BIOLOGICAL OPINION

for the

Walhalla Project

Huron-Manistee National Forests

Submitted to the U.S. Forest Service

August 25, 2003

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

East Lansing Field Office

2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101

East Lansing, Michigan 48823

[Consultation history]{.underline}

-   May 15, 2003 - The Service received a letter from the HMNF
    requesting formal section 7 consultation on the Walhalla Project.
    The initiation package included a biological assessment for the
    project.

-   June 9, 2003 - The Service sent a letter to the HMNF advising that
    the initiation package was complete and that the final biological
    opinion would be delivered by September 26, 2003.

-   Email correspondence between Jessica Gourley (Service) and Joe Kelly
    (HMNF) regarding clarification of project actions were exchanged on
    the following dates: June 25 and 26, July 14 and 15, and August 4,
    2003.

-   Multiple telephone conversations regarding clarification of project
    actions occurred between Jessica Gourley (Service) and Joe Kelly
    (HMNF) in June and July, 2003.

-   July 14, 2003 -- The Service (Mike Decapita and Jessica Gourley)
    telephoned Rex Ennis (HMNF) to discuss the project determination for
    the Indiana bat.

-   August 6 -- 12, 2003 -- The Service (Jessica Gourley) and the HMNF
    (Rex Ennis, Joe Kelly) exchanged comments and discussed the draft
    Opinion for the Walhalla Project via email and telephone.

-   August 25, 2003 -- The Service sent a draft Biological Opinion for
    the Walhalla Project to the HMNF.

**[BIOLOGICAL OPINION]{.underline}**

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

As defined in 50 CFR 402.02, "action" means all activities or programs,
of any kind, authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by
Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. The "action
area" is defined as all areas directly or indirectly affected by the
effects of the actions (including the proposed action and any
interrelated or interdependent actions) and not merely the immediate
area involved in the action. The direct and indirect effects of the
actions and activities from the Federal action must be considered in
conjunction with the effects of other past and present Federal, State,
or private activities, as well as cumulative effects of reasonably
certain future State or private activities within the action area.

Implementation of the HMNF's Walhalla Project represents the proposed
action considered in this Opinion. This Opinion considers only those
species that may be affected by the proposed action. The HMNF determined
that the proposed action may affect, but is [not likely to adversely
affect]{.underline} the bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), and is
[likely to adversely affect]{.underline} the Karner blue butterfly
(*Lycaeides melissa samuelis*) and Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*).

**The Huron-Manistee National Forests**

The proclamation boundary of the HMNF includes 2,025,769 ac (819,817 ha)
located in two forest units, in eastern and western Lower Michigan
(Figure. 1). The Huron National Forest (Huron NF) boundary encompasses
694,098 ac (280,898 ha), 433,915 ac (175,603 ha; 63 percent) of which
are National Forest System lands managed by the Forest Service (USDAFS
1999). The Huron NF, located in Alcona, Crawford, Iosco, Ogemaw, and
Oscoda counties in the northeastern portion of the Lower Peninsula of
Michigan, is divided into three Ranger Districts: Tawas, Harrisville,
and Mio. These districts are managed out of two ranger stations, one at
Mio and the other at Oscoda, Michigan. The Manistee National Forest
(Manistee NF) boundary encompasses 1,331,671 ac (538,920 ha), 534,916 ac
(216,478 ha; 40 percent) of which are National Forest System lands
managed by the Forest Service (USDAFS 1999). The Manistee NF, located in
Lake, Manistee, Mason, Mecosta, Montcalm, Muskegon, Oceana, Newaygo, and
Wexford counties in the northwestern one-quarter of Michigan's Lower
Peninsula, is divided into four Ranger Districts: Baldwin, Cadillac,
Manistee, and White Cloud. These districts are managed out of two ranger
stations, one at Manistee and one at Baldwin, Michigan.

![](media/image1.wmf)

Figure 1. Map of the HMNF (from USDAFS 2003a).

The HMNF is managed with a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The
purpose of the LRMP is to "provide direction for the multiple use
management and the sustained yield of goods and services from the
National Forest System lands in an environmentally sound manner" (USDAFS
1986). The LRMP represents a programmatic planning document that
establishes HMNF management goals and objectives, specifies Standards
and Guidelines for management activities, and establishes monitoring and
evaluation requirements. Management directions and associated activities
that are planned, funded, executed, or permitted by the HMNF are
implemented in accordance with the provisions contained in the LRMP.

**Action Area**

The Walhalla Project action area is located on the Manistee side of the
HMNF in Branch Township, Mason County, Michigan (T18N R15W Sections 1-4
and 7--30, see biological assessment, Appendix A for a map). The action
area is approximately 14,640 ac (5,925 ha), with approximately 24
percent (3,452 ac; 2,611 ha) under HMNF ownership. The remainder of the
action area is under state (2 percent), county (1 percent), and private
(73 percent) ownership.

### [Description of HMNF-owned Lands in the Action Area]{.underline}

*Landtype Associations*

The Ecological Classification and Inventory System (USDAFS 2003a)
defines ecological land classification units on the HMNF and describes
their characteristics. This system uses climate, geomorphology,
landform, soils, hydrology, and vegetation to define Landtype
Associations (LTA's; USDAFS 1999). The LTA's utilize landform
information and reflect landscape scale physical characteristics that
remain fairly stable over time despite land use practices.

The project area includes several LTAs (Table 1). Each LTA is defined by
large-scale geometric features and potential natural vegetation, and is
mapped at a scale of hundreds to thousands of acres. The majority of the
treatments proposed for this project would occur on dry outwash sand
plains (LTA 1).

Table 1. Landtype Associations in the action area.

  ------------------------------------- -------------- -------------------
  **LTA**                               **Acres**      **% of Action Area
                                                       under HMNF
                                                       ownership**

  LTA 1- Dry outwash, sand plains       1617           47%

  LTA 5- Alluvial / Fluvial Organics    1000           29%

  LTA 7- Ground Moraines                35             1%
  ------------------------------------- -------------- -------------------

# *Management Areas*

The HMNF consists of 16 different management areas (MAs; Table 2). Each
MA has a common management direction, with one management prescription
applied to achieve the desired future condition of the land (USDAFS
2003a). Management prescriptions are sets of practices designed to
create this desired future condition. Selection of the proper
prescription matches suitability and capability to produce a mix of
goods, services, and desired uses with the attributes of an area.
Assignment of management prescription areas on the HMNF reflects a wide
variety of LTAs, vegetative conditions and recreation opportunities
(USDAFS 1986). Lands within the Walhalla Project are designated as MAs
4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 8.1.

+-----------------+--------------------------------------+------+------+
| **Management    | **Primary Goals**                    | *    | **%  |
| Area**          |                                      | *Acr | of   |
|                 |                                      | es** | Pro  |
|                 |                                      |      | ject |
|                 |                                      |      | Ar   |
|                 |                                      |      | ea** |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------+------+------+
| 4.2- Roaded     | \- Provide high volumes of quality   | 1363 | 39%  |
| natural sandy   | hardwood timber and firewood         |      |      |
| plains and      | products                             |      |      |
| hills           |                                      |      |      |
|                 | \- Manage game and wildlife emphasis |      |      |
|                 | areas                                |      |      |
|                 |                                      |      |      |
|                 | \- Reduce potential wildfire damage  |      |      |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------+------+------+
| 4.3- Roaded     | \- Provide a variety of motorized    | 693  | 20%  |
| natural         | recreational opportunities           |      |      |
| wetlands        |                                      |      |      |
|                 | \- Manage game and wildlife emphasis |      |      |
|                 | areas                                |      |      |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------+------+------+
| 4.4- Rural      | \- Provide a variety of motorized    | 744  | 22%  |
| sandy plains,   | recreational opportunities           |      |      |
| morainal hills, |                                      |      |      |
| and riparian    | \- Provide moderate to high volumes  |      |      |
| areas           | of quality hardwood timber products  |      |      |
|                 |                                      |      |      |
|                 | \- Coordinate wildlife management    |      |      |
|                 | with adjacent land usage             |      |      |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------+------+------+
| 8.1- Special    | \- Provide a variable direction for  | 652  | 19%  |
| areas           | unique biological, geological,       |      |      |
|                 | cultural reasons, or legislative     |      |      |
|                 | designation                          |      |      |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------+------+------+

Table 2. Management Areas in the Walhalla Project action area (USDAFS
2003a)

# 

# *Special Land Designations*

A portion of the action area occurs within the Pere Marquette National
Scenic River Corridor (Pere Marquette River), the HMNF Old Growth
design, and the US-10 Visual Sensitive corridor.

### [Description of State, County, and Private Lands in the Action Area]{.underline}

Lands under other ownerships within the Walhalla Project Area are
approximately 87% forested, with the remainder in openings (mostly
agricultural and old fields). The forested habitat community types
consist primarily of oak, with some aspen and lowland hardwoods. Red,
scotch, and jack pine and mixed oak/pine also occur, but in lesser
amounts. The vegetative age classes range from regeneration to mature,
with the mature age group being the most prevalent.

Land Type Associations found on other land ownerships within the action
area are similar to those found on HMNF lands, and include LTAs 1, 5,
and 7, with the addition of some LTA 2 (Ice Contact Hills). The LTA 1 is
still the most prevalent.

## Project Description

The Walhalla Project would provide vegetative treatments to sustain
forest health and vigor and to enhance vegetative diversity. Project
implementation would occur over an approximate 11-year period, from 2004
to 2015. The proposed treatments will directly affect a maximum
potential of 836 ac (338 ha) of HMNF lands. The action area is
designated into several compartments that are subdivided into units or
stands. Project actions are proposed in Compartments 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,
47, 48, and a portion of 99 (see biological assessment, Appendix C for a
map of compartments and units/stands). These proposed actions are as
follows:

-   Harvest timber on approximately 812 ac (329 ha) of forest

    -   Thin 725 ac (293 ha) of red and white pine plantation.

    -   Regenerate 35 ac (14 ha) of red pine and hardwood.

    -   Regenerate 10 ac (4 ha) of aspen.

    -   Clearcut 10 ac (4 ha) of oak for conversion to aspen.

    -   Remove 32 ac (13 ha) of red pine for creation of oak/pine
        savanna.

-   Maintain and enhance upland openings

    -   Use hand-cutting on 37 ac (15 ha).

    -   Use prescribed burning on 39 ac (16 ha).

        -   Includes prescribed burning of selected sites on an annual
            basis for up to three consecutive years to remove especially
            dense and vigorous woody vegetation for Karner blue
            butterfly habitat management.

-   Manage the transportation system

    -   Close 7.98 mi (12.8 km) of roads.

    -   Construct 0.6 mi (1km) of roads.

    -   Reconstruct 2.41 mi (3.9 km) of roads.

-   Watershed Management

    -   Place steps at 2 eroded sites along Gooseneck Lake.

    -   Replace a culvert and improve approaches at Barothy Road and
        Buck Creek.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fisheries Management

> \> Improve 20 ac (8 ha) of fishery habitat in Gooseneck Lake by
> installing 5 brush piles and crib structures.

-   Clean-up trash at 6 areas.

-   Comply with all pertinent Standards and Guidelines for each MA in
    the HMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (USDAFS 1986).

-   The following measures will be implemented for the conservation and
    protection of listed species in the action area:

    -   Resource Protection

        -   Apply protection measures if listed species are encountered.
            If a bat is encountered, it will be properly identified.

        -   Exclude timber harvest within 100 ft (30 m) of riparian
            areas, including the area with recognizable riparian
            vegetation.

        -   Prohibit hand-cutting of woody vegetation in Compartment 41-
            Stands 24 -- 26, and in Compartment 48- Stand 12, from March
            15 to September 1 to protect the Karner blue butterfly.

    -   Diversity Enhancement

        -   Retain approximately 9 trees per acre (preferable white oak)
            with a 9 in (23 cm) dbh or greater, if present, within all
            silvicultural treatments, except for oak/savanna restoration
            areas. This will improve vegetative diversity, stand
            structure, and potential Indiana bat roosting habitat.

        -   Reserve existing snags that are not a safety hazard in all
            silvicultural treatment units to benefit the Indiana bat.

        -   Reserve pine trees greater that 16 in (41 cm) dbh, if
            present, in all silvicultural treatments to retain potential
            roost, perch, and nest trees for bald eagles.

    -   Operating Requirements

        -   Operate within Units 4 and 11 from October 1 to March 31 to
            promote natural regeneration and avoid cutting trees
            potentially occupied by Indiana bats.

        -   Operate within Units 5 -- 8 from September 1 to March 1 to
            avoid cutting trees potentially occupied by Indiana bats.

        -   Operate within Units 1, 9, 10, 12 -- 14, and 16 -- 19 from
            September 1 to May 1 to avoid cutting trees potentially
            occupied by Indiana bats.

        -   Operate within Units 2 and 15 from December 1 to March 1 to
            protect the Karner blue butterfly and to avoid cutting trees
            potentially occupied by the Indiana bat.

