The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007

Division ofWildlife Management

N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission

1722 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699- 1722

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

Pre- sort Standard

U. S. Postage

PAID

Raleigh, NC

Permit No. 244

This publication was printed on recycled paper. 5,500 copies of this

public document were printed at a cost of $ X, XXX, or $. XX per copy.

Editor’s Note: In the fall newsletter, our

cover story delved into the history of CURE

( the Cooperative Upland- habitat Restora-tion

and Enhancement program) and how

CURE areas ( both public and private) were

identified and developed. In this issue, we

review lessons learned from CURE includ-ing

communicating and working with land-owners

and understanding how landscapes

affect developing habitat.

Habitat improvement requires

different strategies

As the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commis-sion’s

Division of Wildlife Management

took the first steps toward restoring bob-white

quail, we quickly learned that

im ple menting habitat improvement on

different landscapes requires different

strategies. For example, field borders

were readily adopted by Coastal Plain

landowners, but Piedmont farmers who

depend upon crops to support cattle

herds are reluctant to sacrifice crop land

to establish wildlife field borders. The

aes thetics of weedy borders are of greater

concern to Piedmont land own ers who

live and work on a landscape that is

rapidly developing into home sites.

Even on the forested Game Lands

CURE areas, different approaches

have proven effective depending on

forest types and soils. Food and cover

plants develop quickly on fertile sites

The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007

Spring 2007 / Volume 12, Issue 1 Published by the North CarolinaWildlife Resources Commission

What’s Inside. . .

◆ Terry Sharpe Retires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

◆ Bobwhite Spring Dispersal . . . . . . . . . . 4

◆ CRP Continuous Sign- up . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

◆ Globe Project Endorsed . . . . . . . . . . . 7

◆ Incentives for Longleaf Pine . . . . . . . 8

CURE I: Lessons Learned

on Caswell and South Mountains

game lands where techniques like

roller chop ping and frequent fire, set

back encroaching brush. On the other

end of the spectrum, recently logged

infertile ridge sites on Sandhills Game

Land are planted to native grass, using

novel techniques.

We learned that borders less than

30- feet wide tend to provide marginal

habitat at best, as woodland edges

encroach on one side while farm activ-ities

encroach on the other. Commu ni -

cating the importance of weedy bor ders

is dif ficult. In addition, the borders must

be marked to remind farm workers to

continued on page 6

T he N. C. Wildlife Resources

Com mission authorized fund-ing

for the second phase of CURE

beginning Jan. 1, 2007 and contin -

uing through 2009. Lessons learned

from the initial stage of CURE will

be put to work as the Commission’s

Division of Wildlife Management

expands the program for land own -

ers adjacent to current private and

game land CURE areas.

Phase Two will apply the follow-ing

lessons:

• Some management prac tices are

more effective than others. For

example, we found there were

lim ited habitat benefits from

controlled burn ing in closed

canopy woodlands, so now we

pay only for con trolled burning

in more open wood lands.

• Landowner involvement is critical

to success, so we will rely more

heavily on landowners to conduct

management activities.

• To make CURE dollars go fur ther,

we will look at tap ping the federal

CP 33 “ Bobwhite Buffers” program.

• By observing different responses

from quail pop ulations in sepa-rate

CURE areas, we have learned

we need to tailor future manage-ment

plans to maximize opportu-nities

in each area.

continued on page 2

Second Phase of

CURE Underway

NCWRC

The Wildlife Resources Commission is an Equal Opportunity Employer, and all wildlife

programs are administered for the benefit of all North Carolina citizens without prejudice

toward age, sex, race, religion or national origin. Violations of this pledge may be reported

to the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Equal Employment Officer, Personnel Office,

1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606. Telephone ( 919) 707- 0201.

2 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 3

stay off of them. We have learned to

work with farmers to place borders

where they complement farm activities.

Borders are being used to straighten field

edges and remove less productive crop-land.

We also learned that encroach ment

from farm equipment is less of a prob-lem

when borders run parallel to the row

direction. We are currently using what

we learned about borders on the pilot

CURE areas to implement this Con serva-tion

Reserve Pro gram in North Carolina.

The program is known as “ CP33”, and is

admin istered by the U. S. Department

of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency.

Working with resident versus

absentee farmers

We also found it much easier to estab -

lish and maintain habitat when work -

ing with resident farmers who control

man agement activities on their land,

than with absentee landowners or

own ers of small farms who work away

from home. We are more effective when

work ing with resident farmers because

they are acces sible. We can interact with

them on a regular basis to develop

man age ment strategies and to address

potential prob lems, and they have a

long- term out look when compared to

farm ers who rent crop fields. We remain

challenged to develop effective strate-gies

to work with the large pool of

absentee land owners and owners

of small tracts who may be interested

in wildlife, but have limited time and

abil ity to implement plans.

We already knew that excellent

habi tat is often provided by young for-est

stands. We continue to struggle,

however, to extend benefits into older

wood lands where groundcover is dif -

ficult to establish because economic

concerns make landowners reluctant

to thin stands heavily, and to follow

thinning with prescribed burns on one

to three year intervals.

Communicating with

landowners is key

Perhaps the most important lesson

learned from the pilot projects, concerns

understanding and working with land-own

ers. A successful project requires

that both parties communicate effec-tively

and develop trust. It is critical

to locate cooperators who have a keen

interest in the project and then, to talk

with them regularly. The most pressing

need is the development of a mech a -

nism to more effectively interact with

absentee and small landowners.

