CRP Mid Contract Management - 2007

8/8/2019 CRP Mid Contract Management - 2007

1/62


2/62

A CRP warm-season grass stand responds well to prescribed fires by removingthe litter buildup, increasing the diversity, creating open area on the ground andenhancing plants that attract insects.


3/62

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

The Study Area and what weve learned................................................

The Focus On Pheasants Partnership..................................................1

CRP Mid Contract Management ............................................................1

Focus Area Research .............................................................................2

CRP Mid Contract Management: State Reports ...................................4

Notes ........................................................................................................5


4/62

The CRP Mid Contract Management Tours conducted in 2004 and 2005 are just some of many effortsfocused on improving the wildlife benefits associated with CRP grass stands. Sharing informationwith landowners and biologists is an important part of Focus On Pheasants, CRP-MAP and CRP MidContract Management.

2


5/623


6/624

This photo shows the location of the Focus On Pheasants - Focus Area locatedwithin Stanton County, Nebraska. This 32-square mile area was selected as a fo-cus area in the state based on the amount of CRP tracts in the area (shown in goldand purple), CRP tracts enrolled into the CRP-MAP program, interest in the arealandowners in participating in the program and the historical number of pheasantsin the area.

Those tracts highlighted in gold have had some form of Mid Contract Manage-ment performed on them since the spring of 2003. The tracts highlighted in pur-ple have not had management performed on them due to the presence of a his-torical noxious weed problem, the need for control areas with the research pro-

jects being conducted or landowners not wanting to participate in the program.


7/62

F o c u s A r e a T i m e l i n e

2002 Written in collaboration among NGPC, PF and NRCS biologists, the Focus On Pheasan

plan was approved by the NGPC Board of Commissioners in May.

Selected Focus Areas (See page 16 for a complete list of all Focus Areas in the state).

Discuss objectives and coordinate efforts between NGPC, PF, FSA (local staff, county commitand state office staff), NRCS (local and state office staff) and area landowners.

Hired one full-time biologist position (1-year contract) to implement the plan.

Designed evaluation procedures.

Began making landowner contacts.

2003 Disked and interseeded 1,000 acres on 37 different tracts of land owned by 24 different lan

owners.

Conducted spring pheasant crowing surveys.

Initiated pilot study on the grassland bird response to disking and interseeding. Conducted August roadside pheasant brood surveys.

Conducted habitat tours of the focus area for NGPC, PF, local FSA and NRCS and area lanowners. Discussed the results and landowner satisfaction.

Monitored noxious weed response and spot treated by spraying 1,000 acres some landowers did this themselves.

Applied for and received a State Wildlife Grant to initiate a Grassland Bird Study. The stuwill be conducted through Oklahoma State University to monitor response to habitat work.

Enrolled 780 acres of CRP in the focus area into the CRP-MAP access program.

2004 Disk and interseeded additional 1,100 acres on 44 tracts of land owned by 26 landowners. Conducted spring pheasant crowing counts.

Began Grassland Bird Study.

Initiated pilot pheasant telemetry study to determine nesting and brood rearing habitat prefences.

Initiated insect study to measure response to uniform management treatments.

Hosted the 1st CRP Mid Contract Management Tour in August.

Conducted August roadside pheasant brood surveys.

Monitored noxious weed response and spot treated by spraying 2,100 acres.

Enrolled additional 240 acres of CRP into the CRP-MAP walk-in access program.

5


8/62

F o c u s A r e a T i m e l i n e

2005 Disked and interseeded 100 additional acres.

Initiated a demonstration of Glyphosate herbicide application and interseeding legumes.

Initiated a demonstration of Select herbicide on brome that had been disked and interseededin previous years.

Initiated a demonstration prescribed burn and interseeding legumes.

Conducted spring crow counts.

Began Pheasant Telemetry Project to monitor response by radio collaring 50 pheasant hens.The study is conducted through the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

Second year of Grassland Bird Study.

Conduct August roadside pheasant brood survey.

Monitor noxious weeds and spot treat by spraying and chopping 2,300 acres.

Conduct 2nd Mid-Contract Management Tour in June.

Conduct 2nd Twilight Habitat Tour in July.

2 Stanton County Landowners Dale Clark and Al Platt receive recognition for FOP efforts atPheasant Fest in Omaha.

Expanded individual field demonstrations to most counties in northeast Nebraska.

Presented Grassland Bird and Pheasant Telemetry preliminary results at annual meeting ofThe Wildlife Society.

2006 Continue monitoring the management techniques being applied in the study area.

Completed 2nd year of pheasant telemetry study.

Conduct additional demonstrations of different mid-contract management techniques.

Conduct field tours and presentations of data.

Presented Grassland Songbird study results at the Perdix meeting.

Presented Grassland Songbird and Pheasant Telemetry study results at annual State HabitatMeeting.

6


9/62

Disk ing and In t erseeding Two passes minimum is required in stands of smooth bromegrass or switchgrass. In some

cases, our efforts have reached as high as five passes with a disk. Even aggressive disking inthis fashion does not make fields susceptible to erosion. It is far easier to disk too little than itis to disk too much.

Haying or burning the grass stand prior to disking reduces litter and improves the ease of disk-ing, but is not crucial to achieving good results. Removal of litter may decrease the number ofdisking passes necessary to achieve the desired impact and results.

Smooth bromegrass typically returns aggressively in the 3rd growing season following manage-ment. While the smooth bromegrass comes back aggressively, the grass stand can still providegood structure and nesting cover at that point.

Disking prior to September 15

th

on smooth bromegrass does not sufficiently set the grass standback. Regrowth occurs within months and significantly reduces the effective length of the treat-ment by at least one season.

Disking smooth bromegrass in the spring is the most effective treatment, but the ability to ac-complish field work prior to May 1st is often determined by weather.

Care should be taken to stay out of waterways and away from the field borders when selectingareas for disking.

Care should be taken to identify areas of known noxious weed infestations and then design workaround these areas. If the area had a history of noxious weeds prior to enrollment in CRP, it will

have noxious weeds following a disking. Frank discussions with landowners about early successional plants (weeds) need to be discussed

prior to initiation of work. The landowners tolerance to early successional plants and desire formore wildlife will help guide your management technique application.

Effective communication with USDA field office, local weed superintendent, landowners, andmedia can greatly increase support for habitat improvements such as this. This partnership hasbeen enhanced by substantial support from the media, partners and landowners.

The legume seeding mixtures used (see page 57 for a list of mixtures) produced desirable plant com-position and structure. The addition of white sweetclover to mixtures may be desirable due toits later maturation date.

Annual plant responses varied from site to site. Generally speaking, common sunflower and an-nual foxtail are the primary annuals that show up in the first growing season. Common sunflow-ers virtually disappears from the site after the first year.

C R P M i d C o n t r a c t M a n a g e m e n t

~ O b s e r v a t i o n s a n d O p i n i o n s ~

7


10/62

Presc r ibed f i re and hay ing Prescribed fire on warm-season CRP grass stands can be effective in reducing cool-season grass

encroachment and for certain tree control if timed correctly. It also reduces grass litter and invigo-rates regrowth. Some annual plants also respond favorably to the increased sunlight penetration.

To reduce the encroachment of cool-season grasses, late April burns are recommended.

The reduction of litter following a burn provides an excellent opportunity to:

Disk and interseed a mixture of legumes.

Increase disturbance on the site.

Use a no-till drill to interseed legumes into the existing grass stand.

Prescribed fire on an established cool-season grass stand does very little to improve the grassstand composition or diversity. It will reduce the litter and can be effective in controlling some

woody plants.

Haying can also reduce litter and provide an opportunity to either disk and interseed or to applyother management techniques. Interseeding a legume mixture directly into a hayed cool-seasongrass stand without another form of disturbance produced minimal benefits that will last for a shortperiod of time.

