, D.C.USA.463pp. Swengel,A.B.andS.R.Swengel.2007.Benefitofpermanent non-firerefugiaforLepidopteraconservationinfire-managed sites.JournalofInsectConservation11(3):263-279 Syphard,A.D.andM.W.Garica.2001.Human-and beaver-inducedwetlandchangesintheChickahominyRiver Watershedfrom1953to1994.Wetlands21(3):341-352. Szymanski,J.andJ.Shuey.2002.Conservationstrategy forMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyatBlueCreekFen,Berrien County,Michigan.ReportfortheMichiganDepartmentof Transportation.23pp. Telfer,E.S.&J.P.Kelsall1984.Adaptationsofsomelarge NorthAmericanmammalsforsurvivalinsnow.Ecology, 65:1828-1834. Tesauro,J.andD.Ehrenfeld.2007.Th eeffectsoflivestock grazingonthebogturtle.Herpetologica63(3):293-300. Travis,S.E.,S.K.Windels,andJ.Marburger.2006.Th e prevalenceofhybridizationincattail(Typhaspp.)invasionsof freshwaterwetlandsinGreatLakesNationalParks.Abstract intheProceedingsoftheWesternGreatLakesResearch Conference,Ashland,WI.65pp. Tu,M.,C.Hurd,andJ.M.Randall.2001.WeedControl MethodsHandbook:ToolsandTechniquesforUseinNatural Areas.Th eNatureConservancy,http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu, UpdatedNovember2005. UnitedStateFishandWildlifeService(USWFS).1998. RecoveryPlanfortheMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly,Neonympha mitchelliimitchelliiFrench.Ft.Snelling,MN.71pp. vanDiggelen,R.,B.Middleton,J.Bakker,A.Grootjans,and M.Wassen.2006.Fensandfloodplainsofthetemperate zone:Presentstatus,threats,conservationandrestoration. AppliedVegetationScience9(2):157-162. vanderHeijden,M.G.A.,J.N.Klironomos,M.Ursic,P. Moutogolis,R.Strietwolf-Engel,T.Boller,A.Wiemken,and I.R.Sanders.1998.Mycorrhizalfungaldiversitydetermines plantbiodiversity,ecosystemvariabilityandproductivity. Nature396:69–72. Vitousek,P.M.,C.M.D’Antonio,L.L.Loope,M.Rejmánek, andR.Westbrooks.1997.Introducedspecies:asignificant componentofhuman-causedglobalchange.NewZealand JournalofZoology21(1):1-16. Th eNatureConservancyNorthCentralTillplainEcoregional PlanningTeam.2003.Th eNorthCentralTillplainEcoregion: AConservationPlan.Th eNatureConservancy.http:// Werren,J.H.,L.Baldo,andM.E>Clark.2008.Wolbachia: conserveonline.org/library/NCT0703.pdf/view.html,217pp. mastermanipulatorsofinvertebratebiology.NatureReviews Microbiology6:471-751. Th eNatureConservancy.2005.Th eGlobalInvasiveSpecies Initiative[website].Th eNatureConservancy,http://tncweeds. Wheeler,B.D.andM.C.F.Proctor.2000.Ecological ucdavis.edu/index.html,Updated2008. gradients,subdivisionsandterminologyofnorth-west Europeanmires.JournalofEcology88:187-203. Th omas,C.D.,A.Cameron,R.E.Green,M.Bakkenes, L.J.Beaumont,Y.C.Collingham,B.F.N.Erasmus,M.F.de Whelan,R.J.1995.Th eEcologyofFire.Cambridge Siqueira,A.Grainger,L.Hannah,L.Hughes,B.Huntley, UniversityPress,NewYork.346pp. A.S.vanJaarsveld,G.F.Midgley,L.Miles,M.A.OrtegaHuerta,A.T.Peterson,O.L.Philips,S.E.Williams.2004. Whitney,G.G.1994.FromCoastalWildernesstoFruited Extinctionriskfromclimatechange.Nature427:145-148. Plain:ahistoryofenvironmentalchangeintemperateNorth America1500topresent.CambridgeUniversityPress,UK. * 57 * Literature Cited 451pp. Wilcove,D.S.1987.Fromfragmentationtoextinction. NaturalAreasJournal7(1):23-29 Wilcove,S.,D.Rothstein,J.Dubow,A.Phillips,E.Losos. 1998.QuantifyingthreatstoimperiledspeciesintheUnited States.BioScience48(8):607-615 Williamson,M.andA.Fitter.1996.Th evaryingsuccessof invaders.Ecology77:1661-1666. Wright,J.P.andC.G.Jones.2006.Th econceptoforganisms asecosystemengineerstenyearson:progress,limitations,and challenges.Bioscience56(3):203-209. Wright,J.P.,C.G.Jones,andA.S.Flecker.2002.An ecosystemengineer,thebeaver,increasesspeciesrichnessat thelandscapescale.Oecologia132:96-101. Zedler,J.B.andS.Kercher.2004.Causesandconsequences ofinvasiveplantsinwetlands:opportunities,opportunists, andoutcomes.CriticalReviewsinPlantSciences23:431452. Ziska,L.2003.Evaluationofthegrowthresponseofsix invasivespeciestopast,presentandfutureatmospheric carbondioxide.JournalofExperimentalBotany54(381): 395-404. * 58 * “Otherpeoplecantalkabouthowtoexpandthedestinyofmankind.Ijustwanttotalkabout howtofixamotorcycle.IthinkthatwhatIhavetosayhasmorelastingvalue.” —RobertM.PirsiginZenandtheArtofMotorcycleMaintenance * 59 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP A1. Introduction A1.1 Purpose APPENDIX A: TwoState HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN for the MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY Th efederallyendangeredMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly (Neonymphamitchelliimitchellii)isoneofthemostimperiled butterfliesinNorthAmerica.Oncedistributedacrossat leastfivestates,only17populationsremaininMichigan andIndiana.AttheinitiationofthisPlantherewere19 populations. Th eMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyisontheMichigan DNRElistof“featuredspecies,”whichisanalagousto“focal species”withintheUSFishandWildlifeStrategicHabitat Conservation(SHC)approach.JustasSHCusesspecific speciestofocusandmonitorhabitatactivities,thefeatured speciesapproachisawaytofocusandmeasurestatehabitat initiativesthatmayhavebroadergoals.Inthisparticular context,prairiefensareaconservationtargetforapartnership ofagenciesandorganizationsinMichiganandIndiana.Th e planforfensisinthepreceedingFenConservationPlan (FCP).Th isAppendixcomprisestheHabitatConservation Plan(HCP)forhabitatoccupiedbytheMitchell’ssatyr butterfly(hereafter“satyr”).Th isHCPhasbeenwritten tooutlinehowandwhereactivitiesoutlinedintheFen ConservationPlanmustbeappliedtoensurethesurvivalof populationsofsatyrs.Th esatyroccursprimarilyonprivate land.Th isHCPappliesonlytonon-federallandsoccupiedby satyrsinMichiganandIndiana.It is hoped that this structure of a broader community or landscape plan with a focused featured species plan can be a model for efforts to consider multiple levels of conservation targets simultaneously. AllfensinMichiganandIndianahavebeenaltered, eitherthroughalteredhydrology,waterpollution,overgrazing, exoticspeciesinvasions,ornearlyacenturyoffireexclusion. Forthisreason,fens,includingthoseoccupiedbyMitchell’s satyrbutterflies,aresusceptibletovegetationchangesthat endangerthenativefenbiota.Modernsatyrhabitatrequires management;withoutmanagementsatyrhabitatwillbecome non-habitat:eitherclosedcanopyshrub-carrormonocultures ofhybridcat-tail(Typhaxglauca)andothernon-native invasivespecies.Th isHCPiswrittentoavoid,minimizeand mitigatetakeofsatyrandotherspeciesthatcouldbecaused bymuch-neededmanagementactivitiesinoccupiedsatyr habitat.Th isHCPsupportstheissuanceofanincidentaltake * A-1 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP permit(ITP)pursuanttosection10(a)(1)(B)oftheFederal moresediments,alteredhydrology,invasivespecies,and EndangeredSpeciesActof1973,asamended(87Stat884,16 morewoodyvegetation.Th eyoccurinthecontextofforested U.S.C.§1531etseq.;ESA). oragriculturallandscapeswherefireisnolongeranatural process.Firesthatdooccurarelimitedalmostentirelytothe dormantseason. Mitchell’ssatyroccurat19sites,spreadacross517 A1.2 Background acresofprairiefeninMichiganandIndiana.In2009atotal Th ehistoricaldistributionandabundanceofsatyrare of484butterflieswereseenfor82personhoursoftimed meandersearches.Atsomesitesthenumberofbutterflies diffi culttoreconstruct.Th eyarenowrestrictedtolessthan wasaslowaszerobutterfliesperperson-hourorashighas12 twodozenfensinsouthernMichiganandnorthernIndiana. butterfliesperperson-hour.Sincelistingin1998,4newsites HistoricalrecordsforMitchell’ssatyroccurfromfensin Wisconsin(C.Hamm,personalcommunication),Ohio,New havebeendiscovered(inBerrien,St.Joseph,CassandJackson Jersey,andpossiblyMaryland(McAlpineetal.1960,USFWS CountiesinMichigan).Asof2009,satyrswerenotdetected at4siteswheretheyoccurredin1998. 1998).Acloserelative,theSt.Francissatyr(Neonympha Twosites(approx.50acres)occurentirelyonstate mitchelliifrancisci)occursinsedgemeadowsinNorth landinMichigan.Onesiteoccursonamixofjurisdictions, Carolina.Researchcontinuesregardingthestatusofrecently includingstate,township,andprivateland.Th erestofthe discoveredpopulationsofNeonymphamitchelliiinAlabama sitesoccurentirelyonprivatelands.Ofthe19sites,12are andMississippi(C.Hamm,personalcommunication). partiallyprotectedbystateagenciesorotherconservation Satyrpopulationswereoncelargerandless organizations.Fivepopulationsareentirelyprotected. fragmentedthantheyaretoday,althoughtheextentofloss isamatterofsomespeculation.Ataminimum,satyrhabitat Managementtoreducewoodyspeciesandnon-nativeinvasive specieshasoccurredatmostsiteswithfundsfromprivate hasdisappearedaswetlandsweredrainedforagriculture landowners,conservationorganizations,StateWildlifeGrants, orurbandevelopment.IndianaandMichiganhavelost MichiganDNRELandownerIncentiveProgram,USFWS 86%and50%oftheiroriginalwetlands,respectively(Dahl Section6CooperativeEndangeredSpeciesConservation 1990).Inaddition,beavermeadowsarefarlesscommon thantheyoncewere,andNeonymphamitchelliiinGulfCoast Fund,andUSFWSPrivateStewardshipGrantsProgram. Th ismanagementhasoccurredunderconsultation stateshavebeenobservedusingephemeralbeavermeadows viaSection7andunderSection10(a)(1)(B).Th eapproach extensively(C.Hamm,personalcommunication).In hasbeenpiecemeal.WithoutLIPtoenterintoSection7 southernMichiganHubbardestimatedthatbeavermeadows consultationonbehalfofprivatelandowners,permitting andpondscomprised20%oftheentirelandscape(Whitney 1994).Finally,largelandscapefiresburnedacrossmuchofthe wouldbeintimidatingforprivatelandownerswishingtodo neededmanagementinhabitatoccupiedbytheMitchell’s Midwestwhereprairiesandsavannaswerecommon(Nuzzo satyrbutterfly.LIPisnolongerfundedatthefederallevel, 1986,Whitney1994,Albert1995).Th esefireswouldhave andamoreunifiedandcoordinatedapproachisneededto burnedthroughwetlandsaswellasuplands,whichwould writeanHCPinpursuanceofanIncidentalTakePermit havemaintainedmanywetlandsinasemi-openstage.For (ITP)formanagementactionsinoccupiedhabitat. thesereasons,thesemi-opengrassandsedgewetlandsthat IntheabsenceofacomprehensiveHCPand arehabitatforMitchell’ssatyrbutterflieswerelikelymuch associatedITP,landmanagersandlandownerswouldneedto moreextensiveandcontinuouspriortoEuropean-American obtainincidental-takeauthorizationonanindividual,projectsettlement. specificbasistolegallyconducttheactivitieslistedbelow.Th is Draining,fragmentation,waterpollution,beaver situationwouldresultinapatchworkofprojectsconducted extirpation,andfireexclusionhavechangedthelandscape withlittleornocoordinatedplanningorconsiderationof insouthernMichiganandIndiana.Healthywetlandsina range-wideimpactstosatyrsandotherassociatespecies matrixofhealthyprairieandsavannauplandsarenearly ofconcern.Bycontrast,projectsimplementedunderthis extinct.Th ewetlandsthatpersisthavehighernutrientloads, HCPwillbeauthorizedbyasingleITP.Projectswillbe * A-2 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP implementedaccordingtoconsistentconditions,andHCP managementpartnerswillcoordinatemanagementactivities andbenefitfrompredictableregulatoryapproaches.Th is HCPwillhelpevaluateandminimizethecumulativeadverse impactsofindividualprojectstoparticularsatyrpopulations. A1.3 Permit Duration Th edesiredtermoftheITPis25years.Ifrecovery requiresmoretimethancurrentlyanticipated,theMichigan DNREmayapplyforextensionoftheITP. A1.4 Regulatory/Legal Framework Part365)prohibitstakeofStateendangeredandthreatened species,includingMitchell’ssatyrbutterflies.However, section36504ofthelawallowstheMichiganDNREto “establishprograms...asareconsiderednecessaryforthe managementofendangeredorthreatenedspecies.”Th e samesectioncontinues:“Inimplementingtheprograms authorizedbythissection,the[MichiganDNRE]mayenter intocooperativeagreementswithFederalandStateagencies, politicalsubdivisionsoftheState,orwithprivatepersonsfor theadministrationandmanagementofanyareaorprogram establishedunderthissection...”Giventheseprovisions,the conservationandpartneringactivitiesoutlinedinthisHCP areconsistentwiththislaw. Mitchell’ssatyrbutterflyislistedasendangeredon theoffi ciallistofrare,threatenedandendangeredinsectsin Indiana.However,onlyvertebrates,mollusksandcrustaceans classifiedasendangeredinIndianaareprotectedfromtaking pursuanttotheNongameandEndangeredSpeciesActof 1973(IC14-22-34).Th erefore,managementauthorityfor insectsinIndianacomesfromgeneralauthoritybythestate Th eMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyislistedasan endangeredspeciesunderauthorityofthefederalESA.Take ofendangeredspeciesisrestrictedbysection9oftheESA. UndertheESA,‘take’meanstoharass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,kill,trap,captureorcollectafederallylisted threatenedorendangeredspeciesortoattempttoengage inanysuchconduct.Satyrsrequiresedgesandgrasseswith scatteredtreesandshrubs,atypeofwetlandsavanna(USFWS 1998),andmanagementneededtomaintainthesehabitats mayresultintakeofindividuals.Th etakerestrictionlimits theoptionsavailabletomanagehabitatinareasoccupiedby Mitchell’ssatyrbutterflies. Undercertaincircumstances,however,section10 oftheESAallowsexceptionsfromtherestrictionontake. AnITPundersection10(a)(1)(B)allowsincidentaltake associatedwithotherwiselawfulactivities.AnHCP,intended tominimizeandmitigatetakeauthorizedbyanITP,must besubmittedwiththepermitapplication.Bylaw,theU.S. FishandWildlifeService(USFWS)cannotissueapermit thatwouldjeopardizethecontinuedexistenceofalisted species.InconsultationwiththeUSFWS,theMichigan DNREidentifiedanITPasthemostappropriateregulatory instrumenttofacilitateconservationofoccupiedsatyrhabitat inIndianaandMichigan. ActivitiesconductedunderthisHCPalsomust complywithStatelaw.SimilartotheESA,theMichigan FigureA1.NineteenMitchell’ssatyrbutterflypopulationsarewidely EndangeredSpeciesProtectionLaw(PublicAct451of1994, scatteredamong10countiesinIndianaandMichigan. * A-3 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP tomanagewildliferesources. A1.5 Area To Be Covered by Permit Th eareacoveredundertheHCPpotentiallyincludes alloccupiedhabitatfortheMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyin MichiganandIndiana.Currently,504acresareoccupied habitatinMichiganand13acresareoccupiedhabitatin Indiana.Th eaveragesizeofoccupiedhabitatpatchesis28 acres,themediansizeis14acres(i.e.,halfofallpopulations occuronsitesthatareunder14acresinsize).Th eMitchell’s satyrbutterflyisknowntooccurinthefollowingcounties: Barry,Berrien,Branch,Cass,Jackson,Kalamazoo,St.Joseph, VanBuren,andWashtenawinMichiganandLagrangein Indiana(Figure8). A1.6 Species To Be Covered by Permit Th eDNRErequestsanITPthatauthorizestakeof theMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyinMichiganandIndiana.Th e Mitchell’ssatyrbutterflyislistedasendangeredatboththe federallevelandwithinMichiganandIndiana.Otherspecies addressedbytheHCP,butforwhomanITPisnotsought, arediscussedinSectionA6. FigureA2.TheMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyisagorgeous,chocolatebrown withadistinctivelinearpatternofeyespotsandaslowbobbingflight. Appalachianeyedbrown(Satyrodesappalachia)andeyed brown(S.eurydice).However,theMitchell’ssatyrissmaller (byabout50%)andusuallydarkerincolor(brown,as opposedtotan).Th espotsarearrangeddifferently,aswell. Th etop-mostspotonthehindwingislargerandfurther forwardontheeyed-browns,comparedtotheMitchell’s A2.1 Physical Description satyr(USFWS1998,Glassberg1999).Th elittlewoodsatyr (Megistocymela)issimilartotheMitchell’ssatyrinsize,but Th eMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly(Figure9)isa thewoodsatyrislighterincolor,hasfewerandmoreuniform medium-size,chocolatebrownbutterfly.Adultwingspan spots,andtendstoflyfurtherandfasterthanaMitchell’s isapproximately4cm(1.5–1.75inches).Th eMitchell’s satyrbutterfly(USFWS1998,Glassberg1999). satyrbutterflyissuperficiallysimilartoothersatyrs,browns, Th ebehavioroftheMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyisalso andpearly-eyes(subfamilySatyrinae),andadultscanbe diagnostic.Likeothersatyrsandbrowns,theflighthasbeen distinguishedbytheirsize,color,andpatternofspots(ocelli) describedas“bouncing”(McAlpineetal.1960,USFWS onthebottom(ventral)sideofthewings.Larvae(caterpillars) 1998).However,theMitchell’ssatyrflightisslower,andthey areverysmall,green,andhighlycryptic(Figure10). tendtoflythroughvegetation,ratherthanoverthetop.Th ey Th eMitchell’ssatyrcanbeconfusedwithseveral often(butnotalways)stopafterashortflight. speciesinMichiganandIndiana(Figure11),includingthe A2. Mitchell’s Satyr Biology and Status * A-4 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP A2.2 Habitat A2.3 Food Habits Mitchell’ssatyrlarvaefeedonavarietyofsedgesand grassesfoundinfens,sedgemeadows,tamarackswamps, andotherwetlands.Foodpreferencetrialsforcaptivelarvae InMichiganandIndiana,theMitchell’ssatyr havedocumentedfeedingontussocksedgeCarexstricta, butterflyisfoundexclusivelyinfensandopenpartsofrich bristly-stalkedsedgeC.leptalia,fowlbluegrassPoapalustris, tamarackswamps.Satyrsarenotfoundinallfens,andare andPanicumsp.