2014 NBCI Coordinated Implementation Plan

NBCI Coordinated Implementation Program
FOCAL AREA
LANDSCAPE
REGION
NBCI 2.0

NBCI Coordinated Implementation
Program
Morgan, J.J., Duren, K., and Dailey, T.V.
Published by National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative and available in digital format at
http://www.bringbackbobwhites.org
The University of Tennessee, National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative
274 Ellington Plant Science Building
Knoxville, TN 37996-4563
Recommended citation. Morgan, J. P., K. Duren, and T.V. Dailey. 2014. NBCI Coordinated Implementation Program.
Addendum, The National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative: A range-wide plan for recovering bobwhites. National
Bobwhite Technical Committee Technical Publication, ver. 2.0. Knoxville, TN.

1
1. Introduction
Northern bobwhite restoration has challenged state
fish and wildlife agencies for decades. Efforts aimed at
increasing bobwhite numbers date back to the early 20th
century (Stoddard 1931). In 1996, the Southeast Quail
Study Group (currently the National Bobwhite Technical
Committee (NBTC)) coalesced to share knowledge
of individual state efforts to restore bobwhites. The
group’s publication of the original National Bobwhite
Conservation Initiative (NBCI) signaled the first
multistate attempt at coordinating restoration of bobwhite
quail across a substantial portion of their former range
(Dimmick et al. 2002).
The NBCI was intended to foster development of
individual state-based implementation or “step-down”
plans. The plans were envisioned to translate Bird
Conservation Region (BCR) habitat and bobwhite
abundance goals to specific manageable areas within
a state’s geography. Tight budgets, limited personnel
and variable state agency commitment, combined with
a strategic concept too unfamiliar to typical bobwhite
management, resulted in few state implementation plans.
Ultimately, the task of implementing NBCI at the state
level was just too big a challenge in some instances.
The NBCI revision (NBCI 2.0, The National Bobwhite
Technical Committee 2011; 2012; Terhune et al. 2012)
greatly improved conservation planning for northern
bobwhite across the species’ range. Thanks to the
development and use of a Biologist Ranking Index (BRI)
key enhancements included: 1) spatially explicit bobwhite
density goals; 2) prioritized areas for bobwhite restoration;
and 3) adoption of the Strategic Habitat Conservation
(SHC) philosophy of learning through management and
monitoring (Fig. 1).
The BRI was comprised of standardized input from >600
professional biologists through state-based workshops.
They ranked the restoration potential across the species’
range by classifying 6,400-acre landscapes
(i.e., pixels) to recover bobwhite populations.
While ranking these areas, biologists also
identified major threats and opportunities for
habitat management.
Following the ranking of landscapes, NBCI
2.0 identified spatially-explicit bobwhite
population density goals for each state (NBCI
2.0, Table 1, pages 47-49). State biologists as-
signed two values: current bobwhite density
(to describe conditions prior to prescribed
management) and managed bobwhite density
(the NBCI population restoration goal). These densities
are based on biologists’ expert knowledge and they are
subject to revision as learning through monitoring oc-
curs. By design, the BRI established “opportunity regions”
that filled a critical planning void in the absence of state
produced implementation or step-down plans. States no
longer had to create an independent prioritization process
for assessing conservation delivery potential for bobwhite.
A single bobwhite restoration layer served as an ideal
platform for a range-wide, tiered conservation planning
and implementation structure. The expert-based estimates
of current bobwhite densities and managed density
potential could be directly evaluated at multiple landscape
scales across state lines. Periodic assessment of these
hypotheses allows for an iterative process to assess near
(5-year) and longer-term (10-year) successes of targeted
habitat management.
While NBCI 2.0 prioritizes where bobwhite restorations
should take place, states do not currently have the
resources to reach target densities across all the high and
medium restoration potential regions of the BRI. The
NBCI Coordinated Implementation Program provides the
framework for large-scale habitat management programs
for bobwhite using a tiered approach to landscape
planning and action. This scalable approach may assist
landscape-scale restoration in states where resources and
opportunities are currently limiting.
Most importantly, the NBCI Coordinated Implementation
Program (CIP) establishes a range-wide restoration
roadmap founded by collaboration with clear targets and
accountability. The program demands monitoring that
will be used to measure success and foster learning among
states. Over a decade has passed since the publication of
the NBCI, this program will inspire hope for the future.
