Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

• Main Page
• Clarifications & Amendments
• Updates & Initial Changes

Clarifications and Amendments

Printable version of Clarifications and Amendments [PDF, 115KB]

CLARIFICATIONS (Vol. III, V)

Volume III - Issue 1 (A)

A. Level III Site Selection: Language in HCP is confusing.

Issue statement: Page G-5, Part E, Level III Monitoring says, "The site pool for Level III Monitoring is the same as the site pool for Level II Monitoring." This is not exactly an accurate statement. Level III sites are not randomly selected from the entire Level II pool. Level III sites are randomly selected from those sites selected for Level II monitoring in the same year.

Change G-5, Part E, Level III Monitoring:

"The site pool for Level III Monitoring is the same as the site pool group of sites selected for Level II Monitoring in the same year."

Volume V- Issue 1 (A, B)

A. KB HCP - Participation strategy

Issue Statement: An entity proposing a permanent take of KBB can become a full partner or a one-time-permittee. The entity would become a full partner if they are proposing or would be required to perform ongoing habitat maintenance themselves (or under contract with a non-partner) as part of mitigating the permanent take.

If they contract an existing partner to take responsibility for performing required ongoing habitat maintenance, or have no such requirement, the entity could be a one-time-permittee.

Refer to: Chapter II, Part F, Section 3, "Application process for Coverage under the ITP (Non-Voluntary Category)

B. Voluntary Group- Participation Plan- Who Comprises this Group?

In the past there has been confusion as to what person or entity falls within the "Voluntary" (unregulated) group for purposes of the HCP Participation Plan. This voluntary group is automatically covered under the incidental take permit issued for the HCP. The DNR and FWS discussed the issue at our most recent 6-month HCP review meeting. Based upon the discussions and a review of the language in the HCP, all landowners, land users or activities that do not meet the criteria requiring a Certificate of Inclusion (i.e. those landowners involved in permanent take, commercial forestry, or corridor development and maintenance) are listed as an exception (such as residential buildings or structures not part of a subdivision development) fall within the "voluntary" (unregulated) category and are not required to apply for inclusion to be covered by the Incidental Take Permit.

Refer to: Chapter II, Part F, Section 3 "Non-Partner Participation", pages 129-140.

AMENDMENTS (Vol. III, IV, V)

Volume III - Issue 1 (A, B, C)

A. Effectiveness Monitoring Level II Site Requalification

Change: Lupine sites which qualify to be in the Level II site pool will be eligible for selection for 5 years instead of only 2 years.

Level II sites for Effectiveness Monitoring currently need to be resurveyed for lupine every two years to maintain their eligibility to remain in the Level II site pool (see HCP and EM protocol references below). Based on partner and DNR staff experiences with monitoring, it was suggested that this time period be extended, since this would do no harm to the species or habitat and would save time for field personnel, especially on the larger properties. After some discussion, the IOC recommended that once qualified (i.e., lupine presence confirmed), Level II sites should remain valid for five years. If a site should be selected, as an example, in the fifth year, and the lupine has disappeared from the site, the only harm done is that the surveyor will have to get a new site assignment from the HCP Data Manager and go out to survey the new site. If a partner would rather this not happen, he/she can requalify the site with a Level I survey and report any loss of habitat (lupine) to the DNR more frequently.

HCP/EIS, Appendix G, "Effectiveness Monitoring Protocol", Part E, "Site Eligibility", page G-5, change as follows:

Level II Monitoring

The site pool is formed of those sites in the High Potential Range and included by the partners in the HCP, on which the presence of Karner blue butterfly habitat has been established. Sites are chosen from the pool of sites with lupine from the previous two five monitoring seasons. A site includes at least 25 plants or clumps of lupine at a density of 50 plants per acre or 25 plants per 200 m of linear distance. A linear site has no more than 200 m of contiguous non-habitat. ROW sites are limited to 250 m in length. Other sites are limited to a maximum size of approximately 40 acres.

HCP monitoring protocol: "A Guide to Conducting Effectiveness Monitoring for the Wisconsin Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan", updated May 20, 2002; page 3, "Level II Monitoring", change as follows:

LEVEL II MONITORING: A site is eligible for Level II monitoring if it meets the following three criteria:

1. The site meets the three criteria listed above for Level I Monitoring, and
2. The presence of lupine has been confirmed on the site within the last two five years via Level I Monitoring surveys, and
3. The site has at least 25 lupine plants or clumps of lupine, at a density of 50 lupine plants per acre (or 25 lupine plants per 200 m of linear distance for linear sites)

Back to Top

B. Monitoring Training Certification Shelf-life

HCP Partners and DNR staff who are experienced in performing the HCP monitoring protocols have commented that attending monitoring training every year is redundant, not necessary and a poor use of their limited time. In as much as the partners are responsible to correctly perform HCP monitoring protocols, they are likewise responsible to assure their staff is qualified. Therefore, the IOC has suggested that refresher training be mandatory every 5 years instead of annually. If a person who, as an example, has not performed the monitoring protocol since initial training, and determines he/she is not confident they can correctly perform the protocol, they should be compelled to attend a refresher course before doing monitoring.

