i
Annual Performance Report
Wildlife Management in North Carolina
W57-37 (F11AF00451)
July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012 Volume LXXXV
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPOR
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Wildlife Management ii
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA
GRANT W-57-37 (F11AF00451)
JULY 1, 2011– JUNE 30, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I COORDINATION
Coordinators Report 1
II SURVEYS AND INVENTORIES 5
Coordinators Report 5
Surveys, Research and Status of Game and Furbearer Populations 6
III TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 20
Coordinators Report 20 Category 1: To provide technical guidance to government agencies 21
Category 2: To provide technical guidance to private landowners 22
Category 3: To provide technical guidance to wildlife problem situations 23
IV OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ON GAMELANDS 24
Coordinator’s Summary 24 Game Lands Management 25
V OTHER STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES 28
Coordinator’s Summary 28
Study HD-1 Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management 29
ATTACHMENT GPRA 311
SECTION I – COORDINATION
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
July 1, 2011-June 30, 2012
STATE: North Carolina
GRANT: W-57-37 (F11AF00451)
PROJECT TITLE: Coordinators Report
PERIOD COVERED: July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012
The following is an outline of accomplishments for the year by objective.
Objective 1: To maintain the State’s eligibility for participation in Federal Aid Programs.
Planned Activities – The following activities were planned for completion during the year:
Annually provide notice of desire to participate in the P-R Program.
Annually provide certification of paid license holders.
Furnish information, upon request, regarding the State’s authority to participate in U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant programs.
Accomplishments:
Renewal documents for the upcoming segment were submitted and approved. This application for funds satisfied the requirement to provide notice of desire to participate.
Certification of paid license holders is prepared and submitted each year by the Commission’s Division of Administrative services. The annual report of license holders was filed as required for the upcoming funding period.
Objective 2: To submit for federal aid participation, only those projects that meet program standards and are consistent with State fish and wildlife management goals.2
Planned Activities – The Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator’s planned activities included the following:
Coordinate P-R planning to ensure that Program objectives are consistent with agency goals.
Accomplishments:
The W-57 Grant projects generally remained on schedule. Due to North Carolina’s current fiscal situation, travel restrictions and an ability to fund positions and equipment purchases were delayed in some cases.
The Coordinator(s) conducted informal reviews of program activities during the year. No major shortcomings were observed. The grant was underspent due to the fiscal climate which meant travel restrictions and an inability to fill vacant positions. Adjustments were made to make best use of available manpower and equipment.
Objective 3: To ensure that project documents are consistent with program standards and Procedure and are submitted in a timely manner.
Planned Activities – The following activities were planned:
Performance reports for w-57-37 were scheduled for preparation and submission to the Regional Office by October 1, 2012
Accomplishments:
All required documents (performance reports, agreements and supporting information) were reviewed and submitted on time. There were no significant deviations this project period.
Objective 4: To assure that work funded under approved grants are accomplished in an effective and efficient manner.
Planned Activities – The following activities were planned for completion this year.
Monitor work force and request adequate resources to accomplish project objectives.
Monitor support services and request adequate equipment, supplies, etc., to carry out necessary work.
Conduct on-site inspections to monitor performance.
Initiate actions necessary to correct deficiencies.
Accomplishments:3
Contacted USFWS Ecological Branch on several occasions to coordinate program activities.
Objective 5: To work with the Commission’s Division of Administrative Services as necessary to ensure that adequate financial and property records are maintained on P-R Program Grants.
Planned Activities – Work plans this year were as follows:
Major jobs to be accomplished were: the monitoring of program costs and the accurate coding of federal aid activities. The coordinator also planned to meet with the Commission’s Division of Administrative Services, as needed, to review maintenance of accurate financial and property records in accordance with federal standards. Monitoring is done by Administrative Services personnel who are familiar with federal standards for the program.
Accomplishments:
The Coordinator(s) met with Administrative Services personnel to discuss costs and coding of activities on several occasions. The coding system was reviewed by the Coordinator(s) to reflect new project activities as needed.
The coordinator discussed the property management system with appropriate staff and discussed the coding system’s ability to identify federal property for inventory and control purposes.
Objective 6: To coordinate the federal aid program with other State activities and those of other governmental agencies to eliminate duplication and to minimize conflicts.
Planned Activities – The following activities were planned:
During the year, plans were to schedule necessary coordination with other agencies to ensure a minimum of conflicts and duplication. Program information is to be provided to other agencies upon request.
Select and submit only those projects that are eligible under the P-R Act and conform to NEPA guidelines.
Accomplishments:
The Coordinator attended the Coordinator’s meeting in Pensacola, Florida.4
The Coordinator(s) submitted during the period only those projects that reflect approved program activities. The Coordinator(s) participated in agency meetings to review Wildlife Division goals and objectives.
NEPA and Section 7 assessments were submitted as required.
Minor support services and request adequate equipment, supplies, etc., to carry out necessary work.
Conduct on-site inspections to monitor performance.
Initiate actions necessary to correct deficiencies.
Objective 7: Coordinate Land Acquisition Activity
Planned Activities – The following activities were planned:
Acquire tracts to add to NC Game Lands
Prepare and present various land acquisition grants to different funding sources.
Make sure old federal grants included required federal nexus language.
Coordinate efforts with State Property Office
Accomplishments:
Acquired 707 acres of land to add to NCWRC Game Lands
Added federal nexus language to old deeds that were missing it.
Cost $1,075,784
Deviations as previously mentioned, the grant was underspent due to North Carolina’s financial situation.
Prepared By: George Norris, Assistant Federal Aid Coordinator
Date: September 4, 20125
SECTION II – SURVEYS AND INVENTORIES
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
July 1, 2011-June 30 2012
STATE: North Carolina
GRANT: W-57-37 (F11AF00451)
PROJECT TITLE: Coordinators Report
PERIOD: July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012
Project leaders assigned to the Division of Wildlife Management’s Research Section coordinate research, surveys and inventories. Categories of work include: Upland game birds, big game mammals, furbearers, hunter surveys and wildlife diseases. Costs for this segment are estimated at $959,643.
Species Group Cost
Migratory Birds $291,256
Upland Game Birds $66,746
Furbearers and Small Game Mammals $42,738
Black Bear $189,491
White-tailed Deer $215,291
Combined Survey/Monitoring Efforts $105,862
Wildlife Diseases $48,258
Total Cost: $959,642
Prepared By: George Norris, Assistant Federal Aid Coordinator
Date: August 22, 20126
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
July 1, 2011-June 30 2012
State: North Carolina
Grant: W-57-37 (F11AF00451)
Project Title: Surveys, Research and Status of Game and Furbearer Populations
Period: July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012
Objective: To determine the status of North Carolina’s game and furbearer populations by identifying, measuring, and monitoring various population parameters during the grant period which will enable the establishment of sound practices for effective statewide management of wildlife resources.
