Annual Program Report
2010-2011
Wildlife Diversity Program
Division of Wildlife Management
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1751 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
2
CONTENTS
STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS
State Wildlife Grants 08-Wildlife Management (T-12)
Priority Species Data Management 3
Monitoring Species in Early Successional Habitats 5
Surveys of Priority Amphibians and Reptiles in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain of NC 25
Piedmont Cooperative Land Conservation Project
34
Urban Wildlife Project 39
Coastal Region Landbird Investigations 44
Waterbird Investigations and Management 64
Western Region Amphibian Conservation 85
Western Region Reptile Conservation 92
Western Region Bird Conservation 100
Mammal Inventory and Monitoring 107
NC Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 114
Wildlife Diversity Coordination 127
North Carolina Partners in Flight (NCPIF) 130
North Carolina State Wildlife Grants 2009 (T-13)
NC Wildlife Action Plan Land Conservation 133
Competitive State Wildlife Grant (U-2)
Competitive SWG – WNS and North Carolina Bats 135
ENDANGERED SPECIES GRANTS
US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 6 (E-16)
Sea Turtle Nest Surveys, Status, Management and Protection in North Carolina 137
Landscape and Conservation Genetics of the Northern Flying Squirrel 141
Northern Flying Squirrel Acoustic Survey 142
Northern Saw-whet Owl Breeding in Northern Hardwood Forests
147
US Fish and Wildlife Service White-Nose Syndrome Grants to States (E-17)
Acoustic Bat Monitoring in North Carolina 155
National Marine Fisheries Service Section 6 (M)
North Carolina Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (July - December) 159
North Carolina Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (January – June) 162
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
Implementation of the Green Growth Toolbox; The Wildlife Conservation Society 165
American Oystercatcher Conservation Initiative ; National Audubon Society 187
2011 Colonial Waterbird Survey: US Army Corps of Engineers 193
Forest Landbird Legacy Program; Partners for Fish and Wildlife Grant # 40181-03-G202 205
3
Final Performance Report
State: North Carolina Grant Number: T-12
Period Covered: July 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011
Grant Title: State Wildlife Grants 08-Wildlife Management
Project Title: Priority Species Data Management
Objective:
1). Efficiently collect, manage, and catalog data on sensitive species across the state in form that
is readily accessible, scientifically sound, and useable in maintaining the Wildlife Action Plan.
2). Develop and maintain data management tools to assess Wildlife Action Plan progress and
facilitate plan revision.
A. Activity
1. Purchased annual ESRI ArcGIS software maintenance fees for Wildlife Diversity staff. This
grant period covered 2 fiscal years’ (2010 and 2011) worth of costs. The software allows
Diversity staff to continue to use GIS mapping applications to catalogue, store, and display
NC Wildlife Action Plan priority species and habitat information for planning and reporting
conservation actions.
2. Staff partnered with Defenders of Wildlife to complete the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission portal on the Conservation Registry website
(http://ncwrc.conservationregistry.org). This project is designed to allow conservation
projects of NC Wildlife Action Plan partners to be searchable via map or text. Project
activities are automatically tied back to specific goals identified in the NC Wildlife Action
Plan. Currently, there are 1,268 partner projects listed on the website.
3. Provided GPS, GIS, and data support to Diversity Staff, including compiling Wildlife Action
Plan data for newly hired WAP coordinator.
4. Developed GIS data and maps for the NC Wildlife Action Plan Climate Change conference.
5. Developed and deployed aquatic listed species database application to catalogue and make
accessible mapping tools for aquatic priority species.
6. Coordinated staff development of NC Project Tracking Database. The Prototype database
that links State Wildlife Grant project expenditures to specific performance indicators of
Wildlife Action Plan achievements.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishment
In addition to the activities listed, efforts were initiated to design and develop an all-encompassing
species database (BIODE) that would store information for all species for which
4
NCWRC collects distribution data. While some species specific databases (e.g. box turtles,
aquatics, colonial waterbirds) were adapted to the BIODE framework, we were only able to
address a subset of species databases and logistical constraints upon staffing prevented
completion of the overall BIODE database.
C. Significant Deviations
NC WRC staffing limitations reduced the amount of effort expended upon this project,
particularly in the final 9 months of the project period. The project objectives were addressed
and many tasks were accomplished, however there remains additional work to be done to fully
integrate Priority species data and coordinate collection, storage, and retrieval in a GIS platform.
D. Remarks
None
E. Recommendations
It remains to be seen whether the TRACS system being developed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service can integrate the NC Project Tracking database and Conservation Registry information
from North Carolina. NCWRC staff should continue to be engaged with USFWS as the TRACS
system is rolled out to ensure that NC Wildlife Action Plan achievements are catalogued as
efficiently as possible.
F. Estimated Cost
$ 19,610
Prepared by: Scott Anderson
Division of Wildlife Management
5
Final Performance Report
State: North Carolina Grant Number: T-12
Period Covered: July 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011
Grant Title: State Wildlife Grants 08-Wildlife Management
Project Title: Monitoring Species in Early Successional Habitats
Objectives:
The objectives of this project were to
Implement surveys and monitoring to improve understanding of distribution, relative
abundance, and/or population trends of priority species and habitats, with an emphasis on
early successional habitats
Evaluate the response of priority early succession species and habitats to management
and determine factors limiting populations
Utilize bird watching groups to help fill information gaps, particularly for distribution
and timing of migrating birds
Communicate results to appropriate lay and scientific audiences
Provide technical guidance on species and habitat management to land managers and land
use decision makers
Plan and coordinate with local, regional, and national organizations to optimize
conservation efforts.
A. Activity
Activity in 2010-2011 included continuation of long term monitoring on Suggs Mill Pond,
Sandhills, Caswell, and South Mountains Game Lands and Murphy Brown corporate farms.
These properties are part of the Cooperative Upland habitat Restoration and Enhancement
(CURE) program, an early successional habitat initiative started by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission in 2001. Long term monitoring surveys include breeding songbird point count
surveys, targeted point count surveys for Bachman’s sparrows and northern bobwhite, and a
useable habitat evaluation for Bachman’s sparrows and for quail. Data analysis continued on the
Piedmont native warm season grass research project in collaboration with NC State University.
Emphasis was placed during this grant period on summarizing results from 10 years of surveys
related to this project, and sharing results with land managers, biologists, and other stakeholders.
This activity included presenting results at South Mountains, Caswell, Sandhills, and Suggs Mill
Pond game lands and generating consensus recommendations for future habitat management
strategies and tactics.
6
During this grant period we initiated planning and pilot studies for future bird surveys. These
include distribution and status assessments for Bachman’s sparrow and other longleaf-associated
species and Swainson’s warbler and other bottomland-associated species.
Methods
Breeding Bird Surveys- An index of songbird abundance on game lands was tracked
using point count surveys (Hamel et al. 1996, Freemark and Rogers 1995). In 2002, we
established 21-36 permanent survey points on each CURE Game Land. Control routes on
Sandhills and Caswell Game Lands were initiated in 2004. Regional Breeding Bird Survey
(BBS) routes were selected from nearby counties to serve as a reference for South Mountains
and Suggs Mill Game Lands (USGS 2009). Five minute, unlimited distance point count surveys
were conducted once per year on each area between May 18th and June 14th. To facilitate
analyses, we grouped species together into guilds based on life history characteristics (Table 1).
Simple linear regression was used to compare the slope of the trend line between CURE and
reference routes.
Bachman’s sparrow point counts. In 2006 we initiated surveys focused specifically on
Bachman’s sparrows to monitor populations of this priority species after observational data
indicated an increase throughout CURE-managed areas. We originally established ~110 survey
points on each of the CURE and control areas, and in 2011 we reduced the number of survey
points to 40 on each of the CURE and control areas for long term monitoring. Survey points
were located >0.4 miles apart using a modified gird system. Surveys were repeated 3 times in
late April/early May and included 3 minutes of passive listening followed by 3 minutes of using
territorial song playback to stimulate calling. Surveys began at first light and ended ~5 hours
after sunrise on days with little wind and no precipitation.
7
Table 1. Songbird guild groupings for spring songbird point count analysis.
Grassland Nesters Shrubland Nesters Early Succession Foragers
Bachman’s Sparrow
Aimophila aestivalis
American Goldfinch
Carduelis tristis
Barn Swallow
Hirundo rustica
Eastern Meadowlark
Sturnella magna
Blue Grosbeak
Guiraca caerulea
Brown-headed Cowbird
Molothrus ater
Grasshopper Sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum
Brown Thrasher
Toxostoma rufum
Chipping Sparrow
Spizella passerina
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Common Yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas
Eastern Bluebird
Sialia sialis
Red-winged Blackbird
Agelaius phoeniceus
Eastern Towhee
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Eastern Kingbird
Tyrannus tyrannus
Field Sparrow
Spizella pusilla
Eastern Phoebe
Sayornis phoebe
Gray Catbird
Dumetella carolinensis
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Contopus sordidulus
Hooded warbler
Wilsonia citrine
Loggerhead Shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
Indigo Bunting
Passerina cyanea
Orchard Oriole
Icterus spurius
Prairie Warbler
Dendroica discolor
Purple Martin
Progne subis
Song Sparrow
Melospiza melodia
Red-headed Woodpecker
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
White-eyed Vireo
Vireo griseus
Wild Turkey
Meleagris gallopavo
Yellow-breasted Chat
Icteria virens
Yellow-shafted Flicker
Colaptes auratus
Northern Bobwhite surveys. Point count surveys were conducted for breeding and fall
quail. Please refer to previous annual reports for details of survey methodology.
Useable Habitat. To track the quantity of early successional habitat, we established
useable habitat evaluations on each CURE area. Useable habitat was defined as any area with
sufficient cover for quail to carry out life functions (breed, forage, roost, etc.) and is determined
by a qualitative, “eyeball” assessment. We measured useable habitat available during both the
breeding and non-breeding seasons. A stand was classified as useable for the non-breeding
season if it was available in five of the seven months from October through April. A stand was
classified as useable for the breeding season if it was useable in at least two of the five months of
the breeding period from May through September. “Not useable” habitat was all areas without
suitable cover for quail. On Sandhills Game Land, a separate evaluation of useable habitat for
Bachman’s sparrow was made on the CURE and control area based on conditions present at the
time of point count surveys in late April.
Native Warm Season Grass Research project. A graduate research project with NC State
University began in April 2009 to evaluate the wildlife benefits of grassland management
techniques in the western Piedmont. Methods include songbird territory (spot) mapping, small
8
mammal trapping, and vegetation surveys. Objectives were to compare use and benefits to
wildlife populations of native warm season grass (nwsg) fields under agricultural management,
native warm season grass fields managed exclusively for wildlife (“wildlife fields”), and exotic
cool season grass (ecsg) fields managed for agriculture. Songbird and small mammal surveys
were conducted in 7 nwsg forage fields, 7 ecsg forage fields, and 4 “wildlife” fields that
contained a mix of nwsg and forbs. In this reporting year most of the effort on this project was
dedicated to data analysis.
Results
Caswell Game Land
Breeding Songbirds. At Caswell Game Land shrubland nesters were the most abundant guild.
Indigo bunting was by far the most common shrub nesting species detected on Caswell, followed
by yellow-breasted chat and prairie warbler. The early successional forager group was
dominated by chipping sparrows and brown-headed cowbird. The grassland nester group was
entirely represented by northern bobwhite.
Since the initiation of CURE (2002-2011) there have been significant increases in early
successional foragers (+0.76 birds/10 points per year, P = 0.003), grassland nesters (+0.22
birds/10 points per year, P = 0.01), and shrub nesters (+4.76 birds/10 points per year, P =
0.00005) on the CURE area. From 2004-2011 there has been no trend (all P values > 0.13) in
counts for any of these guilds on the Frogsboro route control (Fig 1 & 2).
9
Figures 1 and 2. Relative abundance (# focal birds per 10 survey points) of early succession
songbird guilds on Caswell Game Land based on unlimited distance, five-minute counts. Habitat
enhancements were initiated in the summer of 2003. Caswell Frogsboro (control) surveys were
initiated in 2004.
Within the shrub nesting group, yellow breasted chat showed the greatest increase (13% increase
per year, Fig 3) on the CURE area since the start of management. Field sparrow, eastern towhee,
brown thrasher, indigo bunting, prairie warbler, white-eyed vireo and common yellowthroat also
had statistically significant increases in counts on the CURE area from 2002-2011. From 2004-
2011 there was a significant increase in counts of hooded warbler on the control area but no
significant trend for any other species, suggesting that the increase in most of the shrub nesting
species may be attributable to CURE management.
10
Figure 3. Yellow-breasted chat relative abundance from point count surveys, Caswell Game
Land, 2002-2011. Lines represent linear regression trend and P values are from test if slope of
line (trend) is equal to zero. The control route was started in 2004 and is located on Caswell
Game Land but off the CURE area.
Within the early successional forager guild, brown-headed cowbird had the greatest increase in
relative abundance on the CURE area since the initiation of management. There were
significantly more eastern wood-peewees detected on the CURE area compared to the control.
While timber cutting in hardwood stands had negative effects on mature forest breeding species
such as wood thrush and ovenbird at the scale of the stand (Marcus unpublished data), the count
trend for these species across the entire CURE area is similar to the trend on the reference route
(Fig 4), suggesting that the more intensive timber management is not negatively affecting
populations of forest species at the scale of the CURE area.
Figure 4. Ovenbird relative abundance from point count surveys, Caswell Game Land, 2002-
2011. Lines represent linear regression trend. Control route is located on Caswell Game Land
but off the CURE area.