(TolsonandEllsworth,unpublishedreport). notdistributedthroughoutanyonefen.Withinafen,satyrs occurnear(within3m,usually)ofwoodyvegetation(Barton Adultbutterfliesareshort-livedandarenotknownto regularlyfeed,althoughtheyhavebeenobservednectaringon andBach2005).Inmoreopenfens,satyrsoccuralongthe shrubbyedgeofthefen.Infenswithmoretamarackorother severaloccasions(D.Hyde.,personalcommunication). Someofthegrassesandsedgesusedbylarvaeare woodyvegetation,satyrsarefoundinopen,grassylanes limitedtospecifi cmicro-habitatswithinthefen.C.sterilis betweenlanesoftreesandshrubs.Instillotherfens,satyrsare occursnearseepsorareaswithmarl.Bristly-stalkedsedgeC. foundamongopeningsinrichtamarackswamps.Satyrsare leptaliaismostcommonundertamaracktrees. rarelyfoundinopenfenswithouttreesortamarackswamps withoutopenings.SimilartothefederallyendangeredKarner Bluebutterfly(Lycadiesmelissasamuelis),theidealMitchell’s satyrbutterflyhabitatappearstobeintermediatebetween A2.4 Life Cycle agrass(orsedge)dominatedprairieandaclosedcanopy forest.Th eMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyisfoundprimarilyinfen Th eMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyexistsfor95%ofits savanna,usuallydominatedbytamarack. lifecycleasacaterpillarorlarva.Larvaehatchfromeggs Acommonquestionwithregardtohabitatofrare after7-11days,inJuly.Th eyimmediatelymovetoanearby speciesis,“Whataspectofhabitatcausesthisspeciestobe foodplant.Firstinstarlarvaearefirstwhite,withdarkvelvetrare?”Mitchell’ssatyrbutterfliesdonotappeartobefood brownheads,buttheirbodieschangetoalimegreencolor limited.Th efoodplantsusedbyMitchell’ssatyrlarvaeare aftertheybeginfeeding(McAlpineetal1960).Th esecond relativelycommoninwetlands,andarenotlimitedtofens throughsixthinstarsarecrypticallycolored(greenortan, (McAlpineetal.1960). dependingonthetimeofyear).Th esatyroverwintersasa Th ejuxtapositionoffoodplantsandplacestolay fourthinstarlarvaeontheleavesoftussocksedge.Inthe eggsmaybealimitingfactorinfens.Larvaefeedonsedges spring,thelarvaecontinueeatingandgrowing.Inlate-May andgrasses.Likeuplandsavannas,sedgesandgrassestendto tolate-June,thelarvaeformachrysalisabout40cm(5-68 out-competewildflowersinopensun.Wildflowersandbare cm)or15inches(2–27inches)fromthebaseoftheplant peatsoiltendtopredominateinclosed-canopyswamps.Th e (TolsonandEllsworth,unpublishedreport).Th echrysalis intermixingofgraminoidsandwildflowersatascalethatis persistsfor10to15days(McAlpineetal.1960).Adult meaningfultoa3mmfirstinstarlarvaoccursinsavanna, butterfliesemergefrommid-JunetolateJuly.Malesemerge whereneithersedges/grassesnorwildflowerscanpredominate. earlierthanfemales(McAlpineetal.1960,USFWS1998). Furthermore,regularfirefavorsshort-staturedwildflowers, Adultsareshort-lived,donotusuallyfeed,andexistprimarily whichhavediffi cultycompetingundertheshadeoflitter tomate,disperse,andlayeggs.Eggsarenotusuallylaidon fromthepreviousgrowingseason.Th eseshort-statured foodplants.Instead,eggsaremostoftenlaidonwildflowers wildflowerstendtobemostabundantafterafire.Asimilar ofveryshortstature.Incaptivity,eggsaremostoftenlaidon effectoccursaftergrazing,butgrazingcanseriouslyharmsoil clearweedPileapumila(TolsonandEllsworth,unpublished structure,nutrientdynamics,andintroduceinvasiveplant report). species(seeSection3.2.3). A2.5 Dispersal * A-5 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly Slow bobbing flight is distinctive Frequent perching on vegetation is distinctive Pattern of spots is unique - Spots in linear line - Larger spots on lower wing - Number of spots varies * A-6 * Color varies from brown (pictured) to dark brown Size (1.5” to 1.75”) is similar to other brown butterflies in fens Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Eyed Brown or Appalachian Eyed Brown Central large eye spot not in line with other marginal spots Larger than Mitchell’s satyr Flights are longer and faster Little Wood Satyr Spots similar size, fewer than Mitchell’s satyr 1.5” to 1.75” Faster bobbing flight Very rarely ceases flight to perch on vegetation Common Wood Nymph Dark brown Large eye spot on top wing Often found in more wooded areas * A-7 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP AllecologicallysignificantdispersalfortheMitchell’s satyroccursduringashortperiodasadults.AdultMitchell’s satyrbutterfliesareweakfliers.Inmostcontemporary landscapes,theyarenotcapableofdispersaltounoccupied fens.InfensinBranchandJacksonCounties,themedian dailymovementswere32mforfemalesand56mformales. Th emaximumdistancesrecordedinthestudywere478m forfemalesand710mformales.Th emaximumdistanceever recordedforaMitchell’ssatyrdispersalisunder0.5mile. Mitchell’ssatyrbutterflieswilldispersethroughforestand shrub-carr,butthedegreetowhichwoodyvegetationactsasa barrierisunknown. Clearingwoodyshrubsandtreesinnarrowlanes (15m-30m)isanoftenrecommendedmanagementstrategy topromotedispersalbetweenoccupiedopeningswithinfen complexes(HydeandFuller,unpublishedreport).Th ese corridorsareoftencreatedalonglinearlandscapefeatures, usuallystreams.Itisunclearwhethersatyrsdispersethrough theseareasbecausetheyhaveanopenvegetationstructureor becausetheyfollowlandscapefeatureslikestreams. Mitchell’ssatyrbutterfliesappeartocolonizesuitable fenwithincorridorsafterwoodyshrubsareremoved.Th us, thecorridorshavethepotentialtoconnectpreviously disjunctsub-populations.Corridorsprovidehabitat, andtheyhavemuchedgebetweenopenfenandwoody vegetation.However,corridors,especiallynarrowcorridors, canreverttoshrub-carrmorequicklythanrestorationswith lessedge.Corridorscanalsoprovidesubstrateforinvasive plants.Cuttingandmaintainingcorridorsisanexpensive managementtool,andtheeffi cacyofcorridorsformovement orhabitatandtheiridealwidthareresearchneeds. A2.6 Distribution and Abundance Th eMitchell’ssatyrbutterflymaybeoneofthe world’srarestbutterflies.Currently,19populationsareknown toexistin10counties(Figure8).Ofthese,18populations occurinMichigan,and16occuronprivateland.Population sizesvarygreatly.Th elargestpopulationisfoundinsouthcentralMichigan.Th esmallestpopulationsoccurinelsewhere southernMichiganwherelessthantenbutterfliesareseenina givenyear.Th ebutterfliesoftenuseonlyaportionofthefen, andseveraloftheseoccupiedareasarelessthanonehectarein FigureA3.TheMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyisoneofAmerica’smost endangeredbutterflies. size. In2006,Indianahadtwopopulations,inLagrange andLaporteCounties.In2007and2008,nobutterflies wereobservedinLaporteCounty,andthatpopulationis assumedtobeextirpated.Voucherspecimensareknown fromasiteinSteubenCounty,andalthoughthereisstill suitablehabitat,ithasnotbeenfoundthereinrecentdecades. HistoricalrecordsexistforpopulationsinOhio,NewJersey, andperhapsMaryland(McAlpineetal1960,USFWS 1998).AhistoricalrecordwasrecentlydiscoveredintheField MuseuminChicago,withlocationinformationindicatinga formerpopulationinWisconsin.Inrecentyears,populations ofNeonymphamitchelliiwerediscoveredinAlabamaand Mississippi,butitisunclearwhethertheseareMitchell’ssatyr, St.Fancissatyr,oranotherspeciesaltogether. A3. Goals and Objectives A3.1 Property Acquisition * A-8 * Protectfensthatareoccupied,fenstargetedfor potentialreintroduction,orcriticaluplands(adjacent Mitchell’s Satyr HCP landscapesorgroundwaterrechargeareas)through propertyacquisition. Propertyacquisitionofoccupiedhabitatsisan explicitcriterionforrecoveryoftheMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly (USFWS1998).Currently,theMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly occursoverwhelminglyonlandsthatarenotformally committedtoconservationinperpetuity,andthisconstitutes along-termthreattosatyrhabitat.Th eRecoveryPlanforthis speciescallsforstate,federalorconservationorganization ownershipof15(60%)ofatleast25viablesites A3.1. Objective1:Protectoccupied habitatwithinfensoccupiedbyMitchell’s satyrbutterfliesinMichiganandIndianaby acquiringtitle,conservationeasements,or FigureA5.Groundwaterinprairiefensisoftensofullofcalciumand magnesiumthatitprecipitatesas“marl.”Wheretheyoccur,marlflats areonofthemoreobviousfeaturesofprairiefens. assistingconservationpartnerstosecuretitles orconservationeasementsontheselands. A3.1 Objective2:Acquiretitleor conservationeasementsonlandscape connectionsbetweenpatchesofoccupiedfen habitattosupportdispersalamongexisting populations. A3.1 Objective3:Acquiretitleor conservationeasementsonfenswithhigh potentialforMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly reintroduction. A3.2 Maintain existing processes and connectivity Maintainfensandtheirlandscapecontextina conditionandconfigurationnecessarytosustain existingpopulationsofMitchell’ssatyr FigureA4.Mitchell’ssatyrbutterflyhabitatisprairiefens.Theyare mostoftenfoundnearshrubs,attheedgesofopenings.Scattered tamaracktrees,poisonsumac,andsedgesarecommoninprairiefens. Mitchell’ssatyrbutterfliessometimesoccurinfens, orportionsoffens,thatexhibitthebiologicaldiversity, vegetationstructure,andecologicalprocessesofahealthy fen.Processes,structure,anddiversityarewithinthe * A-9 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP A3.3 Restore degraded processes and connectivity Restorefensandtheirlandscapecontexttoa conditionandconfigurationnecessarytoincrease existingpopulationsofMitchell’ssatyrbutterfliesand associatedfenspecies FigureA6.Mitchell’ssatyrspend90%oftheirlifesysleaslarvae,eating avarietyofsedges,especiallytussocksedgeCarexstricta. historicalrangeofvariationforthissystem,andindividual speciesarenotthreatenedbyhabitatalterations.Th ese fenswillrequirealowlevelofmanagementinorderto intentionallyperpetuateprocessesthatcreatehabitatfor fenspecies,includingtheMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly.Th e maintenanceoffenswillrequireabalanceofmanagement suffi cienttomaintaintamaracksavannawithoutextirpating Mitchell’ssatyrbutterflies. Mostfensonthelandscapearecurrentlydegraded andwillrequirerestoration.Withoutrestorationactivities, Mitchell’ssatyrandassociatedrareplantsandanimals arelikelytobeextirpatedfromthesefens.Restoration activitiesaremorelikelytocauseshort-termpopulation declinesinMitchell’ssatyrandothersensitivespecies.Less restrictivecriteriawillbeappliedtorestorationactivities thanmaintenanceactivitiesbecausea)restorationactivities areofshorterdurationthanmaintenanceactivities,b) maintenanceactivityregimesareseldomadequateto restorehabitat,andc)restrictionsactasadisincentiveto landownerswhomightrestorehabitatinfens. Restorationactivitiesaredefinedasmanagement actionswithinfens(orportionsoffens)thatare1)outside thehistoricalrangeofvariationforbiologicaldiversity, A3.2. Objective1:Perpetuateecological processesrequiredtoprovideabioticand bioticfeaturesrequiredbyMitchell’ssatyr butterflieswithinfens. A3.2. Objective2:Maintainsuitable dispersalhabitatbetweenpatchesoffenthat areoccupiedbyMitchell’ssatyrbutterflies tosupportdispersalamongexisting populations. A3.2. Objective3:Restorenative vegetationintheuplandsandnon-fen wetlandswithinthesurfaceorground watershedofthefen,especiallyovercritical groundwaterrechargeareasforoccupied fens. FigureA7.Eggsarelaidonlow-staturebroad-leafvegetation.Inmany grasslandecosystems,thistypeofvegetationisfavoredbyfrequent disturbance,eitherfromgrazingorfire * A-10 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP vegetationstructure,orecologicalprocess;and2)wherethe managementobjectiveistoreturnthediversity,structure, orprocesstowithinthehistoricalrangeofvariation. A3.3. Objective1:Managefenstorestore naturalpatternsofwoodyvegetation, graminoidvegetation,andforbvegetation, fuelcontinuity,andnativevegetation necessaryforMitchell’ssatyrlarvaeand butterflies.Workwithconservationpartners tocoordinaterestorationon23additional fens. A3.3. Objective2:Restoreorreintroduce ecologicalprocessesrequiredtoprovide abioticandbioticfeaturesrequiredbythe Mitchell’ssatyrbutterfly. A3.3. Objective3:Createconnectivity amongoccupiedMitchell’ssatyrhabitatsto supportdispersalamongexistingpopulations andintonewlyrestoredhabitatpatches. fens.Wedoknowthatmanyfenshadsatyrsandnowdo not(e.g.,themanyfensmentionedinMcAlpineetal. 1960).Recoveryforthisspecieswillrequirereintroduction intoatleastsixfens.Managementshouldbeinitiatedat 10ofthetop25fensrankedhighestbyRabeetal.(2002) orfensofsimilarquality,size,andlandscapecontext. Maintainingthesesiteswillensurethatreintroductioncan occuratsomefuturedate.Th eserestorationactivitieswill requiretheleastrestrictionsbecausetakeforMitchell’ssatyr butterflyisnot(yet)aconcernatthesesites. BecausetheseactivitieshaveMitchell’ssatyrhabitat asagoal,theyarecoveredinthisPlan.However,weare notseekinganITPfortheseactivities.Intheeventthat Mitchell’ssatyrareintroducedintothesehabitats,and otherpermitsand/oragreementsarenotnegotiatedto coverthesepopulations(i.e.,aSafeHarboragreementor classificationasnonessentialexperimentalpopulation),then theprovisionsofsectionsA5willapply. A3.3. Objective4:Restorenative vegetationintheuplandsandnon-fen wetlandswithinthesurfaceorground watershedofthefen,especiallyovercritical groundwaterrechargeareasforoccupied fens. A3.4 Restore for reintroduction A3.4. Objective1:Managefenstorestore naturalpatternsofwoodyvegetation, graminoidvegetation,andforbvegetation, fuelcontinuity,andnativevegetation necessaryforMitchell’ssatyrlarvaeand butterflies. A3.4. Objective2:Restoreorreintroduce ecologicalprocessesrequiredtoprovide abioticandbioticfeaturesrequiredby Mitchell’ssatyr. A3.4. Objective3:Createconnectivity amongoccupiedMitchell’ssatyrhabitatsto supportdispersalamongexistingpopulations andintonewlyrestoredhabitatpatches. Restorefensandlandscapecontexttoacondition andconfigurationnecessarytoallowfuture reintroductionofpopulationsofMitchell’ssatyr butterfliesintocurrentlyunoccupiedfens Currentlyonly10%offensinsouthernMichigan andnorthernIndianaareoccupiedbysatyrs.Wedonot knowhowmanyhistoricallyhadsatyr.Wedonotknow whysomehigh-qualityfenslacksatyrs.Perhapstheylack somecomponentofhabitat,perhapstheywerenever colonized,orperhapstheyhavebeenextirpatedfrommost * A-11 * A3.4. Objective4:Restorenative vegetationintheuplandsandnon-fen wetlandswithinthesurfaceorground watershedofthefen,especiallyovercritical groundwaterrechargeareasforthesefens. Mitchell’s Satyr HCP A4. Project Description and Activities Covered under Permit development,landscapefireswouldburnextensiveareas insouthernMichiganandnorthernIndiana(Nuzzo1986, Whitney1994,Albert1995).Firespreadisaphysicalprocess, requiringheat,fuel,andoxygen.Fenscontaincuredfinefuels atsimilarlevelstootheruplandsystemsthatreadilypropagate A4.1 Project Description fire. Landscapefiresnolongeroccurinthefragmented Th eprojectcoveredbythispermitislimited landscape.Instead,prescribedfireisusedasamanagement toacquisition,restorationandmaintenanceoffensand tool.Prescribedfirecanbeaverylow-costmanagementtool. associatedlandscapes.UnlikeasimilarHCPfortheKarner Largefireshaveasimilarcosttosmallfires.Th us,theper-acre BluebutterflyinMichigan,rightofwaymaintenanceand costoffires(>1-2acresinsize)islessthanotherconservation residentialdevelopmentarenotcoveredbythisproject. actions,suchasmowing,hydroaxing,ormanualvegetation Th us,thisPlanisofmorelimitedscopethantheMichigan removal. StatewideKarnerBlueButterflyHCP. Becauseconservationdollarsarelimited,andbecause fenmanagementoftencompeteswithothermanagement objectives(especiallyonlandsmanagedforhuntingand A4.2 Activities Covered by Permit trapping),prescribedfiremaybetheonlytoolthatsome managerscan“afford”whenrestoringfens.Forthesereasons, A4.2.1 Restore Hydrology managersinsouthernMichiganandnorthernIndianafeel Mostfensworldwidehavealteredhydrology(Amon stronglythattheuseoffireshouldbeexpanded,andthatthe etal.2002).Bothfensasasystem(BedfordandGodwin sizeofprescribedburnsbeexpandedunlesssoundscience 2003),andtheMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyinparticular,are indicatesthattheburnswillcauseharmtoimportantwildlife sensitivetochangesinthewaygroundwaterflowsthrougha populations. fen.Restoringhydrologyisacriticalneedinfens,especially ResearchontheeffectsoffireonMitchell’ssatyr