A. Activity
A total of 3,261 man-days (26,094 hours) were devoted to this project during the reporting period, with activity distributed among specific species groups as follows:
Species Group Man-days Hours_
Migratory Birds 1,207 9,656
Upland Game Birds 230 1,841
Furbearers and Small Game Mammals 122 978
Black Bear 703 5,624
White-tailed Deer 809 6,475
Combined Survey/Monitoring Efforts 92 735
Wildlife Diseases 98 785_
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishments
All activities were accomplished by June 30, 2012 as scheduled, or were completed by specific dates as follows:
Black Bear Bait Station Survey September 15, 2011
Mourning dove banding September 30, 2011
Pre-season waterfowl banding September 30, 2011
Hard Mast Survey Report (Black Bear) November 18, 20117
Completed report of waterfowl hunter survey December 31, 2011
Prepared map of waterfowl impoundments April 30, 2012
Resident goose research proposal April 30, 2012
Mourning dove call counts May 31, 2012
C. Minor Deviations
Furbearers and Small Game Mammals
Due to concerns about regional muskrat populations, several southeastern, northeastern and Canadian furbearer biologists have started monitoring muskrat populations in cooperation with licensed trappers. Efforts involve monitoring the age and sex ratio of harvested muskrats, as this may indicate population declines. Starting in 2011, North Carolina joined regional efforts to monitor the age and sex ratio of muskrats harvested by North Carolina trappers. Results are reported in Section D.
Rabbit observations collected from hunters who participate in the Avid Grouse and Avid Quail Surveys were not summarized due to resignation of the small game biologist during this period.
Black Bear
In order to more effectively manage black bears now and in the future, the NCWRC Black Bear Committee developed the 2012-2022 Black Bear Management Plan (BBMP). The 2012-2022 BBMP describes the history, status, and future management direction of bears in NC, as well as provides a framework for achieving the goals and objectives identified in the BBMP. By formalizing a process for attaining our goal, this plan will assist the NCWRC’s Board of Commissioners, NCWRC administrators and staff, and the public in addressing current and future bear issues. Meeting the goal will require the successful management of conflicts between bears and people, public acceptance of management tools (e.g., hunting), and maintaining bear habitats.
There were no other deviations
D. Remarks
Surveys and Monitoring of Species and Populations
Migratory Game Birds
- The midwinter waterfowl survey was conducted and coordinated in North Carolina in cooperation with the Atlantic Flyway Council.
- Wood duck nest box surveys were conducted.
- Productivity surveys of tundra swans were conducted and forwarded to flyway biologists.
- Wood ducks and other waterfowl were banded pre-season statewide.
- Mourning dove call counts were conducted and data forwarded to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
- In cooperation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, experimental mourning dove surveys were conducted.8
- Conducted post-season trapping of black ducks in cooperation with the Atlantic Flyway Council and the Black Duck Joint Venture.
- Trapped and fitted sea ducks with satellite transmitters in cooperation with the Sea Duck Joint Venture and the Atlantic Flyway Sea Duck Migration Study.
- Mourning doves were trapped and banded statewide.
- Summarized mid-winter waterfowl survey data and prepared a map of relative waterfowl use of mid-winter survey units.
Upland Game Birds
- Wild Turkey Summer Observation Survey: A total of 32,877 wild turkeys was observed during the 2011 wild turkey summer observation survey. Statewide, the percentage of hens with poults (59%) indicates fair nesting success; the ratio of poults/hens observed with poults (3.6) indicates fair poult survival; and the ratio of poults/hen (2.2) indicates fair overall productivity. Wild turkey productivity was slightly down in Coastal and Mountain Regions when compared to 2010, but was up 35% in the Piedmont Region. The Coastal Region experienced fair nesting success (59% of the hens were with poults), fair poult survival (3.5 poults/hens with poults), and poor to fair overall productivity (2.0 poults/hen). The Piedmont Region experienced fair nesting success (59% of the hens were with poults), fair to good poult survival (3.9 poults/hens with poults), and fair overall productivity (2.3 poults/hen). The Mountain Region experienced fair nesting success (59% of the hens were with poults), fair poult survival (3.3 poults/hens with poults), and poor to fair overall productivity (2.0 poults/hen).
- Bobwhite Call Count: Northern bobwhites were monitored on 15 routes by counting whistling males. Following survey protocols, 3 routes were dropped the from the previous survey year because no quail were heard for 2 consecutive years. Each active route consisted of 21 stops spaced 1 mile apart, with a 3 minute listening period per stop. The survey was conducted during the last 2 weeks of June, 2012.
Bobwhites called at 104 of the 315 stops (33%). A total of 210 quail was detected. The most quail heard on a single route was 40 birds. No quail were heard on 2 routes. Quail abundance was greatest in the Coastal Plain region – of the 210 birds detected, 186 (88%) occurred on the 10 Coastal Plain routes.
Historic trends suggest the continued annual decline (-4.0%) of quail across the state. However, annual estimates no longer provide an adequate degree of confidence for monitoring at this scale due to declining quail abundance and subsequent loss of survey routes. Downward trends appear to continue within all regions in North Carolina. However, mountain and piedmont annual estimates are likely no longer valid, while the precision of the coastal annual estimate is relatively weak.
- Grouse Drumming Survey: Ruffed grouse were monitored by counting drumming males on 52 routes throughout 6 mountain ranger districts. Each route consisted of 3-27 listening stations located on game lands. Observers counted drumming males within a 4 minute listening period per station during the last week in March through the first week in April, 2012.9
Grouse drummed at 93 of the 720 stations (13%). A total of 99 drumming males was detected. Individual grouse detected drummed an average of 1.4 times within the 4 minute listening period. Historically grouse abundance and station occupancy rates have been highest in the Cheoah ranger district and lowest in the Grandfather ranger district. However, in 2012 Pisgah ranger district had both the highest abundance (0.28 grouse/station) and the highest station occupancy rate (25%).
Abundance and occupancy rate trends have appeared stable since 2002. There was also no significant evidence that occupancy or abundance has changed within any of the forest districts.
Furbearers and Small Game Mammals
- Age and sex ratio of muskrats harvested by North Carolina trappers (see Section C for explanation):
Ratio (n=199)
Adult
3.64 male to female (40/11)
Juvenile
1.30 male to female (70/54)
Juvenile vs. Adult
2.40 juveniles to adults (125/52)
Juvenile vs. Ad. Female
11.36 juv. to ad. female (125/11)
Black Bear
- Bear Observations: Both field personnel and the general public continued to report observations of bears in areas of the Piedmont outside established range. Much of this activity occurs in counties in the western Piedmont and Piedmont counties bordering the Virginia border. Biologists recorded 671 bear observations and human-bear conflicts statewide. As usual, the majority (63%, n=425) of these complaints came from the far western counties of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s District 9.
