ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources appreciates the valuable contributions made by many agencies, organizations and individuals during the development of this plan. In particular, we thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for providing funding and technical support. We also thank the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, who helped draft this Habitat Conservation Plan. Finally, we thank the members of the public who helped shape the content of this plan by offering input during public meetings and public-comment periods. lll

A contribution of the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Grants Program, Michigan Project E-17-HCP and State Wildlife Grant F12AF01114.

Equal Rights for Natural Resource Users The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources. Both State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended (MI PA 453 and MI PA 220, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire additional information, please write the MDNR, HUMAN RESOURCES, PO BOX 30028, LANSING MI 48909-7528, or the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS, STATE OF MICHIGAN PLAZA BUILDING, 1200 6TH STREET, DETROIT MI 48226, or the OFFICE FOR DIVERSITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS, US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 4040 NORTH FAIRFAX DRIVE, ARLINGTON VA 22203.

For information or assistance on this publication, contact: MDNR, WILDLIFE DIVISION, P.O. BOX 30444, LANSING, MI 48909-7944, -or- through the internet at “ http://www.michigan.gov/dnr “. This publication is available in alternative formats upon request. TTY/TTD (teletype): 711 (Michigan Relay Center). 1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Purpose and Need ...... 5 1.2 Permit Duration ...... 6 1.3 Regulatory/Legal Framework ...... 7 1.4 Covered Lands ...... 10 1.5 Covered Species ...... 11 2. Biological Resources ...... 11 2.1 Mitchell’s Satyr ...... 11 2.1.1 Background ...... 11 2.1.2 Physical Description ...... 12 2.1.3 Habitat Requirements ...... 12 2.1.4 Food Habits ...... 12 2.1.5 Life Cycle ...... 13 2.1.6 Dispersal ...... 13 2.1.7 Distribution and Abundance ...... 14 2.2 Poweshiek Skipperling Biology and Status...... 14 2.2.1 Background ...... 14 2.2.2 Physical Description ...... 14 2.2.3 Habitat Requirements ...... 15 2.2.4 Food Habits ...... 15 2.2.5 Life Cycle ...... 15 2.2.6 Dispersal ...... 16 2.2.7 Distribution and Abundance ...... 16 2.3 Threats...... 16 3. Covered Activities ...... 17 3.1 Restore Hydrology ...... 17 3.2 Prescribed Burning...... 17 3.3 Mowing/Hydro-axing ...... 18 3.4 Vegetation Removal...... 19 3.5 Biological Control of Invasive Species...... 19 3.6 Livestock Grazing ...... 19 3.8 Surveys ...... 20 4. Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment ...... 20 4.1 Direct Impacts ...... 21 4.2 Indirect Impacts ...... 21 4.3 Cumulative Impacts ...... 21 4.4 Anticipated Take: Wildlife Species ...... 22 4.4.1 Mitchell’s Satyr ...... 22 4.4.2 Poweshiek Skipperling ...... 22 4.4.3 Other Federally Listed and Candidate Wildlife ...... 22 4.4.4 State-listed Wildlife ...... 23 4.5 Anticipated Impacts: Plants ...... 23 4.5.1 Federally Listed Plants ...... 23 4.5.2 State-listed Plants ...... 23 5. Conservation Plan ...... 24 5.1 Mitchell’s Satyr Biological Goals and Objectives ...... 24 5.2 Poweshiek Skipperling Biological Goals and Objectives ...... 25 5.3 Measures to Minimize Adverse Impacts ...... 27 5.3.1 General ...... 27 5.3.2 Restore Hydrology ...... 28 5.3.3 Prescribed Burning ...... 28 5.3.4 Mowing/Hydro-axing ...... 28 5.3.5 Vegetation Removal ...... 29 5.3.6 Biological Control ...... 29 5.3.7 Livestock Grazing ...... 30 5.3.8 Seeding and Planting ...... 30 5.4 Mitigation ...... 30 6. Alternatives ...... 31 6.1 Alternative A: Private and Public Lands HCP (Proposed) ...... 31 6.2 Alternative B: Public-lands HCP ...... 31 6.3 Alternative C: Status Quo or No Action ...... 32 7. Monitoring, Adaptive Management, and Reporting ...... 32 7.1 Monitoring ...... 32 7.2 Adaptive Management ...... 33 7.3 Reporting...... 33 8. Funding ...... 34 8.1 Funding for HCP Administration ...... 34 8.2 Funding for HCP Implementation ...... 34 9. HCP Implementation, Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances ...... 36 9.1 HCP Implementation ...... 36 9.2 Certificates of Inclusion ...... 36 9.3 Changed Circumstances ...... 37 9.4 Unforeseen Circumstances...... 39 10. Terms and Conditions ...... 40 10.1 Renewal...... 40 10.2 Minor Amendments ...... 40 10.3 Major Amendments ...... 41 10.4 Permit Suspension, Revocation or Surrender ...... 41 Appendix A. Fen Management Plan ...... 43 Appendix B. State list of endangered, threatened and species of special concern in Michigan and Indiana ...... 44 Appendix C. Certificate of Inclusion ...... 45 1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Need

The States of Michigan and Indiana (States) have prepared this Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in order to apply to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for each State under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA)1. The purpose of issuance of the ITPs is to allow the incidental take of two of the most imperiled butterflies in North America, the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) and Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek), during implementation of habitat management activities to benefit the species. Both species are listed as endangered under the ESA. The State of Michigan is applying for an ITP for take of the Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (MSB) and the Poweshiek skipperling (PS). The State of Indiana is applying for an ITP for the MSB only. Covered Activities include actions necessary to maintain, manage and restore fen habitats occupied by these two endangered butterflies. The Plan Area encompasses the counties of Berrien, Branch, Cass, Jackson, Oakland, Van Buren and Washtenaw in Michigan and LaGrange County in Indiana. The geographic area where incidental take will be authorized under this HCP is a subset of the Plan Area, as identified in Table 1 and which is referred to as Covered Lands.

Once distributed across at least five states, only eleven MSB populations remain, with ten in Michigan and one in Indiana. Habitat conditions and population sizes have declined to such a degree that only six populations in Michigan and Indiana are considered viable.

The PS, once found in eight states and the province of Manitoba, Canada, now occurs in only a few native prairie remnants in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Manitoba. Surveys indicate that PS populations have vanished from 96% of the sites where they once occurred across its historic range. As of 2015, only four sites were considered extant in Michigan. The PS is currently listed as state threatened in the State of Michigan, and was federally listed as endangered by the FWS in October 2014.

All fens in Michigan and Indiana have been altered, either through altered hydrology, water pollution, overgrazing, exotic species invasions, or nearly a century of fire exclusion. For this reason, fens, including those occupied by MSB and PS, are susceptible to vegetation changes that endanger the native fen biota, thereby further endangering the MSB and PS through modification and/or destruction of their habitat. Thus, MSB and PS habitat requires management; without management, MSB and PS habitat will become either closed canopy shrub-carr or monocultures of hybrid cattail (Typha x glauca) and other invasive species, all of which are unsuitable habitat for MSB or PS.

As this HCP was contemplated, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) prepared Appendix A, Fen and the Art of

1 16 U.S.C. §1539(a)(1)(B) Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 5

Butterfly Maintenance, to serve as a guide to maintaining, managing, and restoring fen habitat that the endangered MSB and PS rely upon for their continued survival. This document is included as an appendix to provide general guidance about fen habitat management; however, the HCP outlines the specific management actions, i.e., Covered Activities, that would be authorized by the ITPs. The Covered Activities in the HCP supersede any management actions suggested in Appendix A.

The States have determined that actions associated with the maintenance and restoration of butterfly habitat have the potential to incidentally take the MSB and PS. Both butterfly species could be injured or killed by the actions to maintain and restore their habitat. Section 10 of the ESA allows for incidental take of ESA-listed species through the completion of a FWS- approved HCP and subsequent issuance of an ITP by the FWS.

Non-Federal cooperators who wish to conduct habitat management activities for MSB or PS may participate through Certificates of Inclusion by agreeing to implement the conservation measures and other requirements of the HCP. The Certificates of Inclusion will be issued by each State and will convey all of the Permit’s incidental take authorization.

Besides the general issuance criteria provided in 50 CFR 13.21(b), under Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, an HCP must fulfill the following requirements: “(i) the taking will be incidental; (ii) the States will, to the maximum extent practical, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (iii) the States will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (iv) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (v) the measures, if any, required under subparagraph (A)(iv) will be met.”

In the absence of a comprehensive, programmatic HCP and ITPs for the MSB and PS, land managers and landowners will be required to obtain incidental-take authorization on an individual, project- specific basis to legally conduct the Covered Activities described herein. This situation will result in a patchwork of projects conducted with little or no coordinated planning or consideration of range-wide impacts to MSB and PS and other associated species of concern. By contrast, activities implemented under this HCP will be authorized by two ITPs for Michigan and Indiana. These activities will be implemented according to consistent requirements, and the States will coordinate management activities and benefit from predictable regulatory approaches. This HCP will help evaluate and minimize the cumulative adverse impacts of individual projects to particular MSB and PS populations.

1.2 Permit Duration

The proposed terms for the two ITPs are 20 years for each permit. If, at the end of the 20-year term of the ITPs, the States decide that recovery requires more time than currently anticipated by the permit term, the States may apply for a permit extension in accordance with the FWS’s regulations in force on the date of the renewal. Extension of the ITP term constitutes extension of the HCP for the same amount of time, subject to any modifications that the FWS may require at the time of renewal.

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 6

1.3 Regulatory/Legal Framework

Federal Endangered Species Act The purpose of the ESA is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved….” Section 9 of the ESA2 prohibits the “take” of any species of fish or wildlife listed under the ESA as endangered or threatened. Under the ESA, “take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” listed species. To harm means an act that actually kills or injures wildlife and may include significant habitat modification or degradation that “actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” To harass means to perform an “intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”

Section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA3 states that each Federal agency shall ensure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. A Federal action is defined as “…all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by federal agencies in the United States….” Actions of Federal agencies that are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitat, but that could adversely affect the species, or result in a take, must be addressed under section 7.

Section 10 of the ESA allows, under certain terms and conditions, for the incidental take of listed species by non-federal entities that would otherwise be prohibited by section 9 of the ESA. Incidental take is defined by the ESA as take that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.” Under section 10, incidental take may be approved through the successful completion of a FWS-approved HCP that demonstrates that the impacts of incidental take have been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

Incidental take may be permitted through the issuance of an ITP if the following six criteria are met [50 CFR 17.22(b)(2)(i)]:

• All takings must be incidental; • Impacts of such taking must be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable; • There must be both adequate funding for the plan and provisions to address unforeseen circumstances; • The taking must not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild;

2 16 U.S.C. §1538 3 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2) Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 7

• The States must ensure that additional measures required by the Secretary will be implemented; and • Federal regulators must be assured that the HCP can and will be implemented.

An ITP can be issued only if the HCP addresses all of these requirements. To demonstrate that all six requirements have been adequately addressed, the HCP must document and describe [50 CFR 17.22(b)(1)(iii)]:

• Impacts likely to result from the proposed taking of the species for which permit coverage is requested; • Measures the States will undertake to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts; Funding that will be made available to undertake such measures; • Procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances; • Alternatives the States considered that would not result in incidental take, and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; and • Other necessary and appropriate measures the FWS may require as necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.

In addition to these necessary HCP elements, the Five-Point Policy, an addendum to the Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook, describes five clarifying components that should be included in an HCP (65 FR 35242).

In order to issue an ITP, the FWS is required under section 7 of the ESA to prepare a Biological Opinion (BO) that evaluates the impacts of the proposed action (e.g., issuance of an ITP) and establishes an overall effect determination. Section 7 of the ESA requires that analysis of the direct and indirect effects of a proposed action, the cumulative effects of other future non- Federal activities within the Action Area, and effects of the action on critical habitat demonstrate that the authorized action “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification” of designated critical habitat.

National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)4 requires Federal agencies to examine environmental impacts of their actions and provide for public participation. Issuance of an ITP is a Federal action subject to compliance with NEPA. To comply with NEPA, the FWS must conduct analyses of all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of issuing the permit on the human environment, not just on the covered species or resources. If the agency determines that issuance of the permit, as conditioned by the agreed-upon conservation measures to be incorporated into the ITP, does not have significant impacts, then the agency will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If the agency determines that the permit issuance is likely to have a significant impact, then the agency will issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which involves a more detailed evaluation of the effects of the Federal action and alternatives to mitigate these effects.

4 42 U.S.C. §4331 Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 8

National Historic Preservation Act FWS issuance of an ITP is considered an “undertaking” covered by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)5 and its implementing regulations. Section 106 requires the FWS to assess and determine the potential effects on historic properties that would result from the proposed undertaking and to develop measures to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects. The FWS must consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), affected Tribes, the States, and other interested parties, and make a good-faith effort to consider and incorporate their comments into project planning.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (Eagle Act)6 provides protection to bald and golden eagles such that it is a violation to “…take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner, any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle, or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg, thereof….” The Eagle Act defines “take” as to “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” “Disturb” is further defined in regulation (50 CFR 22.3) as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” In September of 2009, the FWS issued a rule to authorize limited take of bald and golden eagles, where the take is associated with otherwise lawful activities (74 FR 46836).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA)7 prohibits the take of migratory birds, including any part, nest, or eggs of these birds. Currently, the MBTA has no permit provisions for take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.

Michigan Endangered Species Protection Law The Michigan Endangered Species Protection Law (Public Act 451 of 1994, Part 365) prohibits take of State endangered and threatened species, including MSB and PS. However, Section 36504 of the law allows the Michigan DNR to “establish programs . . . as are considered necessary for the management of endangered or threatened species.” The same section continues: “In implementing the programs authorized by this section, the [Michigan DNR] may enter into cooperative agreements with Federal and State agencies, political subdivisions of the State, or with private persons for the administration and management of any area or program established under this section . . .” Given these provisions, the conservation and partnering activities outlined in this HCP are consistent with this state law.

Indiana Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act The Indiana Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act (IC 14-22-34) is maintained

5 16 U.S.C. §§470a et seq. 6 16 U.S.C. §§668 7 16 U.S.C. §701 et seq. Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 9 by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency. Any species or subspecies of wildlife whose survival or reproductive parameters are in jeopardy or are likely to be within the foreseeable future and any species or subspecies designated under the federal ESA are deemed endangered species under the Indiana Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act (IC14-22-34-1). According to IC 14-22-34-15, “the director may permit, under the terms and conditions that are prescribed by rule, the taking, possession, transportation, exportation, or shipment of species or subspecies of wildlife that have been designated by rule as in need of management or appear on the: (1) State list of endangered species; (2) United States list of endangered native fish and wildlife, as amended; (3) list of wildlife added under Chapter 13 of this chapter; or (4) United States list of endangered foreign fish and wildlife, as modified after July 26, 1973; for scientific, zoological, or educational purposes, for propagation in captivity or the wild, or for other special purposes.”

MSB is listed as endangered on the official list of rare, threatened and endangered insects in Indiana. However, only vertebrates, mollusks and crustaceans classified as endangered in Indiana are protected from taking pursuant to the Nongame and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (IC 14-22-34). Therefore, management authority for insects in Indiana comes from general authority by the state to manage wildlife resources. PS was historically documented in Indiana but is now considered extirpated from the state.

1.4 Covered Lands

The area covered under the HCP includes all occupied habitat for the MSB in Michigan and Indiana and all occupied habitat for the PS in Michigan. Currently for the MSB, there are 192 acres of occupied habitat in Michigan and 5 acres of occupied habitat in Indiana (Table 1). The MSB is known to occur in the following counties: Berrien, Cass, Jackson, Van Buren, and Washtenaw in southern Michigan and LaGrange in northern Indiana. Currently for the PS, there are approximately 50 acres of occupied habitat in Michigan (Table 1). PS is currently extant in Oakland County in southeast Michigan. Of the 11 MSB occupied sites, 105 acres occur on protected land [State or non-governmental organization (NGO) owned lands] and the remaining 92 acres are privately owned (Table 1). All 4 of PS occupied sites are considered protected land; that is, 2 occur on state owned land, one by a Township and the other site is owned by a NGO (Table 1).

Table 1. Mitchell’s Satyr and Poweshiek Skipperling Occupied Sites in Michigan and Indiana

Protected Private Site Name State County Ownership Occupied Occupied Habitat (acres) Habitat (acres)

Occupied Mitchell's Satyr Butterfly Sites

Blue Creek fen MI Berrien Multiple 3 2 Grand River Fen MI Jackson Multiple 58 10 Lower Paw Paw River MI Berrien Private & NGO 3 0 Cook Lake Rudy Rd Fen MI Cass Private & NGO 8 2

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 10

Coldwater Lake fen MI Branch Private & NGO 15 28 Tamarack Swamp MI Cass Private & NGO 9 11 Shavehead Lake MI Cass NGO 9 2 Skiff Lake MI Jackson Private 0 3.5 Cedar Lake Site IN LaGrange Private 0 5 Cedar Creek Fen MI Van Buren Private & NGO 0 6.5 Mill Creek- East Fen MI Washtenaw Private & NGO 0 22 TOTAL 105 92

Occupied Poweshiek Skipperling Sites

Long Lake Fen MI Oakland Township 28.6 Brandt Road Fen MI Oakland State 8.89 Buckhorn Lake MI Oakland NGO 12.75 Halstead Lake Fen MI Oakland State 0.25 TOTAL 37.74 12.75

1.5 Covered Species

The State of Michigan requests one ITP that authorizes take of the MSB and PS in Covered Lands in Michigan and the State of Indiana requests one ITP that authorizes take of the MSB in Indiana Covered Lands. The MSB is listed as endangered at both the federal level and within Michigan and Indiana. The PS is listed as endangered at the federal level and is listed as threatened in Michigan. Other species addressed by the HCP, but for whom an ITP is not sought, are discussed in Section 9.3.

2. Biological Resources

2.1 Mitchell’s Satyr

2.1.1 Background

As of 2015, the MSB is considered extant at 11 sites, and is currently estimated to occupy 185 acres of prairie fen in Michigan and 5 acres in Indiana (Table 1). Total size of potential habitat occurring at the 11 extant sites that contain MSB is estimated to be approximately 450 acres. MSB are considered extirpated from 7 Michigan sites and at 1 Indiana site based on known occurrence in 1998. It is expected that an additional 4 MSB populations in Michigan will become extirpated within the next 2-3 years (Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, pers. comm.). Habitat conditions and population sizes at occupied sites have declined to such a degree that only 6 populations in Michigan and Indiana are considered viable. Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 11

2.1.2 Physical Description

The MSB is a medium-size, chocolate brown butterfly. Adult wingspan is approximately 4 cm (1.5 – 1.75 inches). The MSB is superficially similar to other satyrs, browns, and pearly-eyes (subfamily Satyrinae), and adults can be distinguished by their size, color, and pattern of spots (ocelli) on the bottom (ventral) side of the wings. Larvae (caterpillars) are very small, green, and highly cryptic.

The MSB can be confused with several species in Michigan and Indiana, including the Appalachian eyed brown (Satyrodes appalachia) and eyed brown (S. eurydice). However, the MSB is smaller (by about 50%) and usually darker in color (brown, as opposed to tan). The spots are arranged differently, as well. The top-most spot on the hind wing is larger and further forward on the eyed-browns, compared to the MSB (USFWS 1998, Glassberg 1999). The little wood satyr (Megisto cymela) is similar to the MSB in size, but the wood satyr is lighter in color, has fewer and more uniform spots, and tends to fly further and faster than a MSB (USFWS 1998, Glassberg 1999).

The behavior of the MSB is also diagnostic. Like other satyrs and browns, the flight has been described as “bouncing” (McAlpine et al. 1960, USFWS 1998). However, the MSB flight is slower, and they tend to fly through vegetation, rather than over the top. They often (but not always) stop after a short flight.

2.1.3 Habitat Requirements

In Michigan and Indiana, the MSB is found exclusively in fens and open parts of rich tamarack swamps. MSB are not found in all fens, and are not distributed throughout any one fen. MSB typically occur near (usually within 3m) woody vegetation (Barton and Bach 2005) within a fen. In more open fens, MSB occur along the shrubby edge of the fen. In fens with more tamarack or other woody vegetation, MSB are found in open, grassy lanes between trees and shrubs. In other fens, MSB are found among openings in rich tamarack swamps. MSB are rarely found in open fens without trees or tamarack swamps without openings. Similar to the federally endangered Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), the ideal MSB habitat appears to be an intermediate between a grass or sedge dominated prairie and a closed canopy forest. The MSB is found primarily in fen savanna, usually dominated by tamarack.

2.1.4 Food Habits

MSB larvae feed on a variety of sedges and grasses found in fens, sedge meadows, tamarack swamps, and other wetlands. Food preference trials for captive larvae have documented feeding on tussock sedge Carex stricta, bristly-stalked sedge C. leptalea, fowl bluegrass Poa palustris, and Panicum sp. (Tolson and Ellsworth 2008). Adult

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 12

butterflies are short-lived and are not known to regularly feed, although they have been observed nectaring on several occasions (Hyde, pers. comm.). Some of the grasses and sedges used by larvae are limited to specific micro-habitats within the fen. C. sterilis occurs near seeps or areas with marl. Bristly-stalked sedge C. leptalea is most common under tamarack trees.

MSB do not appear to be food limited. The food plants used by MSB larvae are relatively common in wetlands, and are not limited to fens (McAlpine et al. 1960). However, the juxtaposition of food plants and places to lay eggs may be a limiting factor in fens. Larvae feed on sedges and grasses. Like upland savannas, sedges and grasses tend to out-compete wildflowers in open sun. Wildflowers and bare peat soil tend to predominate in closed- canopy swamps. The intermixing of graminoids and wildflowers at a scale that is meaningful to a 3 mm first instar larva occurs in a savanna, where neither sedges/grasses nor wildflowers can predominate. Furthermore, regular fire favors short-statured wildflowers, which have difficulty competing under the shade of litter from the previous growing season. These short-statured wildflowers tend to be most abundant after a fire. A similar effect occurs after grazing, but grazing can seriously harm soil structure, nutrient dynamics, and introduce invasive plant species.

2.1.5 Life Cycle

The MSB exists for 95% of its life cycle as a caterpillar or larva. Larvae hatch from eggs after 7-11 days, in July. They immediately move to a nearby food plant. First instar larvae are initially white, with dark velvet-brown heads, but their bodies change to a lime green color after they begin feeding (McAlpine et al. 1960). The second through sixth instars are cryptically colored (green or tan, depending on the time of year). The MSB overwinters as a fourth instar larva on the leaves of tussock sedge. In the spring, the larvae continue eating and growing. In late-May to late-June, the larvae form a chrysalis about 40 cm (5- 68 cm) or 15 inches (2 – 27 inches) from the base of the plant (Tolson and Ellsworth 2008). The chrysalis persists for 10 to 15 days (McAlpine et al. 1960). Adult butterflies emerge from mid-June to late July. Males emerge earlier than females (McAlpine et al. 1960, USFWS 1998). Adults are short-lived, do not usually feed, and exist primarily to mate, disperse, and lay eggs. Eggs are not usually laid on food plants. Instead, eggs are most often laid on forbs and short statured wildflowers. In captivity, eggs are most often laid on clearweed Pilea pumila (Tolson and Ellsworth 2008).

2.1.6 Dispersal

All ecologically significant dispersal for the MSB occurs during a short period as adults. Adult MSB are weak fliers. In most contemporary landscapes, they are not capable of dispersal to unoccupied fens. In a fen in Jackson County, the median daily movements recorded during a mark-release recapture study were 32m for females and 35m for males (Barton and Bach 2005). The maximum distances recorded in a mark- release recapture study in Branch County were 478m for females and 710m for males (Barton 2008). The maximum distance ever recorded for MSB dispersal is under 0.5 mile. MSB will disperse

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 13

through forest and shrub-carr, but the degree to which woody vegetation acts as a barrier is unknown.

2.1.7 Distribution and Abundance

The MSB may be one of the world’s rarest butterflies. As of 2015, 11 populations are known to exist, with 10 populations in Michigan and one in Indiana. However, field surveys conducted by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) suggest that 4 of the 11 currently occupied sites in Michigan will become extirpated within the next 2-3 years. Population sizes vary greatly across sites. The largest population is found in south- central Michigan. The smallest populations occur elsewhere in southern Michigan where less than ten butterflies are seen in a given year.

In 2006, Indiana had two populations, in LaGrange and LaPorte counties. In 2007 and 2008, no MSB were observed in LaPorte County, and that population is assumed to be extirpated. Voucher specimens are known from a site in Steuben County, and although there is still suitable habitat, the species has not been found there in recent decades.

2.2 Poweshiek Skipperling Biology and Status

2.2.1 Background

Recently in Michigan, PS has been found only in prairie fen habitat (Cuthrell and Slaughter 2012). Historically, PS has been documented from 23 sites in six counties in the southern lower peninsula of Michigan. The first population was recorded in 1893 at Lamberton Lake in Kent County (Wolcott 1893; Holzman 1972) in an adjacent prairie fen, and a second colony was discovered at nearby Button lake in 1944 (McAlpine 1972) also in an adjacent prairie fen. As of 2015, PS is known to occur at only four sites in one county in southeast Michigan.

2.2.2 Physical Description

The PS is a small, slender-bodied butterfly. Adult wingspan ranges from 0.9 – 1.25 in (26- 32 mm). The wings are somewhat triangular and pointed at the tips. Upper wing surfaces are dark grayish brown with an orange costal area on the forewing. The undersurface of the hindwing is pale brown and has veins covered with white scales giving an overall whitish appearance to the undersurface (Selby 2005). Basal area veins are dark brown without white scales. The caterpillar is pale green with a dark green dorsal band outlined by cream lines (Nielson 1999). Adults can be recognized at a distance by their whirling flight pattern that exhibits a lot of forewing movement with little forward velocity (Glassberg 1999).

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 14

2.2.3 Habitat Requirements

Unlike all of the other states and Manitoba in which the PS is currently found, PS in Michigan is found exclusively in prairie fens. Similar to the MSB, PS is not found in all fens, and they are not distributed throughout any single fen complex. Higher survival rates in wetter areas, coupled with low recolonization rates could give the false impression that the wet areas are their preferred habitat (Selby 2005). This could explain why PS in Michigan is only found in prairie fens, since tallgrass prairies are essentially eliminated from the state.

Based on anecdotal evidence, it appears that within an occupied fen, PS tend to occur very locally and are rarely found a great distance from either prairie dropseed (Sporobolis heterolepis) or mat muhly (Muhlenbergia richardsonis) (Cuthrell and Slaughter 2012). Additional research is needed to determine if there are any correlations between PS populations and particular plant assemblages.

2.2.4 Food Habits

A careful study of larval food plants has not been conducted for the PS (Selby 2005). Based on very limited observations from McAlpine in 1944 and Holzman in 1970 in Michigan, it was presumed that the larval food plants were spike-rush (Eleocharis elliptica) or sedges. Observations of Poweshiek populations in Wisconsin by Borkin (1994, 1995, and 1996) suggest that the preferred larval food plants are prairie dropseed and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium). Because of the close association in Michigan between PS adults and prairie dropseed and mat muhly, it is strongly suspected that one or both of these plants may be a host plant for the larvae (Cuthrell and Slaughter 2012). Additional research is needed in a variety of habitats throughout the PS range to determine the preferred host plants of the larvae (Selby 2005).

In Michigan, adult butterflies readily nectar on black-eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta), pale spike lobelia (Lobelia spicata), shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa), and sticky tofieldia (Triantha glutinosa). Other documented nectar sources include northern bedstraw (Galium boreale), joepye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum), Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), and white camas (Anticlea elegans) (Cuthrell and Slaughter 2012).

2.2.5 Life Cycle

Based on observations by McAlpine (1972), there are at least 7 instar larval stages followed by the chrysalis and imago stages (Selby 2005 summarizing McAlpine 1972). Larvae do not construct shelters for overwintering like some skippers, but rest head down on grass blades or stems between periods of feeding, and overwinter in a similar position (Borkin 1995; R. Dana, Minnesota DNR, pers. comm.). Larval activity and feeding resume in early spring (around April 1). Adults typically emerge in mid- to late June through late July, depending on weather conditions. Eggs are laid on or very near the host plant and hatch approximately 10 days later (Cuthrell and Slaughter 2012).

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 15

2.2.6 Dispersal

No research to date has been conducted to understand dispersal behavior and distances for PS in Michigan or elsewhere. Based on their known behavior and field observations, it appears that PS may be able to travel on the order of hundreds of meters per day, which would give them the ability to disperse to nearby suitable habitat within 100m to 900m of a site (David Cuthrell, MNFI, pers. comm.)

2.2.7 Distribution and Abundance

In Michigan, PS is currently known to occur exclusively in prairie fen habitat (Cuthrell and Slaughter 2012). Historically, PS has been documented from 23 sites in six counties in the Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The first population was recorded in 1893 at Lamberton Lake in Kent County (Wolcott 1893; Holzman 1972) in an adjacent prairie fen, and a second colony was discovered at nearby Button Lake in 1944 (McAlpine 1972) also in an adjacent prairie fen. Currently, PS is thought to occur at only four sites in one County in southeast Michigan. Recent single day population numbers range from a low of 0 to a high of 389, although counts in 2014 were significantly lower.

2.3 Threats

Fens that provide habitat for MSB and PS have disappeared as wetlands were drained for agriculture or urban development. Indiana and Michigan have lost 86% and 50% of their original wetlands, respectively (Dahl 1990). Additionally, large landscape fires burned across much of the Midwest where prairies and savannas were common (Nuzzo 1986, Whitney 1994, and Albert 1995). These fires burned through wetlands as well as uplands, which would have maintained many wetlands in a semi-open stage. For these reasons, the semi-open grass and sedge wetlands that are habitat for MSB and PS were likely much more extensive and continuous prior to European-American settlement.

Draining, fragmentation, water pollution, beaver extirpation, and fire exclusion have changed the landscape in southern Michigan and northern Indiana. Healthy wetlands in a matrix of healthy prairie and savanna uplands are nearly extinct. The wetlands that persist have higher nutrient loads, more sediments, altered hydrology, invasive species, and more woody vegetation. They occur in the context of forested or agricultural landscapes where fire is no longer a natural process. Fires that do occur are limited almost entirely to the dormant season.

Currently, the MSB occurs overwhelmingly on lands that are not formally committed to conservation in perpetuity, and this constitutes a long-term threat to MSB habitat. The MSB Recovery Plan calls for 15 (60%) of the 25 viable sites to be in state, federal or conservation organization ownership.

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 16

3. Covered Activities

This section describes the activities that will be covered under this HCP within the Covered Lands and for which take authorizations may be issued by the FWS. Covered Activities are the activities that could result in take of the Covered Species and for which take authorization is requested. Covered activities include actions necessary to manage, maintain and restore fen habitat occupied by the Covered Species within the Covered Lands. The HCP identifies measures the States must implement to avoid, minimize and mitigate the potential take of Covered Species associated with Covered Activities. The Covered Activities include the following: restore hydrology, prescribed burning, mowing/hydro-axing, vegetation removal, biological control of invasive species, livestock grazing, seeding and planting, and MSB and PS surveys.

3.1 Restore Hydrology

Most fens worldwide have altered hydrology (Amon et al. 2002). In fens with highly altered hydrology, a balance between intensive management and accommodation for rare species may not be possible. These fens, and the species within them, are threatened by on-going altered hydrology. Both fens as a system (Bedford and Godwin 2003), and the MSB in particular, are sensitive to changes in the way groundwater flows through a fen. Thus, restoring hydrology is a critical need in fens, especially when it has been significantly altered. Methods to restore hydrology include removing berms, drainage tiles, wells, or ponds and installing new culverts or adjusting existing culvert height, and are considered to be a part of the Covered Activities.