P = 0.001
P = 0.16
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
# birds detected per point
Yellow-breasted chat abundance- Caswell GL
CURE
Control
Linear (CURE)
Linear (Control)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
# birds detected per point
Ovenbird abundance- Caswell GL
CURE
Control
Linear
(CURE)
Linear
(Control)
11
Winter Songbirds. Results from winter songbird strip transect surveys from 2004-2009 were
summarized. There were higher densities of wintering birds in fields, but greater diversity in
forest stands. More species were detected in pine stands than hardwood stands. A higher density
of early successional focal species (primarily sparrows & towhees) were detected in pine stands
that had been thinned or clearcut than in unmanaged pine stands, while there was no difference
in focal species between managed and unmanaged hardwood stands. There were relatively few
species of conservation concern present in winter, and most of the Wildlife Action Plan priority
species present in winter were year round residents (e.g. brown-headed nuthatch, hairy
woodpecker).
Useable Habitat. There has been a steady increase in acres of useable quail habitat in both the
breeding and non-breeding seasons since the inception of CURE (Fig 5). In 2002, only 10% of
the Caswell CURE area provided breeding habitat and 11% of the landscape was useable in the
winter. Patches of useable habitat were separated by large blocks of closed canopy forest which
are not suitable for quail. In 2011, 37% of the CURE area provided useable habitat during the
breeding season and 36% in the non-breeding season. The majority of the remaining non-useable
habitat (~60% of the landscape) consists of mature, closed canopy hardwood-dominated
stands. Caswell’s CURE goal is to establish and maintain ~51% of the area in early successional
habitat by 2012.
Figure 5. Acres of habitat suitable for quail use on Caswell Game Land CURE area, 2002-2011,
during the breeding season (left graph) and the non-breeding season (right graph). (Note:
Dashed line indicates early succession acreage goal stated in CURE area management plan.)
Northern Bobwhite. Counts of breeding northern bobwhite on the CURE area have not shown a
significant linear trend since 2002, while no significant trend has been evident on the reference
route either (Fig 6).
12
Figure 6. Counts of northern bobwhite on CURE area and reference (Rockingham County WRC
quail route). Bars represent mean of 3 repeat surveys within a year, and error bars are 2 standard
deviations above that mean.
Fall covey counts remain relatively low though counts were up in 2010 and 2011 (Fig. 7).
Figure 7. Fall covey counts on Caswell CURE area. Counts are not adjusted for detection
probability because detection formula is unreliable at low densities. Dashed line represents quail
density above which there may be enough birds for quality hunt opportunities.
Ref
P = 0.24
CURE
P = 0.27
13
Sandhills Game Land
Breeding Songbird. On the Sandhills CURE area there was a significant increase in grassland
nesters (+1.22 birds/10 survey points per year, P = 0.02) and a marginally significant increase in
shrub nesters (+1.26 birds/10 survey points per year, P = 0.07; Fig 8). There were no significant
trends for guilds on the Block B control route (Fig 9). Within the early successional forager
guild, eastern kingbird and orchard oriole showed the greatest increase on the CURE area.
Within the grass nesting guild, both quail and Bachman’s sparrows (Fig 10) increased
significantly on CURE. Within the shrub nesting guild, field sparrow, blue grosbeak, prairie
warbler and yellow-breasted chat had increasing trends on the CURE area while counts were
unchanged on the control area.
Figures 8&9. Relative abundance (# focal birds per 10 survey points) of early succession habitat
songbird guilds on Sandhills Game Land CURE and control areas based on unlimited distance,
Sandhills CURE Spring Songbird Surveys
0
10
20
30
40
Early successional
foragers
Grass nesters Shrub nesters
Focal birds/10 points
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
10
20
30
40
Early successional
foragers
Grass nesters Shrub nesters
Focal birds/10 points
Sandhills Reference Spring Songbird Surveys
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
14
five minute counts. Habitat enhancements were initiated in the summer of 2003. Surveys on
reference area were initiated in 2004.
Figure 10. Bachman’s sparrow relative abundance from point count surveys, Sandhills Game
Land, 2002-2011. Lines represent linear regression trend line. The reference route is located on
Sandhills Game Land but off the CURE area. Surveys on the reference route started in 2004.
Bachman’s Sparrows. Since 2006, counts from the point count survey on the CURE area have
been relatively stable and moderately decreasing on the control area. There is no significant
difference (P = 0.68) in the average counts on the CURE area compared to the control area,
2007-2011 combined.
Analysis of point count data using program PRESENCE indicated that there was a similar
probability of occupancy (at least one Bachman’s sparrow detected within 161m of a survey
point) on the CURE and control area. The variable that explained the most variation in the data
was the percentage of Bachman’s sparrow useable habitat within the count circle. The overall
average occupancy probability was 36.7% which was correlated with an average of 44% useable
habitat within a count circle. In order to get a 50% chance of encountering a Bachman’s sparrow
a point would need 80% useable habitat within the count circle (Fig 11). The average detection
probability was 61%. The largest influence on detection probability was temperature, although
the effect was modest. There was a high rate of year-to-year turnover in occupancy of a given
point, likely due to the timing of controlled burns at a site.
Block B (control)
P = 0.25
R² = 0.21
CURE
P = 0.02
R² = 0.50
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
# birds detected per point
Bachman's sparrow counts from all bird point counts, Sandhills
Game Land
BLOCK B
CURE
Linear (BLOCK
B)
Linear (CURE)
15
Figure 11. Relationship between Bachman’s sparrow occupancy probability and percent useable
habitat within a 161m count circle.
Winter birds. Results from winter songbird strip transect surveys from 2004-2009 were
summarized. The highest densities of wintering birds were in fields and hedgerows. Closed
canopy pine plantations raked for pine straw supported a lower density and diversity of wintering
birds than plantations that were thinned and had groundcover restored. Closed canopy, dense
drains (streamhead pocosin) supported lower density and diversity of wintering birds than drains
which were thinned and burned. Several high priority species, including Bachman’s sparrow and
red-cockaded woodpecker, are present in the non-breeding season.
Useable Habitat. Useable habitat for quail continued to increase on Sandhills Game Land (Fig
12). At the initiation of CURE in 2002, only 11% of the CURE area was useable as breeding
habitat and 20% non-breeding. In 2011, 66% of the CURE was useable breeding habitat and
46% of the landscape was suitable for quail in the non-breeding season. Most timber thinning
and herbicide applications were completed in 2007, and habitat management has entered the
“maintenance” phase, primarily with the use of prescribed fire. The location of useable habitat
shifts from year to year, with nearly half the acres burned annually on the CURE area. The
majority of the “not useable” acres (31% of area was not useable during either season) consisted
of uplands with sparse wiregrass cover. Sandhills has nearly met its CURE goal to maintain
74.7% of the CURE area in early successional habitat.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Odds of Site Occupancy
Percent Useable Habitat
Useable Habitat Influences Bachman's sparrow Occupancy
16
Figure 12. Acres of habitat suitable for quail use on Sandhills Game Land CURE area, 2002-
2011, during the breeding season (left graph) and the non-breeding season (right graph). Note:
Dashed line indicates early successional acreage goal as stated in CURE area management plan.
Northern Bobwhite. Counts of breeding quail increased in 2005 and 2006 and have
subsequently come back down close to pre-treatment levels. The trend from fall covey counts on
the CURE area is similar. However, the fall covey count may be greatly underestimating the true
population. In 2011 we conducted covey counts at 16 points with passive listening per our
standard protocol and detected 3 covies. We returned to the same points on a subsequent
morning and broadcast a covey call using MP3 players at 25 minutes before sunrise and detected
19 covies. The detection probability (Wellendorf 2000) with passive listening was 29% while
the detection probability with stimulation was 62%. Adjusting for detection probability we
calculate that there were 27 covies present or an average of 1.7 covies per point, which is above
the 1 covey per point threshold desired for hunting.
Figure 13. Counts of breeding northern bobwhite on CURE area and control route on Sandhills
Game Land from point count surveys. Bars represent mean of 3 repeat surveys within a year,
and error bars are 2 standard deviations above that mean.
17
South Mountains Game Land
Breeding Songbirds. On the South Mountains lower elevation CURE area shrub nesters were by
far the most abundant guild. There were no significant trends in counts for shrub nesters or early
successional foragers on either the CURE area (Fig 14) or BBS reference route (Fig 15).
Figure 14 and 15. Relative abundance (# focal birds per 10 survey points) of early succession
songbird guilds on South Mountains Game Land CURE area based on unlimited distance, five
minute counts. BBS counts are based on unlimited distance, 3 minute counts. Habitat
enhancements on CURE were initiated in the summer of 2003.
There was a significant decline in counts of some mature forest species such as red-eye vireo (P
= 0.001), yellow-billed cuckoo (P = 0.009), and black-throated green warbler (P = 0.038, Fig
16), though other mature forest species such as scarlet tanager showed an increasing trend (P =
0.011).
South Mountains BBS Reference Spring Songbird
Surveys
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Early successional
foragers
Grass nesters Shrub nesters
Focal birds/10 points
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
18
Figure 16. Counts of black-throated green warbler on lower elevation CURE area (“quail
CURE”, dark diamonds) and a higher elevation portion of South Mountains Game Land which
was not managed as intensively (“Grouse” CURE, light squares)
Useable Habitat. There were modest increases in useable habitat for quail on South Mountains,
though the majority of the CURE area remains not useable.
Northern Bobwhite. There is no significant trend in counts of breeding quail on South
Mountains Game Land, while we have documented a significant, steep decline in counts on the
nearby reference route (Fig 17). Counts of fall covies remain very low with no significant trend.
Figure 17. Counts of northern bobwhite on CURE area and reference (Rockingham County
WRC quail route). Bars represent mean of 3 repeat surveys within a year, and error bars are 2
standard deviations above that mean.
Suggs Mill Pond Game Land
Black-throated green warbler trend- South Mountains
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
bird detected per point
QUAIL CURE
GROUSE CURE
Linear (QUAIL
CURE)
Linear (GROUSE
CURE)
Ref
P = 0.001
19
Breeding Songbirds. On Suggs Mill Pond Game Land CURE area shrub nesters were the most
abundant guild. There were no significant trends in counts for any of the guilds or any individual
species on either the CURE area or BBS reference route (Fig. 18 & 19). High observer turnover
may have contributed to variability in long term data.
Figures 18 and 19. Relative abundance (# focal birds per 10 survey points) of early succession
habitat songbird guilds on Suggs Mill Pond Game Land CURE area based on unlimited distance,
five minute counts. Habitat enhancements were initiated in the summer of 2003. Comparisons
between BBS and CURE should be made only for count trends.
Useable Habitat. There have been substantial gains in useable habitat on Suggs since the
initiation of CURE. In 2002 only 4% of the total acreage (13% of the upland acreage) was
useable breeding habitat for quail, and in 2011 16% of the total acreage (53% of upland acreage)
was useable for quail. There was a large increase in the amount of non-breeding habitat
reported, although this had more to do with the way large pocosins were classified than with any
Suggs Mill Pond BBS Reference Spring Songbird Surveys
0
10
20
30
40
50
Early successional
foragers
Grass nesters Shrub nesters
Focal birds/10 points
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
20
habitat changes on the ground. The majority of the non-useable breeding habitat consists of
mature loblolly/pond pine forest and pocosin with inadequate herbaceous understory. Suggs
Mill Pond’s CURE goal is to establish and maintain 2,492 acres in early successional habitat by
2014.
Figure 20. Acres of breeding habitat suitable for quail at Suggs Mill Pond Game Land, 2002-
2011. Non-breeding season data is not presented because of inconsistencies in survey
methodology. Dashed line indicates early succession acreage goal stated in CURE area
management plan. Note that only ~2800 acres of Suggs Game Land is upland with potential for
CURE management. Data were not collected in 2010.
Murphy Brown Corporate CURE
Breeding Songbirds. The Murphy Brown CURE area supported very high numbers of grassland
nesters and shrub nesters. Relatively few early successional foragers were detected during point
count surveys and this guild appeared to be relatively less abundant on the CURE area than on
the BBS reference route. CURE management was initiated in 2006 and the 2003-2006 counts
can be considered pre-treatment baseline conditions while 2007-2011 can be considered post
treatment. Counts of several species were all significantly lower in the post-treatment years than
the pre-treatment years, though this may be due in part to a change in point count observers
between the pre and post treatment periods.
Winter Songbirds. The Ammon farm supports high numbers of several grassland birds in the
winter, including eastern meadowlark, savannah sparrow, and northern harrier. Field borders
and fallow fields support a higher density of sparrows than crop fields. We observed an
increasing trend in early successional focal species in forest stands under CURE management.
Useable Habitat. Murphy Brown Corporate CURE started with a large percent of the landscape
in suitable breeding habitat due to the large acreage of corn, soybean, and wheat crops. Habitat
improvements have increased the % of the landscape with breeding habitat from 55% to 75%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
acres
Suggs Mill Pond GL useable habitat-
Breeding Season
Not useable
Useable
21
(Fig 21). Increases in winter habitat have been more modest from 32% to 35%, though the
habitat was strategically placed, with linear field borders facilitating movement out of the large
crop fields after harvest and into larger blocks winter cover in the woods and pocosins.
Figure 21. Acres of habitat suitable for quail use on Murphy Brown - Ammon CURE area,
2005-2011, during the breeding season (left graph) and the non-breeding season (right graph).
Northern Bobwhite. The Murphy Brown Ammon farm supported very high densities of quail
under baseline conditions (~4 covies/point). We have not detected any change in counts from
pre to post treatment periods during either the breeding season or fall.
Piedmont Native Warm Season Grass Study
Preliminary data analyses for this study have been completed. Copied below is the abstract from
the draft thesis chapter on bird survey results (from report on contract WM-0181).