whenithasbeensignificantlyaltered.However,inmostcases, larvaehavebeenattempted,buttheresultswereinconclusive hydrologyhasbeenchangedbyexpensivelandusechanges (Barton2008).Smallareasofoccupiedhabitatwere usingheavyequipment.Removingberms,roads,wells,or recolonizedfollowingaprescribedburnatthelargestsatyr pondsisextremelyexpensive,andoftenbeyondthebudgetof populationinsouth-centralMichigan.Similaranecdotal mostmanagers. reportsabound,bothofnegativeandpositivefireeffects Whenhydrologycannotberestored,otheron-going oninsects.Scientificstudieshavebeenconducted,mostly managementcancompensateforthealteredhydrology. inuplandprairiesystems.Th eyrevealthatfirecanreduce Muchmodernfenmanagementisactuallycompensating butterflyabundancefortheseasonimmediatelyafterthefire forchangesresultingfromovergrazingandhydrological (Panzer2002),butthatbutterflydiversityishigheronareas alterations.Increaseduseoffire,mowing,vegetationcontrol, managedwithfire,comparedwithgrazing(Vogeletal.2007). and(sometimes)grazingcancompensatefordrierconditions. Butterflypopulationspersistinareasthatareregularlyburned Infenswithhighlyalteredhydrology,abalancebetween ifpermanentnon-firerefugiaareestablished(Swengleand intensivemanagementandaccommodationforrarespecies Swengle2007).Insitusurvivalandrecolonizationensure maynotbepossible.Th esefens,andthespecieswithinthem, thatevenrareinvertebratescanpersistaslongasadjacent arethreatenedbyon-goingalteredhydrology. unburnedrefugiaremain(Panzer2003),butthatone species,theSilphiumborermoth(Papaipemasilphii),which A4.2.2 Prescribed Burning sometimesco-occurswithsatyrsinfens,canpersistwhen FireisanaturalprocesswithinfensinMichigan theentireoccupiedhabitatisregularlyburned(Andrewand andIndiana(Kostetal.2007),andisrecommendedto Leach2006).Firehasevenbeenusedsuccessfullyinsmall, maintainbiodiversity(Middleton2006).Beforethelandscape isolatedremnantsthatcontainfire-sensitiveinvertebrates, surroundingfenswasfragmentedbyagricultureandurban aslongasayearormorerecoverytimeexistsbetweenfires * A-12 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP (Panzer2002). Likethevegetationoffens,theinsectcommunityisa mixtureofprairie-adaptedandwetland-adaptedspecies.Th us, somespeciesarelikelytobesensitivetofrequentorextensive fires.SwengleandSwengle(2007)recommendpermanent refugiabeestablishedamongburnunitswhenmanagingareas withfire. A4.2.3 Mowing/Hydroaxing Alteredhydrologycausesfenstodryslightly,which allowswoodyvegetationtoinvade,thrive,andconverta tamaracksavannatoaclosedcanopyforestorcarr(i.e.,shrub forest).Overgrazingcausessurfacepeattodegradefrom fibricpeat,whichconductswater,tosapricpeat,whichisa poorerconductorofwater(Middleton2002).Overgrazing alsobreaksapartthenaturaltussockmicrotopographyof fens.Th eseresultsofovergrazingallowwoodyvegetationto invade,thrive,andconvertsavannatoclosedcanopyshrubcarrorforest.Finally,someinvasiveshrubs,suchasEurasian buckthorns,willinvadefensthathavebeenlessdisturbed bygrazingorhydrology.Onestepinsettingbackwoody vegetationistomowthevegetation.Smallstemscanbecut withatraditionalbrushmower.Largerstemsrequireamower thatuseshydraulics,calledahydro-ax.Infens,thisequipment isusedwhenfensfreeze(iftheyfreeze).Usuallythesoftness ofthegroundpreventstheuseofwheeledorheavytracked vehicles. A4.2.4 Vegetation Removal Bothherbaceousandwoody,nativeandexoticplants canbeasignificantmanagementprobleminfens.Usually theseinvasionsoccurbecauseofalegacyofovergrazingor alteredhydrology.Afewexoticplants(Rhamnussppand Typhaxglauca)caninvaderelativelypristinefens.Other problematicexoticinvasivesinclude:multiflorarose(Rosa multiflora),purpleloosestrife(Lythrumsalicaria),reedgrass (Phragmitesaustralis),reedcanarygrass(Phalarisarundinacea), cattails(Typhaangustifolia),andothers.Removalofinvasive plantspecieswillbealargecomponentofmanagement activitiesatmanysites. Activitiesmayincludethecontrolofnon-native vegetationthroughmanualremovalwithhandtoolsor mechanicalequipment.Mechanicalvegetationremovalis rarelyeffectivewhenusedalone,unlessdoneduringthe FigureA8.Mitchell’ssatyrbutterfliesareoftenassociatedwithfens, whichhavemorediversevegetationthansedgemeadows.Fensare habitattoavarietyofrareplantsandanimals,suchasthisspecial concernPrairieindian-plaintain(Calaciaplantaginea). earliestinstarsoftheMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly(August).Th us, toavoidimpactstosatyrsandotherrarefenbiota,manual removalismoreoftenusedincombinationwithherbicide andconductedduringthedormantseason. Fire,mowing,andmechanicalvegetationremoval willstimulatesomeinvasiveplants.Mostinvasiveplantscan becontrolledwithappropriateherbicidesusedinappropriate ways.Becausefenshaveextremelyhighplantdiversityand manystatelistedplants,extremecareshouldbetakento minimizedamagetonativefenvegetationwhentreating invasiveswithchemicals. A4.2.6 Biological Control Onereasonoftengivenfortheabilityofinvasive exoticplantstocreatemonoculturesisenemyrelease. Becausetheplantsarereleasedfromthepestsanddiseasesof theirnativerange,theycanallocatemoreresourcestooutcompetingnativeplants.Onemethodtocontrolinvasive exoticplantsistointroduceinsectsorbiologicalmaterial fromtheplants’nativerangetocontroltheplant.Asuccessful biologicalcontrolcanbelower-cost,moreeffective,and lessdamagingtosurroundingnativevegetationthanother activities.However,poorlytestedbiologicalcontrolscan impactnativeplants,eitherdirectlyorindirectly. * A-13 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Biologicalcontrolforpurpleloosestrifehasbeen initiatedinonefenwithwhatappearstobepoorresults.Th e biologicalcontrolcantakeseveralyearstoproduceresults. However,sincetheinitialreleaseofbeetlesin2004,the amountofloosestrifehasincreasedinthisfen.Grazingby livestockmaybeaffectingtheestablishmentofthebiological controlorspreadingtheloosestrife. A4.2.7 Livestock Grazing overmultipleyears. A5. Measures to Minimize Adverse Impacts A5.1 General Grazinginfensbynativevertebrateswaslikely uncommonpriortosettlement(seeFenConservationPlan, Th efollowingmeasuresapplytoallactivitieswithin section2.4.3.)Aftersettlementgrazingbecamecommon habitatoccupiedbytheMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyinMichigan onthelandscape,althoughlivestockprobablyavoidedthe andIndiana. fenportionoftheirpasturesthroughoutmuchoftheseason 1. Tominimizetramplingofthehabitatand (Whitney1994).Evenmoderate,seasonalgrazingcandamage inadvertentcrushingofeggsorlarvae,the tussockmicrotopography,changesoiltypes,introduce numberofpeopleinareasofoccupied invasives,andaltersuccessionalpathwaysawayfromsavanna habitatwillbelimitedtonomorethan10 andtowardclosedcanopyshrubcarrorforest(Middleton individualsatanygiventime. 2002). 2. Allactivitiesinoccupiedhabitatshall Oncegrazinghasdamagedafen,continuedgrazing beconductedinamannertominimize isaneffectivewaytosetbacksuccessionandlimitthegrowth disturbancetosatyradults,pupae,larvae, ofinvasiveplants(TesauroandEhrenfeld2007).Likefire, eggs,andtheirhabitat,byminimizing grazingstimulatesthegrowthofshort-statureforbs,whichare humanmovementandavoidingtrampling importantegg-layinghabitatfortheMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly. ofvegetationtotheextentpractical.People Th us,grazingisausefultooltomanagethedamagecausedby workinginoccupiedhabitatwilluseexisting grazing.Grazedfensfromwhichlivestockareremovedwill trailswhenavailabletominimizetrampling. requiresignificantresourcestomaintainthefencommunity. 3. Peoplewilltravelthroughopenfen>3m fromwoodyvegetationwhenmovingfrom A4.2.8 Seeding and Planting onepartofafentoanothertoconduct Seedingandplantingarerarelyusedwithinhabitat activities.IndividualsseekingadultMitchell’s usedbyMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly.Th eseedbankofpeat satyrforsurveysorresearchareexemptfrom wetlandsishighlypersistent,andwillexpressitselfwhen thisrequirement. exposedtotherightcombinationsofsunlightandwater. However,itispossiblethatrepeatedbroadcastsprayingto controllong-establishedmonoculturesofinvasiveexotic A5.2 Restore Hydrology plantscouldexhausttheseedbankofaportionofafen.In thesesituationsitmightbecomenecessarytoplantseeds, Hydrologicalrestorationsoutsideoccupiedhabitat plants,oryoungtrees. canaffectsatyrswithinoccupiedhabitat 1. Restoringtheflowofgroundwaterthrough A4.2.9 Treatment Combinations theupperlayersofpeatisthehighest Activitiestomaintainexistingfensmayusesomeof priority. theaboveactivitiessingly.However,mostmanagementwill 2. Openpondsthatcutspringsbeforethey betargetedtowardrestorationactivities.Th eseactivitieswill reachthefenwillbefilledsuchthat requirecombinationsofactivities,carefullyplannedtooccur groundwaterflowstothesurfaceofthefen. * A-14 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP FigureA9.Immediatelyfollowingaspringprescirbedburn,muchofthedeadwintervegetationhasturnedtoash(aboveleft).However,upon brushingtheashaside,onecanfindunburnedduff(aboveleft).AU.S.FishandWildlifeServicebiologistevenfoundaninvertebratelarva(species unknown)intheduffimmediatelyaftertheburnpicturedhere(CarrieTansy,personalcommunication). 3. 4. 5. 6. Roadsmayberemoved,butremovalshould beengineeredsuchthatgroundwatercan passthroughthesurfaceofthefen. Planstoremovebarrierstogroundwateror surfacewatermustexplicitlydetailtheways thatwaterflowwillberestored.Above-grade barriers(roads,berms,dams,etc.)willnotbe removedonlytocreateabelow-gradevoid (ditch,pond,etc.) Occupiedhabitatwillnotbeflooded,except forrestorationpurposes,andthennomore than1/3ofoccupiedhabitatwillbeflooded atanyonetime Hydrologicalrestorationactivitiesthat wouldcausedryingofthesubstrateduring themonthofJuly(toavoidimpactingeggs) orduringthedormantseason(toavoid impactinghibernatingsatyrsorrattlesnakes) willbeprohibited d. willoccuronlyinfensasconsistentwith themostrecentversionoftheMitchell’s SatyrRecoveryPlan. 2. Burnswithanyignitionbytheburncrew anywherewithinoccupiedhabitat a. willburnnomorethan1/3ofthe occupiedhabitat 3. Burnswithignitionentirelyoutsideofthe occupiedhabitat a. willhaveinteriorburnbreaks(probably wetlines)toprotectthehighest concentrationsofsatyrs,basedonsurvey datafrompreviousyears b. willhaveaplanwiththegoalofa patchy,mosaicburnwithoutinterior ignitionwithinthefen A5.4 Mowing/Hydroaxing 1. A5.3 Prescribed Burning 2. 1. Allburnsinhabitatoccupiedbysatyrs a. willusenaturalfirebreakswherefeasible andsafe. * A-15 * 3. Mowingorhydroaxingislimitedtonomore than1/3ofoccupiedhabitatinanyoneyear Mowingorhydroaxingwilloccuronly duringthedormantseason,whensoilcan supportequipment Mowerorhydroaxdeckswillbeelevated suchthatsedgetussocksarenotshortenedor Mitchell’s Satyr HCP 3. 4. FigureA10.Vegetationremovalisoftennecessaryatprairiefensto restorethesedgeandwildfloweropeningsthatMitchell’ssatyrrequire. DirectionsonconstructingPVCHerbicideWands(picturedabove)can befoundinAppendixB. damaged 5. 6. A5.5 Vegetation Removal 1. 2. Vegetationmaybemanagedormaintained inamannerdesignedtosupportasavanna andopenfencomplex,withopenings dominatedbyCarexstrictaandsavanna interspersedwithbroadleafplantsofdiverse heights.Satyrsprefertheedgesofopenfen habitat,andarealsofoundassociatedwith treesandshrubswithinthefen. Vegetationremovaloccursatdifferent intensities.Forthepurposesofthisplanthey aredefinedasvegetationremovalwithout theaidofawheeledortrackvehicle. • Lightmanagement<10person-hours * A-16 * 7. peracreperyear • Moderate:>10personhoursand<100 personhoursperacre • Intense:>100personhoursperacre b. Lightmanagementisnotrestrictedby area.Th islevelofactivitycorresponds tomonitoringforandtreatingscattered stemstokeepaninvasivefrombecoming established. c. Moderatemanagementwillnotoccur overmorethan1/3oftheareainany oneyearperiod. d. Intensevegetationmanagementwillnot occurovermorethan1/3oftheareain anyoneyearperiod. Managementthatincreasestheamountof edgeatsitesisappropriate. Cost-effi ciencyandpotentialtakeofsatyrs shouldbeconsideredexplicitlywhen planningvegetationmanagement.Methods thatminimizecostorrisktosatyrsare preferred,suchasincludingsatyrfensin largerhabitatmanipulationstoreducecost orchoosingtomanageduringthedormant seasontominimizetakeofsatyr. Herbicidesmustbeapprovedforuse overwaterandusedaccordingtolabel instructions. Tamaracktreesofanyageshouldbe protectedwithinoccupiedhabitat. Managementshouldbeconsistentwith encouragingatamaracksavanna.Adaptive managementshouldbeusedtodefine thebestdisturbanceregimetoperpetuate tamarackatappropriatedensities.Th e currentdisturbanceregimeinmostoccupied fensistooinfrequentorconservativeand isallowingredmapletoregenerateunder tamaracktrees,whichisalongtermthreatto thetamaracksavanna. Tamarackisnottheonlywoodyvegetation appropriateinasavanna.Poisonsumac, spicebush,bogbirch,willows,andscattered clumpsofdogwoodareappropriate. Restorationactivitiesthatclearallwoody Mitchell’s Satyr HCP speciesareonlyappropriateforsomeparts ofsomefens.Otherpartsofthefenshould bepreservedinapartlywooded“savanna” structurewithadiversityofcanopycoverages atafinespatialscale. 6. A5.6 Biological Control 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Invasiveplantsareasignificantthreattothe fenhabitatofMitchell’ssatyrbutterflies. Invasiveplantsarealsoacommon manifestationofotherthreats,suchas hydrologychanges,waterqualityissues, orclimatechange.Th eresourcesavailable tomanageinvasiveplantsarelimited,and theimpactsofactivitiestocontrolinvasive plantsarenotnegligible.Forthesereasons, biologicalcontrolisapreferredmanagement activity,despitethesignificantrisks associatedwiththisactivity. Biologicalcontrolstocontrolanynon-native invertebrate,willnotbereleasedwithinsatyr habitatunlessbothofthefollowingcriteria aremet: a. theinvasiveinvertebratetobecontrolled isdeterminedtobeaconservationthreat tothepopulationofMitchell’ssatyr butterfly,and b. theUSDAtestingindicatesnodirect risktoLepidopteraortomembersofthe subfamilySatyrinae Biologicalcontrolusingnativespeciesand tocontrolinvertebrates(i.e.,prayingmantis releases)willnotoccurinsatyrhabitat AnyspeciesnativetoMichiganorIndiana maybeusedasabiologicalcontroltocontrol invasiveplants.Th isdoesnotextendto invasiveinsects. Non-nativespeciesthathavebeenapproved byUSDAafterthoroughtestingtoensure host-specificityarealsopermitted,unless theyfeedoncriticalplantspecies(seeA5.6.3 above.) 7. Sometimesbiologicalcontrolsareapproved despitelowlevelsoffeedingonnativeplants. Galuracellabeetles,forexample,havebeen releasedtocontrolpurpleloosestrife,but areknowntofeedonnativeloosestrife.Th e leveloffeedingonnativeloosestrifewaslow enoughthatthecostsweredeterminedto outweighthebenefits.However,thislevel ofriskisnotappropriateforplantspecies criticaltothelifecycleofMitchell’ssatyr butterflies.Biologicalcontrolsfoundtofeed onplantspeciescriticaltosatyrsforfoodor egglayingwillnotbereleased.Th esecritical plantspeciesinclude,butarenotlimitedto CarexstrictaandPileapilosa. Th erestrictionsonbiologicalcontrolsreflect themanyunknownsrelatedtotheirecology andmanagement.Muchmoreisknown aboutlivestock,whichareaddressedin anothersection,andarenotconsidereda biologicalcontrol. A5.7 Livestock Grazing * A-17 * 1. 2. Mitchell’ssatyrbutterfliescanpersistatrelatively highdensitiesinfenssubjecttomoderateto light,seasonalgrazing.Whilegrazingmaycause takeofindividualsatyrlarvae,throughtrampling or(accidental)ingestion,theneteffectofgrazing istosuppressshrubsandpromoteshortstature broad-leafplants.Grazing(atsimilarstocking densityandseasonality)maycontinueinsatyr habitatwhereitcurrentlyoccurs. Grazingmaybeinitiatedinfensthatmeetallof thefollowingcriteria: a. Ahistoryofgrazingcanbeestablished. b. Stockingdensityandseasonalitycanbe controlledatappropriatelevelsinmidtolate summer. c. Th efenisalowpriorityformanualand chemicalvegetationcontrol(i.e.,available resourcesoftime,people,andmoneyare beingspentathigherpriorityfens). Mitchell’s Satyr HCP 3. Grazingbylivestockwillnotbeinitiatedinsatyroccupiedfenswhereagrazinghistorycannot beestablished,livestockcannotbemanaged, andwhereothermanagementisacost-effective option. A5.8 Seeding and Planting 1. 2. 3. 