It will attract funding from public and private sources.
Bobwhite-centric non-profits will have a clear purpose
of where investments must be made and a renewed
opportunity to rally grassroots support. Finally, the
Figure 1. The Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) process diagram

2
program will begin a new era for the NBTC, one fueled by
collaborative, on-the-ground action.
2. Conservation Planning and
Implementation Strategies
The vision of coordinated NBCI implementation is
established through a tiered delivery approach. The focal
tiers are designed to shrink the near-term targets for
bobwhite restoration to reduce investments and risk to
palatable levels while optimizing chances for near-term
successes. For the first time, a single range-wide standard
for bobwhite restoration will be established. Through
voluntary coordination, the NBCI partners can produce
powerful evidence supporting the habitat-based bobwhite
restoration approach via reasonable investments by each
partner. The partnership will build the NBCI brand to
represent accountability, transparency and scientific
rigor, creating attractive research opportunities across the
bobwhite range.
The tiered delivery approach is founded on three layers.
They are from smallest to largest in size and are as follows:
focal areas, focal landscapes and focal regions.
1) NBCI Focal Area(s) – A contiguous, targeted area
designed to increase the probability of achieving NBCI
managed bobwhite densities (i.e., huntable populations)
through strategic habitat management efforts in the
near-term (5 year benchmark, 10 year goal). NBCI focal
areas ideally would be nested within a Focal Landscape
and Focal Region. NBCI focal areas should be at least the
minimum area needed to sustain a bobwhite population
through time, regardless of landscape context. We
hypothesize that this minimum area requirement after
prescribed habitat management can be met if:
• The focal area has at least 1,500 acres of quail habitat
(Appendix A), and
• The focal area is at least 25% quail habitat (Sidebar
1).
2) NBCI Focal Landscape(s) – A spatially defined
landscape comprised predominantly of high priority
ranking for bobwhite restoration through the NBCI BRI
process. A focal landscape ideally would be nested within
a focal region and contain a focal area.
3) NBCI Focal Region(s) – A spatially defined geographic
region (e.g., soil & water district, cluster of counties, etc.)
comprised predominantly of high and medium priority
ranking for bobwhite restoration through the NBCI 2.0
BRI process. It would ideally contain 1 or more focal
landscapes and focal areas.
States and conservation partners should begin with a focal
area and build a focal landscape and region around it
(Sidebar #2). This bottom-up approach focuses restoration
efforts and resources in the near-term while establishing
an opportunity for growth in the long-term. The BRI
provides the framework for development of focal tiers by
prioritizing landscapes within a state.
Sidebar #1: Example and Background for Focal Area Minimum Size and Composition
Examples: Assuming 100% planned quail habitat, the minimum size a focal area can be is 1,500 acres. However, if a focal
area has only 25% quail habitat it would need to be 6,000 acres to reach the 1,500- acre minimum. Conversely, a larger 20,000-acre
focal area would meet the requirements with 5,000 acres of quail habitat after management.
Justification: The 1,500 acre minimum is a hypothesis based on the bobwhite movement study of Terhune et al. (2010) and
the minimum viable bobwhite population work of Guthery et al. (2002).
Guthery et al. (2000) estimated the minimum area required to sustain a bobwhite population for 100 years, with a 95%
probability of success. Minimum viable populations (MVP) size are the result of the interaction of the effects of population growth
(the species’ reproductive potential, e.g., breeding age, fecundity) and population depressors that are natural (weather, predation, old
age, disease, accidents, etc.) and man-made (harvest). The minimum area needed to sustain the MVP then related to fall bobwhite
densities.
A population subject to winter catastrophes (i.e., more northerly latitudes, snow, ice, cold) and 40% harvest (maximum
recommended by NBCI) would require a beginning fall population of 400 bobwhites to be sustainable. If that population would be
subject to both summer and winter catastrophe then the beginning fall population should be 800 (Guthery et al. 2000). Many sates
listed a managed density goal of around 3 acres per quail. Given this density and a MVP of 400-800 birds, the minimum amount of
habitat needed would be 1,200-2,400. This matches closely with the estimate of 1,000 acres minimum needed to restore bobwhite
populations in Georgia (Terhune et al. 2010).