        -   Operate within Unit 3 from December 1 to March 1 to avoid
            the motorcycle season and to avoid cutting trees potentially
            occupied by Indiana bats.

    -   Rehabilitation

        -   Rehabilitate landings and temporary roads after harvests are
            completed to reduce compaction, reduce nonnative species
            proliferation, and to promote revegetation. Sow a cover crop
            to insure that germination occurs during the current or
            following growing season. Use only native species or
            nonpersistent nonnative species where vegetation is needed
            to control erosion, reduce nonnative invasive species, or to
            enhance wildlife habitat. This may benefit the Indiana bat.

[Karner blue butterfly Habitat Management]{.underline}

Maintenance and restoration of habitat for the Karner blue butterfly is
an objective of the Walhalla Project. Dependent on early successional
stage vegetation, habitat for this species was historically maintained
by fire and other natural disturbances (USFWS 2001). The HMNF manages
Karner blue butterfly habitat by mimicking these historic natural
disturbances with prescription burns, hand cutting, and other methods
(USDAFS 2003a). The proposed actions in the Walhalla Project targeted
for Karner blue butterfly habitat management are: 1) removal of red pine
to create of oak/pine savanna and 2) maintenance and enhancement of
upland openings via hand cutting and prescribed burning. The HMNF
proposes prescribed burning to restore Karner blue butterfly habitat in
an existing opening by decreasing the amount of woody encroachment and
secondarily improving the vegetative species (forbs and grasses) and
structure. Prescribed burns will also be employed in the oak/pine
savanna creation areas to: 1) minimize stump sprouting that may occur
after timber harvesting for Karner blue butterfly habitat restoration
and 2) enhance the diversity and abundance of nectaring plants and warm
season grasses for the Karner blue butterfly. Of the total habitat area
to be treated by timber harvest and prescribed burning, 15 ac (6 ha) are
currently occupied by the Karner blue butterfly (Joe Kelly, HMNF, pers.
comm. 2003). These actions were designed by the HMNF to facilitate
Karner blue butterfly habitat management while minimizing impacts to the
species (see "Operating Requirements"). The proposed management actions
will improve and maintain the early successional habitats required by
the Karner blue butterfly.

**SPECIES [NOT LIKELY TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED]{.underline} BY THE
PROPOSED ACTION**

**Bald Eagle**

The HMNF determined that the proposed action is "not likely to adversely
affect" the bald eagle. The following discussion details the reasons for
our concurrence.

There are 2 known active bald eagle territories in the action area, both
of which are on non-HMNF lands. The two territories, Pere Marquette (PM)
Walhalla East and Pere Marquette (PM) Walhalla West, are 0.1 mi (0.16
km) and 0.4 mi (0.64 km) away from HMNF lands, respectively. A portion
of the Pere Marquette River, considered by the HMNF to be essential bald
eagle habitat with potential for breeding, is on HMNF lands in the
action area. This area may be used by bald eagles in the adjacent
territories for foraging.

The nearest planned habitat disturbing activity (timber harvest) is 1.3
mi (2.1 km) away from the PM Walhalla East and 0.9 mi (1.4 km) away from
the PM Walhalla West territories. The Walhalla Project would not affect
the bald eagles in these territories due to their distance from project
activities. There are no proposed projects that would affect the Pere
Marquette River essential bald eagle habitat. The three proposed road
closures may beneficially affect bald eagles in the PM Walhalla East
territory by reducing human disturbance. Therefore, we believe that the
Walhalla Project is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.

**Indiana bat**

The HMNF determined that the proposed action is "likely to adversely
affect" the Indiana bat. However, we do not concur with this
determination. In the following section, we discuss our reasons for
this.

The potential range of the Indiana bat extends into the northwestern
part of Michigan, along Lake Michigan (see Figure 2). This range is
defined by a segregation line based on growing degree days derived from
a model developed by Hargrove and Hoffman (1999). The segregation line
is used to depict the boundary of potential Indiana bat summer range in
Michigan, with areas west and south of this line considered potential
summer habitat based on the species' temperature requirements (USDAFS
2003a, USFWS 2003).

Documented occurrences of the Indiana bat within this potential range
include several locations in southern Michigan (Kurta 1982; Kurta et
al., 1989; Kurta et al., 1993; Kurta 2000; Tibbels and Kurta *in
press*), and in and around the Tippy Dam hibernaculum (Kurta and
Teramino 1994). Tippy Dam is located within the administrative boundary
of the HMNF (Manistee NF side) on the Manistee River in Manistee County
(see Figure 2). Based on survey data from Tippy Dam, the total number of
Indiana bats that may inhabit the HMNF is estimated between 3 to 65
bats; the actual number, however, is most likely on the lower end of
this range (Kurta et al. 1997).

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.246527777777778in"
height="4.5465277777777775in"}

Figure 2. Known and potential summer distribution of the Indiana bat in
Michigan (based on USDAFS 2003a).

To date, Indiana bats have not been found during summer on the HMNF. The
summer range for the Indiana bats hibernating at Tippy Dam remains
unknown (Kurta and Rice 2002). The closest known summer maternity record
for the Indiana bat occurs near Vermontville, Michigan (Eaton Co.),
approximately 62 mi (100 km) southeast of the Manistee NF, and about 130
mi (209 km) southeast of Tippy Dam. Surveys performed in central
Michigan, including HMNF lands, in 1986 found no Indiana bats (Kurta et
al. 1989). Summer mist net surveys conducted at 27 sites on suitable
habitat in the Manistee NF in 1998 and 1999 also found no Indiana bats
(Kurta 2000). Recently, Tibbels and Kurta (*in press*) performed
ultrasonic monitoring and mist net surveys in red pine stands on the
HMNF and found no Indiana bats. The authors believe that red pine stands
have low insect abundance and are too structurally complex to be
suitable habitat for bats. Despite the lack of documented Indiana bats,
the part of the HMNF that falls within the estimated range for the
species is managed as potential habitat for the species.

The Walhalla Project action area occurs within the potential range of
the Indiana bat in Michigan, comprising approximately 3.3 percent of the
potential Indiana bat habitat within the HMNF boundaries. Habitat
characteristics suitable for the Indiana bat cover an estimated 30 to 40
percent of the action area. Indiana bats have not been documented in the
action area, although this area was not surveyed in the 1986 or
1998/1999 studies. The nearest documented Indiana bat breeding site
(Eaton County) is approximately 109 mi (175 km) from of the action area.
However, we expect that Indiana bats may be present in the action area
because: 1) it is within the potential summer range of the species and
2) suitable Indiana bat habitat is present. Given the low estimate of
Indiana bats present on the HMNF (up to 65 individuals), however,
Indiana bats potentially present in the action area likely exist in very
low and perhaps undetectable numbers.

Proposed timber harvests will affect areas considered potential Indiana
bat habitat. The majority of these areas consist of red pine with a
hardwood component, primarily white oak. Other potential habitats that
will be affected are smaller hardwood stands, typically aspen
interspersed with suitable Indiana bat roosting trees, such as red oak,
white oak, red maple, and snags of varying species. Potential direct
effects of timber harvest on the Indiana bat include the removal of
occupied roost trees and the mortality or injury of individuals or small
groups of roosting bats. However, to avoid any direct take of Indiana
bats, the HMNF will perform timber harvest activities during time
periods when the species is not present.

Proposed prescribed burning will also impact potential Indiana bat
habitat. Potential direct effects of prescribed fire include the burning
of occupied roost trees and the mortality or injury of individuals or
small groups of roosting bats. Further impacts from prescribed fire may
also include inhalation of smoke, particulates, and toxins leading to
suffocation of bats in roost trees. The upland openings (potential
foraging habitat) and oak/pine savanna creation areas (potential
roosting and foraging habitat) will be affected by the proposed
prescribed burning. These habitats, however, are considered poor quality
for Indiana bat roosting and foraging for the following reasons: 1)
there are very few snags present and 2) the stands consist primarily of
red pine, which are of low suitability for roosting, with only scattered
inclusions of higher quality roost trees such as white oak or aspen.
Indiana bats, if present in the Walhalla Project action area, are not
likely to use these areas of low quality habitat, especially when higher
quality habitat for roosting and foraging is locally available.
Therefore, we believe the potential for direct effects or take of
Indiana bats from prescribed burning is discountable because Indiana
bats are unlikely to be present in the affected habitats.

Both timber harvest and prescribed burning may also cause the loss and
degradation of potential Indiana bat habitat, which could indirectly
affect the species. The indirect effects of timber harvest are expected
to be temporary because the proposed standards and guidelines for
operation will benefit the Indiana bat by managing each stand for the
long-term maintenance and improvement of suitable habitat (see
"Diversity Enhancement," p.7). Similarly, the indirect effects of
prescribed burning are expected to be temporary or beneficial the
Indiana bat. Prescribed fire, when appropriately applied, may increase
the long-term potential for large dead trees or snags that are suitable
for roosting, improve foraging habitat by increasing plant diversity,
and improve dispersal habitat by clearing the understory vegetation.

The effects of the temporary loss and degradation of habitat from timber
harvest and prescribed fire are expected to be insignificant and
discountable. The reasons for this are: 1) the proposed standards and
operation measures for timber harvest will ensure suitable roosting
habitat is maintained at any given time by preserving roost trees, such
as snags and live trees of optimal size and type, 2) Indiana bats are
apparently foraging generalists that will utilize a wide range of
habitats including riparian corridors, upland areas, old fields,
shelterwood cuts, and other disturbed areas (LaVal and LaVal 1980, Clark
et al., 1987, Gardner et al. 1991, Murray and Kurta 2002), and 3) data
suggest that due to the ephemeral nature of their preferred roost trees,
the Indiana bat is naturally adapted to disturbances in roosting habitat
(Gumbert et al. 2002, Kurta et al. 2002), and that a population may
remain viable after disturbance, provided that adequate roosting habitat
remains locally available (Gardner et al. 1991, USFWS 1999).

Based on this evaluation, we believe that the Walhalla Project is not
likely to adversely affect on the Indiana bat.

**SPECIES [LIKELY TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED]{.underline} BY THE PROPOSED
ACTION**

The HMNF determined that the proposed action considered in this Opinion
is likely to adversely affect the Karner blue butterfly. We concur with
this determination and the remainder of this Opinion addresses whether
the proposed action, including any interrelated or interdependent
actions, is likely or not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the Karner blue butterfly.

**Karner Blue Butterfly**

Status of the species and critical habitat

This section presents the relevant biological or ecological information.
The purpose is to provide the appropriate information on the species=
life history, habitat, and [range-wide]{.underline} distribution and
conservation status for analyses in later sections. This section also
documents the effects of all past human and natural activities or events
that led to the current status of the species.

[Species Description]{.underline}

The Karner blue butterfly (*Lycaeides melissa samuelis*) is small and
silvery, with a wingspan of about 2.5 cm (1 in). The forewing length of
the adult is 1.2 to 1.4 cm (0.47 to 0.55 in) for males and 1.4 to 1.6 cm
(0.55 to 0.62 in) for females. The dorsal side of the wing of the male
is violet-silvery blue with a black margin and a white-fringed edge. The
upper side of female wings range from dull violet to bright purplish
blue near the body and central portion of the wings, while the remainder
of the wing ranges from light to dark gray-brown, with marginal orange
crescents typically restricted to the outer edges of the hind wing. Both
sexes are grayish fawn to pearly gray in color on the ventral surface of
the wings with several rows of black spots on the inner portions. Near
the margins of the underside of both wings are a line of orange
crescents and metallic spots. The black terminal line along the margin
of the hind wing is usually continuous (Klots 1979; Nabokov 1944). Many
other subspecies of *Lycaeides melissa* resemble the Karner blue
butterfly, and male genitalia is the most reliable character for
distinguishing adult Karner blue butterflies from other subspecies (and
species) (Nabokov 1944, 1949).

The eggs of Karner blue are tiny (approx. 0.7 mm in diameter), radially
symmetrical, somewhat flattened, and pale greenish-white in color (Dirig
1994). The surface is deeply reticulated with a fine geometric pattern
(Scudder 1889). Larvae are a pea-green color, pubescent, and dorsally
flattened, with a brown-black to black head capsule. The head is often
not visible as it is tucked under the body. Older larvae have pale green
(to white) lateral stripes, and a dark green longitudinal stripe
dorsally. In pre-pupal larvae the lateral stripes become less distinct
and the color becomes a duller green. Pupae are bright green and smooth,
changing to a light tan with hints of purple shortly before emergence.

# [Life History]{.underline}

The Karner blue butterfly is bivoltine, completing two generations per
year. First brood larvae hatch from overwintered eggs in mid- to late
April and begin feeding on wild lupine[^1] *(Lupinus perennis*). Wild
lupine is the only known larval food source. The larvae pass through
four instars (Savignano 1990), feeding for approximately three to four
weeks before pupation in late May to early June. Karner blues are known
to pupate in leaf litter, on stems and twigs, and occasionally on lupine
leaves (Dirig 1976; Cryan and Dirig 1978). Pupation generally lasts
seven to eleven days, with adults emerging in late May through mid-June.
Peak flight for males usually precedes peak flight for females by a
couple of days. Adults are believed to live an average of four to five
days, but can live as long as two to three weeks. First flight adult
females lay their eggs primarily on lupine plants, often singly on
leaves, petioles, stems, or occasionally on other plants or leaf litter
close to lupine plants.