4. Seedingandplantingshouldbedonewithseed collectedinotherpartsofthesamefen,orfrom anothernearbyfen(within100miles),orwith localgenotypeseed(within100milesnorth/ southor200mileseast/west).Commercial,nonlocalseedmaybeusedonplantingsover1acre insize,butitisdiscouraged. Carexstrictadoesnotgrowwellfromseed. Propagationisusuallydonevegetatively,and requiresbreakingapartexistingclumps.Carex strictaclumpswithinoccupiedhabitatwill notbeusedassourcematerialforplantings. Itisrecommendedthatsourcematerialcome fromdegradedornon-viablewetlands,sedge meadows,or(leastpreferred)otherfens. Tamaracktreeswillbeestablishedonlyinareas thatreceive>6hoursofsunlightperday. Plantingsandseedmixesshouldinclude significantamountsofshort-staturedplants, whichshouldbeplantedinpartsun(4-8hours sunlightperday)orshade(<4hourssunlight). Th eseareoftenfoundunderandimmediately northofexistingtreesorshrubs. A5.10 Adaptive Management Adaptivemanagementallowsforchangesin approachesortechniquesbasedonnewinformation. Itevaluatestheoutcomesofimplementedactionsso thatrelativesuccesscanbedocumentedandsubsequent actionscanbeadaptedforgreatereffectiveness.A successfuladaptivemanagementapproachrequiresa clearstatementofmanagementgoalsandobjectivesso thataseriesofmonitoringbenchmarkscanbedeveloped accordingly(Noon2003).Objectivesshouldaddress theconservationtarget,thegeographicarea,thedesired action,ameasurablestateordegreeofchangedesired, andatimeframe(Elzingaetal.2001). Becauseoftheirrarity,andunknownresponses tocertainmanagementapproaches,managementwithin habitatoccupiedbysatyrhasbeenhighlyrestricted. Atmostsites,noburningorfloodingisallowed.Only 1/5oflargesiteshasbeenallowedunderrecentpermits andconsultations.Th isisfarmorerestrictivethan recoveryplansforthefederallythreatenedKarnerBlue butterfly(USFWS2003).Despitetheserestrictions andmanagementoutsideoccupiedhabitat,increasing numbersofpopulationshavebeendisappearinginrecent years. Th esedeclinescouldbecausedbyavarietyof factors,includingthelackofmanagementinoccupied habitat.Th epositivelinksbetweensatyrovipositionand short-statureforbs,andbetweenshort-statureforbsand management(KostandDeSteven2009)suggestslack ofmanagementmaybeharmingpopulations,especially smallpopulationofsatyrs.Conversely,thesedeclines maybeattributedtoothercauses.Smallsamplesizesand butterflymortalityhavestymiedattemptstoanswerthis questionusingtraditionresearch. Inaddition,certaininvasiveplantsinfensare bestmanagedusingaseriesofcoordinatedmanagement activites,includingprescribedfire.Glossybuckthornand reedcanarygrassinparticularcannotbeeconomically managedwithoutprescribedfire. Forthisreasonweproposetoburnupto1/3 ofsites,regardlessofsize,toassesstheresponseof Mitchell’ssatyrtoprescribedfire.Ifprescribedfireat 1/3doescausedeclines,useoffirewillbere-assessed inanadaptivemanagementcontext.Conversely,if burning1/3ofanareahasnonegativeaffectorhasa positiveeffectatmultiplesites,thenburningmightbe consideredoverupto1/2ofsites.Prescirbedfireisa complextool,andaspectssuchasburncompleteness, vegetationaffected,burnseason,andignitionpatterns * A-18 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP willsimilarlybeaddressedinanadaptivemanagement context. Ifnonessentialexperimentalpopulationsare established,thesesitescouldbeusedinanadaptive managementcontexttobetterunderstandtheeffects ofprescribedfire.Experimentalpopulationsmightbe bettercandidatesthannonviablesitesforanswering questionsoftheeffectofpatchyprescribedfireover1/2 orgreaterpartsofanoccupiedfen. Adaptivemaangementhasthepotentialtoanswer importantmanagementquestionsregardingfire.However, asimilarapproachwillneedtobeusedinseveralother importanthabitatmanagementtools,suchashydrologic manipulations,invasivespeciesmanagement,andbiological control.Becausegrazingimpactsappeartopersistforseveral decades,grazingwillonlybeconsideredinfenswitharecent historyofgrazing. A6. Potential Biological Impacts/ Take Assessment A6.1 Direct Impacts Basedonrecentsurveys,thetotalgeographicarea occupiedbyMitchell’ssatyrbutterfliesinMichiganand Indianais517acres.Th us,thetotalimpactinanyoneyear is171acresor1/3.Inmostyears,weexpecttheimpact tobelessthan100acres.Althoughtheshort-termtakeof individualsatyrsisexpected,thelong-termimpacttohabitat forthespeciesisexpectedtobepositive. A6.2 Indirect Impacts Th eindirectimpactstosatyr,SGCN,andthe prairiefencommunityareexpectedtobepositive,especially whenconsideredoveramultipleyears.Th eimpactsofno management,giventhecurrentlandscapeoffragmented, hydrologically-altered,andfire-suppressedwetlands,would betoallowmostexistingprairiefenstocoverttoshrub wetlandsormonoculturesofexoticplants.Th estatusquo isapatchworkofmoderatelyeffi cientandmoderately coordinatedmanagement;thepreferredapproachwould increaseeffi ciencyandcoordinationinexistingmanagement. Itwouldalsoallowmanagerstocontinuetowork withprivatelandownersunderaformalprogrammatic agreement.Th us,thegainsinhabitatqualityrealizedunder pastprogramswillbepreservedandpotentiallyimproved upon. Th eissuanceofoneITPforIndianaandMichigan wouldstreamlinethepermittingprocessforprojectsdesigned specificallyforsatyrconservation.Th iseffi ciencygain couldthenbeappliedtoincreasedsatyrconservation,fen conservation,orconservationofotherendangeredplants andwildlife.Th us,thisHCPwillhavesomeindirectpositive effectsontheconservationofotherSGCN. Th isHCPandassociatedFenConservationPlan wouldredefinetheconservationunitinsatyrconservationas thegroundwater-shedofthefenwherethebutterfliesoccur. Th us,itwillfosterandfacilitatelandscape-scaleconservation forfensandassociatedecologicalcommunities. Finally,theHCPandFCPincludeexplicitgoalsand objectivesrelatedtoclimatechange.Th esewillbesomeof thefirstexamplesofapplied“climatechangeadaptation”in MichiganandIndiana.Althoughadaptationisonlybeginning tobeaddressed(USFWS2008),thisHCPandFCPcould beusefulexamplesthatsomelevelofplanningiscurrently possible. A6.3 Anticipated Take: Wildlife Species A6.3.1 Mitchell’s Satyr Somehabitatmanagementprescriptionswillresultin themortalityofindividualsatyrs.Forinstance,aprescribed burnthroughanoccupiedareawoulddestroysatyrjuveniles oreggs.However,evenwithinaburnunit,mortalitymay notbecomplete,becauseburnintensitytendstobeuneven, especiallyinwetlands,andsomejuvenilesoreggsatornear saturatedpeatmaysurvive.Takeofimmatureformsofinsects (especiallyeggs)isdiffi culttoquantify;therefore,takewillbe indirectlyquantifiedasacresofoccupiedsatyrhabitatthat couldbeimpacted. Basedonknownoccurrences,habitatmanagement couldoccuronapproximately517acresofoccupiedsatyr habitat.Habitat-managementtechniquesthatcouldresultin * A-19 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP takewillnotbeappliedtomorethan1/3ofanyparticular occupiedhabitatpatchwithinacalendaryear.Giventhese restrictionsandbasedonthecurrentamountofknown occupiedsatyrhabitat,takecouldoccuronnomorethan172 acresinanysinglecalendaryear.Inpractice,treatingasmany as100acresacross19sitesinasinglecalendarisunlikely. Ifreintroductionsaresuccessful,thenumberofacrescould increaseover172,butnotover1/3oftheareaoccupiedby thisspeciesinIndianaandMichigan. A6.3.2 Other Federally Listed and Candidate Wildlife ProjectsconductedunderauthorityoftheITPwill nottakeorotherwiseadverselyaffectfederallylistedspecies otherthansatyr.Priortoimplementationofanyproject,the potentialpresenceoffederallylistedspecieswillbeevaluated. Th ecopperbellywatersnakeandMitchell’ssatyr butterflyusesimilarhabitatsinsouthernMichiganand northernIndiana.However,thecopperbellywatersnakeis moregeographicallyrestrictedthantheMitchell’ssatyr.Th ese twofederally-listedspeciesarenotknowntooccurinthe samecountiesinMichiganorIndiana.Ifconservationefforts aresuccessful,thesespeciescouldoccurinthesamewetland complexes,butnotinthesamepartsofthosecomplexes.Th e copperbellywatersnakeusesforestedwetlandsorforested partsofwetlandcomplexes,whereasthesatyrswouldoccurin theopenorsavannapartsofprairiefens. Th eIndianabatandMitchell’ssatyralsoco-occur insouthernMichiganandnorthernIndiana.However,the managementactivitiesintheHCParenotexpectedtoresult intakeofIndianabat.Prairiefensaretoowettosupportthe largediametertreesusedbyIndianabatsforroosting. Th eeasternMassasaugarattlesnakeisafederal candidateforlisting.Th issnakeoccursinprairiefens,and oftenoccursinfensthatarealsooccupiedbyMitchell’s satyrbutterflies.Bothspeciesaresensitivetohydrological alternations,invasionsofexoticspecies,andsuccessional changewithinprairiefensandthesurroundinglandscape. Th us,conservationactionsinthisHCPareexpectedtohavea similarlybeneficialeffectonbothsatyrsandrattlesnakes. A6.3.3 State-listed Wildlife Atleast75wildlifespeciesclassifiedasthreatened, endangered,orspecialconcern/watchlistunderIndianaor Michiganlawcouldoccurinornearoccupiedsatyrhabitat (Table2).Priortoimplementationofanyprojectunder thisHCP,thepotentialpresenceofthesespecieswillbe evaluatedbasedonreviewofthestate’snaturalheritage database,considerationofknownspeciesdistributions, assessmentofcurrenthabitatcharacteristics,andsitesurveys asnecessary.IfaState-listedspeciesisdeterminedtobe presentinaprojectarea,proposedactivitiespotentially resultingintakecouldproceedonlyifauthorizedunder theprovisionsofstatelawapplyingtoendangeredspecies protection(PublicAct451of1994,Part365). Manystatelistedspeciesthatco-occurwiththe satyrarealsodependentonprairiefens.Th esespeciesface similarchallengestothesatyr,andhabitatconservationfor satyrsisexpectedtocontributetotheconservationofthese speciesaswell. A6.4 Anticipated Impacts: Plants A6.4.1 Federally Listed Plants Prairiefensoccupiedbysatyrhavebeenthoroughly surveyedforendangeredplantsovermanyyears.No federallylistedplantsareknowntooccurinprairiefensin Michigan. A6.4.1 State-listed Plants Atleast47IndianaorMichiganstate-listedplants areknowntooccurinprairiefens(Table1).Th esame protocolusedforstate-listedanimalswillalsobeusedfor state-listedplants.Likeconservationbenefitstostate-listed animals,managementactivitiesenvisionedunderthisHCP areexpectedtohaveapositiveeffectontheconservationof manystate-listedplants. A.6.5 Cumulative Impacts Th ecumulativeimpactistheeffectoftheplanned actionsifrepeatedoveralargerareaorconsideredfrom theperspectiveoflargertrends.Th ecumulativeimpactsof theactionsinthisHCPareexploredinmoredetailinthe mainbodyoftheFenConservationPlan.Th eseeffectsare expectedtobeamodestandpositiveincreaseintheamount * A-20 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP andqualityoffenconservationoccurringinMichiganboth infensoccupiedbyMitchell’ssatyr(thisHCP)andthe cumulativeeffectofconservationinfensnotoccupiedby satyrs. A8. Funding A8.1 Funding for HCP Administration AdministrationofthisHCPwillbedirectedthrough theMichiganDNREWildlifeDivision,specificallythe NaturalHeritageUnit.Th isunitcoordinateseffortsrelatedto endangeredandthreatenedspeciesandnongameprograms. Administrativecostswillbeassociatedwithactivities suchasplanningofmonitoring,evaluationofhabitat Monitoringwillbeconductedtohelpevaluatesatyr treatments,reporting,auditingofPartneringAgreements, distributionandtoassesstheeffectsofHCPactivitieson andmodificationoftheHCPpromptedbynewinformation satyrpopulationsandhabitat.Monitoringassociatedwith obtainedthroughresearchandadaptivemanagement.Annual specificprojectswillbefundedbythemanagementpartners thatconductedthetreatments/disturbances.Monitoringwill programcostsareexpectedtovary. Administrativecostswillbecoveredwithfunding beconductedbyqualifiedpersonnel,eitherbymanagementprovidedtotheNaturalHeritageUnitintheWildlife partnerstafforcontractedthroughotherorganizations. Divisionbudget.Th eWildlifeDivisionhassupportedefforts Monitoringwillbeconductedatsitesfollowinghabitat relatedtothreatenedandendangeredspeciessincethemid managementwithinhabitatoccupiedbysatyrorwhen 1950s.Aformalendangeredspeciesprogramwasinitiatedin activitiesoutsideoccupiedhabitatareexpectedtoaffect hydrologywithintheoccupiedportionofthefen.Monitoring themid1970swiththepassageofStateendangeredspecies regulations.Effortsunderthisprogramhavebeenfundedby willbeencouraged,butnotmandatory,whenmanagement forsatyroccursnearoradjacenttocurrentlyoccupiedhabitat. revenuesourcessuchasFederalgrantsandrevenue-matching projects,Stateincome-taxcheck-offs,publicdonations, Th eobjectivesofmanagementwillbeto: vehicleregistrationplates,andStaterestrictedfunds,where 1) assesstheresultsofmanagement;and appropriate.Supportedbythismixoffundingsources,the 2) assesspresence/absenceofsatyrbeforeand MichiganDNREhasexpendedeffortsonbehalfofthe aftermanagement. Mitchell’ssatyrbutterflyformanyyears.Th eMichigan Areportofactivitiesandmonitoringresultswillbe submittedtotheUSFWSbyJanuary31eachyeartheITPis DNREwillcontinuetoprovidefundingnecessarytoperform theadministrativetasksofthisHCP. ineffect.Ataminimum,thereportwillincludea: •summaryofannualactivitiesresultingintakeofsatyr, includingacrestreated/managed. •summaryofhabitatmonitoringconductedattreated/ A8.2 Funding for HCP Implementation managedsites. •summaryofpresence/absenceandrelativeabundance Managementwillbeconductedonstatelandand surveysconductedattreated/managedsites. onprivatelandtomaintainexistingsatyrhabitat,tohelp •discussionoftheeffectofmanagementonsatyr ensurethelong-termpersistenceofextantpopulations,and populationsattreated/managedsites. tomanagesitesforpotentialreintroductions.Managementof •descriptionofknownandassumedtake.Knowntake fensonpublicandprivatelandshasbeenincreasingsincethe istakeofsatyrindividualsthatisdirectlyobserved; satyrwaslistedin1992,andeffortshaveacceleratedunder assumedtakewillbereportedindirectlyasareaof theMichiganDNRE’sLandownerIncentiveProgram(LIP). occupiedhabitattreated/managed. Currentfundingsourcesincludefederalmatchingfunds,state restrictedfunds(whereappropriate),andprivatematching funds.Continuedmanagementofprairiefenswillbefunded byacombinationofthesesources. A7. Monitoring and Reporting * A-21 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP PartneringAgreementswillbedevelopedwith managementpartners,bothpublicandprivate.Management partnerswillprovidefundingforanymanagement, maintenance,ormonitoringthattheyconductunderthis HCP.PartneringAgreementswillincludeassurancesof adequatefunding. A9. Alternatives A9.1 Alternative A: Private Land and Protected Land HCP (Preferred) Th epreferredalternativeistheissuanceofanITP undersection10(a)1(B)oftheFederalEndangeredSpecies ActtoauthorizethetakeofendangeredMitchell’ssatyr butterflyonbothunprotectedprivatelandsandprotected lands,inaccordancewiththisHCP.Protectedlandsarelands administeredbyeitherastateagencyoranon-governmental organizationwithaconservationmission(e.g.,States’DNR, Th eNatureConservancy,locallandconservancies,etc.) Th erange-wideHCPisdesignedtoallowmanagementto mimicnaturaldisturbanceprocessestoconservefenswhile minimizingincidentaltakingofsatyrthatmightoccurduring management.Th isalternativeispreferredbecauseitwould standardizebestmanagementpracticesforfens,facilitateand encouragemanagementinsatyroccupiedfens,andcould applytoanyfenswherethespeciesoccursandmanagers desiretoconservethesatyrorthefen. Iffundingandmanagementchangeasrecommended underthePrairieFenPlanandHCP,populationsofthe Mitchell’ssatyrbutterflyshouldremainstableorincrease. Degradationofhydrologyandplantcommunitieswillbe arrestedatsomesites.Th esechangeswillbediffi cultto detectdirectlywithoutexpensivemonitoring.Although imperceptiblewithrelationtothehumanenvironment,the changeswillbeexpressedthroughstableorimprovedstatusof theMitchell’ssatyrbutterflyandothersensitivefenspecies. A9.2 Alternative B: Public-lands HCP Th isalternativeissimilartoAlternativeAinthat itwouldrequireanITPassociatedwithanHCP.However, itwouldfocuslimitedconservationtimeandmoneyon protectedlands.Oftenmanagementofthefenthrougha privatelandsprogramprecedesandlaysthegroundworkfor futureprotectionthroughlandacquisitionorconservation easements.Furthermore,somefensarewellmanagedby knowledgeablelandownerswhoarepassionateaboutsatyrs andtheirconservation.Forthesereasons,wefeltthatthe HCPandITPshouldleaveopentheoptionofworkingon currently“unprotected”fens. A9.3 Alternative C: Status Quo or No New Action Th estatusquoalternativeisnotanoaction alternative,butratherreflectswhatwouldhappenifcurrent actionscontinuewithoutthefederalaction,inthiscase issuanceofanITPforsatyrsthroughouttheirrangein MichiganandIndiana.Somemanagementcurrentlyoccurs atmanysatyrsites.Th ismanagementoftenoccursoutside occupiedhabitatineffortstorestoreadjacentfentosuitable satyrhabitat.Becausemanyfensaresmalloroccupiedhabitat isalreadydegraded,managementisalsodoneinoccupied habitat.Th ismanagementresultsinincidentaltake,whichis currentlypermittedonasite-by-site,project-by-projectbasis undersection7consultationor10(a)1(A)recoverypermits. BecausetheMichiganDNREandIndianaDNRbothvalue fenconservation,thisworkwouldcontinue,butatlower effi ciencyandwithpoorercoordinationamongagencies.Th e quantityandqualityofconservationwouldlikelybelower underthestatusquo,comparedtoAlternativesAorB. A10. HCP Implementation, Changed and Unforseen Circumstances A10.1 HCP Implementation * A-22 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Th eMichiganDNRE,asholderoftheITP,will implementthisHCPattheadministrativelevelinMichigan andasliaisonforIndiana.Th eNaturalHeritageUnit withintheDNREWildlifeDivisionwillberesponsiblefor overseeingthiseffort.Administrativeactivitieswillinclude planningofmonitoring,evaluationofhabitattreatments, reporting,auditingofPartneringAgreements,oversight ofminimizationmeasures,andmodificationoftheHCP promptedbynewinformationobtainedthroughresearchand adaptivemanagement.WildlifeDivisionfieldstaffwillbe responsibleforadministeringoperationalimplementationof thisHCPonStatelands.Operationalactivitieswillinclude pre-treatmentsurveys,siteassessments,habitatmanagement, andhabitatandpopulationmonitoring.AnnualWildlife Divisionworkplanswillhelppartitiontasksnecessaryto achievemulti-yearoperationalobjectives. PartneringAgreementswillbedevelopedbetween theMichiganDNREandmanagementpartners,bothpublic andprivate,tofacilitateoperationalimplementationofthis HCPonnon-Stateland.Th eseagreementswilltranslate strategicobjectivesintooperationalobjectivesforhabitaton specificparcels.Th eMichiganDNREwillannuallyreviewthe implementationofPartneringAgreementsandwillmonitor adherencetoPartneringAgreementconditions. A10.2 Changed Circumstances Th eHabitatConservationPlanAssurances(“No Surprises”)Rule(50CFRPart17.32(b)(5);63Federal Register8859—February23,1998)providesregulatory assurancesthat,generally,noadditionalland-userestrictions withrespecttospeciescoveredbyanITPwillberequiredof apermitholder,evenifchangedorunforeseencircumstances ariseafterthepermitisissued,providedtheHCPisbeing properlyimplemented.