The 25% habitat cutoff is based on Swift and Hannon’s (2010) review of studies on critical thresholds for habitat loss. A
critical threshold occurs when populations decline more rapidly at low levels of habitat in the landscape. The authors found critical
threshold values can vary by species and landscape. However, many of the studies that looked at prevalence of a species had a
minimum threshold between 20-30%.
It is possible that less habitat can support viable populations of bobwhite. However, we relied on the best available science
to set standards in the planning phase of this document. If subsequent monitoring reveals our minimum size is too small or too
large the standards can be adjusted.

3
Opportunity for habitat restoration can be related to a
host of factors, i.e., landscape context, land ownership
patterns, willing landowners, equipment, manpower,
or conservation programs. Careful consideration for
conservation delivery when selecting focal tiers is
paramount for minimizing risk and maximizing the
chance for success.
Bobwhite habitat can come in the name of countless
other conservation efforts. Therefore, it is important to
take advantage of existing conservation initiatives. This
is an excellent strategy to accelerate habitat development,
expand resources, establish myriad partnerships, and
accelerate momentum. Ideal places to start are Joint
Ventures, State Technical Committees, or other established
conservation partnerships (e.g., America’s Longleaf
Initiative, Shortleaf Initiative, Nature Conservancy Priority
Areas, game bird non-profits). Military bases are also great
opportunities because they often manage for open land
to facilitate training and have directives for conservation,
particularly for
threatened and
endangered species.
Be open-minded
and consider non-
traditional partners
such as those
interested in invasive
weed management
or water quality
improvement.
Motivation
and excitement
for managing
bobwhite habitat
can drive habitat
implementation within
focal tiers. Therefore,
when evaluating
potential areas for
developing as focal
tiers, use motivation
of landowners,
biologists, land
managers, or other
partners as ranking
criteria. Include
agency leadership
(commissioners and
administrators) and
elected officials to
leverage funding
and manpower. The
best technique to
gauge and foster
motivation is involving
stakeholders from the
project’s inception.
This concept is not
limited to private
lands. State agency
personnel on public
areas will also be
Sidebar #2: Focal Tiers Structure and Prioritization
The highest NBCI value and priority for restoration is assigned to Focal Areas nested within
Focal Landscapes that are nested within Focal Regions. In the long-term, Focal Area monitoring could
be used to test hypotheses for making inferences about bobwhite population responses to habitat en-
hancement at the Focal Landscape and Focal Region levels. This process will facilitate leveraging grant
funding or awarding ranking points for USDA conservation programs and practices thereby enhancing
capacity for NBCI 2.0 delivery and implementation.
Great care should be taken when establishing focal area boundaries with respect to overall size.
Large geographies require substantial monitoring manpower and incur greater risk of not meeting quail
habitat targets.
The tiered structure provides the following ranking from highest to lowest value for NBCI 2.0:
Rank 1: NBCI Focal Areas nested within Focal Landscapes nested within Focal Regions
Rank 2: NBCI Focal Areas nested within Focal Landscapes or Focal Regions
Rank 3: NBCI Focal Areas not nested within Focal Landscapes or Focal Regions
Rank 4: NBCI Focal Landscapes nested within Focal Regions
Rank 5: NBCI Focal Landscapes not nested within Focal Regions

4
empowered by being included in the focal tiers selection/
delineation process. Never underestimate the value of
highly motivated field personnel or landowners. Consider
outside-the-box ideas such as a Conservation Celebration
(e.g., party) and festivals, outreach and media campaigns.
A sense of ownership and competition can also be power-
ful tools in successful focal tiers. Host planning meetings
and involve key partners and personnel to develop a team
that will energize conservation delivery. Work together
on an outreach and media campaign. The following is a
potential list of stakeholders to consider when establishing
NBCI Focal Tiers:
• Landowners
• State and local USDA offices
• Field staff
• Agency administrators
• Non-government conservation partners
• Political figures
• Landowners cooperatives/organizations
• Habitat teams/contractors
• Corporate sponsors – an opportunity for habitat
teams
The property type is an important consideration when
selecting a focal area. The following three scenarios are
expected for property type composition with quail focal
areas:
1) 100% Working Lands - Working lands are properties
(often privately owned) where agriculture or forest
production is the primary driver of management
decisions. Examples include croplands, pasture lands,
forest plantations, etc. (Sidebar 3)
2) 100% Non-working Lands - Conservation lands are
properties where agriculture and forest production are not
the primary drivers of management decisions. Examples
include state wildlife areas, national wildlife refuges,
military bases, utility/public easements, etc. (Sidebar 4)
3) Mixed Lands- A focal area containing working lands
and non-working lands. This scenario often uses non-
working land as a “core” area. (Sidebar 5)
Conservation land management alone cannot restore
bobwhite, and many will refute success stories as
“unrealistic.” Working lands focal areas however, can prove
bobwhite restoration is possible across the range. A mix of
working and conservation lands is also a viable option.