HCP monitoring protocol: " A Guide to Conducting Effectiveness Monitoring for the Wisconsin Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan", updated May 20, 2002; page 6 X.A. "Training", change as follows:

We recommend that It is mandatory for previously certified field personnel to undergo refresher training each year at least once every five years.

Back to Top

C. Pre-management Survey Shelf-life

Nowhere in the ITP or HCP is there a required absolute timeline beyond which a pre-management survey is no longer valid. In reality, no single prescription can accurately fit all landscapes and circumstances. By unidentified suggestion, further assumption, as being true, and through practice, two years became the default shelf life. We believed this to be founded on some scientific justification. After researching this issue, no justification or two-year requirement was found.

Proposed Minor Amendment:

At its October 9, 2002 meeting, the IOC approved proposing a 5-year pre-management survey shelf life with an option to extend this period up to 8 years with additional justification. The IOC was not in favor of multiple rules for different land management entity groups, but strongly preferred one rule, with some flexibility where KBB absence had previously been documented. Conditions of the 5-8 year rule include:

HCP/EIS, Appendix F, "Karner Blue Butterfly Conservation Protocols for Forest Management by HCP Partners", Part A, Section 1, page F-4, change as follows:

Pre-management lupine and Karner blue butterfly surveys should be repeated if at least one growing season has lapsed since harvest and the management activity. If harvest of a mature stand of timber is the prescribed management activity, partners may conduct the pre-management survey up to three five years prior to the harvest or 5-8 years with written justification.

Volume IV- Issue 1 (A)

A. Changed Circumstance and Unforeseen Circumstance (“No Surprises”)

Three minor amendments are described in this document:

• The first amends the reporting notice time period.
• The second recognizes that Gypsy Moth Infestation is not a changed circumstance.
• For clarity and simplicity the third amendment changes the Table 2.23 heading and the changed circumstances report form heading of "conservation measures" is changed to “Assessment and Management Adjustments”.

CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REPORTING

AMENDMENT: Change reporting notice from 30 days to "at time of annual report".

The instructions on the current draft of the Changed Circumstances Report Form require partners to report changed circumstances to the DNR within 30 days after the event.The HCP does not specifically mandate a 30-day deadline for partners to report changed circumstances to the DNR, or for the DNR to report changed circumstances to the USFWS.A 30-day limit is mentioned as an example of conservation measures that can be taken to address wildfires and natural weather events, and as a deadline for DNR and affected partners to initiate an investigation of the event (see HCP references below).  Discussions on changing the 30-day reporting deadline were held throughout 2002 and again in 2003.

In as much as all changed circumstance events over the first three permit years have resulted in no known negative impacts to occupied Karner sites, but have resulted in the creation of habitat, a need for immediate reporting should not be urgent. It is believed that immediate action could not be taken. However it is important that the partner identifies and assesses any impacts and takes appropriate adaptive management steps. The impact to KBB occupied habitat may warrant changing or postponing intended disturbance management on the affected site. It is possible that remedial action may be necessary to restore a significant or strategically important site, e.g. a refugia that is part of a shifting mosaic strategy.

Partners will report changed circumstance events on their annual report for the year in which the event occurred.Long-term impacts may not be fully assessed in the year of the event.  Therefore, a post-impact survey may be delayed until a more appropriate time to assess KBB and habitat conditions.If the site affected was previously occupied by KBB, a survey will be done as soon as the sited conditions realistically allow.If KBB did not previously occupy the site, or is unknown, it is not necessary to do a survey until the existing monitoring program normally requires a survey.  If the impact of the event results in the creation or expansion of habitat, and the habitat is a new site, the partner will report the new site to the HCP Data Manager for inclusion in the monitoring site pool.On the survey form the partner will note that the site is a "changed circumstance site", that it is a "post-impact survey", and explain findings per the protocol.