“Changedcircumstances”refersto “changesincircumstancesaffectingaspeciesorgeographic areacoveredbyanHCPthatcanreasonablybeanticipated byHCPdevelopersandtheUSFWSandthatcanbeplanned for(e.g.,thelistingofanewspeciesorafireorothernatural catastrophiceventinareaspronetosuchevents)”(50CFR Part17.3). ChangedcircumstancesrelevanttothisHCP mightincludeeventslikespecieslistingordelistingorthe completionofresearchthatsuggestswaystoimprove managementtechniques.Th esechangedcircumstances wouldbeaddressedthroughtheadaptivemanagement processoutlinedinthisHCP.Ifamodifiedapproach wouldbenefitsatyrs,otherspeciesofconcern,orassociated habitatsduetochangedcircumstances,theUSFWSand theMichiganDNREmayagreetomodifytheHCPbased oncurrentconditionsornewinformation(50CFRPart 17.22(b)(5)). A10.3 Unforeseen Circumstances “Unforeseencircumstances”refersto“changes incircumstancesaffectingaspeciesorgeographicarea coveredbyanHCPthatcouldnotreasonablyhavebeen anticipatedbyplandevelopersandtheUSFWSatthetime ofHCPnegotiationanddevelopment,andthatresultin asubstantial,adversechangeinthestatusofthecovered species”(50CFRPart17.3).Unforeseencircumstances relevanttothisHCPmightincludetheintroductionof harmfuldiseasesoradditionalexoticspeciesthatcould havesignificantdetrimentaleffectsonsatyrorotherspecies ofconcern.ShouldtheUSFWSdetermine,basedon considerationsoutlinedin50CFRPart17.22(b)(5)(iii)(c), thatunforeseencircumstanceshavearisenduringthe permitterm,theUSFWSandtheMichiganDNRE willconsiderpotentialmeasurestoaddressthechanged conditions. A10.4 Other Measures as Required by the Director AnHCPImplementingAgreementbetweenthe MichiganDNREandtheUSFWSisrequiredpriorto issuanceofanITP.Th isagreementisincludedinAppendix D. A11. Literature Cited Albert,DennisA.1995.Regionallandscapeecosystems * A-23 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP ofMichigan,Minnesota,andWisconsin:aworkingmapand classification.Gen.Tech.Rep.NC-178.St.Paul,MN:U.S. DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,NorthCentral ForestExperimentStation.250pp. Barton,B.JandC.E.Bach.2005.HabitatUsebythe FederallyEndangeredMitchell’sSatyrButterfly(Neonympha mitchelliimitchellii)inaMichiganPrairieFen.American MidlandNaturalist153(1):41-51. Dahl,Th omasE.1990.WetlandslossesintheUnitedStates 1780’sto1980’s.U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,Fish andWildlifeService,Washington,D.C.Jamestown,ND: NorthernPrairieWildlifeResearchCenterOnline.http:// www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss/index.htm (Version16JUL97). mitchelliiFrench.Ft.Snelling,MN.71pp. UnitedStateFishandWildlifeService(USWFS).2003. RecoveryPlanfortheKarnerbluebutterfly,Lycaeidesmelissa samuelis.Ft.Snelling,MN.131pp+Appendices. U.S.FishandWildlifeService(USWFS).2008.Risingto theUrgentChallengesofaChangingClimate:Internal DiscussionDraft. Whitney,G.G.1994.FromCoastalWildernesstoFruited Plain:ahistoryofenvironmentalchangeintemperateNorth America1500topresent.CambridgeUniversityPress,UK. 451pp. Glassberg,J.1999.ButterfliesthroughBinoculars.Th eEast. OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY.242pp. Kost,M.A.andD.DeSteven.2000.Plantcommunity responsestoprescribedburninginWisconsinsedgemeadows. NaturalAreasJournal20:36-45 McAlpine,W.S.,S.P.Hubbel,andT.E.Pilske.1960.Th e distribution,habits,andlifehistoryofEuptychiamitchellii (Satyridae).Th eJournalofLepidopterists’Society14(4):209223. Rabe,M.L.,M.A.Kost,H.D.Enander,andE.H.Schools. 2002.UseofaGIS-basedhabitatmodeltoidentifypotential releasesitesforMitchell’ssatyr(Neonympham.mitchellii) inMichigan.MNFIReport2002-07fortheU.S.Fishand WildlifeService.36pp. Swengel,A.B.andS.R.Swengel.2007.Benefitofpermanent non-firerefugiaforLepidopteraconservationinfire-managed sites.JournalofInsectConservation11(3):263-279 Tolson,P.JandC.L.Ellsworth.2008.ProgressReport- Mitchell’sSatyrLarvalFeedingExperiments.Unpublished reporttoMichiganDNR. U.S.FishandWildlifeService(USWFS).1998.Recovery PlanfortheMitchell’ssatyrbutterfly,Neonymphamitchellii * A-24 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Appendix B: Directions to Make your own Herbicide Wand gasketstomakeatightseal.Gasketswithtoolargeofaninner diametermayleak,too.Ingeneral,refertotheconstruction schematicsonourwebsiteifyouareunclearonanyofthe instructions. A)Makingthemainreservoir:Cementamalethreaded couplingontoeachendofthe12-15inchpipe.Placearubber gasketononeend,followedbyafemalethreadedcap.With therubbergasketinplace,thefitshouldbeleakproofwhen hand-tightenedtoasnugfit. (FromtheGlobalInvasiveSpeciesTeamwebsite: http://www.invasive.org/gist/tools/wandinst.html) B1. Parts Required Unlessotherwisespecified,allthepartsare1inchdiameter PVCfittings. 2--threadedfemalecaps 1--3/4-inchunthreadedfemalecap 4--malecouplings,threadedonthemaleend 1--45degreeelbowcoupling,unthreaded 1--ballvalve,threadedonbothfemaleends 1--pipepiece12to15incheslong 2--pipepieces1inchlong 1--heavyduty(“cellulose”)sponge2x4x1.5inches 4--1.25inchrubberlavatorygaskets(seeconstructionhints, below) B2.Tools/Materials Required PVCpurpleprimerandcement PVCpipecuttersorhacksaw CoarsefileforPVC Drillwith1/16inchand3/4inchbits Ruler Scissors(tocutsponge) B)Makingthespongereservoir:Dependinguponthedetails ofthewayyourPVCfittingsweremolded,youmayhaveto innovatetocompletethispartoftheconstruction.Readthis sectioncompletelybeforeproceeding!First,cuttheendoff the3/4inchPVCcap,anddrilltwoholes(1/16inch)init. Th ecapshouldlooklikealargeshirt-button.Th ecapshould slidesnuglyintotheunthreadedendofathreadedmale coupling(youmayneedtofileitalittle).Cementitinplace asfarinsidethemalecouplingasyoucan.Usea1inchlength ofpipetocementthemalecouplingtothe45degreeelbow coupling.Useanother1inchlengthofpipetocementthe otherendofthe45degreeelbowtoamalecoupling. C)Makingthespongetip:Drilla3/4inchdiameterholeinto athreadedfemalecap.Makeaspongetipbycuttingasquare orcolumnarchunkoutofaheavy-dutysponge.Atip1inch indiameterand1.5incheslongshouldfitsnuglyinthehole. Ametalpipewithsharpenedendscanbeusedtocutout spongetips.Cutoutseveral,youwillneedthem. D)Completingthewand:Usinggaskets,screwthespongetip totheendofthespongereservoirnearestthe3/4inchdrip holedisk.Screwtheotherendintotheballvalve.Screwthe mainreservoirintotheothersideoftheballvalve. B4. How To Use the Wand B3. Assembly Instructions Constructionhints:Whenbuyingpartsforthewand, rememberthatthewandhasfourthreadedjoinswhichare hand-tightened.Lavatorygasketsensurethefitsareleak proof.Whenselectinggaskets,trythemoutonthePVC connectorsbeforeyouusethem.Youmayneedtodoubleup Withballvalveintheclosedposition,pourtheherbicidemix intothemainreservoirandreplacethefill-caponthewand. Opentheballvalveslightlytoletherbicideenterthesponge reservoir.(Youmayneedtoloosenthefill-captoletairinto themainreservoir.)Oncethespongetipbeginstosaturate, closetheballvalve(andifnecessary,retightenthefillcap). * B-1 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Onlyalighttouchofthesaturatedspongetipisneededto applyherbicidetoacut-stump.Opentheballvalvewhen moreherbicideisneededinthespongetip. B5. Helpful Hints (bythewand’sinventor,JackMcGowan-Stinski,TNCMI) 1)Duringcolderweathertheballvalvemayhavetobeleft opentoallowenoughherbicidetosaturatethesponge.Drip holesalsocanbemadelargeriffasterherbicideflowisdesired. 2)Donotallowleft-overherbicidemixtoremaininthe reservoirinextremetemperatures. 3)Alwayscleardripholesofresiduebeforeusingthe applicator.Apaperclipworkswellforcleaningoutresidues. 4)Whenthespongebecomesworn,replaceit(recommended aftereveryworkdayataminimum). 5)Whenusingtheapplicatorduringfreezingconditions,duct tapeadisposablechemicalhandwarmeraroundthesection withthedripholedisktoreducethechanceofdripholes freezingshut. 6)Useaherbicidedyetocheckforleaks,monitor applications,andidentifyanyexposuretothepersonusing theapplicator. * B-2 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Appendix C: Methods and Guidelines for Assessing Restoration Progress in Prairie Fens Using Coarse-Level Metrics DouglasR.PearsallandStevenS.Woods,TheNature ConservancyinMichigan,September,2006(updatedJanuary, 2008) C1. Introduction PrairiefensinsouthernLowerMichiganandnorthern Indianahavelongbeenafocusofconservationefforts.Most, ifnotall,ofthesefenssufferfromalteredhydrology,altered fireregime,andinvasivespecies,andsignificantresources havebeeninvestedinrestoringandmaintainingfensby publicagenciesandprivateorganizations.Whilerestoration techniqueshaveimprovedandthereissomemonitoring beingcarriedoutinindividualfens,monitoringprocedures havegenerallyrequiredbotanicalexpertiseandmoretime andresourcesthanmanagershavetospendonmonitoring. Additionally,therehasbeennoconsistentmonitoringofthe progressofrestorationacrossmultiplefens.Giventhatthere areroughly130prairiefensinsouthernMichiganandtens moreinnorthernIndiana,atleast20%ofwhicharebeing activelymanaged,implementationofconsistentmeasuresof restorationprogressinmultiplemanagedfenswouldprovide avaluableindexofthestatusoffensinthispartoftheir range. Th eNatureConservancyinMichiganhasdevelopedaset ofcoarse-levelmetricstoprovidearelativelyquickand inexpensivemeanstotracktheprogressofrestorationin prairiefens.Assessmentofthesemetricsrequiresbasic understandingoftheecologyoffensandthebehavioroffire infens,butdoesnotrequireextensivebotanicalexpertise. Th eyaredesignedsothatlandmanagersandstewardscan evaluatethemwithoutrelyingonexternalbotanistsor ecologicalconsultants.Wefirstconceivedandappliedthem in2004atIvesRoadFenPreserveandhavesincerefined themandappliedthemalsoatGrandRiverFenPreserve. Initiallytherewerethreemetrics(percentagecoverofnative species,percentagecoverofherbaceousspecies,andpercent ofamanagementunitthatwouldcarryaprescribedfire), butbasedondiscussionsinafieldworkshopwithpartnersin August,2006,weaddedafourthmetric:percentagecoverof woodyplants.Th isfourthmetricrecognizesthatherbaceous andwoodyplantscanoccupythesamearea(i.e.,thereare multiplestructurallayers)andthatthetotalcoverofthe twocanexceed100percent.Forconsistency,itwasagreed thatwoodyandherbaceousplantcovershouldbeevaluated independently.Afifthmetric,percentagecoverofnon-native plantswasaddedin2008.Aswithherbaceousandwoody plants,thecoveragesofnativeandnon-nativeplantsarenot entirelydependentandthetotalcoveragecanexceed100 percent. C2. General Methods 1. Dividemanagedareaintomanagementunits(see moredetaileddiscussionbelow). 2. Walkthrougheachmanagementunitandperform visualassessmentofeachofthecoarse-levelmetrics.Itis recommendedthattheassessmentsbeperformedbyatleast twopeoplefamiliarwithfenecologyandfiremanagement. Becausetheseestimatesaresubjective,therewillbevariation amongsurveyors.Th eeffectsofvariationcanbediminished bytakingtheaveragevalueoftwoormoreestimates, 3. Recordeachindividualestimateonfielddatasheet (AttachmentA)andcalculatetheaveragevalue—thisaverage shouldbeusedastheestimatefortheindividualmanagement unit. 4. Determinevaluesforeachmetricfortheentire preserveormanagedareausingtheestimatesforeach managementunit. a. First,calculatetheareaofeachmanagementunitand * C-1 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP determineproportionalareaofeachmanagementunit. b. Second,calculateweightedvalueforeachmetricin eachmanagementunitbymultiplyingtheestimatedvaluesby theproportionalarea. c. Lastly,determinethesumofallweightedvaluesfor eachmetricacrossallmanagementunits. 5. Establishasystemofcategoriesforratingeachmetric foragivenecosystem(prairiefen,shrubfen,grassland, savanna,tamarackswamp,etc…).Th eConservancytypically usesthecategoriesofPoor,Fair,Good,andVeryGoodwhen ratinganindicatorofviabilityofanaturalcommunityora population.Th erefore,wehavedeterminedthresholdsfor eachofthesecategoriesforeachofthemetricsasappliedto prairiefens(AttachmentB).Th esethresholdsaredesignedto reflectrangesthatareconsideredmeaningfulwithrespectto restorationprogressinfensandwouldnotapplywelltomost uplandsystemsorwetlandscharacterizedbymorewoody vegetation. C3. Guidelines for Field Estimates breaks.Boundariesofdisturbedareas,suchasaditchedor plowedarea,orofdenseclumpsofinvasivespeciescanalso beusedtodefinemanagementunits.Itisrecommended thatmanagementunitsberelativelyuniforminvegetation compositionandstructure,andthatagoal(ordesiredfuture condition)fortheunitbeclearlyarticulated.Examples ofdesiredfutureconditionincludeprairiefen,shrubfen, tamarackswamp,andhardwoodswamp,andthemetrics describedheremaybeapplieddifferently,ornotatall,in unitshavingagoalotherthanprairiefen. C5. Supplies and Equipment Th isapproachrequireslittleequipment,butthefollowing itemsarehelpful. • GPSunit(bothformappingunitboundariesand thenrelocatingboundariesduringfieldsurveys) • Aerialphotographsdepictingmanagementunit boundaries. 1. Ensurevisualaccesstoentireunitoratleasttoareas thatarerepresentativeofallportionsoftheunit. 2. Evaluateeachmetricindependently,i.e.,percentage coverofherbaceousspeciesshouldincludeplantsthat occurunderneathwoodyplants.Totalpercentagecoverof herbaceousandwoodyplantwilloftenexceed100%. 3. Considerevenlowshrubs,suchasshrubbycinquefoil (Dasiphorafruticosa),aswoodyspecies. 4. Th epercentageofamanagementunitthatwillcarry aprescribedfireshouldbeevaluatedundertheassumption thatinternalignitionwillbeusedwhennecessary.Isolated patchesofflammablefuelsshouldbeincludedinthetotal percentage,butareasofhomogeneouslythinfuelsthatwould notcarryafireshouldnotbeincluded. C4. Establishing Management Units Managementunitscanbedefinedbasedonnaturalecosystem boundariesoronimposedboundariessuchastrailsorburn * C-2 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Appendix D: Implementing Agreement IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT by and between U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE and the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM FOR HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION WITHIN ALL HABITAT OCCUPIED BY THE MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY IN MICHIGAN AND INDIANA. countyinIndianaonpublicandprivatelands; WHEREAS,theFWShasprimaryjurisdictionoverthe conservation,protection,restoration,enhancementand managementoffederallylistedfish,wildlife,plantsand theirhabitats,asnecessaryforbiologicallysustainable populationsofthosespeciestotheextentsetforthinthe FederalEndangeredSpeciesActof1973,asamended (87Stat884,16U.S.C.