Native grasslands have declined across North America as a result of fire suppression, agricultural
conversion, and replacement by exotic cool-season grass (ecsg) pastures for livestock grazing
and hay production. Concurrently, birds dependent on fallow fields and native grass habitats
have declined. Establishment of native warm-season (nwsg) fields has been proposed as a
strategy to provide avian habitat and diversify forage production, yet monocultures of nwsg may
offer poor quality wildlife habitat. We measured territory density and reproductive effort for
eastern meadowlark (Scurnella magna), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), field
sparrow (Spizella pusilla), and indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) in 7 nwsg forage fields (4
hayed and 3 grazed), 7 ecsg forage fields (4 hayed and 3 grazed), and 3 nwsg-forb fields
managed for wildlife (i.e., reference condition) during May-August 2009 and 2010. Eastern
meadowlark territory density was greater in ecsg grazed fields than in nwsg hayed, nwsg grazed,
ecsg hayed, and reference fields and increased with field size. Grasshopper sparrow territory
density did not differ among field types but did increase with field size. Field sparrow territory
density was greater in reference fields than in all other field types, and indigo bunting territory
density was greater in nwsg hayed and reference fields than in nwsg grazed, ecsg grazed, and
ecsg hayed fields and increased with field size. Vegetation density near the ground (<0.5 m)
generally was greater in reference fields and nwsg fields than in ecsg fields. Forb percent cover
was greater in ecsg grazed and reference fields than in nwsg and ecsg hayed fields, and leaf litter
22
and thatch percent cover were greater in ecsg hayed and reference fields than in nwsg hayed
fields. Native warm-season grass monocultures with high seeding rates and rigorous haying
schedules did not provide suitable breeding habitat for grassland and shrubland songbirds.
Reduced seeding rates and late-season low intensity grazing instead of haying may increase
suitability of nwsg forage fields for songbirds.
Sharing Results and Offering Management Recommendations
Wildlife Diversity Staff presented the results of CURE surveys to 98 people including NC
Wildlife Resources Commission staff from Game Lands, Research & Surveys, Private Lands,
Wildlife Diversity, WRC administrators, NC Natural Heritage Program staff, and other interested
parties. Presentations were held at South Mountains GL, Caswell GL, Sandhills GL, Suggs
GL/Murphy Brown, and WRC headquarters in Raleigh. Following the presentations at each
Game Land, field staff discussed recommendations for future management activities, considering
the lessons learned to date. A summary of staff recommendations for each game land follows:
Suggs Mill Pond
Continue managing uplands for longleaf pine savannah ecosystem including burning,
groundcover restoration, and longleaf conversion
Introduce fire into bays when feasible
Start quail permit hunts in 2012
Sandhills
Continue managing for longleaf ecosystem & lush herbaceous groundcover
Continue to extend many management practices to rest of game land including
o Growing season fire
o Midstory control- though with modifications to make velpar herbicide
applications more patchy and limit roller chopping in sensitive herp areas
o Manage for herbaceous drains through mechanical means, herbicide, & fire
No consensus on whether to thin remaining straw sale plantations
Start quail permit hunt in 2012
Caswell
Manage for early successional habitat as component of diverse landscape, but not attempt
to create and maintain contiguous early successional habitat across entire CURE area
Adjust burn goals which are not achievable with current manpower
Maintain high value hardwood stands
Continue to aggressively manage pine stands with thinning and burning; herbicide ~2
years after planting clearcut
Thin heavily as soon as commercially viable
No consensus on future quail hunting
South Mountains
Manage for early successional habitat as component of diverse landscape, but not attempt
to create and maintain contiguous early successional habitat across entire CURE area
Allow clearcuts to grow rather than maintaining in early successional stage
Fire will be the primary management tool
Recommend removing restrictions on quail hunting and not implement permit hunt
23
Engaging birding groups to help fill information gaps
Volunteers contributed to pilot surveys for bottomland birds, eagle nest monitoring, and
reporting observations of rare species. This effort can be expanded in future years.
Planning for Future Bird Surveys
During this grant period preliminary planning was initiated for future bird survey work. Future
surveys may include a conservation status assessment of Bachman’s sparrow and Swainson’s
warbler and establishment of long-term monitoring surveys for bottomland-associated birds and
longleaf pine-associated birds.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishment
Staffing limitations within NCWRC reduced the amount of effort that was planned for this
project; however monitoring and analysis of longer-term data became more important than
establishing additional survey efforts. Essential monitoring activities occurred according to
plans and on schedule with the exception of delayed final report on the piedmont native warm
season grass study. The final report on that study is expected in early 2012.
C. Significant Deviations
None
D. Remarks
None
E. Recommendations
Useable habitat evaluations and Bachman’s sparrow, quail, and all bird point count surveys will
be continued for the foreseeable future to provide long term monitoring data. Fall covey counts
will be modified to use covey call stimulation. New status assessment surveys will be developed
in the coming year.
F. Estimated Cost
$36,622 (including in-kind match and non-federal matching contributions)
24
G. Literature Cited
Freemark, Kathryn, and Catherine Rogers. 1995. Modification of point counts for surveying
cropland birds. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149: 69-74.
Hamel, Paul B., Winston Paul Smith, Daniel J. Twedt, James R. Woehr, Eddie Morris, Robert B.
Hamilton, and Robert J. Cooper. 1996. A land manager’s guide to point counts of birds
in the Southeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-120. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 39p.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. North American Breeding Bird Survey.
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Available http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs [2009].
Wellendorf, Shane D. 2000. Factors influencing early morning covey calling in northern
bobwhites. Masters thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Prepared By: Jeffrey Marcus, Piedmont Wildlife Diversity Supervisor
Wildlife Diversity Program, Division of Wildlife Management
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
25
Final Performance Report
State: North Carolina Grant Number: T - 12
Period Covered: July 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011
Grant Title: State Wildlife Grants 08-Wildlife Management
Project Title: Surveys of Priority Amphibians and Reptiles in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain
of North Carolina
Objectives:
1. To coordinate and carry out surveys of selected reptile and amphibian populations
listed as priorities by the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan in order to clarify their
status and distribution.
2. To determine the current status of priority species’ habitat and restore habitats if
necessary.
3. To monitor reptile and amphibian populations to determine population trends.
4. To conduct research on movements, habitat use, and relationship to land use to better
elucidate factors which may be limiting populations.
5. To provide technical guidance to governmental agencies and private entities based on
findings from surveys and research.
6. To conduct management activities to enhance reptile and amphibian habitats and
populations.
A. Activity
Projects completed during FY 2010-2011 included 1) Restoration of an isolated wetland and
surrounding uplands on Sandhills Game Land to enhance amphibian breeding habitat; 2)
Monitoring of vegetation and amphibian response to isolated wetland restoration completed in
previous years; 3) Neuse River Waterdog surveys and monitoring; 3) Pine Barrens Treefrog
surveys and monitoring; 4) Gopher Frogs status surveys; and 5) Wetland enhancement and
Gopher Frogs headstarting on Holly Shelter Game Land. Additional surveys of priority species
and habitats were also conducted throughout the Piedmont, Sandhills, and Coast. A manuscript
pertaining to Gopher Frogs movement and habitat use was completed and accepted for
publication in the Journal of Herpetology (currently In Press).
Isolated Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Isolated wetlands, or upland ephemeral ponds, support a wide array of amphibian species in
North Carolina. Many species in the Sandhills and Coastal Plain (e.g., Gopher Frog, Ornate
Chorus Frog, Tiger Salamander) require open-canopied, herbaceous ponds for successful
reproduction. Because of historic fire exclusion, or problems with the timing of prescribed fire,
26
many isolated ponds that were once open-canopied have become forested. Dense canopy in these
ponds reduces herbaceous vegetation needed for amphibian egg attachment, changes the pond’s
pH, and can drastically alter the hydroperiod such that ponds dry too early in the year for
amphibian larval development to complete.
We are currently in the process of restoring degraded ponds by removing woody vegetation
through various means. In consultation with botanists, the state Division of Water Quality, and
other partners, we are developing the most effective ways to conduct restoration activities. We
have now conducted restoration work on 4 wetlands on Sandhills Game Land (in collaboration
with other Wildlife Resources Commission staff) and 5 wetlands on the Lower Coastal Plain (in
collaboration with Croatan National Forest staff). Sites are being monitored for changes in
hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation characteristics, and amphibian use.
One restoration site which had not supported any amphibians in recent history was used by a
large number of Tiger Salamanders and Eastern Spadefoots during the first breeding season after
restoration (winter 2009-10). The lack of any pond-breeding amphibian activity in the Sandhills
during the winter/spring of 2010-11 due to drought conditions made amphibian monitoring
impossible; however, we continued to monitor vegetation response using surveys and repeat
photography. An example of the vegetation response at one of our isolated wetland restoration
sites is shown below (Fig 1).
Active restoration management was begun on an additional, large isolated wetland (“Block T
pond”) on Sandhills Game Land during 2011. This site has developed a dense tree canopy over
time because of lack of appropriate fire regimes. Monitoring for 3 years has shown that few
amphibian species attempt to use the site for breeding, and successful reproduction of any
species has not been noted due to the hydroperiod being too short. In collaboration with NC
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) staff and other experts on vegetation and wildlife,
canopy trees were removed in the vicinity of the wetland. The uplands surrounding the wetland,
which consisted of dense Longleaf Pine stands used for pine straw raking, were mechanically
thinned in order to provide greater and more diverse ground cover. We are currently in the
process of seeding the uplands and areas around the wetland with native grasses and forbs to
improve habitat and so that fire will carry through the wetland more easily, maintaining an open
canopy pond. This site was surveyed for vegetation characteristics, hydrology, and amphibian
use prior to management and post-treatment monitoring will continue for at least 5 years.
27
Figure 1. Progress of an isolated, ephemeral wetland restoration project on Sandhills Game Land
in Scotland County, NC from 2008-2011. The final photograph shows the response of
herbaceous vegetation from the wetland’s seedbank after opening the canopy and re-introducing
growing-season fire. Monitoring of vegetation and amphibian colonization is ongoing.
28
Neuse River Waterdog Surveys and Monitoring
Neuse River Waterdogs (Necturus lewisi) are large, permanently aquatic salamanders that only
occur in the Tar and Neuse River drainages of central and eastern North Carolina. This species is
state listed as a Species of Special Concern, mainly because little is known about its current
status. Braswell and Ashton (1985) provided the most complete survey of N. lewisi, sampling
waterdogs at 361 sites throughout both drainages from 1978-1980. Of the 361 sites sampled
during their surveys, waterdogs were captured at 116 sites (Fig 2).
The surveys conducted in the late 1970s and 80s provide a sound baseline and excellent
opportunity for monitoring of this species. We began an effort in 2011 to survey the same sites
surveyed by Braswell and Ashton 30+ years later, using the same survey techniques, to
determine the conservation status of Neuse River Waterdogs. We deployed 10 standard minnow
traps with chicken liver as bait at previously sampled sites and checked traps at each site daily
for 4 nights, or until at least one waterdog was captured. Dipnetting surveys were also conducted
at each site. All waterdogs were measured for snout-vent length and total length, weighed, and
released at the capture site. Incidental captures of other species were also recorded and provided
to appropriate outlets.
During the winter of 2011, we surveyed 28 of the sites previously surveyed by Braswell and
Ashton, and captured waterdogs at 8 of those sites. Twenty-nine waterdogs were captured during
surveys, with a maximum of 13 captured at one site. Preliminary surveys found that waterdogs
still occur in the Tar River and several tributaries near Greenville and the Trent River near New
Bern, but surveys conducted in the upper Neuse River drainage resulted in waterdogs only being
captured in the Little River (Wake County) and Swift Creek (Johnston County), despite
considerable trapping effort in the main stem Neuse River and tributaries near Raleigh. Future
surveys of additional sites are needed to better determine where this species still remains.
Surveys for Neuse River Waterdogs will continue for at least 2 additional seasons to re-visit all
of the sites surveyed by Braswell and Ashton. We are also planning to conduct studies to address
the capture probability of waterdogs in order to provide a more accurate assessment of this
species’ status based on standardized surveys.
29
-
Fig. 3. Survey results for Neuse River Waterdogs (Necturus lewisi) conducted by NCWRC staff
and collaborators in 2011. Solid circles are positive sites; open circles are negative sites.
Tar River
Neuse River
(From Braswell and Ashton, 1985)
Fig 2
30
Pine Barrens Treefrog Surveys and Monitoring
Surveys for previously undiscovered Pine Barrens Treefrog (Hyla andersonii) sites were
conducted during the summer of 2011 on the Sandhills Game Land and adjacent land. Surveys
were conducted by listening for calling males in streamhead seepage habitat at night, usually
during rainy or wet nights in early and mid-summer. During 2011, 3 new sites with H.
andersonii were discovered on the Sandhills Game Land. All of the sites consisted of only a few
calling males.
A collaborative project between NCWRC and a doctoral student at Florida State University was
started in 2011 to assess population sizes of Pine Barrens Treefrogs on Sandhills Game Land.
Surveys were conducted at 5 sites where adult frogs were captured by hand at night. Each
individual was marked by toe-clipping and released back to the site. A total of 54 individual
frogs were captured and marked, with a maximum of 24 frogs marked at a single site/population.
Subsequent surveys to determine recapture rates of individuals will provide information about
population size and annual survival, as well as provide a baseline for monitoring and assessing
habitat management implications.
Conservation of the Gopher Frogs (Rana capito) in North Carolina: Historical versus
Current Range and Population Status – Year 2
In North Carolina, Gopher Frogs once occurred in 13 counties, from the Sandhills in the south-central
part of the state, east throughout the Coastal Plain roughly to the Pamlico River in
Beaufort County (Braswell 1993). Historically, there were 53 verified site locations from 29
different populations (populations are delineated as separated by 4 km or a major feature such as
a river), based on museum records and reports by expert herpetologists.