Haying that is performed on a site 3 to 5 years after an initial upgrade has provided positive wildlifebenefits. Even on sites where the cool-season grasses have returned aggressively, haying the sitehas brought back a flush of legume growth.

Haying activities are restricted from being used during the primary nesting season dates of May 1st

to July 15th

.



8


11/62



Noxi ous Weeds

Noxious weeds were identified as an issue to be addressed in the planning of Focus On Pheasactivities. The plants on Nebraskas noxious weed list that were anticipated to be of concerncluded musk, plumeless, and Canada thistles.

CRP tracts with a history of thistle problems and where thistle seeds were present in the sebank were more problematic than tracts with limited thistle history. When thistle problems curred on CRP tracts that had been disked and interseeded with legumes as part of the Focus Pheasantsproject, appropriate treatments were applied.

Those treatments included hand chopping, spot shredding, and spot spraying with appropriate hbicides. If thistle problems were widespread over a large area, then a blanket application of apppriate herbicide that was labeled for legumes and/or shredding of affected areas were treatmethat provided acceptable results.

Communication and cooperation among all involved entities were the key to resolving noxioweed problems on CRP tracts while still developing and maintaining desired vegetative diversprovided by the interseeded legumes.

The key message here is that if an area had a known history of noxious weeds prior to its enrment in CRP, Mid Contract Management activities will bring those noxious weeds out again. Aactivities that disturb the soil will allow those early successional stage plants to reappear.

9


12/62

Chemic a l burn back and int e rseed ing Where disking is not feasible, chemical burn back using a Glyphosate herbicide may provide a

good alternative.

Situations where the use of herbicide might be preferred include areas with known noxious weedinfestations, lack of tillage equipment, or hayed cool-season grass stands.

The use of Select herbicide or other non-broadleaf herbicides may offer some hope for reducingthe regrowth of cool-season grasses in upgraded areas.

Our experience has found that when controlling smooth bromegrass with a Glyphosate, an appli-cation of 28+ ounces per acre with an AMS applied between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm on a warmday works best.



Haying and Spraying recommendations developed for use in the Focus On Pheasants partnership by Jim Brown,Natural Resource Specialis t, US Army Corps of Engineers Republ ican City, NE.

10


13/62



Fina l Thought s Cost share rates, generally speaking, are too low. Even for landowners that seriously desire to

see habitat improvement and for those that are only conducting this work as a requirement ofCRP, this will be viewed as a financial burden or will result in sub par results due to lack ofawareness.

There are very few certainties in life...two that can be applied to CRP Mid Contract Manage-ment are:

1). You can t ever k i l l o f f smooth bromegrass w i t h any amount o f d isk ing.

2) . I f you had noxious weeds before enrol lment in CRP, they wi l l show up

again fo l low ing d isk ing.

While USDA technical guides are pretty complete at describing maximum management efforts(how deep to disk, how many passes, percent reside, etc.), they are generally weak on outlining theminimum management efforts required to accomplish the desired results.

Our exper ience showed tha t m in imum management e f fo r t s

typ ic a l ly produced m in imum , i f any, resu l ts .

11


14/62


15/62

Focus On Pheasants is a partnership effort formed in 2002 that brings to-gether a unique combination of Federal, State and Local government agen-cies, conservation groups, private industry and landowners.

This combination of groups have come together in an effort to improve mature grass standsthroughout the state and provide better pheasant habitat. The average CRP field in Nebraska isnow 16 years old and has had little or no management performed on it during the life of its con-tract.

The primary focus of this partnership has been to increase the wildlife habitat quality and diversityof CRP grass stands using the following management tools: Controlled burns Interseeding legumes Disking

Chemical herbaceous vegetation control Haying

F o c u s O n P h e a s a n t s

The Focus On Pheasants Partnership

13


16/62

D

ixonCounty

StantonCounty

HarlanCounty

Rese

rvoirWMA

ShermanReservoir

BranchedOak

WMA

NebraskaO

neBox

Founda

tion

F

ocus

O

nP

heas

ants

L

ocation

ofFocu

sAreasw

ithin

Nebraska

14

KimballCounty


17/62


18/62

G E N E R A L C R P P R A C T I C E

R e q u i r e d M a n a g e m e n t F o l l o w i n g

E s t a b l i s h m e n t

mid-contract management activity for the purpose of improving plant diversity and wildlife habitat conditions must be con

ucted a minimum of one time during the contract period. CP-10 areas require a minimum of two management activities, aontract beginning and mid-contract. CP-25 prairie areas in Vegetative Zones III & IV require a minimum of two managemenctivities on contracts longer than 10 years. Refer to appropriate FOTG standard and Nebraska Conservation Planning Shee0 for specifications associated with each practice and other details.

Acres enrolled into CP-3, CP-3A, and CP-11 shall utilize guidance provided under Tree Planting/Forestry for Continuous CRnd CREP Practices. No management is required for acres enrolled into CP-12 (Food Plots) but proper maintenance is reuired to meet the purposes of that practice.

ManagementOption

CRP Practice FOTGPractice

Conditions and Limitations RequiredInterval*

Tillage and

Interseeding

CP1-Introduced Grasses

and LegumesCP2-Native GrassesCP4B/4D-Permanent Wild-

life HabitatCP10-Vegetative Cover

Already Established

647

Early Succes-sional HabitatDevelopment/Management

Managed Haying***, Prescribed Burning, or

Mowing/Shredding may also be needed toremove excessive residue prior to tillage/seeding.

Interseeding may be conducted without tillageon sandy sites with a Wind Erodibility fac-tor (I) of 134 or greater provided an inter-seeder or similar device is used to createsome limited disturbance.

Interseeding must be conducted under this op-tion. Broadcast seeding is only allowed iftillage is completed prior to, or followingseeding and seeding rates are doubled.

Vegetative Zones III & IV

every 3-5 years onceestablished;

Vegetative Zones I & II -every 5-7 years onceestablished

Note: Tillage may beneeded and recommendemore frequently on siteswith aggressive sod-forming grasses such assmooth brome or switch-grass.

InterseedingNative Forbs

Only

CP25-Rare and DecliningHabitats (prairie sites

only)

643Restoration &

Management ofDeclining Habi-tats

Mowing/Shredding, or Prescribed Burning mayalso be needed to remove excessive resi-

due prior to seeding.Drilling of native species provided an inter-seeder or similar device is used to createsome limited disturbance or a burn-downherbicide is used to reduce competitionfrom existing, perennial species in order toenhance establishment of the seeded spe-cies.

Vegetative Zones III & IV every 3-5 years once

established;Vegetative Zones I & II -every 5-7 years onceestablished

PrescribedBurning **

CP1-Introduced Grassesand Legumes

CP2-Native GrassesCP4B/4D-Permanent Wild-


338Prescribed

Burning

Broadcast seeding is only allowed if tillage iscompleted prior to, or following seedingand seeding rates are doubled.

Use techniques (timing, intensity, etc.) to pro-vide a benefit to plant diversity and wildlifehabitat.

Vegetative Zones III & IV every 3-5 years onceestablished;

Vegetative Zones I & II -every 5-7 years onceestablished.

Chemical Her-baceous Vege-ation Control **

CP1-Introduced Grassesand Legumes

CP2-Native GrassesCP4B/4D-Permanent Wild-


Already EstablishedCP25-Rare and Declining

Habitats (prairie sites

643Restoration &

Management ofDeclining Habi-

tatsand647

Early Succes-sional Habitat

Managed Haying***, Prescribed Burning, orMowing/Shredding may also be needed toremove excessive residue prior to herbi-cide application.

Not a substitute for noxious weed control orweed control during establishment.

Broadcast seeding is only allowed if tillage iscompleted prior to, or following seedingand seeding rates are doubled.

Vegetative Zones III & IV every 3-5 years onceestablished;

Vegetative Zones I & II -every 5-7 years once

established.