When hydrology cannot be restored, other on-going management can compensate for the altered hydrology. Much modern fen management is actually compensating for changes resulting from overgrazing and hydrological alterations. Increased use of fire, mowing, vegetation control, and (sometimes) grazing can compensate for drier conditions. These Covered Activities are discussed in more detail below.

3.2 Prescribed Burning

Fire is a natural process within fens in Michigan and Indiana (Kost et al. 2007), and is recommended to maintain biodiversity (Middleton 2006). Before the landscape surrounding fens was fragmented by agriculture and urban development, landscape fires would burn extensive areas in southern Michigan and northern Indiana (Nuzzo 1986, Whitney 1994, Albert 1995). Fire spread is a physical process, requiring heat, fuel, and oxygen. Fens contain cured fine fuels at similar levels to other upland systems that readily propagate fire.

Landscape fires no longer occur in the fragmented landscape. Instead, prescribed fire is used as a management tool. Prescribed fire can be a very low-cost management tool. Large fires have a similar cost to small fires. Thus, the per-acre cost of fires (> 1-2 acres in size) is less than other conservation actions, such as mowing, hydroaxing, or manual vegetation removal.

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 17

Because conservation dollars are limited, and because fen management often competes with other management objectives (especially on lands managed for hunting and trapping), prescribed fire may be the only tool that some managers can “afford” when restoring fens. For these reasons, managers in southern Michigan and northern Indiana feel strongly that the use of fire should be expanded, and that the size of prescribed burns be expanded unless sound science indicates that the burns will cause harm to important wildlife populations.

Research on the effects of fire on MSB larvae has been attempted, but the results were inconclusive (Barton 2008). Research on the effects of fire on PS larvae has not been attempted, to the knowledge of the applicants. Monitoring has indicated that small areas of MSB occupied habitat were recolonized following a prescribed burn at the largest satyr population in south-central Michigan. Similar anecdotal reports abound, both of negative and positive fire effects on insects. Scientific studies have been conducted, mostly in upland prairie systems. They reveal that fire can reduce butterfly abundance for the season immediately after the fire (Panzer 2002), but that butterfly diversity is higher on areas managed with fire, compared with grazing (Vogel et al. 2007).

Like the vegetation of fens, the insect community is a mixture of prairie-adapted and wetland- adapted species. Thus, some species are likely to be sensitive to frequent or extensive fires. Dividing sites into management units burned in rotation are expected to assure that a substantial portion of MSB and PS populations are unexposed to fire in any given year. For rotational fire to be effective, the distribution of PS within a site needs to be spatially delineated (Dana 1991).

On Covered Lands in Michigan, prescribed fire is required to be implemented according to the MDNR’s Policy and Procedure 33.42.08, Prescribed Fire Use on State-Owned Lands. On Covered Lands in Indiana, prescribed fire is required to follow the IDNR’s Fire Operations Policy from January 1, 1997. Prescribed fire may occur year-round in portions of occupied MSB or PS habitat, but must implement the conservation measures outlined in Section 5.3.3. Due to conflicting scientific research on the impacts of prescribed fire on MSB and PS habitat, the use of prescribed burns in occupied fens must use an adaptive management framework (Section 7.2).

3.3 Mowing/Hydro-axing

Natural succession, altered hydrology, overgrazing, and invasive species allow woody vegetation to invade, thrive, and convert a fen or tamarack savanna to a closed canopy forest or shrub-carr. Mowing and hydro-axing are important tools to control woody vegetation, and are Covered Activities under the HCP. Small stems are permitted to be cut with a traditional brush mower. Larger stems require a mower that uses hydraulics, called a hydro-ax. In fens, this equipment can be used if and when fens freeze. Otherwise, the softness of the ground usually prevents the use of wheeled or heavy tracked vehicles.

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 18

3.4 Vegetation Removal

Native and exotic plants, both herbaceous and woody, can be a significant management problem in fens. Usually these invasions occur because of a legacy of overgrazing or altered hydrology. A few exotic plants (Rhamnus spp and Typha x glauca) can invade relatively pristine fens. Other problematic exotic invasives include: multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), reed grass (Phragmites australis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), cattails (Typha angustifolia), and others. Removal of invasive plants is required at many sites.

Covered Activities to control native and non-native vegetation include: manual removal, mechanical treatments, prescribed fire and herbicide application. To minimize trampling of MSB and PS, manual and mechanical removal may be conducted only during the fall and winter. Because fens have high plant diversity and many state listed plants, herbicide applications should avoid native vegetation to greatest extent practical.

3.5 Biological Control of Invasive Species

One reason often given for the ability of invasive exotic plants to create monocultures is enemy release. Because the plants are released from the pests and diseases of their native range, they can allocate more resources to out-competing native plants. One method to control invasive exotic plants is to introduce insects or biological material from the plants’ native range to control the plant. A successful biological control can be lower-cost, more effective, and less damaging to surrounding native vegetation than other activities. However, poorly tested biological controls have the potential to impact native plants, either directly or indirectly.

Biological control for purple loosestrife has been initiated in one fen with what appears to be poor results. However, it has been very successful in other wetlands across the state. Biological control is predicted to take several years to produce results. However, since the initial release of beetles in 2004, the amount of loosestrife has increased in this fen. Grazing by livestock may be affecting the establishment of the biological control or spreading the loosestrife. Release of any biological agent must follow all state and federal laws.

3.6 Livestock Grazing

Grazing in fens by native vertebrates was likely uncommon prior to human settlement; however, after settlement grazing became common on the landscape, although livestock probably avoided the fen portion of their pastures throughout much of the season (Whitney 1994). Even moderate seasonal grazing has been known to damage tussock microtopography, change soil types, introduce invasive species, and alter successional pathways away from savanna and toward closed canopy shrub- carr or forest (Middleton 2002).

Overgrazing causes surface peat to degrade from fibric peat, which conducts water, to sapric

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 19

peat, which is a poorer conductor of water (Middleton 2002). Overgrazing also breaks apart the natural tussock microtopography of fens. These results of overgrazing allow woody vegetation to invade, thrive, and convert savanna to closed canopy shrub-carr or forest. Finally, some invasive shrubs, such as Eurasian buckthorns, will invade fens that have been less disturbed by grazing or hydrology.

For fens with a history of grazing, continued grazing is an effective means to set back succession and limit the growth of invasive plants (Tesauro and Ehrenfeld 2007). Like fire, grazing stimulates the growth of short-stature forbs, which are important egg-laying habitat for the MSB. Grazed fens from which livestock are removed will require significant management efforts to maintain the fen community. Livestock grazing is a Covered Activity only for fens with a history of grazing. Livestock grazing is not approved in fens with no grazing history.

3.7 Seeding and Planting

Seeding and planting are rarely used within habitat used by MSB and PS. The seedbank of peat wetlands is highly persistent, and will express itself when exposed to the right combinations of sunlight and water. However, it is possible that repeated broadcast spraying to control long- established monocultures of invasive exotic plants could exhaust the seedbank of a portion of a fen. In these situations, the planting of native seeds, plugs of herbaceous plants, or young trees is considered to be a Covered Activity with FWS approval.

3.8 Surveys

Surveys for MSB shall follow the Mitchell’s Satyr Survey Protocol (Appendix B), and surveys for PS shall follow the Poweshiek Skipperling Survey Protocol (Appendix C), both developed by MNFI. These protocols require surveyors to walk a series of transects paralleling each other 5m apart until the entire site has been surveyed. Each surveyor is required to have a GPS unit to record their survey route or transects and MSB/PS locations. Survey results shall be provided to the FWS.

4. Potential Biological Impacts/Take Assessment The HCP take assessment estimates the level of take and the expected impact of the taking for each of the Covered Species that could result from implementation of the Covered Activities. Under Section 10 of the ESA, HCPs are required to specify the level of take of listed species and the impact which will likely result from such a taking. The assessment includes the likely effect of implementation of avoidance and minimization measures (AMMs) on Covered Species.

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 20

4.1 Direct Impacts

Butterflies occurring within areas undergoing management efforts will experience harm and/or mortality from the Covered Activities. Direct take can occur by implementation of the following measures.

Prescribed fires have the potential to destroy all butterflies, regardless of life stage, within the burned area. However, even within a burn unit, mortality may not be complete, because burn intensity tends to be uneven, especially in wetlands, and some larvae or eggs at or near saturated peat may survive. Mechanical treatment of vegetation (mowing or hydro-axing) is also predicted to kill or injure eggs, larvae and adults by chopping or crushing. Manual vegetation treatment, herbicide applications, and seeding/planting may result in trampling of larvae or eggs. Livestock grazing may result in trampling of any life stage or ingestion of eggs or larvae. Vegetation management involving temporary flooding would drown eggs or larvae. Hydrologic restoration activities using heavy equipment could also crush or destroy adults, larvae, or eggs.

4.2 Indirect Impacts

Indirect effects are caused by the proposed action but are later in time and reasonably certain to occur. Those eggs, larvae or adult butterflies that are within an area undergoing habitat management, but do not experience any direct effects as a result of those management techniques, may still experience adverse effects later in time.

As noted above, prescribed fires often do not completely burn an area. However, those patches may be too small or the vegetation may be altered by the heat of the fire so that the patches are not able to support the continued growth and development of any eggs or larvae present. In addition, plants necessary as nectar sources for PS or as host plants for egg-laying for either species may be absent in newly burned areas. Thus, butterflies within unburned patches may escape the direct effects of the fire but experience adverse effects later in time due to the temporary alteration of habitat. Other management techniques, such as mechanical treatment of vegetation, may result in similar indirect effects.

In the absence of habitat management, most existing prairie fens convert to shrub-carr or monocultures of invasive plants. These degraded fens do not support MSB or PS populations. Although the habitat management techniques included here as covered activities may result in adverse direct and indirect effects to MSB and PS individuals, the overall effects to MSB and PS populations are expected to be positive and critically important to maintaining these populations.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts

Under the ESA, cumulative impacts result from any future state, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Because prairie fens are rare, sensitive wetland types, actions that can occur in these fens are limited. Non-federal actions that

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 21

may occur within the covered lands include education and recreation. Some of the sites included in the covered lands are owned by organizations that maintain trails or boardwalks through or at the edges of the fens for limited recreation, such as walking or hiking. These organizations also conduct education activities or maintain interpretive signage for schoolchildren and the general public. Activities are generally restricted to boardwalks due to the wetland nature of fens.

4.4 Anticipated Take: Wildlife Species

4.4.1 Mitchell’s Satyr

Take of immature forms of insects (especially eggs) is difficult to quantify; therefore, acreage of occupied habitat will be used as a surrogate to quantify the take of MSB.

Based on recent surveys, the total geographic area occupied by Mitchell’s satyr butterflies is 192 acres in Michigan and 5 acres in Indiana. Under the minimization measures of this HCP, habitat management techniques that result in take will not be applied to more than 1/3 of any particular occupied habitat patch within a calendar year. Given these restrictions and based on the current amount of known occupied satyr habitat, take will occur on no more than 65 acres in any single calendar year. In practice, treating as many as 65 acres across 11 sites in a single calendar year is unlikely.

4.4.2 Poweshiek Skipperling

Take of immature forms of insects (especially eggs) is difficult to quantify; therefore, acreage of occupied habitat will be used as a surrogate to quantify the take of PS.

Based on recent surveys, the total geographic area occupied by PS in Michigan is approximately 50 acres. Under the minimization measures of this HCP, habitat management techniques that will result in take will not be applied to more than 1/3 of any particular occupied habitat patch within a calendar year. Given these restrictions and based on the current amount of known occupied PS habitat, take could occur on no more than 16 acres in any single calendar year. In practice, treating as many as 16 acres across 4 sites in a single calendar year is unlikely.

4.4.3 Other Federally Listed and Candidate Wildlife

The only federally listed species that occurs within the Covered Lands is the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus, EMR). EMR occurs in prairie fens that are often occupied by MSB and PS. EMR is sensitive to hydrological alterations, invasions of exotic species, and successional change within prairie fens and the surrounding landscape. Thus, although conservation actions in this HCP are expected to have a similarly beneficial effect on MSB, PS and EMR, these actions have the potential to

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 22

result in adverse impacts, including injury and mortality, to EMR. The Michigan DNR has an approved Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) that covers management in areas occupied by EMR (Permit Number TE 03982C-0). In addition, Michigan has issued 14 Certificate of Inclusions (COI) that include all occupied habitat for PS and the majority of occupied habitat for MSB. The Michigan DNR and COI landowners will implement the requirements of the EMR CCAA in order to avoid and minimize impacts to EMR. Although EMR occurs within LaGrange County in Indiana, there are no documented occurrences of EMR at the MSB site in Indiana (L. Pruitt, FWS, pers. comm. 2016).

4.4.4 State-listed Wildlife

At least 75 wildlife species classified as threatened, endangered, or special concern/watch list under Indiana or Michigan law could occur in or near occupied MSB or PS habitat (Appendix B). These species face similar challenges as MSB and PS and proposed conservation actions in this HCP are expected to contribute to the conservation of these species as well. Prior to implementation of any project under this HCP, the potential presence of these species will be evaluated based on review of the state’s natural heritage data base, consideration of known species distributions, assessment of current habitat characteristics, and site surveys as necessary. If a State- listed species is determined to be present in a project area, proposed activities potentially resulting in take will proceed, only if authorized under the provisions of state law applying to endangered species protection (Michigan Public Act 451 of 1994, Part 365 and Indiana Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act (IC 14-22- 34) of 1993).

4.5 Anticipated Impacts: Plants

4.5.1 Federally Listed Plants

No federally listed plants are known to occur in prairie fens in Michigan or Indiana.

4.5.2 State-listed Plants

At least 47 Indiana or Michigan state-listed plants are known to occur in prairie fens (Appendix B). The same protocol used for state-listed animals will also be used for state-listed plants. Like conservation benefits to state-listed animals, management activities under this HCP are expected to have a positive effect on the conservation of many state-listed plants.

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 23

5. Conservation Plan

This chapter provides a description of the Conservation Plan for the Covered Species and includes descriptions of the biological goals and objectives of this HCP and measures to avoid and minimize impacts on the Covered Species. The biological goals of an HCP are the broad, guiding principles for the operating conservation program and the rationale behind minimization and mitigation strategies. The biological objectives of an HCP are the different components or measurable targets needed to achieve the biological goals.

5.1 Mitchell’s Satyr Biological Goals and Objectives

MSB Goal 1: Maintain and expand MSB populations at the eleven extant sites (Table 1) through management, restoration, and protection of suitable habitat while minimizing potential take of MSB during habitat management activities through on-site avoidance and minimization measures.

MSB occurs in fens, or portions of fens, that exhibit the biological diversity, vegetative structure, and ecological processes of a healthy fen. Intact fens require a low level of management in order to intentionally perpetuate the processes that create habitat for MSB; however, most fens on the landscape are currently in some level of degraded condition and require restoration. Without management and restoration activities, MSB are likely to be extirpated from these fens. The maintenance of fens requires a balance of management sufficient to maintain tamarack savanna without extirpating MSB.

In addition to habitat management, protection of fens that are occupied or targeted for potential reintroduction as well as the surrounding uplands (adjacent landscapes or groundwater recharge areas) through property acquisition is an explicit criterion for recovery of the MSB (USFWS 1998).

MSB Objective 1.1: Perpetuate or restore ecological processes needed to provide abiotic and biotic features required by MSB in fens.

MSB Objective 1.2: Manage fens to maintain or restore natural patterns of woody, graminoid and forb vegetation and fuel continuity to support habitat for MSB larvae and adults.

MSB Objective 1.3: Maintain or create connectivity among occupied MSB patches to support dispersal among existing populations and/or into newly restored habitat patches.

MSB Objective 1.4: Maintain or restore native vegetation in the uplands and non- fen wetlands within the surface watershed and groundwater recharge areas of occupied fens.

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 24

MSB Objective 1.5: Acquire title or conservation easements to lands with fens occupied by MSB in Michigan and Indiana or patches between occupied fens.

MSB Objective 1.6: Implement strategies, as outlined in Section 4.3, to minimize the mortality of MSB during habitat management and restoration activities (i.e., the Covered Activities).

MSB Goal 2: Increase the number of extant populations of MSB by restoring unoccupied fens for future reintroduction efforts to offset any unavoidable impacts to the species during the maintenance, management and restoration of fen habitat.

Currently less than 10% of fens in southern Michigan and northern Indiana are occupied by satyrs. We do not know, historically, how many fens were occupied by MSB. Recovery for this species requires reintroduction into at least 14 fens (USFWS 1998). Management should be initiated at the highest ranked fens according to Rabe et al. (2002). Maintaining these sites will ensure that reintroduction can occur at some future date.

MSB Objective 2.1: Restore or reintroduce ecological processes required for abiotic and biotic features required by MSB.

MSB Objective 2.2: Manage fens to restore natural patterns of woody, graminoid and forb vegetation and fuel continuity to support habitat for MSB larvae and adults.

MSB Objective 2.3: Create connectivity to support dispersal into newly restored habitat.

MSB Objective 2.4: Restore native vegetation in the uplands and non-fen wetlands within the surface watershed and groundwater recharge areas of newly restored fen habitat.

MSB Objective 2.5: Acquire title or conservation easements on fens with high potential for MSB reintroduction.

5.2 Poweshiek Skipperling Biological Goals and Objectives

PS Goal 1: Maintain and expand PS populations at the four extant sites (Table 1) through management, restoration, and protection of suitable habitat while minimizing potential take of PS during habitat management activities through on-site avoidance and minimization measures.

PS occurs in fens, or portions of fens, that exhibit the biological diversity, vegetative structure, and ecological processes of a healthy fen community. These fens require management in order to intentionally perpetuate processes that create habitat for PS. Most fens on the landscape are currently in some level of degraded condition and require

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 25

restoration. Without management and restoration activities, the PS is likely to be extirpated from these fens. The maintenance and restoration of occupied fens requires a balance of management sufficient to maintain suitable habitat without extirpating PS.

Acquisition of occupied habitats is important, but not a critical component to PS recovery. Currently, all PS occupied habitat occurs on public lands and lands committed to conservation in perpetuity. Site conservation plans are an important component for ensuring the long-term viability of biodiversity, particularly rare biota, at any given site.

PS Objective 1.1: Develop new or revise existing site conservation plans for each of the four sites currently occupied by PS. Site conservation plans will be based on the best available science and incorporate all elements of the site and surrounding landscape that are critical for the long-term viability of the PS population. The plans are required to include the following components: land use history of the site and surrounding landscape, known locations and population size of PS and other rare species over time, management history of the site, specific goals, quantifiable objectives, recommended management regime and units, and a detailed monitoring plan, including plans for adaptive management based on results.

PS Objective 1.2: Perpetuate or restore ecological processes needed to provide abiotic and biotic features required by PS in fens.

PS Objective 1.3: Manage fens to maintain or restore natural patterns of graminoid and forb vegetation and fuel continuity to support habitat for PS larvae and adults by implementing restoration activities identified in each of the site conservation plans from PS Objective 1.1.

PS Objective 1.4: Maintain or create connectivity among occupied PS patches to support dispersal among existing populations and/or into newly restored habitat patches.

PS Objective 1.5: Maintain or restore native vegetation in the uplands and non-fen wetlands within the surface watershed and groundwater recharge areas of occupied fens.

PS Objective 1.6: Implement strategies, as outlined in Section 4.3, to minimize the mortality of PS during habitat management and restoration activities (i.e., the Covered Activities).

PS Goal 2: Increase the number of extant populations of PS by restoring unoccupied fens for future reintroduction efforts to offset any unavoidable impacts to the species during the maintenance, management and restoration of fen habitat.

Currently only four fens in southern Michigan are occupied by PS. We know of 23 sites that supported PS populations in Michigan historically. Restoring and maintaining these sites as suitable habitat for PS will ensure that reintroduction can occur at some future

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 26

date.

PS Objective 2.1: Restore or reintroduce ecological processes required for abiotic and biotic features required by PS.

PS Objective 2.2: Manage fens to restore natural patterns of native graminoid and forb vegetation necessary for PS larvae and adults.

PS Objective 2.3: Create connectivity to support dispersal and colonization of new habitat.

PS Objective 2.4: Restore native vegetation in the uplands and non-fen wetlands within the surface watershed and groundwater recharge areas of newly restored fen habitat.

PS Objective 2.5: Acquire title or conservation easements on fens with high potential for PS reintroduction.

5.3 Measures to Minimize Adverse Impacts

The biological goals and objectives were used to develop the avoidance and minimization measures and will be used to guide implementation of the HCP. The following measures are required to minimize take, improve habitat, and provide an overall net benefit to MSB and PS.

5.3.1 General The following measures apply to all Covered Activities within habitat occupied by the MSB in Michigan and Indiana and the PS in Michigan:

1. All Covered Activities in occupied habitat shall be conducted in a manner to minimize disturbance to MSB and PS adults, pupae, larvae, eggs, and their habitat. People working in occupied habitat are required to use existing trails, when available.

2. To minimize trampling of habitat and inadvertent crushing of eggs or larvae, human traffic in occupied habitat must be controlled. Thus, the number of individuals implementing the Covered Activities in areas of MSB and PS occupied habitat is limited to no more than 10 individuals at any given time.

3. Individuals implementing habitat management actions are required to travel through open fen more than 3m from woody vegetation when moving from one part of a fen to another to conduct Covered Activities. Individuals seeking adult MSB or PS for surveys or research are exempt from this requirement.

4. If the eastern massasauga occurs on-site, then the guidelines outlined in the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake Candidate Conservation Agreement with

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 27

Assurances are required to be followed.

5.3.2 Restore Hydrology

Hydrological restorations inside or outside occupied habitat affect MSB and PS populations; therefore the following measures shall be followed:

1. Open ponds that cut springs before they reach the fen will be filled so that groundwater flows to the surface of the fen.

2. Installing new or adjusting existing culverts to restore hydrology must be engineered such that groundwater can pass through the surface of the fen.

3. Surfaces must be restored after removal of above-grade barriers (roads, berms, dams, etc.) to avoid creation of a below-grade void (ditch, pond, etc.).

4. Occupied habitat will not be flooded, except for restoration purposes, and then no more than 1/3 of occupied habitat shall be flooded at any one time.

5. Hydrological restoration activities that cause drying of the substrate during the month of July are prohibited to avoid impacting eggs/larvae.

5.3.3 Prescribed Burning

1. A detailed management plan must be completed and approved by MDNR for activities in Michigan or IDNR for activities in Indiana prior to implementing a prescribed burn. The management plan must include a process to evaluate the effects of fire on MSB and PS and follow the species specific monitoring protocols in Appendix xx and xx.

2. All burns in MSB and PS occupied habitat are required to:

a. Use natural fire breaks where feasible and safe. b. Burn no more than 1/3 of the occupied habitat annually. c. Refrain from burning the same patch in consecutive years without prior approval from the FWS.

5.3.4 Mowing/Hydro-axing

1. Mowing or hydro-axing is limited to no more than 1/3 of occupied habitat in any one year.

2. Mowing or hydro-axing shall occur only when the soil is frozen and can support equipment.

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 28

3. Elevating mower or hydro-ax decks is required such that sedge tussocks are not shortened or damaged.

5.3.5 Vegetation Removal

1. Vegetation must be managed or maintained for MSB habitat in a manner designed to support a savanna and open fen complex, with openings dominated by tussock sedge (Carex stricta) and tamarack (Larix laricina) interspersed with broad leaf plants of diverse heights. Poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), bog birch (Betula pumila), willows (Salix spp.), and scattered clumps of dogwood (Cornus spp.) are appropriate. Restoration activities that clear all woody species are appropriate only for some parts of some fens. Other parts of the fen should be preserved in a partly wooded “savanna” structure with a diversity of canopy coverage at a fine spatial scale.

2. Vegetation must be managed or maintained for PS in a manner designed to support an open fen complex that contain prairie dropseed (Sporobolis heterolepis), mat muhly (Muhlenbergia richardsonis), and a variety of forbs for nectar-seeking adults.

3. Vegetation removal occurs at different intensities. For the purposes of this plan, it is defined as vegetation removal without the aid of a wheeled or track vehicle. Light management is not restricted by area. This level of activity corresponds to monitoring for and treating scattered stems to keep an invasive plant from becoming established. Moderate and intense management is prohibited from occurring over more than 1/3 of the area in any one-year period.

a. Light management: < 25 person-hours per acre per year b. Moderate management: > 25 person hours and < 100 person hours per acre c. Intense management: > 100 person hours per acre

4. Herbicides must be approved for use in wetlands and be used according to label instructions.

5.3.6 Biological Control

1. Biological controls targeted at any non-native invertebrate are not permitted to be released within MSB and/or PS habitat unless the following criteria are met:

a. All state and federal laws are followed; b. USDA testing indicates no direct risk to Lepidoptera or to members of the subfamily Satyrinae and/or Hesperiidae.

2. Biological control using native species to control invertebrates (e.g., praying mantis releases) shall not occur in MSB and PS habitat.

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 29

3. Any species native to Michigan or Indiana may be used as a biological control to control invasive plants. This does not extend to invasive insects.

4. Non-native species that have been approved by USDA to ensure host-specificity are also permitted unless they feed on critical plant species (see 4.3.7.2 above).

5. Biological controls found to feed on plant species critical to MSB or PS for food or egg- laying are prohibited from release.

6. The States are required to consult with the FWS before any biological controls are implemented.

5.3.7 Livestock Grazing

1. Grazing, at similar stocking density and seasonality, may continue in MSB or PS habitat where it occurs currently.

2. With the prior approval of the FWS, grazing may be used to set back succession in MSB and PS occupied habitat.

5.3.8 Seeding and Planting

1. Seeding and planting must be done with seed collected in other parts of the same fen, or from another nearby fen (within 100 miles), or with local genotype seed (within 100 miles north/ south or 200 miles east/west). Commercial, non-local seed may not be used on plantings over 1 acre in size, unless approved by the FWS.

2. Tussock sedge does not grow well from seed. Propagation is usually done vegetatively, and requires breaking apart existing clumps. Use of tussock sedge clumps within occupied habitat is prohibited as source material for plantings. It is required that source material originate from degraded or non-viable wetlands, sedge meadows, or (least preferred) other fens.

3. If tamarack trees are planted, they will be established only in areas that receive > 6 hours of sunlight per day.

4. Plantings and seed mixes must include short-statured plants, which must be planted in part sun (4-8 hours sunlight per day) or shade (< 4 hours sunlight). These are often found under and immediately north of existing trees or shrubs.

5.4 Mitigation

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 30

The only activities covered under this HCP are actions taken to manage habitat for MSB and PS. These management actions result in incidental take of MSB and PS individuals, but also result in an overall gain for both species. As the purpose of this HCP is to allow the States and their conservation partners to undertake activities to promote the recovery of MSB and PS while minimizing incidental take, additional mitigation measures will not be required. The actions covered under this HCP will result in a net conservation benefit for MSB and PS.

6. Alternatives

6.1 Alternative A: Private and Public Lands HCP (Proposed)

The proposed alternative is the issuance of ITPs to the State of Indiana and the State of Michigan to authorize take of MSB and PS on private lands and public lands, in accordance with this HCP. These lands include both unprotected and protected lands. Protected lands are lands where MSB and PS currently occur and are administered by either a state agency or a non-governmental organization with a conservation mission (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, local land conservancies, etc.). This HCP is designed to allow management to mimic natural disturbance processes to conserve fens while minimizing incidental take of MSB and PS that occur during management. This alternative is preferred because it standardizes avoidance and minimization measures for these species, facilitates and encourages management in occupied fens, and has the potential to apply to any fens where these species occur and land managers or land owners desire to conserve the MSB, PS or the fen.

This alternative was selected because it best meets the Biological Goals and Objectives of this HCP. If habitat management is implemented as recommended under this HCP, then populations of the MSB and PS are predicted to remain stable or increase. Degradation of hydrology and plant communities will be arrested at some sites. By following an adaptive management process (Section 7.2), the States will be able to modify their actions based on new science. Although imperceptible with relation to the human environment, the changes will be expressed through stable or improved status of the MSB and PS.

6.2 Alternative B: Public-lands HCP

This alternative is similar to Alternative A in that issuance of ITPs would be required to implement the maintenance, management and restoration activities designed to benefit the MSB and PS. However, this Alternative focuses limited conservation time and money on protected lands. Often management through a private lands program lays the groundwork for future protection through land acquisition or conservation easements. This opportunity would be lost or diminished if the HCP focused only on public lands. Also, some fens are well managed by knowledgeable, non-public landowners who are passionate about MSB and PS and their conservation. Restricting the HCP to public agencies would miss the opportunity to work with these private landowners in a coordinated fashion. For these reasons, this alternative was not

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 31 carried forward.

6.3 Alternative C: Status Quo or No Action

Under this alternative, an ITP for MSB and PS would not be issued, this HCP would not be implemented, and existing management techniques would continue to be implemented. Some management currently occurs at MSB and PS sites. This management often occurs outside occupied habitat in efforts to restore adjacent fen to suitable MSB and PS habitat. Because many fens are small or occupied habitat is already degraded, management is also implemented in occupied habitat. This management results in incidental take, which is currently permitted on a site-by-site, project-by-project basis under section 7 consultation or 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits of shorter duration. Because the Michigan DNR and Indiana DNR value fen conservation, this work is expected to continue, but with poorer coordination among agencies and lower efficiency as each agency or organization develops and applies for individual permits rather than a coordinated effort. The quantity and quality of conservation is expected to be lower under the status quo, compared to Alternatives A or B.

7. Monitoring, Adaptive Management, and Reporting

7.1 Monitoring

Monitoring will be used to ensure the goals and objectives set forth in Sections 4 and 5 of the HCP are met. Population monitoring will be conducted to help evaluate MSB and PS distribution and assess the effects of HCP activities on these populations. In addition, habitat conditions will be monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments. Take of MSB and PS will also be monitored and reported.

Monitoring will be conducted by qualified personnel, either by partner staff or contracted through other organizations. The States will be responsible for ensuring monitoring on State- owned lands. Monitoring associated with specific projects on non-State lands will be funded by the organization conducting the treatments. This will be ensured and required through any Certificates of Inclusion issued.

Population monitoring will be conducted the year prior to and the year after prescribed burning within the Covered Lands. Additionally, population monitoring should occur on regular intervals, including prior to and following any broadly applied habitat management actions (i.e., Covered Activities affecting one-third or more of an occupied site). Surveys for MSB shall follow the Mitchell’s Satyr Survey Protocol (Appendix xx), and surveys for PS shall follow the Poweshiek Skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) Survey Protocol (Appendix xx).

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 32

7.2 Adaptive Management

This HCP is based on adaptive management principles. Adaptive management is a process of monitoring the implementation of conservation measures, then adjusting future conservation measures according to what was learned. It is expected that the conservation measures will effectively achieve the biological goals and objectives. However, there is uncertainty associated with some management techniques, in particular, prescribed fire.

Because of the rarity of the MSB and PS and their unknown responses to certain management approaches, management within habitat occupied by MSB has been highly restricted. At most sites, no burning or flooding has been allowed. Management has been allowed on only one- fifth of large MSB sites under recent permits and consultations. Despite these restrictions, MSB and PS populations in Michigan and Indiana continue to decline, and some have been lost in the past three years.

These declines could be caused by a variety of factors, including the lack of management in occupied habitat. The positive links between MSB oviposition and short-stature forbs and between short-stature forbs and management (Kost and De Steven 2000) suggest lack of management may be harming populations, especially small populations of MSB. Small sample sizes and butterfly mortality have stymied attempts to answer this question using traditional research.

Under this HCP, habitat management, including prescribed fire, is approved for implementation on up to one-third of an occupied fen per year. To assess the response of these species to prescribed fires, monitoring of MSB or PS is required to occur year prior to and the year after burns.

We expect numbers of butterflies to temporarily decline immediately after a prescribed fire. But if monitoring indicates that MSB or PS numbers within a burn unit do not return to pre-fire levels three years after the prescribed fire, then all burns within occupied habitat must cease until MSB or PS numbers increase to pre-fire levels. At that point, habitat management plans that include fire are required to adjust the burn plans, such that no more than one-fifth of the fen is burned in a year. If future monitoring of MSB or PS populations indicates that population numbers are stable or increasing, a return to prescribed fires on one-third of the site may be allowed.