Ideally, every state would have at least one working
lands NBCI focal area. Private land focal areas pose
unique challenges. Access, lack of technical expertise
and equipment, and a lack of collaboration among
neighbors are just a fraction of the hurdles. But, there are
opportunities.
The Farm Bill has a long history as a catalyst for change
on the private, working landscape. Consider the impact
of Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
in many states. Great work has occurred at state technical
committees to localize habitat, and the Working Lands for
Wildlife Initiative is another potential source for funding.
Sidebar 3: 100% Working Lands (often private lands): Pros
and Cons
Pros:
• Working lands are the most common property type in
the bobwhite range so they have the greatest acreage
potential to increase bobwhite populations
• Needed for long-term success
• There is a lot of money directed to management of
private working land
• Using working land on publicly owned land can
subsidize management cost
• Easier to market quail conservation to larger audience
Cons
• There is less control of management practices,
especially on privately owned properties
• In some areas property sizes are small so more effort is
needed to reach habitat goals
• The general public does not have as much access
to these areas to see and enjoy the results of habitat
improvements
• Poor implementation of practices on private land
Sidebar 4: 100% Non-working Lands (often public lands):
Pros and Cons
Pros
• Wildlife-oriented management
• Expertise and control of habitat management
• Property sizes can be larger, particularly in the West
• Existing populations can lead to quicker response
• Easier to get NGO support for conservation delivery
• Partnership potential with other conservation groups
• Concentrated habitat
• Higher visibility for public awareness and appreciation
• Greater access for public
• Easier monitoring access
Cons
• Higher harvest pressure
• Not representative of range-wide restoration potential
• Smaller sized properties in the East
• Resource limitations
• Inconsistent implementation of conservation practices
• Competing interests in management
• Public land resource limitations

5
Many states have collaborative Farm Bill biologists and
others have found ways to further incentivize conservation
programs through payments from non-governmental
organizations. Targeted marketing alone can help
concentrate conservation practices. Prescribed burn
associations and landowner cooperatives already exist in
some areas to facilitate habitat delivery.
Understanding landowners’ interests and values can save
time and money, and minimize risk of failure. Consider a
human dimensions survey to help pinpoint the location
for the best focal tiers and help guide a conservation
delivery strategy (Dailey et al. 2004, Dailey 2009). Work
can easily be done for bobwhite in the name of water
quality, deer, turkey, songbirds, butterflies or ecosystem
restoration and management. Learn what landowners care
about so the pitch and programs can be customized.
Ultimately, think “big picture” when selecting focal
tiers. How will a nested focal area lead to expansion of
the habitat restoration practices beyond the focal area
to the focal landscape and eventually across the focal
region? How will one set of focal tiers lead to another?
What impact will one set of focal tiers have over another?
Consider prevailing land use … croplands, pasturelands,
rangelands, and mine lands … and prioritize which would
have the greatest impact in the state. In the long run, it
may be prudent to have representatives in each category.
Other bobwhite-specific factors can influence focal tier
success. Bobwhites are an avidly hunted species, which
can yield positive and negative outcomes. The passion
to conserve bobwhite is often most fervently driven by
those that hunt them. It also serves as a critical funding
mechanism and economic engine for conservation.
Hunting can also pose some challenges. Risk of localized
overharvest could limit population response to habitat
management, and the infusion of liberated, domesticated
bobwhite can influence monitoring and pose risks to wild
birds. These risks can be managed through well-planned
focal tier implementation and outreach efforts.
Harvest
NBCI 2.0 explicitly identifies management of hunter
harvest of bobwhites as a factor that needs to be
considered (Brennan 2011) in the context of achieving
NBCI managed quail density goals: “…if hunting pressure
is excessive and is not restricted, excessive harvest may
result in lower bobwhite populations or hinder bobwhite
response to new management actions.” (National
Bobwhite Technical Committee 2011, p. 138; hereafter
referenced as NBTC 2011).