16


19/62

* Management activities may be conducted and cost-shared more frequently than the required interval, provided that theactivity is technically justified, improves wildlife habitat, and is not prohibited by 2-CRP paragraph 484.

** Interseeding of desired legumes or native grasses and/or forbs is recommended and can be cost-shared in conjunctiwith this activity.

*** Managed Haying used in conjunction with tillage/interseeding or chemical herbaceous vegetation control can be utilized when necessary to remove excessive residue. Haying will result in a CRP program payment reduction. Managhaying, by itself, will not provide the necessary vegetative response to meet the CRP management intent. Lands en

rolled in CP-25 are not currently eligible for managed haying.

Note: High-intensity/short-duration grazing, if technically justified, may be substituted for, or used in conjunction with,these management options. The primary area where this is applicable is western Nebraska and the Sandhills regionGrazing will result in a CRP payment reduction. Managed grazing strategies other than high-intensity/short-durationnot, by themselves, provide the necessary vegetative response to meet the CRP management intent. Lands enrolleCP-25 are not currently eligible for managed grazing.

Early Successional Habitat Management (tillage) shall not be conducted within 50 feet of property boundaries without tapproval of the adjacent landowner or within 50 feet of field boundaries along State and County improved roads and

G E N E R A L C R P P R A C T I C E

R e q u i r e d M a n a g e m e n t F o l l o w i n g

E s t a b l i s h m e n t

~ Continued ~

17


20/62

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD

EARLY SUCCESSIONAL HABITAT DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT

(ac.)

CODE 647

EARLY SUCCESSIONAL HABITAT DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT (647)-1

DEFINITION

Manage early plant succession to benefit desired wild-life or natural communities.

PURPOSE

Increase plant community diversity. Provide habitat for early successional wildlife spe-

cies.

Provide habitat for declining species.

CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES

On all lands where early successional habitat is to beestablished and/or maintained in a condition suitable forthe desired wildlife and plant species.

CRITERIA

Early successional management will be designed toachieve the desired plant community in density, verticaland horizontal structure, and plant species diversity.

Methods used will be designed to maintain soil erosionquality criteria unless the habitat being managed is de-pendent on active erosion processes, for example,blowouts or sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars.For other habitats, an annual cover crop shall be estab-lished if soil erosion is expected to exceed T during orsubsequent to the year vegetation is manipulated. Re-fer to Cover Crop (340) standard for temporary coversto reduce erosion that are compatible with the desiredpermanent cover.

Vegetative manipulation to maximize plant andanimal diversity can be accomplished by distur-bance practices including prescribed burning,light disking, low density seeding, tree or brushremoval, mowing, grazing, herbicide application,water level manipulation, or a combination of theabove. Following such activities, early succes-sional plants will typically establish themselvesfrom the existing soil seed bank or from relativelydormant plants and rootstocks.

Early successional plants may also be estab-lished through deliberate seeding or planting.Native adapted plant materials will be used when-ever possible, but introduced species or evenmixtures of native and introduced species may beappropriate depending upon objectives.

All seed and planting materials shall be labeledand meet state seed law and NRCS seed qualitystandards (refer to FOTG Section II, Pasture andHayland Interpretations, Grass and Forb SeedSource Requirements).

It is recommended that legume seed of intro-duced species shall be inoculated with theproper, viable rhizobia before planting.Management practices and activities are not todisturb cover during the primary nesting periodfor grassland species. Exceptions may be al-lowed when necessary to maintain the health ofthe plant community. Mowing may be neededduring the plant establishment period to controlundesired vegetation.Measures must be provided to control noxiousweeds in order to comply with state noxious weedlaws.

Spraying or other forms of noxious weed controlwill be done on a spot basis to protect insectfood sources for grassland nesting birds and toprotect forbs and legumes that benefit native pol-linators and other wildlife.

Conservation practice standards are reviewed periodically, and updated if needed. To obtain

the current version of this standard, contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service.

NE-T.G. Notice 540

Section IV

NRCS-JULY 2003

18


21/62

Conservation practice standards are reviewed periodically, and updated if needed. To obtain

the current version of this standard, contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service.

NE-T.G. Notice 54

Section IV

NRCS-JULY 200

This standard is not to be used where plant communi-ties considered as rare and declining will be adverselyimpacted. Refer to the Restoration and Managementof Declining Habitats (643) standard and specification.

CONSIDERATIONS

To minimize harm to nesting birds, make every at-tempt to avoid conducting soil or vegetation disturbingactivities from April 1 to August 1 (most nesting gen-erally occurs in Nebraska between April 15 and July15). When those dates cannot be avoided, documentin the plan or note the reason why and/or what meas-ures are planned that will reduce or localize adverseimpacts. (For Example, disking may be conductedearly in the nesting season because of prolonged wetfield conditions. Disking will be done on a rotationalbasis to allow some areas to remain undisturbed eachyear.)

All habitat manipulations will be planned and man-aged according to soil capabilities. Recommenda-tions for management will avoid excessive soil losswhen consistent with project goals.

Consider potential vehicular safety concerns posed bytall vegetation adjacent to roads and highways. Roadintersections and areas with high big game popula-tions may be of special concern. Consider settingback from the field border 50 to 100 feet as appropri-ate.

Consider the potential for the spread of undesired

early successional plants (annual weeds) ontoneighboring lands. Consider consulting with adjacentlandowners about planned activities. If appropriate,consider setting back from property boundaries.

Consider managing vegetation under a scheduledrotational plan so that only a portion of the area is dis-turbed in a given year. This will assure that someundisturbed habitat is available and that several suc-cessional stages of cover are in close proximity.Early successional treatments should be rotatedthroughout the managed area.

Treatment shall be accomplished whenever succes-sion has gone past the desired stages.

Managing for early successional plant communi-ties is beneficial if not essential for less mobileanimal species. The less mobile the species, themore important to provide all the habitat require-ments in a small area.

Design and install the practice to facilitate opera-

tion of machinery or prescribed burning activities.When ever possible, lay out strips to have somemultiple or full width passes by all farm imple-ments. Mowing of herbaceous cover for weedcontrol is strongly discouraged but may be usedduring the plant establishment period, alone or inconjunction with other practices to control unde-sired competitive vegetation.

Grazing may be used as a management tool toachieve the intended purpose of this practice. Agrazing plan designed for habitat improvementthat addresses grazing frequency, intensity, and

duration is required.

This practice may be used to promote the conser-vation of declining species, including threatenedand endangered (plant, wildlife or aquatic) spe-cies.

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Specifications for this practice shall be preparedfor each site. Specifications shall be recordedusing approved specifications sheets, job sheets,narrative statements in the conservation plan, or

other acceptable documentation.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The following actions shall be carried out to insurethat this practice functions as intended throughoutits expected life. These actions include normalrepetitive activities in the application and use ofthe practice (operation), and repair and upkeep ofthe practice (maintenance).

Any use of fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemi-cals to assure early successional management

shall not compromise the intended purpose.

EARLY SUCCESSIONAL HABITAT DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT (647)-1

19


22/62

S-647a-1

20

PRACTICE SPECIFICATION

EARLY SUCCESSIONAL HABITAT DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT

DISKING

1. SCOPE

Grass and/or legume seedings that have been established for many years can losevigor, productivity, and species diversity. Such stands are sometimes described as be-ing sod-bound and usually have very little open soil surface between plants. Plantsmay have low stature or produce less than normal amounts of seed or leaf material andtypically are dominated by only a few, or even one, perennial species. Annual plantsare generally absent.

The use of this activity on native prairie sites is generally not recommended. If used,methods to maintain the integrity of the site need to be considered.

Ring-necked pheasant, gray (Hungarian) partridge, bobwhite quail, mourning doves,and big game such as deer and pronghorn are popular wildlife species that require orbenefit from good quality early successional habitat. Disking or similar non-inversiontillage operations can be useful for establishing or releasing early successional plantsand providing habitat for these wildlife species.