Another lesson we have learned con-cerns

landscapes. Our habitat improve -

ments do not occur in a vacuum. The

lack of a measurable quail response

to our efforts at Turnersburg, and the

phe nomenal increases at Rowland

must both be viewed with caution.

At Turnersburg, narrow borders did

not develop into useable habitat, new

homes popped up, and landowners

dropped out because they did not like

the unkept look. Similarly, outside the

scope of CURE, the landscape at Row-land

changed in a positive manner,

as land owners harvested timber, and

young longleaf pine plantations devel-oped

into habitat. These changes point

out the importance of considering the

land uses that occur on the farm be-tween

habitat patches; and teach us to

look beyond the property line to con -

sider the land uses that occur for sev-eral

miles around the project areas.

We have also learned that quail man-agement

is not a one- size- fits- all solu-tion

for managing at- risk songbirds.

There are a few species ( indigo bunting,

field sparrow) that will likely do well

with any quail management, but man-agement

for other species requires

mak ing adjustments for specific habi-tat

needs, and the consideration of the

landscape context. Instead of manag-ing

for “ songbirds” alongside quail,

we should be managing for a small

handful of species that are likely to

do well in a particular area and whose

management is compatible not only

with quail, but also with the dominant

land use of the area.

We have a clear path to follow on

Coastal Plain landscapes dominated by

row- crop agriculture, where the addi-tion

of field borders has great promise

for increasing quail populations, and

the CP33 program can be used to imple-ment

the practice. Our experience in the

Piedmont suggests that native grasses,

providing forage and wildlife habitat,

are worth pursuing but we remain chal -

lenged to work effectively on rapidly

urbanizing landscapes. It is too early to

evaluate our work on forested sites on

state- owned game lands. No, we don’t

have all the answers, but far from a fail-ure,

our approach toward solving the

long- term quail decline in North Caro -

lina is making steady pro gress and is

being conducted in ways that allow us

to build upon our early efforts.

T erry Sharpe, Agriculture Liaison

Biologist and the N. C. Wildlife

Resource Commission’s 2006

Biologist of the Year, retired last Decem-ber.

We should also add, “ special friend

of birds”, because Terry dedicated much

of his 26- year career to promoting con-servation

of early succession birds in

grasslands, shrub lands and savannas.

During his distinguished career, Terry

led many programs for the Commission

including those on technical guidance

and small game research. Terry’s signif-icant

accomplishments include working

to improve and implement federal Farm

Bill conservation programs, researching

programs to evaluate pragmatic ways

to benefit wildlife on working farms, and

promoting controlled burning to bene-fit

wildlife. He also created and main-tained

many partnerships throughout

the southeast to accomplish these far-reaching

goals.

Terry is well known and respected for

his long- term work with quail and is

always in demand as a speaker on this

subject. He has been a leader and Com-mission

representative on the Southeast

Quail Study Group. Terry was instru -

mental in the development of the Coop -

er ative Upland- habitat Restora tion and

Enhancement program, ( CURE). This

successful pro gram has demonstrated

that quail and early- suc-cession

song bird popu-lations

can be increased

by concen trating habitat

improvements on land -

scape- scale projects.

Terry’s last year with

the Commission was

one of his most active.

He helped shepherd the

CURE program into its

next phase, building on

the lessons learned in the

first phase and setting

ambitious goals for the

future, while lining up

the needed resources to

accomplish those goals.

Over the past few

years, Terry ini tiated several new proj-ects.

He helped create three Technical

Assistance Biologist positions to ensure

that wildlife- friendly Farm Bill pro-grams

got off to a good start. Terry

worked with a large cor porate hog

pro ducer, Murphy Brown, to enhance

early succession habitat and to eco-logically

link one of their large farms

to the nearby Suggs Mill Pond CURE

area. Terry wrote a grant and created a

position to make that project a reality.

Terry has also been active in working

with youth to teach them about wild -

life management. Toward this end, he

founded the Susan Sharpe Memorial

Scholarship Fund, to honor his late wife.

Part of Terry’s effectiveness comes

from his extensive knowledge. There

are few people who can tell you more

about the plants, animals, management,

and history of a given tract of land, par-ticularly

in the Sandhills and southern

Piedmont. One of Terry’s best traits is

his positive attitude. He embodies the

mantra “ in every crisis, an opportu-nity.”

When things go wrong, Terry

does not complain; instead he looks

for the best way forward.

Thanks to his excellent work, Terry

has received several awards. Among

them the Wildlife Resources Commis-sion’s

Biologist of the Year Award ( twice)

and Con servationist of the Year Award

in North Carolina, pre sented by the

North Caro lina Wildlife Federation.

Terry Sharpe, 2006 Biologist of the Year, Retires

He embodies the mantra,

“ in every crisis,

an opportunity.”

The Susan Sharpe Memorial Scholarship Fund is an endowment established by the

N. C. Chapter of The Wildlife Society ( NCTWS), with the purpose of send ing one stu-dent

a year from south- central North Carolina to the Fur, Fish, ‘ n Game Rendezvous

held at Camp Millstone in Richmond County. The Rendezvous is an annual, week-long

overnight experience for 12- to 15- year- old students, during which they are

exposed to many facets of the enjoyment and wise management of wildlife. The

experience is intended to spark an interest in pursuing a wildlife career or avocation.

