WRP Question

[Double R 2]

Most naturally-established "as God intended" stands I sampled back when had far greater stem density than 436 (stands subject to seed dispersion by means of seasonal flooding usually ranged 1500 or more). Over a much longer period of time than we landowners and wildlife-productive mindsets would like relative to our needs and desires, will naturally produce superior stands of timber.

IMHO, direct seeding was sold short due to the time-frame of usually a decade or more that planting efforts were readily observed by landowners and involved agencies. After 5-10 years of seasonal oak die-back and regeneration, and the oaks finally took hold. It seemed to created a real patchy affect of variable, multi-aged stem density, with plenty of time for light-seeded shelter species, site-specific species such as willow, sweetgum, green ash, sycamore, cottonwood to seed in and abet oak growth.

Back when hardwood regeneration of the MAV was initiated, 302 sounded like a good number to jump-start the process, and >50% survival after a period of years was considered a success. WRP is perpetual - forever - so what's the hurry; it'll become established to woody species at some point in time even if it has to do it itself.

All of the pre-commercial methods mentioned are expensive and can't possibly make sense from a ROR stand-point unless somehow monetizing increased wildlife outputs, which might look good on paper but won't put money in the bank like sawtimber stumpage. And for which wildlife are we landowners managing anyway? That's right, deer. Don't forget, however, that WRP priority areas were initially established by USFWS, and that USFWS rank wildlife priorities are trust species: endangered/threatened, migratory birds, indigenous species. Pursuant to pre-merch thinning or timber harvest, would bet that nesting suitability for neo-trops trumps quality browse for trophy white-tails. If so, stripping it with a mechanical mulcher, for example, might be great for deer but would increase edge to the detriment of those warblers that favor nesting among dense stands of young hardwoods.

It will be interesting to see what USDA does - and when - regarding thinning. But WRP contracts are perpetual, forever, so what's their need to hurry.

[redspeckable]

Thanks for a well spoken, well thought out reply, Mr. Russell. I always enjoy reading your responses and thoughts, and value your stance on subjects.

I too agree it's a perpetual activity that they aim to accomplish. In their mind they're truly isn't a rush. With that being said, I haven't seen the nature conservatory, or a bus load of 3rd graders on a field trip coming out to look for a red-beaked, blue breasted, twin tailed cocadeeded woodpecker.

What I do see as I drive through the south delta is a vast amount of acreage that has benefitted much more than just an endangered songbird. I see a vibrant nursery that has been sanctuary to so much of the game that we choose to pursue, that we invest untold millions as hunters pursuing, that we pour blood, sweat and tears into making better, vanishing. I see the browse and cover that once housed and fed untold numbers of whitetail deer, rabbits and other game, becoming a desert. As a landowner, it's disappointing. Sure I knew what we were purchasing when we signed on the dotted line. Even so, your heart aches as you know what could be done to improve and keep the quality of game on your property, but are stipend doing so because of government. There is a medium out there that can benefit everyone and everything, even including the endangered songbird (that I assume most landowner's haven't given a second thought to). Hopefully finding that middle ground will come soon.

[stang67]

Intriguing and informative post, DR2.

However, I'd like more opinions of what you'd like for them to do, as if your interests in the issue were similar to redspeckable's. Maybe the opinion you gave DID take all those interests in to account, though. I'll hang up and listen.

[Double R 2]

Intriguing and informative post, DR2.

However, I'd like more opinions of what you'd like for them to do, as if your interests in the issue were similar to redspeckable's. Maybe the opinion you gave DID take all those interests in to account, though. I'll hang up and listen.

Given the opportunity to have stated opinion over a tailgate, it'd have been a lot easier to see that I share redspeckable's concerns and that all of we that have interests in WRP properties are certainly on the same team. I don't have much of a poker face, it's pretty easy to know where I stand in person. Apologies that my sarcasm-laced, shared frustrations weren't plainly evident from the keyboard.

After the hardwoods crown out, there's a serious bottleneck until some form of disturbance, natural or otherwise, allows more sunlight to reach the forest floor. Mean deer weights are steadily declining at my own camp, which is also enrolled in WRP. Inasmuch as the contract and local field office will allow (and we are blessed in Mississippi with a lot of capable and committed field an area office employees - and the state WRP Coordinator is among the best there has been), I think it's increasingly important to "stir what you've got"; to manage designated wildlife openings for year-round browse - blends of cool-season grass and legumes in conjunction perennial white clover management, transition areas of natural browse that has been disced-only every couple of years in wagon wheel configurations or along the edges between the plantation and the food plot, or warm-season annuals as budgets allow. Increased management of roads and trails rights of way (disc the left and right sides in alternating years) - and I'd like to see allowances made to increase rights of way openings. Good moist-soil management that will produce waterfowl beneficial vegetation (the regular discing part of this equation anyway) will increase natural growing season browse too. On many delta soils, trumpet creeper is a primary growing season browse, so keep it around if you can. Inter-planting waterfowl impoundments with r-r forage soybeans will benefit deer more meaningfully, I feel, than waterfowl but from what I've seen a little bit goes a long ways for deer.

One thing I'd *like* to see on properties that, for whatever reason, were established to a relatively higher ratio of hardwoods than to waterfowl/wildlife openings, or that have exceedingly high stem densities, would be implementation of cost-shared enhancement pre-merch practices mentioned. Won't state obvious landowner rights (because those were arguably ceded to sone degree pursuant to the easement), but would think that if specific properties were managed in the context of the surrounding landscape, it'd seem that maybe some allowances could be made? Consider a quarter million-acre or more landscape of nearly-contiguous restored or prior-existing bottomland hardwoods. Would it make more sense (now that such landscapes actually exist as more than delineated migratory bird zones on state-of-the-art aerial imagery), to manage them in whole or in part? If in whole, then rank the property relative to other applicant properties in the surrounding area and fund them as possible. But I wish in one hand and...