- Bear Bait Station Survey: Mountain personnel performed the sardine bait station survey in July 2011 along 10 survey routes. Visitation rate was 52.8%, the first decline since 2004. Several factors likely influenced the decline in visitation rates during 2011. Three of the survey lines reported human disturbances that impacted bear visitation rates. In addition, a new survey line was established in 2011 that experienced 0% visitation. Lastly, some survey lines are influenced by their proximity to blueberries, which failed in some areas. The surveys are conducted every other year; prior to 2005, surveys were conducted on an annual basis.
White-tailed Deer
- Certain biological data (e.g., age, sex, weight, antler measurements) were collected from hunter-killed deer to identify various population and condition characteristics for determining the structure and status of herds. This information was used to evaluate the status of herds in relation to certain habitat and population parameters.
- Biological data were evaluated and used to identify preliminary deer management units across the state. A 3-year effort was implemented to increase the collection of deer biological data and to diversify the sources of biological data. Data collected from this effort will be used to finalize the deer management units and develop appropriate deer management objectives for each unit.10
- Density or relative abundance estimates were derived from examination of harvest data and observation surveys (e.g., spotlight counts, track counts). This information was used to evaluate Game Lands, private lands, and other selected deer areas throughout the state.
- Information from 3,161 deer dying from causes other than legal hunting during the period of April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2012, was compiled from nonharvest mortality observations reported from agency personnel and our Big Game Depredation Permit form. Nonharvest mortality was analyzed and combined with reported kill to obtain an estimate of total deer mortality.
- Agency personnel obtained biological data (e.g., age, sex, weight, antler measurements, reproductive information) from 7,298 deer from a variety of sources, including DMAP participants, hunt clubs, agency-staffed check stations, meat processors, taxidermists, herd health evaluations, depredation permit kills, vehicle kills, disease evaluations, and a hunter jawbone return program implemented in Districts 6, 7, 8, and 9. These data were used to analyze population trends, examine effects of past regulation changes and harvest levels, and to make recommendations for regulations.
Data collected were used to evaluate the health and population status of deer herds throughout the state. Trends in condition by area, county, and region were determined by examination of selected physical characteristics.
Surveys and Monitoring of Harvests and Hunters
Statewide Hunter Harvest Survey
This survey is conducted each year after the hunting season. Hunting effort and harvest is collected from hunters for a variety of game and furbearer species. An online application was developed and released during the project period. Biologists may query the database and produce customized harvest and hunting effort estimates for designated areas.
Migratory Game Birds
- Periodic bag checks were made of hunters on state-managed impoundments.
- Federal harvest survey results were evaluated and summarized for use by state personnel.
- Project personnel participated in the Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section and performed necessary regulatory activities.
- Evaluations of the tundra swan and Northeast Hunt Unit Canada goose seasons were conducted.
- Prepared report of Harvest Information Program (HIP) implementation in North Carolina.
- Represented the Atlantic Flyway in a continental assessment of the harvest potential of North American teal species.
- In cooperation with the Human Dimensions Biologist, completed a statewide waterfowl hunter opinion survey.
- In cooperation with the Human Dimensions Biologist, conducted statewide dove and woodcock hunter opinion surveys.11
Upland Game Birds
- Turkey Harvest Monitoring: The 2012 spring turkey season in North Carolina ran from April 14 through May 12 statewide. A Youth Hunt Day occurred on April 07 statewide. Game lands were open to the youth hunt, but some game lands required a permit. Male or bearded turkeys were legal with a daily limit of one bird and a season limit of two birds. Reporting of wild turkey harvests is mandatory via our agency’s telephone or online reporting systems. Including 832 birds harvested on Youth Hunt Day, the 2012 reported spring turkey harvest was 15,451 birds. This season’s total harvest was up approximately 6.7% from the 2011 spring season’s harvest of 14,476 birds and was a record harvest for Tar Heel hunters.
- Avid Quail Hunter Survey: Seventy-two volunteer avid quail hunters provided hunting statistics during the 2011-12 hunting season on 985 quail hunting trips. Each quail hunt lasted an average of 3.9 hours. Hunting parties usually consisted of 1.6 hunters. The hunters’ average age was 58 years old. On an average hunt day 1.8 coveys were flushed and 2.0 quail were bagged per hunt party. Quail hunting success varied within the state depending on the region and landowner type. By region, flush rates were as follows: Coastal Plain (0.55 coveys/hour), Piedmont (0.20 coveys/hour), and Mountain (0.33 coveys/hour). By landowner type, statewide flush rates were 0.54 coveys/hour on private land versus 0.21 coveys/hour on game lands. On 39% of the reported hunting trips, no coveys were found by the hunters. Hunting success has been fairly stable since the mid-1990’s (i.e., coveys flushed, harvest), although the data indicate a slight increase in the percentage of hunting trips in which no birds are flushed. Declines are noted in survey respondents, both in terms of number of participants and reported hunts. The average hunter age has been steadily increasing; from the mid-40’s when the survey began to late-50’s this past year.
- Avid Grouse Hunter Survey: Seventy-nine volunteer avid grouse hunters participated during the 2011-12 hunting season, providing grouse hunting statistics for 983 hunting trips. Hunters averaged 55 years of age, and they went afield an average of 12.4 days during the season. They flushed on average 3.9 grouse/hunting trip (1.1 grouse flushed/hour hunted). Harvest rates averaged 13% for each grouse flushed. On 20% of the hunting trips no grouse were found by the hunters. The flush rates between the northern mountains and southern mountains were comparable in 2011-12, whereas, in times past, more grouse were found in the southern mountains. The flush rate/hour is probably the best indicator of grouse abundance during the hunting season, although it is recognized that hunters will change their hunting locations over time to focus on areas with higher grouse abundance. Since 1984 rates have generally declined from 1.4 to <1.0 grouse/hour.
Furbearers and Small Game Mammals
- Raccoon Field Trial Data: Data were collected on raccoon field trials conducted from May 1987 through February 2012. Data collected included total time hunted by each cast, the number of dogs in each cast, and the number of raccoons observed. The greatest number of raccoons seen per hour was in the Piedmont (1.15), followed by the Coastal Plain (1.01), and Mountains (0.91). The Piedmont and Coastal Plains experienced an increase in the number of coons seen per hour, while the Mountains experienced a decrease for the second year in a row.12
- Fur Transactions: Fur Transaction forms were distributed to licensed fur dealers prior to the 2012-12 furbearer harvest season. There was a 44% increase in the total number of pelts reported sold to licensed fur dealers in comparison to the 2010-11 furbearer harvest season. This increase continues a 2-year increase in the number of pelts sold to state fur dealers. Overall, there is a historic decline due to a combination of several factors including 1) Trappers marketing their furs at auction, 2) Trappers selling live foxes and coyotes to fox pen operators, and 3) A decline in the number of licensed fur dealers in North Carolina.