The camp is sponsored by the N. C. State Cooperative Extension with numerous

partners including a num ber of NCTWS members.

Susan Sharpe was involved in the NCTWS Russian Exchange program and accom-panied

her husband, Terry, on several trips to Russia. A strong supporter of NCTWS,

Susan was particularly interested in encouraging students in her home in Richmond

County to pursue wildlife careers. She passed away in October 2005 after a battle

with cancer.

Donations can be sent to:

N. C. Chapter of The Wildlife Society

P. O. Box 37742

Raleigh, NC 27627

Attention: Susan Sharpe Endowment Fund

One of Terry Sharpe’s many contributions to wildlife is improvement

of the habitat for bobwhite quail with the CURE program.

NCWRC

NCWRC

Bobwhite quail

continued from page 1

4 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 5

Early studies targeted banding

Past research studies that examined

bob white movements did not provide

accurate estimates of bobwhite disper-sal

rates ( proportion of the bobwhite

population that disperses) or dispersal

distances ( the distances traveled by dis-persing

bobwhites from their winter

home ranges to their breeding- season

home ranges). The earliest studies used

banding techniques to quantify move-ments.

In these studies, researchers

would set bobwhite traps across a par-ticular

area. They attached leg bands to

captured bobwhites and released them

back into the wild. Banded bobwhites

would be recaptured at other traps, and

researchers could use these trap loca-tions

to get a rough idea of movement

patterns. Bobwhites that dispersed were

not likely to be recaptured, because

many of the dispersers would leave the

area where traps were set. The advent

of radio telemetry in wildlife research

offered biologists a better way to quan -

tify movements. Researchers attached

radio transmitters to bobwhites and

then tracked them using radio receivers.

For a long time, however, bobwhite

radio telemetry studies did not provide

good information on bobwhite dispersal

because those conducting the studies

were primarily interested in move-ments

of birds within a defined study

area. When bobwhites left the study

area, they were no longer monitored.

Telemetry studies shed light

on dispersal patterns

Two recent radio telemetry studies

con ducted in Georgia and Virginia

have shed light on the dispersal pat-terns

of bobwhites in the southeast.

Bobwhite Spring Dispersal

What it is and why it’s important

B iologists classify most animal

move ments into three main cat-egories:

home range movements,

migration, and dispersal. Home range

movements are movements of an ani-mal

within a defined area, repeatedly

traveled by that animal ( its home range),

while carrying out the everyday busi-ness

of living ( feeding, roosting, etc.).

Migration is a cyclic movement between

two or more home ranges. Probably the

most well- known example of migration

is waterfowl migration. Many ducks

and geese fly south for the winter and

return to their more northern breeding

grounds in the spring. Dispersal is sim -

ilar to migration in that a dispersing

animal leaves its home range. Disper-sal,

however, is a permanent, one- way

movement from one home range to a

different area where a new home range

is established. The animal does not

return to its original home range.

How to track bobwhites

We often think of bobwhites as being

a sedentary species, but they are quite

capable of dispersing significant dis-tances.

Although bobwhites may move

long distances during any time of the

year, most dispersal events occur in

the spring, prior to the breeding sea-son,

when coveys are breaking up ( late

March through early May). This move-ment

of bobwhites, from winter home

ranges to different areas where they form

breed ing- season home ranges, is called

spring dispersal.

Both studies were conducted without

study area boundary constraints. In

other words, researchers followed radio-banded

bob whites wherever they went.

By doing so, they were able to accurately

estimate dispersal rates and distances.

The studies found that 25 to 30 per cent

of the bobwhite pop u lation dis perses

from their winter range to form a

breed ing range elsewhere. The aver-age

distance traveled by these dis -

persing bob whites was a little over

a mile. Exceptions did occur. One

Virginia bird, for example, moved

8.4 miles, crossing the Appomattox

River and relocating from Amelia to

Powhatan County. Bob whites are

essen tially miniature turkeys in that

they walk to travel and only fly to

escape from predators. Therefore,

8.4 miles is an extremely long dis -

tance for an animal as small as a

quail to travel.

Does habitat influence

dispersal rates?

The Georgia study went a step further

in unveiling bobwhite dispersal pat-terns.

Researchers in this study were

also interested in whether or not habi-tat

could influence bobwhite dispersal

rates. They wanted to know if birds

with win ter home ranges that con-tained

better habitat would be less

likely to disperse than birds with win-ter

home ranges that contained poorer

habitat. Overall, they found that habi-tat

quality had little to no effect on the

probability of a bobwhite dispersing.

This finding is somewhat surprising and

counterin tuitive. We have long known

that bobwhites prefer and benefit from

certain habitat types. In particular, areas

dominated by early successional

vegetation ( weeds, broom straw and

short brush) are extremely important

to bobwhites. The results of this study

indicate, however, that regardless of

how much of this habi tat bobwhites

have within their home range, a certain

number will disperse every spring.

These dispersers are essentially “ hard-wired”

to pick up their bags and go.

Why is dispersal

information important?

This may be neat- to- know information,

but why is it important? To begin with,

if it wasn’t for this tendency of some

bobwhites to disperse, we probably

would have already seen the com plete

disappearance of the species from most

of the Southeast. Immigration from

productive populations into areas of

suitable habitat ( where the bob white

population is experiencing temporary

declines due to lowered survival and/ or

reproductive rates) is extremely impor-tant.

