Upland gazette : North Carolina small game notes. |
Previous | 21 of 42 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Description
Title | Upland gazette : North Carolina small game notes. |
Other Title | North Carolina small game notes |
Date | 2007 |
Description | Spring 2007 (Volume 12, Issue 1) |
Digital Characteristics-A | 1.8 MB; 6 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | 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 |
OCLC number | 53710789 |