We visited all historic sites where Braswell (1993) reported active or “unknown status” Gopher
Frog populations in 2009-2010. We did not re-visit sites that Braswell reported as destroyed. In
addition to historic sites, we visited numerous other ponds near historic sites or in areas where
Gopher Frogs have never been documented. Surveys were conducted by egg mass counts and
tadpole surveys. During the winter/spring of 2011, we sampled for Gopher Frogs at additional
wetlands that had been identified during the previous year and re-sampled historic sites where
Gopher Frogs had not been detected during previous surveys. We specifically targeted wetland
clusters on Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point (Brunswick Co), Croatan National Forest
(Carteret Co), and land recently acquired by The Nature Conservancy near Boiling Spring Lakes
(Brunswick Co). We were unable to survey any sites in the Sandhills due to local drought
conditions.
Gopher Frogs were detected at only 2 sites on the lower Coastal Plain during 2010-2011 surveys.
One egg mass was discovered at a pond 1 km from a historically-known breeding pond on
Croatan National Forest (Carteret Co). Five egg masses were found at a historically-known
population on Holly Shelter Game Land (Pender Co). Despite surveying all historically-known
populations and nearby wetlands on Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point, Gopher Frogs were
not detected there during the most recent breeding season.
31
After year-2 of surveying for Gopher Frogs, this species still is known to occur as only 7
populations in NC, all on public land. The previously unknown breeding pond on Croatan
National Forest that was discovered during 2011 is within a cluster where a small population was
already known to occur. Drought conditions in the Sandhills and the apparently sporadic nature
of breeding on the Coastal Plain suggests that surveys for Gopher Frogs should continue for at
least another season. During the winter and spring of 2012, we plan to deploy audio recorders at
historic sites and areas where appropriate breeding habitat occurs in an attempt to better
document the status of Gopher Frogs. Automatic audio recorders may also offer some insight
into the accuracy of our survey methods at detecting populations.
Monitoring Gopher Frogs and Headstarting on Holly Shelter Game Land
Gopher Frogs in Pender County, NC are currently only known to occur at a single breeding site –
a borrow pit on Holly Shelter Game Land (Fig 4). During 2010, NCWRC staff began an effort to
enhance the site so that successful reproduction of Gopher Frogs will be likely to occur more
frequently. The main objectives for enhancement are to lengthen the hydroperiod of the pond so
that tadpoles have a greater chance of transforming to juveniles in a given year, as well as to
provide more herbaceous vegetation for egg deposition sites and to provide additional food
resources for tadpoles. Enhancement efforts started in 2009 and continued into 2011. Deepening
and re-shaping the borrow pit has resulted in a hydroperiod that now that should be appropriate
for successful Gopher Frog and other amphibian species recruitment during most years. Heavy
rains during the summer of 2011 negatively impacted our effort to increase herbaceous
vegetation in the borrow pit; however, work will continue until our objectives are met.
During the 2011 breeding season, 5 Gopher Frog egg masses were discovered, indicating that the
species still occurs at the site, but that the population of adults is likely very small. Additionally,
successful recruitment (tadpoles surviving to the juvenile stage) has not been observed at this site
for at least 3 years. Because of the suspected small population of breeding adults and lack of
recent recruitment, we began a juvenile headstarting program to ensure at least one year where
tadpoles survive to become juveniles while we continue to improve the quality of breeding
habitat at this site.
In partnership with the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher, we collected a small percentage
of the eggs from each of 5 egg masses found in the Holly Shelter borrow pit in early 2011. Eggs
were hatched at the aquarium and tadpoles were raised in large tanks until they reached
metamorphosis. In total, 275 juvenile frogs were raised and released into the uplands
surrounding the borrow pit. Each individual was marked by injecting a small amount of
fluorescent dye into the frog’s leg and between the webbing of one foot. This will allow us to
determine the success of this effort as we sample the population for breeding adults in the future.
32
Figure 4. The last known Gopher Frog breeding site in Pender County, NC occurs on Holly
Shelter Game Land. NCWRC is in the process of enhancing this borrow pit in order to provide a
longer hydroperiod and greater herbaceous vegetation cover in order for successful Gopher Frog
reproduction to occur more frequently. The photos above show the breeding site in 2009 (left)
and the site in late 2010 (right) after re-shaping the pond.
Other Activities
Piedmont Wildlife Diversity staff, along with other NCWRC staff, continued to work closely
with biologists and managers from Croatan National Forest, Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny
Point, and Camp Lejeune in order to survey for priority amphibian and reptile species and to
conduct sound management of habitat. Surveys for priority amphibians on the Coastal Plain
resulted in the continued failure to detect Ornate Chorus Frogs (Pseudacris ornata) at any sites.
Targeted surveys of historic sites for this species should be a future priority. Finally,
Diamondback Rattlesnakes (Crotalus adamanteus) were not detected at any sites outside of
Camp Lejeune, where the species is still occasionally encountered by staff on base.
Results from surveys, research, and management projects were shared with various groups in
order to inform conservation and management of priority habitats and species. During FY2010-
2011, talks were presented at the following venues: Southeastern Partners in Amphibian and
Reptile Conservation conference, C.U.R.E. update meeting at Suggs Mill Pond, NCWRC
Commissioner’s meeting, NCWRC Western Region Game Lands meeting, and Wake Audubon
Society.
Major performance indicators achieved during FY2010-2011 included:
At least 36 populations or meta-populations of priority amphibians monitored;
Four technical guidance consultations on non-NCWRC projects, including species
inventory and habitat management on Croatan National Forest, Camp Lejeune, and
Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point
Ten wetland sites managed (including collaborative wetland restoration and enhancement
projects on partner-managed and dual-managed lands);
At least 100 sites surveyed for priority species;
Increased the knowledge score of Gopher Frogs, Pine Barrens Treefrogs, and Neuse
River Waterdogs;
One peer-reviewed publication in press.
33
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishment
Isolated wetland restoration and enhancement activities will continue over a number of years,
and we will monitor the success of each project and adapt our management activities as needed.
Surveys to determine the status of Neuse River Waterdogs will continue for two additional
seasons or until all historic sites have been re-visited. Surveys for Pine Barrens Treefrogs and
mark-recapture studies will continue for an additional season. At least one addit ional season is
needed to determine the status of Gopher Frogs in the state, especially since weather conditions
were suboptimal for conducting surveys during this reporting period. Surveys for priority
amphibians and reptiles in the Piedmont will continue as appropriate.
C. Significant Deviations
None.
D. Remarks
The loss of a Coastal biologist position necessitated that Piedmont Wildlife Diversity staff work
on projects in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, and some projects that straddled both regions.
E. Recommendations
This project should continue as planned in order to meet long-term project objectives.
Wildlife Resources Commission biologists should continue collaborating with other agencies,
academic researchers, volunteers, and the general public in conducting surveys, research, and
land management activities. This would not only provide better data to our biologists, but also
help to avoid overlap in survey and research activities. Habitat restoration and protection should
be a continued focus for priority species. Additionally, status assessments of other amphibians
that use upland pools and adjacent upland habitat on the lower Piedmont and Coastal Plain
should continue.
F. Estimated Cost
$103,997 (including in-kind contributions)
G. References
Braswell, A.L. 1993. Status report on Rana capito capito Leconte, the Carolina Gopher Frogs in
North Carolina. Report to North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 53 pp.
Braswell, A.L. and R.E. Ashton, Jr. 1985. Distribution, ecology, and feeding habits of Necturus
lewisi (Brimley). Brimleyana 10:13-35.
Prepared by: Jeff Humphries, Piedmont Wildlife Diversity Biologist
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
34
Final Performance Report
State: North Carolina Grant Number: T - 12
Period Covered: July 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011
Grant Title: State Wildlife Grants 08-Wildlife Management
Project Title: Piedmont Cooperative Land Conservation Project
Objectives:
To implement the Land Conservation and Private Lands Strategies of the NC Wildlife Action
Plan collaboratively with conservation partners, particularly by working through the Greater
Uwharrie Conservation Partnership (GUCP) and the NC Sandhills Conservation Partnership
(NCSCP).
1) Coordinate and focus wildlife habitat protection efforts between land trusts, state
agencies, federal agencies, private conservation buyers, industry and other entities
through participation in and contributions to conservation partnerships.
2) Provide technical guidance to county and municipal governments, private landowners,
and other stakeholders to develop land use and management plans that will protect
important wildlife habitats and other natural resources alongside sustainable economic
growth.
3) Plan and conduct biological surveys for Wildlife Action Plan priority species and habitats
and update maps of priority natural resources.
4) Pursue land acquisition and other land conservation projects.
A. Activity
The Piedmont Cooperative Land Conservation Project has worked toward completing project
objectives, in this 5th year of the project, with the following results between July, 2010 and
September, 2011.
Coordinate and focus wildlife habitat protection efforts among conservation partners
The Piedmont Cooperative Land Conservation Project (PCLCP) helped to coordinate and
support the Greater Uwharrie Conservation Partnership (GUCP) and participated in the NC
Sandhills Conservation Partnership (NCSCP). Participation in these partnerships helped lead to
results reported under objectives 2 -5. The Greater Uwharrie Conservation Partnership (GUCP)
Forum and Steering Committee met once and working groups met 10 times on various projects.
The Sandhills Conservation Partnership steering committee met 4 times and the working groups
met 6 times. The GUCP expanded relationships with NC Division of Forest Resources and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The web page for the GUCP was improved
this year. A basic wiggio.com file sharing website was developed and is being used by 5
partners. Active information exchange occurred on the GUCP and NCSCP email lists.
35
Promote better land use planning and development ordinances informed by biological data
Land use planning technical guidance was provided to local governments in the Uwharries and
Sandhills through use of the Green Growth Toolbox (GGT), a technical assistance tool for
sharing conservation data and planning recommendations with local governments. GGT
implementation efforts were coordinated closely with the Urban Wildlife project, and full results
for GGT efforts are included in the Urban Wildlife 2010 - 2011 report.
Provide technical guidance on priority wildlife habitat conservation.
WRC staff continued serving on the Land Trust for Central NC (LTCNC) Land Protection
and Stewardship Committees. WRC input has resulted in a greater emphasis on habitat
stewardship and a change in LTCNC philosophy regarding the relative priority of
stewardship. Habitat management and conservation considerations are being integrated in to
LTCNC accreditation documents that guide their actions and criteria.
5 Landowner participants at last year’s NC Tree Farm Workshop participated in fire training
at Montgomery Community College.
Technical guidance by WRC to a major local timber company led to improved habitat
conservation planning for G1 and G2 (globally rare) ranked species. This timber company is
also interested in training their staff on small wetlands buffers.
A landowner of a GUCP priority area that WRC surveyed made plans to conserve and
connect priority habitats after consultation between WRC and their forester.
A survey was completed on 140 acres to assess the presence of priority habitats and
landowner eligibility for the Wildlife Conservation Lands Program (WCLP). The landowner
was also referred to the Land Trust for Central NC.
A presentation at a NC Division of Forest Resources regional meeting resulted in Significant
Natural Heritage Area data being available on the virtual workroom and accessible to
consulting foresters working with private landowners to include in their forest management
plans.
The GUCP Stewardship committee completed a landowner technical assistance resources
brochure to provide at events and send to landowners. WRC included the brochure in
landowner reports for the Uwharrie Wildlife Inventory.
2 GUCP partner organizations were trained on how to conduct Uwharrie Wildlife Inventory
and WCLP surveys.
WRC and the GUCP provided technical guidance on bog habitat management to 3 private
landowners (owning 15,000 acres) and the Uwharrie National Forest (UNF) during the
Uwharrie Bogs Tour. Ten GUCP partner organizations participated in a field tour of bogs to
form agreement on their status and management. Two landowners and the UNF are now
actively managing bog habitat.
WRC created a field guide for GUCP target herpetofauna identification for conservation
partners to use in the field.
36
Land acquisition and other forms of habitat protection.
The NCWRC provided technical guidance, information, coordinated communications and
planning assistance to our partners that contributed to conservation of priority NC WAP habitats
including:
The purchase of 180 acres of the King Mountain tract by WRC was completed.
The purchase of 219 acres of the Harmon tract was completed by WRC and added to
Sandhills Game Land.
The purchase of 16.2 acre Carpenter tract was completed by The Nature Conservancy with
transfer to WRC pending for inclusion in Sandhills Game Land.
The Nature Conservancy purchased 805 acres in the Sandhills for Carver’s Creek State Park.
The Sandhills Area Land Trust conserved ~200 acres in northern Moore County for habitat
conservation and to provide training lands for the military.
At the close of this grant period the purchase of the 543ac Martin Marietta tract and the 42.5
acre Futrell tract were pending by The Nature Conservancy. Both these properties will be
transferred to WRC for addition to Sandhills Game Land.
In addition to projects mentioned above, WRC staff are currently working with LTCNC and
The Nature Conservancy to pursue the purchase of up to approximately 1135 acres in 5 tracts
in the Uwharries and Sandhills to add to Game Lands.
The NC Zoo received a funding commitment to purchase 80 acres of the Arnett Branch
(Nichols) old growth longleaf pine forest but funds are not currently available for
disbursement due to state budget cuts. Alternative funding is being sought.
WRC surveys and support assisted LTCNC in the purchase of 400 acres at the confluence of
the Yadkin and South Yadkin Rivers. The tract contains early successional, wetland and
mature hardwood forest and floodplain forest habitats.
LTCNC are managing 195 new acres to maintain early successional and contiguous
hardwood forest priority wildlife habitats.
Surveys, data collection and priorities assessment for wildlife species and habitats.
WRC continued to train and collaborate with conservation partners to collect data on priority
species and habitat locations to identify priority conservation projects.
WRC compiled and completed a database to document observations of GUCP target and NC
Wildlife Action Plan priority species. The database was made available to the GUCP for
partners to update with their records. The database is comprised of 1849 new records that
will aid in conservation planning.