A comprehensive review of bobwhite harvest research
and management can be found in Sands (2010). Similar to
other factors not directly related to habitat (e.g., weather,
domesticated bobwhites) that can reduce survival of
bobwhites, over-harvest can lead to erroneous conclusions
about the effectiveness of the NBCI Focal Areas.
Management of harvest is a cornerstone of NBCI Focal
Areas because it is within managers’ control. The harvest
objective for focal areas should be that harvest does not
reduce long-term annual bobwhite population density,
hereafter called ‘safe’ harvest. We define harvest rate as
the proportion of fall bobwhite population that is taken
by hunters, where ‘take’ includes quail wounded but not
retrieved, assumed to be 20% of the retrieved harvest if
area-specific data are not available.
The recommended safe harvest rate on both focal and
reference areas is 20-40%, increasing with latitude and
decreasing with days between harvest and the breeding
season (i.e., harvest occurring in February or March
requires lowering safe harvest level). If no other data
exists, a conservative hunting pressure prescription can
be managed for based on the following guidance: for
southern latitudes <1.6 hunters/100 ac (Rolland et al. 2010
estimated <4 hunters/km2
for public land managed for
bobwhites), and for northern latitudes 2.9 hunters/100
ac (Dailey 1997 estimated 2.9 hunters/100 acres resulted
in harvest rate of 35% of fall population for public land
managed for bobwhites). Extrapolated to typical NBCI
focal area scales, safe hunting pressure prescriptions
are 97 and 174 hunters/6,000 acres, South and North,
respectively.
Sidebar 5: Mixed Lands: Pros and Cons
Pros
• Public land can be used as a source population
• Public land can serve effectively as a demonstration
area to educate and motivate surrounding landowners
and the public
• Combine money for private land management and
public land management
• Promotion and cooperation with landowners and
public
• Positions public conservation agencies in key
leadership position
• All the pros of the 100% non-working and 100%
working lands
Cons
• Higher diversity and number of partners is more
complicated
• Politics involved with stakeholders may limit habitat
restoration
• All the cons of the 100% non-working and 100%
working lands

6
Harvest strategies for focal landscapes and regions should
be evaluated as learning takes place at the focal area level.
Domesticated Bobwhites
Use of domesticated bobwhites is widespread, owing to
traditional recreation such as field trials, and to declining
huntable wild bobwhite populations. Domesticated
bobwhites have virtually replaced wild bobwhite hunting
in some states, particularly in the eastern United States
(NBCI 2011). In these states, interest in restoration
of wild bobwhites is strongly and positively related to
recreational use of domesticated bobwhites. However,
there are a wide variety of potential detrimental effects on
wild bobwhite populations from released domesticated
bobwhites. Concerns include disease transmission, higher
depredation, lower nest success and reduced genetic
vigor (Roseberry et al. 1987, Hurst et al. 1993, DeVos and
Speake 1995, Fies et al. 2000, Sisson et al. 2000, Perez et
al. 2002, Hutchins and Hernandez 2003, Evans et al. 2009,
Gerhold et al. 2012, Palmer et al. 2012, Thackston et al.
2012).
Furthermore, domesticated bobwhite that call (whistle)
during population abundance sampling periods (fall
or breeding season) can lead to biased estimates of
wild bobwhite abundance. Focal areas should ideally
have no domesticated bobwhite releases. In working
land environments, banned bobwhite release may be
unrealistic, so monitoring and efforts to minimize release
through information and outreach should be employed.
Recommendations for focal landscapes and regions should
also be evaluated as learning takes place through focal
areas.
3. Monitoring
One of the greatest challenges in the management
of resident game species is coordinating monitoring
programs across state lines. Existing long-term state
monitoring programs are difficult to abandon and
interstate collaboration towards identical procedures
and protocols can be onerous. However, the bobwhite
community has already implemented a tremendously
effective coordinated monitoring program through CP-33
(a 14-state partnership, Burger et al. 2006). The time has
come to build on that success.
The NBCI defines success by the degree to which
bobwhite populations achieve target densities, but it is
equally important to understand why target densities
are or are not reached. Therefore, NBCI 2.0 emphasizes
the importance of SHC (Sidebar #6). It “provides a
framework for setting and achieving conservation
objectives at multiple scales, based on the best available
information, data, and ecological models” (National
Ecological Assessment Team 2006). SHC is an iterative
process of planning, implementation, and learning. The
NBTC and its member states have done the first step of
the cycle through the BRI, but we must now incorporate
conservation delivery supported by monitoring and
research. Additionally, monitoring must track if
the planned actions were accomplished and if the
accomplishments resulted in the expected outcomes.