Results of effectiveness monitoring may indicate that some management measures are less effective than anticipated. If monitoring indicates that other habitat management tools, such as hydrologic manipulations, invasive species management, and biological control, have not resulted in the vegetative responses anticipated, then alternative or modified management measures, which may include combinations of the habitat treatments (the covered activities), will be evaluated with strategies to implement more broadly.

7.3 Reporting

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 33

A report of activities and monitoring results is required to be submitted to the FWS by January 31 of each year during the permit term. The report must include a:

• Summary of annual activities resulting in take of MSB or PS, including acres managed and management techniques; • Summary of habitat monitoring conducted at managed sites; • Summary of presence/absence and relative abundance surveys conducted at managed sites; • Discussion of the effect of management on MSB and PS populations at managed sites; • Description of known and estimated take. Known take is take of MSB and PS individuals that is directly observed; estimated take will be reported indirectly as area of occupied habitat managed; • Description of conservation measures implemented; • Description of any adaptive management measures implemented; and • Discussion of any changed or unforeseen circumstances that have arisen.

8. Funding

8.1 Funding for HCP Administration

Administration of this HCP will be directed through the Michigan DNR Wildlife Division for activities implemented in Michigan and through the Indiana DNR Division of Nature Preserves for activities in Indiana. Administrative tasks include, but are not limited to, preparation of annual reports, preparation and execution of Certificates of Inclusion, and modification of the HCP prompted by new information obtained through research and adaptive management. Funding for the administration of the HCP will be provided by the Michigan DNR through the Wildlife Division’s annual budget and the Indiana DNR through the Division of Nature Preserves’ budget.

8.2 Funding for HCP Implementation

Maintaining habitat for these species, the purpose of this HCP, means some level of incidental take will unavoidably occur; therefore, funding for the HCP requires a different approach than would a situation where the species habitat is being lost to conversion to other land uses or purposes that do not benefit the species. In this case, stopping the incidental take means the species habitat is being lost to habitat degradation as result of the loss of active management (e.g., controlling invasive plants). The financial commitments for implementing avoidance and minimization measures of the HCP are generally operational costs that are assured because they are incorporated into how the covered activities may be conducted. The compliance and effectiveness monitoring are assured because the incidental take authorization is a reoccurring need and in order for the incidental take authorization to remain in effect the

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 34

monitoring/reporting must be up to date and in compliance with the HCP permit’s conditions. If funding is not available for contingencies or other actions that would be covered by this HCP, the active management the species need and thus the incidental taking would cease to occur.

Funding for HCP Implementation by COI Holders Private landowners electing to participate in the MSB and PS HCP will incur costs as a result of that participation. COI Holders who participate in the MSB and PS HCP understand therefore:

• that upon enrollment in the HCP, they are responsible for the costs of implementing conservation measures that are not satisfied by other funding mechanisms described in this Section; • that any failure to meet such obligations as a result of inadequate funding or other factors reasonably within their control are grounds for suspension or revocation by the State(s) of their COIs; • no conservation measures may be undertaken by private landowners (COI Holders) without submittal of an approved conservation plan and funding assurances to the respective State prior to conservation measure implementation.

The costs of implementing the HCP measures required of participating COI Holders are expected to be those associated with implementing the habitat restoration actions and any required monitoring (e.g., labor, equipment, supplies, etc.).

Michigan Management and monitoring will be conducted on state lands and via Certificates of Inclusion on private lands to maintain existing MSB and PS habitat and to ensure the long-term persistence of extant populations. Management of fens on public and private lands has been increasing since the MSB was listed in 1992, and efforts have accelerated under the Michigan DNR’s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP).

Current sources expected to provide funding on behalf of Michigan DNR include federal matching funds, state restricted funds, and private matching funds. More recently, projects have been funded through the Federal State Wildlife Grant program, the Federal Endangered Species program, and the State Nongame Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund. Continued management of prairie fens will be funded by a combination of these sources on an annual basis.

Non-Federal Cooperators who receive Certificates of Inclusion will fund all habitat management and monitoring activities authorized through the Certificate of Inclusion. Funding sources are required to be identified in the site-specific management plan.

Indiana The only site occupied by MSB in Indiana is privately owned. Currently, the owners of this site will not allow management of the habitat on their property. The Indiana DNR will not be

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 35 implementing the HCP on any state-owned lands.

9. HCP Implementation, Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances

9.1 HCP Implementation

Michigan DNR Wildlife Division field staff will be responsible for administering operational implementation of this HCP on State lands in Michigan. Operational activities will include pre-treatment surveys, site assessments, habitat management, and habitat and population monitoring. Annual Wildlife Division work plans will help partition tasks necessary to achieve multi-year operational objectives.

Certificates of Inclusion will be developed between the States and non-Federal cooperators, both public and private, to facilitate implementation of this HCP on non-State land. These agreements will translate strategic objectives into operational objectives for habitat on specific parcels.

9.2 Certificates of Inclusion

Non-Federal cooperators who wish to conduct habitat management activities for MSB or PS may participate through Certificates of Inclusion (CI) by agreeing to implement the conservation measures and other requirements of the HCP. The States will issue Certificates of Inclusion for individuals or organizations that adhere to the following criteria and procedures:

Coordination procedures for issuance of a Certificate of Inclusion: 1. The prospective HCP partner will submit the following two documents to the appropriate State DNR: a letter requesting a CI and a draft site specific management plan. 2. The State DNR will review the draft site plan for completeness and consistency with the HCP and ITP and work with the prospective partner on any necessary revisions to insure compliance with the HCP and ITP. 3. The prospective HCP partner will submit a signed, approved, final plan to the State DNR and the FWS. 4. The State DNR will issue the CI to the partner and will provide a copy of the partner’s site plan and CI to the appropriate FWS Field Office within 30 days of issuance of the CI.

Site-specific management plans will include: 1. Site map and description; 2. Map and description of occupied habitat;

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 36

3. Description and map of proposed activities; 4. Identify measures to avoid or minimize take; 5. Acres of occupied habitat to be impacted; 6. Monitoring plan and adaptive management; 7. Funding sources; 8. Public Outreach and Education (optional); 9. Reporting to the States and FWS.

9.3 Changed Circumstances

The FWS regulations define changed circumstances “as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan or agreement that can reasonably be anticipated by plan or agreement developers and the Service and that can be planned for…” (50 CFR 17.3). If additional conservation measures are necessary to respond to changed circumstances and these measures were set forth in the Agreement, the permit holder will implement the measures specified in the Agreement. If additional conservation measures not provided for in the Agreement are necessary to respond to changed circumstances, any conservation measures in addition to those provided for in the Agreement will not be required without the consent of the permit holder, provided the Agreement is being properly implemented (50 CFR 17.22).

Changed circumstances relevant to this HCP include drought, wildfire, disease, introduction of new invasive species, land use changes on neighboring non-participating lands, new species listings, and climate change. These changes and proposed responses are described in Table 2.

Changed Potential Effects to MSB and PS Proposed Response Circumstance Drought Prolonged periods of drought, In the event of moderate to extreme although uncommon in the areas drought, as determined by National covered by this HCP, may create Oceanic and Atmospheric conditions that reduce seasonally Administration (NOAA) or if available habitat beyond normal annual monitoring indicates drought annual variation and cause changes conditions, the FWS and States will on the landscape. meet and evaluate the drought conditions and, if opportunities exist, employ changes to the conservation measures to address local conditions. Wildfire Although prescribed fire is a tool for Should a fire impact a significant managing MSB and PS habitat, portion of the enrolled lands, the wildfires could burn more acreage of FWS and States will determine if occupied habitat than a controlled adequate habitat is available on the fire, resulting in increased mortality enrolled lands for MSB or PS and of butterflies (adults, larvae, and/or evaluate and employ, if appropriate,

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 37

eggs). changes to the conservation measures to address the habitat conditions. Disease Aside from the Wohlbachia bacteria, In the case where disease is diseases are not currently known to suspected to have impacted MSB affect MSB or PS. However, on- and/or PS, the FWS and States will going monitoring and research may coordinate efforts to identify the identify new diseases or pathogens. disease with appropriate State agencies and universities. If disease causes loss of MSB or PS at a site, the FWS and States will evaluate and employ, if appropriate, changes to the conservation measures to address declining populations. Invasive The introduction of new invasive In the event of an introduction of a Species species or plant diseases can kill or new invasive species, the FWS and outcompete fen vegetation that States will evaluate the potential supports MSB and PS. The effects to MSB and PS and establishment of invasive insects determine the best method of may also directly compete with or measuring, monitoring, and replace MSB and/or PS. eradicating or controlling the invasive species within the affected site. Actions could include mechanical or chemical removal of the invasive species or infested vegetation or the use of prescribed fire to control the invasive species. Land Use Land use changes on neighboring, In the event of land use changes, the Changes non-participating lands could include FWS and States will meet and development, conversion of uplands evaluate the land use changes and, to agriculture, use of pesticides, and if opportunities exist, employ groundwater withdrawals that could changes to conservation measures to affect the suitability of the enrolled address local conditions. lands as habitat for the Covered Species or directly affect the MSB and/or PS. New Species The covered activities in this HCP If a non-covered species that Listings on may have potential impacts to the potentially occurs within the Enrolled newly listed species. Covered Lands becomes federally Lands listed, the States will undertake the following measures: • Conduct an assessment of the presence of the newly listed or proposed species on the Covered Lands; • Evaluate the potential for the

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 38

Covered Activities to result in take of the newly listed or proposed species; • At the time of listing, implement measures to avoid take of newly listed species and adverse modification of designated critical habitat until such time as the HCP has been amended (see Section 10.3, Major Amendments) or other ESA coverage has been obtained, if needed; • Determine whether amending the HCP and permit would be necessary to cover such additional species; and • If determined necessary, submit a request for a major amendment to provide coverage for the newly listed or proposed species as described in Section 10.3. Climate Climate change can create If changes to the fen habitat or MSB Change conditions that can affect or PS life cycles are documented, implementation of this HCP. Effects based on the best available of climate change can result in scientific information, the FWS and increased frequency and intensity of States will evaluate the site drought, severe weather conditions, conditions and, if opportunities floods, and fires that in turn can exist, employ changes to the affect the suitability of habitat for conservation measures to address MSB or PS. Climate change may local conditions. also alter the timing of MSB or PS breeding as well as the availability of nectar sources and/or host plants.

9.4 Unforeseen Circumstances

The Habitat Conservation Plan Assurances (“No Surprises”) Rule (50 CFR Part 17.32(b)(5); 63 Federal Register 8859—February 23, 1998) provides regulatory assurances that, generally, no commitment of additional land, water, or financial compensation, or additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed upon for the species covered by the conservation plan will be required of a permit holder, even if unforeseen circumstances arise after the permit is issued, provided the HCP is properly

Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 39 implemented. “Unforeseen circumstances” refers to “changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by an HCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan developers and the FWS at the time of HCP negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial, adverse change in the status of the covered species” (50 CFR Part 17.3).

Should the FWS determine, based on considerations outlined in 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(c), that unforeseen circumstances have arisen during the permit term, the FWS and States will consider potential measures to address the changed conditions. Additional conservation and/or mitigation measures shall involve the commitment of additional resources only with the consent of the States.

10. Terms and Conditions

10.1 Renewal

As described in Section 1.2, the term of the take authorization issued under this HCP is 20 years. For the renewal of an ITP, the Permittee must submit a permit renewal request such that the request is on file with the FWS at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the ITP.8 Certificates of Inclusion may be renewed using the same process as for ITPs, except that the CI renewal requests must be submitted by the State DNR to the FWS for a consistency review as described in Section 9.2.

10.2 Minor Amendments

Minor amendments are changes to the HCP that do not require a major amendment, but do require approval by the FWS. The Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service 1996) provides the following guidance for minor amendments to HCPs and permits.

The HCP can also be amended administratively without formal amendment of the permit itself. This type of expedited amendment procedure is encouraged, but only when: (1) the amendment has the unanimous consent of the permittee and FWS or NMFS; (2) the original HCP established specific procedures for incorporating minor amendments so that the public had an opportunity to comment on the process, and such amendments are consistent with those procedures; (3) the HCP defines what types of amendments are considered minor; (4) a written record of any such amendments is prepared; and (5) the net effect on the species involved and level of take resulting from the amendment is not significantly different than analyzed under the original HCP and the Service’s decision documents.9

8 See 50 CFR §13.22 for a description of the permit renewal requirements and the process. 9 Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1996), p. 3-33. Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 40

Minor amendments are changes that would not adversely affect Covered Species, affect the scope of the HCP’s conservation strategy, change the level of take or impacts on Covered Species, add new species, significantly change the boundary of the HCP, or the obligations of the States. Examples of changes requiring minor amendments are anticipated to include, but are not limited to: 1) Changes to survey, monitoring, reporting, and/or management protocols; 2) Updates/corrections to vegetation maps, species occurrence data, and other biological data; and 3) Other proposed changes to the HCP that the FWS has determined to be appropriate for implementation as a minor modification or revision.

The States may propose minor amendments to this HCP by providing written notice to the FWS. Proposed modifications will become effective upon the written concurrence of the FWS.

10.3 Major Amendments

Over the term of the HCP, it may be necessary to substantially amend the HCP to address new conditions not envisioned during the HCP planning process. Major Amendments may be proposed by the Permittees or the FWS. Such instances are expected to be infrequent or may not occur over the term of the HCP. Major amendments may also require corresponding amendments to the permit(s). Examples of proposed changes to this HCP that are anticipated to require a major amendment include, but are not limited to:

• Revisions to the Covered Lands; • Adding new Covered Species; • Other proposed minor amendments that are not approved by the FWS; • Increasing the allowable take limits; • Adding new Covered Activities; and • Changes to biological goals and objectives.

The major amendment process would include a revised HCP, a permit application form, and any required fees. Upon submission of a completed application package, the FWS will publish a notice of availability of the proposed application in the Federal Register, initiating the HCP amendment review process. After public comment, FWS may approve or deny the permit amendment application.10

10.4 Permit Suspension, Revocation or Surrender

The FWS has the ability in accordance with applicable federal law11 to suspend all or part of, or to revoke a permit in the event the Permittee is out of compliance with the HCP

10 Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1996), p. 3- 32. 11 50 CFR §13.27, 50 CFR §13.28, 50 CFR §17.22(b)(8), and 50 CFR §17.32(b)(8) Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 41 requirements and/or their ITP. The FWS also has the ability to suspend or revoke a permit if continuation of the Covered Activities appreciably reduces the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild.12 Permits may also be surrendered voluntarily.

The States will suspend, in whole or part, or revoke CIs if Participants are found to be in non- compliance with the requirements of the HCP or their mutually-developed site-specific plans. The DNR and FWS may suspend or revoke the Certificate of Inclusion for cause in accordance with the laws and regulations in force at the time of such suspension or revocation (50 CFR 13.28(a)). If DNR or FWS determines that a CI Participant is violating the terms of the site- specific plan, written notice shall be sent to the CI Participant advising the CI Participant of the nature of the violation and identifying corrective actions required to bring the CI Participant back into compliance with the site-specific plan. Take authorization and the regulatory assurances associated with the Certificate of Inclusion may be suspended or revoked if the CI Participant does not remedy the violation within seven (7) days after receipt of the notice. Notices of compliance violations will be copied to FWS. A summary of noncompliance variances also will be included in the DNR annual report.

12 50 CFR §§13.28-13.29, 50 CFR §17.22(b)(8) and §17.32(b)(8) Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly and Poweshiek Skipperling HCP Page 42 Appendix A. Fen Management Plan Fen and the Art of Butterfl y Maintenance

A FEN COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN

With special reference to MICHIGAN & INDIANA

Indiana Department of Natural Resources Table of Contents

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... A-1 2. Overview of Prairie Fens in Michigan and Indiana ...... A-2 2.1 What is a fen? ...... A-2 2.2 Landscape Context ...... A-3 2.3 Physical Features ...... A-4 2.4 Ecological Processes ...... A-5 2.5 Biological Diversity ...... A-8 3. Threats to Prairie Fens in Michigan & Indiana ...... A-9 3.1 Loss of Landscape Integrity ...... A-9 3.2 Loss of Ecological Processes ...... A-13 3.3 Loss of Biological Diversity ...... A-17 4. Goals and Objectives ...... A-23 4.1. Maintain and Restore Fen Distribution and Context ...... A-23 4.2 Restore or Mimic Natural Processes ...... A-24 4.3 Maintain or Restore Native Biological Diversity ...... A-24 5. Conservation Strategies ...... A-24 5.1 Protect Prairie Fens ...... A-24 5.2 Increase Public Awareness ...... A-26 5.3 Incorporate Predicted Climate Change ...... A-26 5.4 Protect and Restore Natural Surface and Ground Water Flow ...... A-27 5.5 Minimize Adverse Changes to Water Quality...... A-28 5.6 Use Fire as a Management Tool...... A-30 5.7 Limit Grazing and Browsing ...... A-31 5.8 Manage Invasive Species...... A-33 5.9 Minimize Adverse Impacts of Recreational Activities...... A-37 5.10 Reintroduce Missing Prairie Fen Components ...... A-38 6. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management ...... A-38 6.1 Continue Mapping and Monitoring to Assess Status and Health of Fens .....A-38 6.2 Conduct Active Research to Support Science-based Prairie Fen Conservation...... A-39 6.3 Adaptive Management ...... A-40 7. Implementation ...... A-41 7.1 Partner Participation ...... A-41 7.2 Public Involvement ...... A-41 8. Literature Cited ...... A-41

* ii * Table of Contents

Appendix A-1 Fire Sensitivity and the Phenology of Rare Species ...... A-1.1 Table 1. State Listed Plants of Prairie Fens in Michigan and Indiana ...... A-1.2 Table 2. State Listed Animals of Prairie Fens in Michigan and Indiana ...... A-1.4 Table 3. Hypothesized Plant Sensitivity to Fire...... A-1.7 Table 4. Hypothesized Animal Sensitivity to Fire ...... A-1.9 Considerations and Caveats of the Fire and Species Phenology Tables...... A-1.13

Appendix A-2: Directions to Make your own Herbicide Wand...... A-2.1 Parts Required ...... A-2.1 Tools/Materials Required ...... A-2.1 Assembly Instructions ...... A-2.1 How To Use the Wand ...... A-2.2 Helpful Hints ...... A-2.2

Appendix A-3: Methods and Guidelines for Assessing Restoration Progress in Prairie Fens Using Coarse-Level Metrics ...... A-3.1 Introduction ...... A-3.1 General Methods ...... A-3.1 Guidelines for Field Estimates ...... A-3.2 Establishing Management Units ...... A-3.2 Supplies and Equipment ...... A-3.2

Appendix A-4. Techniques and Timing to Manage Some Common Invasive Exotic Plants...... A-4.1

Appendix A-5 Photo Credits ...... A-5.1

* vi * Introduction

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP). Th e HCP outlines 1. Introduction measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate (see definition of “mitigation” in HCP), take of the federally Fens provide habitat for a disproportionate amount endangered Mitchell’s satyr butterfl y (Neonympha of our States’ plant and wildlife species. Th e management mitchellii mitchellii) and the federally endangered Poweshiek of prairie fens in Michigan and Indiana is critical to the skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) during management biodiversity of this region. Th is plan provides strategic and activities in occupied habitat. Th ese measures are required for operational guidance to land managers who are responsible the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP,) pursuant to for prairie fen complexes. Th e plan is a tool to help managers provisions of Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species to: 1) maintain or increase the existing number, area and Act. Th e Fen Conservation Plan outlines goals and strategies distribution of functioning prairie fen complexes; 2) for the conservation of fen complexes and their components, maintain, restore, and simulate ecological processes in prairie including Mitchell’s satyr butterfl ies (MSB) and PS (PS); the fens; and 3) maintain or increase native biological diversity HCP ensures that associated management activities will not and overall health of prairie fen complexes. jeopardize local MSB and PS populations. Diverse conservation partners collaborated to write Th is plan integrates a diverse collection of strategic this plan. Th e plan refl ects a considerable investment of time plans that have been developed to guide natural resource and energy on the part of many federal and state agencies, conservation in Michigan and Indiana. Some of those non-governmental organizations, consultants and other plans include the Federal Recovery Plan for Mitchell’s private interests. It provides guidance to the many types of Satyr Butterfl y (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998), the managers who have an interest in the conservation of prairie Indiana Wildlife Action Plan (Anonymous 2006), the fen complexes in Michigan and Indiana. Michigan Wildlife Action Plan (Eagle et al. 2005), and Th rough its focus on landscape distribution, the Conservation Plan [for the] North Central Tillplain ecological processes, and biological diversity, the Fen Ecoregion (Th e Nature Conservancy 2003). Th is plan will Conservation Plan (FCP) provides a natural community help implement these other plans by giving targeted direction, context for the Mitchell’s satyr and the Poweshiek skipperling addressing key threats, and providing quantitative goals for prairie fens.

* A-1 * Overview

cover. Characteristic species include prairie grasses such as 2. Overview of Prairie Andropogon gerardii and Spartina pectinata with prairie forbs and sedges (Carex spp.). Common shrub species include Fens in Michigan and Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. fl oribunda, Cornus spp., and Salix spp.” (NatureServe 2008). In less technical terms, fens are Indiana Groundwater 2.1 What is a fen? conservation is the key A fen is a type of wetland. Groundwater is the main to fen conservation. water source which is often recharged in areas miles from the fen itself (Figure 1.). In prairie fens, the groundwater has been in contact with calcium and magnesium rich soil or unforested, grassy wetlands, and have muck soil with very bedrock, which results in high mineral content and low plant hard water. Th e classifi cation in Michigan is “prairie fen” nutrients (Bedford and Godwin 2003, Grootjans et al. 2006). (Kost et al. 2007) and “fen” in Indiana. Th e terms “fen” and Species associated with fens vary from region to region and “prairie fen” are used interchangeably throughout this Plan. from continent to continent, but fens worldwide share similar Shrub-Graminoid Alkaline Fens occur in a band from the landscape contexts, plant communities, and conservation middle of Indiana to the middle of southern Lower Michigan. threats (van Diggelen et al. 2006). Fens are sedge-dominated Other types of fen occur both north and south of this zone. peatlands, often with scattered trees and shrubs, and have Experts who study community systematics defi ne greater species diversity than surrounding landscapes. prairie fen in diff erent ways. Some experts defi ne fens only in Th is plan is focused on what NatureServe (2008) terms of a particular subset of fen zones (see Sec. 2.5.1) or in defi nes as a North-Central Interior Shrub-Graminoid Alkaline terms of particular indicator species. Here a broader defi nition Fen: a “fen system… found in the glaciated portions of the is adopted. For the purpose of this plan, fen includes the full Midwest and southern Canada. Examples of this system range of zones from the inundated zone through the savanna can be located on level to sloping seepage areas, in pitted zone. Th is plan also follows Kost et al. 2007 by diff erentiating outwash or in kettle lakes associated with kettlekame-moraine prairie fen from forested wetland based on canopy coverage. topography. Groundwater fl ows through marls and shallow Fens have less than 25% canopy coverage produced by mature peat soils, and groundwater is typically minerotrophic and trees or less than 50% canopy coverage produced by tall slightly alkaline. Examples of this system contain a core fen shrubs and trees. Th e defi nition is pragmatic because much of area of graminoids surrounded by scattered trees and shrubs. this plan concerns restoring prairie fen from forested wetland Herbaceous and shrub cover is variable with little to no tree (usually shrub-carr).

Fens are sedge- dominated peatlands, often with scattered trees and shrubs.

Figure 1. Fen hydrology includes recharge areas, which are often miles from the fen itself.

* A-2 * Overview

(dry sand, dry-mesic, and wet prairies) and dunes (open dune and dune/swale complexes). As of 2008, 142 prairie fens were known from Michigan and 66 fens from Indiana. Th e distribution of prairie fens is determined by geomorphology and hydrology (Amon et al. 2002, Miner and Kettering 2003). However, prairie fens occur in the context of other natural communities and land uses. Th e integrity of prairie fens is dependent on the composition and confi guration of surrounding communities and land use. Prairie fens share species in common with prairies and savannas. By comparing circa 1800 land cover (Comer et al. 1995) and contemporary distributions of prairie fens in Michigan (Biotics database, MNFI, accessed 10/08/2009,) 89% of prairie fens in Michigan occurred within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of prairies or savannas (Figure 4). Many prairie/savanna species that are now found mainly within prairie fens (such as purple milkweed, Asclepias purpurascens) were once part of larger, contiguous populations that spanned both fen and surrounding uplands. For these prairie/savanna species, prairie fens represent small fragments or remnants of what were once much larger, unbroken habitats. Figure 2. Prior to landscape changes associated with European Similarly, prairie fens share many species in common American settlement, fens were often found in association with oak with other wetlands in Michigan and Indiana. Th ese wetland savannas and other fi re dependent communities. species were once connected, at least intermittently, to larger landscapes of wetlands. Populations of common wetland 2.2 Landscape Context plants, such as tussock sedge (Carex stricta), occurred across many wet natural communities; these common plants were Prairie fens occur throughout the Midwest on glacial once parts of larger populations that are now separated by outwash from Ohio and Ontario to Iowa and Minnesota land uses that function as barriers to genetic exchange and (Amon et al. 2002). Historically, they occurred in the context dispersal. of fi re-dependent communities, such as prairie, oak savanna or oak woodlands (Figure 2). Today, they most often occur in the context of closed canopy oak forest or agriculture. Prairie fens rarely occur in isolation of other wetland communities, but rather form one type of wetland community within the context of emergent marshes, sedge meadows, and tamarack swamps. Increasingly, prairie fens are found as small fragments of landscapes dominated by shrub-carr or hardwood swamp. Fens are frequently found adjacent to lakes or along streams (Figure 3). Prairie fens are ranked as a G3 community by NatureServe. Th ey are deemed vulnerable to extinction or extirpation, both on a global scale and within Michigan and Indiana. In Michigan other G3 communities include prairies Figure 3. Diff erent types of prairie fen occur in diff erent parts of the landscape.

* A-3 * Overview

precipitation. Prairie fens in the Midwestern United States occur on poorly drained outwash plains (Spieles et al. 1999, Kost et al. 2007). Th e hydrology of these wetlands is maintained through inputs of minerotrophic groundwater. Th is groundwater passes through coarse glacial deposits and picks up signifi cant mineral loads. Th e resultant groundwater is cold, rich in minerals, low in plant nutrients, and has a high pH (alkaline). Th e groundwater occurs near the surface of the fen, either through seeps or sheet fl ow. Most fens occur adjacent to steep hills and rolling glacial topography; however, many fens also occur as upwellings within otherwise level wetlands. Because fens are dependent on groundwater, precipitation events and droughts have little eff ect on the amount of water in fen soils. Th e water table in fens is remarkably constant and consistently high (Figure 5). Th e fen community evolved in a system that neither dries nor fl oods as much as other wetlands. Because fens so rarely dry, plant matter decomposes slowly and accumulates as peat, as in bogs, and similar to bogs, the lack of decomposition limits the availability of plant nutrients. Th e consistent high water table also limits most trees and shrubs from establishing in fens. For these reasons, groundwater conservation is key to the conservation of fens. Th e groundwater that feeds fens is rich in ions, such as carbonates, magnesium and iron, which the groundwater picks up from the glacial outwash through which it percolates. However, plant nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are naturally limited in fens. Th e terminology of prairie fens as “rich” fens can be confusing. In other contexts, “rich” connotes soils high in plant nutrients. Prairie fens are “rich” in plant diversity and ions in the water, but are naturally poor in Figure 4. Fens occur in specifi c bands with rolling topography and the key plant nutrients of phosphorus and nitrogen (Wheeler coarse soils. and Proctor 2000, Bedford and Godwin 2003). Prairie fens are unique among wetlands in that they often have a discernible slope. With the exception of 2.3 Physical Features upwellings, the lowest part of the slope ends in an emergent marsh, stream or lake. In contemporary prairie fens, the 2.3.1 Geology and hydrology lowest part of the fen is often the most open; shrubs and trees Fens are peat wetlands that receive most of their become more common higher on the slope. Historically, fi res water through groundwater (Bedford and Godwin 2003, burning from the prairie and savannas probably thinned trees Grootjans et al. 2006), as compared to bogs, which are and shrubs along the fen margin, and the zones from open to peat wetlands that receive most of their water through wooded fen were probably less pronounced.

* A-4 * Overview

2.3.2 Regional climate 2.3.3 Microclimate Prairie fens occur in a narrow climate range. Th e Fens have a microclimate that sets them apart from combination of precipitation and temperature prevents the surrounding landscape as they consistently have a higher soil evaporation from exceeding groundwater inputs. humidity. Visitors to fens often remark that they feel hotter Where prairie fens occur, precipitation is high enough and in the summer. Th e constant groundwater near the surface temperatures are low enough for saturated peat to accumulate. also dampens extremes in humidity and temperature, both Th is peat accumulation is balanced by temperatures that are on a daily and seasonal basis. Relative humidity near the high enough and precipitation low enough to foster a prairie soil surface is more consistently damp, compared to greater or savanna landscape context. swings in humidity from dry to wet in adjacent ecosystems. Prairie fens in Indiana and Michigan occur across Soil temperatures do not get as warm or as cold as the soils in a climatic gradient from the warmer and wetter middle of surrounding ecosystems. Fen soils rarely freeze, which limits Indiana to the cooler and drier middle of Michigan’s Lower use of heavy mechanized equipment in management, even Peninsula. Temperatures for this region are: average January during exceptionally cold winter weather. minimum 13° to 19° F (-7° to -11° C); average maximum July 83° to 87° F (28° to 31° C); with 11–16 days with maximum 2.3.4 Microtopography temperatures above 90° F (32° C); and 113–160 days with One of the dominant plants in fens is the tussock minimum temperatures below 32° F (0° C). Precipitation for sedge (Carex stricta). Tussock sedges produce new vegetation this region is: average annual total of 34–45 inches (86–114 on top of older plant growth to form characteristic pillars, cm); and average annual snowfall of 18–86 inches (46–218 or tussocks. Th ese tussocks provide a variety of diff erent cm). niches for fen vegetation (Figure 6). Each tussock has a moisture gradient: saturated near the peat and drier toward the top. Each tussock also experiences a full range of daily sun exposures: southern sides tend to be warmer and northern sides tend to be cooler. Th ese various zones provide unique moisture and aspect niches and result in high plant and insect diversity. Furthermore, the presence of tussock sedges increases the surface area of fens, which can be used by a diversity of plants, insects and other animals.

2.4 Ecological Processes

Ecological communities are maintained by the frequency and extent of disturbances or ecological processes. When the frequency and extent of ecological processes change, communities change. Th is change is often called “succession.” Th e frequency and extent of processes that historically produced and maintained prairie fen communities have changed, and those changes are resulting in widespread conversion to more common and less diverse ecological communities, such as shrub-carr and hardwood swamp. Unless hydrology or grazing regimes are altered, Figure 5. Fens are associated with high velocity groundwater, as intact fens do not proceed through the typical successional predicted from the “Darcy model” for Michigan.