2.GYPSY MOTH INFESTATION AS A CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE

AMENDMENT: Gypsy moth infestation is no longer considered a changed circumstance. Gypsy moth control is not a conservation measure under the HCP.Gypsy moth control is an issue of the Section 7 consultation between the US Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Regarding Gypsy Moth Infestation: It is easy to see that wildfire is a changed circumstance, which can have a negative impact on KBB. However, the naturally occurring east-to-west progressive, gypsy moth infestation, in itself has no negative impacts on KBB, nor does it pose a threat to KBB. One could argue that Gypsy moth infestation and resulting tree defoliation actually might benefit KBB. Infestation is not the culprit, nor is it an event, short-term, real-time or otherwise.However, Gypsy moth control measures (a management activity) is an activity that can negatively affect KBB.

Regarding Gypsy Moth Control: It could be argued that "gypsy moth infestation" is analogous to “forest stand reaching maturity” (something that happens which we also can predict), and that "gypsy moth control" parallels “harvest, site prep and planting”.Table 2.23 lists Gypsy Moth Control as a “conservation measure”. This implies that gypsy moth control is intended to correct a negative impact to KBB or KBB habitat or somehow improve habitat conditions, i.e. set back succession. This of course is not the case since gypsy moth infestation does not result in a negative impact to KBB occupied habitat and gypsy moth control neither corrects or improves KBB habitat. Gypsy moth control is not a KBB conservation measure.Doing nothing to control gypsy moth is more of a conservation measure for KBB.

Gypsy moth control is not an “event”, but a management action that has or could have a negative impact on KBB.Gypsy moth control is not an event beyond our control, such as wildfire or flood.  Gypsy moth control is a planned management activity.KBB incidental take for gypsy moth control is being dealt with under a Section 7 consultation between the USFWS and the US Forest Service.  Outreach &Education directed at private residential landowners choosing to use commercially available Btk or worse also should fall under the Section 7 consultation.

Therefore, Gypsy moth infestation should not be treated as either a changed or unforeseen circumstance. Gypsy moth control is not a partner management activity that will be dealt with under the HCP.Therefore, there are no provisions for incidental take authority of KBB incidental to Gypsy moth control activities.The DNR recommends that partners consult the U.S Forest Service’s Gypsy Moth program.

"CONSERVATION MEASURES" VS. "ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENTS”

AMENDMENT: Table 2.23 heading and the changed circumstances report form heading of "Conservation Measures" is changed to “Assessment and Management Adjustments”.

In addition, consider the “Conservation Measures” for wildfire in Table 2.23. One could argue that these could be better titled “Assessment and Management Adjustments” (A&MA).In fact this is what the process is intended to do.For clarity and simplicity, the Table 2.23 heading and the changed circumstances report form heading of "Conservation Measures" is changed to “Assessment and Management Adjustments”.

CHANGES TO HCP AND REPORT FORM: (Additions are underlined; Deletions are struck out.)

HCP/EIS, Chapter II, Part H, Section 8, “USFWS Habitat Conservation Plan Assurances (“No Surprises” Rule)”, pages 175-179 changes as follows:

Changed Circumstances and Conservation Measures to Address Them

Unforeseen circumstances should not be confused with changed circumstances. Changed circumstances are changes in circumstances affecting the Karner blue butterfly within the high potential range, the lands included in the HCP that are subject to partners conservation agreements and that can reasonably be anticipated. Changed circumstances not already covered in other sections of the HCP that may occur during the permit period will be addressed by the DNR, USFWS and affected partners in the manner presented in Table 2.23.

Changed Circumstances Not Provided for in the HCP. In the event of changed circumstances with no conservation measures provided for in the plan, the USFWS will not require any conservation or mitigation measures above and beyond what is provided for in the HCP (and associated agreements), without the consent of the permittee and affected partner(s), provided the HCP is being properly implemented. The USFWS will coordinate and work cooperatively with the DNR and affected partners to explore ways that the operating conservation program can address the impact.

Relationship of Changed Circumstances to the HCP's Adaptive Management Strategy. In the event of changed circumstances that may be adequately addressed through the adaptive management strategy, the HCP Partnership will respond to those changed circumstances, as specified in and consistent with the HCP, Implementing Agreement and associated conservation agreements, during the life of the ITP.

The changed circumstances noted in Table 2.23 will be addressed in the context of the adaptive management strategy outlined in this HCP. , but at an earlier point in the process, and directed at a particular event rather than in response to observed or monitoring results of an HCP conservation strategy.