2. SITE LIMITATIONS

Disking will generally not be prescribed for areas of concentrated flow such as water-ways, within 30 feet of streams and wetlands, sandy or bare sites with very little surfaceresidue or vegetative cover, sites with slopes greater than 20%, or sites with an ex-tremely high risk of colonization by noxious weeds. Disking should not be conducted ifpoor soil moisture conditions are likely to delay plant regrowth and seed germination.

Disking on sloping ground will be done on the contour. Multiple equipment passes areacceptable. To prevent excessive (greater than T) water erosion, sites with slopesgreater than 9% and areas within 100 feet of streams and wetlands will maintain a mini-

NE T. G. 552Section IV

NRCS-SEPTEMBER 2004


23/62

S-647a-

21

200 feet 9 to 11

150 feet 12 to 15

100 feet 16 to 20

Exceptions are allowed if wider strips are justified and documented through the use ofcurrent erosion prediction tools. The width of the undisturbed area between diskedstrips will be 20 feet or greater.

Max. Contour Strip Width Slope%

3. DISKING DEPTH AND INTENSITY

Disking depth (ground penetration) and intensity will be prescribed by NRCS based onsoil type, slope, existing cover, purpose of disking, and producers objectives.

Maximum depth for nonsandy sites dominated by smooth brome, switchgrass, or reedcanarygrass will be 6 inches if slopes are equal to or less than 9%. Maximum depthfor all other sites will be 4 inches.

4. DISKING DATES

Disking may be done between July 15 and May 1 and will be prescribed at the opti-

mum time to achieve desired results. Disking between August 15 and September 15appears optimal for aggressive, sod-forming grasses to prevent immediate response(re-growth within exposed soils) under optimum growing conditions. For sites whereerosion is of concern, such as sandy sites, or where specific, undesirable weeds may

be problematic such as downy brome, sandbur, etc., disturbance in earlyspring is recommended.

5. DESIRABLE EARLY SUCCESSIONAL PLANTS

Desirable early successional plants are those that:

Produce seeds that are consumed by birds and small mammals or;

Provide forage for insects preferred by birds and small mammals or;

Provide cover that hides young wildlife (especially upland game bird chicks) but thatstill has sufficiently low plant stem densities to allow easy chick movement.

Examples of desirable early successional plants are shown in Table 1.

NE T. G. Section

NRCS-SEPTEMBER 2


24/62

6. SEEDED FORBS AND LEGUMES

Most sites have a soil seed bank that contains sufficient kinds and amounts viable seed.The existing seed bank can be supplemented by drilling or broadcasting seed of desiredspecies. In addition to the use of crops suitable for use as wildlife food plots, the species

listed in Table 2 are some that can be used provided they are adapted to the site. They canbe seeded between August 15 and September 15 or between November 1 and May 15.Refer to Pasture and Hayland Planting (512) and FOTG Section II Pasture and HaylandInterpretations Table 2 to determine the adaptability of additional species. The use of twoor more species is recommended. Legume seed of introduced species shall be inocu-lated in accordance with the directions on the inoculant container. Use the correct inocu-lant for each legume species.

7. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Reapply this practice periodically to set back succession and restore the desired habitatconditions.

Monitor wildlife use to determine practice success and to better prescribe future habitatmanagement activities.

Control noxious and other undesirable plant species as needed.

S-647a-3

22


NRCS-SEPTEMBER


25/62

S-647a

23

NE T. G. 55Section I

NRCS-SEPTEMBER 200

GENUS NAME COMMON NAME PREFERRED SITE

Amaranthus Pigweeds Uplands/Moist Sites

Ambrosia Ragweeds Uplands/Moist Sites

Bidens Beggarticks Wetlands

Brassica/Sisymbrium Mustards Uplands

Cannabis Hemp Uplands/Moist Areas

Chenopodium Lambsquarters Uplands

Cleome Rocky Mt. Beeplant Uplands

Conyza Marestail Uplands

Croton Texas Croton Uplands

Digitaria Crabgrasses UplandsEchinocloa Barnyardgrass Wetlands/Moist Sites

Galium Bedstraw Moist Sites

Helianthus Annual Sunflowers Uplands

Iva Marshelder Uplands/Moist Sites

Kochia Kochia Uplands

Lactuca Prickly Lettuce Uplands

Malva Common Mallow Uplands

Medicago Black Medic Uplands

Melilotus Sweetclover Uplands

Oxalis Yellow Woodsorrel Uplands

Panicum Witchgrass Uplands

Plantago Plantains Uplands/Moist Sites

Polygonum Smartweeds Wetlands/Moist Sites

Rumex Docks Uplands

Setaria Foxtails Uplands

Stellaria Chickweeds Uplands

Taraxacum Dandelion UplandsThlaspi Pennycress Uplands

Veronica Speedwells Uplands

Table 1. Desirable Early Successional Plants and Preferred Sites


26/62

Species VegetativeZone

Site Adaptability

Single

SpeciesSeedingRate 1

Alfalfa Statewide All Except Wet Sites 3.0 to 5.0

Sweet Clover Statewide Adapted to Most Sites 2.0 to 4.0

Red Clover III, IV Loamy, Fertile Soils 2.0 to 4.0

White Clover (Ladino) II, III, IV Avoid Dry, Sandy Soils 0.5 to 1.0

Alsike Clover III, IV Moist and Wet Soils 0.5 to 1.5

Strawberry Clover I, II Moist, High pH Soils 1.5 to 3.0

Crownvetch III, IV Infertile Poor Soils 4.0 to 8.0

Hairy Vetch I, II, III Sandy Soils - Aggressive 5.0 to 10.0 *

Cicer Milkvetch I, II, III High pH, Calcareous Soils 3.5 to 7.0

Sainfoin I, II Dry, Calcareous Soils 10.0 to 20.0 *

Birdsfoot Trefoil IV Adaptable to Many Sites 1.5 to 3.0

Maximillian Sunflower Statewide Native ForbAggressive 1.0 to 2.0 *

Purple Prairieclover Statewide Native Legume 2.0 to 4.0

Canada Milkvetch Statewide Native Legume 2.0 to 4.0

Illinois Bundleflower III, IV Native Legume-Moist Soils 5.0 to 10.0 *

Showy Partridgepea II, III, IV Native LegumeAnnual 5.0 to 10.0 *

1 Rates provided are for pounds of pure live seed per acre drilled as a single species.Reduce rates proportionately when using two or more species in a mixture.Rates will be doubled if broadcast.

* Recommended seeding rates have been reduced from amounts noted in Section II, FOTG Pasture and Hayland Interpretations, Table 2. Pure Live Seeding Rates and MLRA Adaptation dueto aggressive nature and/or high cost of extensive seeding rates.

Table 2. Desirable Forbs and Legumes with Seeding Information

(See Pasture and Hayland Interpretations, Section II of FOTG for more specific information.)


NRCS-SEPTEMBER 2004

S-647a-5

24


27/6225

Is This Good or Bad?

The interpretation of the results from Mid Contract Management activities is ofteleft to the eye of the beholder. Wildlife Biologists will look at this field and see anabundance of broad-leaved forbs, open areas on the ground, no noxious weedspresent, plants that attract insects for young chicks and lots of diversity.justwhat we are looking for from CRP Mid Contract Management activities!

A landowner or neighbor that is unprepared for these results may have an entiredifferent opinion of the management activity results. Taking the time to determinlandowner goals and objectives and the history of the site will add to the wildlifebenefits created above by preparing landowners for the expected results.

Very few things related to wildlife management happen overnight. Conductingproper CRP Mid Contract Management activities is one of the few managementpractices that can produce a wildlife response in a short timeline.


28/62


29/62

In the Focus On Pheasant Focus Area located in Stanton County, several research projects hbeen started in the last few years to begin to document the wildlife and vegetative responses to Cgrass stand treatments.