* A-5 * Overview trajectory of old fi eld to forest, or do so very slowly. eTh groundwater inputs to most fens in Michigan and Indiana Fens existed within a have been altered, and most have experienced grazing, to a greater or lesser degree. Th ese fens will experience a prairie and savanna successional trajectory to shrubland, and maybe to hardwood swamp, unless woody vegetation is managed appropriately. landscape that burned frequently. 2.4.1 Wildfi re and aboriginal burning Large, landscape fi res were common in southern (Whelan 1995). As one of the oldest ecosystem management Michigan and Indiana before settlement by European tools, humans have created a large store of knowledge in Americans (Chapman 1984, Nuzzo 1986, Whitney 1994). applying fi re to achieve specifi c fi re eff ects, which can be Th ese fi res burned both uplands and adjacent wetlands, found in the scientifi c literature (Whelan 1995, Panzer 2002, including prairie fens (Kost et al. 2007). Indeed, many of the Andrew and Leach 2006, Middleton et al. 2006b, Langford plants of prairie fens compete poorly with trees and shrubs, et al. 2007) and in management guidance (Anderson et al. and only persist in areas that are kept free of such woody 2001, O’Connor 2007). A useful entry into the voluminous vegetation through saturated soil, fi re, or other ecological literature on fi re eff ects is the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire Eff ects processes (Spieles et al. 1999, Kost et al. 2007). Information Service (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/). By Fens exist worldwide in a specifi c geomorphology altering the ignition pattern, season of the burn, etc., a fi re that creates a constant input of groundwater at the root might, for example, stimulate woody vegetation or set back zone of plants (Amon et al. 2002, Gootjans et al. 2006). woody vegetation. Because fi re eff ects vary and the results of Th us, hydrology appears to be the primary ecological process a burn are complex, profound, and (usually) predictable, fen structuring fens. However, the prairie character of fens in managers who employ this tool should have either detailed Michigan and Indiana is derived from a landscape context of knowledge of fi re eff ects in fens or they should work with prairie and savanna communities. Fire and climate interacted prescribed fi re professionals who can craft prescriptions to to structure prairie and savanna ecosystems (Whelan 1995, meet specifi c management goals. Anderson 2006). Th e presence of prairie fl ora in most extant prairie 2.4.2 Beaver fl oodings fens indicates that they were associated with prairies and Intermittent fl ooding by beavers (Castor canadaensis) savannas. Maps of pre-settlement vegetation (Comer et al. has been posited as one ecological process that maintained 1995) also show savannas near or adjacent to modern fens. the open character of prairie fens and maintained habitat for Wetlands in general burn less often and less intensely than some rare species within fens, including the Mitchell’s satyr surrounding uplands, but this pattern does not hold for fens. butterfl y (USFWS 1998). Th e historical and recent effect of Fire intensity observed in modern fens can be similar to fi re beaver activity on fens is complex. intensity on prairies and savannas. Th e morphology of C. Th e beaver is a keystone species and ecosystem stricta tussocks holds fi ne fuels suspended in the air column, engineer (Naiman et al. 1988, Jones et al. 1994, Wright and which makes the fuel drier and more fl ammable. Th us, fens Jones 2006). Beavers will build dams to impound riparian will often burn when surrounding uplands will not, and fens areas and create emergent marsh, often at the expense of are especially fl ammable when surrounding uplands will burn. other wetland communities (Naiman et al. 1988). Th ese Natural fuel breaks, such as marl seeps, springs, and streams, dams are often temporary, and impoundments will revert likely caused fens (especially larger fens) to burn in a mosaic to wet meadow before returning to shrubs or forest. Th e with frequent skips and unburned areas. shifting mosaic of emergent marsh, wet meadow, and forest Fire has profound eff ects on many ecological services, can create a landscape that increases habitat for amphibians including vegetation structure, plant diversity, predator/prey (Cunningham et al. 2006) and grassland birds (Askins 2002), dynamics, herbivory, plant reproduction, and nutrient cycling

* A-6 * Overview

changes biogeochemical dynamics (Naiman et al. 1994), Contemporary beaver activity is more closely and increases overall species richness (Wright et al. 2002). associated with prairie fens. Many fens now exist in One early surveyor and geologist estimated that “fully one- landscapes with little or no fi re management. Large, level fi fth part” (~20,000 acres) of the landscape surrounding areas that might have been used by beavers in the past have Detroit was aff ected by beavers (Hubbard 1887 quoted in now largely been converted to other land uses, most notably Whitney 1994). Beaver activity increases overall landscape urban development and agriculture. Fens, which are often heterogeneity (Remillard et al. 1987). Concerning wetland remote and less visited by people, are not ideal habitat for and especially wet meadow communities, beaver activity beavers, but they are available habitat. Several privately- decreases isolation, an important metric of landscape owned fens managed through the Michigan Landowner fragmentation. Incentive Program have or recently have had beaver activity Historically, beaver activity in Michigan and Indiana aff ected the landscape context of prairie fens by decreasing the distance between patches of grassy wetland. However, Beavers do not create fl oodings created by beavers probably had little eff ect on fens, but their fl oodings prairie fens themselves (Figure 6). Fens are distinguished from other wetland types, in part, in their remarkably stable, can set back woody fl ood resistant, water table (Amon et al 2002, Grootjans et al. 2006). Fens often occur high in watersheds and usually have succession. a discernible slope, two characteristics avoided by beavers, which usually impound areas low in watersheds and with little in or (more often) adjacent to the fen (C. Hoving, personal slope (Cunningham et al. 2006). Beaver also appear to avoid communication). A similar pattern is evident at the Fort areas subject to regular fi re (Cunningham et al. 2006, Hood Custer Military Training Center in southwestern Michigan et al. 2007), which might discourage their activity in prairie (M. Richards, personal communication). Beavers can destroy and savanna landscapes. For these reasons, beaver activity small fens through persistent fl ooding (Reddoch and Reddoch probably existed in and around fens, but at levels lower than 2005), but the small and ephemeral fl oodings in southwestern in the landscape as a whole. Michigan appear to set back woody shrubs, including buckthorn, in the landscape surrounding prairie fens.

2.4.3 Grazing and browsing Th e fl ora (and fauna) of prairie fens evolved in a landscape rich in herbivores. Grazers, such as bison, musk- oxen, moose, caribou, elk, and horses (Holman 2001) fed primarily on grasses and sedges; whereas browsers, such as deer, camelids, mammoths and mastodonts selected forbs and twigs of trees and shrubs (Holman 2001). At the end of the Pleistocene Era the diversity of large herbivores decreased markedly, coinciding with the extinction of most large predators, and fi re became more prevalent (Anderson 2006). Prior to European American settlement, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), elk (Cervus elaphus) and bison (Bison bison) were present and locally common in Michigan and Indiana (Allen 1942, Seton 1929, Whitney 1994). Th ese Figure 6. Unlike emergent wetlands, fens are not created by beaver species were common to savannas and prairies, but their use activity. Beaver activity can set back woody vegetation in fens. of peatlands, such as fens, is unknown. Grazing by bison

* A-7 * Overview and elk had profound eff ects on the structure of ecological 2.4.4 Insect/disease outbreak communities where they occurred (Steuter 1997, Anderson Insect outbreak is a minor process within existing 2006). However, early observers noted that bison were poorly prairie fen communities. However, it can be a signifi cant adapted to cross wetlands (Seton 1929). Small feet, short legs, process when it causes high levels of tree mortality in nearby and the heavy bodies of bison make them poorly adapted to rich tamarack swamps (relict conifer swamps) or upland oak deep snow (Tefl er and Kelsall 1984), and would have been forest. Tamarack trees are shade intolerant, and like many a similar liability in the wet peat soil of prairie fens. Even shade intolerant species, are adapted to periodic, stand- humans, with foot-loadings 2-3 times less than bison, can replacing disturbance. Outbreaks of the native larch sawfl y become mired in prairie fens. (Pristiphora erichsonil) and eastern larch beetle (Dendroctonus Domesticated livestock grazed in many fens in the simplex) and the invasive exotic tamarack casebearer 1800s and the early 1900s. Pigs, sheep, and cattle were a (Coleophora laricella), occur periodically. Th ese infestations signifi cant force in maintaining an open landscape in this era cause a synchronized death of mature trees, thus opening (Whitney 1994), and may have contributed to seed dispersal the seedbank to full sunlight and conditions in which shade- across the landscape (Middleton et al. 2006a). Grazing by intolerant tamaracks can successfully compete. sheep and cattle maintained an open landscape, but grazing at Disease outbreaks and the open canopy also cause the intensity necessary to suppress woody vegetation may have a signifi cant build-up of fi ne and coarse fuels. Disease had a negative impact on species of plants that are sensitive to outbreaks probably interacted with periodic fi re to lengthen grazing. Grazing in prairie fens facilitated later shrub invasion the time that particular areas remained open prairie fen. Th e of these wetlands. Deer populations in the region were locally interaction may have competitively favored tamarack over extirpated or very low during this era (Whitney 1994). red maple (Acer rubrum), other hardwood trees, and many Since the mid-1900s, grazing in fens by livestock has common shrubs. lessened, but deer populations have increased dramatically. Th ese shifts from 1) little grazing or browsing to 2) high grazing pressure from livestock and then to 3) high browsing 2.5 Biological Diversity pressure from deer has aff ected plant communities, invasive species, and successional trajectories in prairie fens (Figure 7). Prairie fens deserve special conservation status and management eff ort because they contain a disproportionate number of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals compared to their number and size (Th e Nature Conservancy 2003). Maintaining healthy fens is an effi cient way to conserve a wide variety of species on a relatively small amount of land.

2.5.1 Vegetation Prairie fens comprise about 4790 acres or 0.01% in Michigan, but provide habitat for 5% of the threatened or endangered plants in the state. Fens in Indiana comprise 0.005% of the state, but provide habitat for 2% of the state’s listed plants (See Appendix A-1, Table 1). Fens in Michigan and Indiana thus have 500 (MI) and 300 (IN) times more rare species than the average acre of land in that state. Th is is a minimum estimate of diversity of rare plants in Figure 7. Deer populations have increased dramatically resulting in fens. When all records of rare plants in and near fens are increased browsing pressure on prairie fen plant communities. considered, the proportions are considerably higher. Of the

* A-8 * Threats

362 plant species classifi ed as threatened, endangered or 2.5.3 Fungi, protists, bacteria and viruses special concern in Michigan, 26% of the species (94) occur Th e bulk of biological diversity in any ecological on or near one of the prairie fens. Th us, management dollars community, including fens, is microscopic. Th is diversity is invested in the health of fens and their surrounding lands fungi, protists, bacteria, and viruses. Th e importance of these protects a disproportionately large number of threatened and organisms in the function of ecological communities is only endangered plants. recently becoming apparent. Th e diversity of mycorrhizal Although some common plants exist throughout fungi, for example, may be a determinant of plant diversity much of the fen, many plants can be found in distinct zones (van der Heijden et al. 1998, Bever et al. 2001), and viruses (Kost et al. 2007). Th ese zones exist along hydrological may mediate the invasiveness of exotic plants (Malmstrom and chemical gradients, and include from wettest to driest: et al. 2005). No rare fen-dependant microorganisms are an inundated fl at near the lake or stream margin, a sedge currently listed in Michigan or Indiana, probably because meadow, and a wooded zone that often grades into rich survey data and benchmarks are lacking for these organisms. tamarack swamp. Many fens also contain sparsely vegetated However, given the high proportion of rare plants and marl fl ats where groundwater is particularly calcareous. All animals in healthy, functional fens, it is reasonable to zones do not occur in all fens. assume that these fens also support rare microorganisms. Conservation mycologists promote community-level 2.5.2 Animals conservation as a surrogate for conserving individual species Th e diversity of rare animals in fens is similar to of rare fungi (Staley 1997, Courtecuisse 2001). that of plants. Prairie fens in Michigan comprise 0.01% of the state, but provide habitat for 5% of the listed animals in the state. Fens in Indiana comprise 0.005% of the state, but provide habitat for 1.6% of the state’s listed animals (both 3. Threats to Prairie Fens vertebrates and invertebrates) (Appendix A-1,Table 2). When all records are considered, 25 (or 24%) of the animal species in Michigan & Indiana occur on or near a prairie fen in Michigan. Similar to plant diversity and conservation, management dollars invested in Th reats to fens are diverse, interrelated, and often the health of fens protects a disproportionately large number interconnected. Like taxonomy of species, threats defy of threatened and endangered animals. classifi cation, or at least defy agreement on classifi cation Fens provide habitat for many insects and reptiles. schemes. Th reats in this plan follow a hierarchical approach Th e insects use the high diversity of plants and unique in which broad-scale; high-level threats are discussed fi rst, microclimate that fens provide. Reptiles use fens for a variety followed by threats to ecological processes, and then specifi c of needs; the presence of moving groundwater near the threats to species, genotypes, and genetic diversity. surface is especially important for hibernating snakes, such as the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus). 3.1 Loss of Landscape Integrity Th ose that hunt for turkey and deer in fens know that fens are used by game animals as well. Fens often occur Landscape level threats to fens include human as grassy openings in otherwise dense swamps, and provide attitudes toward wetlands, land use change, habitat especially valuable nesting and fawning areas for turkeys and fragmentation, and climate change. Th ese processes occur white-tailed deer. Fens are rarely visited by humans, and off er over large areas or over long periods of time. As such, these a unique and quality recreational opportunity. threats are not always included in plans because changes to these high level threats are beyond the power of individual land managers to address with short-term plans. However, these threats provide an important context to realistic

* A-9 * Threats management and planning. Including these threats also highlights the importance and need for broader scale solutions for decision-makers at the state, national, and international level.

3.1.1 Social attitudes and land use changes Fens provide society with many benefi ts (Bragg and Lindsay 2003). Fens are a kind of peatland, and peatlands worldwide account for 70% of the carbon stored in biotic systems (more than all upland forests and grasslands combined). Th us, fens play a key role in regulating global greenhouse gases and climate. Intact fens purify water, keep sediments out of streams, and reduce fl ooding downstream. Th e constantly cold groundwater of fens can provide habitat to cold water fi sh, such as trout. People value biological diversity and desire to see rare species preserved. Prairie fens are highly diverse and provide habitat to many endangered species, far out of proportion to their acreage on the Figure 8. Because of their small size, lack of open water, and lack landscape. Finally, prairie fens are aesthetically valuable. of surface water input, fens are poorly protected from draining and Th e colors of fens are diverse and vary with the seasons, development protection, especially under federal wetland regulations. from wildfl owers in spring and summer, to fall foliage, to the rolling tussocks under winter snow. Fens are valuable to A lack of public appreciation for prairie fens and society in many ways, but many citizens do not yet recognize the benefi ts they provide can impede eff orts to generate that those things they value are concentrated in prairie fens. support for conservation eff orts. Even worse, negative Th e vast majority of citizens in Michigan and attitudes can lead to actions that directly threaten prairie Indiana could draw a forest or a prairie by the time they are fens (Figure 8.). Some of these actions can include many of in grade school. Most adults would be challenged to provide the conservation threats noted in other sections, including: even a rough sketch of a “fen.” Th ose who have encountered habitat fragmentation, over-grazing, introduction of invasive fens often have a negative experience; either because they species, water quality changes, or interruption of groundwater encounter poison sumac, have diffi culty walking the uneven dynamics, or neglect of needed management. terrain, or are frustrated that the property is not drier and Ecological historians have noted that landscapes more amenable to recreation, agriculture, or development. are social constructs (Cronan 1996). Th us, the pattern of Ironically, many people avoid fens out of a fear of mosquitoes land use surrounding and impacting prairie fens is a social and biting insects, which are less common in fens than other phenomenon, and the long-term persistence of prairie fens wetlands because of the scarcity of standing, stagnant water. and their surrounding landscape will depend on society’s awareness and value of prairie fens and their landscape context. Fens are small parts of the landscape with 3.1.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation In Michigan, approximately 50% of the state’s a high proportion of wetlands have been converted to upland. In Indiana, the estimate is that 86% have been lost (Dahl 1990). Across the the State’s endangered Midwest, 99.98% of oak savannas have been lost (Nuzzo species. 1986). Urbanization has eclipsed agriculture as the main

* A-10 * Threats

fens. Th e eastern massasauga rattlesnake and eastern box Historically, draining of turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina) use fens and adjacent uplands and wetlands to complete their life cycle. However, fens for agriculture and rattlesnakes will rarely cross improved roads (Shepard et al. 2008) and turtles face signifi cant mortality when trying to development were the cross roads (Gibbs and Shriver 2002). Th is direct eff ect of greatest threats to fens. fragmentation on the survival or movement of animals is probably shared by other species of reptiles, amphibians, and some invertebrates, such as snails. cause of wetland loss in many partsof the country (Syphard Habitat fragmentation compounds other and Garcia 2001). Indeed, conversion of agricultural land conservation threats. Fragmented landscapes alter back to wetlands under the Farm Bill and programs like the groundwater recharge and could cause fens to become drier. Landowner Incentive Program has resulted in a net increase in Invasive species disperse along roads that fragment the wetlands nationwide in recent decades (Dahl 2006). landscape. Fragmentation limits the ability of many plants Much of the loss and fragmentation of natural and animals to disperse in the wake of climate change. communities is the result of poorly planned development (Paskus and Hyde 2006), but the loss of beaver fl ooding dynamics has also isolated populations of some common wetland plants and animals from each other. Th is loss of wetlands, prairies, savannas, and intermittent beaver fl oodings has isolated populations of plants and animals now found in prairie fens. Fragmentation of habitat aff ects many species, and is not limited to edge-sensitive species, such as forest-interior birds (Wilcove 1987, Ewers and Didham 2006, Cozzi et al. 2008). Edge is only one measure of fragmentation. Other important aspects of fragmentation include habitat area, edge, shape complexity, isolation, and matrix quality (Ewers and Didham 2006). Even common wetland plants can be adversely aff ected by fragmentation (Hooftman and Diemer 2002). Th e quality of non-habitat matrix can aff ect biological diversity within patches of habitat. A prairie fen isolated in an agricultural landscape will support fewer fen species than a fen in a more intact landscape of prairie, savanna, and other wetlands. Recent research on fen dependent butterfl ies in Europe has shown that the proportion of non-fen, non-habitat wetland on the landscape around a fen predicted the presence of three fen dependent butterfl ies. Th e eff ect was less strong than altitude, but Figure 9. Predicted temperature change by 2080. Th is prediciton is from stronger than management regime (Cozzi et al 2008). the median model. Half of all models predicted greater temperature Th e loss of wetlands, prairies, and savanna in change, half predicted less extreme change. All models predicted an the landscape surrounding prairie fens can have direct increase in temperature. Map created by Th e Nature Conservancy’s and indirect negative eff ects on vertebrates in prairie Climate Wizard.

* A-11 * Threats

3.1.3 Climate change Human-induced climate change is recognized to a climate that will change, while communicating to other exist (IPCC 2007) and is increasingly recognized as a threat policy-makers the importance of reducing the human- to native biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2002, Green et al. 2003, induced causes of climate change. Climate can be measured Th omas et al. 2004, Lovejoy and Hannah 2005) (Figure 9.). in many ways. For the purpose of this Plan, three variables Impacts to biodiversity are predicted to be most severe: will likely have the greatest impact on fen conservation 1) in regions where climate changes more than the and management: changes in temperature, changes in global average, precipitation, and changes in carbon dioxide concentrations. 2) on species with limited distributions, or Th e mean temperature in Indiana and Michigan 3) on species with limited abilities to disperse. is expected to warm from 5° – 20° F by 2100 (Kling et al. Extinctions rates could be greater than one-third for regions 2003, IPCC 2007). As noted in Section 2.2.2, prairie fens or species sensitive to climate change (Th omas et al. 2004). currently exist within a mean temperature range of 4° – 6° F. Th ese exacerbating circumstances apply to many species Th us, in 100 years, the climate of the northernmost prairie found in fens, including the Mitchell’s satyr butterfl y. fens will be slightly or extremely warmer than the climate now Managers and planners struggle to adapt to existing in the southernmost fens. At fi rst glance it appears climate change (Inkley et al. 2004). Our usual approach that, in the long term, prairie fens cannot be preserved to conservation threats is to remove the threat or to buff er within their current geographic range. However, climate is the conservation target from the threat. Climate change is not the only determinate of ecological communities. During not within any one manager’s ability to control. Nor can a periods of climate change in the past, species moved at widely manager buff er prairie fens from climate change. Instead variable rates (Pielou 1992), and microclimates (such as cold managers must seek to adapt conservation plans to consider groundwater seeps) could provide a refuge for rare species.

Figure 10. Current (left) and predicted future (right) climate envelopes for tamarack, an important tree species often found in prairie fens. Although coarse analyses such as these are grim for many fen species, groundwater may preserve suitable microclimates in fens, independent of changing air temperatures (Prasad et al. 2007).

* A-12 * Threats

Cold groundwater may 3.2 Loss of Ecological Processes make fens a refuge 3.2.1 Altered fl ow of ground water and water quality Fens exist as relatively nutrient poor wetlands for many species with a constantly high water table. Changes in the threatened by climate quantity, seasonality, or chemistry of water entering and fl owing through fens are a major threat to these ecological change. communities. Most fens worldwide have an altered hydrology and are too dry (Bragg and Lindsay 2003). Many fens Cold groundwater may make fens a refuge for many exist in landscapes where the fl ow of groundwater has been species threatened by climate change when most vegetation changed. Th e potential causes of these changes are diverse, is dormant (IPCC 2007). Because of higher temperature but include ditching in agricultural landscapes, gravel mining, and changed seasonal patterns of precipitation, soil moisture pond creation, or more subtly through the proliferation of during the growing season is expected to decrease. Models of impervious surfaces like asphalt and lawn. A current trend tree species response to changes in temperature, precipitation, in rural property development is to dig ponds (legally in soil moisture, and growing season length are discouraging for upland areas or illegally in wetlands) where the water table is the future of tamarack in Michigan and Indiana (Figure 10). shallow. When dug near fens, this may disturb springs, alter However, precipitation pattern changes should aff ect wetlands groundwater dynamics, and increase evaporation, and thus with groundwater recharge less than wetlands with surface cause drying of the fen (Figure 11). water recharge because surface waters will be more prone to Drier conditions cause peat formation to cease. evaporation. Reduced hydraulic potential from decreased Even small hydrological changes can cause peat to begin to groundwater inputs, at least during the summer, could change decompose, thus releasing many nutrients to the soil and fen hydrology and change succession patterns by favoring woody shrubs and trees (Siegel 2006). As climate changes, some species of plants and animals within the fen will fi nd themselves in a less than optimum climate. Th ese plants and animals will be stressed and will compete poorly with other species, especially introduced species that will be better adapted to the changing climate. Th is process will occur progressively over a number of years. For any given fen, the result will be that invasive species will become increasingly invasive and native plants will become increasingly poor competitors. Climate change as a threat to specifi c species or ecological communities is only beginning to be recognized. While there are many unknowns regarding ecological eff ects, the certainty regarding the actual changes to climate is increasing. Climate change will likely have a synergistic eff ect with other conservation challenges, amplifying the eff ects of habitat fragmentation and invasive species especially.

Figure 11. Th e water in fen wetlands arrives underground. Intercepting this water in ditches or ponds can seriously degrade adjacent fens.

* A-13 * Threats large amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Small and fl ooding in fens. eTh fl ood waters deposit a layer of changes toward a drier hydrology can shift plant communities mineral sediment over the organic peat. Th is sediment has toward less diverse sedge meadows or facilitate the invasion of profound eff ects on the plant community: the fen seed bank exotic plants. is buried and a novel soil type and seeds are introduced. Even as many fens have less groundwater input, they Sedimentation of fens facilitates invasion of fens by exotic also experience increased surface water fl ow and ooding.fl plant species. Wetland destruction elsewhere on the landscape and the Sources of sediment to fens vary. Sediments can proliferation of impervious surfaces has caused streams also be introduced to the fen through drains from adjacent associated with fens to become warmer and more prone to roads or agricultural fi elds or from sheet fl ow across adjacent fl ood events. eseTh fl oods can introduce sediment and reduce roadways and agricultural fi elds themselves. the tussock micro topography unique to fens. Another Another potential source of sediments is the forested threat to fens is permanent fl ooding from poorly designed hillsides surrounding the fen. Fens are often surrounded by roads (small or perched culverts) or poorly planned wetland steep bluff s of glacial deposit, which usually consist of gravel, management. Overzealous property owners or managers sand, or other coarse sediment. Historically, these coarse sometimes mistake fens that lack open water for degraded deposits would have been drought and fi re prone, and the (silted in or drained) emergent marshes. Th ey then impound vegetation would likely have been grasses and wildfl owers water over prairie fens that had no history of open water, and typical of prairies or savannas. Th e fi ne, deep roots of these replace a rarer, more diverse wetland with a more common, prairie plants would have held the steep hillsides in place less diverse wetland. more effi ciently than the closed canopy forest and ephemeral Th e quantity of water in fens is not the only water- spring vegetation surrounding many modern fens. Th us, related threat. Th e quality of the water is also threatened. restoring the natural fi re regime in the fen and surrounding Two aspects of water quality are especially important to fens: landscape should improve water quality in the fen. sediments and nutrients. Th e two are related in that sediments Nutrients can enter the fen though many vectors. are the main source of problematic nutrients. Fens exist in Nutrients can be introduced to the fen water and by peat soils, which have a high organic content and little to no sediments. Th us, fl ooding, erosion, ditching, and road runoff mineral soil or available nutrients. Poor land management are all contributors of nutrients. Fens often occur in rural elsewhere in the watershed often results in signifi cant erosion areas where most residences are served by septic systems. Nutrients can leach from old, poorly designed, or ineff ective septic systems in the fen watershed (Szymanski and Shuey 2002). Accidental releases of manure from confi ned animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are also a potential threat to nearby fens. Like individual septic systems, the primary issue with CAFOs is not the facility or the development itself, but rather poorly designed or poorly implemented manure management plans. Poor fertilizer management (in lawns, golf courses, or agricultural lands) can also impact local waterways and wetlands, including fens. Th e diverse plant and animal community that comprises the prairie fen has evolved to thrive in extremes of alkalinity, low nutrients, and constantly saturated soils. Th is highly alkaline, low nutrient environment depends on high water quality (Figure 12). Even small changes to the Figure 12. Groundwater in prairie fens is often so full of calcium and water quality and nutrient availability in prairie fens can have magnesium that it precipitates as “marl.” Where they occur, marl fl ats profound negative consequences for the fen itself. Th e prairie are one of the more obvious features of prairie fens.

* A-14 * Threats

Th e conversion of fens to shrub-carr or forested Fire played a complex wetlands reduces habitat for many species, including shade- intolerant plants, birds and mammals that prefer an open or role in fens historically. semi-open habitat structure, and reptiles and amphibians, In contemporary which depend on sunlight to regulate their body temperature. Plants, such as the small white lady slipper (Crypripedium landscapes, it is an candidum) and poikilotherms (“cold-blooded” organisms), such as the eastern massasauga rattlesnake and the Mitchell’s important conservation satyr butterfl y, are often the fi rst species to disappear from tool. fens when ground level sunlight becomes restricted by shrubs and trees. Direct mortality of rare animals from prescribed fen community exists because many of the organisms in this fi re is a concern to many conservationists, who worry community can only compete in a low nutrient environment. that aggressive use of prescribed fi re may act more as a An increase in nutrient loads to the fen facilitates invasion conservation threat than conservation strategy. Fire eff ects on of the fen by invasive plants. Th is invasion results in a rare species are sometimes negative (Panzer 2003, Durblan simplifi cation of the vegetation community, a shift toward 2006, Swengel and Swengel 2007), sometimes neutral monocultures, and a loss of biodiversity (see section 3.3.1. on (Andrew and Leach 2006) and sometimes positive (Panzer Invasive Species for more details). 2002, Pickens and Root 2009) (Figure 13). An extensive review of fi re related literature in the Great Lakes region 3.2.2 Altered fi re regimes concluded that fi re eff ects across many taxa of animals was By one measure of conservation need, the world’s species-specifi c and varied by timing, burn extent, and pattern temperate grasslands, including the oak savanna and prairie (Roloff and Doran, In Prep). landscape around fens, are the most imperiled biome on the globe. Temperate grasslands have seen more conversion and are less protected than any other biome. By this measure, savannas require conservation more than arctic tundra or tropical rainforest (Hoekstra et al. 2005). One reason (of many) for the conversion of grasslands to other types is fi re suppression. Although many grasslands are maintained through environmental extremes (very wet, very dry, very acid, or very basic soils) or other disturbance regimes (grazing, high winds, frequent beaver fl ooding), fi re has been a major determinant of the landscape distribution of grasslands until recently (the past 100 – 200 years). Th e lack of fi re in grassland landscapes, including fens, has allowed many historically open grassy wetlands to convert to shrubs or forest. Most fi res that occur within the geographic range of the prairie fen are wildfi res. Th ey are ignited accidentally or maliciously, without planning for safety, control, and smoke management. Th ese wild fires are appropriately suppressed, sometimes at a signifi cant cost to Figure 13. Many species, such as this box turtle, are insensitive to fi re society. during some seasons and extremely sensitive during other seasons.

* A-15 * Threats

Livestock should not be used as a management tool in fens without a documented history of grazing. Grazing Grazing regimes in fens damages fens. However, once grazing has occurred, the should be changed with damage is done. Ceasing grazing (at a low to moderate animal stocking density) then becomes a conservation threat, unless caution and only with considerable resources are available to control invasive plants careful planning. and woody vegetation (Figure 14). In fens where grazing occurred and has now ceased, both woody and herbaceous invasive plants become problematic. Th ey often out-compete native plants by growing taller and shading nearby native vegetation. In 3.2.3 Altered grazing and browsing regimes comparing fens grazed by livestock at low intensity to fens Th e eff ects of all herbivores on prairie fens are not where grazing had ceased, the actively grazed fens had the same. Invertebrates diff er from vertebrates. Browsers eat signifi cantly more native grasses, sedges, forbs, and mosses more woody plants and fl owering plants, and eat less grass and signifi cantly less tall woody vegetation; actively grazed and sedges. Grazers concentrate on grasses and sedges, and fens also had signifi cantly shorter invasive plants compared consume less woody vegetation or fl owers. to formerly grazed fens (Tesauro and Ehrenfeld 2007). Th us, re-initiating grazing may be a valuable management tool to Grazers control invasive plants, when and where other management Is the long-term composition of plant communities tools are either unavailable or are deemed too expensive. dependent on large, vertebrate grazers, such as bison and elk? Can cattle grazing mimic grazing by native herbivores, or is grazing by domestic livestock itself a threat? As discussed in the Overview, grazing by large vertebrates was probably minimal prior to settlement, and thus, the lack of large vertebrate grazers does not pose a conservation threat. Many of the ecosystem services provided by grazing are also provided by fi re, including greater light penetration to the seedbank and the creation of spatial and temporal heterogeneity within the fen. Because grazing by bison was probably minimal, cattle grazing in fens probably do not mimic a previous natural process. Finally, the degree to which grazing is a threat or useful management tool will likely vary from fen to fen. Grazing by cattle changes the successional pathway of prairie fens (Middleton 2002) and is thus not appropriate for fens that have not been grazed upon previously (Middleton et al 2006b). In fens with little or no grazing history, hydrology and fi re are suffi cient to limit the encroachment of woody vegetation. Grazing by cattle damages the tussock and soil structure of fens, and allows woody vegetation to invade. Continued grazing will suppress the woody shrubs, but when livestock are removed from the system, the suppressed woody shrubs rapidly shade the native Figure 14. Th e soft ground of fens is inappropriate for livestock grazing. fen vegetation (Middleton 2002). Fens already damaged by livestock grazing can be grazed lightly in late summer or fall to manage woody vegetation and invasive species.