- Voluntary Trapper Mail Harvest Survey: Since the 2002-2003 trapping season, an annual voluntary trapper mail harvest survey was sent to all licensed trappers (2,639) to track reported statewide furbearer harvest by species. The number of licensed trappers increased 20% compared to the previous season (2,186). Results indicated the same survey response rate (52%) and the same “active” trapping rate for those licensed individuals (63%) as the previous year. Overall reported furbearer harvest increased by 11% (n=43,266 animals) which likely correlated with the increase the number of active licensed trappers (11%). Reported harvest increases were spread across all furbearer species.
- Depredation harvest: Furbearers taken under depredation permits by wildlife damage control agents (WDCAs), USDA-Wildlife Services, other federal agencies and municipal animal control programs and private citizens has been monitored since 1993. Data is available through March 2012, due to timing of depredation reports. During 2010-11, there was a 10% decrease in the number of furbearers taken than from the prior year. The majority of furbearers taken by WDCAs were raccoons and opossums, comprising 37% and 20% of total take, respectively. The majority of furbearers taken by USDA-Wildlife Services were beavers, comprising 85% of the take.
- Trapping License Sales: Trapping license sales increased 21% compared to the previous year. A total of 2,640 trapping licenses were sold during 2011-2012.
- Tag Sales: The numbers of legislative fox tags and bobcat and river otter CITES tags sold statewide for the 2011-2012 trapping season were as follows: fox – 671, bobcat - 840, river otter – 2,482. There was an increase in all tags sales compared to the prior trapping season: fox (24%), bobcat (12%) and otter (34%) tags sold compared to the prior trapping season.
- Pelt Prices: All licensed fur dealers and the North American Fur Auction were contacted to solicit average pelt prices paid to North Carolina fur harvesters. Beaver, bobcat, fox, mink and skunk all experienced increases in pelt value compared to the prior year. There were 7 licensed fur dealers during the 2011-2012 furbearer harvest season, a decline from the prior season.
- Pilot Avid Rabbit Hunter Survey: The pilot avid rabbit hunter survey was conducted again in 2011. This year 16 hunters observed 8.7 rabbits per trip with 79% of rabbits bagged being cottontails.
Black Bear
- Bear Mortality: Total known 2011 black bear mortality was 3,072 bears, including a state-wide harvest of 2,776 bears (1,605 Coastal region, 1,170 Mountain region, 1 Piedmont region). Total 13
mortality is derived from total registered harvest plus all observed non-harvest mortality. A total of 1,549 premolar teeth were collected from bears dying of all causes in 2011.
White-tailed Deer
- Reliable observational and hunter experience data were recorded from various areas throughout the state, including numbers of hunter-killed deer reported via Wildlife Cooperator Agents, Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP) participants, and internet and toll-free telephone reporting systems. During the 2011-12 hunting season a total of 173,553 deer was reported through all three systems.
- The Urban Archery Season dates were January 14 – February 18, 2012. This was the fifth year this season was in place. Thirty-four municipalities participated in the season. Total reported harvest for all municipalities was 70 deer (6 adult bucks, 8 button bucks, 56 does).
Habitat Inventory and Monitoring
Migratory Game Birds
- Participated in activities of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) and served as the Technical Representative and vice-chair to the ACJV’s Game Bird Technical Committee.
- As part of a committee, reviewed and scored North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants submitted in the ACJV.
- Assisted with planning, oversight and review of the NC Partners Program.
- Prepared a geo-referenced map of all managed waterfowl impoundments in Hyde Co., North Carolina.
Black Bear
- Hard Mast Survey: Mountain hard mast surveys were conducted along 12 routes, and soft mast surveys were conducted during hard mast surveys. During 2011, the overall hard mast index was poor and hard mast productivity was the fifth lowest index for hard mast since surveys began in 1983. White oak production was poor, while red oak production was in the fair range but below the long-term average for the species. Hickory production rated as poor, while beech production was good.
Wildlife Diseases
- Hemorrhagic Disease: Reports of hemorrhagic disease were received from the following 42 counties during the late-summer and fall period of 2011: Alamance, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Buncombe, Camden, Carteret, Caswell, Cherokee, Craven, Davidson, Davie, Duplin, Durham, Edgecombe, Gates, Greene, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hyde, Iredell, Lenoir, Madison, Martin, Montgomery, Moore, Northampton, Orange, Pender, Person, Pitt, Randolph, Rowan, Sampson, Stanly, Surry, Union, Wilkes, Wilson, and Yancey. 14
- Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD): Seventeen white-tailed deer and one elk were tested for CWD during the reporting period (Table 1). CWD was not detected in any of the samples submitted for testing. A CWD Report Form was completed for each sample collected and data were entered into an online CWD data management system. CWD samples were forwarded to Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory, National Veterinary Services Laboratories, or the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study for testing via immunohistochemistry techniques.
Table 1. Results of 2011-12 North Carolina CWD Investigations.
County
Date
Species
Reason For Testing
Lab1
CWD Diagnosis
Martin
08/30/11
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
WSVL
Not Detected
Surry
08/31/11
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
WSVL
Not Detected
Gates
08/31/11
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
WSVL
Not Detected
Yancey
09/07/11
White-tailed deer
Incidental Sample
WSVL
Not Detected
Swain
09/11/11
White-tailed deer
Incidental Sample
NVSL
Not Detected
Dare
09/12/11
White-tailed deer
Incidental Sample
WSVL
Not Detected
Swain
09/16/11
White-tailed deer
Incidental Sample
SCWDS
Not Detected
Pitt
09/16/11
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
SCWDS
Not Detected
Surry
10/10/11
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
WSVL
Not Detected
Avery
11/26/11
White-tailed deer
Incidental Sample
SCWDS
Not Detected
Davidson
12/09/11
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
WSVL
Not Detected
Wilkes
12/09/11
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
SCWDS
Not Detected
Catawba
12/16/11
White-tailed deer
Incidental Sample
SCWDS
Not Detected
Currituck
02/01/12
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
WSVL
Not Detected
Yancey
02/03/12
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
WSVL
Not Detected
Davidson
03/15/12
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
WSVL
Not Detected
Beaufort
03/20/12
White-tailed deer
Symptomatic
WSVL
Not Detected
Haywood
06/07/12
Elk
Incidental Sample
WSVL
Not Detected
1 WSVL – Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory; NVSL – National Veterinary Services Laboratories; SCWDS – Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study
- Feral Hog Disease Investigations: During 2011-12, feral hogs were lethally removed from Caswell Game Land, Caswell County, NC. Seventy-seven feral hogs were tested for Brucella abortus and Pseudorabies by the NCDA&CS Veterinary Diagnosis Laboratory. None of the feral hogs sampled tested positive for Brucella or Pseudorabies.