Second brood eggs hatch in five to ten days, and larvae can be found
feeding on wild lupine leaves and flowers from early June through late
July. Typically, a larva can survive on one large lupine stem, however,
it moves from leaf to leaf on the lupine stem, often returning to leaves
fed on during earlier instars, and it may even move to other lupine
stems (Lane 1999a). Larvae are found often on the lower parts of the
stems and petioles. Ants typically tend both first and second brood
larvae. During midday on hot days tending may be reduced.

Second brood adults begin to appear in early to mid-July and fly until
mid-August. Flight phenology may be delayed because of cool wet summers
and result in an adult flight period lasting through late August (Cathy
Bleser, pers. comm., 1995 as cited in USFWS 2001; Cynthia Lane, pers.
comm., 1995 as cited in USFWS 2001). The peak flight period usually
lasts one to two weeks. Generally, there are about three to four times
as many adults in the second brood as compared with the first brood
(Schweitzer 1994b), but exceptionally poor years can occur where the
second brood is not larger than the first brood. The first brood is
usually smaller, probably because of high overwintering mortality of
eggs, the inability of larvae to find lupine in the spring, or greater
oviposition success of first flight females.

Karner blue adults are diurnal and initiate flight between 8:00-9:00
a.m. and continue until about 7:00 p.m., a longer flight period than
most butterflies. Adult activity decreases in very hot weather, at
temperatures lower than 75^o^ F (24^o^ C), during heavy to moderate
rains, or during extremely windy conditions.

# [Habitat Use and Requirements]{.underline}

Throughout its range, the Karner blue butterfly was historically
associated with landscapes composed of sandy soils, which supported oak
or oak-pine savanna barrens and savanna ecosystems. It is now associated
with remnant barrens and savannas, highway and powerline right-of-ways,
gaps within forest stands, young forest stands, forest roads and trails,
airports, and military camps that occur on the landscapes previously
occupied by native barrens and savannas. Almost all of these
contemporary habitats are described as having a broken or scattered tree
canopy that varies within habitats from zero to between 50 and 80
percent canopy cover, with grasses and forbs common in the openings. The
habitats have lupine and other nectar plants for adult feeding, critical
microhabitats, and attendant ants. The stature and spacing of trees in
native savannas is somewhat variable, reflecting differences in soils,
topography and climate (Nuzzo 1986), and the distribution of trees in
contemporary habitat is similarly diverse. Soils are typically
well-drained sandy soils which influences both plant growth and
disturbance frequency. These conditions are generally wet enough to grow
trees but dry enough to sustain periodic fires (Breining 1993).
Topography is diverse and includes flat glacial lake beds, dune and
swale lake shores, and steep, dissected hills.

Karner blue butterfly larvae feed exclusively on wild lupine. Lupine is
an early successional species adapted to survive on dry, relatively
infertile soils. Plants in dense shade rarely flower. All available
evidence suggests that lupine thrives on nitrogen-poor soils in partial-
to open-canopied areas, and is suppressed by shade; it may not be
competitive with other plants on nitrogen-rich soils, and
phosphorus-poor soils. Several species of pines, oaks, and shrubby
vegetation are adapted to the same soils and habitat as lupine (Haney
and Apfelbaum 1990; Nuzzo 1986), and without disturbance, they will
close the canopy, shading and suppressing lupine (Apfelbaum and Haney
1991; Haney and Apfelbaum 1990). Consequently, disturbances that reduce
tree and shrub canopy cover are necessary for lupine to persist. Several
disturbances are beneficial for renewing lupine habitat, including
prescribed fire, tree removal, and a variety of other methods to kill
trees and shrubs.

Adults need adequate nectar resources and will utilize a wide variety of
native and introduced flowering plants (Rabe 2001). In Michigan, Karner
blue butterflies frequently nectar on lupine and dewberry (*Rubus* spp.)
during the spring brood, and horse mint (*Monarda punctata*), butterfly
weed (*Asclepias tuberosa*), spotted knapweed (*Centaurea maculosa*),
and blazing star (*Liatris aspera*) during the summer brood (Rabe 2001).
In addition to nectaring, males and females sip at moist earth
(mud-puddling) and human perspiration, and males sip at animal droppings
(Swengel and Swengel 1993). Adults may be obtaining sodium or other
substances from this behavior. In addition to wild lupine, the Karner
blue butterfly requires tall grass for late afternoon basking and
overnight roosting, some shading vegetation to prevent overheating, and
a source of water.

Adults and larvae use a variety of subhabitats created by variation in
tree canopy and shrub cover, topography, and soil moisture. Mating,
roosting, and adult feeding take place primarily in open-canopied areas.
Oviposition occurs in many types of subhabitats, but larval growth and
survival may be best in partial- to closed-canopy areas. It is important
for butterflies to be able to move easily between subhabitat types, as
optimal subhabitat types differ for adults and larvae. Small-scale
variation in topography and soil moisture could be beneficial to Karner
blue butterfly. A highly variable microtopography creates a highly
variable thermal environment, plant community, and canopy structure.
Variation in soil moisture will also contribute to variation in plant
community and canopy structure. Variation in plant community and canopy
could be beneficial to the Karner blue in the long-term because in hot,
dry years, the species can be found using shady, moist subhabitats,
while in cool years, they are more strongly associated with sunny and
partially sunny subhabitats.

# [Population Dynamics]{.underline}

Literature on the historic distribution of the Karner blue butterfly
suggests that this species occurred as shifting clusters of populations
distributed across a vast fire-swept landscape covering thousands of
acres. While the fires resulted in localized extirpations, vegetative
succession following these fires maintained suitable habitat and allowed
rapid population expansion or repopulation (Schweitzer 1989).

The Karner blue butterfly represents a species for which suitable
habitat occurs in relatively small areas (or patches) distributed over
larger areas (Zaremba et al., 1991). Like other species whose habitat
occurs in patches rather than large continuous tracts of land,
populations of the Karner blue butterfly exist as dynamic collections of
subpopulations that are interconnected by dispersal. Collectively, these
interconnected subpopulations make up a single metapopulation that
continually shifts in distribution across the landscape as habitat
patches range from suitable to unsuitable. Changes in habitat
suitability are due to variable stages of disturbance and succession in
the habitat (Givnish et al. l988; Schweitzer l989). No one theoretical
metapopulation structure is advocated for the Karner blue butterfly;
rather, the recovery plan focuses on those factors that would restore
healthy metapopulations including sufficient suitable habitat,
connectivity of subpopulations, and management. Persistence of
metapopulations is governed by the balance between extirpation of
subpopulations and recolonization of unoccupied suitable habitat sites.

To preserve species with patchy distributions, it is necessary to
maintain: 1) existing patches of suitable habitat, 2) the processes that
create new habitat patches, and 3) the corridors that allow a species to
migrate between habitat patches (Harrison et al. 1988). Open linear
areas such as road and railroad rights-of-way, utility corridors, and
forest roads and trails can serve as dispersal corridors for the Karner
blue butterfly, allowing them to recolonize or colonize wild lupine
patches. Research has shown dispersal of the Karner blue butterfly to
range from about 600 ft (183 m) to about 2 mi (3.2 m).

# [Threats]{.underline}

The major threats to survival of the Karner blue butterfly in native
habitats are succession to woodlands and forests, and management for
other wildlife and natural areas goals that do not take into account the
needs of the butterfly, such as restoration and maintenance of native
vegetation, or that encourage use by game animals and recreationists.
Human use of these native habitats and adjacent developed habitats has
often resulted in suppression of disturbance and decline of Karner blue
butterfly populations. Although wildlife and other management goals are
often concordant with enhancement of Karner blue, too vigorous a pursuit
of these other goals can be detrimental to the butterfly.

Karner blue butterfly inhabits several non-native habitats, including
some silvicultural areas, mowed rights-of-way, and roadside edges. Some
of these habitats are being lost to more intensive development
pressures. Some silvicultural habitats that are suitable for Karner
blues are being converted to more intensive silvicultural uses that may
be less compatible and to incompatible residential and commercial uses.
Along roadsides, uniform, exotic vegetation has replaced native
vegetation. Roads can also fragment habitats and cause a portion of the
population to be threatened by vehicle traffic, while adults are
congregating at water sources or dispersing within these areas.

Improper timing of management practices can also threaten Karner blue
butterflies, such as timing of pest control, timing of mowing, and
poorly planned prescribed fires (USDAFS 1999). Improper timing or poorly
located herbicide treatment can kill or otherwise suppress lupine and
other nectar-producing plants, thereby affecting the Karner blue
butterfly. Mowing between late spring and early summer can damage or
reduce lupine, eliminating food for larvae. Mowing can also directly
crush eggs or larvae and decrease nectar sources. Poor timing and the
improper use of fire in Karner blue butterfly habitat; severe fires at
frequent intervals or burning during larval, first flight and second
flight periods; or burning a majority of the habitat can be detrimental.

A variety of natural predators, such as spiders, predaceous insects, and
even deer can cause direct mortality by ingestion of larvae. Heavy
mammalian browsing on lupine has indirect effects on habitat because
fewer lupines are available for larvae and adults (USDAFS 1999).

Collection of the Karner blue butterfly is not currently considered to
be a significant factor in population declines in most areas. Stochastic
events, such as unusual weather, can detrimentally affect Karner blue
populations. Large-scale wildfire events, although infrequent, could
destroy a large metapopulation.

[Range-wide Status and Distribution of the Species]{.underline}

The Karner blue butterfly was listed as endangered on December 14, 1992
(57 FR 59236). No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Historically, the Karner blue occurred in a narrow geographic area that
extended from eastern Minnesota, across portions of Iowa, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New
York, New Hampshire, Maine, and the province of Ontario, Canada. Over
the past 100 years, Karner blue butterfly populations have declined
significantly throughout the species' range. It is now believed
extirpated from Ontario, Canada, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Iowa, and Illinois. Currently, the Karner blue is extant in seven
states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, New York, and New
Hampshire. In 1998, it was reintroduced to Ohio as part of a 5-year
reintroduction program. Wisconsin and Michigan have the largest number
of local populations with the greatest numbers of individuals.

A draft recovery plan notice was released for public review on December
5, 2001 (66 FR 63248). In general, the recovery strategy for this
species is to perpetuate viable metapopulations of the Karner blue
butterfly in the major ecological regions throughout its geographic
range. Thirteen ecological regions are identified (called \"recovery
units\" \[RUs\]), based on known variation in physiography, climate, and
vegetation, and potential geographic genetic variation in Karner blue
populations. Wisconsin and western Michigan now harbor the largest
metapopulations of Karner blue that occur in the greatest amount of area
in the geographic range of the species. The goal for these areas is to
stabilize and maintain, and in some cases expand, the populations that
now occur. Because of the significance of these two states as the
centers of Karner blue abundance, there are more RUs and more
metapopulations established in these areas than in other parts of the
range. These multiple RUs should protect the species against wide-scale
declines in either state.

The RUs in New Hampshire, New York, Minnesota, parts of Indiana, and
possibly parts of Michigan, have populations that are at risk of
extinction. The goal for these areas is to protect existing habitat
(both occupied and unoccupied sites) and to increase, stabilize, and
maintain the populations. Fewer metapopulations are established in these
RUs. Finally, six potential RUs are identified. These potential RUs are
not essential for recovery, but the species would benefit if viable
metapopulations were recovered in these RUs.

The recovery actions identified in the draft plan are (USFWS 2001):

1.  Protect and manage the Karner blue and its habitat to perpetuate
    viable metapopulations.

2.  Evaluate and implement translocation where appropriate.

3.  Develop range-wide and regional management guidelines.

4.  Develop and implement information and education program.

5.  Collect important ecological data on Karner blue and associated
    habitats.

6.  Review and track recovery progress.

Full recovery of the Karner blue butterfly is anticipated to require at
least 20 years, until about 2020.

Survey efforts and the distribution of the Karner blue butterfly in each
state where RUs have been established via this recovery planning process
are as follows:

*New Hampshire (Merrimack/Nashua River System RU)*

The only remaining occurrence of the Karner blue in New England is in
the Concord Pine Barrens in Concord, New Hampshire. Two very small
subpopulations occur on relatively small areas along a powerline
right-of-way (Main Site) and in the grassy safeways of the Concord
Airport. This population has severely declined in number from
2,000-3,000 estimated butterflies in 1983 (Helmbolt and Amaral 1994), to
219 butterflies in 1991 and to less than 50 in 1995 where subsequent
numbers have remained below 50, making this site at extreme risk for
extinction (Peteroy 1998).