Some of the investigations conducted include:1. Invertebrate abundance in CRP fields. Three different efforts have been conducted from 200

2005, that looked at the effects of disking and interseeding legumes on key brood habitat comnents in CRP fields.

2. Evaluation of Ring-necked Pheasant Response to Disking and Interseeding Legumes on Cservation Reserve Program Fields in Northeast Nebraska. Initiated in 2004 by the NebraGame & Parks Commission and expanded as a University of Nebraska - Lincoln graduate projevaluating the response of ring-necked pheasants to landscape scale habitat manipulations.

3. Spring Pheasant Crowing Counts and August Roadside Surveys. Conducted from 2002007, the Nebraska Game & Parks Commission is conducting surveys in focus areas and conareas to determine the influence of habitat improvements on pheasant abundance.

4. Grassland bird response to Disking/Interseeding of legumes in Conservation Reserve Pgram lands in Northeast Nebraska. Initiated in 2004, a graduate research study from OklahoState University is looking at grassland songbird responses to habitat improvement efforts on C

fields.

The results of these studies are summarized in this booklet today and will be expanded upothroughout the tour by the researchers. These efforts are documenting the results of CRP Mid Cotract Management efforts on a landscape scale and providing early information about what management techniques are most effective.

27


30/62

Insect and Vegetation Responses to Disking and Interseeding Legumes onConservation Reserve Program (CRP) Fields in Eastern Nebraska

Scott Taylor, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission

Background

n the spring of 2000, the Wildlife Division of Nebraska Game and Parks recognized the need for information regarding the effects of

ight disking and interseeding with regard to pheasant brood habitat components on CRP fields. These management actions are re-quired on CRP fields enrolled in the Commissions CRP-Management Access Program (CRP-MAP). The goal of management is to im-prove nesting and brood rearing habitat on portions of these fields. The most important desired improvement was an increase in insectabundance. Pheasants and many other grassland birds depend heavily upon insects in their diets during the summer. Desired vegeta-ive improvements included increases in visual obstruction, plant diversity, and canopy coverage measurements. We sampled insects

and vegetation in portions of CRP fields with and without the disking and interseeding treatment to determine the effects of this manage-ment technique.

MethodsWe sampled 4 different field types. 1) CRP fields planted to cool season grasses, with a portion of the field disked and interseeded withegumes (alfalfa, yellow sweetclover, and/or red clover), 2) CRP fields planted to warm season grasses, with a portion of the field diskedand interseeded with legumes, 3) either cool or warm season CRP fields with a portion of the field planted to a high diversity seed mix-

ure (CP-25), and 4) native prairie hay fields. Transects were located > 20 m from field borders and ran parallel to the edge. We usedsweep nets to collect insects. We made 50 sweeps along each transect.

Highlights of ResultsWe acquired samples from 22 fields. In CRP fields, insect abundance was higher in treatment portions of both cool season and warmseason fields. Insect abundance in CP-25 plantings was similar to those in control portions of the fields.

Line to line variability in insect abundance was relatively high but field to field variability was relatively low. This suggested an unevendistribution of insects within fields. If future sampling is done, an increased number of sample lines per field is suggested to reduce vari-ability of mean abundance measurements.

Significant increases in both visual obstruction (height and density) and forb (broad-leafed plants) to grass ratios were observed on both

cool season and warm season CRP fields that were disked and interseeded with legumes. Litter (dead plant material) decreased signifi-cantly after treatment.

This technique quickly improved nesting habitat (structurally) for pheasants and many other grassland dependent bird species. The re-duction in litter and increase in insect abundance appears to have made these tracts more attractive for foraging and brood rearing aswell. As such, this technique shows promise for improving wildlife habitat on older CRP stands that have lost vegetative diversity.

28


31/62

Untreated Portion of Field

Interseeded or High

Diversity Portion of Field

Field Type n Mean SE Mean SE

Cool-season CRP 6 3.94 0.81 9.07 1.53

Warm-season CRP 6 2.66 0.97 9.31 1.71

CP-25 and adjacent CRP 5 5.74 1.76 4.85 2.90

Native prairie 5 8.21 2.48

Table 1. Mean biomass (g) of invertebrates sampled in several herbaceous community types in Nebraska during summ2000. Measurements represent the total biomass collected along 3 50-m transects per field; sample sizes are tnumber of fields.

Light disking and interseeding to improve brood habitat

Ron LeathersPheasants Forever, Inc.

Pheasants are early-successional species, relying heavily on a combination of grasses and weedforbs to produce seed and insect food sources. In particular, pheasant hens and chicks are heavily dependant on insects as a primary food source during spring nesting and summer broodrearing. Hens must eat insect foods to meet their needs for high levels of calcium and protein t

produce eggs. Pheasant chicks are almost solely dependant on insects throughout their first summer to meet their needs for high calorie, high protein foods to reach maturity by winter. Agrasses grow, they tend to choke out these weedy forb species and can become nearly purstands of a single grass species, leaving pheasants and other birds without the food sources andiversity they need to fully reach their population potential.

Nebraskas CRP-Management Access Program is a joint program of Pheasants Forever and thNebraska Game and Parks Commission that promotes management of aging CRP grasslands tset back grass growth and encourage reestablishment of forb species. The specific managemepractice that is used for this program is light disking and interseeding legumes (typically alfalfasweetclover, and red clover).

Some of the highlights of a 2001 & 2002 study on the CRP-MAP programs management practices are presented below.

Invertebrates:Managed fields had a much higher availability of insects and invertebrates than idle fields. Thincrease was particularly pronounced in the native grass stands. Idle native grasses had the lowest overall availability of invertebrates, translating into the least available food source for pheasanchicks. However, managed native grasses had the highest availability of invertebrates and thmost food sources for chicks. Although less pronounced than in the natives, brome fields alshad more invertebrates when managed than when left idle.

29


32/62

Available invertebrates

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

B

iomass(mg)

Idle

Managed

Idle 1918.9 531.6

Managed 2334.3 2757.7

Brome Native

Vegetation changes:Managed fields had more legume cover than idle fields. Without

management, the average percent cover of legumes was less than2% in brome fields and 0.5% in native grasses. After management,legumes accounted for roughly 1/3rd of the total cover in brome fieldsand 1/6th of the cover in native grasses.

Managed fields also had more forb cover (including the planted leg-umes and any volunteer weedy forbs) than idle fields. Planted leg-umes accounted for the majority of the forb cover in managed fields.Again, the percentage of forbs in idle fields was extremely low (


33/62

Insect Response to Disking and Interseeding Legumes onConservation Reserve Program Lands in Northeast Nebraska

Insects are important food resources for many grassland birds. A survey was conducted in 2004 to deter-mine insect abundance, biomass and diversity in treated vs. untreated fields as part of the Grassland BirdStudy in the Stanton County Focus On Pheasants study area.

Eight of the sixteen fields used for the grassland bird study were chosen randomly for insect sampling. Ofthose eight, four were disked and interseeded with yellow sweet clover, alfalfa, and red clover; and fourwere control fields that received no treatment. Using a sweep net, three sub-samples of twenty sweepseach were taken along 200 meter transects within each field. Samples were preserved sorted, identified,dried, and weighed for biomass over the fall and winter of 2004-2005.

Preliminary statistics have been preformed to compare insect samples between treated and untreatedfields. Previous research has shown grasshoppers, butterflies, caterpillars, beetles, and spiders as beingthe main food resource for grassland bird hatchlings. Graph 1 compares the total abundance of these in-sects for July samples between treated and non-treated fields. Treated fields had an insect abundance of2,951 and non-treated fields had an abundance of 1,021. Graph 2 compares the biomass, or dry weight,of the same insects. Treated fields have nearly three times more biomass than non-treated fields.