§1531etseq.;ESA); WHEREAS,thepersistenceofsatyrsatmostlocations isdependentondisturbance(e.g.,flooding,fire)to maintainearlysuccessionalhabitat,andthenatural formsofthesedisturbanceshavelargelybeensuppressed; WHEREAS,theDNREisresponsibleforthe conservation,protection,andmanagementofMichigan’s wildliferesources,includingimplementationofthe MichiganEndangeredSpeciesProtectionLaw(Public Th isImplementingAgreement(“Agreement”),madeand Act451of1994,Part365); enteredintoasofthe___dayof________,201_, byandbetweentheUNITEDSTATESFISHAND WHEREAS,theDNREdesiresaprocesstoallow WILDLIFESERVICE(FWS)andtheMICHIGAN management,totheextentpossible,ofoccupiedsatyrs DEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCES Habitatforthebenefitofsatyrs; ANDTHEENVIRONMENT(DNRE),hereinafter collectivelycalledthe“Parties,”definestheParties’ WHEREAS,theareacoveredbytheHCPiscomprised rolesandresponsibilitiesandprovidesacommon ofallOccupiedsatyrsHabitat(includingareasthat understandingofactionthatwillbeundertakento becomeoccupiedinthefuture)withintheentireStates minimizeandmitigatetheeffectsontheMitchell’ssatyr ofMichiganandIndiana; butterfly(satyrs,Neonymphamitchelliimitchellii)and unlistedspeciesandtheirhabitatsoftheproposedsatyrs WHEREAS,theDNREhasdevelopedaseriesof HabitatManagementandFenRestorationinMichigan measures,describedintheHCP,toavoid,minimize andIndiana. ormitigate,tothemaximumextentpracticable,the effectsoftakeofsatyrsincidentaltosatyrsHabitat 1.0 RECITALS ManagementandFenRestorationinMichiganand Indiana;and, Th isAgreementisenteredintowithregardtothe followingfacts: WHEREAS,theDNRE,withtechnicalassistance fromtheService,hasdevelopedaseriesofmeasures, WHEREAS,thefederallyendangeredsatyrsiscurrently describedintheHabitatConservationPlan,tominimize knowntooccuracross9countiesinMichiganand1 andmitigatetheeffectsoftheproposedsatyrsHabitat * D-1 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP ManagementandFenRestorationuponthesubject listedandunlistedspeciesandtheirassociatedhabitats; and, THEREFORE,thePartiesheretodoherebyunderstand andagreeasfollows: isbased.Th eterm“unforeseencircumstances”asdefined inthisAgreementisintendedtohavethesamemeaning as“extraordinarycircumstances”asusedintheNo Surprisespolicy. 3.0 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN 2.0 DEFINITIONS PursuanttotheprovisionsofSection10(a)(1)(B)ofthe ESA,theDNRE,hereinafterreferredtoas“Permittee” Th efollowingtermsasusedinthisAgreementshallhave haspreparedaHabitatConservationPlan(HCP) themeaningssetforthbelow: andsubmittedittotheServicewitharequestthatthe ServiceissueaPermit(Permit)toallowsubjectPlan 2.1Th eterm“Permit”shallmeananincidentaltake speciestobeincidentallytakenwithinthePermitArea permitissuedbytheService[s]totheDNREpursuant asdepictedanddescribedinFigure[x]oftheHCP. toSection10(a)(1)(B)oftheEndangeredSpeciesAct Th eHCPproposesguidelinestoavoid,minimizeand (ESA). mitigatefortakeofsatyrstopreventadverseimpactson satyrspopulationsandtheirhabitatsandtoallowfor 2.2Th eterm“PermitArea”shallmeanthesatyrsHabitat activemanagementforthebenefitofsatyrspopulations ManagementandFenRestorationareaconsisting andtheirhabitats. ofapproximately500acresoccupiedbysatyrs,and wheretheDNREorotherManagementPartnerhas 4.0 INCORPORATION OF HCP theauthorityandabilitytoconductmanagementor restorationactivitiesconsistentwithandapprovedunder Th eHCPandeachofitsprovisionsareintendedto thetermsoftheHCPthroughMichiganandIndiana. be,andbythisreferenceare,incorporatedherein. Intheeventofanydirectcontradictionbetweenthe 2.3Th eterm“Permittee”shallmeanDNRE. termsofthisAgreementandtheHCP,thetermsofthis Agreementshallcontrol.Inallothercases,theterms 2.4Th eterm“ConservationPlan”shallmeanthe ofthisAgreementandthetermsoftheHCPshallbe HabitatConservationPlanpreparedfortheproposed interpretedtobesupplementarytoeachother. satyrsHabitatManagementandFenRestorationin MichiganandIndiana. 5.0 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 2.5Th eterm“PlanSpecies”shallmeanspecies adequatelycoveredintheHCPandidentifiedin Section1.0ofthisAgreement. 2.6Th eterm“unforeseencircumstances”meansany significant,unanticipatedadversechangeinthestatusof speciesaddressedundertheHCPorintheirhabitats;or anysignificantunanticipatedadversechangeinimpacts oftheprojectorinotherfactorsuponwhichtheHCP Inordertofulfilltherequirementsthatwillallow theServicetoissuethePermit,theHCPsetsforth measuresthatareintendedtoensurethatanytake occurringwithinthePermitAreawillbeincidental; thattheimpactsofthetakewill,tothemaximum extentpracticable,beminimizedandmitigated;that procedurestodealwithunforeseencircumstanceswill beprovided;thatadequatefundingfortheHCPwillbe * D-2 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP provided;andthatthetakewillnotappreciablyreduce thelikelihoodofthesurvivalandrecoveryofthePlan Speciesinthewild.Italsoincludesmeasuresthathave beensuggestedbytheServiceasbeingnecessaryor appropriateforpurposesoftheHCP. 6.0 COOPERATIVE EFFORT Inorderthateachofthelegalrequirementsassetforth inParagraph5.0hereofarefulfilled,eachoftheParties tothisAgreementmustperformcertainspecifictasksas moreparticularlysetforthintheHCP.Th eHCPthus describesacooperativeprogrambyFederalandState agenciesandprivateintereststomitigatetheeffects oftheproposedsatyrsHabitatManagementandFen RestorationinMichiganandIndianaonthesatyrs. 7.0 TERMS USED exceptasprovidedforinthisAgreementorrequiredby law. 9.0 TERM 9.1StatedTerm.Th isAgreementshallbecomeeffective onthedatethattheServiceissuesthePermitrequested intheHCPandshallremaininfullforceandeffectfor aperiodof20yearsoruntilterminationofthePermit, whicheveroccurssooner. 10.0 FUNDING 10.1Th eDNREwillprovidesuchfundsasmaybe necessary,totheextentpracticable,tocarryoutthe generaladministrationoftheHCP. 10.2Th eDNREshallberesponsibleforfundingthe necessaryavoidance,minimizationandmitigation measuresasrequiredunderSectionA5oftheHCP. TermsdefinedandutilizedintheHCPandtheESA shallhavethesamemeaningwhenutilizedinthis Agreement,exceptasspecificallynoted. 10.3Th eDNREshallberesponsibleformonitoringand reportingasrequiredunderSectionA5.10oftheHCP. 8.0 PURPOSES 10.4DNREwillprovidesuchfundsasmaybenecessary tocarryoutitsobligationsundertheHCP.Th e PermitteeshouldnotifytheServices,ifthePermittee’s fundingresourceshavemateriallychanged,including adiscussionofthenatureofthechange,fromthe informationprovidedinsectionA8oftheHCP. Th epurposesofthisAgreementare: 8.1Toensureimplementationofeachofthetermsof theHCP; 8.2TodescriberemediesandrecourseshouldanyParty failtoperformitsobligations,responsibilities,andtasks assetforthinthisAgreement;and, 8.3Asstatedinparagraph12.3.ahereof,toprovide assurancestothePermittee(s)andothernon-Federal landowner(s)participatingintheHCPthataslongas thetermsoftheHCPandthePermitissuedpursuant totheHCPandthisAgreementarefullyandfaithfully performed,noadditionalmitigationwillberequired 11.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES 11.1 Responsibilities of the Permittee. a.Th eHCPwillbeproperlyfunctioningifthe termsoftheAgreementhavebeenorarebeingfully implemented. * D-3 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP b.Th ePermitteeshallundertakeallactivitiessetforth 12.1 REMEDIES IN GENERAL intheHCPinordertomeetthetermsoftheHCPand complywiththePermit,includingadaptivemanagement Exceptassetforthbelow,eachPartyshallhaveall proceduresdescribedinsubparagraph(c)below,if remediesotherwiseavailabletoenforcethetermsof applicable. thisAgreement,thePermit,andtheHCP,andtoseek remediesforanybreachhereof,subjecttothefollowing: c.Describetheadaptivemanagementprocessagreedto bythepartiestoensurethetermsoftheHCParefully a.NOMONETARYDAMAGES implemented,ifapplicable. NoPartyshallbeliableindamagestotheanyother d.Th ePermitteeshallsubmitanannualreport PartyorotherpersonforanybreachofthisAgreement, describingitsactivitiesandananalysisofwhetherthe anyperformanceorfailuretoperformamandatoryor termsoftheHCPweremetforthereportingperiod. discretionaryobligationimposedbythisAgreementor Th ereportshallprovideallreasonablyavailabledata anyothercauseofactionarisingfromthisAgreement. regardingtheincidentaltake,andwhererequestedby Notwithstandingtheforegoing: theService,changestotheoverallpopulationofsatyrs thatoccurredinthePermitareaduringthereporting (1)RetainLiability period. AllPartiesshallretainwhateverliabilitytheywould 11.2 Responsibilities of the Service. possessfortheirpresentandfutureactsorfailuretoact withoutexistenceofthisAgreement. a.Th eUSFWSwillcooperateandprovide,tothe extentfundingisavailable,guidancetotheDNRE (2)LandOwnerLiability andManagementPartners,andreviewofPartnering Agreements,siteplans,andotherconsultationas AllPartiesshallretainwhateverliabilitytheypossessas detailedintheHCP. anownerofinterestsinland. b.NothinginthisAgreementshallrequiretheUSFWS toactinamannercontrarytotherequirementsofthe Anti-DeficiencyAct. c.AfterissuanceofthePermit,theServiceshallmonitor theimplementationthereof,includingeachofthe termsofthisAgreementandtheHCPinorderto ensurecompliancewiththePermit,theHCPandthis Agreement. 12.0 REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT (3)ResponsibilityoftheUnitedStates NothingcontainedinthisAgreementisintendedto limittheauthorityoftheUnitedStatesgovernmentto seekcivilorcriminalpenaltiesorotherwisefulfillits enforcementresponsibilitiesundertheESA. b.INJUNCTIVEANDTEMPORARYRELIEF Th ePartiesacknowledgethattheMitchell’ssatyr butterfliesareuniqueandthattheirlossasspecieswould resultinirreparabledamagetotheenvironmentand thatthereforeinjunctiveandtemporaryreliefmaybe appropriatetoensurecompliancewiththetermsofthis * D-4 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Agreement. orterminationofthePermitbytheFWSshalloccur inconformancewiththeprovisionsof50CFR13.2713.29. 12.2 THE PERMIT 12.2.1Permitsuspensionorrevocation B.Priortotakingactiontosuspend,revoke,or terminatethePermit,theFWSshallmeetandconfer withtheDNREtoattempttoavoidthisaction. 12.2.1.1Defaults AnymaterialbreachorviolationofthisAgreement,the HCP,orthePermitshallbedeemedadefaultunderthis Agreement. 12.2.1.2Noticeandopportunitytocure OnoccurrenceofadefaultbyeitherParty,thenondefaultingPartymaynotifythedefaultingPartyin writing,describingthedetailsofthedefault.Th e defaultingPartyshallhave60daystorespondtoor refutetheallegation,tocurethedefault,ortocommence tocureadefaultwhichcannotreasonablybecured withina60-daytimeperiod,providedsuchcureis diligentlypursued. 12.2.1.3Ordinaryremedies Afternoticeofandtimetocureadefaultasprovided above,thenon-defaultingPartiesshallhavetheright torevoke,terminate,orsuspendthePermitorany otherauthorizationtotakesatyrsissuedpursuantto thisagreementandtheHCP,inconformancewiththe provisionsofapplicablelaw.Suspension,revocation, orterminationofthePermitbytheFWSshalloccur inconformancewiththeprovisionsof50CFR13.2713.29. 12.2.1.4AdditionalremediesoftheFWS A.Exceptasotherwiseprovided,theFWSshallhave therighttosuspend,revoke,orterminatethePermitor anyotherauthorizationtotakesatyrsissuedpursuantto thisAgreementandtheHCP.Suspension,revocation, C.Th eFWSshallnotinitiateanactiontorevokeany Permitongroundswhichwouldconstitutegroundsfor suspension,withoutfirstpursuingactiontosuspendthe permitinaccordancewith50CFR13.27.Anyaction bytheUSFWStosuspendthePermitshallbelimitedso astoaddressthespecificactionorinactionunderlying thesuspension,inordertominimizeanyimpactsonthe DNRE.Anytakeauthorizationssuspendedorrevoked shallbereinstatedimmediatelyuponcureofthedefault thatledtothesuspensionorrevocation. 12.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXTENT OF ENFORCEABILITY a.NOSURPRISESPOLICY Subjecttotheavailabilityofappropriatedfundsas providedinParagraph14.6hereof,andexceptas otherwiserequiredbylaw,nofurthermitigationfor theeffectsoftheproposedsatyrsHabitatManagement andFenRestorationinMichiganandIndianaupon thesatyrsmayberequiredfromaPermitteewhohas otherwiseabidedbythetermsoftheHCP,exceptinthe eventofunforeseencircumstances;providedthatany suchadditionalmitigationmaynotrequireadditional landuserestrictionsorfinancialcompensationfromthe Permitteewithouthis/herwrittenconsent. b.PRIVATEPROPERTYRIGHTSANDLEGAL AUTHORITIESUNAFFECTED Exceptasotherwisespecificallyprovidedherein,nothing inthisAgreementshallbedeemedtorestricttherights * D-5 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP ofthePermitteetotheuseordevelopmentofthose lands,orinterestsinlands,constitutingthePermitArea; provided,thatnothinginthisAgreementshallabsolve thePermitteefromsuchotherlimitationsasmayapply tosuchlands,orinterestsinlands,underotherlaws oftheUnitedStatesandtheStatesofMichiganand Indiana. RegisterasrequiredunderESA.Th eFWSshalluseits besteffortstoprocesstheproposedamendmentwithin 120daysofpublication,exceptwherelongerperiodsare requiredbylaw. 14.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 14.1 NO PARTNERSHIP 13.0 AMENDMENTS Exceptasotherwiseexpresslysetforthherein,neither thisAgreementnortheHCPshallmakeorbedeemed tomakeanyPartytothisAgreementtheagentfororthe partnerofanyotherParty. 13.1 Generally AmendmentstotheHCPmaybeproposedbyeither Party.Th ePartyproposingtheamendmentshall providetotheotherPartyastatementofthereasons fortheamendmentandananalysisoftheeffectofthe amendmentonsatyrsandtakeauthorizations. 14.2 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS Th isAgreementandeachofitscovenantsandconditions shallbebindingonandshallinuretothebenefitofthe Partiesheretoandtheirrespectivesuccessorsandassigns. 13.2 Minor Amendments MinoramendmentstotheHCPshallnotrequire amendmentofthisAgreementorthePermit.Th e Partieswillmakeeveryefforttoreviewaproposed minoramendment,andapproveordenytheproposed amendmentwithin90daysofreceiptofaproposal, exceptwherelongertimelinesareimposedby requirementsoflaw.Minoramendmentsshallrequire theapprovalofboththeFWSandDNRE.IftheFWS determineswithin90daysofreceiptofaproposed minoramendmentthattheamendmentshouldbe treatedasastandardamendment,theamendmentwill beaddressedasdescribedinparagraph13.3,below. 14.3 NOTICE Unlessotherwisespecificallyprovidedherein,allnotices, demands,andothercommunicationsgivenunder theHCPandthePermitshallbeinwriting,shallbe properlyaddressedtothePartytoreceivesuchnotice attheaddressoraddressesforsuchPartylistedbelow, ortosuchotheraddressorpersonasanyPartymay designatetotheothersforsuchpurposeinthemanner setforthinthissubsectionandshallbegivenorsent (1)CertifiedUnitedStatesMail,postageandfees prepaid,returnreceiptrequested;(2)FederalExpress, DHL,orUnitedParcelService,chargesprepaidor 13.3 Standard Amendments chargedtosender’saccount;(3)personaldelivery;or (4)facsimile,alongwithinitiationonthesamedayof Astandardamendmentisanyproposedamendmentthat deliverybyanothermeansdescribedinthissubsection. isnotaminoramendment.Standardamendmentstothe Eachsuchnoticeshallbedeemedgivenwhenreceived HCPshallalsorequireanamendmenttothisAgreement bytheaddresseeunlessdeliveryofaproperlysent andthePermit.Followingreceiptoftheproposed noticeisnotmadebecause:(1)acceptanceofdelivery standardamendment,theFWSshallpublishnoticeof isrefusedbyaddressee,(2)theaddresseehasmoved theproposedamendmenttothePermitintheFederal withoutprovidingpropernoticeofsuchmove,or(3) * D-6 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP theaddresseeisnotopenforbusinessonthedateof attempteddelivery(unlesssuchdeliveryisattemptedon aSaturday,Sunday,ornationalholiday),inanyofwhich eventssuchnoticeshallbedeemedgivenonthedateof suchattempteddelivery.Th eaddressesofthePartiesfor noticesareasfollows: IftoDNRE: DepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironment WildlifeDivision P.O.Box30028 Lansing,Michigan48909 Attention:Chief 14.6 AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS ImplementationofthisAgreementandtheHCPby theServicesissubjecttotherequirementsoftheAntiDeficiencyActandtheavailabilityofappropriated funds.NothinginthisAgreementwillbeconstrued bythepartiestorequiretheobligation,appropriation, orexpenditureofanymoneyfromtheU.S.treasury. Th epartiesacknowledgethattheServiceswillnotbe requiredunderthisAgreementtoexpendanyFederal agency’sappropriatedfundsunlessanduntilan authorizedoffi cialofthatagencyaffi rmativelyactsto committosuchexpendituresasevidencedinwriting. 14.7 DUPLICATE ORIGINALS IftoUSFWS: Th isAgreementmaybeexecutedinanynumber ofduplicateoriginals.Acompleteoriginalofthis Agreementshallbemaintainedintheoffi cialrecordsof eachofthePartieshereto. U.S.FishandWildlifeService Region3Offi ce FortSnelling,Minnesota Attention:RegionalDirector 14.8 THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES 14.4 ENTIRE AGREEMENT Withoutlimitingtheapplicabilityoftherightsgranted Th isAgreement,togetherwiththeHCPandthePermit, tothepublicpursuanttotheprovisionsof16U.S.C. constitutestheentireAgreementbetweentheParties.It §1540(g),thisAgreementshallnotcreateanyrightor supersedesanyandallotherAgreements,eitheroralor interestinthepublic,oranymemberthereof,asathird inwritingamongthePartieswithrespecttothesubject partybeneficiaryhereof,norshallitauthorizeanyone matterhereofandcontainsallofthecovenantsand notaPartytothisAgreementtomaintainasuitfor Agreementsamongthemwithrespecttosaidmatters, personalinjuriesorpropertydamagespursuanttothe andeachPartyacknowledgesthatnorepresentation, provisionsofthisAgreement.Th eduties,obligations, inducement,promiseorAgreement,oralorotherwise, andresponsibilitiesofthePartiestothisAgreementwith hasbeenmadebyanyotherPartyoranyoneactingon respecttothirdpartiesshallremainasimposedunder behalfofanyotherPartythatisnotembodiedherein. existingFederalorStatelaw. 