*New York (Glacial Lake Albany RU)*

The Karner blue butterfly was once common in New York (Cryan and Dirig
1978; Dirig 1994). In the Albany area alone, the Karner blue probably
inhabited most of the 25,000 acres of the original Albany Pine Bush, the
area from which Karner blues were first described. The Albany Pine Bush
area once supported an estimated 17,500 butterflies in one 300 acre site
during 1978 (Sommers and Nye 1994). By the mid-1980\'s, however, much of
the Albany Pine Bush had been destroyed by development, and degraded by
introduction of non-Pine Bush species, and natural succession. By 1988,
only 2,500 acres of the original 25,000 acres remained (Givnish et al.
1988), and loss of habitat has continued. Current populations number
only in the several hundreds (Schweitzer 1994a), and existing habitat
continues to undergo succession and degradation.

Additional Karner blue butterfly sites occur in the Saratoga Sandplains
and Saratoga West areas north of Albany. The majority of the sites in
these areas support less than 100 butterflies. The largest population of
the butterfly is at the Saratoga Airport, and is estimated to support
10,000 Karner blue butterflies.

Currently the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC)
has identified 70 Karner blue localities and 55 subpopulations in the
Glacial Lake Albany RU. Of those, 45 subpopulations are within the 3
metapopulation goal areas; 8 in the Albany Pine Bush, 28 in Saratoga
Sandplains, and 9 in Saratoga West (Kathy O\'Brien, NY DEC, pers. comm.,
1997, 1999 as cited in USFWS 2001).

*Indiana (Indiana Dunes RU)*

Historically, the Karner blue was reported from eight counties in
Indiana. In 1990, Karner blue butterflies were identified at 10 sites
out of 35 potential sites surveyed (Martin 1994). Two population
clusters were identified within two counties (Lake and Porter), the
majority of which was associated with medium to high quality Karner blue
habitat (Martin 1994). The early surveys in Porter County (which
includes the National Park Service\'s Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
\[IDNL\]) identified between 1,000 and 10,000 second brood Karner blue
adults (Baker 1994). In Lake County, at the IDNL, several thousand
second brood adults were estimated (Schweitzer 1992) and in other Lake
County sites the subpopulations likely number between 100-500 (John
Shuey, TNC, pers. comm., 1998 as cited in USFWS 2001). Several
subpopulations occur in West Gary (Lake County) associated with a
remnant dune and swale complex.

Currently it is estimated that 17 subpopulations of Karner blue
butterflies (using the 200 meter separation criteria) occur at IDNL
(Ralph Grundel and Noel Pavlovic, USGS, pers. comm., 1998 as cited in
USFWS 2001). In West Gary, about 21 tracts clustered into 11 individual
preserves and management areas have been identified as potentially able
to at least periodically support the Karner blue (John. Shuey, undated
as cited in USFWS 2001). Karner blue butterflies have been documented on
four of these tracts which comprise the only extant subpopulations of
Karner blue butterflies in West Gary (John Shuey, pers. comm., 1998 as
cited in USFWS 2001).

*Wisconsin (Morainal Sands, Glacial Lake Wisconsin, West Central
Driftless, Wisconsin*

*Escarpment and Sandstone Plateau and Superior Outwash RUs)*

The Wisconsin DNR began systematic statewide surveys for the Karner blue
in 1990 including surveys of 33 of the 36 historic butterfly sites.
Initial surveys by Bleser (1993) reported that only 11 of the 33
historical sites supported Karner blues, and also identified 23
previously unknown sites. Additional survey efforts were subsequently
conducted by the Wisconsin DNR, the Service (Trick 1993, Necedah
National Wildlife Refuge), Fort McCoy (Leach 1993), and other biologists
(Swengel 1994, Bidwell 1996). By 1993, there were an estimated 150 to
170 discrete Karner blue sites (Baker 1994). In recent years, additional
surveying has been done by partners to the Wisconsin Statewide Habitat
Conservation Plan including county forest departments, the private
forest industry, and utility companies. County and state foresters in
Wisconsin routinely survey for the butterfly prior to conducting
forestry activities in an effort to avoid adverse impacts to the Karner
blue.

As of May 1998, Wisconsin DNR\'s Natural Heritage Inventory data base
noted 280 subpopulations (using a 200 meter separation criteria) of the
butterfly in Wisconsin (Cathy Bleser, WDNR, pers. comm. 1998 as cited in
USFWS 2001). Most of the subpopulations can be lumped into about 15
large population areas, many of which are found on sizable contiguous
acreages in central and northwest Wisconsin (WDNR 2000). Wisconsin
supports the largest and most widespread Karner blue butterfly
population rangewide. At least one sizable population occurs in each of
the five Wisconsin RUs with the West Central Driftless RU believed to
support the largest populations (Cathy Carnes, USFWS, pers. comm. 1998
as cited in USFWS 2001). The largest Karner blue populations are found
at Necedah NWR, Fort McCoy, Glacial Lake Grantsburg State Wildlife Area,
Eau Claire County Forest, Jackson County Forest, Black River State
Forest, and on a complex of state and private lands in Portage County.

*Minnesota (Paleozoic Plateau RU)*

Karner blue butterflies currently only occur at the Whitewater Wildlife
Management Area (WMA) in southeastern Minnesota. Two to possibly five
small local populations are located in a 1,770 ac (716 ha) expanse of
poor to high quality oak savanna at the WMA.

Surveys conducted at two sites since 1992 (the "Cuthrell" and "Historic"
sites), recorded peak second flight counts ranging from 9 to 64
butterflies (mean = 22.9) at Cuthrell; and from 2 to 8 butterflies (mean
= 0.7) at Historic. A translocation project was started in 1999 to
reintroduce Karner blues to Lupine Valley, an historic Karner blue
butterfly site at the Whitewater WMA (Lane 1999b).

There are other locations in the southeastern and east-central part of
the state that formerly supported lupine and the Karner blue butterfly,
such as the Cedar Creek Natural History Area. Surveys of 50 potentially
suitable sites in Minnesota (oak savanna with sandy soil and lupine)
revealed that many lupine sites were no longer present and that Karner
blue butterflies had been extirpated from the Cedar Creek site (Lane and
Dana 1994).

*Michigan: (Ionia, Allegan, Newago and Muskegon RUs)*

The Karner blue butterfly is currently found in 10 of the 11 Michigan
counties in which it historically occurred (Figure 3). Surveys by
Wilsmann (1994) noted that the Karner blue populations were reduced and
highly fragmented. The majority of the Karner blue butterfly sites occur
on state land (Flat River and Allegan State Game Areas \[SGAs\]) in the
Ionia and Allegan RUs, and on Federal lands (HMNF) in the Newaygo and
Muskegon RUs.

Survey efforts during 1994-1996 by the Michigan Natural Features
Inventory of 65 areas within the Ionia RU on public and private lands
revealed nine extant Karner blue sites, eight within the Flat River SGA.
With the exception of one site, all supported low numbers of butterflies
(Cuthrell and Rabe 1996). Based on data through 1998, eight
subpopulations (defined as separated by 200 meters of unsuitable
habitat) have been identified at the Flat River SGA and 23 at the
Allegan SGA. In addition, two other subpopulations occur on private
property; one near each of these state properties (Daria Hyde, MNFI,
pers. comm. 1998 from USFWS 2001). The Ionia RU is the least well
surveyed of all the Michigan RUs with much of the area outside of the
Flat River SGA developed for agriculture and other uses (Baker 1994,
Wilsmann 1994). The most sizable populations in the state occur at
Allegan and Flat River SGAs and the HMNF (Jennifer Fettinger, MNFI,
pers. comm. 2002 from USFWS 2001).

As of the fall of 2002, Michigan, excluding the Allegan SGA, supported
158 subpopulations of Karner blues (based on a 200 meter separation
criteria) (Jennifer Fettinger, MNFI, pers. comm. 2002 as cited in USFWS
2001). As noted above, in 1998, Allegan SGA supported 23 subpopulations
of Karner blues. The increased numbers likely reflects additional survey
work and habitat improvements implemented by the MDNR.

![](media/image3.png){width="4.252083333333333in"
height="4.002777777777778in"}

Figure 3. Distribution of the Karner blue butterfly in Michigan (from
USDAFS 2003a).

[The Karner blue butterfly on the HMNF]{.underline}

*Status and Distribution on the HMNF*

The Karner blue butterfly occurs on the HMNF (Manistee NF side), in the
Newaygo and Muskegon Recovery Units. The Newaygo RU is located in west
central Michigan, in six counties (Mason, Lake, Oceana, Newaygo,
Mecosta, and Montcalm), and is associated with oak or white pine barrens
scattered throughout the Newaygo outwash plain and sandy terminal
moraines. It corresponds to ecoregion subsection IV.3 as described in
Albert (1995). The topography is relatively flat and the climate is
colder and more variable than the other Michigan RUs. Oaks and pines
dominate the sandy soils. The Muskegon RU is located in west central
Michigan along Lake Michigan, in four counties (Mason, Oceana, Newaygo,
and Muskegon), and is associated with oak or white pine barrens
scattered through the Manistee sand lake plain. It corresponds to
ecoregion subsection IV.4 as described in Albert (1995). The climate is
moderated by Lake Michigan, but is colder and more variable than other
RUs in Michigan. There is considerable topographic relief in some parts
of this RU.

Most known Karner blue butterfly sites on the HMNF are strongly
associated with the LTA 1, which is classified as Sandy Outwash Plains,
characterized by poorly developed, excessively well-drained sands in the
mesic to frigid soil temperature zone. Landscape scale habitat is found
in several MAs, including 2.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 6.1, 6.2, and 8.1; but
primarily in 4.2, "Roaded Natural Sandy Plains and Hills."

From 1989 to 2001, approximately 13,396 acres (5,421 ha) of HMNF lands
and 784 acres (317 ha) of private land were surveyed for the presence of
Karner blue butterflies (USDAFS 2003a). These surveys documented
approximately 263 occupied areas on HMNF lands (2,026 ac, 820 ha) and 56
occupied areas (441 ac, 178 ha) on private lands (Joe Kelly, HMNF, pers.
comm. 2003).

The occupied and potential habitats on the HMNF are segregated into four
(Central, Southeast, Southwest, and North) Karner blue butterfly
Management Areas (KBBMA) distributed in the two RUs as follows: Central
and Southeast KBBMAs in the Newaygo RU, Southwest KBBMA in the Muskegon
RU, and the North KBBMA in both the Newaygo and Muskegon RUs. The KBBMAs
encompass most of the occupied or potential Karner blue butterfly
habitats on the HMNF. The four KBBMAs are separated by habitat that is
unsuitable for Karner blue butterflies; connectivity or potential for
dispersal among the four KBBMAs is currently unknown.

The KBBMAs collectively contain 24 Management Units (KBBMU) delineated
by concentrated areas of LTA 1. Karner blue butterflies occupy primarily
five KBBMUs: Otto (Southwest KBBMA), Burns Lake (Southwest KBBMA), M-37
(Central KBBMA), Croton (Southeast KBBMA), and White River (Southwest
KBBMA) (USDAFS 1994, USDAFS 2002).

The HMNF currently monitors the Karner blue butterflies using
presence/absence surveys (USDAFS 2003b). While population numbers and
trends cannot be determined from this type of information, the surveys
provide some indication of the species status. Recently, the presence of
Karner blue butterflies appeared to decline in units with both treated
and untreated areas (Kelly, HMNF, pers. comm. 2003, USDAFS 2003b). The
apparent declines were most commonly observed in areas with small
initial population sizes (prior to any habitat treatments). The HMNF
believes the following factors may be responsible for the apparent
Karner blue butterfly declines in these units (Joe Kelly, HMNF, pers.
comm. 2003; USDAFS 2003b):

-   Decreased abundance and diversity of nectar plants (including
    lupine) due to drought conditions resulting from four consecutive
    years of below normal precipitation in Michigan. The nectar plants
    in some Karner blue butterfly units may be more susceptible to
    drought due to soil conditions (e.g., low clay content) that
    inhibits moisture retention.

-   Increased deer browsing of lupine in these Karner blue butterfly
    units.

-   Increased occurrence of growing-season frost pockets in low
    depressional areas that damaged lupine and other plants.

-   Increased ORV use and dispersed camping that damaged lupine or
    killed individual Karner blue butterflies.

Habitat management is ongoing in these units, and the HMNF is monitoring
and exploring ways to address these potential threats.

Lack of habitat management is causing the decline of other Karner blue
butterfly habitats on the HMNF (Joe Kelly, HMNF, pers. comm. 2003). The
primary issue in these areas is growth of red pines (i.e., in the Otto
unit) that were planted before the Karner blue butterfly was listed.
These areas will eventually shift into mature red pine plantations,
becoming unsuitable for Karner blue butterflies, if restoration
activities do not occur (USDAFS 2003b).

Given these trends, the continued management, research, and restoration
of Karner blue butterfly habitat will be essential to the species'
survival on the HMNF. With the appropriate management, there is
sufficient suitable habitat to support viable populations of the Karner
blue butterfly on the HMNF.