Monitoring is the feedback loop for learning. So,
monitoring has to be reasonably science-based and
defensible. A defensible monitoring program has
objectives that:
• link to management goals and conservation actions
• estimate metrics with sampling methods that permit
unbiased and statistically powerful results
• minimize cost and logistical problems
• ensure program continuity despite changes in
personnel, technology, and objectives; and
• make monitoring results available to a variety of
partners
Sidebar #6: Strategic Habitat Conservation and the NBCI
One of the first steps taken in the SHC process is biological planning and conservation design. The focal tiers concept is the
recommended conservation design for NBCI. The creation of multiple Focal Tiers is aimed to merge bottom-up science with top-
down programmatic delivery to facilitate enhanced implementation. Implementing this concept will help to:
1. Increase consistency in terminology and implementation of state NBCI step-down plans;
2. Increase recognition of NBCI 2.0 by grant authorities and conservation partners as a guiding document for habitat
restoration at state and local levels. This will enhance NBCI 2.0 value for leveraging funding, including multi-state grants,
especially where these branded NBCI Focal Tiers overlap with other landscape conservation plans that address similar
habitat restoration needs (i.e., JV’s, LCC’s, America’s Longleaf, State FAPs, SWAPs etc.);
3. Increase recognition and integration with ongoing landscape conservation delivery and monitoring efforts (e.g., JVs and
LCCs);
4. Formally recognize and include (although at a lower priority) NBCI restoration efforts where monitoring or habitat
availability preclude the establishment of designated NBCI Focal Areas.
For more information on the SHC process please visit: http://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/index.html

7
While some states are currently monitoring focal areas,
the methods used vary widely. As a result, comparisons
across state boundaries are difficult. Standardized and
coordinated monitoring (Sidebar #7) would allow
pooling of data across state boundaries, improving and
accelerating the learning process of SHC. Faster learning
and greater confidence in outcomes may increase financial
and public support for the bobwhite habitat management
paradigm. Knowledge gained from understanding habitat
and bobwhite density response can calibrate expectations
with management effort and lead to more cost effective
management efforts.
Coordinated monitoring also fulfills the need for
transparency in state reporting of bobwhite management
accomplishments. The idea of transparency was first
advanced by the ‘Tracking Bobwhite Restoration Success’
ad hoc committee (Restoration Success committee) in
the report provided for the 2009 Southeast Quail Study
Group annual meeting. They stated that “credibility is the
key to keeping and increasing agency and citizen support
for habitat management efforts.” The Restoration Success
committee’s approach was not implemented, because, in
part, an agreement on a method of measuring bobwhite
abundance could not be reached.
A coordinated effort to monitor bobwhite across state
boundaries could inform the adaptive management
process and improve probability of successful
recovery in the long-term across the bobwhite range.
Understanding bobwhite densities within focal areas (and
unmanaged reference areas) is a critical component to
the NBCI revision. It is the only means to demonstrate
programmatic outcomes (i.e., population recovery) with
respect to programmatic outputs (i.e., habitat acres).
In addition, combining results from multiple states can
increase the confidence that the relationship between
habitat and bobwhite population responses is general
across the range and not specific to an individual focal
area (Morrison 2012). Therefore, standardization, and, if
possible, coordination of monitoring across focal areas
is a monumental first step toward improving evaluation
processes across the bobwhite range. It will represent
an institutional and cultural shift in resident game bird
management, fostering assessment of NBCI successes and
re-direction of NBCI recovery efforts, if necessary.
Monitoring NBCI Focal and Reference Areas
The foundation of the focal tiers concept is a coordinated
monitoring program at the focal area level. Success
stories across the range will serve as a catalyst for greater
motivation and investment in the focal landscapes and
regions over time. However, not all focal areas will see
strong responses. Responses could be limited by extrinsic
(i.e., weather, landscape context) or intrinsic (very low
bobwhite population) factors.