Among other things, adaptive management is intended to detect changes in Karner blue butterfly populations and habitat over time. The process is designed for normal circumstances, to observe and analyze the results of management activities and treatments. This is a relatively long-term view looking at cumulative effects. In contrast, changed circumstances are the result of a short-term or real-time event, the adverse effects of which may be realized simultaneous to the event. Rather than waiting for the next monitoring exercise to assess the impacts of a changed circumstance event, once the DNR and affected partners are aware the event occurred, they will initiate an early response to investigate the effect(s) of the event. This investigation will be initiated within 30 days of the event and because of the event. If the event negatively affected occupied habitat in a manner not reasonably expected under management and use of the land without the event, a process for appropriate and available corrective action will result as a normal application of the adaptive management process. The same trigger points for action that apply to normal circumstances of adaptive management, will likewise apply to changed circumstances where appropriate.

The Wisconsin Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Conservation Plan Changed Circumstances Report Form 2002 (Draft)”, 01/28/2002 revision, page 1-2,s replaced with 01/19/05 revision.

Volume V- Issue 1 (A)

A.IOC operating protocols

The IOC requested that the HCP partners consider these proposed changes in IOC operating protocols and make a decision to adopt the following changes at the December 4, 2001 HCP Partners Team meeting in Eau Claire.  All proposals were approved.

1.IOC Chairperson Election.

Currently, individual partner voting consistent with the voting process in the Articles of Partnership elects the IOC Chairperson.  The IOC feels that the time and effort needed to implement a full-partner election is exorbitant and unnecessary.

Proposal: The IOC recommends that the IOC members are capable of choosing the IOC Chair amongst themselves because the other members of their entity group have selected them to represent their group.Selection of a new IOC Chair would take place after any new IOC members-elect have been identified, and before the first meeting in which a newly selected chair would take office.

December 4, 2001 HCP Team meeting minutes

Agenda Item 6. IOC Report – Gary Birch

The following issue was presented for discussion and a full partner vote:

Issue: Selection of IOC chair by IOC representatives in order to streamline election process.  After discussion, there were no problems with issue.

VOTE: All in favor; none against: Consensus achieved (A quorum was present.)

2. IOC Chairperson Length of Term

IOC reviewed a memo from 4/29/02, dealing with the length of term for IOC chairs with only one year left on term as a team member. A chair can serve up to two 2-year terms, but no more than one term consecutively. This does not allow for a chair that became chair with only one year left on their IOC representative's term to serve more than one year. 

Decision: There was consensus that a member can serve up to 4 years as chair, but no more than two years consecutively.

3. IOC Quorum

The IOC representatives have made exceptional efforts to serve their entity groups and the partners on the IOC.From time to time unavoidable responsibilities arise in their jobs or personal life.  When this happens, sometimes at the last minute, they may not be able to attend an IOC meeting, and their IOC alternate may also not be available to attend on short notice. The IOC requests the partners consider the following proposal which will allow greater flexibility for the IOC to operate with a quorum at meetings, assuring IOC business and decisions provide ample opportunity for all partners entity groups to be represented and for decisions to be made in a timely manner:

Proposal: To insure a quorum at IOC meetings, the following procedure applies:In the event that an IOC representative cannot attend a scheduled IOC meeting, he/she will ask his/her alternate to attend.If the alternate is not available to attend, the IOC representative will make every reasonable effort to find a substitute from among other partners members in their entity group, or another employee of their organization or company who is informed and aware of the HCP.The absent IOC representative will notify the IOC Chair and HCP Coordinator by personal conversation, telephone, email or in writing, of the name and association of their one time IOC meeting substitute, and their transfer of voting proxy to this person.

The HCP is amended as such:

HCP. II.H Implementation Oversight, page 170

“When an IOC chair needs to be selected for an upcoming term, all partners IOC representatives to serve under this chair will vote for an IOC Chair from among the elected IOC members not outgoing prior to the next annual HCP partnership meeting.  The IOC Chair will serve two years (one if his or her IOC member term has only one year remaining) and the voting process will take place again with current IOC members.  The future IOC Chair-elect will be elected at the annual partnership meeting prior to the permit date (September 27, ___) in which his/her term as chair begins. A chairperson can only hold one consecutive term and no more than two terms throughout the permit period. An IOC member can serve up to 4 years as chair, but no more than two years consecutively.”

To insure a quorum at IOC meetings, the following procedure applies:In the event that an IOC representative cannot attend a scheduled IOC meeting, he/she will ask his/her alternate to attend.If the alternate is not available to attend, the IOC representative will make every reasonable effort to find a substitute from among other partners members in their entity group, or another employee of their organization or company who is informed and aware of the HCP.The absent IOC representative will notify the IOC Chair and HCP Coordinator by personal conversation, telephone, email or in writing, of the name and association of their one time IOC meeting substitute, and their transfer of voting proxy to this person.