> *Past and Ongoing Actions Affecting the Karner blue butterfly on the
> HMNF*

-   Implementation of the HMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (1986)

The LRMP for the HMNF was implemented in 1986. The LRMP underwent formal
section 7 consultation; however, the Karner blue butterfly was not
considered because the species was not yet listed as under the Act.
Therefore, the standards and guidelines for management actions provided
no special protection or consideration for the Karner blue butterfly. As
a result, it is possible that this species was adversely affected by
management activities; however, as population status was not known, the
extent of adverse effects is not determinable. Potential adverse effects
most likely occurred as habitat conversion to incompatible uses (e.g.,
roads, trails, red pine plantations) and the killing of individuals
through management activities, such as burning or cutting, applied
without regard to the Karner blue butterfly in occupied habitat.

#### Informal Consultations (1992 -- present)

Since the listing of the Karner blue butterfly as endangered under the
Act in 1992, the HMNF and other Federal agencies (e.g., FERC) have
consulted with the Service on actions that may affect the Karner blue
butterfly within the HMNF administrative boundary. We concurred with
determinations of "no effect" or "not likely to adversely affect" for
these actions. These determinations were reached for actions that
completely avoided Karner blue butterfly habitat, or actions in Karner
blue butterfly habitat that incorporated of a variety of protective
conservation measures including:

-   Exclude project activities that may adversely affect the Karner blue
    butterfly from occupied or potential habitat.

-   Limit burning, harvest, and other potential restoration activities
    to habitat that is currently not suitable for or not occupied by the
    Karner blue butterfly. These activities would be performed to
    benefit the species by creating potential future habitat.

We believe that the use of these conservation and avoidance measures in
each individual project has cumulatively, for all projects, maintained
or improved the status of this species on the HMNF by reducing the
possibility of take of a Karner blue butterfly and maintaining or
increasing the long-term available habitat on the HMNF.

-   The HMNF Karner Blue Butterfly Management Plan, 1994-1999

In 1992, shortly after the Karner blue butterfly was listed as
endangered, the HMNF began communicating with the Service's East Lansing
Field Office on consultation requirements for Karner blue butterfly
management activities. The management activities described in the
Management Plan included nectar plant planting or propagation, mowing,
cutting, scarification, and burning on occupied sites. On October 13,
1994 the HMNF initiated formal consultation to address the potential
effects of these proposed management activities for the Karner blue
butterfly on the HMNF from 1994 to 1999. During this six-year period,
the HMNF proposed to manage 920 ac (372 ha) for Karner blue butterflies,
of which 606 ac (245 ha) were occupied. Included in the proposed action
were the following conservation measures, intended to reduce the impact
to the butterfly while conducting beneficial management actions:

-   Burn no more than one third of the occupied acreage within any KBBMA
    in a given year.

-   After one-third of the occupied Karner blue butterfly acreage in a
    KBBMA has been burned, no additional burning in the KBBMA will be
    considered for at least 3 years.

-   No more than half of a KBBMA will be treated by any means, including
    prescribed burning, within a given year.

-   Once 50 percent of a KBBMA has been treated, no additional
    treatments will be considered for a minimum of 3 years.

-   No treatments, except for prescribed burning, will occur on occupied
    Karner blue butterfly sites during March 15 and August 15 to
    minimize direct effects on adults, eggs, and larvae.

-   Pre- and post- burn monitoring of Karner blue butterflies, other
    invertebrates, and plants will take place for at least 3 years after
    a burn.

In a March 28, 1995 biological opinion, we analyzed the potential
effects of the proposed management activities and determined that
implementation of the Management Plan was not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Karner blue butterfly. We determined that the
proposed management activities would likely result in a net benefit to
the Karner blue butterfly by improving habitat conditions and increasing
numbers of butterflies on the HMNF. Incidental take of eggs, larvae, and
adults was permitted on the basis of total known occupied acreage
affected annually. A total of 580 ac (235 ha) were authorized for the
six year period (see Table 1, page 13, of the March 29, 1995 biological
opinion). This biological opinion was amended on June 18, 1998, to
increase the amount of incidental take allowed to 651 ac (263 ha).
According to a May 23, 2002 letter from the HMNF, only 457 ac (185 ha)
were treated in the 1994-1999 period.

Although the management plan and biological opinion have not officially
been extended past 1999, we have been working with the HMNF to address
and minimize the potential effects of any incidental take resulting from
management activities. As of 2002, a total of 500 ac (202 ha) of
occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat have been managed and restored on
the HMNF (Joe Kelly, HMNF, pers. comm. 2003). This is far below the 651
ac (263 ha) exempted in the 1998 BO amendment. Implementation of the
Karner blue butterfly management plan has helped ameliorate the adverse
effects of past management activities and improved the overall status of
the species on the HMNF.

-   Cooperative Gypsy Moth Suppression Project, Michigan (1996 --
    present)

In 1996, the USFS State and Private Forestry Division formally consulted
on a proposed gypsy moth suppression project for 22,579 ac (9,137 ha) in
Mecosta, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Oceana counties. The proposed action was
to aerially apply the biological insecticide *Bacillus* *thuringiensis*
var. *kurstaki* (Btk) to private and public recreational lands. Many of
the properties proposed for treatment were on non-Federal lands within
the HMNF administrative boundary. The Btk is lethal to Karner blue
butterfly larvae as well as gypsy moth larvae, and if Karner blue
butterflies occurred within a spray block, mortality was expected.

In a May 31, 1996 biological opinion, we analyzed the effects of the
proposed action and determined that the project, as proposed in 1996,
was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Karner blue
butterfly. Survey indicated that the Karner blue butterflies occupied
approximately 20 percent of areas with suitable soil types (LTA 1) on
the HMNF. Therefore, we assumed that Karner blue butterflies could occur
on up to 20 percent of the project treatment acreage within suitable
soil types. Incidental take was authorized for the 20 percent of the
treatment acres with the potential to support the species that may be
occupied; this number was equivalent to 1,097 ac (444 ha). In addition,
the terms and conditions stipulated that no more than 50 percent of any
area known to be occupied by Karner blue butterflies may be treated with
Btk and no area shall be treated in consecutive years. All areas with
lupine were assumed to support Karner blue butterflies (see page 18 of
the May 31, 1996 biological opinion for more details).

Portions of at least two, possibly four, of the proposed treatment
blocks were known to be occupied by the Karner blue butterfly. It is not
known, however, exactly what portion of the suitable habitat that was
authorized for take was actually occupied by the Karner blue butterfly.
It is possible that there were treatment blocks of suitable Karner blue
butterfly habitat that were not occupied, and thus take did not reach
the authorized amount. We expect that some level of take did occur,
however, since there were some areas of known occupied habitat included
in the treatment blocks. Since it is impossible to quantify the actual
amount of take that occurred, it is prudent to assume incidental take
occurred on all authorized 1,097 ac (444 ha), although it was likely
less than this. There are a total of 131,694 ac (53,295 ha) of potential
habitat within the HMNF, based on areas with LTA 1 classification
(USDAFS 2003a). Given the estimated occupancy rate of 20 percent in
potential habitat, we can assume that Karner blue butterflies may occur
on up to 26,338 ac (10,659 ha) within the HMNF. Furthermore, laboratory
studies indicated an approximately 80 percent mortality rate of Karner
blue caterpillars treated with Btk (Herms 1996). It is likely that a
portion of the Karner blue butterflies in a spray block would be pupae,
adults, or eggs and may not be affected by the Btk. Based on this
information, it is unlikely that any Karner blue butterfly population
was eliminated with any single application of Btk. Thus, the amount of
take authorized in 1996 was likely less than 4 percent of the total
potential occupied habitat in the HMNF, and did not appreciably diminish
the potential long-term survival and recovery of the Karner blue
butterfly.

In 1999, consultation for this project was reinitiated, as new
information became available. The 1999 gypsy moth suppression project
consultation considered treatment of 5,087 ac (2059 ha) of suitable
Karner blue butterfly habitat in Allegan and Muskegon counties. Most of
the proposed spray blocks with potential to affect the Karner blue
butterfly were private or State lands within or near the HMNF
boundaries. These areas were proposed for treatment with Btk or
Gypcheck^^, a newly developed virus for biological control specific to
gypsy moths, that does not affect Karner blue butterflies. Following
informal consultation, the USFS agreed to apply Gypcheck^^ in place of
Btk on all spray blocks within one mile sections adjacent to sections
with a known Karner blue butterfly occurrence. Using this application
strategy, known occurrences of Karner blue butterfly within proposed
spray blocks would not be sprayed with Btk, and unknown occurrences
within one mile of known occurrences will also be avoided. No known
Karner blue butterfly occurrences were proposed for treatment with Btk;
however, we again believed that unknown occurrences might be sprayed
with Btk and the USFS entered into formal consultation. In the May 6,
1999 biological opinion, we analyzed the effects of the proposed action
and determined that the project was not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Karner blue butterfly. Based on the same
reasoning used in the previous biological opinion, we determined that
unknown Karner blue butterfly occurrences may be present on about 20
percent of the 5087ac (2059 ha) with a soil type suitable for lupine,
and authorized take for no more than 1,017 ac (412 ha).

When the project was continued in 2000, the USFS determined that it was
"not likely to adversely affect" the Karner blue butterfly. In the
previous biological opinions, we concluded that unknown Karner blue
butterfly occurrences may be present on about 20 percent of LTA 1. This
was reconsidered in 2000, however, because further analysis determined
that no data existed to support this conclusion. Based on the following
parts of the USFS 2000 proposed action: 1) all occupied sites and sites
adjacent to occupied sites were treated with Gypcheck^^, which is not
toxic to Karner blue butterflies and 2) none of the Btk treatment areas
were known to have Karner blue butterflies present, no adverse effects
from the project were expected. Based on the best available data, no
known or unknown occurrences of the Karner blue butterfly were likely to
be adversely affected by the proposed action and thus, it was not
possible to identify any incidental take of the species that was
reasonably certain to occur. In addition, based on this analysis, it is
unlikely that there were any adverse effects from this proposed action
in 1999, and the incidental take authorized for 1,017 ac (412 ha) was
not likely realized. In a May 10, 2000 letter, we concurred with the
"not likely to adversely affect" determination made by the USFS and
rescinded the May 6, 1999 biological opinion.

Informal consultation with the Service takes place annually for this
project. The HMNF, in consultation with the Service, has cancelled
proposed Btk treatments, or replaced Btk with Gypcheck^^, on or near
occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat. The availability and use of
Gypcheck^^ continues to provide a reasonable, safe alternative to Btk,
and ongoing Michigan Cooperative Gypsy Moth Suppression Projects are not
likely to result in adverse effects or incidental take of Karner blue
butterflies.

• Consumers Energy Muskegon River Hydroelectric Project Lands (1999)

On June 7, 1999, the FERC initiated formal consultation on a Karner blue
butterfly management plan for areas of occupied and suitable habitat on
Consumers Energy hydroelectric project lands along the Muskegon River in
Newaygo County. The action area included the Croton Boat Launch
Powerline Corridor (Croton site) and the Newaygo Park State Park
Powerline Corridor (Newaygo site); both of these sites fall within the
HMNF boundaries. The proposed action included conducting prescribed
burns, managing for lupine and other crucial components of Karner blue
butterfly habitat, and protecting Karner blue butterfly habitat from
human disturbance. In a February 24, 2000 biological opinion, we
determined that implementation of the proposed management plan was not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Karner blue
butterfly. Incidental take was authorized on the basis of known occupied
habitat, and included 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) for Area 1 and 0.13 ac (0.05 ha)
for Area 7 of the Croton site (for more detail, see pages 11-13 of the
February 24, 2000 biological opinion). No prescribed burning has been
conducted on this site, although other management activities have been
implemented.

The Croton site has become degraded for a variety of reasons in recent
years. The highest quality habitat at this site occurs at the top of a
bluff, on the bluff face, and near the boat launch. In June of 1999,
areas of the Croton site were sprayed with a broad-spectrum herbicide,
killing lupine and other plants in the area. In response to this
incident, Consumers prepared a Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan
that included planting and re-establishing colonies of lupine. Consumers
protected this area from human disturbance by putting up a guardrail. In
September 2001, an accidental human-caused wildfire burned a portion of
the site at the top of the bluff. In addition, the area at the top of
the bluff is heavily trampled during annual Fourth of July fireworks
displays. A drought in recent years has severely reduced the lupine on
the bluff face (Gary Dawson, Consumers Energy, pers. comm., 2003). The
newly planted area is threatened by spotted knapweed invasion.

Although the Croton site is degraded, Karner blue butterflies persist in
very small numbers. A population of Karner blue butterflies was
re-discovered at the Newaygo site in 2002; this site currently provides
higher quality habitat than the Croton site. The management and
restoration efforts, as detailed in the Consumers Karner blue butterfly
management plan, will continue to be critical in maintaining the remnant
populations of Karner blue butterflies both sites.

-   Continued Implementation of the 1986 HMNF LRMP (2003)

On January 17, 2003, the HMNF requested formal consultation with the
Service on the continued implementation of their 1986 Land and Resource
Management Plan. Included in this consultation were the potential
effects of the LRMP on the Karner blue butterfly, including the ongoing
habitat management program.