Therefore, reference areas are an integral component of
the NBCI Focal Area Program. They are intended to serve
as a “safety net” should bobwhite population response
be less than anticipated. Reference areas provide a point
of comparison (via trend data) to illustrate the value of
habitat despite a shortfall in attaining target bobwhite
densities.
A reference area should be representative of the BCR that
contains the focal area, but without concentrated bobwhite
habitat management. Ideal reference areas represent the
landscape’s “business as usual” and no special emphasis
should influence the area. Guidance for selection and
status of focal areas and reference areas include the
following principles:
• Must be within ±10% of the 2 dominant land covers
(measured by level II National Land cover Data
www.mrlc.gov/index.php) of the eco-region (Sidebar
#8);
• Exposed to similar weather conditions as the focal
area;
• Should have at least a medium ranking in the BRI;
• Should be within 10% of the focal area size and the
minimum is set by space needed for sampling;
• Should be at least 2 times the median bobwhite
dispersal distance for the region (derived from the
Sidebar #7: Coordinated versus Standardized Monitoring
Coordinated monitoring is a collaborative effort
founded on a single data collection protocol for monitoring
that yields identical outputs. It represents the most powerful
form of broad-based data collection and is generally
managed by a centralized person or entity.
Standardized monitoring is a collaborative effort for
monitoring yielding identical outputs through independent
protocols. Although outputs are identical (e.g., bobwhite
density), independent data collection methods (e.g., point
counts, flush counts) can make combining data more
difficult.
The CP-33 Monitoring Program included both
of these types of monitoring. The majority of states (14)
participated in point count data collection yielding density
estimates for bobwhite, whereas, 2 states implemented flush
counts for generating density estimates. The coordinated
monitoring states data were pooled for reporting at broader
geographies (Bird Conservation Region), because identical
data collection procedures were followed.
To learn more about the CP-33 Monitoring
Program please visit: http://www.fwrc.msstate.edu/bobwhite.

8
Sidebar #8: Top two dominant land cover classes for each Bird Conservation
Region within the range of bobwhite from the 2006 National Land cover
Dataset.
literature) away from the focal area. Justification can
also be provided that ensures independence of the
areas (e.g., natural barriers);
• A reference area can be used for more than one focal
area as long as the above requirements are still met.
Bird Population Monitoring
Monitoring populations to evaluate landscape-level
effects of management prescriptions is limited by resource
availability. Ideally, monitoring programs would include
measures of abundance (e.g., density) and measures
of vital rates (demographic rates for survival and
productivity). Density measures can be used
to indicate “how much habitat is needed”
and population trends, while vital rates can
answer the “why” questions that help to
understand the overall ecosystem processes.
Density measures are usually less resource
intensive and can be implemented at much
larger extents than measures of vital rates.
Below we provide several options for
monitoring programs in ranked order
and a recommended minimum level of
commitment for all states. Option number
1 is ideal. Option 2 is recommended and
option 3 is a minimum recommendation.
One to two years of pilot data should be
collected to determine the metric (Figure
2) for sampling and to identify monitoring
intensity through a power analysis. The
required sample size can be estimated from
the pilot data using the formula from
Buckland et al. (2001 pg. 245):
1. Density (Spring and Fall with control) with
population dynamics:
a. Is there a relationship between habitat
management and bobwhite productivity,
survival, etc.?
AND
b. Is there a relationship between habitat
management and density?
i. Monitor treatment and reference
areas in spring
ii. Monitor treatment and reference
areas in fall
2. Density (Spring and Fall with reference
area) without population dynamics:
Is there a relationship between habitat
management and density?
i. Monitor treatment and reference areas in spring
ii. Monitor treatment and reference areas in fall
3. Density (Spring with reference, Fall without reference
area) without population dynamics:
a. Is there a relationship between habitat management
and density?
ii. Monitor treatment areas only in fall
OR
b. Is there a relationship between habitat management

9
Sidebar #9: Random Selection of Road Side Survey Points (Kentucky Example)
The GIS task is to generate random survey points within the focal and reference area to be used for spring and fall
monitoring. Process involves selecting roadside points, creating field data forms, and managing spatial and non-spatial data.
Criteria needed before analysis
• Geographic Area: A contiguous focal area and a contiguous reference area.
• Number of Sample Points: The auditory sampling area must be 20% of focal/reference area total size (24 and 6 points for fall
and spring, respectively, for KY example). Note: listening area outside focal/reference area boundaries can be counted toward
20% requirement.