This process has been described

as “ dispersal rescue,” and it is absolutely

crucial to the long- term per sistence

of regional bobwhite populations in

the fragmented landscape of the mod-ern

southeast.

Emigration versus immigration

Although dispersal may allow bob white

populations to persist in fragmented

landscapes, efforts to increase popula-tions

at the local scale ( e. g. public wild -

life management areas) are hindered

if emigration ( birds dispersing from an

area) exceeds immigration ( birds

dispersing into an area). A sig nificant

portion of birds will disperse every

spring, regardless of habitat qual ity on

a management area. Therefore, it is im-portant

to consider surrounding land -

scape qual ity ( amount of and distance

to suitable bobwhite habitat) and

management area size, when deter -

mining which areas are most likely to

respond to management. Choosing the

proper management strategy needed to

achieve bob white population objec-tives

is important as well. Lower sur-rounding

landscape quality will

result in lower immi gration rates be-cause

there will be fewer birds in the

surrounding landscape that can dis-perse

into the management area.

Smaller management unit size will

also result in lower immigration ( in)

and higher emigration ( out) because

birds on the management unit and

sur round ing areas that disperse will

be, just by random chance, less likely

to form breeding ranges on the man-agement

area. Because bobwhites are

known to select early successional

habi tat, immigration should increase

as this habitat increases on an area. Yet,

surrounding landscape quality and

management unit size will still affect

the immigration/ emigration ratio.

Strategies to increase

bobwhite population

It is impor tant to understand that the

amount of effort required to produce

a certain number of bobwhites on a

prop erty 30 years ago will likely not

produce the same number of bob-whites

today because of reduced land-scape

quality. Imagine a population

of bobwhites on a management area

that in a given year expe riences 80

percent mor tal ity, 25 per cent emigra-tion,

and five percent immigration.

That’s a complete loss of the entire

population on that area. This is an ex-treme

example, but you can see the

point. As surrounding land scape

quality and management area size de-crease,

managers must increase the

intensity of their man agement to

achieve bobwhite population objec-tives.

On many areas in the modern

southeastern landscape, managers

may have to adopt an “ all out” man-agement

strategy to offset losses to

emi gration and achieve bob white

populations large enough to support

hunting. This type of “ all out”

strategy would include con vert ing

all available upland acreage to

bobwhite habi tat. Not adopt ing this

type of man agement strategy will lead

to unrealized objectives in many cases.

Using resources, helping bobwhites

Finally, the interaction of sub- popu -

lations within regional populations

is extremely important to wildlife

man agement agen cies when deciding

where to devote resources ded icated

to bobwhite restora tion. Bob white

biologists from New Jersey to Texas

almost unan i mously view the CURE

approach of establishing focal areas

in the most suit able land scapes as

the only way to go. In fact, the revi -

sion of the Northern Bob white Con -

servation Initiative ( a plan aimed at

national range- wide restora tion of

bobwhites) will incorporate this focal

area approach.

We should all applaud the efforts

of biologists with the N. C. Wildlife

Resources Commission for taking this

approach and not squan der ing scarce

conservation dollars on an ineffective

“ shotgun” strategy that would spread

resources across the entire state. This

is not to say that land owners wish ing

to increase bobwhite populations on

prop erties outside of designated focal

areas should not do so. Those land -

own ers often have great suc cess, and

efforts to increase bobwhites anywhere

within their range should be strongly

encouraged.

The public must understand, though,

that the resources of most wild life agen-cies

are extremely limited and that the

landscape- level restoration of bob -

white populations, even in the most

suitable landscapes, will not be easy.

It is arguably the most difficult task

that game biologists have ever under-taken,

but biologically sound focal

area strate gies that are experi enc ing

success in North Carolina and else-where

provide us with much needed

“... if it wasn’t for this tendency of some bobwhites to disperse,

we probably would have already seen the complete disappearance

of the species from almost the entire Southeast.”

Established 1996

Published twice a year by the N. C. Wild life Resources Com -

mis sion, Division of Wildlife Man age ment. Designed by

the Division of Con ser vation Edu cation. To become a sub-scriber,

please send your name and address to the following

address: The Upland Gazette, Divi sion of Wildlife

Management, N. C. Wild life Resources Commission, 1722

Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N. C. 27699- 1722. Com ments

and suggestions are welcome. Send them to the above ad-

By Patrick Cook, Small Game Project Leader, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

6 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 7

T his year, the U. S. Forest Service ( USFS) has sug-gested

that limited logging be allowed in the north-west

section of Caldwell County. The planned

thinning totals just over

200 acres, mostly near

Thunderhole Creek.

The N. C. Wildlife

Resources Commission

supports this forest

management plan. An

assessment by Wild life

Resources Com mission

biol o gists shows the plan

would help restore valu-able

wildlife habitat.

The timber parcel is

located within the Grand-father

Ranger District of

Pisgah National Forest

in Avery, Caldwell and

Watauga counties. Known

as the Globe Project, the

plan includes creating

clearings and planting native grasses and clovers, while

eradicating invasive, non- native plants. A tim ber harvest

would take place on a portion of the acreage.