Formal consultation was completed on June 12, 2003 with a final
biological opinion. The Service concluded that implementation of the
LRMP would not jeopardize the continued existence of the Karner blue
butterfly, and that only the ongoing habitat restoration would have
adverse effects on the Karner blue butterfly (see the June 12, 2003
biological opinion for further details). Disturbance of Karner blue
butterfly habitat was expected to be [short term]{.underline}; that is,
lupine and Karner blue butterflies were anticipated to re-occupy
disturbed sites after management treatments. Therefore, the incidental
take of Karner blue butterflies resulting from these activities was
considered short-term. Based on this analysis, the Service estimated
that the incidental take of all Karner blue butterflies associated with
treatment of up to, but no more than, 675 ac (276 ha) of occupied Karner
blue butterfly habitat on the HMNF for the duration of the proposed
action. The Service further stipulated that this anticipated incidental
take would be portioned and exempted annually, on a project-by-project
basis.

The restoration activities proposed by the HMNF conformed to current
standards recommended by other sources of Karner blue butterfly
management expertise, and were designed to minimize adverse effects.
Thus, the expected net effect of the management is improvement of the
habitat conditions and overall status of the Karner blue butterfly on
the HMNF. These activities were designed to reverse the effects of land
use practices that caused the decline of the Karner blue butterfly and
to restore habitat. Although these management actions were likely to
result in the death of an undeterminable number of individual eggs,
larvae, and adults, the Service believed that they would also increase
in the population numbers and produce long-term benefit for the species
on the HMNF.

-   Section 10 Permits (Research and Recovery Activities) Involving the
    Karner blue butterfly on the HMNF: The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
    Clawson Tract (1999 - present)

The Nature Conservancy actively manages for Karner blue butterfly on the
Clawson Tract, which has approximately 35 ac (14 ha) of occupied Karner
blue butterfly habitat. The major management need on this property is
the control of invasive alien plants that are competing with native
nectar plants and lupine. The management actions include prescribed
burning, hand removal and spot herbicide treatment of exotic species,
and native plant reintroduction. There are six management units on the
tract. The Clawson tract is within the boundaries of the HMNF. The
Nature Conservancy's current section 10(a)(1)(A) permit (Permit
TE022454-1) authorizes the take of all Karner blue butterflies
incidental to conducting habitat management activities on Unit 1 of the
Clawson Tract, which is approximately 5 acres. In March 1999, a
prescribed burn of Unit 1 was conducted. Spot burning and hand-removal
of exotic species has also been conducted in Unit 1. Because this type
of active management is required for the persistence of suitable Karner
blue butterfly habitat, implementation of these restoration actions have
improved status of the species on the HMNF.

-   Other natural and human caused factors that affect the Karner blue
    butterfly the HMNF

Michigan has recently experienced a few consecutive years of below
average precipitation. The resulting dry conditions are suspected to
have reduced the survival of lupine and decreased the abundance and
diversity of nectar plant species present during the second Karner blue
butterfly flight period in some areas of the HMNF (Joe Kelly, HMNF,
pers. comm. 2003).

Some privately-owned lands within the HMNF administrative boundary that
formerly supported Karner blue butterfly populations have been lost to
succession, agricultural conversion, forestry, and development.
Furthermore, activities such as ORV use, pesticide use, and mowing and
burning also occur in Karner blue butterfly habitat (USDAFS 2003a; Joe
Kelly, HMNF, pers. comm. 2003). While this has resulted in lost habitat,
the Karner blue butterfly is known to occupy disturbed areas, such as
powerlines and gas pipeline corridors, old fields, forest openings,
roadsides, and lightly stocked oak stands (USDAFS 2003a).

Overall, it is likely that these climatic conditions and human
activities have reduced the extent and quality of Karner blue butterfly
habitat on the HMNF.

*Overall Status and Trend of the Karner blue butterfly on the HMNF*

The Karner blue butterfly populations within the administrative boundary
of the HMNF are managed and protected by the HMNF and other
organizations (e.g., TNC, Consumers). In the past, habitat degradation
and killing of individual Karner blue butterflies on both HMNF and
non-HMNF lands adversely affected the species. These activities, in
concert with other natural factors, decreased the status of the Karner
blue butterfly in the action area.

More recently, however, the necessary and appropriate habitat management
techniques have been implemented and have maintained and improved Karner
blue butterfly habitat. These projects benefited the Karner blue
butterfly by mimicking the natural disturbance processes necessary to
maintain the species. Furthermore, protective conservation measures
implemented to protect this species and its habitat since it was listed
in 1992 have minimized or avoided potential adverse effects from both
restoration and non-restoration actions. These protective measures and
restoration actions continue to be implemented today.

Current presence/absence monitoring data indicate that populations of
Karner blue butterfly on the HMNF may be declining. These data must be
interpreted carefully, however, because actual population numbers and
trends cannot be determined from this type of survey information. The
HMNF is investigating factors, such as drought, deer browsing, and
frost-pockets that may be adversely affecting these populations.
Continued habitat management activities performed will remain critical
to the persistence of the species on the HMNF.

Environmental Baseline

This section describes the species status and trend information within
the [action area]{.underline}. It also includes State, tribal, local,
private actions already affecting the species or that will occur
contemporaneously with the proposed action. Unrelated Federal actions
that have completed formal or informal consultation are also included in
the environmental baseline.

######## Status of the Species within the Action Area

The Walhalla Project action area contains six subpopulations of Karner
blue butterflies, occupying both HMNF and non-HMNF lands (Joe Kelly,
HMNF, pers. comm. 2003). The six subpopulations are located in the
Walhalla, Branch, and Whalen Lake KBBMUs, within the North KBBMA. No
surveys have been performed, and thus the status and trend of these
subpopulations is currently unknown (Joe Kelly, HMNF, pers. comm. 2003).

######## Factors Affecting the Species within the Action Area

-   HMNF Actions

In 1978 - 2002, the following habitat altering actions were completed on
HMNF lands within the Walhalla Project action area:

-   150 ac (61 ha) of aspen regeneration

-   36 ac (15 ha) of oak regeneration \[26 ac (11 ha) since 1992\]

-   8 ac (3.2 ha) of red pine/oak thinning

-   115 ac (47 ha) of hardwood thinning \[102 ac (41 ha) since 1992\]

-   17 ac (7 ha) of northern hardwood/aspen thinning

-   69 ac (28 ha) of red/white pine overstory removal

-   198 ac (180 ha) of timber stand improvement \[14 ac (6 ha) since
    1992\]

-   7 ac (2.8 ha) of opening creation

-   8 ac (3.2ha) of opening maintenance/improvement \[all completed
    since 1992\]

These activities likely had varying effects on the Karner blue
butterfly. Activities related to timber management likely did not affect
the Karner blue butterfly because the species does not inhabit forested
areas. Activities that created, maintained, and improved openings had
beneficial effects for the Karner blue butterfly by enhancing some of
the available habitat. However, no habitat treatments explicitly for the
benefit of the species were completed in the action area to date. Given
this, the quality of some occupied and unoccupied habitat has declined
over time due to uncontrolled encroachment of woody vegetation (Joe
Kelly, HMNF, pers. comm.2003).

-   State, County, and Private Lands Actions

Timber harvesting has occurred on forested lands under non-Federal
ownerships in the last 10 years. The extent of this timber harvest,
however, is unknown. We may assume that the timber harvests were
completed without regard to the Karner blue butterfly; however, since
Karner blue butterflies do not typically occupy forested areas in large
numbers, these actions likely had few, if any adverse effects on the
species.

Habitat on some privately-owned lands in the action area that formerly
supported Karner blue butterfly populations ago have been lost to
succession, agricultural conversion (seeding and fertilization of rye),
and development. Furthermore, activities such as ORV use, pesticide use,
and mowing and burning have occurred in Karner blue butterfly habitat
(Joe Kelly, HMNF, pers. comm. 2003). While these activities have
certainly resulted in lost or degraded habitat, the Karner blue
butterfly is also known to use some types of disturbed areas, such as
powerline and gas pipeline corridors, old fields, forest openings,
roadsides, and lightly stocked oak stands (USDAFS 2003a).

# [Summary and Synthesis of the Environmental Baseline]{.underline}

A variety of Federal and non-Federal actions have been completed in the
Walhalla Project action area. These actions were primarily related to
the harvest and management of forested lands. We expect that these
actions did not have significant adverse effects on the Karner blue
butterfly because the species does not typically occupy forested
habitats in large numbers. Conversely, actions that maintained or
expanded open habitats likely improved conditions for the species in the
action area. Some Karner blue butterfly habitats, however, were lost to
human activities, such as development. Moreover, the quality of some
Karner blue butterfly habitats on HMNF and non-Federal lands has
declined due to untreated woody encroachment. Based on this analysis,
the status of the Karner blue butterfly in the action area has likely
declined in past years.

Effects of the Action

This section assesses the effects of the proposed action, including the
direct and indirect effects together with the effects of other
activities that are interrelated or interdependent (50 CFR 402.02).
Indirect effects are those that are caused later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are
part of a larger action and depend upon the larger action for their
justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent
utility apart from the action under consideration (50 CFR 402.02). This
section also assesses the cumulative effects, including the effects of
future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably
certain to occur in the action area.

######## Analysis of the Effects of the Action

The following proposed management actions will have [no
effect]{.underline} or are [not likely to adversely affect]{.underline}
the Karner blue butterfly.

-   *Timber Harvest*

Most timber harvest activities are proposed for habitats that are
currently unsuitable and unoccupied by the Karner blue butterfly (i.e.,
pine plantations, hardwood forests). These activities would have no
effect on the species. Removal red pine for conversion to oak/pine
savanna, however, will benefit the species by creating future Karner
blue butterfly habitat. Therefore, most proposed timber harvest
activities will not effect or are not likely to adversely affect the
Karner blue butterfly. Potential adverse effects from timber harvest
activities for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing occupied Karner
blue butterfly habitats will be discussed later in this section.

-   *Trash Clean-up*

Trash clean-up is not a habitat disturbing activity and will therefore
have no effect on the Karner blue butterfly.

-   *Transportation Management*

There are no road closures, construction, or reconstruction planned in
occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat (Joe Kelly, HMNF, pers. comm.
2003). However, the numerous road closures proposed throughout the
action area may benefit the species by reducing the overall likelihood
of vehicle-induced mortality.

-   *Watershed Management*

The two restoration and maintenance activities for Gooseneck Lake and
Buck Creek will have no effect on the Karner blue butterfly because they
will not occur in nor impact suitable habitat for the species.

-   *Fisheries Management*

The fishery habitat restoration in Gooseneck Lake will have no effect on
the Karner blue butterfly because it will not occur in nor impact
suitable habitat for the species.

The following proposed management actions are [likely to adversely
affect]{.underline} the Karner blue butterfly.

-   *Maintenance and Enhancement of Upland Openings (Prescribed Burning,
    Hand-cutting, Timber Harvest)*

Prescribed burning, hand-cutting of woody vegetation, and timber harvest
are proposed to create, maintain, and improve occupied Karner blue
butterfly habitats. These activities, however, will have unavoidable
direct adverse effects on the species. Prescribed burning may directly
affect the Karner blue butterfly by killing all life stages. Potential
direct effects on larval, pupal, and adult life stages from hand-cutting
and timber harvest activities will be avoided by restricting these
activities to the winter months (see "Resource Protection" and
"Operating Requirements"). However, hand-cutting and timber harvest may
still directly affect the Karner blue butterfly by destroying
overwintering eggs.

Habitat maintenance and enhancement activities may have indirect adverse
effects by causing a short-term decrease in adult numbers subsequent to
treatments. The treatments, however, will also have indirect beneficial
effects on the Karner blue butterfly. Karner blue butterflies depend on
early successional stage vegetation, primarily wild lupine. Karner blue
butterfly habitat was historically maintained by fire and other
disturbances, which are suppressed under current management regimes. The
HMNF attempts to mimic natural disturbances with prescribed burns, hand
cutting, and other techniques, as proposed for the Walhalla Project.
Although these management measures will result in some incidental take
of eggs, larvae, and adults, they are necessary to preserve, enhance,
and create habitat for the Karner blue butterfly. The expected net
effect of these activities is improved habitat conditions as evidenced
by increased production and biomass of lupine and other nectar-producing
plant species and suppression of woody vegetation. The habitat
treatments should also increase the long-term numbers of Karner blue
butterfly in the action area.

For Karner blue butterfly habitat management, sites are typically
treated and then allowed to recover for a period of several years before
treated again. The proposed action, however, includes burning of some
occupied Karner blue butterfly sites annually for up to three
consecutive years. This is proposed for areas with especially dense
encroachment of woody vegetation and areas where stump sprouting is
expected after timber removal (Joe Kelly, HMNF, pers. comm. 2003). In
these habitats, successive yearly burning is an efficient method of
treating woody vegetation and ultimately restoring the habitat
suitability for the Karner blue butterfly. Since a site may be
recolonized within a year of a burn, take of Karner blue butterflies is
possible each time occupied habitat is burned. We believe, however, that
the take of individual Karner blue butterflies resulting from this
management technique is likely to be low for the following reasons:

1)  Sites with dense woody vegetation are of low suitability and
    unlikely to have large numbers of Karner blue butterflies. These
    sites will have fewer Karner blue butterflies taken in the initial
    burn.