- Rabies: North Carolina is continuing to experience outbreaks of rabies in terrestrial wildlife populations. There were 376 furbearers, comprising of bobcat, coyote, fox, raccoon and skunk, which tested positive for rabies during calendar year 2011. This was 10% increase in the number of rabies-positive furbearers than during the prior reporting year.
- Wildlife Disease Investigations: Wildlife Disease Report Forms are submitted by field personnel upon encountering a sick or injured animal or bird. They are also used to report additional sick animals and their suspect diagnosis after receiving an initial diagnosis from a laboratory on the first sick animals from the area. Table 2 presents the result of wildlife disease 15
investigations for wildlife conducted by project personnel and the wildlife and domestic animal diagnostic laboratories who serve as cooperators.
Perry Sumner, Section Manager for the Surveys & Research and Wildlife Diversity Programs continues to function as the State Liaison Wildlife Officer for North Carolina on the Regional Emergency Animal Disease Eradication Organization.
Table 2. Results of 2011-12 North Carolina Wildlife Disease Investigations
COUNTY
DATE
SPECIES
LAB
DIAGNOSIS
Alleghany
11/12/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; puffy jaws, green discharge from nose, bleeding from anus
Anson
9/12/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected HD
Anson
10/21/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Cutaneous fibromas
Anson
12/10/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Upper canines
Avery1
11/30/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS2
Bilateral buccal food impactions
Beaufort1
3/20/12
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Blunt force trauma
Bertie
3/28/12
Fox
NCDA
Rabies
Bertie
6/18/12
Wild Turkey
SCWDS
LPDV
Bladen
2/29/12
Gray fox; vultures (3), opossum
SCWDS
Carbamate toxicosis
Burke
7/28/11
Fox
No
Undetermined; unafraid, confused, mangy
Burke
8/22/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected cutaneous fibromas
Burke
8/30/11
Raccoon
No
Undetermined; sick acting
Burke
9/29/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Cutaneous fibromas
Burke
5/31/12
Fox & Raccoons (several)
No
Suspected Distemper
Burke
6/13/12
Big Brown Bat (2)
SCWDS
Interstitial pneumonia
Cabarrus
9/28/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected HD
Cabarrus
11/12/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Cutaneous fibromas
Cabarrus
3/23/12
gray squirrel
No
squirrel pox
Caldwell
11/22/11
Fox
No
Undetermined; circling, acting strange
Caldwell
4/20/12
Fox
No
Undetermined
Catawba
9/6/11
Raccoon
No
Undetermined; sick acting
Catawba
9/7/11
Gray squirrel
No
Suspected botfly
Catawba
11/17/11
Fox (3)
No
Undetermined; suspected rabies
Catawba
2/1/12
Fox (3)
NCDA3
Rabies positive in 2 of 3
Catawba
3/2/12
Raccoon
No
Undetermined; sick acting
Catawba1
12/20/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Chronic sinusitis
Chatham
4/23/12
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; emaciated, lethargic
Chowan
6/4/12
Bat
NCDA
Negative for rabies
Cleveland
9/12/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined
Cleveland
10/19/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected cutaneous fibromas
Cleveland
5/1/12
Songbirds (6)
No
Undetermined
Cleveland
5/23/12
Bat
NCDA
Rabies
Cleveland
6/13/12
Groundhog
No
Undetermined; sick acting16
Currituck
8/5/11
House Finch (2)
No
Suspected conjuctivitis
Currituck1
2/1/12
White-tailed Deer
No
Emaciated, broken jaws
Davidson
10/7/11
wild turkey
No
Undetermined; could not fly
Davidson
10/11/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected HD
Davidson
11/4/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Cutaneous fibromas
Davidson
11/10/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Cutaneous fibromas?
Davidson
11/15/11
White-tailed Deer (4)
No
Suspected HD
Davidson
11/30/11
White-tailed Deer
No
nasal bot fly larvae
Davidson
12/1/11
White-tailed Deer
No
abdominal worms
Davidson1
12/9/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Suspected HD
Davie
8/12/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; emaciated, weak, 90% hair loss
Davie
9/8/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected HD
Forsyth
9/19/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Broken neck
Forsyth
2/27/12
Wood ducks; geese
No
Undetermined
Gaston
10/6/11
Brown Thrasher
No
Undetermined; blister on face
Gaston
6/29/12
White-tailed Deer
No
Injured pedicle
Gates
9/2/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
EHDV-2
Gates1
8/31/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
EHD
Guilford
1/3/12
Gray Fox
SCWDS
Canine Distemper
Guilford
6/1/12
bat (4)
No
Undetermined
Halifax
9/27/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Hemorrhagic BTV-11
Haywood
9/12/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Craniofacial abscess
Hertford
12/19/11
Bobcat
NCDA
Rabies
Iredell
Sept. 2011
White-tailed Deer (2)
No
Suspected HD
Iredell
Sept. 2011
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected HD
Jackson
9/22/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Undetermined
Lincoln
12/2/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; mangy
Martin
8/22/11
White-tailed Deer (3)
No
Suspected HD
Martin
11/14/11
Bald Eagle
Carolina Raptor Center
Heavy metal/lead levels
Martin1
8/31/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Mild chronic pneumonia
Mecklenburg
8/29/11
Fox
No
Suspected rabies
Mecklenburg
10/3/11
Raccoon
No
Suspected rabies
Mecklenburg
10/3/11
Coyote
NCDA-Griffin
Rabies
Mecklenburg
10/7/11
Skunk
No
Suspected rabies
Mecklenburg
1/4/12
Fox
No
Injury/infection
Mecklenburg
2/15/12
Opossum
No
Undetermined; stumbling
Mecklenburg
2/20/12
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; emaciated
Mecklenburg
3/7/12
Fox
Yes
rabies
Mecklenburg
3/7/12
Coyote
No
Suspected roadkill
Mecklenburg
6/4/12
birds (8) &
No
Suspected predation17
squirrel
Montgomery
11/5/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected HD?