Insect Abundance

Treated Vs. Non Treated Fields

0

500

10001500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Treated Not Treated

A

bun

dance

Insect Biomas

Treated Vs. Non Treated Fields

0

5

10

15

20

25

Treate d Not Treated

B

iom

ass

(m

g)

Graph 1. Abundance of insects favored by grassland birdsin treated (disked/interseeded) and unmanaged fields.

Graph 2. Biomass (dry weight) of insects favored bygrassland birds in treated (disked/interseeded) and un-managed fields.

Jamie Bachmann, Oklahoma State Univers ity, Scot t Taylor, Nebraska Game and ParksCommission and Lucas Negus, Oklahoma State University.

31


34/62

Ring-neck Pheasant Habitat Selection and Productivity inLandscapes Containing Disked and Interseeded CRP in

Northeast Nebraska

Ty Mathews and Larkin PowellUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln

A decline in the quality and quantity of ring-necked pheasant nesting and brood-rearing habitat hasbeen hypothesized as a major factor limiting population growth in the Great Plains. ConservationReserve Program (CRP) was thought to reestablish this valuable habitat, but population responsewas smaller than anticipated. Pheasant populations in Nebraska rose in the first 5-6 years of CRPthen declined thereafter. This decline is thought to be due to the change of vegetation compositionn these fields. Newly planted CRP fields (5 to 6 years) contain a high diversity of grasses, forbs, leg-umes, and annual weeds with an abundance of bare ground needed by nesting pheasant hens andtheir broods. Older fields (>6 years) are characterized by dense monoculture of grass with little bareground and thick litter. Disking and interseeding forbs into older CRP fields re-create the conditionsfound in the newly planted fields.

Objectives Compare habitat use of pheasant hens and their broods in CRP fields that have been disked and

interseeded to unmanaged CRP fields and other grasslands Compare chick survival in CRP fields that have been disked and interseeded to unmanaged CRP

fields and other grasslands Determine the insect diet of pheasant chicks in all field types

32


35/6233

Nest Survival

In te rs e e d e d O th e r

DailyNestSurvival

0 . 90

0 . 92

0 . 94

0 . 96

0 . 98

1 . 00

2 0 0 52 0 0 6P o o le d Y e a r s

CRP Nest Success2005

Int erseeded 53.3% (n=15)

Non-int erseeded 37.5% (n=16)

2006Int erseeded 60.0% (n=10)

Non-int erseeded 33.3% (n=18)


36/62

Available Habitat in

Focus Area

Habitat Type

CRP Crop Other Grassland Other

Hectacre

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

IS

C R P In terseeded O ther

Percent

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

Ava ilable H abi tatNes t

Nest Site Preference2005 Chi-square

= 28.07

P


37/6235

Hen Survival

3/1/2005 4/1/2005 5/1/2005 6/1/2005 7/1/2005 8/1/2005

Survival

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Nest Survival

Raw Nest Succ ess

Interseeded: 65% (n=20)

Non-interseeded: 55% (n=20)

Other: 42% (n=7)

Dai ly Nest Surviva l

Interseeded: 0.982 (95% CI= 0.963-.0992)

Non-interseeded: 0.977 (95% CI= 0.956-0.987)

Other: 0.964 (95% CI= 0.909-0.987)


38/6236

2005 Nest Site Preference

Chi-square

= 28.07

P < 0.0001

Interseeded CRP OG Other

Percent

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Nest

Available Habitat

2006 Nest Site Preference

Chi-square

= 39.31

P < 0.0001

Interseeded CRP OG Other

Percent

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

NestAvailable Habitat


39/62


40/6238

Brood Survival

20.044.5241.17year

20.053.8140.46alf

10.063.4140.06

No difference in

Survival

50.141.7938.44year * int * alf

20.161.538.15int

30.171.3638.01int * alf

30.34036.65year * int

kA I CWe i g h tA ICICo d e l

Brood Survival

0.7670.9870.25

0.7210.9850.2

0.7160.9840.1946

0.6100.9770.1

0.5440.9710.05

21-daySurvival

% Time in

In terseeded

Int model


41/6239

Brood Microhabitat

Selection

CS W S IF O F BG VO R

PercentHabitat

0

20

40

60

80

Density(dm)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Brood LocationRandom Location

*** denotes p < 0.001

* denotes p < 0.005

*

***

***

***

*

T-test:

Conclusions In terseeding CRP prov ides reproduct ive

benef i t s

Hens se lec t in t erseeded CRP for nest ing

Nest su rv i va l t ends t o be h igher i n

in t erseeded areas

Hens w i th broods tend to pre fer int erseed ed CRP

Hens w i th broods se lec ted areas w i th h ighforb c ontent


42/6240

Stanton County Focus Area Pheasant IndexSurvey Information

Scott WesselWildlife Biologist, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission

Year Total Crows Crows/Stop2007 n/a n/a2006 630 21.02005 653 21.82004 624 20.82003 389 12.92002 374 12.5

Spring Rooster Crowing Counts1, 2

1 Habitat work began in the fall of 2002.2 Route conducted in April with 2 minute stops.

Year # ofbroods # ofyoung BroodSize Young/mile2007 3 32 162 5.06 5.42006 15 63 4.2 2.12005 36 193 5.36 6.432004 49 278 5.67 5.562003 37 255 6.89 4.252002 7 45 6.42 0.75

Miles ofRoute30

30

30

50

60

60

1 Habitat work began in the fall of 2002.2 Route run on days with a heavy dew. Miles traveled varies due to road conditions and staffing.3 Includes 1 prairie chicken brood wi th 8 chicks.

August Roadside Brood Survey 1, 2


43/6241


44/6242


45/62

Grassland bird response to disking/interseeding oflegumes in Conservation Reserve Program lands

in Northeast Nebraska

Lucas Negus and Craig A. DavisOklahoma State University

Grassland bird populations are declining faster than any other group of birds. These declines habeen attributed to the loss of prairie habitat. With the tremendous losses of native prairie throughthe Midwest, surrogate grasslands such as CRP have become increasingly more important to graland wildlife. While game birds are most commonly thought of as being the main beneficiaries, ngame grassland songbirds also benefit from CRP. Recently, several studies have attributed popution increases, or at least stable trends, in specific grassland bird species to CRP.

In May of 2002, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and Pheasants Forever, Inc. initiatedprogram to curb declining ring-necked pheasant populations in the state. The program, entitFocus on Pheasants, placed an emphasis on creating nesting and brood-rearing habitat in the aing CRP fields by disking and interseeding legumes. Although improving pheasant habitat is the

mary objective, grassland birds will likely benefit from the habitat manipulations as well. These hatat upgrades provide an excellent opportunity to evaluate grassland bird population response to tmanagement practice. Funding for this study was provided through the Nebraska State WildGrant program. State Wildlife Grants provide funding for management practices and research tbenefit at-risk wildlife species.

Objectives: To compare grassland bird richness and abundance in CRP fields disked/interseeded to C

fields unmanaged. To compare grassland bird nest productivity in CRP fields disked/interseeded to CRP fields

managed.

To evaluate differences in vegetation structure, composition, and cover between CRP fiedisked/interseeded and CRP fields unmanaged.

Beginning in May 2004, grassland bird abundance and nest productivity were sampled in 16 fiethroughout the Stanton County focus area. Eight fields were disked and interseeded and servedexperimental fields. Eight fields in which no disking and interseeding was performed serve as con

43


46/6244

Results - 2004:Grassland bird species observed during surveys include eastern and western meadowlarks, grass-hopper sparrows, Henslows sparrows, Dickcissels, sedge wrens, bobolinks, field sparrows, com-mon yellowthroats, brown-headed cowbirds, and northern harriers. Other bird species using theCRP include redwing blackbirds, barn swallows, rough-winged swallows, eastern kingbirds, mal-lards, blue-winged teal, ring-necked pheasants, northern bobwhite, and mourning doves.

