Annual program report |
Previous | 1 of 5 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Description
Title | Annual program report |
Date | 2010; 2011 |
Description | 2010/2011 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 4.78 MB; 222 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_wildlifediversityprogramar20102011.pdf |
Full Text | 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 |
OCLC number | 312729091 |