Montgomery
11/28/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Cutaneous fibromas
Moore
11/7/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; cyst near gland area
Moore
11/22/11
Crow
No
Undetermined
Moore
11/30/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected HD
Moore
12/19/11
blackbirds (2)
No
Undetermined
Moore
6/4/12
bats (6)
SCWDS
Waiting for results
Moore
6/12/12
bats (13)
No
Waiting for results
Orange
6/7/12
Mexican Free-Tailed Bat (9)
SCWDS
Undetermined; neg. for rabies, interstitial pneumonia in one
Person
5/27/12
bat
No
Undetermined
Person
6/11/12
bat (2)
No
Undetermined; 1 covered bugs, 1 covered whitish substance
Pitt1
9/20/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Undetermiend; suspected HD
Richmond
11/12/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Demodetic mange
Richmond
11/12/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
No report on lab results
Rowan
8/29/11
White-tailed Deer (3)
No
Suspected HD
Rowan
10/31/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected HD
Rowan
11/21/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Scrotal hernia
Rowan
2/24/12
raccoon
No
Undetermined; staggering, nasal discharge
Rutherford
10/31/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; circled, died
Stanly
8/18/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; 1 covered bugs, 1 covered whitish substance
Stanly
11/19/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Suspected HD
Stokes
8/28/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; scrotal hernia, testicular tumor or abscess
Stokes
12/2/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Cutaneous fibromas
Union
8/29/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Cutaneous fibromas
Union
8/29/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined
Union
9/20/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; emaciated, drooling, unstable
Union
11/16/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined; emaciated, white liver
Union
4/19/12
Raccoon (6)
No
Undetermiend; lethargic
Union
5/30/12
Carolina Wren (3)
No
Cryptococcus neoformans?
Union
6/21/12
Raccoon (3)
No
Suspected rabies
Wake
6/5/12
White-tailed Deer
NCDA-Rollins
Waiting for results
Wilkes
8/1/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Old; predation
Wilkes
10/11/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Suspected HD
Wilkes
12/15/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Bacterial infection in eyes/eyelids
Wilkes
6/20/12
White-tailed Deer (2+)
No
Suspected HD
Yadkin
5/3/12
Cedar waxwings (17)
No
Suspected gorging on ripe cherries18
Yancey
10/20/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Swollen mammary bag; suspected mastitis
Yancey
11/22/11
White-tailed Deer
No
Undetermined
Yancey
4/2/12
Wild Turkey
SCWDS
perforated cecum, severe coelomitis, and severe hepatitis
Yancey
8/18/12
Gray squirrel
No
Suspected botfly
Yancey1
9/7/11
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
EHDV-2 isolated
Yancey1
2/7/12
White-tailed Deer
SCWDS
Fused carpal joints
1 Also tested for CWD and reported in Table 1
2 SCWDS: Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study
3 NCDA: North Carolina Department of Agriculture
Research
- Wild Canid Diet Study: The co-habitation of red wolves and coyotes in eastern North Carolina provides a unique opportunity to study intraspecific competition between canids. We used faecal DNA analysis to identify donor species and multinomial modeling designed for mark-recapture data to investigate diets of co-occurring canids. From July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, we sorted scat contents, identified food items, and statistically analyzed selection of food items in red wolf and coyote scat. Our manuscript that reports on the results of our study has been accepted into the Journal of Mammalogy. We collected 1163 scats, but identification to species was successful in 325 scats. Of those 325 scats, 179 were identified as red wolf (49 unique individuals), 64 as coyote (34 unique individuals), and 82 as unclassified red wolf/coyotes (43 unique individuals). The unclassified category were individuals that given the conservitave nature of our DNA analysis, we were uncomfortable placing into a red wolf or coyote category. The diets of all 3 species/groups consisted primarily of Sylvilagus spp. and Odocoileus virginianus. By percent of occurrence, coyotes ate more rodents, especially Mus musculus, than wolves or red wolf/coyote hybrids. Additionally, all of the large canids combined ate more rodents during the pup rearing season. There was no statistical difference in the diets between red wolves and coyotes.
- Age Structure, sex ratio and fecundity of the River Otter in North Carolina: The purpose of this study is to gather data on the age structure and sex ratio of harvested otters and to determine fecundity of North Carolina’s otter population. The annual sampling period is from November through February, which is concurrent with the regulated furbearer trapping season. Sampling was initiated in November 2009. Otter carcasses were collected from licensed trappers in all three furbearer management zones (Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Mountains). Samples collected include the sex of the carcass, reproductive tract, canine teeth, stomach, kidney, baculum and morphological measurements. While we are still conducting analysis of otters collected during 2011-12, results are finalized from otters collected during 2010-11. One hundred and seventy-eight otters were sampled (113M:65F) and the average age was 2 years old (range: 0-12 years old). Identifiable foods consisted of fish, crayfish and amphibians.
Restoration Activities
No activities were conducted this period. 19
Other Activities
- Summary information and reports were prepared and submitted to agency employees, the hunting and non-hunting public, and the media. Appropriate reports and summary information were prepared and distributed to biologists and sportsmen who provided data for specific species. Papers, presentations, and displays were prepared on current and past study results to disseminate information to other investigators, managers, and sportsmen. Technical programs were provided to numerous private and public groups in North Carolina. An annual Black Bear Brochure highlighting data and information we have collected on bears in recent years was prepared and distributed. We continue to distribute copies of the interactive black bear DVD to educators of public schools, private schools, museums, State Parks, and other institutions.
E. Recommendations
No changes are recommended.
F. Cost
The total cost of this project was $959,642.87 for the reporting period, with total cost distributed among specific species groups as follows:
Species Group Cost___
Migratory Birds $291,256.27
Upland Game Birds $66,746.43
Furbearers and Small Game Mammals $42,737.97
Black Bear $189,491.42
White-tailed Deer $215,290.93
Combined Survey/Monitoring Efforts $105,861.96
Wildlife Diseases _____ $48,257.89__
Total Cost: $959,642.87
Prepared by: Joseph Fuller, Migratory Game Bird Coordinator; Doug Howell, Waterfowl Biologist, Colleen Olfenbuttel, Black bear and Furbearer Biologist, Vincent Evin Stanford, Deer, Turkey, and Boar Biologist, Ryan T. Myers, Surveys and Research Analyst, and David Sawyer, Surveys and Research Coordinator
Date: August 21, 201220
SECTION III – TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
July 1, 2011-June 30, 2012
STATE: North Carolina
GRANT: W-57-37 (F11AF00451)
PROJECT TITLE: Technical Guidance Report
PERIOD: July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012
Project leaders assigned to the Division of Wildlife Management’s Technical Guidance section coordinate technical guidance activities to aid the public and other agencies. Categories of work include: Technical guidance to government agencies, private landowners and guidance for wildlife problem situations. Estimated costs are listed below.
Category 1: Technical Guidance to government agencies $57,523
Category 2: Technical Guidance to private landowners $176,728
Category 3: Technical Guidance for wildlife problem situations $126,827
Total Cost $361,078
Prepared By: George Norris, Assistant Federal Aid Coordinator
Date: August 24, 201221
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
July 1, 2011-June 30, 2012
STATE: North Carolina
GRANT: W-57-37 (F11AF00451)
PROJECT TITLE: Technical Guidance
PERIOD: July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012
Project Objective:
The objectives of Category 1 are to review projects that State, Federal, and local government agencies propose that have the potential to impact wildlife populations and/or habitats; provide technical advice to minimize negative impacts with regards to wildlife species; and to provide guidance to governmental agencies that have the ability to implement techniques that will maintain or enhance wildlife habitats on public and private lands.