Data is contributing to a WRC assessment of fox squirrel population status in the Uwharries.
The GUCP participated in a winter survey for rusty blackbirds. None were observed.
Uwharrie Wildlife Inventory
WRC designed and conducted this project with the goal to inventory priority habitats, to assess
habitat condition and document priority species occurrences primarily on private lands.
Properties with high potential for occurrence of priority species, as identified by the GUCP
37
conservation target map, were contacted for permission to conduct surveys. Survey protocols
included fixed effort surveys for birds, reptiles, and amphibians, in addition to habitat
evaluations and recording incidental observations of all Wildlife Action Plan priority species.
Landowner reports were drafted, but due to personnel changes have only been finalized and sent
to 2 out of 24 landowners.
Wildlife surveys were conducted by a field technician with the aid of 3 GUCP partners on 24
privately-owned priority lands. In June a population of Swainson’s warblers was documented on
the Pee Dee River between Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake during 2 river transect bird
surveys. Thirty-two tin cover board arrays were surveyed once for reptiles and amphibians on
two Land Trust properties, one private property and the Uwharrie National Forest and yielded
only 1 new record for a marbled salamander. The landowner is collecting survey data for WRC,
but no priority reptiles have been observed to date.
Road cruising herpetofauna surveys were conducted during September, October and February
through May and covered 734 miles yielding 60 new records of priority species (3 timber
rattlesnake, 1 corn snake, 2 mole king snake, 2 mole salamander, 47 spotted salamander, 5
marbled salamander).
Summary results from the Uwharrie Wildlife Inventory are as follows.
166 priority species records were documented including: 16 bird, 6 reptile, 3 amphibian, and
2 mammal species.
One new population of mole salamanders was documented at a small wetland on private
land.
Strong relationships were formed with 4 new landowners and the Land Trust was connected
with 3 landowners.
Measures of Success
NCWRC Measures of Success
4 key landowner relationships formed in GUCP priority areas.
817 acres of land permanently protected with WRC technical guidance.
1 Green Growth Toolbox workshop attended by 6 land use planners and GIS staff in
Davidson County.
1 new local government downloaded Green Growth Toolbox GIS data.
1 local government received technical guidance and written recommendations in 3
technical guidance requests.
County-wide zoning district document which included GGT recommendations was
adopted by the Anson County Board of Commissioners.
3 new local government working relationships formed.
Presentations on priority wildlife conservation given to over 40 consulting foresters
and state foresters working with private landowners.
215 additional records added to the GUCP conservation target map database
24 new private land sites surveyed for priority species and habitats.
38
GUCP Partner Measures of Success (2009-2011)
2965 acres permanently protected that improve conservation for priority species.
798 acres of priority habitat enhancement on permanently protected land.
132 new landowner relationships.
13 strong working relationships with local government representatives.
$3,330,000 of state, $873,000 of federal and $1,765,000 of local and private funding
directed to land conservation in the region.
95 sites surveyed for GUCP conservation targets.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishment
The scale and pace of achievements and accomplishment was less than anticipated, however
targets have been achieved and will continue to be pursued.
C. Significant Deviations
NCWRC staffing changes and state-imposed hiring delays resulted in diminished capacity to
focus upon this project in the latter half of the period. The results being that we spent less than
originally anticipated upon staff time to coordinate, communicate, provide technical guidance,
and conduct surveys for priority species and habitats. However, those capacity issues did not
alter the course or content of the project in significant ways and overall the project was
successful in meeting objectives.
D. Remarks
None
E. Recommendations
This project should be continued.
F. Estimated Cost
$47,290 (including in-kind contributions)
Prepared By:
Kacy Cook
Land Conservation Biologist
Wildlife Diversity Program, Division of Wildlife Management
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
39
Final Performance Report
State: North Carolina Grant Number: T - 12
Period Covered: July 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011
Grant Title: State Wildlife Grants 08-Wildlife Management
Project Title: Urban Wildlife Project
Objectives:
The main goal of the Urban Wildlife Project has been to help North Carolina’s communities
proactively conserve important species, habitats, and ecosystems alongside urban development.
Project objectives include:
To provide proactive technical guidance to local governments on how to plan for growth
in a way that will conserve important species and habitats alongside development.
To provide technical guidance to local governments on how to improve inventory,
mapping, and management of priority species and habitats on parks and open space
properties.
To participate in partnership efforts to achieve conservation of species and habitats in
urbanizing areas.
To provide technical guidance to developers on how to create wildlife-friendly
development projects.
A. Activity
Proactive Technical Guidance to Local Governments
The Urban Wildlife Project has continued to provide proactive technical guidance to local
governments. During the reporting period, staff provided technical guidance on the following
projects:
Anson County Zoning Districts.
A Green Infrastructure Plan by the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation and
the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments for the entire northern NC Piedmont.
The Davidson County Lower Abbots Creek Watershed Plan.
An effort of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the NC Natural
Heritage Program, US Army Corps of Engineers and the Conservation Trust for NC to
coordinate recommendations among agencies and to coordinate between local
governments with jurisdiction along Jordan and Falls Lakes Game Lands. The goal is for
state and federal agencies with jurisdiction in Jordan and Falls Lake Game Lands to
support each other’s conservation recommendations and to inform local governments of
40
priority conservation areas adjacent to Game Lands that will lead to more proactive
conservation-based policies in these priority areas.
Continued input on the Horseshoe Farm Park planning effort with the City of Raleigh.
Short and long-term outcomes from project efforts are being noted where possible. On-the-ground
outcomes often take years to become apparent. However, we are beginning to see long-term
results and the following outcomes have emerged in this reporting year:
The Anson County Zoning Districts incorporated GGT recommendations for
conservation of priority habitats and were adopted by the County Board of
Commissioners. The Districts include a Conservation Overlay of priority wildlife
habitats, a Resource Conservation District and a Floodplain Protection Overlay. These
policies and the design of other zoning districts encourage most growth to occur near
town centers, discourage major development in the floodplain and conservation overlay
areas and encourage wildlife corridors.
Comments on the Aydan Court project in Orange County, subsequent communication
with the Chapel Hill Planning Department and public pressure resulted in denial of the
rezoning request for this land adjacent to Jordan Game Lands. Impacts to the waterfowl
impoundments were cited among the reasons for the decision. Granting the rezoning
would have set a precedent of allowing intense development in areas zoned for low
density development adjacent to the Game Lands.
The Raleigh City Council approved a park concept that will conserve 146 acres as early
successional and floodplain forest priority wildlife habitat in Horseshoe Farm Park.
NCWRC staff began providing recommendations on this project in 2005.
The Wake County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved purchase and
transferred easements on 211 acres of the Vick tract with funds from the Trust for Public
Land. NCWRC staff is working through the Wake Nature Preserves Partnership to
provide guidance on priority habitat management.
NCWRC is working with Davidson County to plan a Watershed Summit for the county.
Participation in conservation partnership efforts
The Land Conservation Biologist continued to participate in and support regional conservation
partnership efforts. During this reporting year, the Urban Wildlife Project:
Participated in meetings of the Chatham Conservation Partnership
Obtained a signed Memorandum of Understanding between NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and the Wake Nature Preserves Partnership (WNPP) and participated in
activities of the WNPP.
Our participation in these conservation partnerships has resulted in successful trust
building and training of partnership member organizations on priority habitat
conservation.
Outcomes from these partnership efforts include:
The first countywide Comprehensive Conservation Plan in North Carolina was completed
by the Chatham County Conservation Partnership. The County has yet to officially adopt
the plan.
41
Completion and public release of new GIS data layers mapping the location of Wildlife
Action Plan priority habitats in Chatham County. This GIS data is updated by Natural
Heritage Program staff.
Wake Nature Preserves Partnership led the official dedication of the first “Nature
Preserve” (Turnipseed Nature Preserve) City Park by the City of Raleigh.
WNPP completed a habitat management plan for 1,000 acres of protected open space
along Marks Creek in eastern Wake County. The goal is for the “Marks Creek project”
to serve as a pilot through which a process will be refined to inventory and develop
habitat management plans for other parks and open spaces across Wake County.
Implementation of the Green Growth Toolbox (GGT)
One of the Urban Wildlife Project’s focal efforts during the period has been coordinating
implementation of the Green Growth Toolbox. The Green Growth Toolbox is a technical
assistance tool designed to help local governments plan for growth in a way that will minimize
impacts of development on priority habitats and species. During the past year, the Urban
Wildlife Project:
Administered and completed a $200,000 grant to 3 Non-profit organizations from the
Wildlife Conservation Society’s Wildlife Action Opportunities Fund to expand
implementation of the Green Growth Toolbox across the state of North Carolina over 2
years.
Provided additional training and support to staff with the NC Coastal Land Trust, Land of
Sky Regional Council, and Sustainable Sandhills to complete and release regional GGT
datasets and appendices, provide regional GGT training workshops, and deliver GGT
technical guidance in their regions.
NCWRC lead Green Growth Toolbox workshops in Davidson County and at Elon
University and assisted external partners with workshops in the Southern Appalachians,
Harnett County, and Brunswick and Columbus Counties and their major municipalities.
Prepared a joint panel presentation on economic benefits of conservation-based planning
to the NC Association of the American Planning Institute annual meeting with Land of
Sky Regional Council, Fort Bragg Regional Alliance, Sustainable Sandhills and NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Delivered presentations on the Green Growth Toolbox to approximately 270 stakeholders
(planners, elected officials, developers, resource professionals) around the state during
NC Wildlife Action Plan Stakeholder meetings and at a quarterly meeting of the state’s
Rural (transportation) Planning Organizations hosted by the NC Department of
Transportation.
Defenders of Wildlife reviewed and provided suggestions for updates to the GGT that
would focus on incorporating climate change. NCWRC conducted literature reviews for
updates to the GGT handbook and website.
Responded to inquiries and communicated with various stakeholders about the project.
Outcomes from the activities listed above include:
Staff from three partner organizations (NC Coastal Land Trust, Land of Sky Regional
Council – LOSRC, and Sustainable Sandhills) delivered 14 workshops to 45 local
governments and trained 162 land use planners, GIS staff and elected officials and 15
42
non-governmental and state or federal government staff on how to conserve priority
wildlife habitats through land use planning. We have now trained or reached 13 of the 16
Councils of Government in the state.
Green Growth Toolbox technical guidance is being provided by partners and NCWRC to
21 local governments on 30 GIS mapping, land use plan, ordinance and development
projects.
The Green Growth Toolbox forms a basis of the Fort Bragg Regional Sustainable Growth
Management Strategy and we are collaborating with LOSRC to encourage the Western
NC Councils of Government to pursue Green Infrastructure plans.
The Green Growth Toolbox partners that were funded under the Wildlife Conservation
Society grant are continuing to collaborate to implement the GGT after completion of the
grant. Sustainable Sandhills and Land of Sky Regional Council have secured their own
funding sources to continue GGT implementation.
Over 4,000 unique visitors used and explored the Green Growth Toolbox website.
Technical guidance to developers
While the Urban Wildlife Project’s main focus has been on providing technical guidance to local
governments, guidance has been provided to developers where requested. This past year,
technical guidance included:
The Urban Wildlife Project contributed to the development of the Wildlife Friendly
Development certification program.
NCWRC commented on a proposed 1,800 acre golf course development and rezoning in
West End, NC that would take place in a mature longleaf pine forest.
NCWRC conducted a wildlife inventory in partnership with the Natural Heritage
Program for a 350 acre Spring Hill tract south of Lexington in Davidson County and
provided the landowner, who may develop the tract, with conservation recommendations
and habitat maps.
Results from technical guidance on development projects that occurred during this reporting
period —
The University of North Carolina agreed not to develop the Rizzo Center on a
Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) adjacent to Jordan Game Lands citing
impacts to the SNHA and the Game Lands.
A verbal commitment from the Spring Hill landowner to consider a conservation
easement and a wildlife friendly development at the appropriate time.
Terrestrial Habitat Conservation Recommendations project (THCR)
During the project period, final edits, graphics and a statement of intent for the THCR document
were completed. The document is under review for endorsement by the NCWRC
Commissioners. The draft document was shared with some NCWRC biologists and
conservation partners for use on their habitat conservation projects.
43
Model Wildlife Habitat Protection Ordinance Project
NCWRC and the Duke Nicholas Institute are collaborating to create a model wildlife habitat
protection ordinance. NCWRC provided technical guidance to the Senior Attorney of the Duke
Nicholas Institute on the draft model ordinance this year. A draft of the Model Wildlife Habitat
Protection Ordinance was completed and shared with over 30 land use planners, the UNC School
of Government, NCWRC staff and conservation partner organizations for comment. A key to
success of the model ordinance is that it meets the needs of local governments that wish to adopt
language or that wish to adopt their own habitat protection ordinances. We are consulting with
the Town of Navassa near Wilmington and are also providing technical guidance to them in
creating their own wildlife habitat protection ordinance. The next phase of the model ordinance
project will be to incorporate comments from reviewers and to update the ordinance based on
what we learn from research conducted for the Navassa ordinance.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishment
Green Growth Toolbox implementation and related initiatives have met benchmarks for
achievement and the project remains on schedule. Within the next year we intend to have more
information on the effectiveness of this approach to land conservation, and the entire project will
be evaluated over the next 2 years to determine future directions, to ensure the most effective and
efficient use of resources
C. Significant Deviations
None
D. Remarks
None
E. Recommendations
We recommend that this project be continued for the coming year.