With construction and devel op ment displacing or

disrupting habi tats throughout the region, forest manage -

ment on public lands has become increasingly important.

Com mission biologists noted that the habi tat created would

be vital for sev eral declin ing songbird species, as well as for

grouse, wild turkey, bear and deer.

“ The Wildlife Resources Commis sion supports this pro-posal

because of its anticipated benefits to fish and wild life,”

said Gordon Warburton, a supervisory wildlife biologist with

the agency. “ A young forest— what we call an early suc ces -

sional forest— is just as important as a mature forest for cre -

at ing diverse habitat that is part of a balanced ecosystem.”

Currently, the area is made up mostly of large mature

trees in the 90- year class. Ironically, while big mature trees

are ben eficial in many ways, they do not support the largest

base of plant and wildlife species. Large expanses of big trees

only support a few species of birds and ground dwelling ani -

mals because the cover is too thick to allow undergrowth.

“ In an overall forested environment like we see along the

Blue Ridge, managed forests provide a diversity of habitats

that allow for very high bird abundance and diversity,”

com mented Mark Johns, the Partners in Flight coordinator

for the Commission. “ This has been proven many times in

the scientific literature.”

Wildlife Resources Commission Endorses

ForestManagement Plan in the Globe

Here are some examples of the benefits of a young forest:

• In the mountains, start small and you will find big

impor tance. Commission biologists said that clearings

will foster insects, which become food for birds and

small mammals, which, in turn, become food for larger

predator species like snakes, bobcats and birds of prey.

• Openings allow vegetation growth like grasses, vari-ous

tree seedlings and shrubs to emerge, which is

normally ham pered in the shade of mature forests.

This new vegetation is an ideal food source for many

birds, rabbits and deer. Ruffed grouse and many war-bler

species require such habitats at vari ous life stages.

“ Years down the road, these areas will be reforested and

blend in with the landscape,” said Dean Simon, a wildlife

forester with the Commission. “ The overall benefits to

wildlife from this proposed management far exceed what

will happen as the result of inaction.”

Sportsmen can contact their local Ranger District office

at www. cs. unca. edu/ nfsnc/ facts/ office_ addresses. htm.

Our long- term goal for the program

is to increase and maintain early- suc -

ces sion habitat to positively impact

populations of northern bobwhite and

“ at- risk” grassland and shrubland song-birds,

within CURE focal areas and

game lands. To do this, we will main-tain

the current names of our CURE

cooperatives and continue our land-scape

approach to habitat restoration.

Six habitat- improvement practices will

be funded, with emphasis on field bor-ders

and prescribed burning in open

forests at our northern and south ern

coastal sites. The program will help

estab lish native warm- season grasses

in our western Piedmont focal area

and promote inclusion of these season

grasses in haying and grazing.

Three additional CURE biologists

are now in place to help implement all

phases of the program. We will explore

opportunities to purchase qual ity up-land

tracts and take advantage of con -

servation easements to increase the

quality and lifespan of our efforts.

The division will also con-tinue

to mon itor habi tats and

wildlife pop ulations with a

variety of bird and useable

habitat surveys. We will fur-ther

refine our survey tech-niques

and tailor them to each

focal area to better gauge the

impact of our activities. We

will also sur vey our stake -

holders and include their

feed back with our bio logical

infor ma tion to measure pro -

gress in meeting their needs.

Our agency will examine additional

funding sources for CURE. Where

feasible, CURE funds will be supple-mented

by other programs such as the

Conservation Reserve Program ( CRP)

and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Pro-gram

( WHIP). We will continue to work

through the United States Depart-ment

of Agriculture Farm Bill programs

such as these to strengthen interac tions

with state agencies, federal agencies

and pri vate landowners. Other

potential fund ing may include a leg-islative

appropriation and property

tax relief to establish and maintain

certain wild life habitat improvements.

We will continue to increase positive

attitudes toward CURE with focal area

landowners and outdoor enthusiasts.

The Upland Gazette and Wildlife in North

Carolina will be used to keep conserva-tionists,

small game hunters, landown-ers

and the public informed. Additional

information will be distributed through

technical guidance and information

sheets and bulletins on preferred habi-tat

improvement practices.

continued from page 1

T he U. S. Department of Agricul-ture

Farm Service Agency’s ( FSA)

Conservation Reserve Program

( CRP) is a voluntary program available

to agricultural pro duc ers to help

safeguard environmentally sensitive

land. CRP participants plant and

maintain long- term, resource- conserv-ing,

vegetative covers to improve land

quality. In return, FSA provides par -

ticipants with rental payments and

cost- share assistance. FSA administers

this program, while other USDA agen-cies

and partners provide technical

support.

The continuous CRP sign- up, which

uses the CP- 33 Practice ( Habitat Buffers

for Upland Birds) and the newly released

CP- 36 Practice ( Longleaf Pine Initiative),

Time is Ticking on CRP Continuous Sign- up

Program ends in December 2007

ends in December 2007. Continuous

CRP differs from general CRP because

eligible lands can be enrolled at any

time, not just during a des ignated time

frame. And continuous CRP is not com-petitive;

it operates on a first- come, first-served

basis until the state’s allotted

acreage is enrolled.