* A-16 * Threats

Browsers 3.3 Loss of Biological Diversity In contrast to grazing, the historical and contemporary levels of browsing in fens are better established. 3.3.1 Invasive species White-tailed deer make use of fens for food and as escape Invasive species cause signifi cant economic and cover. Deer trails are ubiquitous in prairie fens, and it is environmental damage in the United State and around likely that these patterns of use have not changed greatly the world. Non-native invasive species cause an estimated over the past several thousand years. Th e numbers of deer, $120 billion dollars in economic losses in the United States, and subsequent browsing pressure, however, have changed annually (Pimental et al. 2005). Th ese economic damages through time. Prior to European-American settlement, include decreased crop yields, loss of rangeland, damage to deer populations were abundant, although less abundant lawns, death of shade and ornamental trees, termite damage than contemporary populations. Unregulated hunting and to structures, and mussel damage to electrical power plants. commercial exploitation reduced populations dramatically Invasive species are the second leading cause of biodiversity by 1900, when deer were extirpated from much of northern loss, after direct habitat destruction, and over half of the Indiana and much of southern Michigan (Bartlett 1937). species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act are Restocking eff orts were initiated in Michigan and Indiana threatened in whole or in part by invasive species (Wilcove et in 1934. Th rough careful management, deer populations al 1998). rebounded. By mid-century deer populations were abundant Invasive non-native species pose a grave threat to enough that protections on antlerless deer (females and 0.5 biodiversity (Vitousek et al. 1997, Simberloff 2005). year old males) were removed in some counties in Michigan Although each new invasive may temporarily and locally (Ryel et al. 1980, Langenau 1994). Deer populations increase species richness, the long-term and broad-scale eff ects continued to increase and deer are considered to be on species richness are generally negative (Simberloff 2005). overabundant throughout the range of prairie fens in Indiana Furthermore, biodiversity is not a simple measure of the and Michigan. In northern Indiana, deer populations are number of species in an area, but includes genetic, species, consistently 5% – 10% above desired levels. In southern and ecosystem diversity (Gaston and Spicer 2004). Michigan, the estimated population in 2005 (868,000) was Wetlands are threatened by more non-native plants 53% above the 1999 goal (566,000). Heavy deer browsing than uplands, and invasive plants in wetlands are more likely can signifi cantly decrease plant diversity in grassland systems to cause monocultures (Zedler and Kircher 2004). Prairie (Anderson et al. 2005). Th us, the presence of native browsers fens in Michigan and Indiana are not an exception, and are in prairie fens is not a conservation threat, but their current threatened by a wide array of invasive plants and insects population densities do constitute a signifi cant threat to the (Spieles et al. 1999, Eagle et al. 2005, Anonymous 2006, Kost biological diversity of prairie fens. et al. 2007; Table 3). Invasive species are most often a problem in natural Invertebrates communities that have been disturbed in some way by human Most species of herbivores in prairie fens are activities. Most fens worldwide have been subjected to some invertebrates. Relatively little is known of their historic or form of disturbance, either indirectly through landscape current role within the prairie fen community. Herbivory changed in hydrology, changing climate, CO2 fertilization, by invertebrates only constitutes a threat when related to and historic use as pasture for livestock (Bedford and Godwin invasive exotic invertebrates, such as the tamarack casebearer 2003, van Digglen et al. 2006). In theory, at least, a few (Coleophora laricella). invasive species are capable of invading and damaging high- quality, “undisturbed” ecological communities. Non-native species invasions occurred repeatedly in geological history as land bridges formed between North America and Eurasia, causing widespread loss of native fl ora and fauna before humans were present on this continent (Flannery 2001).

* A-17 * Focus on Invasive Plants

Eurasian buckthorns (Rhamnus cathartica and R. fragula) Buckthorns invade fens, even those that are relatively undisturbed. Glossy buckthorn is a problem in fens more often than common buckthorn. Buckthorns are a fast growing tree that can spread rapidly. Adult buckthorns create a deep shade that kills most native fen vegetation. Th ey are also effi cient nitrogen fi xers. Th e leaves are rich in nitrogen and will greatly accelerate decomposition of vegetation and eliminate fuel for fi re. Th e nutrient enrichment of the soil paves the way for other invasive plants to invade what is otherwise a nitrogen limited ecological community. Adult buckthorn are not sensitive to fi re, but fi re is often a necessary tool to manage buckthorn invasions, especially expression of the buckthorn seedbank. Narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) and hybrids Narrow-leaf cat-tail is a signifi cant and rapidly spreading threat to prairie fens. Narrow-leaf cat-tails can form dense monocultures that decrease the area available to native plants. Because cat-tail leaves and stems are highly succulent, they do not burn well when green and monocultures can preclude growing season burns. Cat-tails respond quickly to changes in nutrients, and are a good indicator of water quality issues. Invasion can also indicate a slight (or not so slight) drying of the soil, either from climate or changes in the groundwater. Narrow-leaf cat-tail hybridizes with native cat-tails (T. latifolia) easily. Hybrid cat-tails (T. x glauca) can be as invasive as or more invasive than pure narrow-leaf cat-tail. Recent surveys of genetic material from several National Parks in the Great Lakes failed to fi nd pure native cat- tail individuals, except in Voyageurs National Park. Th ey found only narrow leaf cat-tail and hybrid cat-tail (Travis et al. 2006). Th e native cat-tail may be extirpated from the geographic range of prairie fens in Michigan and Indiana. All cat-tail populations in prairie fens now should be considered invasive hybrids and should be monitored. Th ey should be managed if they show signs of invasion.

* A-18 * Focus on Invasive Plants

Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Th e 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 diffi cult to control without damaging the fen community. Th is 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 effi cent management tool.

Multifl ora rose (Rosa multifl ora) Multifl ora 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 leafl et. Multifl ora rose will be set back by fi re,. Herbicide treatment is eff ective, but painful.

* A-19 * 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. Th e 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 butterfl y site where beetles were introduced, the loosestrife population has continued to expand.

* A-20 * 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. Th e ecology of barberry invasions is similar to buckthorn. Th e barberry vegetation shades nearby vegetation and adds nitrogen to the soil, thus decreasing plant diversity and fuel for fi res. 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 australis) Phragmites may be the most widely distributed fl owering plant on Earth, and is native to every continent except Antarctica. Th e 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 diff ers 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

* A-21 * Threats

Off -Road Vehicles (ORVs) ORVs which serve as all-terrain vehicles, are wheeled Invasive plants vehicles supporting 3 or more wheels, and are capable of negotiating rough terrain. Some defi nitions also include often indicate other motorcycles in this group as they have similar capabilities. In threats, such as water fens, ORVs are capable of crushing vegetation, compressing and disturbing soils, disturbing hummocks, and suppressing contamination or past revegetation. Impacts are magnifi ed when ORV use is repetitive over the same trails or areas. Impacts are primarily grazing. on habitats and communities, although crushing and killing state or federally listed insects and plants is possible. ORV use on adjacent uplands has the potential For these reasons, invasive species should be considered a to increase erosion into the fens. It also impacts plant signifi cant threat to all fens, and not only those that have been communities that support corridors between habitat sites, and impacted by other conservation threats, such as draining, facilitates invasions of exotic plants. Th e removal of vegetation overgrazing, or water pollution. by ORV use can also contribute to greater water runoff and lesser water recharge into the soil. Th is phenomenon can also 3.3.2 Incompatible recreational activities contribute to increased soil/water temperatures within the fen. Fens are not commonly used for recreational activities. Th e uneven terrain, lack of mineral soil, presence of Horse Use poison sumac (and sometimes rattlesnakes), and constant high Horse activity within fens is similar to ORVs. It water table discourage use by motorized or non-motorized has the potential to crush vegetation, compress and disturb vehicles. In conversations with private landowners in the soils, stir soil organic and inorganic components, disturb Landowner Incentive Program, the recreational activities most hummocks, and suppress revegetation. Impacts are also often mentioned are hunting, fi shing, and wildlife viewing. magnifi ed with increased activity. In addition through their Fens are also visited by entomologists, herpetologists, and droppings, horses can inadvertently introduce exotic plant botanists interested in fi nding or collecting rare specimens species to fen, especially because soil disturbance by horses’ of various taxa. As long as these recreational activities are hooves predisposes the trail to exotic plant invasion. Horse conducted in accordance with the law, these activities are not activity can have impact on adjacent upland similar to ORV considered a threat to the health of the fen. impact. However, horse activity is generally assessed to have Incompatible recreational activities are those that lesser impact than that from ORVs. have either a short- or long-term negative impact on the ecological function of fens. Th ese include off -road vehicle Snowmobiling (ORV) use, horse use, and snowmobiling. Th ere may be Snowmobiling can have impacts to fens through manners and intensities of these recreational activities that the crushing of vegetation, especially woody vegetation. are compatible with fen management, but considerable Snowmobiles can also disturb hummocks and impact soils if alterations to the normal recreational activity would be the machine breaks through the snow layer and comes into necessary. Th ese incompatible recreational activities become contact with the soil. Where the snow layer is broken, soils are less compatible with increasing intensity of use. For example, exposed to a greater degree of freezing and thawing that can one snowmobile crossing a fen over deep snow with a well- compromise both fl ora and fauna. Th e action of the machines developed base is unlikely to cause damage. A trail with high also compresses and condenses the snow layer resulting in traffi c volume on marginal snow conditions is likely to affect delayed thawing in the spring and delayed natural community hydrology through ruts, damage vegetation, and introduce response. Unless snowmobile activity is concentrated in fens, invasive plants from other areas. this activity is generally assessed to have less impact than horseback riding and ORV use.

* A-22 * Goals

3.3.3 Extinction and extirpation Sometimes a species may persist, but a critical life Th e loss of biodiversity is usually thought of as a stage or form can be lost. Tussocks of Carex stricta play a negative outcome of conservation threats, such as invasive key role in the biodiversity of prairie fens (Peach and Zedler species or fragmentation. Extirpation of species from specifi c 2006; see Figure 3). Siltation or heavy grazing can destroy the fens or extinction of species across all fens is not generally tussock topography and remove many ecological niches from categorized as a threat itself. However, the loss of species, the wetland that are critical to the persistence of many plants. locally or globally, can aff ect other species within a fen Tussocks form slowly over 50 years or more. Th us, the loss of system. Th ese processes include flower/pollinator interactions, this one species (or form of this species) can have long-term larval host plants, predator/prey dynamics, and mycorrhizal eff ects on the biological diversity of the prairie fen. associations. Th e swamp metalmark (Calephelis muticum) is a tiny (2.5 – 3 cm wingspan) butterfl y (Figure 15.), whose larvae feed solely on rosettes of the swamp thistle (Cirsium 4. Goals and Objectives muticum). Recent reports of feeding of seed weevils Rhinocyllus conicus (a biocontrol introduced in the 1960s to control invasive musk thistle, (Caardus nutans) on native 4.1. Maintain and Restore Fen swamp thistle have coincided with surveys suggesting that Distribution and Context swamp metalmarks might have been extirpated from many wetlands where they occurred in Michigan. However, Goal: Maintain or increase the spatial distribution swamp metalmarks are particularly diffi cult to survey, and populations may be irruptive. Th us, further research will of functioning prairie fen complexes (and associated need to be done to confi rm the widespread extirpation of upland and wetland buff ers). this butterfl y and the relative impacts of seed weevils, shrub encroachment, and invasive plants. Objectives: 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.

4.1.3 Increase public awareness of the value of prairie fens in fen surface watersheds and ground watersheds through targeted outreach and education

4.1.4 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.

Figure 15. Th e swamp metalmark is one of many rare species that occur in prairie fens.

* A-23 * Conservation Strategies 4.2. Restore or Mimic Natural 5. Conservation Strategies Processes

Goal: Maintain, restore, and simulate ecological 5.1 Protect Prairie Fens, processes in prairie fens. Associated Upland Habitats, and

Objectives: Landscape Connections 4.2.1 Use groundwater protection models and evaluation tools to determine threats to rare species in 5.1.1 Refi ne priorities for the protection and prairie fens management of prairie fens and adjacent lands. Priority is diffi cult to quantify. Land managers must 4.2.2 Support policies to protect the groundwater weigh several factors in determining what priority to give to sources and connections to wetlands. fens within their jurisdiction. Factors such as opportunity, long-term commitment on the part of the landowner, viability of the fen itself, the presence of threatened or endangered 4.2.3 Increase the use of prescribed fi re as a species, and other factors all must be considered. management tool in fens and the surrounding Th e viability of the fen and the presence of landscape matrix, where appropriate. endangered species can be evaluated through Natural Heritage databases. Element occurrences for fens (in Indiana) or prairie 4.2.4 Protect fens from changes in grazing regime, and fens (in Michigan) will include an alphabetical rank from A decrease browsing pressure by decreasing deer densities (most viable) to E (least viable). In general, it is most cost- in accordance with regional deer population goals eff ective to manage area to maintain a high rank, rather than manage to improve a low rank. However, where opportunity and long-term protection exist, the management and 4.3. Maintain or Restore Native restoration of low rank fens may be a priority. Protection of adjacent lands should also be a priority. Focus Biological Diversity should be on maintaining or improving water quality in the surface watershed of the fen itself. Th e water quality of Goal: Maintain or increase native biological diversity watershed of the stream, river or lake of the fen is important, of prairie fen complexes. but secondary. Th e groundwater should also be protected, although Objectives: new tools will be needed for managers to evaluate threats to 4.3.1 Monitor for invasive species on managed fens on the groundwater of specifi c fens. Th e ground watershed of the fen may extend up to several miles from the fen itself. both private and public lands

4.3.2 Manage invasive species on fens on both private 5.1.2 Work with private landowners and public and public lands agencies to identify protection options. Protecting lands requires targeted outreach to private 4.3.3 Manage motorized and equine recreation landowners. Landowners often have many questions. Th ey need to develop trust with individuals within organizations activities to avoid impacts prairie fens and agencies. Cultivating relationships takes time. 4.3.4 Reintroduce missing prairie fen species

* A-24 * Conservation Strategies

5.1.3 Identify funding sources for land acquisition functional landscape of wetlands, savannas, and prairies. and for staff capacity to administer grants and Natural vegetation is rare and scattered (Th e Nature purchased lands or easements. Conservancy 2003). Prairies, savannas, and wetlands should be restored, where soils and hydrology are amenable to Th e Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfl y Habitat Conservation restoration, within the surface-watershed and ground- Plan will allow state agencies in Indiana and Michigan watershed of fens. Michigan to seek grant funds to protect lands to conserve Prairie and savanna plants are deep-rooted and MSB habitat. Th ese funds will be less competitive than promote infi ltration of rain and snowmelt. Th is helps decrease traditional Section 6 funds. However, careful thought and sedimentation and maintains water quality. Because some planning will need to go into the staff capacity needed to prairie fen plants and animals exist both in the fen and administer these grants and to administer the lands once they prairie/savanna, restoration will increase patch size, decrease are purchased. isolation, and facilitate dispersal. Restored savannas and prairies are important habitat for many rare species, but also 5.1.4 Acquire land or protect with conservation provide quality habitat for deer, turkey, and pheasants. easements Restoring wetlands will decrease isolation, improve Approximately, one-third (1,610 acres) of prairie genetic exchange, and facilitate dispersal of wetland species. fens are currently on public land or on lands owned by Th e restored wetlands will provide habitat for rare plants conservation organizations. Th us, to protect one half of and animals, as well as important breeding habitat for fens, approximately 800 acres of prairie fens will need to be waterfowl. In addition, the restored wetlands will improve protected. water quality in the watershed and could decrease fl ooding Until recently, land and conservation easement (and sedimentation) in fens. Between 1998 and 2004 there acquisition has focused on protecting parts of fens. Upland was a net increase in wetlands in the United States; for the properties surrounding fens have been a lower priority. fi rst time in recent history, wetland restorations outpaced However, given threats to water quality and the important wetland loss (Dahl 2006). Continuing restoration will make eff ects of habitat matrix on the fen itself (Cozzi et al. 2008), reducing wetland isolation at the landscape scale a realistic equal priority should be given to protecting groundwater management goal. recharge areas and adjacent uplands. Th e prairie fen, adjacent Restoration eff orts, like land acquisition, should be uplands, and groundwater recharge areas are one system, prioritized according to fen quality, distance from a viable fen and should be protected as such. Th e minimum ratio of community, and likelihood of successful restoration. surrounding protected area should be at least 3:1 for any given fen. Because resources for land acquisition are limited, 5.1.6 Manage beaver activity to promote the long- this strategy will result in fewer acres of prairie fen protected term health of prairie fens. and more acres of nearby upland protected. Eff orts should Beaver activity should not be discouraged, except in be focused on the highest quality fens, fens with viable very small or gently sloped fens where the fl ooding threatens populations of listed species, and fens in landscapes already to submerge signifi cant areas of fen vegetation. Beaver activity targeted for other conservation values (headwaters initiatives, can set back woody succession and counteract drying of the water quality, land conservancy priorities, etc). Developing fen, but can also cause sedimentation, which can upset the creative ways to protect priority lands will allow limited nutrient balance of fens and facilitate future invasions of resources to be used most eff ectively. exotic plants. Impoundments to mimic beaver activity are not the preferred management option in most cases, but can be useful in certain topographies or to achieve shrub control. 5.1.5 Restore prairie, savanna, and wetlands Water levels should be drawn-down more often than fl ooded surrounding fens where impoundments exist to maintain prairie fens. Currently, few if any fens occur in an ecologically

* A-25 * Conservation Strategies

5.1.7 Maintain natural vegetation and promote 5.3 Incorporate predicted climate groundwater recharge Most fens in Michigan and Indiana occur on change into conservation planning private land, and private landowners will not always have the for prairie fens resources or the ability to restore prairie, savanna, or other wetlands. Also, fens are not always surrounded by degraded prairie or savanna. Some fens are bordered, at least in part, by 5.3.1 Adjust management actions to address high quality forested communities. Where prairie, savanna, or predicted eff ects of climate change on fens wetland restoration is not a viable management option, areas Th e tools necessary to address climate change are should be maintained to promote groundwater recharge. similar to other tools common to good conservation plans: Impervious surfaces should be limited, or less using scientifi c research to guide conservation actions, impervious options considered. Mat forming grasses, reducing fragmentation of natural communities, combating especially mowed lawn, should also be avoided and replaced alien invasive species, monitoring, and adaptive management. with clump forming grasses. Th us, climate change does not require a fundamentally new Many conservation strategies to improve water approach. Instead, the predicted eff ects of climate change quality, such as fi lter strips in agricultural eldsfi or need to inform traditional conservation planning with the water gardens to manage storm water, will also reduce goal of reducing the impact of climate change and assisting fragmentation and create connectivity across the landscape. species and communities in adapting to inevitable climate change. Predicted eff ects of climate change include: 5.2 Increase Public Awareness • Increased invasiveness of invasive species • Increased weediness of common, easily dispersed and Understanding of Prairie species Fens and Associated Conservation • Increased competition from species at the northern edge of their range (i.e., tulip poplar) and decreased Issues. fi tness from species at the southern limit of their range (i.e., tamarack) 5.2.1 Develop and implement an education and information program focused on prairie fens. 5.3.2 Predict climate sensitivity and future geography of conservation targets based on regional 5.2.2 Support training opportunities for staff and climate models (if available) or global climate models conservation partners. Species within ecological communities will not respond uniformly to climate. Instead, responses will be species specifi c. Th us, to conserve all components of the 5.2.3 Evaluate the eff ectiveness of the education and community, each species should be evaluated for its sensitivity information program. to predicted change. While this is not feasible for every species it is imperative for conservation targets (state and federally listed plants and animals) or species that appear to play a signifi cant role in the community (tamarack, Carex stricta). Some traits to evaluate include geographic breadth (widely distributed or localized and endemic), placement in context of range (north end of range or south end), dispersal ability (coeffi cient of conservatism in plants?), population size, and habitat fragmentation.

* A-26 * Conservation Strategies

5.3.3 Identify trigger points to begin planning the 5.4 Protect and restore natural facilitated migration (introductions) of dispersal- limited species to northern fens surface and ground water fl ow and Facilitated migration should be a measure of last fl ooding regime. resort, and trigger points should consequently be set high. Metrics should be statistically rigorous (as much as possible Prairie fens are unique wetlands that rarely fl ood; given the low number of sites for many species). For example, soil is constantly saturated throughout the year. Th us, many the loss of one MSB site at the southern extreme of the management practices diff er for fens as compared to other geographic range does not justify facilitated migration. wetlands. Permanent water control structures, such as dams, However, loss of several sites in Indiana and the southern are inappropriate for fens, and long-term or seasonal fl ooding tier of Michigan counties would be another matter. (Th is is will replace the rare fen community with the more common complicated by the unique geography of the Great Lakes: emergent marsh community. Small, temporary structures precipitation and temperature patterns are not oriented to fl ood portions of a fen can be used to set back woody strictly north-south. Th us, sites need to be ranked by climate, succession in fens already degraded by a history of livestock not latitude.) grazing. Th e key is to develop trigger points before facilitated migration is necessary. Th e direct eff ects of climate will not likely be obvious. Instead, the indirect eff ects are more likely 5.4.1 Identify and protect regions of critical to dominate (increased invasiveness of non-native invasive groundwater recharge around fens species, for example). If we wait to set trigger points until Fens exist where signifi cant amounts of groundwater extirpation has begun, then there will likely be a lengthy are under pressure, either causing lateral movement or debate on the direct and indirect causes of individual upwelling. Th is pressure is caused by topographic relief. extirpations. Th e signifi cant amounts of groundwater come from deep Facilitated migration should be used cautiously. coarse soils, such as sand or gravel. Th us, deep coarse soils Th ere is signifi cant risk to those systems receiving the at elevations signifi cantly above the fen are the critical more southerly endangered species. A successful facilitated groundwater recharge areas for the fen itself. Th ese areas migration will result in the “invasion” of the northern system of recharge may be many miles from the fen. Impervious by a species of more southern distribution. Th is would then surfaces, such as pavement, rooftop, and lawn, in these stress conservation targets in the northern system. areas can decrease groundwater penetration. Conversely, deep rooted, native savanna and prairie plants can increase groundwater penetration. 5.3.4 Reduce non-climate stressors on the prairie fens 5.4.2 Restore native upland savanna and prairie Climate change is likely to disproportionately over groundwater recharge areas impact those species already in need of conservation while Th e restoration of native plant communities in simultaneously favoring common or invasive “weedy” species. the landscape surrounding fens can allow precipitation Climate change will likely magnify the negative eff ects of to penetrate the soil surface. In addition to benefi ting other threats. Th us, the conservation strategies outlined in biodiversity through reducing landscape fragmentation, other sections of this Plan will also address the threat of native vegetation facilitates groundwater recharge and reduces climate change. fl ooding. Th e use of so-called “rain gardens” and other low- impact development methods to manage storm water should be encouraged in communities within the groundwatershed of prairie fens.

* A-27 * Conservation Strategies

5.4.3 Limit activites in uplands that interrupt 5.5 Minimize adverse changes to groundwater fl ow. water quality. Worldwide, fens are primarily threatened by draining or reduction in groundwater inputs to the fen itself 5.5.1 Support strict enforcement of state and federal (Bragg and Lindsay 2003, Grootjans et al. 2006). Historically, regulations regarding water quality in watersheds of many fens were ditched or tiled to facilitate agriculture. prairie fens. Current regulations in the United States prohibit such Th e quality of water in Indiana and Michigan is actions, and these regulations should be enforced. A much protected under several statutes, including provisions of more common threat to fen hydrology is the creation of Michigan’s Public Act 451, Indiana Code 13-18 et. seq. ponds in uplands adjacent to fens. Th is can disrupt springs (Water Pollution Control), and the federal Clean Water that feed the fen. Th e fl ow of groundwater into or through a Act. Th e regulator of water quality in Indiana is the Indiana fen is altered, which changes plant diversity, insect diversity, Department of Environmental Management (IDEM); or facilitates invasion by exotic plant species. Excavation into Questions regarding water quality should be directed to the groundwater adjacent to fens should not occur. IDEM at 317-232-8603. Th e regulators of water quality in Michigan are the Michigan Department of Natural Resources 5.4.4 Remove barriers to groundwater fl ow, where (DNR). Regulations are only eff ective if they can be enforced. feasible In an era of streamlined staff , it is imperative that managers of Open water ponds that have been excavated adjacent prairie fens work closely with staff responsible for enforcing to fens can cut the groundwater connection between the water quality regulations. A close collaboration across agencies mineral soils under uplands and peat soils under the fen. can help managers understand the limits and opportunities Th is reduces the hydraulic potential to the subsurface peat, that regulators possess, and will allow regulators to learn the and converts a groundwater system to surface water system. value of particularly biologically diverse and fragile wetlands, Filling excavated areas with peat has been successful in some such as prairie fens. restorations (i.e. Ives road Fen in Michigan), but fi lling of ponds is still experimental. Th e quantity and type of peat 5.5.2 Identify and minimize salt and sediment necessary are not known. inputs from roads. Poorly designed culverts on roads downstream Cattails (Typha spp.) can tolerate higher salt of fens can cause fl ooding and a conversion of fen to an concentrations than many plants native to prairie fens. In emergent marsh. Roads and culverts upstream can cause fens in northeastern Illinois, cattail monocultures coincided drying and shrub or cattail invasions. Extensive earth moving with groundwater plumes of Na+ and Cl-, consistent with and road redesign is rarely feasible for the sole purpose of private septic systems and roadway de-icing agents (Panno et fen restoration. However, managers should work with road al. 1999). At many fens in Michigan, cattail monocultures are commissions to re-design culverts and drainages when major often adjacent to roads or septic systems (Hoving, personal roadwork or culvert replacement is already scheduled. Simply communication.) While treatment of cattails as an invasive moving the culvert up or down in elevation may restore at species is warranted at these sites, a long-term solution must least some natural hydrology to the fen. include minimizing salt and sediment run-off from roads.

5.4.5 Restore non-fen wetlands in the landscape 5.5.3 Identify and minimize artifi cial nutrient around fens to reduce landscape isolation inputs through an array of water quality initiatives and private lands programs. Nutrient inputs to fens in Michigan and Indiana come from fi ve main sources:

* A-28 * Conservation Strategies

• Atmospheric deposition from power plants, heavy industry, and agriculture, • Septic systems discharging adjacent to fens • Animal waste from livestock operations near fens • Fertilizer and sediments from agricultural fi elds near fens • Fertilizer and sediments from urban/suburban lawns near fens Atmospheric deposition, while a problem, is beyond the purview of the land manager. Nitrogen, salts, and phosphorus commonly contaminate the soil immediately around septic tanks. Th e distance from the tank to the fen is signifi cant, but tanks in the steep bluff s that often surround fens are of particular concern. Th e amount of contamination can depend a great deal of how the septic system is designed and how well it is maintained. Th e potential for nutrient contamination from septic systems varies from site to site. Fens without residential development nearby will not likely be aff ected by this source. Figure 16. Th e landscape context of a fen is important. Both surface water and groundwater inputs should be considered. Much like atmospheric deposition, this source is less tractable for the land manager of the fen. Contamination from livestock operations and Private lands programs that can improve water fertilizer run-off are easier to address. Considerable resources quality near prairie fens include: exist within the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, more commonly referred to as the Farm Bill. Within the Michigan: Farm Bill there are many programs, each geared to specifi c • Michigan Natural Resources Conservation Service - goals. Th e NRCS district conservationist in each county’s (517) 324-5270 USDA Service Center should be able to guide individual • Michigan Farm Service Agency - (517)324-5110 farmers through the process of signing up for the correct • Michigan Department of Natural Resources program. Th ose who administer these programs are often (Wildlife Division) - 517-284-WILD (9453) limited in time and staff ; any help a manager can off er •Michigan Department of Environmental Quality – (writing a management plan, soliciting information from the 1-800-662-9278 landowner for an application, etc.) will increase the chance that the project will be funded. Wastewater treatment facilities Indiana: for livestock operations (through EQIP) and buff er strips •Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service - (through Continuous CRP) are most likely to have the most (317)-290-3200 dramatic increase in water quality. •Indiana Farm Service Agency - 317-290-3315 Some fens occur in watersheds that are urban or •Indiana Department of Natural Resources - (317) suburban. Lamberton Fen, for instance, occurs within the 232-4200 or (877) 463-6367 limits of Michigan’s second largest city and is bordered on •Indiana Department of Environmental Management one side by an Interstate highway and on the other by well- (317) 232-8603 manicured lawn (Figure 16). In such areas, neighbors to the fen and local offi cials should be taught the importance of Federal water quality and how to maintain it. Smart management of •USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife lawn herbicides and fertilizers can go a long way in protecting MI: 517-351-6236; IN: 812-334-4261 the water quality of these fens.

* A-29 * Conservation Strategies

Because of changes in landscape structure, fuel 5.6 Use Fire as a Management models, invasive species, and rare species, the prescription Tool to Restore or Maintain Fens for fi re in and around fens should be planned carefully (O’Connor 2006) (Appendix A-1.). All management, and Landscape. including management using fi re, entails some risk to individuals, populations, and aspects of the prairie fen To avoid or minimize take, land managers working in community. A good manager will weigh those risks of habitat occupied by Mitchell’s satyr butterfl ies or Poweshiek management against the risks of applying no management skipperling should refer to the Mitchell’s satyr and (Figure 17). Poweshiek skipperling HCP, for management guidelines: Th e management of ecological communities can be counter intuitive to those focused on the conservation 5.6.1 Conduct prescribed burns in prairie fens and of specifi c rare species. Managers must often employ tools surrounding landscapes. that kill individuals for the long term benefi t of rare species. Restoring the full fi re regime that existed historically Th e ecosystem manager’s goal may be very diff erent from in prairie fens and the surrounding landscape matrix is neither those who would like to see the population of a given practical nor desirable. Past fi res were large and often intense. species maximized and mortality of that species minimized A century of fi re suppression has changed landscape structure in all situations and at all times. Th e goal of the ecosystem and fuel models; non-native species have been introduced; manager is to preserve fl uctuating, dynamic populations of and rare species sometimes require special accommodation. a full suite of native species appropriate to that ecological Certain aspects of the historical fi re regime are community. Th us, the loss of some individuals of a rare insect informative, and should be reproduced as much as possible. is appropriate if it is necessary to allow the seeds of several For example, fi re most often occurred in fens when the species of plants to germinate and reproduce, assuming surrounding landscape was dry. Th us, prescribed burns during that the rare insect is not extirpated from the system or the periods of low rainfall and low humidity are more likely to population is not impacted too severely. favor the fen community. Similarly, lightning ignited fi res Th e loss of individuals from fi re to increase in July and August in this region, and thus, growing season populations is appropriate for short-lived, prairie or fen burns may be appropriate. dependent species that have high reproductive output. However, the value of adults of species that are long-lived, have low reproductive output, and occur in (but are not dependent upon) fi re-driven ecosystems is diff erent. For example, eastern box turtles occur throughout a wide range of ecological communities in Michigan and Indiana, including prairie fens. Individuals can live (in captivity) to be over 100 years old. Recruitment from egg to reproductive adult is naturally low. Th e conservation value of older box turtles is very high. Loss of even one individual adult female from a population every few years could eff ectively send the population to extinction. For long-lived species, the loss of individuals might not always increase the overall population. In these situations managers must make diffi cult and sometimes controversial decisions (Figure 16). Discussions of the relative impacts of fi re (or other management tools) to diff erent plants or animals often occur Figure 17. Care must be exercised in using fi re within fen ecosystems. on a hypothetical level. Ideally management decisions should Some species are sensitive to fi re, especially at certain times of the year.