14.5 ELECTED OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT NomemberofordelegatetoCongressshallbeentitled toanyshareorpartofthisAgreement,ortoanybenefit thatmayarisefromit. 14.9 RELATIONSHIP TO THE ESA AND OTHER AUTHORITIES Th etermsofthisAgreementshallbegovernedby andconstruedinaccordancewiththeESAandother applicablelaws.Inparticular,nothinginthisAgreement * D-7 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP isintendedtolimittheauthorityoftheServicetoseek penaltiesorotherwisefulfillitsresponsibilitiesunder theESA.Moreover,nothinginthisAgreementis intendedtolimitordiminishthelegalobligationsand responsibilitiesoftheServiceasanagencyoftheFederal government. 14.10 REFERENCES TO REGULATIONS AnyreferenceinthisAgreement,theHCP,orthePermit toanyregulationorruleoftheServiceshallbedeemed tobeareferencetosuchregulationorruleinexistenceat thetimeanactionistaken. 14.11 APPLICABLE LAWS AllactivitiesundertakenpursuanttothisAgreement, theHCP,orthePermitmustbeincompliancewithall applicableStateandFederallawsandregulations. INWITNESSWHEREOF,THEPARTIESHERETO haveexecutedthisImplementingAgreementtobein effectasofthedatelastsignedbelow. By:__________________________________Date:__ ____________ Director DepartmentofNaturalResources Lansing,MI By:___________________________________Date:_ _____________ RegionalDirector USFishandWildlifeService Region3Offi ce FortSnelling,MN DRAFT * D-8 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Appendix E. Considerations and Caveats of the Fire and Species Phenology Tables Th etablesonpages46-52areintendedtoadvise managersofwhatisknownaboutthelifehistoryand phenologyofrareplantsandanimals(E,T,SCand SGCN)aswellascriticalfoodplantsforrareinsects. Th escientiststhatcontributedtothistablecaution thatassumptionsmaderegardingthevulnerability ofplantsandanimalstoprescribedfirearebasedon thebestavailableknowledgeoflifehistoryaswellas informationgleanedfromtheverylimitedresearchthat hasbeenconductedontheimpactsoffireonplantsand animalsinprairiefenwetlands.Th erefore,thistableis justastartingpointandshouldbeviewedasaworking draftthatcanbeconsideredwhenreviewingpotential managementstrategiesforaparticularsite. Monitoringisneededtobetterunderstandhowto bestusefireasamanagementtool.Resourcesshould beprioritizedtoconductmonitoringofsitesprior toprescribedburnssothatmanagershaveadequate informationtoconsiderincluding:1)thepresenceof plantsandanimalsthatoccurorhavethepotentialto occuratasite;2)whetherthereisappropriaterefugia habitatavailabletoplantsandanimals(especially thosethatarerare)and3)therelationshipbetweenthe proposedburnunitandthedistributionofrareplants andanimals.Inadditionitiscriticalthatpostburn monitoringbedonesothatmanagerscanevaluatethe responseofthevegetationtotheburnaswellasany impactstorareplantsandanimals,bothpositiveor negative. Plants PhenologyInformation Th edepictionofphenologieswasbasedonbroadly summarizingvascularplantspeciesintofiveprincipallife stagecategories(dormant,emergent,flowering,fruiting, andseeddispersal).Th esecategoriesworkwellwiththe exceptionofonetaxonincludedinthefoodplantlist, Osmundaspp.(Regalfern),whichbydefinitiondoesnot flower(althoughitdoesdevelopspore-producingfronds) andthuswassimplynotedasbeingeitherdormantor emergentforthepurposesofthistable.Information todevelopthespeciesphenologieswasobtainedby consultingseveralimportantresources,includingthe MNFIRareSpeciesExplorer(http://web4.msue.msu. edu/mnfi/explorer/index.cfm),detailedMNFIspecies abstractswhereavailable(http://web4.msue.msu.edu/ mnfi/pub/abstracts.cfm),andspeciesoccurrencedata providedintheMNFIBioticsdatabasewheretherewas specificreferencetoemergence,flowering,fruiting,and seeddispersaldates.Allofthephenologies,however, shouldbeconsideredasapproximatedates,owingthe widevariationknowntooccurbetweenandwithin differentfensitesaswellasthevariationinphenologies yearlyduetoclimatepatterns. Becauseofanemergingandwidespreadinterestin plantphenologies,particularlywithregardtotheadvent ofclimatechange,anationalmonitoringnetwork (http://www.usanpn.org/)hasbeencreatedtoengage governmentagencies,citizenscientists,educatorsand otherstomonitorplantstodeterminethepotential impactsduetoclimatechange.Th issitewasconsulted forinformation,andwhilenopertinentdatawere obtainedforpopulatingtheplantphenologytable,itis suggestedthatthiswebsitebeconsultedinthefuture aspendingmapsandothermaterialsbecomeavailable. Th epostingoffirstbloomingdates,forexample,of plantspeciesinourarea,basedonawidemonitoring network,canassistlandmanagersinplanningprescribed burnsandothermanagementactivities. * E-1 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP FireVulnerability Th evariationinfiresensitivityamongthespeciesand variousplantgroupsandguildsnotedlargelyreflects thewidevariationinemergence,growth,andflowering andfruitingperiods.Annualspecies,forexample, mayemergeandflowerandfruitatanytimeduring thegrowingseason,butforpurposesofthetablewere segregatedintoearlyflowering/fruitingspeciesandlate flowering/fruitingspecies.“Early”speciesweredefined asthoseemergingandflowering/fruitingfromspringto mid-July,whereas“late”speciesweredefinedasthose emergingandflowering/fruitingfrommid-Julytothe fall.Th esearecomparabletothecategoriescommonly knownforgrasseswhenreferencedas“cool”seasonor “warm”seasonspecies.Th evulnerabilityofaspecieswas generallyassumedtobehighduringthefloweringand fruitingperiods,butvulnerabilityisalsodependenton lifehistoryandgrowthform.Forexample,aperennial speciesmaysustainsomedamageifburnedbeforeor duringemergence(withimpactsdependentonburn intensity),butthesespeciesoftenhavetheabilitytoresprout.Floweringandfruitingmaynotoccurormay besetback,buttheindividualcanpersist.Annuals, whichdonothavetaproots,thickrhizomes,andother sustainingfeatures,wouldnotpersistorhavetheability tore-sprout.Th erelationshipofmanyfenspeciestofire iswellknown,asseveraltaxaoccurinwesternprairie communities,includinguplandtypesthathavelong beenmanagedviaprescribedburningasdescribedby Curtis(1959)andothers.However,thespecificrole and/orimpactsoffireonMidwesternprairiefensisnot knownforallspecies,includingsuchraritiesasJacob’s ladder(Polemoniumreptans),Ediblevalerian(Valeriana edulisvar.ciliata),andCut-leavedwaterparsnip(Berula erecta),andthusfurtherinvestigationandmonitoringis warranted. BIRDS PhenologyInformation Datesusedforbreedingphenologyshouldbeviewed asapproximate.Th einformationusedtodetermine arrival,nesting,anddeparturetiminginthistablewas limitedanddated.Althoughchangestobirdmigration andbreedingphenologyassociatedwithclimatechange havebeendocumentedinmanylocationsthroughout theworld,recentdataonbirdphenologyarelacking. Birdmigrationandbreedingphenologycanalsovary duetonormalannualweatherfluctuations.Th erefore, wesuggestmanagersusecautionwheninterpretingthis tableandtakelocalconditionsintoaccount. Weindicatedthetimingforfourbroadbirdphenology periods:1)pre-nesting(A);2)nesting(N);3)flightless young(Y);and4)post-breeding(P).Th epre-nesting periodencompassesthetimefromspringarrivalto thestartofegglaying.Weusedthenestingperiod todescribethetimefromthebeginningofegglaying throughincubationandhatching.Th eflightlessyoung periodspansthepartoftheyearwhenjuvenileflightless birdscouldbepresentatornearnests.Wedesignated thetimeafteryoungachieveflightuntildeparturefor fallmigrationasthepost-nestingperiod. FireVulnerability Whilethereissubstantialresearchonbirdresponses tofireoneormoreyearsaftertheevent,wefoundno studiesofbirdspecies’vulnerability(e.g.,mortality) atthetimeofafireoccurrence.Giventhislackof information,wemadeseveralassumptionswhen buildingthistable:1)birdsarevulnerabletofire uponarrivalonbreedinggrounds;2)birdsarehighly vulnerableduringthenestingandflightlessyoung period;3)ground-nestingspeciesaremorevulnerable tofirethanshrubortreenestingspecies;and4)these speciesarenotvulnerableduringthepost-breeding period.Weindicatedthatbirdsarevulnerabletofire uponarrivaltobreedingsites,becausetheytypically beginselectinganddefendingterritoriesshortly afterspringarrival.Fireduringthisperiodwould likelyinterruptthebreedingcycle,causeterritory abandonment,andrequireadultstofindnewbreeding * E-2 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP sites.Weassumedthatbirdsaremostvulnerableduring thenestingandflightlessyoungperiods,becauseadults maybeunabletore-nestatanotherlocationandcould loseanentireseason’sbreedingeffortasaresultoffire. Becauseshrubortreenestingbirdspeciesarelesslikely tobeimpactedbyfireandpossiblybetterabletorenestatthesiteifaffected,welistedthosespeciesasless vulnerablethanground-nestingspecies.Wefeltthe birdspeciesexaminedwouldnotbevulnerabletofire duringthepost-breedingperiod,becausetheyoften havelessspecifichabitatrequirementsduringthisperiod comparedtothebreedingseasonandwouldbemore likelytofindsuitablehabitatsatotherlocations.While somespeciescouldbenegativelyimpactedduringthe seasonwhenthefiretakesplace,therecouldbebenefits duringsubsequentbreedingseasonsduetoimproved habitatconditions. differentindividualsinapopulationcanbebreeding andnestingduringthesametimeperiod).Italsois importanttonotethatmanyamphibianandreptile speciesusedifferenthabitatsduringdifferentlifestages (e.g.,hibernateinorutilizeaterrestrialhabitatduring mostoftheactiveperiodbutbreedinwateroraquatic habitat,orutilizewetlandsduringmostoftheactive periodbutnestorgivebirthinuplandhabitats). Datesusedforlifestagecategoriesshouldbeviewedas approximate.Th einformationusedtogeneratedates wereobtainedfromavarietyofliteratureandother sources,includingtheMNFI’sSpeciesExplorerwebsite (http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer/),detailed speciesabstractswhenavailable(http://web4.msue.msu. edu/mnfi/pub/abstracts.cfm),andthe“Amphibians andReptilesoftheGreatLakesRegion”fieldguide (Harding1997).Th einformationusedtodeterminethe AMPHIBIANSANDREPTILES(HERPETOFAUNA/ phenologyofthelifestagesincludedinthistablewas HERPS) limitedorfairlygeneralforsomespecies.Forexample, Harding(1997)statesthat“EasternBoxTurtlesmay PhenologyInformation mateatanytimeduringtheactiveseason,butbreeding Forthepurposesofthistable,weindicatedthe activityismostfrequentinspringandfall,”or“Mating phenologyortimingforsixbroadamphibianand canoccuranytimefromApriltoNovember,butis reptile,orherp,lifestagecategories:1)active(A)which mostfrequentinspring”forBlanding’sTurtles.Life includesspringemergence,basking,foraging,resting, stagephenologiesalsocanvaryduetoannualweather travelling,dispersing,migratingtobreedingandnesting fluctuationsandlocalweatherconditions.Th erefore, sitesandhibernacula/overwinteringsites;2)breedingin wesuggestmanagersusecautionwheninterpretingthis water/aquatichabitat(BA)oronland/terrestrialhabitat tableandtakelocalconditionsintoaccount. (BT);3)nesting,egg-laying,orgivingbirthtolive young/parturitioninwater/aquatichabitat(NA)oron FireVulnerability land/terrestrialhabitat(NT);4)metamorphorhatchling Amphibiansandreptilesmaybevulnerabletofirein emigrationoremergencefrombreedingornesting anyoftheselifestagesandtowhatdegreedepends sites(M);5)aestivation(E)orstateofdormancyor largelyuponindividualspecies’lifestageatthetimeof inactivityduringhotordryweather;and6)hibernation thefire/prescribedburn,lifehistory,behavior,ecology, oroverwinteringinwater/aquatichabitat(HA)oron habitatuse,andspeciesspecificdispersalcapabilities. land/terrestrialhabitat(HT).Itisimportanttonote Unfortunately,limitedinformationexistsaboutthe thatnotallherpspeciesgothroughalltheselifestages effectsofprescribedfireonamphibiansandreptiles, (e.g.,speciesthatgivebirthtoliveyoungdonothave particularlyinthesouthernGreatLakesregion(McLeod ametamorphorhatchlingemergencestage,andnotall andGates1998,Fordetal.1999,Russelletal.1999, speciesaestivate),andthatlifestagescanoverlap(e.g., Pilliodetal.2003,Langfordetal.2007,Roloffand * E-3 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Doran2010).Someresearchhasindicatedthat,in general,fireappearstohavelittledirecteffecton amphibiansandreptilesbecausetheyareabletoretreat toundergroundburrows,findmoistrefugia,orspend considerabletimeunderground,allofwhichprovide protectionfromfire(Vogl1973,Main1981,Bamford 1992,Friend1993,Russelletal.1999,Pilliodetal. 2003).However,somestudieshavedocumenteddirect aswellasindirecteffectsoffireonherps(Vogt1973, Polliodetal.2003,SchurbonandFauth2003).Most studiesalsohavefocusedprimarilyonimmediateand short-termresponses,andonlyafewhaveexamined long-termeffectsoffireonherps. Herpetofaunalresponsestoprescribedfirearespecies specific,varyamonghabitats,andrequirefurther study(Russelletal.1999,Pilliodetal.2003).Th ere isalackofpublishedinformationontheeffectsof firespecifictomanyoftherarespecieslistedinthe table.Giventhislackofinformation,wemadeseveral assumptionswhenbuildingthistableregardingspecies vulnerabilitytofire:1)specieswillhaveaccesstosome refugiaon-siteornearbyduringandafterprescribed fires;2)speciesareormaybevulnerabletofireinany lifestageinwhichindividualsoccurmainlyonthe ground,onvegetation,orin/underthedufflayerin terrestrialhabitats;3)speciesarenotvulnerableorless vulnerabletodirecteffectsoffirewhentheyoccurin wateroraquatichabitatsorbelowthesoilsurface(e.g., duringhibernationoraestivation),butspeciesmaystill bevulnerabletoindirecteffects;and4)speciesmaybe particularlyvulnerableduringtheleastmobilestages suchaswhenanimalsareaestivatingoroverwintering atornearthesoilsurfaceinterrestrialhabitats.Species vulnerabilitytoprescribedfirealsowillbeinfluencedby localweatherconditionsandthetype,seasonalityand sizeorextentofprescribedburns.Itisalsoimportant torememberwhilesomespeciescouldbenegatively impactedduringtheactiveseasonwhenthefireoccurs, therecouldverywellbebenefitstothespeciesduring subsequentseasonsduetoimprovedhabitatconditions. Moreresearchontheeffectsofprescribedburningon amphibiansandreptilesisnecessary,especiallyinprairie fenwetlandsintheGreatLakes.Th istableshould berefinedasadditionalinformationaboutspecific impactsandbenefitsofprescribedfiretoherpspeciesis generatedandcompiled. SNAILS PhenologyInformation Limitedinformationisavailableaboutthedistribution andlifehistoryofsnailsinMichigan,andmuch remainstobelearnedaboutthistaxon.Muchofwhat weknowaboutMichigan’ssnailscomesfromDr. Burch,UniversityofMichigan.Recentinformation, especiallyregardingsnailsintheUpperPeninsula, hasbeengleanedfromworkconductedbyDr.Jeffrey Nekola,especiallysurveysthattookplaceinthelate 1990’s.Th reeofthelandsnailspecieslistedinthistable areknownfromnorthernfens,andhavenotyetbeen documentedinsouthernMichigan.Th eyareincluded astheyhavepotentialtooccurinprairiefensand occuratsimilarlatitudesinotherstates.Th ewatercress snail(Fontigensnickliniana),anaquaticsnail,hasbeen recentlydocumentedfromfensinBarryandKalamazoo counties. Datesusedforlifestagecategoriesshouldbeviewed asapproximateandhavebeengleanedfromavariety ofliterature,mostlydistilledthoroughtheMNFI’s SpeciesExplorerwebsiteavailableat:http://web4. msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer/detailedspeciesabstracts whereavailable(http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/pub/ abstracts.cfm),andfielddataprovidedintheMNFI Bioticsdatabasewithspecificreferencetoadultactivity dates.Inaddition,lifehistoryinformationwasreviewed from(Burch,J.B.1962)HowtoKnowtheEasternLand Snails.Snaillifestagephenologiescanalsovarydue toannualweatherfluctuations.Th erefore,wesuggest managersusecautionwheninterpretingthistableand takelocalconditionsintoaccount.Forthepurposes * E-4 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP ofthetableweindicatedthetimingfortwobroadlife stagecategories:1)hibernation(H)and2)active(A). Althoughmanysnailsexperienceperiodsofaestivation, especiallyduringdryperiods(oftenonthesurfaceofthe ground),thiswasnotincludedasitisdiffi culttopredict whenthisperiodofinactivityoccurs. FireVulnerability Snailsmaybevulnerabletofireinanyoftheselifestages andtowhatdegreedependslargelyuponindividual species’locationattimeofignition,sincesnailshave