Besides the lack of competition, con-tin

uous CRP has additional benefits for

landowners who are willing to enroll

their property in a 10- year con tract. All

CRP initiatives offer rental and main -

te nance payments and 50 per cent reim-bursement

for installation. Continuous

CRP goes even further by paying sign- on

bonuses, addi tional incen tives for prac-tice

instal la tion, financial assistance with

manage ment practices and increased

rental payments for some practices.

Even though CP- 33 has been a focus

during this sign- up period, several other

practices are available to improve habi-tat

on working lands. Continuous CRP

prac tices which can be installed to en-hance

wildlife habitat on cropland in-clude:

Shelterbelts, Filter Strips, Wind-breaks,

Grass Waterways and Shallow

Water Areas. Unlike general CRP, contin-uous

CRP allows for several practices

to be installed on “ marginal

pastureland.” Mar ginal pastureland is

defined as pas ture land that is adjacent

to surface water. The practices which

may be enrolled on marginal

pastureland are Forested Ripar ian,

Wetland and Wild life Buffers. For

more information, contact your local

FSA or Natural Resources Conservation

Service office.

“ A young forest— what we call an early

successional forest— is just as important as

a mature forest for creating diverse habitat

that is part of a balanced ecosystem.”

NCWRC

TONY ROBINSON

Bobwhite quail

Young wood thrush

TONY ROBINSON

8 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 9

Major Incentives Offered for Longleaf Pine Establishment

Sign up for CRP through December 31, 2007

L ongleaf pine forests were once

the dom i nant forest type cover-ing

uplands in North Carolina’s

coastal plains and lower Pied-mont.

The U. S. Forest Service

has

estimated that this once- vast

forest ecosystem and all of its

rich diversity and cultural history,

has been reduced to a fragment of

what it was, and now covers only

177,000 acres in the state.

In December 2006, the United States

De partment of Agriculture’s Farm

Service Agency ( FSA) opened enroll-ment

in an expanded Conservation

Reserve Pro gram ( CRP), the Longleaf

Pine Initiative, that is designed to

plant up to 32,250 acres of longleaf

pine forests in 42 North Caro lina

counties. CRP is a voluntary program

that provides annual rental payments

and cost- share assistance to restore

long- term, resource conserving covers

on eligible land. FSA makes annual

rental payments based on the agricul-ture

rental value of the land and pro-vides

cost- share assistance of up to 50

percent of the participant’s costs to

establish CRP prac tices. Contracts are

from 10 to 15 years. Sign- up is contin-uous,

provided eligibility

requirements are met.

Sign- up, rental rates and

cost- share payments

Sign- up began Dec. 1, 2006, at local FSA

offices for the CRP Longleaf pine Ini-tiative,

and runs continuously until the

acreage goal is met, or Dec. 31, 2007,

whichever comes first.

Eligible land and practices

To be eligible for this practice, land

must be located in counties within

the historic range of the longleaf pine,

and soils must be suitable for longleaf

pine. In addition, land must meet the

basic CRP eligibility requirements.

Acceptable land is cropland that was

planted or considered planted to an

agri cultural commodity in four out of

six years between 1996 and 2001. The

land must also be physi cally and legally

capable of being planted in a normal

manner to an agricultural commodity.

Rental rates are based on three pre-dominant

soils on land offered for en-rollment.

FSA bases rental rates on the

average value of dry- land cash rent for

the past three years and adjusts rates

to reflect the relative productiv ity of

soils within each county.

SIP and PIP payments

A one- time up front signing incentive

payment ( SIP) of $ 100 per acre for CRP

contracts ( for 10 or more years) will be

paid by the FSA, after eligibility criteria

are met and CRP contracts are approved.

A one- time practice incentive pay-ment

( PIP), equal to 40 percent of the

eligible installation costs, will be paid

after the CRP practice is installed,

eligi ble costs are verified and other

payment eligibility criteria are met. In

addition to the payments described, FSA

will pay up to 50 percent of the eligible

cost of establishing a permanent cover.

Contracts

The effective date of the CRP contract

is the first day of the month following

the month of approval. In certain cir-cumstances,

producers may defer the

effective date for up to six months.

Contracts are for not less than 10,

nor more than 15 years.

Cooperating agencies

CRP is administered by the FSA

with assistance from the USDA Natu-ral

Resources Conservation Service

( NRCS); the N. C. Wildlife Resources

Commission, N. C. Division of Forest

Resources; and local soil and water

conservation districts. For more infor-

Dove Tales

Some years ago, while hunting near

Edenton, I saw doves flock to a recently

burned field. The timber had been clear-cut

and the cutover burned in prepa -

ration for replanting. The blackened

ground was thick with the gray birds,

bobbing for the seeds scattered on the

clean- burnt forest floor.

I thought this was something that we

could use on the food plots we plant on

Commission game lands. The techniques

we have developed since, can also be

adapted by the private land owner inter-ested

in planting fields for dove season.

The reason that doves are attracted

to the burnt fields is that they are

clean- ground feeders. Unlike quail

or pheasants, doves do not scratch in

search of seeds, but pick them up off

the ground. Disking a field will gener-ally

leave clumps of dirt and vegeta-tion,

along with the seeds. A clean

burn leaves nothing except ash and

seeds. And the cleaner the ground,

the better doves like it.

Simply burning a field, however,

probably won’t bring the doves. First,

some crops burn better than others.

Second, some weed control is required.

And third, timing is crucial.