F. Estimated Cost:
$260,368 (including in-kind contributions)
Prepared By:
Kacy Cook
Land Conservation Biologist
Wildlife Diversity Program, Division of Wildlife Management
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
44
Final Performance Report
State: North Carolina Grant Number: T – 12
Period Covered: July 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011
Grant Title: State Wildlife Grants 08-Wildlife Management
Project Title: Coastal Region Landbird Investigations
Objectives:
1. Conduct surveys, monitoring, management, and research for priority landbird
species occurring in the Coastal Plain ecoregion of North Carolina.
2. Provide technical assistance to government agencies and private entities regarding
status, conservation, and management of priority landbird species in the coastal
plain ecoregion and to participate in regional conservation partnerships and
planning efforts.
A. Activity
During the reporting period, the NCWRC wildlife biologist continued landbird monitoring in the
Coastal Plain, which consisted of several species-specific surveys (Bachman’s Sparrow,
Cerulean Warbler, Henslow’s Sparrow), as well as more broad-based and regional efforts (early
successional bird surveys, Breeding Bird Survey, Monitoring Avian Productivity and
Survivorship Program, Nightjar Survey Network, and fall migration banding). In addition, a new
southeastern Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) working group was established, and several
RCW Safe Harbor Agreements have been drafted for new properties.
Landbird monitoring
Bachman’s Sparrow
Bachman’s Sparrows (Peucaea aestivalis) were once considered common in many areas of the
southeastern US but are now a species of management concern throughout most of its present
day range (Dunning 2006). During the 2011 breeding season, surveys for Bachman’s Sparrows
were performed on both private and public property in four southeastern NC counties: Bladen,
Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender. Surveys were carried out on private lands enrolled in the
RCW Safe Harbor Program and preserves owned by The Nature Conservancy (Green Swamp
Ecological Preserve and Boiling Spring Lakes Plant Conservation Preserve), and on public lands
in Bladen Lakes State Forest and Holly Shelter Game Land (HSGL).
To increase detectability in the field and help guide future sampling efforts, suitable Bachman
Sparrow habitat (Haggerty 1998, Tucker et al. 2006) was modeled with the Mahalanobis distance
(D2) statistic using ArcMap 9.3 and the Land Facet Corridor extension (ESRI 2009, Jenness et al.
45
2010). Locations of Bachman’s Sparrows detected during surveys from the 2010 breeding
season and macro-habitat variables derived from the 30-m2 Southeast GAP land cover data set
(USGS 2008) and 6-m2 footprint Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data (Newcomb and
Mitasova 2009) were the basis of the analysis. Only variables not highly correlated (r < 0.75)
were accepted for modeling and included: distance to nearest upland longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris) pixel, percent longleaf pine, habitat patch size > 6 acres, percent canopy cover, variety
of landcover types, maximum canopy height, and canopy height standard deviation.
Fig. 1. Locations of point count stations used in Bachman’s Sparrow (BACS) surveys, May-
June, 2011. BACS were encountered only at the Green Swamp (n = 6) and Holly Shelter (n = 1).
The resulting grid was reclassified to retain only those cells with values ≤ one standard deviation
of the mean D2 of Bachman Sparrow locations from 2010 and clipped to areas managed with
prescribed fire and/or basal area thinning. Secondary and tertiary roads were digitized from
2010 1-m2 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery in ArcGIS 9.3, and 50 points
46
were randomly stratified along this network ensuring that each of the aforementioned properties
were sampled from.
Counts did not extend beyond 9:30 am and were divided into two three-minute periods followed
by three minutes of P. aestivalis playback, which alternated between 30 second intervals of
broadcast and passive listening. Distance and bearing to Bachman’s Sparrows recorded during
counts were later used to estimate basal area in approximate locations of bird use.
A total of 48 point count stations were visited once from May 24 to June 24, 2011 (Fig 1).
Bachman’s Sparrows were encountered only in HSGL (n = 1) and Green Swamp Ecological
Preserve (n = 6). Of the seven detections, three males were detected during the first three minute
period, while the remaining four individuals (three males and one juvenile) were detected during
playback. The mean basal area for used habitat was 46.25 ft2/acre.
The number of Bachman’s Sparrows detected at Holly Shelter in 2011 was strikingly fewer than
the eighteen encountered in 2010. There were fewer surveys performed at the game land in 2011
(n = 20) as in 2010 (n = 80). Furthermore, Bachman’s Sparrows appear to be restricted to the
southern 1/3 of the game land where only ten surveys were conducted in 2011 versus 26 in 2010.
Although the use of GIS to identify P. aestivalis habitat a priori was beneficial by eliminating
some field reconnaissance, the models were certainly affected by the reliance on antiquated
spatial data layers, which must be updated for future use.
Cerulean Warbler
The NCWRC, in collaboration with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), organized a
survey for Cerulean Warblers (Dendroica cerulea) along the Roanoke River in May 2011. This
species has been inadequately monitored in the Coastal Plain’s Roanoke River Basin since
territorial males were discovered there in 1972 (Lynch 1973). Recent range-wide estimates
suggest that the already troubled Cerulean Warbler’s situation has worsened with a 4.6% decline
per year from 2003-2008 and 8.9% decline from 2007-2008 (Ziolkowski et al. 2010). Because
of this, as well as our lack of knoweldge regarding the Cerulean population’s present state along
the Roanoke, the objectives were to: (1) estimate the Cerulean Warbler’s current population size
and distribution along the river by surveying for singing males, and (2) evaluate changes in land
cover in the Roanoke River Basin to help explain trends in their abundance and distribution.
Our efforts were concentrated along roughly 100 miles of the Roanoke River from Weldon to the
outlet of Conine Creek east of Williamston in northeast North Carolina. This area corresponds to
that portion of the river surveyed during the most recent and comprehensive censuses to date
(Lynch 1981, J. Richter, USFWS, unpublished report). NCWRC staff, along with eight
volunteers, surveyed for singing Cerulean Warbler males from May 14-15 and May 28-29 in
2011. Surveys were conducted primarily by boat; however, several areas inaccessible by boat
adjacent to the river were also investigated on foot.
Observations began at sunrise and ended at approximately 11:00 am. We recorded all species
seen or heard as well as the total number of Brown-headed Cowbirds detected during encounters
with Cerulean Warblers. Playback of a conspecific D. cerulea song was periodically used to
47
elicit the response of males on most but not all routes. We revisited Cerulean hotspots during the
second survey weekend and considered encounters independent if the nearest Cerulean neighbor
was >100 m away (Robbins et al. 2010). Recreational grade Global Positioning System (GPS)
units were used to record approximate locations of Cerulean males.
ArcGIS version 9.3 was used to evaluate land cover change from 2001-2006 for a portion of the
Roanoke River Basin. Change was examined at both small and large scales using a 10000 km2
area centered on the mean geographic distribution of the entire Cerulean Warbler population
(36.23° N, -77.37° W) as well 100 km2
areas centered on clusters of Cerulean encounters. The
basis for our analysis was the 30 m2 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) from 2001 to 2006.
Fig. 2. Locations of Cerulean Warbler males detected on survey along the Roanoke River, May
2011. Land cover from National Land Cover Dataset 2006.
48
Change Index (USGS EROS 2011). We focused our analysis on loss of deciduous forest and
woody wetlands because of the Cerulean Warbler’s preference for these habitats (Lynch 1981).
We detected a total of 24 Cerulean Warbler males (19 on May 14-15, and five on May 28-29)
and tallied a total of 99 species (Fig. 2, Table 1). This was at least 32.4% fewer Cerulean
Warbler males than detected during a similar study performed in 2001 (J. Richter, USFWS,
unpublished data). Cerulean Warblers were found in three distinct, spatially clustered groups
along the Roanoke River, and most were found in areas associated with levee forests dominated
by green ash (F. pennsylvanicus), sweetgum (L. styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
and red and silver maples (Acer rubrum and A. saccharinum).
Both deciduous forest and woody wetland habitat were lost between the years 2001 and 2006
(Fig. 3). The most common and abundant conversion was to cultivated crops, which increased by
6490 ha within 10000 km2 surrounding the entire cerulean population, and by a total of 148 ha
within three 100 km2 centered on Cerulean Warbler clusters. Very little habitat was replaced
with developed land at either scale.
Several regions on the periphery of the Cerulean Warbler’s core range have reported recent
declines, including Ontario (Environment Canada 2011), Alabama (J.P.C. pers. obs.), Maryland
(P. Stengo, Maryland Department of Natual Resources, pers. comm.), Delaware (Breeding Bird
Atlas Explorer 2011), Connecticut (G. Krukar, Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, pers. comm.) and Oklahoma (Cavalieri et al. 2011). More research is
needed along the Roanoke River to confirm that the apparent decline there is growing.
Table 1. Bird species and percentage of routes (n = 11) detected during surveys along the
Roanoke River, from May 14-15 and May 28-29 2011. Bold type indicates priority species.
Common name
% of
routes
Common name
% of
routes
Acadian Flycatcher 100.0 House Wren 9.1
American Crow 100.0 Indigo Bunting 90.9
American Goldfinch 45.5 Kentucky Warbler 45.5
American Redstart 81.8 Killdeer 9.1
American Robin 27.3 Least Sandpiper 18.2
Anhinga 18.2 Louisiana Waterthrush 36.4
Bald Eagle 45.5 Mallard 9.1
Barn Swallow 45.5 Mississippi Kite 45.5
Barred Owl 45.5 Mourning Dove 81.8
Belted Kingfisher 36.4 Nashville Warbler 9.1
Black Vulture 45.5 Northern Bobwhite 27.3
Black-and-white Warbler 9.1 Northern Cardinal 90.9
Black-crowned Night-Heron 9.1 Northern Flicker 36.4
Blackpoll Warbler 18.2 Northern Mockingbird 9.1
49
Black-throated Blue Warbler 18.2 Northern Parula 81.8
Blue Grosbeak 90.9 N. Rough-winged Swallow 45.5
Blue Jay 72.7 Northern Waterthrush 9.1
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 100.0 Orchard Oriole 45.5
Blue-winged Teal 9.1 Osprey 36.4
Boat-tailed Grackle 9.1 Ovenbird 45.5
Brown Thrasher 36.4 Pileated Woodpecker 72.7
Brown-headed Cowbird 81.8 Pine Warbler 45.5
Canada Goose 45.5 Prairie Warbler 27.3
Canada Warbler 9.1 Prothonotary Warbler 100.0
Carolina Chickadee 100.0 Red-bellied Woodpecker 100.0
Carolina Wren 100.0 Red-eyed Vireo 100.0
Cattle Egret 9.1 Red-shouldered Hawk 72.7
Cedar Waxwing 9.1 Red-tailed Hawk 27.3
Cerulean Warbler 45.5 Red-winged Blackbird 9.1
Chimney Swift 72.7 Rock Pigeon 9.1
Chipping Sparrow 36.4 Ruby-throated Hummingbird 54.5
Common Grackle 72.7 Scarlet Tanager 45.5
Common Yellowthroat 63.6 Spotted Sandpiper 36.4
Double-crested Cormorant 45.5 Summer Tanager 100.0
Downy Woodpecker 100.0 Swainson's Warbler 72.7
Eastern Bluebird 27.3 Tree Swallow 9.1
Eastern Kingbird 36.4 Tufted Titmouse 100.0
Eastern Phoebe 9.1 Turkey Vulture 72.7
Eastern Towhee 27.3 Warbling Vireo 9.1
Eastern Wood-Pewee 90.9 White-breasted Nuthatch 63.6
European Starling 18.2 White-eyed Vireo 100.0
Field Sparrow 9.1 Wild Turkey 54.5
Fish Crow 54.5 Wood Duck 36.4
Gray Catbird 18.2 Wood Thrush 72.7
Great Blue Heron 54.5 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 81.8
Great Crested Flycatcher 81.8 Yellow-breasted Chat 36.4
Great Egret 36.4 Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 18.2
Green Heron 27.3 Yellow-throated Vireo 54.5
Hairy Woodpecker 36.4 Yellow-throated Warbler 63.6
Hooded Warbler 90.9
50
Fig. 3. Total hectares of land converted from deciduous forest or woody wetlands to other land
cover types in the lower Roanoke River Basin, 2001-2006. Analyses confined to a single 10000
km2 area centered on the entire Cerulean Warbler population (left) and three 100 km2 areas
centered on Cerulean Warbler clusters (right).
Henslow’s Sparrow
The Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) occupies an extremely restricted breeding
range in North Carolina with only two known breeding populations, both of which occur at
Voice of America (VOA) broadcasting sites A and B in Beaufort and Pitt Counties, respectively
(Lynch and LeGrand 1985). These areas represent two of the largest, contiguous, early
successional grassland habitats in North Carolina and are considered Significant Natural
Heritage Areas by the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCDENR 2009). Breeding Henslow’s
Sparrows are seldom encountered elsewhere in North Carolina because they require grassland-like
habitat patches greater than 100 hectares with heterogeneously structured vegetation
(Herkert 1994, Pruitt 1996). Open, herbaceous land cover is extremely scarce in North Carolina
and represented only 2.9% of the landscape in 2001 (USGS 2008).
51
Fig. 4. Locations of Henslow’s Sparrows detected (n = 33) during point counts conducted at
Voice of America site A in Beaufort County, NC, May 2011. Survey path used to inventory
plants and invertebrates only.
52
USFWS records suggest that the VOA sites support the largest breeding Henslow’s Sparrow
populations in the southeastern United States (USFWS 2009). According to censuses conducted
at both sites by J. S. Wright from 1994-2000, 2005 and 2007, an average of 135 singing males
were encountered, which fluctuated from 98 to 200 detections (J. S. Wright, unpublished data).
Fig. 5. Total number of Henslow’s sparrows detected at Voice of America broadcasting sites A
and B near Greenville, NC. Asterisk (*) denotes different survey technique.