2)  Prescribed burning typically causes an initial short-term decrease
    in both habitat suitability and numbers of Karner blue butterflies;
    these sites are less likely to contain large numbers of Karner blue
    butterflies in the year following a burn.

We are not aware of any actions that are interdependent or interrelated
to the proposed action being considered in this Opinion.

######## Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the combined effects of any future State,
local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur [within
the action area]{.underline} covered in this Opinion. Future Federal
actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in
this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to
section 7 of the Act.

We are aware of no major non-Federal actions reasonably certain to occur
in the action area. Karner blue butterfly habitats on non-HMNF lands in
the action area are not currently managed with the habitat treatments
necessary to maintain them. It may therefore be assumed that the lack of
natural disturbance regimes and appropriate management will have a
progressive negative effect on the Karner blue butterfly over time as
these habitats are encroached upon and succeeded by forested land types.
The beneficial effects of the Walhalla Project, however, should help
offset these negative effects and increase the long-term availability of
suitable Karner blue butterfly habitat, and viable Karner blue butterfly
populations, in the action area.

Conclusion

After reviewing the current status of the Karner blue butterfly, the
environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed
action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion that
the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Karner blue butterfly. No critical habitat has been
designated for this species; therefore, none will be affected.

Karner blue butterflies depend on early successional stage vegetation,
primarily wild lupine. Historically, wild lupine was maintained by fire
and other disturbances. The actions proposed by the HMNF attempts to
mimic natural disturbances by use of prescription burns, mowing,
cutting, and scarification. Although those management measures will
result in some incidental take of eggs, larvae, and adults, they are
necessary to preserve, enhance, and create habitat for the Karner blue
butterfly. This level of adverse effects, however, is expected to be
small and is not reasonably expected to, directly or indirectly, reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the
Karner blue butterfly in the wild by reducing their reproduction,
numbers, or distribution within the action area. Moreover, the Walhalla
Project will improve the species status by performing the habitat
maintenance necessary for the survival of the Karner blue butterfly
population.

The following factors, among others, were important in our assessment of
jeopardy:

-   The treatments are proposed for the purpose of conserving and
    improving the status of Karner blue butterflies on the HMNF.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The treatments will be implemented in a manner that minimizes
    adverse effects on the Karner blue butterfly to the extent feasible

We believe that implementation of the Walhalla Project will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the range-wide survival and
recovery of the Karner blue butterfly.

Incidental Take Statement

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the
Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent
actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such
an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.
Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental
to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be
prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in
compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take
statement.

In general, an incidental take statement specifies the impact of any
incidental taking of endangered or threatened species. It also provides
reasonable and prudent measures that are necessary to minimize the
impacts of the take and sets forth terms and conditions which must be
complied with in order to implement the reasonable and prudent measures.

######## Amount or Extent of Take

In this incidental take statement, we are evaluating the incidental take
of Karner blue butterflies that may result from implementation of the
Walhalla Project. The Service anticipates that incidental take of Karner
blue butterflies will result from the proposed management activities in
occupied Karner blue butterfly sites. Incidental take of actual eggs,
larvae, or adult Karner blue butterflies may be difficult or impossible
to detect because finding a dead or impaired specimen is unlikely due to
small body size. Karner blue butterfly losses may also be masked by
seasonal fluctuations in numbers or other causes. However, the level of
take of this species can be anticipated by loss of acreage of habitat
because habitat characteristics, particularly the presence of wild
lupine, are easily identifiable and actual presence of Karner blue
butterflies may be determined by survey. The incidental take of eggs,
larvae, and adults will therefore be permitted on the basis of total
known occupied acreage affected.

For the duration of the proposed action considered in this Opinion, the
HMNF proposes to manage a total of approximately 15 ac (6 ha) of
occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat. For Karner blue butterfly
habitat management, sites are typically treated and then allowed to
recover for a period of several years before treatment is required
again. Some sites in the Walhalla Project area, however, will be treated
with prescribed burning annually for up to three consecutive years to
facilitate the removal of particularly dense and fast growing woody
vegetation. It is likely that a small number of Karner blue butterflies
will recolonize these sites between each burn, and therefore take may
occur each time a site is treated. However, we do not expect successive
burns to significantly increase the amount of take per site for the
following reasons: 1) sites with dense woody vegetation are of low
suitability and unlikely to have large initial numbers of Karner blue
butterflies, 2) sites typically have low habitat suitability and low
numbers of Karner blue butterflies directly following prescribed burns.

Based on this information, this incidental take statement anticipates
the taking of all Karner blue butterflies associated with restoration of
up to, but no more than, 45 ac (18 ha), which is three times the amount
of occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat in the action area.

######## Effect of Take

In the accompanying Opinion, we determined that the proposed action is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Karner blue
butterfly. Therefore, we believe that the level of anticipated
incidental take associated with the actions completed under the Walhalla
Project is not likely to jeopardize the species. Disturbance of this
habitat is expected to be short term; that is, lupine and Karner blue
butterflies are anticipated to re-occupy disturbed sites after
management treatments. Therefore, the take of Karner blue butterflies is
considered short-term.

The habitat management activities proposed by the HMNF conform to
current standards recommended by other sources of Karner blue butterfly
management expertise, which are designed to minimize adverse effects.
The proposed activities in the Walhalla Project are designed to reverse
the effects of land use practices that have caused the decline of the
Karner blue butterfly and to maintain and restore habitat. Thus, the
expected net effect of the management is improvement of the habitat
conditions and overall status of the Karner blue butterfly in the action
area. Although these management actions are likely to result in the
death of undeterminable numbers of individual eggs, larvae, and adults,
they also are likely to cause an increase in the population of and
produce long-term benefit for the species in the action area.

######## Reasonable and Prudent Measures

######## 

The Service believes that the following reasonable and prudent measure
is necessary and appropriate to minimize the incidental take of Karner
blue butterflies during the proposed action:

-   Conduct all management in a manner that minimizes take of Karner
    blue butterflies to the maximum extent practicable.

We believe that this reasonable and prudent measure will significantly
reduce the impacts of incidental take of the Karner blue butterfly in
the action area.

######## Terms and Conditions

######## 

######## In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the HMNF must comply with the following terms and conditions which implement the reasonable and prudent measure described above. These terms and conditions will be non-discretionary.

1)  Perform restoration and treatment activities exactly as proposed in
    the BA. Implement standard Service-approved management practices,
    including the following (from USDAFS 2003a):

    a.  Divide contiguous Karner blue butterfly sites into three or more
        burn units.

        i.  Never burn an entire site at one time.

        ii. For each prescribed burn, leave at least 2 unburned units
            with an adequate firebreak between them to protect against
            wildfire or other chance events.

    b.  Promote Karner blue butterfly burn survival and facilitate
        post-burn recolonization.

        i.  Ensure that an unburned refugium (a small area of occupied
            lupine habitat) exists within 0.25 mi (0.4 km) to
            repopulate.

    c.  Where necessary, design burn rotations so that populations on
        burned areas can recover before adjoining source colonies are
        burned; perform annual pre- and post-treatments monitoring to
        determine recovery from treatment.

    d.  Burns should be no more frequent every four years so that
        populations can recover; burn frequencies of 5 to 10 years are
        preferred. Burns may be more frequent to treat sites with
        significant woody succession or exotic invasion.

    e.  If burns are required more frequently than four years, consider
        alternative treatments such as:

        i.  Mowing.

        ii. Excluding lupine patches which large numbers of the
            butterfly.

        iii. Maintaining unburned refugia that support the butterfly.

    f.  When possible, avoid creating firebreaks by exposing the dirt to
        mineral soil; lupines readily colonize bare soil, but so do many
        other aggressive exotic species.

        i.  Utilize existing artificial or natural breaks such as
            trails, wetlands, or roads as firebreaks.

        ii. If artificial fire breaks are necessary to protect human
            safety, use rotovated or disced breaks rather than
            fire-plowed breaks as appropriate.

        iii. Minimize the spreading seeds of weedy plants via equipment.

    g.  Vary the degrees and intensities of burns.

        i.  Use patchy burns.

        ii. Leave a mosaic of burned and unburned areas when possible
            and compatible with overall needs of the habitat.

        iii. Where appropriate, leave unburned areas near the center of
             the area to facilitate post-burn recolonization.

    h.  As feasible and prudent, vary the timing of prescribed burns to
        avoid selecting for or favoring some community components over
        others by repeated application of fire at the same time of year.

    i.  Monitor for invasion of aggressive exotic plants (e.g., spotted
        knapweed) and remove them, as prudent and necessary.

2)  Undertake the reasonable necessary measures during restoration
    activities to ensure that new employees, contractors, and other
    parties involved in restoration and in other activities in the
    action area understand the guidelines and protective measures
    designed to minimize take and avoid long-term adverse effects on
    Karner blue butterflies. Such measures should include, but not be
    limited to, a) biologists, managers, and others as appropriate shall
    meet annually prior to any treatments to review for oversight and
    compliance this biological opinion and the Plan; and b)
    knowledgeable HMNF staff shall familiarize laborers, contractors,
    and others as appropriate with treatment unit locations and
    perimeters before treatment.

3)  Seek new information annually on the distribution and status of
    Karner blue butterflies in the action area and apply such
    information to management to minimize take.

    a.  Use annual surveys and pre- and post-treatment monitoring data
        to avoid management activities that are unnecessary or that
        could result in excessive take.

######## Requirements for Monitoring and Reporting of Incidental Take of the Karner blue butterfly

Federal agencies have a continuing duty to monitor the impacts of
incidental take resulting from their activities \[50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)\].
In doing so, the Federal agency must report the progress of the action
and its impact on the species to the Service as specified below.

1)  Supply the Service's East Lansing Field Office with a report, due by
    December 31^st^ of the year the project is completed, that outlines
    the following:

    a.  The amount of occupied habitat restored each year and the total
        restored since issuance of this Opinion. The report should
        include what methods were used and pre- and post-treatment
        photos.

    b.  Results of all monitoring activities, as outlined in the 1995
        Biological Opinion on the HMNF Karner blue butterfly management
        plan, as amended in 1998 (USFWS 1998).

    c.  Long-term plans for habitat maintenance.

2)  Salvage of specimens is unlikely due to the nature of the proposed
    activities and the physical characteristics of Karner blue
    butterflies, eggs, and larvae. Therefore, no protocol is provided
    for salvage of specimens.

We anticipate the taking of all Karner blue butterflies associated with
restoration of up to 45 ac (18 ha) of occupied Karner blue butterfly
habitat on the HMNF is reasonably certain to occur as a result of the
proposed action. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their
implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact
of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action.
If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is
exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring
reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent
measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately provide an
explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the
need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.

Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation Recommendations are discretionary agency
activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on
listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or
to develop information.

We believe that the HMNF has already initiated or participated in
important efforts to protect, manage, and increase our understanding of
the Karner blue butterfly. We offer the following Conservation
Recommendations to further expand the knowledge of this species, and
help better manage for the Karner blue butterfly in Michigan.

-   Take action, either directly or indirectly through 3^rd^ parties, to
    improve habitat conditions and avoid or minimize take of Karner blue
    butterfly on private land within the Walhalla Project action area.

-   To the extent possible, develop information on the presence of
    Federal candidate plants and animals during the conduct of
    monitoring activity for the Walhalla Project.

-   Evaluate the contributions of drought, deer browsing, and
    growing-season frost on HMNF Karner blue butterfly populations, and
    propose potential solutions where necessary and prudent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adopt monitoring protocols detailed in the draft Karner blue
    butterfly recovery plan.

-   Pursue opportunities to inform and educate the public about the
    Karner blue butterfly.

The Service recognizes that these Conservation Recommendations may
require long-term efforts by the HMNF and does not expect their
implementation to be confined to or completed within the time period of
this consultation. In order for the Service to be kept informed of
actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefiting listed
species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation
of any conservation recommendations.

**REINITIATION NOTICE**

This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the
request. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal
consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement
or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law)
and if: 1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; 2) new
information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered
in this Opinion; 3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
not considered in this Opinion; or 4) a new species is listed or
critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In
instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any
operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

**REFERENCES**

Albert, D.A. 1995. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota
and Wisconsin: A Working Map and Classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-178.
St. Paul, Minnesota: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Forest Experiment Station. 250 pp.

Apfelbaum, S. I. and A. Haney. 1991. Management of degraded oak savanna
remnants in the upper Midwest: Preliminary results from three years of
study. *In* J. Ebinger (ed.), *Proceedings of the Oak Woods Management
Workshop.* Peoria, Illinois. Pp. 81-89.