Objectives for Category 2 are to provide management information to private and corporate landowners and other individuals that have the ability to implement techniques on private landholdings throughout the state that will maintain or enhance wildlife habitats and/or populations; and provide advice to increase public utilization of the resource.
The project objective for Category 3 is to provide management information to individuals, private and corporate landowners and government agencies to minimize the negative impacts that sometimes result from human-wildlife interactions.
CATEGORY 1: TECHNICAL GUIDANCE TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
A. Activity
Project Personnel devoted 234 man-days to this activity with an estimated cost of $57,523.
B. Target Date for Achievements and Accomplishments
June 30, 2012
C. Significant Deviations22
There were no significant deviations in this category.
D. Remarks
Project personnel provided technical guidance on wildlife habitat improvement, human-wildlife interactions, and wildlife population management to the NC Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Forest Service, National Park Service, NC Cooperative Extension, City/Town Councils, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Department of Defense, NC Department of Transportation, and the USFWS including assistance to National Wildlife Refuges. Project personnel was also involved with regional and local planning and management groups to provide recommendations related to wildlife management and habitat enhancement activities.
Project personnel worked cooperatively with the NRCS and FSA to develop guidelines and requirements for various landowner habitat improvement incentive programs including CRP, CP33, CP38 and other programs such as EQUIP, WHIP, and FLEP.
CATEGORY 2: TECHNICAL GUIDANCE TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS
A. Activity
Project personnel devoted 739 man-days to this activity at an estimated cost of $176,728 during the project period.
B. Target Date for Achievements and Accomplishments
June 30, 2012
C. Significant Deviations
There were no significant deviations. Costs associated with and time allocated to this project was as expected.
D. Remarks
Project personnel provided technical guidance to private landowners for wildlife habitat improvement and wildlife population management. Personnel coordinated with constituent groups, landowners, and citizens with the ability to enact recommendations provided concerning hunting strategies, habitat management, and wildlife population management objectives.
Technical guidance is typically provided by staff personnel via site visits, group meetings, emails and phone calls. Habitat and species management plans are 23
prepared when requested with a focus on multi-species/habitat diversity incorporated into plan details and prescriptions.
Technical guidance to private landowners related to numerous Farm Bill programs was provided under this project including statewide habitat initiative programs focusing on early successional habitat. Project personnel worked with private landowners to implement various landowner habitat improvement incentive programs including CRP, CP-33, CP-38, EQIP, WHIP, and FLEP.
CATEGORY 3: TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR WILDLIFE PROBLEM SITUATIONS
A. Activity
Project Personnel devoted 533 man-days to this activity at an estimated cost of $126,827 during the project period.
B. Target Date for Achievements and Accomplishments
June 30, 2012
C. Significant Deviations
There were no significant deviations. All requests were handled.
D. Remarks
Project personnel provided technical guidance to public and private entities for numerous problem human-wildlife interaction situations. Calls have increased annually due to increasing development resulting in encroachment on habitat. The constituency base is largely ignorant of the realities of living in close proximity to wildlife and how to abate contact with wildlife. Black Bears, deer (white-tailed and elk), furbearers and similar animals (including coyote, fox, raccoon, opossums and skunks) continue to be the most common concerns statewide. Request for advice/assistance regarding feral swine continues to increase as populations expand and occurring throughout the state. Project personnel continue to address questions and reported sightings of mountain lions and “black panthers” annually. There is no evidence to substantiate the existence of mountain lions in North Carolina and most reports are handled by phone conversation.
Submitted by: Bradley W. Howard
Private Lands Program Coordinator
Date: August 14, 201224
SECTION IV – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF GAMELANDS
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
July 1, 2011-June 30 2012
(OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS)
STATE: North Carolina
GRANT: W57-37 (F11AF00451)
PROJECT TITLE: O&M Report
PERIOD: July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012
Operations, maintenance and habitat management is conducted on approximately 1,800,000 acres of state-owned and leased lands across the state. For administrative purposes, the state is divided into two regions-Coastal and Western. Two Wildlife Biologist Supervisors, six Wildlife Management Biologists, forty-nine Wildlife Management Technicians and six Wildlife foresters are responsible for a wide range of habitat development projects. There are 17 management crews located near the major land holdings across the state. They are responsible for implementing the scheduled work activities. Performance reports outlining work accomplished during this segment follow this summary. Estimated costs are listed below:
Habitat Management Total Cost $1,714,981
Operations and Maintenance Total Cost $3,514,948
Facility Construction Total Cost: $0
TOTAL $5,229,929
Note: These estimates reflect the total cost including overhead and other administrative support. The estimates included in the attached reports do not include all support costs.
Prepared By: George Norris, Assistant Federal Aid Coordinator
Date: August 23,201225
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
July 1, 2011-June 30 2012
(HABITAT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AND FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS)
State: North Carolina
Grant: W-57-37 (F11AF00451)
Project Title: Game Lands Operations
Period: July 1, 2011 June 30, 2012
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1. To provide hunting, fishing and trapping seasons for harvestable wildlife species.
2. To develop early successional habitat to benefit both nongame and game species.
3. To increase waterfowl hunting opportunities.
4. To maintain, and were possible restore, existing red-cockaded woodpecker populations and other ecologically associated flora and fauna.
5. To provide habitat for wildlife species and public hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife observation through the Game Lands Program.
6. To provide quality black bear habitat by posting and managing black bear sanctuaries.
7. To provide quality habitats for wildlife species by planting or managing wildlife openings, prescribe burning and intensively managing waterfowl impoundments.
8. To accommodate the public and to provide access, through hunter access bridges, parking areas, campsites, a disabled waterfowl blind, gates, roads and trails, and development and maintenance of boundary.