Due to the absence of any formal survey of Henslow’s since 2007, NCWRC staff and three
volunteers inventoried the plant and animal communities of VOA site A (35.699° N, -77.148°
W) from May 16-18, 2011. We documented all plants and animals encountered but placed
emphasis on estimating the population size of Henslow’s Sparrow. Point count stations were
placed a minimum of 500 m apart along tertiary roads and fire lines within the property;
however, several stations were also placed within the interior of the complex to increase
detectability away from such corridors (Fig. 4). Nine-minute counts were divided into three
equal intervals and did not extend beyond 9:30 am. Distance and bearing to all encountered
Henslow’s Sparrow males were estimated with a laser range finder and compass. Observers also
tallied all other species encountered using the property during counts.
A total of 104 plant (trees/shrubs, vines, and herbs) and 58 animal (birds [Table 2], amphibians,
and invertebrates) species was documented within the VOA site A property boundary. We
performed 45 point counts and detected 33 Henslow��s Sparrow males including one singing from
an adjacent, regenerating pine clear-cut. This estimate is markedly lower than previous surveys
(Fig. 5) and warrants further investigation of this population.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2005
2007
2011*
No. Henslow's Sparrow
Year
Site A Site B
53
Table 2. Bird species and percentage of counts (n = 45) detected on during surveys on Voice of
America site A, May 2011. Bold type indicates priority species.
Common name % of counts Common name % of counts
American Crow 33.3 Grasshopper Sparrow 24.4
American Goldfinch 2.2 Henslow's Sparrow 46.7
Bald Eagle 2.2 Indigo Bunting 2.2
Barn Swallow 6.7 Killdeer 11.1
Brown-headed Cowbird 4.4 Mourning Dove 66.7
Blue Grosbeak 22.2 Northern Bobwhite 44.4
Brown Thrasher 2.2 Northern Cardinal 2.2
Chimney Swift 20.0 Northern Harrier 2.2
Common Grackle 20.0 Northern Mockingbird 2.2
Common Nighthawk 6.7 Purple Martin 13.3
Common Yellowthroat 11.1 Red-bellied Woodpecker 2.2
Eastern Bluebird 15.6 Rock Pigeon 2.2
Eastern Kingbird 6.7 Red-tailed Hawk 4.4
Eastern Meadowlark 88.9 Ruby-throated Hummingbird 4.4
Eastern Towhee 4.4 Red-winged Blackbird 37.8
European Starling 33.3 Turkey Vulture 4.4
Fish Crow 20.0 Yellow-breasted Chat 2.2
Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS)
The MAPS program is a continent-wide network of constant-effort mist netting stations operated
cooperatively by public agencies, private organizations, and independent banders (DeSante et al.
2010). The resulting banding data provides critical information relating to the ecology,
conservation, and management of North American landbird populations.
Due to a low number of captures in 2010, a new banding station was established in the Green
Swamp Ecological Preserve approximately 5 km north of last year’s station. The new site is
characterized by longleaf pine savanna bordered by pocosin and a 2-hectare man-made pond.
Eight standard size (12 m x 3 m) mist nets were operated once every ten days from May 20-
August 4, 2011 with periodic assistance from volunteers. Banding effort at the Green Swamp
yielded 95 new captures of 21 bird species, six of which were NCWAP priority species (Table
3). This was a 143.6% increase in new captures from 2010.
54
Table 3. Birds captured at Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) banding
station at Green Swamp Ecological Preserve, May–August 2011. Bold type indicates priority
species.
Common name
New
captures
Re-captures
Un-banded
Total
%
Total
%
Recaps
Bachman's Sparrow 1 1 0 2 1.1 10.0
Brown-headed Nuthatch 2 0 0 2 2.1 0.0
Blue Grosbeak 1 0 0 1 1.1 0.0
Brown Thrasher 3 1 0 4 3.2 10.0
Carolina Wren 5 0 0 5 5.3 0.0
Common Grackle 0 0 2 2 0.0 0.0
Common Yellowthroat 27 5 0 32 28.4 50.0
Eastern Bluebird 2 1 0 3 2.1 10.0
Eastern Towhee 4 0 1 5 4.2 0.0
Indigo Bunting 3 0 0 3 3.2 0.0
Louisiana Waterthrush 1 0 0 1 1.1 0.0
Mourning Dove 0 0 1 1 0.0 0.0
Northern Cardinal 3 2 0 5 3.2 20.0
Orchard Oriole 1 0 0 1 1.1 0.0
Pine Warbler 21 0 0 21 22.1 0.0
Prairie warbler 12 0 0 12 12.6 0.0
Red-bellied Woodpecker 1 0 0 1 1.1 0.0
Red-headed Woodpecker 4 0 1 5 4.2 0.0
Ruby-throated Hummingbird 0 0 1 1 0.0 0.0
Worm-eating warbler 2 0 0 2 2.1 0.0
Yellow-breasted chat 2 0 0 2 2.1 0.0
95 10 6 111
Early successional bird monitoring
The NCWRC’s Wildlife Diversity and Private Lands Programs partnered through a North
Carolina Department of Justice Environmental Enhancement Grant as part of the WRC’s current
Cooperative Upland habitat Restoration and Enhancement (CURE) program. One of its
objectives is to continue and expand inventory of early successional bird species on corporate
agricultural and swine farm operations.
In 2011, an additional 23 point count stations were surveyed with an emphasis on NCWAP
priority landbirds, specifically: Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), Field Sparrow
(Spizella pusilla), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus
tyrannus), Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Prairie Warbler (Dendroica
discolor), and Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).
55
Surveys were performed once at 23 stations (Fig. 6) in mid-June and consisted of five-minute
counts segmented into 0-3 min. and 4-5 min. periods. Distance (<25 m, 25-50 m, 50-100 m,
100-250 m, 250-500 m, and >500 m) and bearing to individual priority species, including
Brown-headed Cowbirds, were recorded, as well as presence of all other species heard or seen.
Counts did not extend beyond 9:45 am.
A total of 44 species were detected, including four priority species (Table 4). These results are
preliminary and surveys are scheduled to continue in winter, spring, and summer of 2012.
Fig. 6. Locations of point count stations used for early succesional bird surveys in Duplin and
Sampson Counties, June, 2011.
56
Table 4. Bird species, total detections (priority species only), and percentage of counts (n = 23)
detected during surveys of early successional habitats in Sampson and Duplin Counties, June
2011. Bold type indicates priority species.
Common name
Total
detected
% of
counts
Common name
Total
detected
% of
counts
American Crow N/A 69.6 Grasshopper Sparrow 7 30.4
Barn Swallow N/A 13.0 Indigo Bunting N/A 82.6
Brown-headed Cowbird 12 47.8 Killdeer N/A 13.0
Brown-headed Nuthatch 1 4.3 Mourning Dove N/A 26.1
Blue Grosbeak N/A 30.4 Northern Bobwhite 5 17.4
Blue Jay N/A 21.7 Northern Cardinal N/A 56.5
Brown Thrasher N/A 4.3
Northern Rough-winged
Swallow N/A 4.3
Carolina Chickadee N/A 26.1 Orchard Oriole 1 4.3
Carolina Wren N/A 52.2 Pine Warbler N/A 8.7
Chipping Sparrow N/A 4.3 Prairie Warbler 1 4.3
Common Grackle N/A 4.3 Prothonotary Warbler N/A 13.0
Common Yellowthroat N/A 4.3 Red-bellied Woodpecker N/A 13.0
Downy Woodpecker N/A 13.0 Red-eyed Vireo N/A 17.4
Eastern Bluebird N/A 13.0 Red-shouldered Hawk N/A 4.3
Eastern Kingbird 6 26.1 Red-tailed Hawk N/A 8.7
Eastern Meadowlark 12 30.4 Red-winged Blackbird N/A 8.7
Eastern Towhee N/A 34.8 Summer Tanager N/A 8.7
Eastern Wood-Peewee N/A 13.0 Tufted Titmouse N/A 26.1
European Starling N/A 4.3 Turkey Vulture N/A 13.0
Field Sparrow N/A 4.3 White-eyed Vireo N/A 4.3
Great Blue Heron N/A 4.3 Yellow-breasted Chat N/A 21.7
Fall migration monitoring
Migratory stopover sites play an important role in the life cycle of many landbird species (Moore
et al. 2005). In collaboration with the NC Division of Parks and Recreation and Bald Head
Island Conservancy, monitoring of migrating landbirds was initiated at Lake Waccamaw State
Park and Bald Head Island from September through October 2010. This data may be used to
evaluate species composition and relative abundance, clarify peak migration dates, stopover
duration, and habitat use.
Ten standard size mist nets were operated five times at Lake Waccamaw, which yielded 101 new
captures, 11 recaptures, and one unbanded bird. A total of 23 species were banded: 13
Neotropical migrant species (including seven non-NC Coastal Plain breeders), four temperate
migrant species, and six resident species (Table 5). Black-throated Blue Warbler was the most
abundant species caught (n = 18, or 17.8%) and recaptured (n = 4, or 36.4%). One juvenile
57
Black-throated Blue Warbler was recaptured twice and stayed at Lake Waccamaw for at least 28
days. Banding has continued in fall 2011.
Five nets were operated on Bald Head, but only twice due to inclement weather, which resulted
in 23 new captures, one recapture, and two unbanded birds. A total of ten species were banded:
five Neotropical migratory species (including two non-NC Coastal Plain breeders) and five
resident species (Table 6). Northern Cardinal was the most abundant species caught (n = 7, or
30.4%). Logistical issues have prevented banding on Bald Head Island in 2011; however, a new
station has been established in maritime forest habitat on NC Aquarium property at Ft. Fisher.
Table 5. Birds captured at Lake Waccamaw State Park fall migration banding station, fall 2010.
Common name
New
captures
Re-captures
Un-banded
Total
%
Total
%
Recaps
American Redstart 12 0 0 12 11.9 0.0
Baltimore Oriole 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.0
Black-&-White Warbler 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.0
Black-throated Blue Warbler 18 4 0 22 17.8 36.4
Carolina Chickadee 4 0 0 4 4.0 0.0
Carolina Wren 7 3 0 10 6.9 27.3
Gray-checked Thrush 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.0
Gray Catbird 7 0 0 7 6.9 0.0
Hooded Warbler 3 0 0 3 3.0 0.0
Magnolia Warbler 2 0 0 2 2.0 0.0
Northern Cardinal 11 2 1 14 10.9 18.2
Northern Parula 2 0 0 2 2.0 0.0
Northern Waterthrush 4 0 0 4 4.0 0.0
Ovenbird 2 0 0 2 2.0 0.0
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.0
Red-eyed Vireo 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.0
Swamp Sparrow 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.0
Swainson's Thrush 4 0 0 4 4.0 0.0
Swainson's Warbler 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.0
Tufted Titmouse 6 2 0 8 5.9 18.2
Veery 1 0 0 1 1.0 0.0
White-eyed Vireo 8 0 0 8 7.9 0.0
White-throated Sparrow 3 0 0 3 3.0 0.0
Total 101 11 1 113
58
Table 6. Birds captured at Bald Head Island fall migration banding station, September–October
2010.
Common name
New
captures
Re-captures
Un-banded
Total
%
Total
%
Recaps
American Redstart 2 0 0 2 8.7 0.0
Blackpoll Warbler 1 0 0 1 4.3 0.0
Brown Thrasher 1 0 0 1 4.3 0.0
Carolina Wren 4 0 0 4 17.4 0.0
Common Grackle 0 0 2 2 0.0 0.0
Common Yellowthroat 2 0 0 2 8.7 0.0
Gray Catbird 1 0 0 1 4.3 0.0
Magnolia Warbler 1 0 0 1 4.3 0.0
Northern Cardinal 7 0 0 7 30.4 0.0
Painted Bunting 2 1 0 3 8.7 100.0
Red-eyed Vireo 2 0 0 2 8.7 0.0
23 1 2 26
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) & Nightjar Survey Network Survey
The BBS is a long-term, large-scale, international avian monitoring program initiated to track the
status and trends of North American bird populations. Two BBS routes were completed in
Craven/Pamlico/Beaufort Counties and Jones/Onslow, NC in May and June 2011, respectively.
Data has been submitted to the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
The Nightjar Survey Network is an annual monitoring program, coordinated by The College of
William & Mary’s Center for Conservation Biology, to collect information on population
distribution and trends of Nightjars throughout 38 US states. Nightjars are nocturnal and
therefore BBS data are unreliable. Surveys are performed at night and consist of standardized
six-minute counts along 10 roadside stops spaced 1-mile apart.
A single survey was conducted on HSGL on June 14, 2011. Chuck-will’s-widow (Caprimulgus
carolinensis, n = 10) were encountered only in the southern portion of the route among longleaf
savanna, whereas Whip-poor-wills (Caprimulgus vociferous, n = 3) were detected only at the
northern most stops within a pocosin and non-riverine swamp/wet hardwood forest dominated
landscape (Fig. 7).
59
Fig. 7. Total nightjars (Chuck-wills-widow/Whip-poor-will) detected on Nightjar Network
survey route, Holly Shelter Game Land, June 2011.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) management and Safe Harbor program
The NC wildlife diversity biologist assisted with the annual HSGL and Sandhills Game Land’s
RCW cavity tree status surveys, as well as artificial cavity insertion and pre-burning cavity
maintenance at HSGL.
Safe Harbor Agreements have been drafted for three new properties: 62 acres in Brunswick
County near Winnabow, NC, 32 acres in Bladen County near Bladen Lakes State Forest, and 76
acres in Craven County near Croatan National Forest. The latter two properties are situated in
areas that may provide refuge for existing RCW clusters on nearby public lands. Furthermore, a
RCW working group was formed in February 2011 to promote RCW conservation in
southeastern NC (see below).
60
Currently, NCWRC does not band RCWs on Safe Harbor properties, thus limiting our ability to
track the status of active clusters and document the success of the program. As a result, the
NCWRC is in the process of seeking permission from the USFWS to color band RCW adults and
juveniles nesting on Safe Harbor properties. NCWRC will coordinate color band combinations
with other organizations and agencies working with RCWs in NC.