Crops burn differently

On Wildlife Resources Commission

game lands, we typically plant adjoin-ing

fields of millet, corn, sunflowers,

wheat and other food crops. The vari-ous

types of millet— brown top, Ger-man,

white/ proso, etc., burn especially

well because their hard- coated seeds

survive fire. Sun flowers, on the other

hand, have oily seeds that burn up.

Millet, planted in May to early June,

will mature just after the early Sep tem -

ber start of dove season. But if you wait

until that time to burn the field or make

other necessary preparations, your re-sults

will be poor. Weeds and native

grasses ( crabgrass, ragweed, nut- grass,

Dove Fields: The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission Way

redroot and others)

probably sprouted

during the growing

season. Those green

grasses will keep the

fire from burning

hot enough to do its

intended job.

How and when

to use weed control

What you have to do is control the

weeds. Apply Roundup or some other

herbicide around the first of August.

It will kill all the vegetation— includ-ing

the millet. But that’s OK. The seeds

will survive.

Those concerned about poisoning

the seeds, the ground or the birds need

not worry. The U. S. Department of Agri-culture

says that Roundup and similar

herbicides are labeled for this type of

use. Their chemical components break

down quickly, leave no residue and

have no detrimental effects.

Everything will be dead and dried

out within two weeks. A week to 10

days before the start of dove season,

burn the sprayed area. It will burn

clean because all of the green vegeta-tion

will be dry. The hard seeds will

fly all over the ground, ready for doves

to pounce on.

Timing is key

Your timing must be precise. Burn

seven to 10 days before the start of the

season— no more, no less. If you burn

the field too soon, rain can cause the

seeds to germinate. And if you wait too

long, doves might not find the field.

You want the doves to find your seed-covered

field and get into the habit of

using it before opening day.

You can also divide your field: weed

and burn one section in time for the start

of the season and save the other sec-tions

for later. Follow the same sched-ule—

apply herbicide one month prior

and burn seven to

10 days prior. You can

plant a cover crop such

as wheat after you bring

in the doves and after the

hunt. Just be sure to disk a fire line

between the sections of field you want

to hunt sooner and those you want to

save for later.

Following these suggestions without

taking other measures, will not yield a

good dove hunt. You must also know

the doves in your area. Your field must

be in their flyway or another good loca-tion

that will assure they find it.

Laws of attraction— and baiting

You should also know the laws about

dove hunting in food plots. Where

hunters get in trouble is throwing seed

onto the ground to “ bait” a field. But

if you have grown the crop, you can

manipulate it for hunting. Just don’t

harvest the seeds and expect to be able

to put them back on the ground. That

crosses the line into baiting.

It is also a good idea to leave some-thing

for after the season and through

the winter. On Commission game lands,

although we realize we are in the hunt-ing

business, we try to make sure food

and habitat needs for wildlife are met

first. Good hunting is a byproduct of

good care taking.

— Dale Davis, biologist,

N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission

Coastal Region

s

Ashe

Watauga Wilkes

Alleghany

Surry Stokes

Yadkin Forsyth

Avery

Caldwell

Alexander

Iredell

Davie

Davidson

Rockingham

Guilford

Randolph

Rowan

Cabarrus

Stanly

Montgomery

Catawba

Lincoln

Gaston

Mecklenburg

Union Anson

Richmond

Moore

Chatham

Alamance

Caswell

Orange

Person

Durham

Burke

Cleveland

Rutherford

McDowell

Mitchell

Yancey

Madison

Bumcombe

Henderson

Polk

Haywood

Transylvania

Jackson

Swain

Macon

Graham

Cherokee

Clay

Lee

Wake

Harnett

Hoke

Scotland

Robeson

Cumberland

Sampson

Granville

Vance

Franklin

Nash

Wilson

Wayne

Johnston

Duplin

Pitt

Edgecombe

Halifax

Warren

Northhampton

Bertie

Martin

Greene

Lenoir

Jones

Onslow

Beaufort

Pamilco

Washington

Hertford

Gates

Pender

Bladen

Craven

Hyde

Tyrell

Dare

Carteret

Columbus

Pasquotank

Chowan

Perquimons

Camden

Currituck

New

Hanover

Brunswick

Shaded counties offer CRP Initiative

Technical Requirements for CRP CP36, Longleaf Pine Initiative

This practice is to restore and manage longleaf pine forests on cropland, including

the native groundcover plants to provide wildlife habitat and protect water quality.

• Required mid- contract management includes understory burning, or light

disking between tree rows.

• Establishment of tree species other than longleaf pine is not permitted.

• Portions of fields, where it is infeasible to establish longleaf pine are not

eligible for enrollment.

• In- stand mowing and pinestraw raking are prohibited during the

contract period.

Cows enjoy native warm- season grasses that thrive in summer, halting forage loss and restoring small-game

habitat.

N ative warm- season grasses

( NWSG) provide excellent

summer forage for livestock.

Compared to tall fescue, these

grasses can produce double the ton-nage,

are more palatable, are better

adapted to dry summer conditions,

and need less fertilizer or lime to per-form

well. When properly hayed or

grazed, these grasses provide quail

and other wildlife with win ter cover

as well as excellent nesting and brood

habitat. North Carolina farms that

include these grasses in their livestock

operations can ensure against forage

losses due to summer drought and

help restore small game habitat.