Baker, R. J. 1994. The Karner blue butterfly: 1993 and beyond. *In:*
Andow, D., R. Baker, and C. Lane (eds), Karner blue butterfly: A symbol
of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station,
University of Minnesota - St. Paul. Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994.
Pp. 163-169.

Bidwell, A. D. 1996. A habitat evaluation plan for the Karner blue
butterfly. Report submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. 26 pp.

Bleser, C. A. 1993. Status survey, management and monitoring activities
for the Karner blue butterfly (*Lycaeides melissa samuelis*) in
Wisconsin. Final Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
86 pp.

Breining, G. 1993. The case of the missing ecosystem. The Nature
Conservancy. Nov/Dec. Pp. 10-15.

Clark, B. K., J. B. Bowles, and B.S. Clark. 1987. Summer occurrences of
the Indiana bat, Keen's Myotis, evening bat, silver-haired bat and
eastern pipistrelle in Iowa. Iowa Academy of Science 94:89-93.

Cryan, J. F. and R. Dirig. 1978. A Report on the Status of the Karner
Blue Butterfly (*Lycaeides melissa* *samuelis* Nabokov) in New York
State. Report to the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (response to the proposed rulemaking by the Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, which designates this
insect as Threatened). 15 pp.

Cuthrell, D. L. and M. L. Rabe. 1996. Status of the Karner blue
butterfly *(Lycaeides Melissa samuelis)*, in the Ionia Recovery Unit of
Michigan. Prepared by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing,
Michigan for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 22 pp.

Dirig, R. 1976. Karner's famous blue butterfly. *In* Rittner, D. (ed.),
Pine Bush-Albany's last frontier. Pine Bush Historic Preservation
Project, Albany, New York. Pp. 197-210, 250-252.

Dirig, R. 1994. Historical notes on wild lupine and the Karner blue
butterfly at the Albany Pine Bush, New York. *In* Andow, D. A., R.
Baker, and C. Lane (eds), Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing
landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Minnesota -- St. Paul. Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. Pp. 23-36.

Gardner, J. E., J. D. Gamer, and J. E. Hofmann. 1991. Summary of Myotis
sodalis summer habitat studies in Illinois: with recommendations for
impact assessment. Special Report. Illinois Natural History Survey,
Illinois Dept. of Conservation. Champaign, Illinois. 28pp.

Givnish, T. J., E. S. Menges, and D. F. Schweitzer. 1988. Minimum area
requirements for long-term conservation of the Albany Pine Bush and
Karner blue butterfly: an assessment. (Vol. IV, Appendix T). Report to
the City of Albany from Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Albany, New York. 95+pp.

Gunbert, M.W., J.M. O'Keefe, and J.R. MacGregor. 2002. Roost fidelity in
Kentucky. *In* The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered
species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International,
Austin, Texas. Lafayette, Indiana. Pp. 143-152.

Haney, A. and S. I. Apfelbaum. 1990. Structure and dynamics of Midwest
oak savannas. *In* J. M. Sweeney (ed.), Management of Dynamic
Ecosystems. Wildlife Society: West Lafayette, Indiana. Pp. 19-30.

Hargrove, W. W. and F. M. Hoffman. 1999. Using multivariate clustering
to characterize ecoregion borders. Computing in Science & Engineering
1(4): 18-25.

Harrison, S., D. Murphy, and P. Ehrlich. 1988. Distribution of the bay
checkerspot butterfly, *Euphydryas editha bayensis*: evidence for a
metapopulation model. The American Naturalist 132: 360-382.

Helmbolt, K. M. and M. Amaral. 1994. Status of the Karner blue butterfly
in New Hampshire. *In* Andow, D. A., R. Baker, and C. Lane (eds.),
Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota- St. Paul.
Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. Pp. 123-128.

Herms, C. P. 1996. The endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lepidoptera:
Lycaenidae) in Michigan: Habitat suitability, potential impacts of gypsy
moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) suppression, and laboratory rearing
(masters thesis) Michigan State University. 180 pp.

Klots, A. B. 1979. A Field Guide to the Butterflies: North America East
of the Great Plains. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 349pp.

Kurta, A. 1982. A review of Michigan bats: Seasonal and geographic
distribution. Michigan Academician. Vol. XIV No. 3. Pp. 295-312.

[]{.mark}

Kurta, A. 2000. The bat community in northwestern Lower Michigan, with
emphasis on the Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle. Report to USDAFS
Huron-Manistee National Forest.

Kurta, A. and H. Rice. 2002. Ecology and management of the Indiana bat
in Michigan. Michigan Academician XXXIV: 175-190.

Kurta, A. and J.A. Teramino. 1994. A novel hibernaculum and noteworthy
records of the Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle (Chiroptera:
Vespertilionidae). American Midland Naturalist 132:410-413.

Kurta, A., D. King, J. A. Teramino, J. M. Stribley and K. J. Williams.
1993. Summer roosts of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on
the northern edge of its range. Am. Midl. Nat. 129: 132-138.

Kurta, A., J. Caryl, and T Lipps. 1997. Bats and Tippy Dam: species
composition, seasonal use, and environmental parameters. Michigan
Academician 39 474-490.

Kurta, A., S. W. Murray, and D. Miller. 2002. Roost selection and
movements across the summer landscape. *In* The Indiana bat: biology and
management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat
Conservation International, Austin, Texas. Lafayette, Indiana. Pp.
19-30.

Kurta, A., T. Hubbard, and M.E. Stewart. 1989. Bat species diversity in
central Michigan. Jack-Pine Warbler 67(3):80-87.

Lane, C. 1999b. Translocation and population monitoring of the Karner
blue butterfly at the Whitewater Wildlife Management Area. 1999 Final
Report prepared for the Minnesota DNR by Blufflands Ecological Services,
Maiden Rock, Wisconsin.

Lane, C. 1999a. Benefits of heterogeneous habitat: oviposition
preference and immature performance *of Lycaeides melissa samuelis*
Nabokov (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) (Ph. D. dissertation) University of
Minnesota -- St. Paul. 185 pp.

Lane, C. and R. Dana. 1994. The status of the Karner blue butterfly in
Minnesota. *In* Andow, D. A., R. Baker, and C. Lane (eds.), Karner blue
butterfly: A symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Minnesota - St. Paul. Miscellaneous
Publication 84-1994. Pp. 113-122.

LaVal, R. K., and M. L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management
of Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Missouri
Department of Conservation Terrestrial Series 8:1-53.

Leach, M. 1993. Status and distribution of the Karner blue butterfly at
Fort McCoy, Wisconsin: Final report on a two-year status survey.
Prepared by The Nature Conservancy, Wisconsin Chapter, for the Natural
Resources Management Division, Fort McCoy Military Reservation, United
States Army, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. 50 pp. + appendix.

Martin, M. 1994. Karner blue butterfly in Indiana: 1990 status survey
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. *In* Andow, D. A., R. Baker, and
C. Lane (eds.), Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing
landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Minnesota-St. Paul. Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. Pp. 97-105.

Murray, S.W. and A. Kurta. 2002. Spatial and temporal variation in diet.
*In* The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species
(A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin,
Texas. Lafayette, Indiana. Pp. 182-192.

Nabokov, V. 1944. Notes on the morphology of the genus *Lycaeides*
(Lycaenidae, Lepidoptera). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
101: 479-541.

Nabokov, V. 1949. The Nearctic members of the genus *Lycaeides* Hubner
(Lycaenidae, Lepidoptera). Psyche 50: 104-138.

Nuzzo, V. A. 1986. Extent and status of Midwest oak savanna:
Presettlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal 6: 6-36.

Peteroy, A. 1998. 1998. Karner blue butterfly monitoring results:
Concord Pine Barrens, New Hampshire. The Nature Conservancy. Concord,
New Hampshire.

Rabe, M.L. 2001. Special animal abstract for *Lycaeides melissa
samuelis* (Karner blue).

Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, Michigan.

Savignano, D. A. 1990. Field investigations of a facultative mutualism
between *Lycaeides melissa samuelis* Nabokov (Lycaenidae), the Karner
blue butterfly, and attendant ants (Ph.D. dissertation). University of
Texas, Austin.

Schweitzer, D. 1994a. Recovery goals and methods for Karner blue
butterfly populations. *In* Andow, D. A., R. Baker, and C. Lane (eds.),
Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota-St. Paul.
Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. Pp. 185-193.

Schweitzer, D. 1994b. Prioritizing Karner blue butterfly habitats for
protection activities. *In* Andow, D. A., R. Baker, and C. Lane (eds.),
Karner blue butterfly: A symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota-St. Paul.
Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. Pp. 173-183.

Schweitzer, D. F. 1989. Fact sheet for the Karner blue butterfly with
special reference to New York. Unpublished report, The Nature
Conservancy. 7pp.

Schweitzer, D.F. 1992. The status of the Karner blue butterfly
(*Lycaeides melissa samuelis* Nabokov) at Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore, with special consideration of planning of prescribed burns at
major sites. Research report prepared for the National Park Service,
Porter, Indiana. 30 pp.

Scudder, S.H. 1889. The butterflies of the eastern United States and
Canada with special reference to New England. Vol. II: Lycaenidae,
Papilionidae, Hesperidae. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pp. 962-969.

Sommers, L. A. and P. E. Nye. 1994. Status, research and management of
the Karner blue butterfly in New York. *In* Andow, D. A., R. Baker, and
C. Lane (eds.), Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing
landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Minnesota-St. Paul. Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. Pp. 129-134.

Swengel, A. 1994. Observations on the effects of fire on Karner blue
butterflies. *In* Andow, D. A., R. Baker, and C. Lane (eds.), Karner
blue butterfly: A symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota-St. Paul.
Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. Pp. 81-86.

Swengel, A. and S. Swengel. 1993. Observations of Karner blues and the
barrens butterfly community in Wisconsin. Manuscript (December 1993),
909 Birch Street, Baraboo, Wisconsin. 36pp. + appendices.

Tibbels, A. and A. Kurta. *In press*. Effects of thinning on activity of
bats in stands of red pine and associated openings. Can. J. For.
Res./Rev. Can Rech. For.

Trick, Joel A. 1993. Wisconsin Karner blue butterfly 1993 survey
results. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Green Bay, Wisconsin. 14 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Biological Opinion on the HMNF
Karner blue butterfly Management Activities; Amendment to the March 28,
1995 Biological Opinion (No. 95-R3-ELFO-1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service East Lansing Field Office, East Lansing, Michigan. 4+pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*)
revised recovery plan, Agency Draft. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Karner blue butterfly Draft
Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Fort Snelling,
MN. 122+pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Biological Opinion for the
Continued Implementation of the Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and
Resource Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. East Lansing
Field Office East Lansing, Michigan. 133 pp.

USDA-Forest Service. 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended
-- Huron Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan.

USDA-Forest Service. 1994. Status of the Karner blue butterfly
(*Lycaeides Melissa samuelis)* on the HMNF with special consideration
for the planning of management activities within occupied areas. October
3, 1994. 16+pp.

USDA-Forest Service. 1999. 1999 Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation
Report. Huron--Manistee National Forest Supervisor's Assessment.
Unpublished report. Cadillac, Michigan*.*

USDA-Forest Service. 2002. Karner blue butterfly (*Lycaeides Melissa
samuelis)* Monitoring Report for FY 2000 and 2001. HMNF Baldwin/White
Cloud Ranger District. July 1, 2002. 17pp.

USDA-Forest Service. 2003a. Programmatic Biological Assessment for the
Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan.
194pp.

USDA-Forest Service. 2003b. Karner blue butterfly (*Lycaeides Melissa
samuelis)* Monitoring Report for FY 2002. HMNF Baldwin/White Cloud
Ranger District. April 2003. 21pp.

Wilsmann, L. 1994. Status of the Karner blue butterfly in Michigan. *In*
Andow, D. A., R. Baker, and C. Lane (eds.), Karner blue butterfly: A
symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of Minnesota-St. Paul. Miscellaneous Publication
84-1994. Pp. 107-112.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2000. Wisconsin
statewide Karner blue butterfly habitat conservation plan and
environmental impact statement. PUBL-SS-947-00. Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Madison. 386 pp. + appendices.

Zaremba, R. E., M. Pickering, and B. Hunt. 1991. Preliminary results of
1990 lupine (*Lupinus perennis*) propagation project in the Albany Pine
Bush. Report to the New York State Department of Environmental
conservation Endangered Species Unit and the City of Albany.

**ABBREVIATIONS**

°C Degrees Celsius

°F Degrees Fahrenheit

ac Acres

Act Endangered Species Act

BA Biological Assessment

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cm Centimeter

FR Federal Register

FY Fiscal Year

g Gram

ha Hectares

HMNF Huron-Manistee National Forests

in Inch

km Kilometer

LTA Landtype Association

m Meter

MA Management Area

MI Michigan

mm Millimeters

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National Forest

ORV Off-road Vehicle

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USDAFS United States Department of Agriculture -- Forest Service

[^1]: In this Biological Opinion, the term "lupine" will refer to
    *Lupinus perennis* to the exclusion of all other con-generic
    species.