Bird surveys from the 2004 field season indicate some important differences. Several grasslandbird species, including Dickcissels and grasshopper sparrows, were more abundant in experimental

fields than control fields. Dickcissels were 3 times more abundant in experimental fields. Experi-mental fields had a species richness of 24, compared to a richness of 18 in control fields. Severaldifferences between treatments were also seen in nesting behavior. Of 100 nests found throughoutthe field season, 88 were in experimental fields. Additionally, nest densities were 3 times greater inexperimental fields. Nest success was 37-40% in both experimental and control fields.

Differences in vegetation characteristics were also observed. The control field vegetation was com-posed of only 1.5% forbs and 2% bare ground. Conversely, experimental fields were composed of25% forbs and 25% bare ground. Litter (dead material in contact with the ground) was two times deeper incontrol fields than experimental. Finally, vegetation height was relatively uniform in control fields,ranging from 34 to 71 cm throughout the summer. Vegetation height in experimental fields varied

greatly, from 24 to 90 cm, indicating a diversity of heights throughout the field.

Bird surveys and nest searches resumed in May of this summer, with some slight modifications.Nest searches have been intensified to achieve the goal of finding 200 nests. Following this sum-mers field season, results from the two field seasons will be compiled, analyzed, interpreted, andreported.


47/6245

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2004 2005

Reference

Treatment

Overall Abundance Diversity

Species Richness*

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

Treatment Reference Treatment Reference

**

Nest Densities

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2004 2005

N

ests/Hectare

Reference

Treatment

n = 112 n = 135


48/6246

Overall Conclusions

Planted grasslands are important for wildlifespecies

Mid-contract management is important ingrass dominated, aged CRP fields

Disking and interseeding legumes is an effectivemanagement technique

A wide array of wildlife (both game and non-

game) and organisms benefit frommanagement

Management is needed in the future tomaintain/enhance the wildlife habitat CRPfields provide as they progress through the lifeof their contract

Grassland Bird Conclusions

Disked/interseeded fields supported higherabundances and more species than undiskedfields

Disking/interseeding created vegetationresponse that attracted diverse assemblage ofgrassland birds

Nest densities appeared to be higher indisked/interseeded fields, but no difference innest success

Mature brome stands were still important,

particularly to Henslows Sparrows andBobolinks


49/62


50/62

K a n s a s M i d - C o n t r a c t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s

Kansas offers Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants the option of six mid-contract man-agement practices. The primary focus is to increase plant diversity, create open spaces and im-prove habitat cover in well established stands by temporarily reducing the vigor of perennial grasswhile improving CRP cover for wildlife.

Kansas is fortunatelydominated by native grass cover on CRP acreage. Under normal establish-

ment conditions, the cover on CRP offers the best habitat for upland birds and their broods duringthe first year of seeding. The quality of the habitat generally declines in consecutive years until thetall native perennial grass offers little for upland birds or their broods by the fourth or fifth year.

Selection of the appropriate management practice is a management decision made by the CRP par-ticipant working in consultation with an NRCS technician, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks(KDWP) and other conservation partners. Practice selection is based upon sound conservationplanning principles that best achieves wildlife habitat improvement.

All of the management activities are made available when the cover is considered established and inmost cases can be performed on more than one occasion but must be performed at a time when the

benefits will outweigh the cost. Consideration to site specific factors such as erosion problems infragile areas or high risk areas of noxious weed colonization is required when planning managementpractices.

Mid-contract Management Practices work in conjunction with other conservation partners incentiveprograms to improve wildlife cover. KDWP, Pheasants Forever (PF) and Quail Unlimited (QU) offerincentives for legume inter-seeding, CRP Wildlife Upgrades, Upland Bird Habitat Incentive Pro-grams, Food Plots, and Brood strips. KDWPs Walk In Hunting Program (WIHA) is also a popularchoice for Kansas CRP participants.

48


51/62


52/6250


53/62

Mid Contract Management on CRPIowa Job Sheet CRP 1

Narratives Mid-contract Management of CRP

Practice CP1

This practice requires management activities to maintain wildlife benefits of the practice. Manament activities may occur as early as year four and ending no later than year eight. No more thone third of the area may be treated in any given year, unless an exception is granted by NRCSother Technical Service Provider. For this practice acceptable methods may include one or a comnation of the following: Spraying to suppress existing cover, light disking, or inter-seeding to diversthe cover. No management activity may occur during the primary nesting season of May August 1.

Managed haying or grazing (with applicable payment reduction) may be used to reduce duff prior to aof the management methods described above. Mid-contract management must be conducted each contract acre a minimum of one time during the contract period.

Practice CP2

This practice requires management activities to maintain wildlife benefits of the practice. Manament activities may occur as early as year six and ending no later than year eight. No more than othird of the area may be treated in any given year, unless an exception is granted by NRCS or otTechnical Service Provider. For this practice acceptable methods may include one or a combinatof the following: Light disking, inter-seeding to diversify the cover or prescribed burning. If prescribburning is selected, seedings that include native forbs may benefit from a fall or dormant burn.management activity may occur during the primary nesting season of May 15- August 1.

Managed haying or grazing (with applicable payment reduction) may be used to reduce duff priordisking or interseeding. Mid-contract management must be conducted on each contract acre a mmum of one time during the contract period.

Practice CP4B and CP4D (Introduced Species)

This practice requires management activities to maintain wildlife benefits of the practice. Managment activities may occur as early as year six and ending no later than year eight. No more than othird of the area may be treated in any given year, unless an exception is granted by NRCS or otTechnical Service Provider. For this practice acceptable methods may include one or a combinatof the following: Spraying to suppress existing cover, light disking, or inter-seeding to diversify t

cover. No management activity may occur during the primary nesting season of May 15- Agust 1.

Managed haying or grazing (with applicable payment reduction) may be used to reduce duff priorany of the management methods described above. Areas planted to trees or shrubs are not subjto mid-contract management. Mid-contract management must be conducted on each contract a(not planted to trees or shrubs) a minimum of one time during the contract period.

51


54/62


55/62

Mid Contract Management on CRP Iow a Job Sheet CRP 1

~ Continued ~

Practice CP25 (Contracts Less than 12 years)

This practice requires management activities to maintain wildlife benefits of the practice.

Management activities may occur as early as year six and ending no later than year eight.No more than one third of the area may be treated in any given year, unless an exceptionis granted by NRCS or other Technical Service Provider. For this practice acceptablemethod are prescribed burning or light disking. If light disking is used, interseeding with na-tive forbs is recommended. Seedings that include native forbs may benefit from a fall ordormant burn. No management activity may occur during the primary nesting seasonof May 15- August 1.

Managed haying or grazing (with applicable payment reduction) may be used to reduce duff prto disking or interseeding.

Practice CP25 (Contracts Greater than 12 years)

This practice requires management activities to maintain wildlife benefits of the practice. Maagement activities will occur twice on every acre during the contract period at mid-contract bginning in year six and ending no later than year eight. The second management activity wbegin in year eleven and end no later than year thirteen. No more than one third of the aremay be treated in any given year, unless an exception is granted by NRCS or other TechnicService Provider. For this practice acceptable method are prescribed burning or light diskinglight disking is used, interseeding with native forbs is recommended. Seedings that include ntive forbs may benefit from a fall or dormant burn. No management activity may occur duing the primary nesting season of May 15- August 1.

Managed haying or grazing (with applicable payment reduction) may be used to reduce duff prto disking or interseeding.

Name_____________________________

Field(s)____________________

See attached aerial photo for areas to be treated.

Tract______________________

53


56/62

Mid contract management on CRPIowa Job Sheet CRP 1

Name_____________________________

Field(s)___________________

See attached aerial photo for areas to be treated.

Tract______________________

Purpose

Mid contract management (MCM) will be conducted on certain Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)General sign up practices. The purpose of MCM is to manage established plant communities in orderto maintain an early successional stage. Management will:

Increase plant community species and structural diversity.

Provide wildlife habitat for those species that use early successional stage vegetative habitat.

Provide habitat for declining species.