* A-30 * Conservation Strategies be made on the basis of ongoing, long-term monitoring. Managers of prairie fens should use an adaptive management framework. Many managers object to monitoring because it takes valuable resources from other management projects, especially if the monitoring is too detailed or poorly planned. However, the level of monitoring can be scaled to the resources available (O’Connor 2007) Conservation partners, especially in academia, might be used to complete monitoring projects. Th e wisest use of time and money, in the long term, is to monitor the eff ectiveness of management tools such as fi re. More importantly, monitoring can also address the real eff ect that fi re has on populations thought to be threatened by or thought to benefi t from re.fi

5.6.2 Mimic eff ects of fi re in fens and surrounding Figure 18. Because fens are small and diffi cult to access with landscapes mechanized equipment, management often occurs at a small scale. Prescribed fi re has long been recognized as the most cost-eff ective way to manage prairie fens and other ecological annual (or nearly so) to keep woody species in check. Haying communities (Jenkins 1954). Costs per acre for a burn over cuts tall species, removed biomass, and allows sunlight to a few acres in size range widely from public land to private reach plants of shorter stature. Mowing will cut the tall land. Although the cost may seem high, less expensive vegetation, but the cut vegetation tends to smother shorter alternatives are unlikely to mimic all of the ecosystem services stature plants. As mentioned in the Invasive Species section of a fi re. 5.8. it is imperative that all equipment (saws, herbicide When and where fi re cannot be used, several tools are applicators, mowers, tractors, etc.) be thoroughly cleaned available to mimic the eff ects of prescribed fi re. For degraded before being brought into a fen. Cutting woody vegetation fens with a grazing history, restoring livestock to the fen may will not improve the quality of the fen if herbaceous invasive be the quickest and least expensive way to mimic the eff ects plants are introduced by the cutting equipment. of fi re. See section 5.7 for more on grazing. Grazing should never be started in fens where there is not a clear, documented history of grazing by livestock. Another good option is to cut aggressive woody 5.7 Limit grazing and browsing, vegetation while minimizing soil disturbance. Th is approach except in already damaged fens can be expensive. Succession to shrub carr, especially native shrubs, likely indicates damage from past livestock grazing. 5.7.1 Limit grazing on fens that lack a grazing If grazing and fi re are not management tools, woody species history should be cut and stumps treated with herbicide labeled Livestock grazing alters the successional trajectory of for use over open water (Figure 18). An herbicide wand prairie fens (Middleton 2002). Fens without grazing history (Appendix A-2.) will allow targeted herbicide application exist on the landscape, but are relatively rare. Th ose fens with without harming rare plants. Shrubs can be piled and then no grazing history are less likely to be invaded by shrubs, and burned, or left to rot. will thus have much lower management costs. Th ese fens If the fen has dried somewhat and the tussock micro should be protected from livestock grazing (Middleton et al. topography has been lost, the fen can be hayed. Th is is a 2006b). common management practice in Europe. Haying must be

* A-31 * Conservation Strategies

5.7.2 Maintain grazing on fens where it currently vegetated wetlands are often used by deer and turkey for occurs fawning/nesting cover, as escape cover, and for food. Fens are Grazing creates a niche for shrubs and other invasive especially valuable habitat in landscapes dominated by urban plants to invade prairie fens. It alters the successional development or extensive agriculture. trajectory of prairie fens, and we do not currently have Just as high densities of livestock can damage fens, management tools that can undo this eff ect. However, light high deer densities can also be a threat. For fen vegetation to moderate seasonal grazing can keep shrubs and invasive and the health of the deer herd itself, deer densities should herbaceous plants from spreading. Th us, grazing where be managed to maintain population levels in balance with grazing has already occurred can maintain a fen in an open their habitat. Recreational hunting should be encouraged in condition with a diversity of plants (Tesauro and Ehrenfeld and around prairie fens, and hunters should be encouraged to 2007). harvest antlerless deer. Grazing is a viable and valuable management tool Th e exact density of deer that will not damage fens for those fens already degraded by grazing. However, because will vary from one landscape to another. In general, developed grazing has negative eff ects, it should only be used when other landscapes that focus deer activity in fens will have lower management techniques (fi re, shrub control, herbicide, etc.) density thresh holds. Landscapes in which deer can be more are not available. Grazing a degraded fen is preferable to no evenly distributed across the landscape will be able to support management, but less preferable than fi re and other tools a higher density of deer. (Figure 19). 5.7.4 A note on insect/disease outbreak 5.7.3 Encourage hunting in and around prairie fens Disease outbreaks and insect infestations are to manage for healthy populations of deer, turkey, and common in prairie fens, especially in mature tamarack trees. other game species. Disease and insect outbreaks do not require management or conservation actions. However, management should focus on Hunting is a valuable part of prairie fen management, promoting the successful regeneration of tamarack trees in and it should be promoted on lands where prairie fen and prairie fens and rich tamarack swamps. biodiversity are the main goals. Fens and other densely

Figure 19. Many fens were grazed historically, but modern conservation practices limit livestock use of wetlands and streams. Fens with a grazing history can be grazed, but with caution. Fens without a grazing history should be managed with other tools.

* A-32 * Conservation Strategies

Tamarack trees are an important part of the prairie fen community. Many plants and insects (including the MSB) are associated with tamaracks. Tamaracks are shade intolerant, and will not germinate or persist in the shade of deciduous trees and shrubs. Many fens and tamarack swamps contain mature tamarack trees with an understory of deciduous trees and shrubs. If the mature tamarack trees succumb to insects or disease and are not replaced by young regenerating tamaracks, this important component of the fen community could be lost. Management of fens with mature tamarack trees should focus on maintaining tamarack regeneration and suppressing or removing deciduous trees and shrubs. Where the tamarack component has already been lost, deciduous trees and shrubs should be removed and tamarack trees should be planted.

5.8 Manage invasive species

Th e threat of invasive species can be overwhelming; Figure 20. Seeds of invasive plants, such as reed canary grass seeds on the complete eradication of all invasive exotic species from all this boot, are sometimes accidentally introduced to high-quality fens by managed natural areas is not possible. It is possible to waste researchers and managers. Tools and clothing should be washed after every visit to a fen (or other natural community). considerable resources attempting unsuccessfully to manage entrenched invasive species. In fact, eradication eff orts that are unsuccessful can cause enough disturbance to stimulate further invasions. However, with careful planning, invasive species often can be managed successfully with reasonable 5.8.2 Refi ne and implement best management amounts of time and money. practices to limit spread of invasive species. In addition to policies and tools to limit the 5.8.1 Support modifi cations in law, policy or introduction of invasive species from outside a jurisdiction, enforcement that could more eff ectively prevent the we also need to limit introduction from nearby wetlands or spread of invasive species. uplands to a given prairie fen. A vector unique to wetlands is Th e least expensive method to control an invasive the spread of seeds, roots, or viable plant fragments through species is to prevent its introduction (McNeely et al. 2001). the water. Th us, special attention should be made to the Roughly one in one thousand exotic species will prove presence of invasive plants upstream of fens. Roads are also to be invasive and cause signifi cant ecological damage common corridors for invasive plants. Finally, an effi cient (Williamson and Fitter 1996, Lockwood et al. 2001). Th us, vector to transfer viable seeds from fen to fen is the transport if introductions of new exotic species are not managed, on boots and saws of fen managers and researchers (Figure new invasive species of similar impact to glossy buckthorn 20). Th us, a standard set of guidelines for cleaning boots, or narrow leaf cattail will become established in the future. clothing, equipment, and vehicles should be developed and Australia and New Zealand have pioneered many policies and implemented to limit the spread of invasives directly from one models to signifi cantly slow the introduction of new invasive fen to another and also within the same fen. species (Gordon et al. 2008a, 2008b).

* A-33 * Focus on Prescribed Fire

Figure 21. Prairie fens occurred in landscapes that burned on a regular basis. Th e high loads of nefi fuels in fens would have been suceptible to fi re as well. Today, fi re is a useful tool to manage woody succession in fens.

Wetlands can be burned, and fi re is often a valuable management tool (Figure 21). Consider these management recommendations when using prescribed fi re as a management tool. Th ese special considerations should always be balanced against the threat to the species and other species if no management action is taken.

1. Avoid soil disturbance in fens or adjacent wetlands. Use natural burn breaks (streams, shrub-carr, etc) or existing features (roads, trails, etc.) wherever possible (Figures 22 and 23).

2. Timing burns at the same time of year, every year, will likely reduce species diversity. Vary the timing to include spring, summer, fall, and winter burns. Pyro-diversity equals biodiversity in systems with diverse fi re histories. o Dormant season, spring burns favor grasses, sedges, turtle, and snakes over wildfl owers. Th ey do little to control woody vegetation. o Shrubs, turtles, and snakes are most sensitive Figure 22. Existing burn breaks can be utilized in prairie fens. to fi re after green leaves have emerged. Created burn breaks often consist of lanes cleared with a weed whip o Summer burns are usually more patchy and and then sprayed with water. Pumps and hose can often provide smoky. ample water.

* A-34 * Focus on Prescribed Fire

fi re in any season once it is over one year of age. Seedlings are highly susceptible to fi re. Th us, fi re is eff ective up to one year after mechanical/chemical removal of adult buckthorn, after the buckthorn seedbank has expressed itself. o Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii is fi re sensitive in most seasons and age groups. o Once established, many invasive shrubs and trees (black locust Robinia pseudoacacia, autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata, or Japanese barberry B. thunbergii) increase soil nitrogen and thus accelerate the break down of fuel in their immediate vicinity, eff ectively creating their own burn break. o Fire provides a nutrient pulse to the soil, which can cause an increase in herbaceous invasive plants, especially cat-tails (Typha spp.) If water quality is degraded in the fen, the nutrient pulse may make the invasive plant Figure 23. Th e use of existing burn breaks has the added advantage problem worse. of restoring adjacent upland communities, such as 400 acres of o Targeted chemical or mechanical control of degraded oak savanna around this small prairie fen. herbaceous plants during the growing season immediately after a burn is highly o A burn will favor those plants and animals that recommended. are dormant or not growing quickly at the time of the burn. Th e burn will set back or kill those plants and animals that are fl owering or otherwise attempting reproduction. o Th e timing of burns should be driven, in part, by the science of prescribed fi re and the eff ect of the timing fi re on biodiversity, and not entirely on convenience for recreational activity, wildfi re activity, or ease of predicting fi re weather (Figure 24). o Tamarack trees are especially important to specifi c plants and insects, and should not be targeted with aggressive ignition patterns (i.e., rings around the tree).

3. Invasive species require special planning: o Like many fen shrubs, exotic invasive Figure 24. Crayfi sh burrows or “chimneys” are often found in uplands buckthorn (Rhamnus spp.) is not sensitive to adjacent to fens. Th ese are often used a hiberancula for rare snakes, and should be burned rarely and with extreme caution.

* A-35 * Focus on Prescribed Fire

o In general, a slow fi re will be less patchy, have lower peak temperature, but generate more net heat (fewer refuges in burn unit, but may allow species to move out of the burn area.) A fast fi re will be more patchy, reach higher peak temperature, but create less total heat over time (more refuges in burn unit, but may kill species that try to fl ee rather than seek refuge) (Figure 26). o To avoid or minimize take, land managers working in habitat occupied by Mitchell’s satyr butterfl ies or Poweshiek skipperlings must abide by the Mitchell’s satyr and Poweshiek skipperling HCP, for management restrictions. Th ese restrictions constitute the terms of an Incidental Take Permit.

Figure 25. Th is box turtle survived the initial refi but its long term injuries are unknown. Special care must be taken to avoid impacts to rare, sensitive, or slowly reproducing species.

4. Rare species require special consideration in timing, extent, and intensity of prescribed burns. o Fire is more likely to harm rare species when they are attempting to reproduce. (Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix A-1). o For rare species with high reproductive potential (most insects, many plants) and that are suspected to be sensitive to fi re, no more than 1/3 of the available habitat for that species should be burned in any one year. o For rare species with low reproductive potential that are suspected to be sensitive to fi re, most fi res should occur only during the dormant season (Figure 25). Th e exception would be a fi re to manage a more immediate threat to that species, such as a buckthorn Figure 26. Marls fl ats, seeps, springs, and small headwater streams create a natural patchiness to prairie fen burns. Prescibed burn plans invasion. should explicitly recommend patchiness.

* A-36 * Conservation Strategies

5.8.3 Monitor fens regularly to detect new invasions contains many useful pictures of ecologically signifi cant early in the process of invasion. invasive species, and gives much useful information on control techniques. Early detection and rapid response is more expensive Th e Michigan Natural Features Inventory than prevention, but considerably more cost eff ective than has recently created two handbooks on invasive plant other management eff orts. It is a wiser use of resources to identifi cation: a Guide to the Invasive Plant Species of monitor a 2 acre fen annually and to cut and kill the fi rst fi ve Michigan (Borland et al. 2009) and A Field Guide to buckthorn invaders, than to wait to cut the 50,000 buckthorn Invasive Plants of Aquatic and Wetland Habitats for invaders that fi ll that same 2 acre fen. Michigan (Campbell et al. 2010). Th e handbook is geared Resources and protocols should be developed to toward identifi cation. It contains succinct information direct early detection and rapid response, on public and on management, but does not have detailed information private lands, and in wetlands and uplands. on treatment, herbicides, etc. Th e detailed information on management techniques and the ecological eff ects of 5.8.4 Provide the public with information on herbicides in the Weed Control Methods Handbook (Tu et invasive species. al. 2001) on the website for the TNC Global Invasive Species Many managers are now cognizant of the threat of Initiative is also a useful resource. invasive species and can identify the most aggressive invaders. However, many private landowners lack this expertise. Th us, it is important that outreach materials target owners of prairie 5.9 Minimize Adverse Impacts of fens so that 1) they recognize that invasive species threaten values they hold in their property, and 2) they are taught to Recreational Activities. identify the invasive plants that may threaten their prairie fen. 5.9.1 Minimize and guide trail development. 5.8.5 Reduce distribution and abundance of Prairie fens are inappropriate for most recreational problematic invasive species. trails. Th e substrate is uneven, unstable, and waterlogged. To avoid or minimize take, land managers working in Footing for humans and horses alike is treacherous. Using habitat occupied by MSB or PS should refer to the Mitchell’s mineral soil to fi ll the trail is a violation of wetland statutes satyr and Poweshiek skipperling HCP for management and is rarely eff ective. Because of the sheet fl ow of water guidelines. In Michigan, land managers working in areas through the fen, water will pool on the up-slope side of the occupied by eastern massasauga rattlesnakes should refer to trail until the fi lled section is again inundated. Culverts are the guidelines in the Candidate Conservation Agreement with ineff ective with the fen itself because they would need to be Assurances for this species, or the latest draft. In Indiana, this constantly moved to refl ect changes in sheet ow.fl Poison species is state listed and the Indiana Division of Fish and sumac can seriously harm trail users. Th e rash from poison Wildlife should be consulted. sumac is more serious than poison ivy, and often requires Many good resources on the identifi cation and medical attention and prescription drugs. control of invasive species are available to land managers. Cross-country ski trails may be appropriate where In addition to these resources, the following sections refl ect snow is reliably deep enough to cover the tussock topography the practical experience of many land managers with a long of the fen. Th is is unlikely, except in the lake eff ect snow belt history of managing invasive species within and near prairie east of Lake Michigan. fens. Boardwalks can be installed in fens, but must be Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest (Czarapata carefully designed not to alter sheet fl ow, violate wetland 2005) provides a good overview of specifi c invasive plants statutes, or create niches and/or vectors for invasive across the geographic range of the prairie fen. Th e book plants. Where appropriate, boardwalks can provide a good opportunity for people to learn about fen ecology.

* A-37 * Conservation Strategies

5.9.2 Restrict access by off -road vehicles. 5.10.3 Prioritize components and areas for species Prairie fens off er poor recreation for ATV riders and reintroduction. off -road vehicles, and thus there is little demand or damage What are the most appropriate areas for from the threat. However, a vehicle stuck and then towed introduction? Is the site owned by a public entity or out of a fen can cause signifi cant damage. Trails for ATVs conservation organization? and off -road vehicles should be planned away from fens, and recreationists should be encouraged to avoid prairie fens. 5.10.4 If necessary and feasible, develop, test and implement a species reintroduction program. 5.10 Reintroduce Missing Prairie Fen Components 6. Monitoring,

5.10.1 Identify missing prairie fen components. Evaluation, and Adaptive Detailed plant lists exist for many prairie fens in Michigan and Indiana. Many fens have been surveyed Management repeatedly for rare butterfl ies. Some reptile and amphibian assemblages have been made for some fens, but distribution Fens are sensitive to land management within the of cryptic or fossorial species are less well known. Other fen, in adjacent wetlands, and in uplands surrounding the fen. important groups, such as native pollinators and mollusks Poor land management will result in a degraded fen. Good have been less studied, and nearly no information is available land management will protect the integrity of the fen. Th is on fungi or bacteria diversity in unique fen soils. Th us, we are sensitivity makes fens both a good conservation target and likely to detect extirpation of some taxa, but not others. a good indicator of the ecological health of the surrounding landscape. Th is sensitivity also makes monitoring of fen 5.10.2 Assess the need and feasibility of a species health and integrity a priority for all land managers, and reintroduction program. not only those interested in particular endangered plants, Reintroduction programs are not simple. Many butterfl ies, or reptiles. variables must be considered, including:

• Genetic eff ects (founders eff ects, ideal population 6.1 Continue Mapping and size of reintroduced population, source genetics) Monitoring to Assess Status and • Best life stage to reintroduce (gravid females, eggs, larvae?) Health of Fens • Social aspects (are neighbors ready for an endangered species that might spread to their property?) 6.1.1 Monitor and map fen communities and populations of rare species within fen communities. • Th e presence and strains of diseases in the Prairie fens provide habitat for a disproportionate population, such as Wolbachia (Werren et al. 2008, number of rare plant and animal species. Both the status Nice te al. 2009, Hamm et al. 2014.) of the fen and populations of rare species within the fen community should be monitored. Presence/absence surveys • And conservation threats (has the original reason that the for some fen species have been conducted as resources have MSB disappeared been fi xed at this site?) been available for decades. Over the past ten years, annual

* A-38 * Monitoring surveys have been conducted for the MSB. In addition, surveys for the PS have increased over the past several years 6.2 Conduct Active Research to due to concern about declining populations. Recently, community level protocols have been developed specifi cally Support Science-based Prairie Fen for prairie fens (Pearsall and Woods 2006 in Appendix A-3., Conservation O’Connor 2007). Monitoring results should be communicated to the Some professional managers and some private land manager (usually the private landowner) responsible for landowners have amassed considerable knowledge of prairie the fen. When management is warranted, the monitoring fen management over the past several decades. We now results must be communicated in the context of specifi c know some of the correct (and incorrect) ways to control management actions. Monitoring without recommending buckthorn, dogwood, or phragmites. We know that Mitchell’s management (when and if needed) does little more satyr butterfl ies require some woody vegetation, and that they than document the loss of the system. Recommending are very sensitive to changes in hydrology. management in vague (“You should spray that.”) rather than specifi c (“You should spray this plant with 20% solution of 6.2.1. Identify uncertainties and support research to Aquastar or Rodeo in June this year.”) terms accomplishes inform fen management little for most private landowners. Recommendations Th ere is still much that we do not know. Many to experienced land managers can be more vague than research questions remain including: recommendations to those inexperienced private landowners who manage most fens. • What are the impacts of hydrological changes to prairie Appropriate recommendations now accompany many fens and associated rare species and how do we monitor monitoring survey results that are reported to professional these changes? Do these changes limit the ability of land land managers. Private lands biologists provide appropriate managers to restore original conditions? Can these changes be recommendations to many private landowners in Michigan. ameliorated? Th is communication among those monitoring, those managing, and those in private lands programs is valuable and • Are there fen management techniques that are more should continue. effi cient (less time or money for the same or better ecological outcome)? 6.1.2. Map connectivity between fens and among adjacent natural communities • How can managers predict and monitor changes in fen Fens do not persist independent of the landscape vegetation to focus eff orts on areas with the highest potential context in which they were formed. For this reason, to revert to desired conditions. monitoring programs for fens should explicitly include uplands and wetlands on the surface-watershed and the • What is the historic fi re return interval of prairie fens ground-watershed of the fen. Land use in these areas should and how can this inform the use of prescribed fi re to mimic be mapped, and categorized by its positive or negative impact natural processes? on fen integrity. • Can the fen and associated species be conserved with the responsible use of prescribed fi re?

• What are the long-term eff ects of regular use of herbicides to combat invasive plants?

* A-39 * Monitoring

• How do MSB and PS respond to habitat structure 6.3.1 Monitor the eff ectiveness of management to and management at occupied sites? Do they utilize newly maintain fens. managed habitat? Just as monitoring without follow-up management (when needed) is ineff ective, so also is management without • How can we effi ciently obtain pre-management baseline follow-up monitoring. For example, clearing part of a data for MSB, PS, eastern massasauga and other rare plants fen of woody shrubs may off er an obvious and dramatic and animals at prairie fen sites to help us evaluate the impacts improvement, but without monitoring one cannot know the of fen management. extent of woody re-sprouts and seedlings. Perhaps herbicide concentrations need to be changed, or maybe a few hours of • What are the potential impacts of climate change on fens follow-up treatment is necessary. Monitoring can protect the and associated rare species? investment of signifi cant resources in restoration and improve future management. Th e diverse groups of conservation partners that Examples of fens that were not helped or were are collaborating to promote the conservation of prairie fens harmed by management without monitoring abound. In and associated rare species are developing a framework to one fen, the mature buckthorn shrubs were cut, and stumps address these uncertainties through conservation plans and were treated with herbicide. However, no monitoring was strategies. Opportunities to prioritize strategies, identify conducted. Th e seeds of the buckthorn sprouted, and within and retain needed resources, and implement actions to a few years these trees had replaced the older buckthorn, but address threats and improve fen habitat have not always been at a higher stem density than previously. Similarly, a fen was capitalized in the most eff ective manner. Resources should be burned in the early spring, and monitoring in that summer directed to secure necessary funding, conduct focused applied indicated that shrub cover was decreased and herbaceous research, continue habitat management and promote timely cover increased. However, the monitoring did not continue communication and information sharing between managers into subsequent years. Th e shrubs re-sprouted and stem and researchers to facilitate adaptive management. density increased. In another small fen, repeated annual late Th e challenges for the future are to mentor and train spring and early summer burns eff ectively reduced shrub younger managers while at the same time quantifying and cover, but the abundance of spring blooming plants and documenting the results of our management. Th is will ensure some animals were greatly reduced. Th ese are hypothetical that future fen managers are building on our hard-earned examples, based on the experiences of many managers and knowledge and not repeating our past mistakes. researchers. Managers cannot monitor all fens, in all years, for all species. However, managers should monitor some fens in 6.3 Adaptive Management some years. Rare species in these fens should be monitored by Adaptive management is necessary to address the many the manager or by researchers, such as natural features staff . uncertainties about the best way to manage fens while If specialists monitor for rare species, it is critical that they minimizing potential negative impacts to associated rare communicate their results to managers in a timely fashion. species. Adaptive management can be successful, when For managers with limited time to devote to management goals and objectives are clearly stated so that monitoring, a protocol is needed that is sensitive to fen monitoring benchmarks can be developed accordingly health and integrity and that is also quick and effi cient. (Noon 2003). Successful ecosystem management allows Th e Nature Conservancy in cooperation with the Michigan conservation approaches to change appropriately based on DNR has developed a community-based monitoring strategy new information. Conservation actions must be evaluated (Pearsall and Woods 2006) that is relatively simple, with only so that relative success can be documented and subsequent three metrics to estimate for each management unit of fen actions can be adapted for greater eff ectiveness. Th us, eff ective (Appendix A-3). monitoring is a key component of adaptive management.

* A-40 * Implementation

6.3.2 Explicitly include monitoring and adaptation 7.2 Public Involvement for a changing climate. Many people, especially landowners with fens, were As climate changes one would expect the geographic eager to be involved in the conservation of prairie fens. Th us, ranges of some species to shift. Th ese shifts may be associated this plan will need to have an outreach and private landowner with means or extremes of temperature or precipitation. assistance component. Without these the plan will not be Rare species at or near their geographic range limit should be adopted, used, and implemented by the managers (private sensitive to climate change. Th ese species should be mapped, landowners) who own and protect over half of all fens. and changes in distribution monitored. Our best guess is that this will be a long-term slow change that may not be apparent without explicit long-term monitoring. However, because the rate of change in greenhouse gases is unprecedented in recent 8. Literature Cited history, the rate of climate change and ecosystem responses is essentially unknown. Th is uncertainty is another important Allen, G.M. 1942. Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the reason to monitor changes. Finally, a climate related range Western Hemisphere with the Marine Species of All Oceans. contraction without an accompanying range expansion may trigger other conservation actions for a particular species. American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Special Publ. 11, 620 pages (reprinted in 1972 by Cooper 6.3.3 Change management as necessary to meet plan Square Publishers, New York). objectives. Adaptive management requires managers to change Amon, J.P., C.A. Th ompson, Q.J. Carpenter, and J. Miner. approaches based on the results of monitoring. Th is may be 2002. Temperate zone fens of the glaciated Midwestern USA. as simple as including follow-up herbicide treatments for Wetlands 22(2): 301-317 herbaceous invasives into plans for prescribed burns. It may be as profound as to replace prescribed fi re with low intensity Anderson, L.D., R.G. Clark, J. Findley, R.C. Hanes, L. grazing as the main disturbance regime, if monitoring and Mahaff ey, M. Miller, K. Stinson, and G.T. Zimmerman. research warrant such a change. Adaptive management is 2001. NWCG Fire Eff ects Guide. NFES 2394. National popular on paper, but managers tend to resist exchanging Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 313 pp. online at: http:// familiar practices with new ones. www.nwcg.gov/pms/RxFire/FEG.pdf

Anderson, R.C. 2006. Evolution and origin of the Central 7. Implementation Grassland of North America: climate, fi re, and mammalian grazers. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133(4): 626- 647. 7.1 Partner Participation Anderson, R.C., D. Nelson, M.R. Anderson, and M.A. In Indiana and Michigan, approximately 60% of fens Rickey. 2005. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) occur entirely on private land, and 40% occur partially or browsing eff ects on tallgrass prairie forbs: diversity and species entirely on public lands. Of those fens on private land, about abundances. Natural Areas Journal 25(1): 19-25. one-fi fth (usually the largest and highest quality fens) are managed or protected by conservation partners, such as land Andrew, C. and M.K. Leach. 2006. Are Prescribed Fires conservancies or bird sanctuaries. Conservation partners are Endangering the Endangered Silphium Borer Moth thus critical to the implementation of this multi-state plan. (Papaipema silphii)? Ecological Restoration 24(4):231-235

* A-41 * Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2006. Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy. Courtecuisse, R. 2001. Current trends and perspectives for Developed by D. J. Case and Associates. Coordinated by C. the global conservation of fungi. Pages 7-18 in D. Moore, Gremillion-Smith. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, M.M. Nauta, S.E. Evans, and M. Rotheroe, Eds. Fungal Division of Fish and Wildlife. 154 pp. Conservation: Issues and Solutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 262 pp. Askins, R.A. 2002. Restoring North America’s Birds: lessons from landscape ecology. Yale University Press, New Haven, Cozzi, G., C.B. Müller, and J. Krauss. 2008. How do local CT. 352 pp. habitat management and landscape structure at diff erent spatial scales aff ect fritillary butterfl y distribution on Bartlett, I.H. 1937. Deer Lecture to the Brooklyn Boosters fragmented wetlands? Landscape Ecology 23: 269-283. Club. Michigan DNR Wildlife Division Report #795. 3pp. Cronan, W. 1996. Uncommon Ground. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, NY. 561 pp. Bedford, B.L. and K.S. Godwin. 2003. Fens of the United States: distribution, characteristics, and scientifi c connection Cronan, W. 2003. Changes in the Land. Hill and Wang, New versus legal isolation. Wetlands 23(3): 608-629. York, NY. 288 pp.

Bever, J.D., P.A. Schultz, A. Pringle, and J.B. Morton. 2001. Cunningham, J.M., A.J.K. Calhoun, and W.E. Glanz. 2006. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: more diverse than meets the Patterns of beaver colonization and wetland change in Acadia eye and the ecological tale of why. BioScience 51(11): 923- National Park. Northeastern Naturalist 13(4): 583-596. 931. Czarapata, E.J. 2005. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest: Borland, K., S., Campbell, B. Schillo, and P. Higman. an illustrated guide to their identifi cation and control. 2009. Invasive Plant Species of Michigan. Michigan Natural University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. 215 pp. Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 44 pp. Dahl, Th omas E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States Bragg, O. and R. Lindsay. 2003. Strategy and Action Plan for 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish Mire and Peatland Conservation in Central Europe. Wetlands and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: International, Publication 18. 101 pp. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http:// www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss/index.htm Campbell, S., P. Higman, B. Slaughter and E. Schools. 2010. (Version 16JUL97). A Field Guide to Invasive Plants in Aquatic and Wetland Habitats in Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the Lansing, MI. 90 pp. conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Chapman, K. A. 1984. An ecological investigation of native 112 pp. grassland in southern Lower Michigan. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. 235 pp. Durblan, F.E. 2006. Eff ects of mowing and summer burning on the massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus). American Midland Comer, P.J., D.A. Albert, H.A. Wells, B.L. Hart, J.B. Raab, Naturalist 155(2): 329-334 D.L. Price, D.M. Kashian, R.A. Corner and D.W. Schuen. 1995. Michigan’s presettlement vegetation, as interpreted Eagle, A.C., E.M. Hay-Chmielewski, K.T. Cleveland, A.L. from the General Land Offi ce Surveys 1816-1856. Michigan Derosier, M.E. Herbert, and R.A. Rustem. 2005. Michigan’s Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. Digital map. Wildlife Action Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. 1592 pp. http://www.michigan.gov/ dnrwildlifeactionplan

* A-42 * Literature Cited

Ewers, R.M. and R.K. Didham. 2006. Confounding factors Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. J.C. Lovett, D. Scott, F.I. Woodward. 2002. Conservation Biological Review 81: 117-142. of biodiversity in a changing climate. Conservation Biology 16(1): 264-268. Flannery, T. 2001. Th e Eternal Frontier: an ecological history of North America. Grove Press, New York. 404 pp. Hoekstra, J.M., T.M. Boucher, T.H. Ricketts, and C. Roberts. 2005. Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat Galatowitsch, S.M., N.O. Anderson, and P.D. Ascher. 1999. loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8:23-29. Invasiveness in wetlands plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19: 733-755. Holman, J.A. 2001. In Quest of Great Lakes Ice Age Vertebrates. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Gaston, K.J. and J.I. Spicer. 2004. “Biodiversity: an Michigan. 230 pp. introduction” Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. Hood, G.A., S.E. Bayley, and W. Olson. 2007. Eff ects of Gibbs, J.P. and W.G. Shriver. 2002. Estimating the Eff ects of prescribed fi re on habitat of beaver (Castor canadensis) Road Mortality on Turtle Populations. Conservation Biology in Elk Island National Park, Canada. Forest Ecology and 16(6): 1647-1652. Management 239: 200-209.

Gordon, D.R., D.A. Onderdonk, A.M. Fox, R.K. Stocker. Hooftman, D.A.P. and M. Diemer. 2002. Eff ects of small 2008a. Consistent accuracy of the Australian Weed Risk habitat size and isolation on the population structure of Assessment system across varied geographies. Diversity and common wetland species. Plant Biology 4: 720-728 Distributions 14: 234–242. Inkley, D. B., M. G. Anderson, A. R. Blaustein, V. R. Gordon, D.R., D.A. Onderdonk, A.M. Fox, R.K. Stocker, Burkett, B. Felzer, B. Griffi th, J. Price, and T. L. Root. and C. Gantz. 2008b. Predicting invasive plants in Florida 2004. Global climate change and wildlife in North America. using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment system. Invasive Wildlife Society Technical Review 04-2. Th e Wildlife Society, Plant Science and Management 1: 178–195. Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 26 pp.

Green, R.H., M. Harley, L. Miles, J. Scharlemann, A. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Watkinson, O. Watts (Eds.). 2003. Global climate change Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment and biodiversity. RSBC, Bedfordshire, UK. 36 pp. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, Grootjans, A.P., E.B. Adema, W. Bleuten, H. Joosten, M. Madaras, and M. Janáková. 2006. Hydrological landscape K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (Eds.) Cambridge settings of base-rich fen mires and fen meadows: an overview. University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Applied Vegetations Science 9: 175-184. Jenkins, B.C. 1954. Controlled burning in Michigan. Michigan DNR Wildlife Division Report #1193. Lansing, Hamm, C.A, C.A. Handley, A. Pike, M.L. Forister, J.A. MI. 6 pp. Fordyce, and C.C. Nice. 2014. Wolbachia infection and Lepidoptera of conservation concern. Journal of Insect Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton, and M. Shachak. 1994. Organisms Science, 14:6 as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69: 373-386.