Establishment

Native warm- season grass can be

estab lished through con ventional

tillage or with a no- till drill. Weed

competition is minimized by no- till

planting into killed sod, making it

the method of choice.

To convert tall fescue to NWSG:

• First hay or closely graze the site

in Sep tember.

• Spray the re- growth with a 1 to

2 percent glyphosate and nonionic

surfactant solution in October.

• Burn the site in February- March to

remove duff.

• Re- spray any live fescue in April.

• No- till into dead sod in late May

or June. Set the drill to a depth of

no more than one- quarter inch.

M any of North Carolina’s natural ecosystems require

periodic fire for their survival. That’s because fire

consumes plant matter, which releases nutrients.

The nutrients increase the growth and yield of plants that

provide forage, escape and brooding habitat. Therefore,

prescribed burning ben -

efits game, nongame and

endangered wild life

species by enhancing

wildlife habitat.

What future does

pre scribed burning have

in North Caro lina? In

our growing state, liabil-ity,

smoke management

and public attitudes are

just some of the

challenges faced by

people who man age

land, using prescribed

fire.

In 2006, a group of

concerned professionals

chartered the N. C. Pre-scribed

Fire Council to

support the use of pre-scribed

fire to manage

the state’s natural re-sources.

Chief among the

Council’s goals is a

mission to foster coop er-ation

among all parties

in North Carolina with a

stake in prescribed burn-ing.

To accomplish this,

the Council encourages the exchange of information, tech-niques

and experiences among the state’s prescribed fire

practition ers. The Council also promotes public under-standing

of the importance and benefits of prescribed fire.

Other Council goals include opti mizing burning opportuni-ties

to benefit natural ecosystems and wildlife, and reducing

the risk of damage from wildfires.

The Council’s first at- large meet ing was held at the N. C.

Zoological Park, in December. Here are some highlights:

The N. C. Division of Forest Resources ( NCDFR) responds

to 5,000 wild fires per year, and considers 1,450 communities

to be at- risk of damage from wildfire, according to acting

state forester Dan Smith. The boundary between wild land

and developed land often creates con flicts for landowners

who want to manage with fire. On the other hand, use of

prescribed fire to reduce wild fire hazards under desirable

conditions, reinforces the role of managed burning as a

re source protection option for property owners.

New smoke man agement guidelines for pre scribed burn-ing

are being drafted

by the NCDFR.

Spokesman Gary Cur-cio

explained that in-corporating

new tech-nology

into smoke

management require-ments

can help bal-ance

the needs of fire

managers with public

health and safety is-sues.

Air quality regula-tions

are one of the

most important devel-opments

that will af-fect

the future of

prescribed burning in

North Car olina, ac-cording

to Laura

Boothe of the N. C. Di-vision

of Air Quality.

Boothe explained how

state and federal air

qual ity reg ulations,

now under devel op -

ment, may address

emissions from

prescribed fire. Air

qual ity regulators are

deeply involved with the Fire Council and make the part-nership

stronger. Together they work to sustain the practice

of prescribed burn ing in ways that minimize adverse impact

to air quality.

A panel of prescribed burners representing North Car-o

lina private consultants, conservation organ iza tions and

state and federal government agencies discussed the amount

of land they burn each year, why they need to manage fire,

how many resources are required to conduct their fire, and

the most diffi cult obstacles they face. Challenges include:

smoke manage ment, how to achieve goals with fewer

resources and training.

All concerned private landowners and public land man-agers

are encouraged to become aware of and involved

Fire Council Advocates Burning

10 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 The Upland Gazette ◆ Spring 2007 11

Seed at 4- 6 pounds of pure live seed

( PLS) for wildlife and 8- 12 pounds

PLS for hay.

If conventional tillage must be used,

kill fescue as described above, and then

prepare a smooth firm seedbed by

disking and cultipacking.

• Use a drop spreader for smooth

or de- bearded fluffy seed.

• Use a drill with a NWSG seed box

for fluffy seed or mix fluffy seed

with pelletized lime and stir fre-quently

if planted with conven-tional

equipment.

• Do not cover NWSG seed, but culti-pack

after seeding. Do not apply

nitrogen at or before planting time.

• Control competition using appro-priate

herbicides.

On a good site with adequate rainfall,

NWSG can be fully established by the

first fall, and grazed the following sum-mer.

However, some stands may take

up to two years to mature.

Land Managers’

TOOLBOX

Grazing and haying

Summer grazing of NWSG stands from

mid- May through mid- August, can

pro vide approximately two pounds of

weight gain per day for the period ( with

four steers per acre). Grazing pressure

should be monitored so that a 12- inch

minimum of stubble is retained.

NWSG should be cut for hay in the

late boot stage. Leave eight inches of

stub ble to provide leaf surface for rapid

re- growth, maintain stand vigor and

reduce weed problems.

Burning

NWSG benefit from being burned in

early spring. A controlled burn every

three to four years will improve live-stock

palatability, reduce woody plant

and cool season grass encroachment,

and improve wild life habitat. For more

information, contact the N. C. Wildlife

Resources Commission’s Division of

Wildlife Management.

Many of North Carolina’s

natural ecosystems require periodic

fire for their survival.

Co- authored by John Ann Shearer, Fish and Wildlife Biologist with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Raleigh

and Matt Flint, State Conservation Biologist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Raleigh

NCWRC

DON HAYES

Benefits of Native Warm- Season Grasses