Remove duff and control woody vegetation.

Where does it apply?MCM is required on general CRP contracts entered into during sign up 26 or subsequent sign ups.MCM applies to CRP practices CP1, CP2, CP4B, CP4D, CP10 and CP25. MCM will be applied toevery acre at least once during the contract life.

MCM is available for any CRP acres with these CP practices at the 50% cost share rate.

How it helpsManaging plant communities is beneficial if not essential for less mobile animal species. The less mo-

bile the species of wildlife, the more important it is to provide all the life cycle habitat requirements formultiple species in a small area (songbirds, quail, and pheasants).

MCM will be designed to achieve the desired plant community in density, vertical and horizontal struc-ture, and plant species diversity needed by the targeted wildlife species.

Methods used will be designed to maintain soil and water quality criteria.

Used alone or in combination with other techniques, mechanical methods (prescribed burning, lightdisking, mowing, chemical application, or a combination of the above) can be used to manipulate andmaintain the desired successional habitat stages.

MCM should be used not more than once every three years on the same location in a field.

Options

NRCS Standards and Specifications will be used to apply options. Applying an option may involvemultiple activities. See the applicable Standard for the activities to be completed for the chosen option.

54


57/62

Select (check) one of the following options:

Light Disking (2-4 deep) of existing stands (four years and older) may be necessary to increathe amount of open ground and encourage a diverse plant community of annual and pennial plants. Disk between October 1 and April 30. Rotate the disked areas, eithblocks within the field or strips across the field, following the CRP conservation plan. Tdisked area should provide no more than 50 percent bare ground leaving at least 50 pcent ground cover of residue to prevent soil erosion. Follow NRCS Early SuccessionHabitat Management Standard (647).

Use Prescribed Burning to remove excess litter, which may reduce the quality of wildlhabitat. Controlled fire can allow germination of seed bearing annuals, increase plaspecies diversity, control unwanted woody cover, and open up the stand for movementsmall animals and birds. Follow the NRCS Prescribed Burning Standard (338). Aburns must be done according to a Prescribe Burn Plans reviewed by NRCS.

Selected Herbicides may manipulate plant succession and improve habitat diversity. Caful planning and care in application are required in the use of chemicals to improve exiing habitat. Selection of products should be based on several factors including prodeffectiveness, non-target species impact, toxicological risks, and off-site movement

chemicals. See the NRCS Pest Management Standard (595) for precautions. Not appcable to practice CP25.

Interseeding may be used to enhance existing cover. The addition of introduced legumsuch as alfalfa, ladino or red clovers, or native legumes and forbs such black-eySusan, partridge pea, white or purple prairie clover, tick trefoil, Illinois bundle flower, etwill add diversity and structure to existing cover. Interseeding may be used in conjunctiwith any of the above MCM options or used as a stand alone single MCM option. Follothe

NRCS Conservation Cover Standard (327) for seeding dates and interseeding methods. Int

seed forbs at 25-50 percent of pure seeding rate.

No MCM option may be applied during the May 15 to August 1 primary nesting season.

Managed haying or grazing (with 25% payment reduction) may be used to reduce duff prior to ligdisking, spraying or interseeding.

Measures must be provided to control noxious weeds and other invasive species.

To protect forbs and legumes that benefit native pollinators and other wildlife and provide insefood sources for grassland nesting birds, spraying or other control of noxious weeds shall

done on a spot basis.

All habitat manipulations will be planned and managed according to soil capabilities and recomendations for management that will maintain soil loss within tolerable (T) limit.

The practice may be used to promote the conservation of declining species, including, threened and endangered (plant, wildlife, or aquatic) species.

55


58/62

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESWILDLIFE HABITAT ESTABLISHMENT INVOICE

To: Iowa Department of Natural ResourcesFrom:

Social Security or Federal ID Number:Cooperators Name:Cooperator Number:Cooperator Farm Location:

This is to certify that the following wildlife habitat practices were established under the Departments Pheasant &Quail Restoration Program. All wildlife habitat practices were established in accordance with the specifications pro-vided by the DNR wildlife biologist.

This form will be used to calculate all costs for which reimbursement/payment is requested. Flat rates for each wild-life habitat practice are provided below and shall be used to claim costs for any work performed by the Cooperator/Contractor. Complete costs cover all equipment, labor and materials needed to establish the practice.

(Cooperator/Contractor Name) (Address)

(City) (State) (Zip code)

56


59/62

CRP Upgrade Mixtures

These legume mixtures have been designed to use in CRP grass standimprovements throughout Nebraska. The cost of the mixtures rangefrom $10 to $20 per acre.

57

Legume Mixture #1

5.0 lbs PLS/acre (26.2 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa...............................3.0Red Clover .......................1.5Sweet Clover....................0.5

$11.20 per Acre

Legume Mixture #2

5.0 lbs PLS/acre (25.7 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa ..........................3.0Sweet Clover...............2.0

$10.74 per Acre

Legume Mixture #3

5.0 lbs PLS/acre (26.4 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa ............................ 3.0Red Clover .................... 2.0

$11.35 per Acre

Legume Mixture #4

4.0 lbs PLS/acreAlfalfa ............................. 2.5Crimson Clover............... 0.5Red Clover ..................... 0.5Black-eyed Susan......... 0.05Illinois Bundleflower........ 0.2Lemon Mint................... 0.05Showy Partridgepea ....... 0.2

$16.45 per Acre

Legume Mixture #5

3.61 lbs PLS/acreAlfalfa ..........................2.5Sweet Clover...............1.0Black-eyed Susan .....0.05Cudweed Sagewort ...0.01Roundhead Lespedeza ....0.04Stiff Goldenrod ..........0.01

$15.73 per Acre

Legume Mixture #6

3.45 lbs PLS/acre (17.7 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa ........................... 2.0Red Clover ................... 1.0Black-eyed Susan....... 0.05Illinois Bundleflower...... 0.2Showy Partridgepea ..... 0.2

$14.42 per Acre

Legume Mixture #7

3.45 lbs PLS/acre (20.0 PLS/ft2)Alfalfa .............................. 2.0Red Clover ...................... 0.8Black-eyed Susan ......... 0.05Illinois Bundleflower ........ 0.2Lemon Mint ..................... 0.1Showy Partridgepea........ 0.2White Prairie Clover ........ 0.1

$20.14 per Acre

Legume Mixture #8

3.86 lbs PLS/acreAlfalfa ............................3.0Sweet Clover.................0.5Black-eyed Susan .......0.05Cicer Milkvetch..............0.3Stiff Goldenrod ............0.01

$12.14 per Acre

Legume Mixture #9

2.96 lbs PLS/acreAlfalfa ............................. 2.0Sweet Clover.................. 0.5Black-eyed Susan ........ 0.05Cudweed Sagewort...... 0.01Illinois Bundleflower ....... 0.2Showy Partridgepea....... 0.2

$14.41 per Acre


60/62

N o t e s :

________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

58


61/62

The same field was disked and interseeded with legumes to increase the diversity of the grass stand throuthe CRP-MAP program. It now has a diversity o f cover that provides nesting, brood-rearing and winter cofor a variety of wild life including grassland songbirds, pheasants and quail.

This photo is of a 13-year old CRP field that is over 1,000 acres in size and has had no management pformed on it dur ing its contract. It was originally established to a mixture of Brome grass and alfalfa and

now a monoculture of Brome grass that provides minimal wildlife benefits.


62/62

A grass stand that has been dominated by smooth bromegrass

and lost its productivity for upland wildlife. An area that wasexcellent wildlife habitat in the past has now naturally movedthrough succession to a more mature grass stand in need ofmanagement.

On April 7, 2004, the grass stand is disked with three pass

and then interseeded with a legume mixture. A minimum three passes with a disk was necessary with a mature stanof bromegrass but still leaves more than 50% residue.

Documents

CRP Mid Contract Management - 2007