* A-43 * Literature Cited

Kling, G.W., K Hayhoe, L.B. Johnson, J.J. Magnuson, S. Middleton, B., R. van Diggelen, and K. Jensen. 2006a. Seed Polasky, S.K. Robinson, B.J. Shutter, M.M. Wander, D.J. dispersal in fens. Applied Vegetation Science 9: 279-284. Wuebbles, D.R. Zak, R.L. Lindroth, S.C. Moser, M.L. Wilson. 2003. Confronting climate change in the Great Lake Miner, J.J. and D.B. Ketterling. 2003. Dynamics of peat region: impacts on our communities and ecosystems. Union accumulation and marl fl at formation in a calcareous fen, of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA. And Ecological Midwestern United States. Wetlands 23(4): 950-960. Society of America, Washington, DC. 92 pp. Naiman, R.J., C.A. Johnston, and J.C. Kelley. 1988. Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Alteration of North American streams by beaver. Bioscience Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural 38(11): 753-762. Communities of Michigan: Classifi cation and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number Naiman, R.J., G. Pinay, C.A. Johnston, and J. Pastor. 200721, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. 1994. Beaver infl uences on the long-term biogeochemical characteristics of boreal forest drainage networks. Ecology Langenau, E. 1994. 100 Years of Deer Management in 75(4): 905-921. Michigan. Michigan DNR Wildlife Division Report 3213. 16 pp. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. Lockwood, J.L., D. Simberloff , M.L. McKinney, and B. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www. Von Holle. 2001. How many, and which, plants will invade natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: July 10, 2008 ). natural areas. Biological Invasions. 3:1-8. Nice, C.C., Z. Gompert, M.L. Forister, and J.A. Fordyce. Lovejoy, T.E. and L. Hannah. 2005. Climate Change and 2009. An unseen foe in arthropod conservation eff orts: Th e Biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 418 pp. case of Wolbachia infections in the Karner blue butterfl y. Biological Conservation 142: 3137–3146 Malmstrom, C.M., A.J. McCullough, H.A. Johnson, L.A. Newton, and E.T. Borer. 2005. Invasive annual grasses Noon, B. R. 2003. Conceptual issues in monitoring indirectly increase virus incidence in California native ecological resources. In: Monitoring perennial bunchgrasses. Oecologia 145(1): 153-164. Ecosystems: Interdisciplinary Approaches for Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives. Edited McNeely, J.A., H.A. Mooney, L.E. Neville, P. Schel, and by D. E. Busch and J. C. Trexler. Island Press, Washington, J.K. Waage (eds.) 2001. A global Strategy on Invasive Alien D.C. pp.27-72. Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK Nuzzo, V.A. 1986. Extent and Status of Midwest Oak 50pp. Savanna: Presettlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal. 6: 6-36. Middleton, B. 2002. Nonequilibrium dynamics of sedge meadows grazed by cattle in southern Wisconsin. Plant O’Connor, R.P. 2006. A Land Manager’s Guide to Prairies Ecology 161: 89-110. and Savannas in Michigan: History, Classifi cation and Management. Report 2006-18. Michigan Natural Features Middleton, B., B. Holsten, and R. van Diggelen. 2006b. Inventory. Lansing, MI. 58 pp. Biodiversity management of fens and fen meadows by grazing, cutting and burning. Applied Vegetation Science 9: 307-316.

* A-44 * Literature Cited

O’Connor, R.P. 2007. Development of Monitoring Strategies Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, D. Morrison. 2005. Update on and Methods for the DNR Landowner Incentive Program. the environmental and economic costs associated with alien- Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics Division, Landowner Incentive Program. Michigan Natural 52: 273-288. Features Inventory report number 2007-15. 20 pp. Prasad, A. M., L. R. Iverson., S. Matthews., M. Peters. Panno, S.P. V.A. Nuzzo, K. Cartwright, B.R. Hensel and I.G. 2007ongoing. A Climate Change Atlas for 134 Forest Tree Krapac. 1999. Impact of urban development on the chemical Species of the Eastern United States [database]. http://www. composition of ground water in a fen-wetland complex. nrs. fs.fed.us/atlas/tree, Northern Research Station, USDA Wetlands 19: 236-245 Forest Service, Delaware, Ohio.

Panzer, R. 2002. Compatibility of prescribed burning with Reddoch, Joyce M., and Allan H. Reddoch. 2005. the conservation of insects in small, isolated prairie reserves. Consequences of Beaver, Castor canadensis, fl ooding on a Conservation Biology 16(5): 1296-1307 small shore fen in southwestern Quebec. Canadian Field- Naturalist 119(3): 385-394. Panzer, R. 2003. Importance of in situ survival, recolonization, and habitat gaps in the postfi re recovery of Remillard, M.M., G.K. Gruendling, and D.J. Bogucki. 1987. fi re-sensitive prairie insect species. Natural Areas Journal Disturbance by beaver (Castor canadensis Kuhl) and increased 23(1): 14-21 landscape heterogeneity. In M.G. Turner (Ed.) Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. Springer-Verlag, New York. Paskus, J. and D. Hyde. 2006. Minimizing the negative 239 pp. impacts of development patterns on Michigan’s natural resources: the potential role of the MDNR and/or Wildlife Ryel, L.A., C.L. Bennett, Jr., M.L. Moss. 1980. A history of Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report for the deer hunting in Michigan. Michigan DNR Wildlife Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 85 pp. Report 2868. 91 pp.

Peach, M. and J.B. Zedler. 2006. How tussocks structure Seton, E.T. 1929. Lives of Game Animals. Volume III Part sedge meadow vegetation. Wetlands 26(2): 322-335 II Hoofed Animals. Doubleday, Doran, and Company, New York, USA. 780 pp. Pearsall, D. and S. Woods. 2006. Methods and Guidelines for Assessing Restoration Progress in Prairie Fens Using Shepard, D.B., A.R. Kuhns, M.J. Dreslik, and C.A. Phillips. Coarse-Level Metrics. Th e Nature Conservancy in Michigan. 2008. Roads as barriers to animal movement in fragmented (republished with permission in Appendix A-3 of this landscapes. Animal Conservation 11:288-296 document) Siegel, D.I. 2006. Potential eff ects of climate change on Pickens, B.A. and K.V. Root. 2009. Behavior as a tool for spring fens and their endangered fl oral species. Geological assessing a managed landscape: a case study of the Karner blue Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 38, No. 7, butterfl y. Landscape Ecology 24(2): 243-251 p. 328

Pielou, E.C. 1992. After the Ice Age: Th e Return of Life Simberoff , D. 2005. Non-native species do threaten to Glaciated North America. University of Chicago Press, the natural environment! Journal of Agricultural and Chicago, IL. 376 pp. Environmental Ethics 18: 595-607.

* A-45 * Literature Cited

Spieles, J.B., P.J. Comer, D.A. Albert, and M.A. Kost. 1999. freshwater wetlands in Great Lakes National Parks. Abstract Natural community abstract for prairie fen. Michigan Natural in the Proceedings of the Western Great Lakes Research Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 4 pp. Conference, Ashland, WI. 65 pp.

Staley, J.T. 1997. Biodiversity: are microbial species Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J.M. Randall. 2001. Weed Control threatened? Current Opinions in Biotechnology 8(3): 340345 Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. Th e Nature Conservancy, http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu, Steuter, A.A. 1997. Bison. In Packard, S. and C.F. Mutel. Th e Updated November 2005. Tallgrass Restoration Handbook. Island Press, Washington, D.C. USA. 463 pp. United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USWFS). 1998. Recovery Plan for the Mitchell’s satyr butterfl y, Neonympha Swengel, A.B. and S.R. Swengel. 2007. Benefi t of permanent mitchellii mitchellii French. Ft. Snelling, MN. 71 pp. non-fi re refugia for Lepidoptera conservation in re-managedfi sites. Journal of Insect Conservation 11(3): 263-279 van Diggelen, R., B. Middleton, J. Bakker, A.Grootjans, and M. Wassen. 2006. Fens and fl oodplains of the temperate Syphard, A.D. and M.W. Garica. 2001. Human- and zone: Present status, threats, conservation and restoration. beaver-induced wetland changes in the Chickahominy River Applied Vegetation Science 9(2):157-162. Watershed from 1953 to 1994. Wetlands 21(3): 341-352. van der Heijden, M.G.A., J.N. Klironomos, M. Ursic, P. Szymanski, J. and J. Shuey. 2002. Conservation strategy Moutogolis, R. Strietwolf-Engel, T. Boller, A. Wiemken, and for Mitchell’s satyr butterfl y at Blue Creek Fen, Berrien I.R. Sanders. 1998. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines County, Michigan. Report for the Michigan Department of plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Transportation. 23pp. Nature 396: 69–72.

Tefl er, E.S. and J.P. Kelsall. 1984. Adaptations of some large Vitousek, P.M., C.M. D’Antonio, L.L. Loope, M. Rejmánek, North American mammals for survival in snow. Ecology 65: and R. Westbrooks. 1997. Introduced species: a signifi cant 1828-1834 component of human-caused global change.New Zealand Journal of Zoology 21(1): 1-16. Tesauro, J. and D. Ehrenfeld. 2007. Th e eff ects of livestock grazing on the bog turtle. Herpetologica 63(3): 293-300. Werren, J.H., L. Baldo, and M.E> Clark. 2008. Wolbachia: master manipulators of invertebrate biology. Nature Reviews Th e Nature Conservancy North Central Tillplain Ecoregional Microbiology 6:471-751. Planning Team. 2003. Th e North Central Tillplain Ecoregion: A Conservation Plan. Th e Nature Conservancy. http:// Wheeler, B.D. and M.C.F. Proctor. 2000. Ecological conserveonline.org/library/NCT0703.pdf/view.html, 217 pp. gradients, subdivisions and terminology of north-west European mires. Journal of Ecology 88: 187-203. Th omas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, Whelan, R.J. 1995. Th e Ecology of Fire. Cambridge L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. Collingham, B.F.N. Erasmus, M.F. de University Press, New York. 346 pp. Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld, G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega- Whitney, G.G. 1994. From Coastal Wilderness to Fruited Huerta, A. T. Peterson, O.L. Philips, S.E. Williams. 2004. Plain: a history of environmental change in temperate North Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145-148. America 1500 to present. Cambridge University Press, UK. Travis, S.E., S.K. Windels, and J. Marburger. 2006. Th e 451 pp. prevalence of hybridization in cattail (Typha spp.) invasions of

* A-46 * Literature Cited

Wilcove, D.S. 1987. From fragmentation to extinction. Natural Areas Journal 7(1): 23-29

Wilcove, S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48 (8): 607-615

Williamson, M. and A. Fitter. 1996. Th e varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661-1666.

Wright, J.P. and C.G. Jones. 2006. Th e concept of organisms as ecosystem engineers ten years on: progress, limitations, and challenges. Bioscience 56(3): 203-209.

Wright, J.P., C.G. Jones, and A.S. Flecker. 2002. An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia 132: 96-101.

Zedler, J.B. and S. Kercher. 2004. Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23: 431- 452.

* A-47 * Fire and Rare Species Appendix A-1

Fire Sensitivity and the Phenology of Rare Species

Fire sensitivity is a hot topic among biologists, ecologists, and land managers. Fire kills individuals, and Table 1. poorly timed or poorly planned fi res can wipe out local populations. Fire is also a natural process, and forgoing State Listed Plants of Prairie Fens fi re can change successional trajectories and wipe out local populations. To complicate matters, the effects of timing or confi guration of fi re on individual species is Table 2. diffi cult to research, and results are sometimes contra- State Listed Animals of Prarie dictory. In order to help land managers plan fi re in fens Fens responsibly, the following tables have been construct- ed. For the most part, they refl ect initial hypotheses regarding relative sensitivity of different life history Table 3. stages. A salamander hibernating in oak leaf litter is Plant Species Phenology and Fire more sensitive than salamanders breeding in a pond. A lupine plant is more sensitive to fi re when fl owering Sensitivity than when dormant. However, sensitivity varies greatly among species, and that variation is not captured in these tables. For example, salamanders are much more Table 4. sensitive to fi re than lupine throughout the season. Animal Species Phenology and Management of fens, like other systems, re- quires one to balance coarse and fi ne fi lters. These Fire Sensitivity tables are one tool for land managers to consider when evaluating fi ne fi lters and considering the timing and confi guration of prescribed burns. For more informa- tion on how the phenology tables were pulled together and the differing defi nitions of vulnerability, see Pages A-1.13 to A-1.19.

* A-1.1 * Fire and Rare Species

Table 1. State listed plants of prairie fens in Michigan and Indiana. Th reatened and endangered plants are protected; state rare, watch list, and special concern are tracked through natural heritage databases, biut are not legally protected.

Common name Scientifi c name Indiana Status Michigan Status Purple milkweed Asclepias purpurascens State threatened Rushlike aster Aster borealis State rare 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 fl ava State threatened Livid sedge Carex livida State endangered Hemlock parsley Conioselinum chinense State endangered Small yellow lady’s-slipper Cypripedium calceolus var. parvifl orum State rare Small white lady’s-slipper Cypripedium candidum Watch list State threatened 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 State threatened Queen-of-the-prairie Filipendula rubra Watch list State threatened Whiskered sunfl ower Helianthus hirsutus Special concern Great St. John’s-wort Hypericum pyramidatum State threatened Baltic rush Juncus balticus var. littoralis State rare Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis State threatened Northern witchgrass Panicum boreale State rare

* A-1.2 * Fire and Rare Species

Table 1 continued.

Common name Scientifi c name IN Status MI Status Leiberg’s witchgrass Panicum leibergii State threatened State threatened Wild sweet William Phlox maculata State threatened Leafy white orchis Platanthera dilatata State endangered Leafy northern green orchis Platanthera hyperborea 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 State endangered Calamint Satureja glabella var. angustifolia State endangered Rosinweed Silphium integrifolium State threatened Shining ladies’-tresses Spiranthes lucida State rare Hooded ladies’-tresses Spiranthes romanzoffi ana State threatened Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis Special concern False asphodel Tofi eldia 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 State threatened Marsh valerian Valeriana uliginosa State endangered White camas Zigadenus elegans var. glaucus State rare Wild rice Zizania aquatica var. aquatica State threatened

* A-1.3 * Fire and Rare Species

Table 2. State listed animals of prairie fens in Michigan and Indiana. Th reatened and endangered animals are protected; state rare, watch list, and special concern are tracked through natural heritage databases, biut are not legally protected.

Common name Scientifi c name IN Status MI Status Blanchard’s cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardi State threatened 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 Special concern 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 leafhopper 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

* A-1.4 * Fire and Rare Species

Table 2 continued.

Common name Scientifi c name IN Status MI 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 fl examia Flexamia refl exus State threatened State special concern Watercress snail Fontigens nickliniana Special concern Rapids clubtail Gomphus quadricolor State threatened State special concern Skillet clubtail Gomphus ventricosus State threatened Dragonhunter Hagenius brevistylus State rare Barrens buckmoth Hemileuca maia Special concern Midwestern fen buckmoth Hemileuca sp. 3 State threatened same as Hemileuca maia A noctuid moth Homophoberia cristata State rare A noctuid moth Iodopepla u-album State rare Angular spittlebug Lepyronia angulifera State threatened Special concern 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 State special concern Dwarf skimmer Nannothemis bella State endangered Sphagnum sprite Nehalennia gracilis State endangered

* A-1.5 * Fire and Rare Species

Table 2 continued.

Common name Scientifi c name IN Status MI Status Mitchell’s satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Federal endangered Federal endangered Poweshiek skipper Oarisma poweshiek Federal candidate Federal endangered Elegant prominent Odontosia elegans State rare Tamarack tree cricket Oecanthus laricis Special concern Pitcher plant borer moth Papaipema appassionata State endangered Beer’s blazing star borer Papaipema beeriana State threatened Special concern Golden borer moth Papaipema cerina Special concern Ironweed borer moth Papaipema limpida State rare St. John’s wort borer moth Papaipema lysimachiae State rare Giant sunfl ower borer moth Papaipema maritima State threatened Special concern Culvers root borer Papaipema sciata Special concern 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 Special concern Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Special concern Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus catenatus Federal candidate Federal candidate Clamp-tipped emerald Somatochlora tenebrosa State rare Included cordgrass borer Spartiniphaga includens State threatened Spartina moth Spartiniphaga inops Special concern Riverine clubtail Stylurus amnicola State threatened State special concern Band-winged meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum State rare Gray petaltail Tachopteryx thoreyi State rare State threatened Eastern box turtle Terrapene c. carolina Special concern

* A-1.6 * Focus on Prescribed Fire

Table 3. Hypothesized plant sensitivity to fi re based on life history and phenology. Only short-term acute sensitivities to individuals are considered in this table. Sensitivity also varies from species to species, by fi re intensity and ignition pattern, and according to time scales considered.

Plant Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity Plant Guilds JANFEB MARAPR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Forbs Annuals - early season D E FL FR SD D D Annuals - late season D E FL FR SD D Biennials - early season D E FL FR SD D Biennials - late season D E FL FR SD D Perennials - early season D E FL FR SD D Perennials - late season D E FL FR SD D Sedges Annuals-early season D E FL FR SD D Annuals-late season D E FL FR SD D Perennials-early season D E FL FR SD D Perennials-late season D E FL FR SD D Grasses Annuals-cool season D E FL FR SD D Annuals-warm season D E FL FR SD D Perennials-cool season D E FL FR SD D Perennials-warm season D E FL FR SD D Vines Early season D E FL FR SD D Late season D E FL FR SD D Trees Early season D E FL FR SD E D Late season D E FL FR SD D

Rare Plant Species JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Purple milkweed D E FL FR SD D Asclepias purpurascens Cut-leaved water parsnip D E FL FR SD D Berula erecta Prairie Indian plantain D E FL FR SD D Cacalia plantaginea White lady-slipper D E FL FR SD D Cypripedium candidum Rattlesnake master D E FL FR SD SD D Eryngium yuccifolium Queen-of-the-prairie D E FL FR SD SD D

* A-1.7 * Focus on Prescribed Fire

Table 3. continued.

Plant Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity Rare Plant Species - Continued JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Whiskered sunflower D EE FL FR SD SD D Helianthus hirsutus

Mat muhly D E E FL FR SD SD D Muhlenbergia richardsonis

Wild sweet William D E E FL FR SD SD D Phlox maculata

Jacob's ladder D E FL FR SD SD D Polemonium reptans

Rosinweed D E E FL FR SD SD D Silphium integrifolium

Prairie dropseed D EE FL FR SD D Sporobolus heterolepis

Edible valerian D E FL FR SDSD SD D Valeriana edulis var. ciliata Critical Food Plants for Rare Insects Swamp thistle D E E FL FR SD D Cirsium muticum (Swamp metalmark) Blazing star D E E FL FR SD D Liatris spp. (Blazing star borer moth) Regal fern D E E D Osmunda spp. (Regal fern borer moth) Giant sunflower D E E FL FR SD SD D Helianthus giganteus (Maritime sunflower borer moth) Culver's root D E E FL FR SD D Veronicastrum virginicum (Culver's root borer moth) Phenology Key Dormant D Emergent E Flowering FL Fruiting FR Seed Dispersal SD Fire Sensitivity Key Vulnerable Potentially Vulnerable Not Vulnerable

* A-1.8 * Focus on Prescribed Fire

Table 4. Hypothesized animal sensitivity to fi re based on life history and phenology. Only short-term acute sensitivities to individuals are considered in this table. Sensitivity also varies from species to species, by fi re intensity and ignition pattern, and according to time scales considered. BIRDS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULYAUG SEPT OCT NOV DE Ground- nesting American bittern A N NY Y P Botaurus lentiginosus

American woodcock A AN N NY Y P Solopax minor

Blue-winged teal A N NY Y P Anas discors

Blue-winged warbler AN NY Y P Vermivora pinus

Henslow's Sparrow AN NY Y P Ammodramus henslowii

Northern harrier A N NY Y P Circus cyaneus

Wilson's snipe A N Y P Gallinago delicata

Virginia Rail AN NY Y P Rallus limicola

Sedge wren A N NY P Cistothorus plantensis

Sora NA NY Y P Porzana carolina Cavity- nesting Northern flicker A N NY Y P Coaptes aurautus Shrub-nesting Black-&Yellow-billed cuckoos NA NY PY Coccyzus spp

Green heron AN NY YP Butorides virescens

Yellow-breasted chat A N NY Y P Icteria virens Tree-nesting Eastern kingbird AN NY Y P Tyrannus tyrannus HERPETOFAUNA JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DE Blanchard's cricket frog HT A BA M A HT Acris crepitans blanchardii

Blanding's turtle HA BA NT A/E E E/M A HA Emydoidea blandingii

Eastern box turtle HT HT HT BT NT A E BT/M HT HHT Terrapene c. carolina

Spotted t rtle HA BA NT E E/M AM HA

* A-1.9 * Focus on Prescribed Fire

Table 4. continued. Animal Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity

HERPETOFAUNA Continued JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Eastern massasauga rattlesnake HT BT NT BT HT Sisturus c. catenatus Kirtland's snake HT A BT A NT A HT Clonophis kirtlandii SNAILS Watercress snail (aquatic) H A H Fontigens nickliniana Pleistocene cantinella H A? A A? H Catinella exile Six-whorl vertigo H A? A A? H Vertigo morsei Snail (no common name) H A? A A? H Euconulus alderi INSECTS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Butterflies and Moths Barrens buckmoth E L P A E Hemileuca maia Blazing star borer moth E L L PL A E Papaipema beeriana Culver's root borer moth E L L LPA E Papaipema sciata Duke's skipper L P A E L Euphyes dukesi Golden borer moth E L L P A E Papaipema cerina Maritime sunflower borer moth E L L PL A E Papaipema maritime Mitchell's satyr L P AE L Neonympha m. mitchellii Newman's brocade E L P A E Meroplean ambrifusca Poweshiek skipperling L PAE L Oarisma poweshiek Regal fern borer moth E L L P A E Papaipema speciosissima Siphium borer moth E L L P A E Papaipema silphii Spartina moth E L P A E Spartiniphaga inops Swamp metalmark L P AE L

* A-1.10 * Focus on Prescribed Fire

Table 4. continued. Animal Species Phenology and Fire Sensitivity

INSECTS Continued JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Beetles Cantrall's bog beetle N P EA N P A E N Liodessus cantralli (aquatic) N P A E N Stenelmis douglasensis Cicadas and Leafhoppers Angular spittlebug A N/A A Lepyronia angulifera Huron R, leafhopper E N A E Flexamia huroni Leafhopper E N A E Flexamia delongi Leafhopper E N A E Flexamia reflexa Kansan spike-rush leafhopper E N A E Dorydiella kansana Red-legged spittlebug E N N A E Prosapia ignipectus Dragonflies Gray petaltail N A E N Tachopteryx thoreyi Grasshoppers and Crickets Bog conehead E N A E Neonconocephalus lyristes Hoosier locust E N A E Paroxya hoosieri Red-faced meadow katydid E N A E Orcheliimum concinuum Tamarack tree cricket E N A E Oecanthus laricis MAMMALS Southern bog lemming B? B B?

* A-1.11 * Focus on Prescribed Fire

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

* A-1.12 * Fire and Rare Species

Plants Considerations and Phenology Information Th e depiction of phenologies was based on broadly summarizing vascular plant species into fi ve principal life Caveats of the Fire stage categories (dormant, emergent, fl owering, fruiting, and seed dispersal). Th ese categories work well with the exception and Species Phenology of one taxon included in the food plant list, Osmunda spp. (Regal fern), which by defi nition does not owerfl (although Tables it does develop spore-producing fronds) and thus was simply noted as being either dormant or emergent for the purposes Tables 1-4 are intended to advise managers of of this table. Information to develop the species phenologies what is known about the life history and phenology of rare was obtained by consulting several important resources, plants and animals (E, T, SC and SGCN) as well as critical including the MNFI Rare Species Explorer (http://mnfi . food plants for rare insects. Th e scientists that contributed anr.msu.edu/explorer/search.cfm), detailed MNFI species to this table caution that assumptions made regarding the abstracts where available (http://mnfi .anr.msu.edu/pub/ vulnerability of plants and animals to prescribed fi re are abstracts.cfm), and species occurrence data provided in the based on the best available knowledge of life history as well as MNFI Biotics database where there was specifi c reference information gleaned from the very limited research that has to emergence, fl owering, fruiting, and seed dispersal dates. been conducted on the impacts of fi re on plants and animals All of the phenologies, however, should be considered as in prairie fen wetlands. Th erefore, this table is just a starting approximate dates, owing the wide variation known to occur point and should be viewed as a working draft that can be between and within diff erent fen sites as well as the variation considered when reviewing potential management strategies in phenologies yearly due to climate patterns. for a particular site. Because of an emerging and widespread interest in Monitoring is needed to better understand how plant phenologies, particularly with regard to the advent of to best use fi re as a management tool. Resources should be climate change, a national monitoring network (http://www. prioritized to conduct monitoring of sites prior to prescribed usanpn.org/) has been created to engage government agencies, burns so that managers have adequate information to citizen scientists, educators and others to monitor plants to consider including: 1) the presence of plants and animals determine the potential impacts due to climate change. Th is that occur or have the potential to occur at a site; 2) whether site was consulted for information, and while no pertinent there is appropriate refugia habitat available to plants and data were obtained for populating the plant phenology table, animals (especially those that are rare) and 3) the relationship it is suggested that this website be consulted in the future as between the proposed burn unit and the distribution of pending maps and other materials become available. Th e rare plants and animals. In addition it is critical that post posting of fi rst blooming dates, for example, of plant species burn monitoring be done so that managers can evaluate the in our area, based on a wide monitoring network, can assist response of the vegetation to the burn as well as any impacts land managers in planning prescribed burns and other to rare plants and animals, both positive or negative. management activities.

Fire Vulnerability Th e variation in fi re sensitivity among the species and various plant groups and guilds noted largely refl ects the wide variation in emergence, growth, and fl owering and fruiting periods. Annual species, for example, may emerge and fl ower

* A-1.13 * Fire and Rare Species and fruit at any time during the growing season, but for We indicated the timing for four broad bird purposes of the table were segregated into early fl owering/ phenology periods: 1) pre-nesting (A); 2) nesting (N); 3) fruiting species and late fl owering/fruiting species. “Early” fl ightless young (Y); and 4) post-breeding (P). eTh pre- species were defi ned as those emerging and owering/fruitingfl nesting period encompasses the time from spring arrival to from spring to mid-July, whereas “late” species were defi ned the start of egg laying. We used the nesting period to describe as those emerging and fl owering/fruiting from mid-July to the time from the beginning of egg laying through incubation the fall. Th ese are comparable to the categories commonly and hatching. Th e fl ightless young period spans the part of known for grasses when referenced as “cool” season or “warm” the year when juvenile fl ightless birds could be present at or season species. Th e vulnerability of a species was generally near nests. We designated the time after young achieve fl ight assumed to be high during the fl owering and fruiting periods, until departure for fall migration as the post-nesting period. but vulnerability is also dependent on life history and growth form. For example, a perennial species may sustain some Fire Vulnerability damage if burned before or during emergence (with impacts While there is substantial research on bird responses dependent on burn intensity), but these species often have the to fi re one or more years after the event, we found no studies ability to re-sprout. Flowering and fruiting may not occur of bird species’ vulnerability (e.g., mortality) at the time of or may be set back, but the individual can persist. Annuals, a fi re occurrence. Given this lack of information, we made which do not have taproots, thick rhizomes, and other several assumptions when building this table: 1) birds are sustaining features, would not persist or have the ability to vulnerable to fi re upon arrival on breeding grounds; 2) birds re-sprout. are highly vulnerable during the nesting and fl ightless young Th e relationship of many fen species to fi re is well period; 3) ground-nesting species are more vulnerable to fi re known, as several taxa occur in western prairie communities, than shrub or tree nesting species; and 4) these species are not including upland types that have long been managed via vulnerable during the post-breeding period. We indicated prescribed burning as described by Curtis (1959) and that birds are vulnerable to fi re upon arrival to breeding others. However, the specifi c role and/or impacts of refi on sites, because they typically begin selecting and defending Midwestern prairie fens is not known for all species, including territories shortly after spring arrival. Fire during this period such rarities as Jacob’s ladder (Polemonium reptans), Edible would likely interrupt the breeding cycle, cause territory valerian (Valeriana edulis var. ciliata), and Cut-leaved water abandonment, and require adults to fi nd new breeding sites. parsnip (Berula erecta), and thus further investigation and We assumed that birds are most vulnerable during the nesting monitoring is warranted. and fl ightless young periods, because adults may be unable to re-nest at another location and could lose an entire season’s BIRDS breeding eff ort as a result of fi re. Because shrub or tree nesting bird species are less likely to be impacted by fi re and Phenology Information possibly better able to re-nest at the site if aff ected, we listed Dates used for breeding phenology should be those species as less vulnerable than ground-nesting species. viewed as approximate. Th e information used to determine We felt the bird species examined would not be vulnerable to arrival, nesting, and departure timing in this table was fi re during the post-breeding period, because they often have limited and dated. Although changes to bird migration and less specifi c habitat requirements during this period compared breeding phenology associated with climate change have to the breeding season and would be more likely to fi nd been documented in many locations throughout the world, suitable habitats at other locations. While some species could recent data on bird phenology are lacking. Bird migration be negatively impacted during the season when the fi re takes and breeding phenology can also vary due to normal annual place, there could be benefi ts during subsequent breeding weather fl uctuations. Th erefore, we suggest managers use seasons due to improved habitat conditions. caution when interpreting this table and take local conditions into account.