extremelylimiteddispersalcapabilities.Th etwomost importantenvironmentalvariablesimportanttoland snailsaretemperatureandsoilmoisture.Th ereisalack ofpublishedinformationspecifictomanyoftherare/ remnant-dependentspecieslistedinthetable.Giventhis lackofinformation,wemadeseveralassumptionswhen buildingthistable:1)landsnailsarehighlyvulnerableto fireinanylifestagethatoccursmainlyonthevegetation, exposedondownedlogsortreesorintheuppermost soillayer;2)snailsarepotentiallyvulnerableaseggs depositedinanestafewcentimetersbelowthesoilor intheleaflitter;and3)speciesarelessvulnerabletofire whentheyareaquatic(i.e.,watercresssnail),especially duringhibernation. havingdestroyedallplantwaste(Santoset.al2009). Moreresearchontheeffectsofprescribedburningon rare/remnant-dependentspeciesisnecessary,especiallyin theprairiefenwetlandsintheGreatLakeStates.From othergeographicareasthereappearstobewidespread consensusthatitisimportanttoleaveunburned “refugia”toallowforfaunalrecolonizationintheevent oflocalextirpationrelatedtofire(RoloffandDoran 2010). INSECTS PhenologyInformation Datesusedforlifestagecategoriesshouldbeviewed asapproximateandhavebeengleanedfromavariety ofliterature,mostlydistilledthoroughtheMNFI’s SpeciesExplorerwebsiteavailableat:http://web4. msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer/detailedspeciesabstracts whereavailable(http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/pub/ abstracts.cfm),andfielddataprovidedintheMNFI Bioticsdatabasewithspecificreferencetoadultactivity dates.Th einformationusedtodetermineegg,larval/ nymph,pupal,andadultstageinthistablewaslimited forsomespeciesandoftentimeswidelyoverlappingor oversimplified.Forexample,maleadultsoftheangular spittlebugcanbefoundinthelatesummerfromAugust toOctober.AdultfemalescanbefoundfromlateApril Nekola(2002)reportsthatprescribedfirehasbeen throughearlyNovember.Insectlifestagephenologies showntosubstantiallyreducetheabundanceofland canalsovaryduetoannualweatherfluctuations.We snails,includingE.alderi,andcausethelocalextirpation suggestmanagersusecautionwheninterpretingthis oflandsnailspeciesinuplandandlowlandgrassland tableandtakelocalconditionsintoaccount.We habitats.Hefurthersuggeststhatburnintervalsbeat indicatedthetimingforfourbroadinsectlifestage least15yearsandrecommendsthatothermethods categories:1)eggs(E);2)larval/nymphal(L)or(N);3) ofremovingwoodyandinvasiveplantsbeusedthat pupalstage(P);and4)adult(A). preserveorganiclitterlayersatsiteswithlandsnails (Nekola2002).Researchoftheresultsofthe2002forest FireVulnerability fireinthecentralgrasslandsoftheUnitedStates(inthe Insectsmaybevulnerabletofireinanyofthese statesofWisconsin,IowaandMinnesota),ledto44% lifestagesandtowhatdegreedependslargelyupon oflandmolluskspeciesthereexperiencingpopulation individualspecies’lifestageattimeofignition,behavior, declines.Th esituationwasdramaticforsnailsasthey andspeciesspecificdispersalcapabilities.Th ereisalack ofpublishedinformationspecifictomanyoftherare/ underwentthemostseveredeclinesduetothefire * E-5 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP remnant-dependentspecieslistedinthetable.Given thislackofinformation,wemadeseveralassumptions whenbuildingthistable:1)insectsarevulnerabletofire inanylifestagethatoccursmainlyonthevegetationor inthedufflayer;2)insectsarehighlyvulnerableduring theleastmobilestagessuchaswheneggs,pupae,larvae, ornymphs;3)speciesthatutilizefoodplantsthatoccur inwetordampmicrohabitatsarelesslikelyimpacted byfire(i.e.,spartinamoth,angularspittlebug);and4) speciesarenotvulnerabletofirewhentheyareaquatic (i.e.,graypetaltail,Cantrall’sbogbeetle)orwhen pupatingbelowthesoilsurface(Papaipemamoths). Itisalsoimportanttorememberwhilesomespecies couldbenegativelyimpactedduringtheseasonwhen thefireoccurs,therecouldverywellbebenefitsduring subsequentbreedingseasonsduetoimprovedhabitator hostplantconditions.Moreresearchontheeffectsof prescribedburningonrare/remnant-dependentspecies isnecessary,especiallyintheprairiefenwetlandsinthe GreatLakeStates.Fromothergeographicareasthere appearstobewidespreadconsensusthatitisimportant toleaveunburned“refugia”toallowforfaunal recolonizationintheeventoflocalextirpationrelatedto fire(RoloffandDoran2010). References for the Fire Phenology Tables and Notes Bamford,M.J.1992.Th eimpactoffireand increasingtimeafterfireuponHeleioporuseyrei, Limnodynastesdorsalis,andMyobatrachusgouldii(Anura: Leptodactylidae)inBanksiaWoodlandnearPerth, WesternAustralia.WildlifeResearch19:169–178. Bowles,M.L.1983.Th etallgrassprairieorchids Platantheraleucophaea(Nutt.)Lindl.andCypripedium candidumMuhl.ExWilld.:Someaspectsoftheir status,biology,andecology,andimplicationstoward management.Nat.AreasJ.3:14-37. Bowles,M.,J.McBride,J.Stoynoff,andK.Johnson. 1996.Temporalchangesinvegetationcompositionand structureinafire-managedprairiefen.Nat.AreasJ.16: 275-288. Bury,R.B.,D.J.Major,andD.S.Pilliod.2002. ResponsesofamphibianstofiredisturbanceinPacific Northwestforests:areview.In:Ford,W.M.,Russell, K.R.,Moorman,C.E.(Eds.),Th eRoleofFirein NongameWildlifeManagementandCommunity Restoration:TraditionalUsesandNewDirections. U.S.D.A.ForestServiceGeneralTechnicalReportNE288,pp.34–42. Cavitt,J.F.2000.Fireandatallgrassprairiereptile community:effectsonrelativeabundanceandseasonal activity.JournalofHerpetology34:12-20. Curtis,J.T.1959.Th eVegetationofWisconsin. UniversityofWisconsinPress,Madison,Wisconsin. Curtis,J.T.1946.Useofmowinginmanagementof whiteladyslipper.J.WildlifeMgt.10:303-308. Durbian,F.E.2006.Effectsofmowingandsummer burningonthemassasauga(Sistruruscatenatus). AmericanMidlandNaturalist155:329-334. Ford,W.M.,M.A.Menzel,D.W.McGill,J.L.Andy, andS.McCay.1999.Effectsofacommunityrestoration fireonsmallmammalsandherpetofaunainthesouthern Appalachians.ForestEcologyandManagement 114:233-243. Friend,G.R.1993.Impactoffireonsmallvertebrates inmalleewoodlandsandheathlandsoftemperate Australia:areview.BiologicalConservation65:99–113. Gibson,J.2007.Effectsofprescribedfireontheeastern boxturtle,Terrapenec.carolina.In:MidwestPartners inAmphibianandReptileConservation(MWPARC) * E-6 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP 2007AnnualMeetingMinutes,[Online].IndianaPurdueUniversityatFortWayneandCenterforReptile andAmphibianConservationandManagement. Available:http://mwparc.org/meetings/2007/ MWPARC_2007_Meeting_Minutes.pdf[March3, 2010]. Harding,J.1997.AmphibiansandReptilesoftheGreat LakesRegion.Th eUniversityofMichiganPress,Ann Arbor,Michigan. MWPARC.2009.PrescribedFireUseandImportant ManagementConsiderationsforAmphibiansand ReptileswithintheMidwest.http://www.mwparc.org/ Pilliod,D.S.,R.B.Bury,E.J.Jyde,C.A.Pearl,andP. S.Corn.2003.FireandamphibiansinNorthAmerica. ForestEcologyandManagement178:163-181. Roloff,G.J.andP.Doran.2010.Ecologicaleffectsof fireinGreatLakessavannasandprairies:literature. Kirkland,Jr.,G.L.,H.W.Snoddy,T.L.Amsler.1996. Impactoffireonsmallmammalsandamphibiansin aCentralAppalachiandeciduousforest.American MidlandNaturalist135:253-260 Russell,K.R.,VanLear,D.H.,Guynn,D.C.,1999. Prescribedfireeffectsonherpetofauna:reviewand managementimplications.WildlifeSocietyBulletin 27:374–384. Langford,G.J.,J.A.Borden,C.S.Major,andD. H.Nelson.2007.Effectsofprescribedfireonthe herpetofaunaofasouthernMississippipinesavannah. HerpetologicalConservationandBiology2:135-143. Schurbon,J.M.andJ.E.Fauth.Effectsofprescribed burningonamphibiandiversityinasoutheasternU.S. NationalForest.ConservationBiology17:1338-1349. Vogl,R.J.,1973.Effectsoffireontheplantsand animalsofaFloridawetland.AmericanMidland Naturalist.89:334–347. Luensmann,P.S.2006.Terrapenecarolina.In:Fire EffectsInformationSystem,[Online].U.S.Department ofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearch Station,FireSciencesLaboratory(Producer).Available: Wilgers,D.J.andE.A.Horne.2006.Effectsof http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/[2010,March3]. differentburnregimesontallgrassprairieherpetofaunal speciesdiversityandcommunitycompositioninthe Main,A.R.1981.FireToleranceofHeathlandAnimals. FlintHills,Kansas.JournalofHerpetology40:73-84. Elsevier,NewYork. MichiganNaturalFeaturesInventoryAbstracts McLeod,R.E,andJ.E.Gates.1998.Responseof http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/pub/abstracts.cfm herpetofaunalcommunitiestoforestcuttingand burningatChesapeakeFarms,Maryland.American MichiganNaturalFeaturesInventoryRareSpecies MidlandNaturalist139:164-177. Explorer http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer/index.cfm Means,B.D.andH.W.Campbell.1981.Effectsof prescribedburningonamphibiansandreptiles.Pages NatureServeExplorer 89-97inG.W.Wood,editor.Prescribedfireand http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ wildfireinsouthernforestsforwildlifeandfish,USDA ForestService,GeneralTechnicalReportSO-65. NationalPlantPhenologyMonitoringNetwork http://www.usanpn.org/ * E-7 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Appendix F. Techniques and timing to manage some common invasive exotic plants. Invasive Species Control Techniques & Timing Scientific Name Common Name Jan Acer platanoides Norway maple Ccdg Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven Ccdg Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Cf Alnus glutinosa Black alder Ccdg Berberis spp. Barberry Cc Bromus inermis Smooth brome grass Butomus umbellatus Flowering-rush Invasive Species Control Techniques & Timing Cardamine impatiens Bitter cress Celastrus orbiculata Oriental bittersweet Cc Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed Cf Scientific Name Common Name Jan Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Polygonum Japanese knotweed Convallariacuspidatum majalis Lily-of-the-valley Polygonum perfoliatum Mile-a-minute Coronilla varia Crown vetch weed Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn Cc Eichhornia crassipes Water-haycinth Rhamnus frangula Glossy buckthorn Cc Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn olive Cc Rhodotypos scandens Black Cc Euphorbia esula Leafyjetbead spurge Robinia pseudoacacia Black Cdg Gypsophila spp. Baby'slocust breath Rosa multiflora rose Cc Giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum Multiflora Saponaria officinalis Bouncing bet (soapwort) Hesperis matronalis Dame's rocket Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cat-tail Ligustrum vulgare Privet Cc Vinca minor Periwinkle Cf Lonicera spp. Bush honeysuckle Cc Vincetoxicum spp. Black swallow-wort Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle Lysimachia nummularia Moneywort Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Melilotus alba White sweet-clover Melilotus Yellow sweet-clover & Timing Invasiveofficinalis Species Control Techniques Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water milfoil Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Scientific Common PhragmitesName australis Giant reedName Jan Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed PlantWise, LLC Polygonum perfoliatum Mile-a-minute weed Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn Cc Rhamnus frangula Glossy buckthorn Cc Rhodotypos scandens Black jetbead Cc Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust Cdg Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Cc Saponaria officinalis Bouncing bet (soapwort) Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cat-tail Vinca minor Periwinkle Cf Vincetoxicum spp. Black swallow-wort PlantWise, LLC F = Fire; p-prescribed burn, t-propane torch C = Chemical; b-bloody glove, c-cut & paint, d-drill & fill, f-foliar, g-girdle & paint M = Manual; b-cut at base, h-hand pull, s-cut below soil level Feb March April Ccdg F May F Ccdg Cf Cf Mh Mh Ccdg Cc Fp Fp, Mh Mh June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Cf Cf Ccdg Ccdg Mh Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Cc Fp, Cf Cf Cf Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Cc Cf Feb F = Fire; p-prescribed burn, t-propane torch Ccf c-cutCcf Ccf & fill,Cc Cc C = Chemical; Ccf b-bloody glove, & paint, d-drill f-foliar, g-girdle &Cc paint = Manual; b-cut at Mhs base,Cf, h-hand Fp Fp Cf Cbf,MMhs Cbf, Mhs Cbf, Mhs pull, Cf, s-cut Mhs below soil level March April May June Nov Dec Msh, Cf July Msh, Cf August Msh, Cf Sept Msh, Cf Oct Cf Cc Cc Cc Cc Fp Cf Fp Cf Cc Cf Cc Fp Fp Fp Fp Ms Ms Mh Mh Fp Cf Fp Fp Cf Fp Cf Cc Cf Cc Cc Cc Cf Cdg Cc Cf Cf Cdg Ms Cc Ms Cbf Mh Cf Cf Cf Cf Cf Cf Cc Cf Cc Cc Cc Cf Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cf Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cdg Ms Cc Ms Cbf Cdg Ms Cc Ms Cbf Cdg Ms Cc Cdg Cdg Cdg Cc Cc Cc Cbcf Cc Cbcf Cbcf Cbcf Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc, Mh Cc, Mh Cc, Mh Cc, Mh Cc, Mh Cf Cc, Mh Cf Cc Cbf Cbf Cbf Cbf Cbf Cf, Ft Cbf Cf, Ft Cf, Ft Cbcf Cbcf Cbc Fp Mb Mh Mh Fp Mb Mh Mh F = Fire; p-prescribed burn, t-propane torch Ms Ms Ms Ms& paint, d-drill & fill, f-foliar, g-girdle & paint C = Chemical; b-bloody Ms glove, c-cut b-cut Cf, Fp Ccf M = Manual; Ccf Ccfat base, h-hand pull, s-cut below soil level Feb March April Cf August Cbf Cf Sept Cbf Cf Oct Cbf Cf Cf www.plantwiserestoration.com Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cbf Cbf Cbf Cbcf Cbcf Cbcf Cbcf Cf Cf Cbf Cbf Cbf Cbf Fp May Fp Cc Cc Fp Fp Cdg Cc Cf Fp Cf Fp June July www.plantwiserestoration.com * F-1 * Dec October 2005 Cf Cbf Nov Cbf October 2005 Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Photo Credits Cover upper right: Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment remaining: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Page bottoms, left to right: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory turkey? Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Todd Losee, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Michael Kost, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Michael Kost, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Ibid. Fen Conservation Plan Introduction: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Figure 1: Amon et al. 2002 Figure 3. Ibid. Figure 6. Ibid. Figure 7. Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Figure 9. Todd Losee, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Figure 11. Ibid. Figure 12: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Figure 13. Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Buckthorn: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Narrow-leaf cat-tail: Rebecca K. Schillo, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Reed Canary top: Chris Evans, River to River CWMA & Bugwood.org Reed Canary, bottom: Jamie Nielsen, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks Cooperative Extension Service & Bugwood.org Japanese Knotweed top: Tom Heutte, USDA Forest Service & Bugwood.org Japanese Knotweed bottom: Ibid. Purple Loosestrife: Michael Kost, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Japanese Barberry: James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service & Bugwood.org * F-2 * Mitchell’s Satyr HCP Phragmites top: Jill M. Swearingen, USDI National Park Service & Bugwood.org Phragmites bottom: John M. Randall, The Nature Conservancy & Bugwood.org Figure 14: Barbara Barton, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure 15: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Figure 16: Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure 17: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Figure 18: Ibid. Figure 19: Ibid. Figure 20: Ibid. Figure 22: Ibid. Figure 23: Michael Kost, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure 26: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Conclusion: Ibid. Habitat Conservation Plan Figure A2: Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Figure A3: Adrienne Bozic, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Mitchell’s Satyr Identification: Doug Landis, Michigan State University Eyed Brown Identification: David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Little Wood Satyr Identification: Will Cook, Carolinanature.com Common Wood Nymph Identification: David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure A4: Carrie Tansy, USFWS Figure A5: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Figure A6: Peter Tolson, Toledo Zoo Figure A7: Ibid. Figure A8: David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure A9: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Figure A10: Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy * F-3 *