9. To support field operations, facilities will be maintained to store equipment and supplies used on game lands.26
GAME LANDS
2011-2012 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
To accomplish Habitat Management Activities the following activities were completed during the project period: Approximately 3,410 acres of wildlife openings were seeded or maintained in various seed mixtures to benefit wildlife, 1 acre of edge was developed and 4,100 feet day lighted, moist soil management was conducted on 265 acres of waterfowl impoundments to benefit waterfowl, 585 fruit trees were release/pruned, 2,310 acres were disked /mowed for successional control, 1,088 acres were controlled with herbicides on waterfowl impoundments and wildlife openings, 32,565 acres were prescribe burned, 3 research projects were continued to study oak regeneration using fire as a management tool, 397 miles of firebreaks were plowed to assist in prescribe burning, 757 RCW trees were raked around to prevent damage during control burning activities, 2 culverts were installed and 29 maintained to facilitate burning operations, population control was conducted on 9 game lands to reduce damage from pigs, beaver, muskrat and nutria, 729 wood duck boxes were surveyed and maintained and 58 new boxes were erected and water levels were maintained on 58 waterfowl impoundments totaling 4,724 acres by diesel pumping for 7,614 hours and electric pumping for 79,177 KwHrs. The amount budgeted was $1,800,000 and the amount spent was $1,714.981.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
To accomplish objectives, Maintenance and Operation Activities were conducted as follows: Maintenance was conducted on non-highway equipment throughout the State, 16 depots and storage buildings, 52 miles of dike, 69 hunter bridges, 182 culvert maintained and 4 installed , 3 vehicle bridges, 387 gates maintained and 4 installed, , respectively, 17 campgrounds maintained and 1 new area established, 78 parking areas maintained and 6 new parking sites developed, 620 miles of road were graded and 332 miles of road and trail were either mowed or treated with herbicide. Boundary maintenance consisted of posting and maintaining 437 miles of various boundary lines and establishing 29 miles of new boundary. Approximately 7.69 miles of road were graveled on game lands roads. Twelve (12) disabled/waterfowl blinds and 7 observation towers were maintained for public use. The amount budgeted was $3,450,000 and the amount spent was $3,514,948.27
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
No facility construction projects were initiated during the project period. The amount budgeted was $0 and the amount spent was $0.
COSTS $5,229,929
DEVIATIONS
Statewide activities for annual habitat management, operations and maintenance fell within acceptable limits and no major deviations were noted.
GPRA
See attachment28
SECTION V – MISCELLANEOUS FEDERAL AID ACTIVITIES
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
PROJECT W-57, SEGMENT 37
July 1, 2011-June 30 2012
State: North Carolina
Grant: W-57-37 (F11AF00451)
Project Title: Human Dimensions
Period: July 1, 2011-June 30 2012
During the reporting period there were a number of Human Dimension surveys. Costs are estimated below:
Study HD1 $60,519
Prepared By: George Norris, Assistant Federal Aid Coordinator
Date 8/21/201229
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
State: North Carolina
Grant: W-57-37 (F11AF00451)
Project Title: Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management
Period: July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012
Study Objective:
To gather information on the views and behaviors of people related to wildlife management in North Carolina to assist with wildlife management.
A. Activity
2011-12 Survey of Dove Hunters
2011-12 Survey of Woodcock Hunters
2010-11 Permit Hunting Opportunities Surveys
2005 Survey of North Carolina Residents about Bears
2012 Hats On Hunter Mentoring Program Evaluation
Other miscellaneous human dimensions of wildlife management studies
B. Target Dates of Achievement and Accomplishments
2011-12 Survey of Dove Hunters: Study design and data collection was completed during this segment.
2011-12 Survey of Woodcock Hunters: Study design and data collection was completed during this segment.
2010-11 Permit Hunting Opportunities Surveys: Data collection and analysis was completed during this segment.
2005 Survey of North Carolina Residents about Bears: Manuscript revisions for peer-reviewed journal article were completed during this segment. See article at http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/05%20Palmer%20et%20al%2027-31.pdf
2012 Hats on Hunter Mentoring Program Evaluation: Study design began during this segment.
Other miscellaneous human dimensions of wildlife management studies: Coordination, planning, data collection, data analysis, and reporting occurred during this segment.
C. Significant Deviations30
None.
D. Remarks
None.
E. Recommendations
Continue studies on an “as needed” basis.
F. Cost
$60,519
Prepared by: Dain Palmer 21 August 2012
Human Dimensions Biologist Date31
Government Performance Results Act Goals & Related Activity Codes
And Stewardship Investment Codes
Wildlife Restoration (WR) Program:
Boxes have been checked for Stewardship Investments
GPRA Goal 2.1.8: # of wetlands acres protected through land acquisition.
 Land acquisition, fee title, wetland (1112): _____ acres Est. Cost: _______
N/A
Land acquisition, non-fee title, wetland (1122): _____ acres Est. Cost: _______ N/A
GPRA Goal 2.2.7: # of uplands acres protected through land acquisition.
Land acquisition fee title, non-wetland (1111): _____ acres Est. Cost: __________
N/A
 Land acquisition, non-fee title, non-wetland (1121): _____ acres Est. Cost: _______
N/A
GPRA Goal 20.1.7: # of acres available for recreation through management actions and partnerships.
 Operations and Maintenance of Area and Facilities (1211): __2,126,509___ acres
Est. Cost: _$_ 3,500,548_____
GPRA Goal 20.3.3: # of shooting ranges maintained or developed.
 New ranges constructed with Section 4c funds (1561): _____ ranges Est. Cost: _______ N/A
 Ranges Operated and Maintained with 4C Funds (1562): _____ range
Est. Cost: _______ N/A
.
New Range Construction with Section 10 Funds (1571): _____ ranges
Est. Cost: _______ N/A
. 32
Wildlife Restoration (WR) Program: (continued)
 Ranges operated and maintained with Section 10 Funds (1572): ___ ranges
Est. Cost: ____
GPRA Goal 20.3.4: # of wildlife access sites developed or renovated.
Campground and parking lot development (1332): _____ sites Est. Cost:
Cost included in (1211) -
 Boating access development (1333): _____ sites Est. Cost: _______
N/A
GPRA Goal 20.3.7: # of students trained in hunter education.
 Students Trained (1511): _____ students Est. Cost: _______.
N/A
 Advanced Students Training (1515): _____ students Est. Cost: _______
N/A
GPRA Goal 29.1.9: # of volunteer participation hours supporting Hunter education objectives.
 Volunteer Hours of Effort (1521): _____ hours Est. Cost: _______
N/A
GPRA Goal 29.1.10: # of volunteer instructors trained to support Hunter Education objectives. N/A
 Volunteers Trained (1523): _____ numbers Est. Cost: _______
33
Non-GPRA Stewardship Investments
 Watering Facilities Development (1321): _____ sites Est. Cost: _______
N/A
 Habitat Improvement Developments (1322): 35,016__ acres Est. Cost:
$ _1,714,981__
 Road & Trail Development (1331): _____ miles Est. Cost: ______
Wildlife Restoration (WR) Program: (continued)
 Miscellaneous Facilities Development (1334): _7_ sites Est. Cost: $ 7,000___
Construction of facilities not included in previous categories, e.g., visitor centers, observation platforms, or addition of structures such as restrooms or shelters to existing facilities in number of sites.
1-New Campground, 6- New Parking Areas
 Waterfowl Impoundment Development (1341): _____ sites Est. Cost: _______
N/A
 Waterfowl Impoundments Improvement (1342): _____ sites Est. Cost: _______
N/A
 Support Facilities Development (1351): _____ sites Est. Cost: _______
N/A