* A-1.14 * Fire and Rare Species

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES can vary due to annual weather fl uctuations and local weather (HERPETOFAUNA/HERPS) conditions. Th erefore, we suggest managers use caution when interpreting this table and take local conditions into account. Phenology Information Fire Vulnerability For the purposes of this table, we indicated the Amphibians and reptiles may be vulnerable to fi re phenology or timing for six broad amphibian and reptile, or in any of these life stages and to what degree depends largely herp, life stage categories: 1) active (A) which includes spring upon individual species’ life stage at the time of the fi re/ emergence, basking, foraging, resting, travelling, dispersing, prescribed burn, life history, behavior, ecology, habitat use, migrating to breeding and nesting sites and hibernacula/ and species specifi c dispersal capabilities. Unfortunately, overwintering sites; 2) breeding in water/aquatic habitat limited information exists about the eff ects of prescribed refi (BA) or on land/terrestrial habitat (BT); 3) nesting, egg- on amphibians and reptiles, particularly in the southern Great laying, or giving birth to live young/parturition in water/ Lakes region (McLeod and Gates 1998, Ford et al. 1999, aquatic habitat (NA) or on land/terrestrial habitat (NT); Russell et al. 1999, Pilliod et al. 2003, Langford et al. 2007, 4) metamorph or hatchling emigration or emergence from Roloff and Doran 2010). Some research has indicated that, in breeding or nesting sites (M); 5) aestivation (E) or state of general, fi re appears to have little direct eff ect on amphibians dormancy or inactivity during hot or dry weather; and 6) and reptiles because they are able to retreat to underground hibernation or overwintering in water/aquatic habitat (HA) burrows, fi nd moist refugia, or spend considerable time or on land/terrestrial habitat (HT). It is important to note underground, all of which provide protection from fi re (Vogl that not all herp species go through all these life stages (e.g., 1973, Main 1981, Bamford 1992, Friend 1993, Russell et species that give birth to live young do not have a metamorph al. 1999, Pilliod et al. 2003). However, some studies have or hatchling emergence stage, and not all species aestivate), documented direct as well as indirect eff ects of fi re on herps and that life stages can overlap (e.g., diff erent individuals in a (Vogt 1973, Polliod et al. 2003, Schurbon and Fauth 2003). population can be breeding and nesting during the same time Most studies also have focused primarily on immediate and period). It also is important to note that many amphibian and short-term responses, and only a few have examined long- reptile species use diff erent habitats during diff erent life stages term eff ects of fi re on herps. (e.g., hibernate in or utilize a terrestrial habitat during most Herpetofaunal responses to prescribed fi re are of the active period but breed in water or aquatic habitat, or species specifi c, vary among habitats, and require further utilize wetlands during most of the active period but nest or study (Russell et al. 1999, Pilliod et al. 2003). Th ere is a lack give birth in upland habitats). of published information on the eff ects of refi specifi c to Dates used for life stage categories should be viewed many of the rare species listed in the table. Given this lack as approximate. Th e information used to generate dates of information, we made several assumptions when building were obtained from a variety of literature and other sources, this table regarding species vulnerability to fi re: 1) species including the MNFI’s Species Explorer website (http://mnfi . will have access to some refugia on-site or nearby during and anr.msu.edu/explorer/search.cfm), detailed species abstracts after prescribed fi res; 2) species are or may be vulnerable to when available (http://mnfi .anr.msu.edu/pub/abstracts. fi re in any life stage in which individuals occur mainly on the cfm), and the “Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes ground, on vegetation, or in/under the duff layer in terrestrial Region” fi eld guide (Harding 1997). Th e information used habitats; 3) species are not vulnerable or less vulnerable to to determine the phenology of the life stages included in direct eff ects of fi re when they occur in water or aquatic this table was limited or fairly general for some species. For habitats or below the soil surface (e.g., during hibernation example, Harding (1997) states that “Eastern Box Turtles or aestivation), but species may still be vulnerable to indirect may mate at any time during the active season, but breeding eff ects; and 4) species may be particularly vulnerable during activity is most frequent in spring and fall,” or “Mating can the least mobile stages such as when animals are aestivating or occur anytime from April to November, but is most frequent overwintering at or near the soil surface in terrestrial habitats. in spring” for Blanding’s Turtles. Life stage phenologies also

* A-1.15 * Fire and Rare Species

Species vulnerability to prescribed fi re also will 1) hibernation (H) and 2) active (A). Although many snails be infl uenced by local weather conditions and the type, experience periods of aestivation, especially during dry periods seasonality and size or extent of prescribed burns. It is (often on the surface of the ground), this was not included as also important to remember while some species could be it is diffi cult to predict when this period of inactivity occurs. negatively impacted during the active season when the fi re occurs, there could very well be benefi ts to the species during Fire Vulnerability subsequent seasons due to improved habitat conditions. Snails may be vulnerable to fi re in any of these life More research on the eff ects of prescribed burning on stages and to what degree depends largely upon individual amphibians and reptiles is necessary, especially in prairie fen species’ location at time of ignition, since snails have wetlands in the Great Lakes. Th is table should be refi ned as extremely limited dispersal capabilities. Th e two most additional information about specifi c impacts and benefi ts of important environmental variables important to land snails prescribed fi re to herp species is generated and compiled. are temperature and soil moisture. Th ere is a lack of published information specifi c to many of the rare/remnant-dependent SNAILS species listed in the table. Given this lack of information, we made several assumptions when building this table: 1) land Phenology Information snails are highly vulnerable to fi re in any life stage that occurs Limited information is available about the mainly on the vegetation, exposed on downed logs or trees or distribution and life history of snails in Michigan, and in the uppermost soil layer; 2) snails are potentially vulnerable much remains to be learned about this taxon. Much of what as eggs deposited in a nest a few centimeters below the soil we know about Michigan’s snails comes from Dr. Burch, or in the leaf litter; and 3) species are less vulnerable to fi re University of Michigan. Recent information, especially when they are aquatic (i.e., watercress snail), especially during regarding snails in the Upper Peninsula, has been gleaned hibernation. from work conducted by Dr. Jeff rey Nekola, especially surveys Nekola (2002) reports that prescribed fi re has been that took place in the late 1990’s. Th ree of the land snail shown to substantially reduce the abundance of land snails, species listed in this table are known from northern fens, and including E. alderi, and cause the local extirpation of land have not yet been documented in southern Michigan. Th ey snail species in upland and lowland grassland habitats. He are included as they have potential to occur in prairie fens and further suggests that burn intervals be at least 15 years and occur at similar latitudes in other states. Th e watercress snail recommends that other methods of removing woody and (Fontigens nickliniana), an aquatic snail, has been recently invasive plants be used that preserve organic litter layers at documented from fens in Barry and Kalamazoo counties. sites with land snails (Nekola 2002). Research of the results Dates used for life stage categories should be viewed of the 2002 forest fi re in the central grasslands of the United as approximate and have been gleaned from a variety of States (in the states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota), literature, mostly distilled thorough the MNFI’s Species led to 44% of land mollusk species there experiencing Explorer website available at: (http://mnfi .anr.msu.edu/ population declines. Th e situation was dramatic for snails explorer/search.cfm), detailed species abstracts where available as they underwent the most severe declines due to the fi re (http://mnfi .anr.msu.edu/pub/abstracts.cfm), and eldfi data having destroyed all plant waste (Santos et. al 2009). More provided in the MNFI Biotics database with specifi c reference research on the eff ects of prescribed burning on rare/remnant- to adult activity dates. In addition, life history information dependent species is necessary, especially in the prairie fen was reviewed from (Burch, J.B. 1962) “How to Know the wetlands in the Great Lake States. From other geographic Eastern Land Snails”. Snail life stage phenologies can also vary areas there appears to be widespread consensus that it is due to annual weather fl uctuations. Th erefore, we suggest important to leave unburned “refugia” to allow for faunal managers use caution when interpreting this table and take recolonization in the event of local extirpation related to fi re local conditions into account. For the purposes of the table (Roloff and Doran 2010). we indicated the timing for two broad life stage categories:

* A-1.16 * Fire and Rare Species

INSECTS conditions. More research on the eff ects of prescribed burning on rare/remnant-dependent species is necessary, Phenology Information especially in the prairie fen wetlands in the Great Lake States. Dates used for life stage categories should be viewed From other geographic areas there appears to be widespread as approximate and have been gleaned from a variety of consensus that it is important to leave unburned “refugia” literature, mostly distilled thorough the MNFI’s Species to allow for faunal recolonization in the event of local Explorer website available at: (http://mnfi .anr.msu.edu/ extirpation related to fi re (Roloff and Doran 2010). explorer/search.cfm), detailed species abstracts where available (http://mnfi .anr.msu.edu/pub/abstracts.cfm), and eldfi data References for the Fire Phenology Tables provided in the MNFI Biotics database with specifi c reference to adult activity dates. Th e information used to determine and Notes egg, larval/nymph, pupal, and adult stage in this table was limited for some species and often times widely overlapping Bamford, M. J. 1992. Th e impact of fire and or over simplifi ed. For example, male adults of the angular increasing time after fi re upon Heleioporus eyrei, spittlebug can be found in the late summer from August to Limnodynastes dorsalis, and Myobatrachus gouldii (Anura: October. Adult females can be found from late April through Leptodactylidae) in Banksia Woodland near Perth, early November. Insect life stage phenologies can also vary Western Australia. Wildlife Research 19:169–178. due to annual weather fl uctuations. We suggest managers use caution when interpreting this table and take local conditions Bowles, M.L. 1983. Th e tallgrass prairie orchids into account. We indicated the timing for four broad insect Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindl. and Cypripedium life stage categories: 1) eggs (E); 2) larval/nymphal (L) or (N); candidum Muhl. Ex Willd.: Some aspects of their 3) pupal stage (P); and 4) adult (A). status, biology, and ecology, and implications toward management. Nat. Areas J. 3: 14-37. Fire Vulnerability Insects may be vulnerable to fi re in any of these life stages and to what degree depends largely upon individual Bowles, M., J. McBride, J. Stoynoff , and K. Johnson. species’ life stage at time of ignition, behavior, and species 1996. Temporal changes in vegetation composition and specifi c dispersal capabilities. Th ere is a lack of published structure in a fi re-managed prairie fen. Nat. Areas J. 16: information specifi c to many of the rare/remnant-dependent 275-288. species listed in the table. Given this lack of information, we made several assumptions when building this table: 1) Bury, R. B., D. J. Major, and D. S. Pilliod. 2002. insects are vulnerable to fi re in any life stage that occurs Responses of amphibians to fi re disturbance in Pacifi c mainly on the vegetation or in the duff layer; 2) insects are Northwest forests: a review. In: Ford, W.M., Russell, highly vulnerable during the least mobile stages such as when K.R., Moorman, C.E. (Eds.), Th e Role of Fire in eggs, pupae, larvae, or nymphs; 3) species that utilize food Nongame Wildlife Management and Community plants that occur in wet or damp microhabitats are less likely Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions. impacted by fi re (i.e., spartina moth, angular spittlebug); and 4) species are not vulnerable to fi re when they are aquatic (i.e., U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report NE- gray petaltail, Cantrall’s bog beetle) or when pupating below 288, pp. 34–42. the soil surface (Papaipema moths). It is also important to remember while some species Cavitt, J. F. 2000. Fire and a tallgrass prairie reptile could be negatively impacted during the season when the fi re community: eff ects on relative abundance and seasonal occurs, there could very well be benefi ts during subsequent activity. Journal of Herpetology 34:12-20. breeding seasons due to improved habitat or host plant

* A-1.17 * Fire and Rare Species

Langford, G. J., J. A. Borden, C. S. Major, and D. Curtis, J.T. 1959. Th e Vegetation of Wisconsin. H. Nelson. 2007. Eff ects of prescribed fi re on the University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. herpetofauna of a southern Mississippi pine savannah. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 2:135-143. Curtis, J.T. 1946. Use of mowing in management of white ladyslipper. J. Wildlife Mgt. 10: 303-308. Luensmann, P. S. 2006. Terrapene carolina. In: Fire Eff ects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department Durbian, F. E. 2006. Eff ects of mowing and summer of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research burning on the massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus). Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: American Midland Naturalist 155:329-334. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2010, March 3].

Ford, W. M., M. A. Menzel, D. W. McGill, J. L. Andy, Main, A. R. 1981. Fire Tolerance of Heathland Animals. and S. McCay. 1999. Eff ects of a community restoration Elsevier, New York. fi re on small mammals and herpetofauna in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management McLeod, R. E, and J. E. Gates. 1998. Response of 114:233-243. herpetofaunal communities to forest cutting and burning at Chesapeake Farms, Maryland. American Friend, G. R. 1993. Impact of fi re on small vertebrates Midland Naturalist 139:164-177. in mallee woodlands and heathlands of temperate Australia: a review. Biological Conservation 65:99–113. Means, B. D. and H. W. Campbell. 1981. Eff ects of prescribed burning on amphibians and reptiles. Pages Gibson, J. 2007. Eff ects of prescribed fi re on the 89-97 in G. W. Wood, editor. Prescribed fi re and eastern box turtle, Terrapene c. carolina. In: Midwest wildfi re in southern forests for wildlife and sh,fi USDA Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. 2007 Forest Service, General Technical Report SO-65. Annual Meeting Minutes, [Online]. Indiana-Purdue University at Fort Wayne and Center for Reptile and Michigan Natural Features Inventory Abstracts Amphibian Conservation and Management. Available: http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi /pub/abstracts.cfm http://mwparc.org/meetings/2007/MWPARC_2007_ Meeting_Minutes.pdf [March 3, 2010]. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Rare Species Explorer Harding, J. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi /explorer/index.cfm Lakes Region. Th e University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. MWPARC. 2009. Prescribed Fire Use and Important Management Considerations for Amphibians and Kirkland, Jr., G. L., H. W. Snoddy, T. L. Amsler. 1996. Reptiles within the Midwest. http://www.mwparc.org/ Impact of fi re on small mammals and amphibians in a Central Appalachian deciduous forest. American NatureServe Explorer Midland Naturalist 135: 253-260 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/

* A-1.18 * Fire and Rare Species

National Plant Phenology Monitoring Network http://www.usanpn.org/

Pilliod, D. S., R. B. Bury, E. J. Jyde, C. A. Pearl, and P. S. Corn. 2003. Fire and amphibians in North America. Forest Ecology and Management 178:163-181.

Roloff , G. J. and P. Doran. 2010. Ecological eff ects of fi re in Great Lakes savannas and prairies: literature.

Russell, K. R., Van Lear, D. H., Guynn, D. C., 1999. Prescribed fi re eff ects on herpetofauna: review and management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:374–384.

Schurbon, J. M. and J. E. Fauth. Eff ects of prescribed burning on amphibian diversity in a southeastern U. S. National Forest. Conservation Biology 17:1338-1349.

Vogl, R. J., 1973. Eff ects of fi re on the plants and animals of a Florida wetland. American Midland Naturalist. 89:334–347.

Wilgers, D. J. and E. A. Horne. 2006. Eff ects of diff erent burn regimes on tallgrass prairie herpetofaunal species diversity and community composition in the Flint Hills, Kansas. Journal of Herpetology 40:73-84.

* A-1.19 * Make Your Own Herbicide Wand Assembly Instructions

Construction hints: When buying parts for the wand, remember that the wand has four threaded joins which are Appendix A-2: Directions hand-tightened. Lavatory gaskets ensure the fi ts are leak proof. When selecting gaskets, try them out on the PVC Make your own connectors before you use them. You may need to double up to gaskets to make a tight seal. Gaskets with too large of an inner diameter may leak, too. In general, refer to the construction Herbicide Wand schematics on our web site if you are unclear on any of the instructions.

A) Making the main reservoir: Cement a male threaded (From the Global Invasive Species Team website: coupling onto each end of the 12-15 inch pipe. Place a rubber http://www.invasive.org/gist/tools/wandinst.html) gasket on one end, followed by a female threaded cap. With the rubber gasket in place, the fi t should be leakproof when Parts Required hand-tightened to a snug fi t. B) Making the sponge reservoir: Depending upon the details Unless otherwise specifi ed, all the parts are 1 inch diameter of the way your PVC fi ttings were molded, you may have to PVC fi ttings. innovate to complete this part of the construction. Read this 2--threaded female caps section completely before proceeding! First, cut the end off 1--3/4-inch unthreaded female cap the 3/4 inch PVC cap, and drill two holes (1/16 inch) in it. 4--male couplings, threaded on the male end Th e cap should look like a large shirt-button. Th e cap should 1--45 degree elbow coupling, unthreaded slide snugly into the unthreaded end of a threaded male 1--ball valve, threaded on both female ends coupling (you may need to fi le it a little). Cement it in place 1--pipe piece 12 to 15 inches long as far inside the male coupling as you can. Use a 1 inch length 2--pipe pieces 1 inch long of pipe to cement the male coupling to the 45 degree elbow 1--heavy duty (“cellulose”) sponge 2 x 4 x 1.5 inches coupling. Use another 1 inch length of pipe to cement the 4--1.25 inch rubber lavatory gaskets (see construction hints, other end of the 45 degree elbow to a male coupling. below) C) Making the sponge tip: Drill a 3/4 inch diameter hole into Tools/Materials Required a threaded female cap. Make a sponge tip by cutting a square or columnar chunk out of a heavy-duty sponge. A tip 1 inch PVC purple primer and cement in diameter and 1.5 inches long should fi t snugly in the hole. PVC pipe cutters or hacksaw A metal pipe with sharpened ends can be used to cut out Coarse fi le for PVC sponge tips. Cut out several, you will need them. Drill with 1/16 inch and 3/4 inch bits Ruler D) Completing the wand: Using gaskets, screw the sponge tip Scissors (to cut sponge) to the end of the sponge reservoir nearest the 3/4 inch drip hole disk. Screw the other end into the ball valve. Screw the main reservoir into the other side of the ball valve.

* A-2.1 * Make Your Own Herbicide Wand

How To Use the Wand

With ball valve in the closed position, pour the herbicide mix into the main reservoir and replace the fi ll-cap on the wand. Open the ball valve slightly to let herbicide enter the sponge reservoir. (You may need to loosen the fi ll-cap to let air into the main reservoir.) Once the sponge tip begins to saturate, close the ball valve (and if necessary, retighten the fi ll cap). Only a light touch of the saturated sponge tip is needed to apply herbicide to a cut-stump. Open the ball valve when more herbicide is needed in the sponge tip.

Helpful Hints

(by the wand’s inventor, Jack McGowan-Stinski, TNC MI)

1) During colder weather the ball valve may have to be left open to allow enough herbicide to saturate the sponge. Drip holes also can be made larger if faster herbicide fl ow is desired. -Barry Rice, TNC/GIST, May 2000; revised March 2001 http://www.invasive.org/gist/tools/wand.html 2) Do not allow left-over herbicide mix to remain in the reservoir in extreme temperatures.

3) Always clear drip holes of residue before using the applicator. A paper clip works well for cleaning out residues.

4) When the sponge becomes worn, replace it (recommended after every work day at a minimum).

5) When using the applicator during freezing conditions, duct tape a disposable chemical hand warmer around the section with the drip hole disk to reduce the chance of drip holes freezing shut.

6) Use a herbicide dye to check for leaks, monitor applications, and identify any exposure to the person using the applicator.

* A-2.2 * Monitoring Restoration Progress

in prairie fens. Assessment of these metrics requires basic Appendix A-3: Methods understanding of the ecology of fens and the behavior of fi re in fens, but does not require extensive botanical expertise. and Guidelines for Th ey are designed so that land managers and stewards can evaluate them without relying on external botanists or ecological consultants. We fi rst conceived and applied them Assessing Restoration in 2004 at Ives Road Fen Preserve and have since refi ned them and applied them also at Grand River Fen Preserve. Progress in Prairie Fens Initially there were three metrics (percentage cover of native species, percentage cover of herbaceous species, and percent Using Coarse-Level of a management unit that would carry a prescribed fi re), but based on discussions in a fi eld workshop with partners in Metrics August, 2006, we added a fourth metric: percentage cover of woody plants. Th is fourth metric recognizes that herbaceous and woody plants can occupy the same area (i.e., there are multiple structural layers) and that the total cover of the Douglas R. Pearsall and Steven S. Woods, Th e Nature two can exceed 100 percent. For consistency, it was agreed Conservancy in Michigan, September, 2006 (updated January, that woody and herbaceous plant cover should be evaluated 2008) independently. A fi fth metric, percentage cover of non-native plants was added in 2008. As with herbaceous and woody plants, the coverages of native and non-native plants are not Introduction entirely dependent and the total coverage can exceed 100 percent. Prairie fens in southern Lower Michigan and northern Indiana have long been a focus of conservation eff orts. Most, if not all, of these fens suff er from altered General Methods hydrology, altered fi re regime, and invasive species, and signifi cant resources have been invested in restoring and 1. Divide managed area into management units (see more maintaining fens by public agencies and private organizations. detailed discussion below). While restoration techniques have improved and there is some monitoring being carried out in individual fens, monitoring 2. Walk through each management unit and perform procedures have generally required botanical expertise and visual assessment of each of the coarse-level metrics. It is more time and resources than managers have to spend on recommended that the assessments be performed by at least monitoring. Additionally, there has been no consistent two people familiar with fen ecology and fi re management. monitoring of the progress of restoration across multiple fens. Because these estimates are subjective, there will be variation Given that there are roughly 130 prairie fens in southern among surveyors. Th e eff ects of variation can be diminished Michigan and tens more in northern Indiana, at least 20% by taking the average value of two or more estimates. of which are being actively managed, implementation of consistent measures of restoration progress in multiple 3. Record each individual estimate on fi eld data sheet and managed fens would provide a valuable index of the status of calculate the average value—this average should be used as the fens in this part of their range. estimate for the individual management unit. Th e Nature Conservancy in Michigan has developed a set of coarse-level metrics to provide a relatively quick and inexpensive means to track the progress of restoration

* A-3.1 * Monitoring Restoration Progress

4. Determine values for each metric for the entire preserve or managed area using the estimates for each management unit. a. First, calculate the area of each management unit Establishing Management and determine proportional area of each management Units unit. Management units can be defi ned based on natural b. Second, calculate weighted value for each metric ecosystem boundaries or on imposed boundaries such as in each management unit by multiplying the trails or burn breaks. Boundaries of disturbed areas, such estimated values by the proportional area. as a ditched or plowed area, or of dense clumps of invasive c. Lastly, determine the sum of all weighted values f species can also be used to defi ne management units. It is or each metric across all management units. recommended that management units be relatively uniform in vegetation composition and structure, and that a goal (or 5. Establish a system of categories for rating each metric for desired future condition) for the unit be clearly articulated. a given ecosystem (prairie fen, shrub fen, grassland, savanna, Examples of desired future condition include prairie fen, tamarack swamp, etc…). Th e Conservancy typically uses shrub fen, tamarack swamp, and hardwood swamp, and the the categories of Poor, Fair, Good, and Very Good when metrics described here may be applied diff erently, or not at rating an indicator of viability of a natural community or a all, in units having a goal other than prairie fen. population. Th erefore, we have determined thresholds for each of these categories for each of the metrics as applied to prairie fens (Attachment B). Th ese thresholds are designed to Supplies and Equipment refl ect ranges that are considered meaningful with respect to restoration progress in fens and would not apply well to most Th is approach requires little equipment, but the upland systems or wetlands characterized by more woody following items are helpful. vegetation. • GPS unit (both for mapping unit boundaries and then relocating boundaries during fi eld surveys) • Aerial photographs depicting management unit boundaries. Guidelines for Field Estimates

1. Ensure visual access to entire unit or at least to areas that are representative of all portions of the unit.

2. Evaluate each metric independently, i.e., percentage cover of herbaceous species should include plants that occur underneath woody plants. Total percentage cover of herbaceous and woody plant will often exceed 100%.

3. Consider even low shrubs, such as shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa), as woody species.

4. Th e percentage of a management unit that will carry a prescribed fi re should be evaluated under the assumption that internal ignition will be used when necessary. Isolated patches of fl ammable fuels should be included in the total percentage, but areas of homogeneously thin fuels that would not carry a fi re should not be included.

* A-3.2 * Monitoring Restoration Progress Appendix A-4: Techniques and timing to manage some common invasive exotic plants. Invasive Species Control Techniques & Timing 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 Scientific Name Common Name Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Acer platanoides Norway maple Ccdg Ccdg F F Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Cf Cf Cf Mh Mh Mh Cf Cf Alnus glutinosa Black alder Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Ccdg Berberis spp. Barberry Cc Cc Fp Fp, Mh Mh Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Cc Bromus inermis Smooth brome grass Fp, Cf Cf Cf Butomus umbellatus Flowering-rush Cardamine impatiens Bitter cress Mh, Cc Mh, Cc Celastrus orbiculata Oriental bittersweet Cc Cc Ccf Ccf Ccf Ccf Cc Cc Cc Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed Cf Cf Fp Fp Cf Cbf, Mhs Cbf, Mhs Cbf, Mhs Cf, Mhs Cf, Mhs Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Msh, Cf Msh, Cf Msh, Cf Msh, Cf Convallaria majalis Lily-of-the-valley Cf Cf Cf Cf Coronilla varia Crown vetch Cf Cf Cf Eichhornia crassipes Water-haycinth Cf Cf Cf Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn olive Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge Cf Cf Gypsophila spp. Baby's breath Ms Ms Ms Ms Heracleum mantegazzianum Giant hogweed Ms Ms Ms Ms Ms Hesperis matronalis Dame's rocket Mh Mh Mh Ligustrum vulgare Privet Cc Cc Fp Fp Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Lonicera spp. Bush honeysuckle Cc Cc Fp Fp Cc, Mh Cc, Mh Cc, Mh Cc, Mh Cc, Mh Cc, Mh Cc Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle Cf, Ft Cf, Ft Cf, Ft Lysimachia nummularia Moneywort Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Cbcf Cbcf Cbc Melilotus alba White sweet-clover Fp Mb Mh Mh Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweet-clover Fp Mb Mh Mh Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water milfoil Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Ms Ms Ms Ms Ms Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Cf, Fp Ccf Ccf Ccf Phragmites australis Giant reed Cbf Cbf Cbf Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Cf Cf Cf Cf Cf Polygonum perfoliatum Mile-a-minute weed Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn Cc Cc Fp Fp Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Rhamnus frangula Glossy buckthorn Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Rhodotypos scandens Black jetbead Cc Cc Fp Fp Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Cdg Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Cc Cc Fp Fp Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Cc Saponaria officinalis Bouncing bet (soapwort) Cbf Cbf Cbf Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cat-tail Cbcf Cbcf Cbcf Cbcf Vinca minor Periwinkle Cf Cf Cf Cf Cf Cf Vincetoxicum spp. Black swallow-wort Cbf Cbf Cbf Cbf Cbf Cbf

PlantWise, LLC www.plantwiserestoration.com October 2005

* A-4.1 * Photo Credits

Figure 6: Michael Kost, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Appendix A-5: Figure 7: David Kenyon, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Photo Credits Figure 8. Todd Losee, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Cover Figure 11. Ibid. upper right: Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Figure 12: Peter Tolson, Toledo Zoo Natural Resources Figure 13: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of remaining: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources Figure 14. Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Page bottoms, left to right: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Focus on Invasive Plants Section Resources Buckthorn: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Narrow-leaf cat-tail: Rebecca K. Schillo, Michigan Natural Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Features Inventory Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Reed Canary top: Chris Evans, River to River CWMA & Resources Bugwood.org Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Reed Canary, bottom: Jamie Nielsen, Univ. of Alaska, David Kenyon, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fairbanks Cooperative Extension Service & Bugwood.org Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Japanese Knotweed top: Tom Heutte, USDA Forest Service & Resources Bugwood.org Todd Losee, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Japanese Knotweed bottom: Ibid. David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Purple Loosestrife: Michael Kost, Michigan Natural Features Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Inventory Michael Kost, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Japanese Barberry: James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service & Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Bugwood.org Michael Kost, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Phragmites top: Jill M. Swearingen, USDI National Park Ibid. Service & Bugwood.org Phragmites bottom: John M. Randall, Th e Nature Fen Conservation Plan Conservancy & Bugwood.org Introduction: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fen Conservation Plan continued... Figure 1: Amon et al. 2002 Figure 15: Barbara Barton, Michigan Natural Features Figure 2: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Inventory Natural Resources Figure 16: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Figure 3: Amon et al. 2002 Natural Resources Figure 4: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Figure 17: Ibid Natural Resources Figure 18: Michael Kost, Michigan Natural Features Figure 5: Ibid Inventory.

* A-5.1 * Photo Credits

Fen Conservation Plan continued... Figure 19: Daria Hyde, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure 20: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Figure 21: Ibid Figure 22: Ibid Figure 23: Ibid Figure 24: Ibid Figure 25. Ibid Figure 26: Ibid. Conclusion: Ibid

Habitat Conservation Plan Figure A1: Daniel Kennedy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Mitchell’s Satyr Identifi cation: Doug Landis, Michigan State University Eyed Brown Identifi cation: David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Little Wood Satyr Identifi cation: Will Cook, Carolinanature. com Common Wood Nymph Identifi cation: David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure A2: Carrie Tansy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Figure A3: David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure A4: Peter Tolson, Toledo Zoo Figure A5: Ibid Figure A6: Rebecca Rogers, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure A7: David Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure A8: Ibid Figure A9: Ibid Figure A10: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Figure A11: Rebecca Rogers, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Figure A12: Christopher Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Figure A13: Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy

* A-5.2 * “Other people can talk about how to expand the destiny of mankind. I just want to talk about how to fi x a motorcycle. I think that what I have to say has more lasting value.” — Robert M. Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

* A-5.3 * Appendix B. State list of endangered, threatened and species of special concern in Michigan and Indiana Table 1. State listed plants of prairie fens in Michigan and Indiana. Th reatened and endangered plants are protected; state rare, watch list, and special concern are tracked through natural heritage databases, biut are not legally protected.

Common name Scientifi c name Indiana Status Michigan Status Purple milkweed Asclepias purpurascens State threatened Rushlike aster Aster borealis State rare 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 fl ava State threatened Livid sedge Carex livida State endangered Hemlock parsley Conioselinum chinense State endangered Small yellow lady’s-slipper Cypripedium calceolus var. parvifl orum State rare Small white lady’s-slipper Cypripedium candidum Watch list State threatened 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 State threatened Queen-of-the-prairie Filipendula rubra Watch list State threatened Whiskered sunfl ower Helianthus hirsutus Special concern Great St. John’s-wort Hypericum pyramidatum State threatened Baltic rush Juncus balticus var. littoralis State rare Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis State threatened Northern witchgrass Panicum boreale State rareA

* B-1 * Table 1 continued.

Common name Scientifi c name IN Status MI Status Leiberg’s witchgrass Panicum leibergii State threatened State threatened Wild sweet William Phlox maculata State threatened Leafy white orchis Platanthera dilatata State endangered Leafy northern green orchis Platanthera hyperborea 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 State endangered Calamint Satureja glabella var. angustifolia State endangered Rosinweed Silphium integrifolium State threatened Shining ladies’-tresses Spiranthes lucida State rare Hooded ladies’-tresses Spiranthes romanzoffi ana State threatened Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis Special concern False asphodel Tofi eldia 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 State threatened Marsh valerian Valeriana uliginosa State endangered White camas Zigadenus elegans var. glaucus State rare Wild rice Zizania aquatica var. aquatica State threatened

* B-2 * Table 2. State listed animals of prairie fens in Michigan and Indiana. Th reatened and endangered animals are protected; state rare, watch list, and special concern are tracked through natural heritage databases, biut are not legally protected.

Common name Scientifi c name IN Status MI Status Blanchard’s cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardi State threatened 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 Special concern 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 leafhopper 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

* B-3* Table 2 continued.

Common name Scientifi c name IN Status MI 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 fl examia Flexamia refl exus State threatened State special concern Watercress snail Fontigens nickliniana Special concern Rapids clubtail Gomphus quadricolor State threatened State special concern Skillet clubtail Gomphus ventricosus State threatened Dragonhunter Hagenius brevistylus State rare Barrens buckmoth Hemileuca maia Special concern Midwestern fen buckmoth Hemileuca sp. 3 State threatened same as Hemileuca maia A noctuid moth Homophoberia cristata State rare A noctuid moth Iodopepla u-album State rare Angular spittlebug Lepyronia angulifera State threatened Special concern 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 State special concern Dwarf skimmer Nannothemis bella State endangered Sphagnum sprite Nehalennia gracilis State endangered

* B-4 * Table 2 continued.

Common name Scientifi c name IN Status MI Status Mitchell’s satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Federal endangered Federal endangered Poweshiek skipper Oarisma poweshiek Federal candidate Federal endangered Elegant prominent Odontosia elegans State rare Tamarack tree cricket Oecanthus laricis Special concern Pitcher plant borer moth Papaipema appassionata State endangered Beer’s blazing star borer Papaipema beeriana State threatened Special concern Golden borer moth Papaipema cerina Special concern Ironweed borer moth Papaipema limpida State rare St. John’s wort borer moth Papaipema lysimachiae State rare Giant sunfl ower borer moth Papaipema maritima State threatened Special concern Culvers root borer Papaipema sciata Special concern 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 Special concern Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Special concern Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus catenatus Federal candidate Federal candidate Clamp-tipped emerald Somatochlora tenebrosa State rare Included cordgrass borer Spartiniphaga includens State threatened Spartina moth Spartiniphaga inops Special concern Riverine clubtail Stylurus amnicola State threatened State special concern Band-winged meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum State rare Gray petaltail Tachopteryx thoreyi State rare State threatened Eastern box turtle Terrapene c. carolina Special concern

* B-5 * Appendix C. Certificate of Inclusion

Michigan Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Division CERTIFICATE OF INCLUSION By the authority of part 365, 1994 PA 451.

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY AND POWESHIEK SKIPPERLING PERMIT NUMBER ______

This certifies that the Partner listed below is included within the scope of Permit Number ______issued on ______, under the authority of Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1539 (a)(1)(B). Pursuant to the permit and this certificate, the partner is authorized to conduct activities in accordance with the Habitat Conservation Plan and the conservation measures described in the attached Mitchell’s satyr butterfly and Poweshiek skipperling Implementation Plan.

Authorized Partner

Partner Project Officer

Endangered Species Coordinator, Wildlife Division Date Michigan Department of Natural Resources