I don't remember the exact target ratio of forested to open or wetland, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall it was as much as 30% opening? That should be plenty by conventional deer management standards, but not all properties will have that much.

Final thought, for the moment, is that we'll all have to decide quality or quantity of deer. Tracking weights and age classes, and DMAP is one of the greatest benefits to MS landowners that exists, will help to manage within carrying capacity. Favor fewer larger or more smaller?

Just one man's opinion, but so there's no misunderstandings: imperfect though the program may be, it has transformed the delta positively and I can only imagine the benefits our grand kids will reap because of this conservation program. The time-frame of hardwood forest stand development is much longer than a human lifetime, and therein likely lies the source of my own frustrations.

[Bercy]

TTT - Has anyone heard of any developments as far as thinning/managment of WRP properties?

[Wingman]

I noticed my neighbor's newly planted WRP is one row cottonwood, one row that appears to be nothing, but I have seen a few small oaks.

I didn't realize cottonwood was an option on WRP. I know it wasn't on CRP.

[420 racin]

Wingman,

Your neighbors propertyhas [robably been enrolled in the CRP/WRP Program through the Green Trees Program http://www.green-trees.com/

These guys were at the last Southern Hardwood Foresters Group meeting we had in Arkansas.

[DanP]

Mississippi State Extension and Delta Wildlife are in the process of planning a series of workshops in the Delta that will cover both technical and legal aspects of what can be done to manage these properties. More than likely they will be held during August/September. We put a couple of "pilot projects" in last year and will be watching to see how they respond this year. If nothing else they will provide examples of how habitat can be improved for deer.

[Bercy]

Dan, that's good news. Can you give any information as to the pilot projects and things they are looking at?

[DanP]

Dan, that's good news. Can you give any information as to the pilot projects and things they are looking at?

Basically pre-merch thinning in CRP, mulching and drum chopping specifically. Timber stand improvement may be a better term than thinning as it was mostly high density boxelder/gum/ash removed. I'm curious as to how the vegetation responds in the new opening and how long we see the benefits. Also curious as to the negative impacts on oak stem quality through epicormic branching.

MSU and the Forest Service has a lot of research that is going to be very applicable, the key is applying to individual properties because there is no way blanket guidelines will work. Too much variation in stands from planting method, species, survival, etc..

[Bercy]

Bump - Dan, any word on those possible workshops? Thanks.

[Bercy]

TTT - Has anyone heard of any developments as far as thinning/management of WRP properties? I keep hearing rumors of someone somewhere that has thinned or checkerboard-cut some WRP. Anyone?

[DanP]

G. Forest Management
(1) The United States possesses the right to prohibit all forest management activities, unless NRCS determines that forest management activities will further the wildlife habitat and wetland functions and values of an easement. Before forest management activities, including timber harvest, may be authorized on an ACEP-WRE through a CUA, a forest management plan must be developed and appended to the WRPO.
(2) The primary goal of the forest management plan component of the WRPO is to restore, protect, and enhance wildlife habitat and wetland functions and values within the forested portions of the easement. A forest management plan must be developed by an NRCS forester, or the landowner may obtain a forest management plan at their own expense from a professional, certified forester, and provide it to NRCS for review and approval. The completion of an NRCS-approved forest management plan alone does not guarantee thatforest management activities will be authorized on the easement area. Forest management activities described in the forest management plan that are approved by NRCS for implementation must be identified in a CUA and are subject to the following limitations: (i) Forest management activities must be implemented in a manner and during timeframes
that will minimize impacts to forest nesting birds.
(ii) Maximization of timber harvest for economic gain is not a consideration in developing
the forest management plan or authorizing a CUA, however, any proceeds derived from the sale of timber harvested in compliance with the forest management CUA, may be kept by the easement owner.
(iii) NRCS must inspect any timber harvest operation during implementation to ensure the CUA is being implemented as written.
(3) NRCS will not authorize forest management activities that may negatively impact at-risk or listed species or fragile or rare habitats found on the easement.
(4) Except where authorized by the national ACEP-WRE manager in consultation with the NRCS national biologist, clearcutting of forested habitat is not permitted. Clear cutting may only be considered in unique situations where NRCS wildlife and forestry professionals agree that forest conditions or special wildlife habitat needs require such a measure.

[DanP]

Above is the current guidance. I know the NRCS state forester retired last year, so it may be difficult getting anything approved until they can staff back up. Bottom line is it's going to take a true forest management plan providing evidence that program objectives are being met through silvicultural activities to make anything happen.

[Bercy]

Dan - Thank you for the further information. Our WRP easement allows for the harvest of timber "according to a timber harvesting plan approved by NRCS that is consistent with the long term protection and enhancement of the wetland resources for which the easement was established". Of course, that is very vague and then limited by conditions of what you posted and probably more.

I had a friend hunt with us a few weeks ago, and he commented on how our WRP looked good compared to theirs that was about 25 years old (desert-like under canopy). Our WRP blocks are in the 13th and 16th year since planting, and still providing what I would consider good diversity. However, that 20-25 year desert is coming quickly.

Have you seen some forest management plans that have been proposed and approved in recent years? If so, can you give us a ballpark of what they were (knowing that each property is different and will be treated as such)? Is there a master plan in place to consider the thousands upon thousands of acres of WRP? Thanks.