Regional conservation partnerships and planning efforts
The Cape Fear Arch (CFA) Conservation Collaborative is a multi-agency partnership committed
to protecting the ecologically rich plant and animal diversity of North Carolina’s coastal plain.
The NCWRC wildlife diversity biologist attended two Cape Fear Arch committee workshops
and organized a CFA RCW sub-committee. To date, the RCW group has convened four times
and, using a geographic information system (GIS), identified several parcels exhibiting
characteristics (e.g., dominant evergreen canopy, proximity to existing RCWs, mature canopy
heights) that would more easily transition into suitable RCW habitat and enhance connectivity of
active clusters in the region. Information highlighting the benefits of the Safe Harbor Program
has been mailed to these private landowners and the NCWRC wildlife diversity biologist will
pursue their enrollment in the Safe Harbor Program.
The wildlife diversity biologist also delivered a presentation of priority NC landbird species at
The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Fire in the Lakes Festival in Boiling Spring Lakes and assisted
TNC with prescribed burns at two of their properties in Columbus and Pender Counties.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishment
Species-specific surveys will continue until sufficient baseline data are acquired. Participation in
regional efforts (BBS, MAPS, and Nightjar Network), as well as RCW monitoring and
administration of the Safe Harbor Program, will continue indefinitely. Early successional bird
monitoring will be completed in 2012. Fall migration banding will resume but most likely only at
Ft. Fisher Recreation Area and supplemented with ancillary field surveys.
C. Significant Deviations
None
D. Remarks
None
E. Recommendations
More thorough surveys of Henslow’s and Bachman’s Sparrows and Cerulean Warblers are
needed and will be initiated in 2012 to produce reliable baseline data. The current status of these
species and our lack of knowledge regarding their population trends warrants continued
monitoring.
61
Surveys for Bachman’s Sparrow should commence earlier in the breeding season (i.e.,
mid-April).
Characteristics of the Cerulean Warbler’s micro-habitat requirements need to be
identified, and more systematic foot surveys are needed for population estimates.
The persistence of many of the species we documented at the VOA is dependent on the
control of woody vegetation throughout the property. Site A is now in the process of
being decommissioned and the grounds are no longer being maintained by the federal
government. We are in a position now to closely monitor this species’ response to
vegetative regeneration due to a lack of annual mowing, and therefore, begin the process
of identifying its tolerance to these forces. However, it is highly recommended that
management of the property resume within 2-3 years, and that the NCWRC remain
persistent in pursuing acquisition of this property to carry out this task.
The fire on Holly Shelter Game Land that began on June 19, 2011 and burned over 12000
ha provides a unique opportunity to monitor avian responses to a catastrophic
perturbation. Revisiting point count stations sampled in 2010 and 2011 would be
worthwhile.
F. Estimated Cost
$99,726 (including in-kind and other non-federal match)
G. References
Breeding Bird Atlas Explorer (online resource). 2011. U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center & National Biological Information Infrastructure. Online:
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bba. Data compiled from: Delaware Breeding Bird Atlas
2008-2012. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control. Interim results used with permission.
Cavalieri, V. S., T. J. O'Connell and D. M. Leslie Jr. 2011. Cerulean Warbler occurrence and
habitat use in Oklahoma. Southeastern Naturalist 10:167-177.
DeSante, D. F., K. M. Burton, P. Velez, D. Froehlich, and D. Kaschube. 2010. MAPS manual
2010 protocol. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 85 pp.
Online: http://www.birdpop.org/DownloadDocuments/manual/2010/MAPSManual10.pdf
Dunning, J. B. 2006. Bachman's Sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis), The Birds of North America
Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu/bna/species/038doi:
10.2173/bna.38
62
Environment Canada. 2011. Management plan for the Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) in
Canada. Species at risk act management plan series. Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2009. ArcGIS. Version 9.3. ESRI, Redlands,
California.
Haggerty, T. M. 1998. Vegetation structure of Bachman’s Sparrow breeding habitat and its
relationship to home range. Journal of Field Ornithology 69:45-50. Online:
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/JFO/v069n01/p0045-p0050.pdf
Herkert, J. R. 1994. Status and habitat selection of the Henslow’s Sparrow in Illinois. Wilson
Bulletin 106:35.45. Online: http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v106n01/p0035-
p0045.pdf
Jenness, J., B. Brost and P. Beier. 2010. Land Facet Corridor Designer: Extension for ArcGIS.
Jenness Enterprises. Online: http://www.jennessent.com/arcgis/land_facets.htm
Lynch, J. M. 1973. Cerulean Warbler found in North Carolina in summer. Chat 37:83-84.
Online: http://www.carolinabirdclub.org/chat/issues/1981/v45n2cerw.pdf
Lynch, J. M. 1981. Status of the Cerulean Warbler in the Roanoke River Basin of North
Carolina. Chat 45:29-35. Online:
http://www.carolinabirdclub.org/chat/issues/1985/v49n2hesp.pdf
Lynch, J. M., and H. E. LeGrand, Jr. 1985. Breeding-season records of the Henslow’s
Sparrow in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. Chat 49:29-35.
Moore, F. R., M. S. Woodrey, J. J. Buler, S. Woltmann, and T. R. Simons. 2005. Understanding
the stopover of migratory birds: a scale dependent approach. In Bird Conservation
Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International
Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 and 2
(C. John Ralph and Terrell D. Rich, Eds.). Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Online:
http://gis.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/684-689.pdf
Newcomb, D. J, and H. Mitasova. 2009. Processing large LiDAR data sets for forest
canopy/landscape metrics Using 64-bit GRASS GIS. Oral Presentation, American
Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, December 14-18, 2009.
Pruitt, L. 1996. Henslow's Sparrow status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bloomington Ecological Services Field Office, Bloomington, Indiana. 113 pp. Online:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eco_serv/soc/birds/pdf/hesp-sa.pdf
Robbins, M. B., A. S. Nyari, M. Papes, B. W. Benz, and B. R. Barber. 2010. River-based surveys
for assessing riparian bird populations: Cerulean Warbler as a test case. Southeastern
Naturalist 9:95-104.
63
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2009. NC Natural Heritage
Program Biennial Protection Plan: List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas.
Online: http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/priority_list%202009.pdf
Tucker, J. W. Jr., W. D. Robinson, and J. B. Grand. 2006. Breeding productivity of Bachman’s
Sparrows in fire-managed longleaf pine forests. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118:131-
137.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Focal Species Strategy. Online:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/FocalSpecies/
US Geological Survey. National Gap Analysis Program. 2008. Southeast GAP Regional Land
Cover 2001. Biodiversity and Spatial Information Center, North Carolina Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, NC State University. Online:
http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/
US Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Center. 2011. NLCD
2001/2006 From-To Change pixels. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium
Project, Sioux Falls, SD. Online: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2006_downloads.php
Ziolkowski, D. J., Jr., K. L. Pardieck, and J. R. Sauer. 2010. The 2003-2008 summary of the
North American breeding bird survey. Bird Populations 10:90-109. Online:
http://birdpop.net/pubs/files/2010/V10_090_109_BBS.pdf
Prepared By: John Carpenter
Wildlife Diversity Biologist
Division of Wildlife Management
64
Final Performance Report
State: North Carolina Grant Number: T – 12
Period Covered: July 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011
Grant Title: State Wildlife Grants 08-Wildlife Management
Project Title: Waterbird Investigations and Management
Objectives:
1. Survey breeding and non-breeding shorebirds and colonial-nesting waterbirds to clarify their
status and distribution (NCWRC 2005, pp. 181, 194, 245, 249, 261, 269, 274).
2. Manage shorebird and colonial waterbird nesting sites to reduce human disturbance and
increase productivity (NCWRC 2005, pp. 270, 275).
3. Provide technical guidance to other agencies and individuals, and coordinate with existing and
new partners to stabilize declining populations of breeding and non-breeding shorebirds and
colonial-nesting waterbirds, and protect their habitats (NCWRC 2005, pp. 270, 271, 276).
A. Activities
Surveys & Monitoring
International Piping Plover Winter Census
Every 5 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) works with its partners to complete
a census of Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) during winter, and we conducted this census in
North Carolina from January 27 – February 7, 2011. The 2011 International Piping Plover
Census in North Carolina was largely complete with most known sites and suitable habitats
surveyed (Table 1, Fig. 1). Thirty people covered almost all suitable habitats and slightly more
habitat than in 2006. The 2011 count of 43 birds was lower than the number of Piping Plovers
counted in 1996, 2001, and 2006 (Table 2), but higher than the 1991 count. We surveyed a
greater length of shoreline (approximately 407 km) in 2011 and had more participants than
during previous Winter Censuses.
There were several days with high winds, rain, and snow during the census window; however,
we surveyed all but two sites within the time frame. Winter storms and snow reduce the number
of plovers in North Carolina and these weather events may have brought about the lower number
of plovers in 2011. We tried to avoid counting during high winds and rain, but a couple of sites
were surveyed during these conditions so it is possible that birds were not detected at those sites.
Browns Island, a small barrier island just north of Onslow Beach, was not surveyed during the
census window because the Marine Corps Base would not grant access to the restricted area.
During the census for Piping Plovers, we also recorded all Wilson’s (C. wilsonia) and Snowy (C.
nivosus) Plovers detected. Only two Wilson’s Plovers were detected (Table 2), and both of them
65
were on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach (Shallotte Inlet). No Snowy Plovers were detected. The
North Carolina coast is not a common wintering area for either of these plover species.
Piping Plover Breeding Season Census
We worked with our cooperators to detect all nesting pairs of Piping Plovers in North Carolina
from 1-9 June, the census window for the USFWS, and the entire nesting season (May–July;
Table 3). Nests were monitored to determine success (≥1 egg in a clutch hatched) or failure (no
eggs hatched, eggs were preyed upon, etc.). If ≥1 egg hatched, chicks were monitored to
determine if they lived to the fledgling stage. The nesting success of Piping Plovers has increased
in North Carolina during the last few years, perhaps due to predator management, increased
management of recreational activity, and favorable environmental conditions (Figs. 2-3).
Colonial Waterbird Survey: history & background
Dr. James Parnell, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, conducted the first coast-wide
survey of colonial waterbird nests in North Carolina in 1977 (Parnell and Soots 1979). A second
coast-wide survey of colonial waterbird nests was led by Parnell in 1983 (Parnell and
McCrimmon 1984). Monitoring of North Carolina’s colonial-nesting waterbirds has continued
since these initial surveys, and is supported by numerous cooperating agencies.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s (NCWRC's) efforts to manage the state's
colonial waterbird resources began in the early 1980s when the first draft of a waterbird
management plan was presented at the first annual N.C. Colonial Waterbird Management
Workshop by Parnell in May 1985. In 1990, Parnell and Shields published Management of North
Carolina's Colonial Waterbirds. This publication serves as the basis for management efforts in
North Carolina, as well as a model for other states.
In 1988, a Cooperative Agreement was signed by the NCWRC, Cape Hatteras National Seashore
(CHNS), Cape Lookout NS (CLNS), National Audubon Society, National Marine Fisheries
Service, N.C. Division of Coastal Management, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, N.C.
Division of Parks and Recreation, The Nature Conservancy–N.C., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), and USFWS. The NCWRC is the lead agency that insures agencies that signed the
Agreement manage and protect colonial-nesting waterbirds to the extent of their jurisdiction.
Hence, NCWRC coordinates activities related to the Agreement such as the Colonial Waterbird
Survey and management of nesting habitats. Additional agencies have signed the Cooperative
Agreement and annual Colonial Waterbird Committee meetings are held to update individuals on
research and management issues in the state and to facilitate coordination among the agencies.
Census data going back to 1972 are housed in The North Carolina Colonial Waterbird Database,
first developed by Parnell, and now maintained by NCWRC’s Wildlife Diversity Program. The
online database contains information on all known nesting sites of colonial waterbirds in North
Carolina. This database has been updated continually with the help of USACE funding since
1989. Additional information available from the database includes site descriptions, specific
nesting habitat characteristics, survey history, landowner information, and managing agency.
66
Colonial Waterbird Survey: justification & objectives
The need to monitor and manage colonial waterbirds was acknowledged in the Management of
North Carolina’s Colonial Waterbirds (Parnell and Shields 1990). The North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) was developed to provide a continental-scale
framework for the conservation and management of waterbirds and it emphasizes the importance
of regular monitoring to help determine conservation status, population trends, and effects of
environmental changes and management prescriptions on waterbird populations. Waterbird
conservation was put into a regional context with the publication of the Southeast United States
Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan (Hunter et al. 2006). The NCWRC uses these plans as
guidelines for Waterbird activities.
The objective of North Carolina’s coast-wide Colonial Waterbird Survey is to provide data for
trend, distribution, and habitat-selection analyses, as well as critical data on endangered species
(Wood Stork [Mycteria americana]), threatened species (Gull-billed Tern [Gelochelidon
nilotica]), and species of special concern (Black Skimmer [Rynchops niger], Common Tern
[Sterna hirundo], Least Tern [Sternula antillarum], Glossy Ibis [Plegadis falcinellus], Little Blue
Heron [Egretta caerulea], Snowy Egret [E. thula], Tricolored Heron [E. tricolor]) that nest on
barrier, estuarine, and dredged-material islands along North Carolina’s coast. These data are used
for technical guidance, education, management, research, and outreach purposes.
The NCWRC provides frequent technical guidance to the USACE regarding impacts of USACE-permitted
activities that might affect colonial waterbirds. The islands created from dredged sand-shell
material provide nesting habitat for many colonial waterbirds, and are a beneficial use of
this material. Maintenance of these sites as nesting habitat is well-c