• Distance between points: 250 and 500 meters for spring and fall survey points, respectively.
• Suitable Roads: Used statewide public roads coverage from KY Transportation Cabinet and private farm roads identified by a
field biologist. Note: 50% of the points may be off-road.
Software Used: ArcGIS 10.0 (ArcEditor or ArcInfo), Microsoft Access.
Point Generation and Selection Process
1. Biologist used local knowledge of area to identify public roads and private farm roads suitable for surveys.
2. GIS staff clipped public roads to extent of survey area and eliminated non-suitable roads. The remaining public roads were
merged with private farm roads into a single feature class.
3. In ArcGIS, the Create Random Points tool (requires ArcEditor or ArcInfo license) was used to randomly pick 48 points
(double the spring need) that intersect with the merged suitable roads feature class. Linear units set to 250 meters apart.
4. Some of the resulting 48 points were less than 250 m apart. This is probably because the tool used linear distances not 2
dimensions.
5. A 250 meter buffer was placed around each point using the buffer tool.
6. Buffers were manually checked in sequence for overlap. 17 buffers overlapped and were removed leaving 31 candidate points.
7. Points suitable for Fall surveys were identified by generating a 500-meter buffer around the remaining 31 points. After
manually confirming no overlap of buffers, 14 points met the 500-meter criteria.
8. Points were sorted sequentially in ArcGIS. The first 24 were selected for spring surveys. The first 6 meeting the 500-meter
criteria were selected for fall surveys.
9. The selected fall survey points were not distributed evenly across the study area and the small game coordinator decided to use
12 fall covey points, each with 2 visits. The additional points were chosen sequentially from the random selection.
10. Final selected points were sent to the biologist to verify there were no confounding problems such as excessive noise at any of
the points.
Figure 2. Decision flowchart for pilot analysis to determine appropriate bird survey effort

10
and occupancy? (Occupancy to be used if abundance
is too low to calculate density)
Fall monitoring is logistically more difficult than spring
monitoring, because of the number of points that can be
monitored per person in one day (1 point/person/day in
fall vs. >10 points/person/day in spring). However, fall
populations are the basis for NBCI population objectives
and should be monitored in treatment areas where density
can be calculated.
The tables below outline the criteria for establishing bird
monitoring in an NBCI Focal and Reference Area. Table
1 sets the basis for standardized monitoring, whereas
Table 2 and 3 establish a coordinated monitoring program
fostering a more robust dataset for future analyses across
state lines. The objective of the monitoring effort is to
measure bird density and habitat changes over time. The
establishment of monitoring points for bird monitoring
will also serve as the sampling location for measuring
habitat. At a minimum, bird density changes will be
compared with habitat change to test the NBCI’s habitat-
centric approach for restoring northern bobwhite.
Focal area goals:
1. Achieve 50% of the NBCI managed bobwhite density
goal (NBTC 2011) in <5 years and 100% by ten years.
For areas measuring occupancy, achieve the ability
to measure density in <5 years and 50% of managed
bobwhite density goal in 10 years.
2. Achieve 100% of the quail habitat target (minimum of
1,500 acres) in <5 years and maintain that habitat until
year 10.
Habitat Monitoring
Habitat monitoring on focal areas and reference areas
serves three purposes: 1) assess progress toward planned
quail habitat goals on focal areas; 2) compare the change
in planned quail habitat on focal areas and reference
areas and the relationship of these changes to bobwhite
population changes; and 3) to compare the relationship of
changes in habitat types to bobwhite population changes.
A two-part process will be used for the habitat monitoring.
The first is cover mapping the focal and reference areas at
years 1, 5, and 10. The cover map will be used for habitat
configuration analysis, using software programs such
as Fragstats, and for planning habitat management. The
second is a habitat survey at each bird survey point. The
habitat survey will occur between the average last frost-
free day in spring and the average first frost date in fall.
The habitat survey will produce a more detailed estimate
of habitat types for the focal and reference areas. There are
Sidebar #10 Creation of Field Data Form – Kentucky Example
• Field Data forms consist of a map showing the survey point plotted over aerial imagery. Biologists mark bird locations directly
on the map. Maps that plot circular distance bands around the survey point may bias biologists to place marks along the
lines more often. In an effort to reduce this bias distance bands were replaced with 4 plus signs (“+”) placed at each cardinal
direction from the point center.
• To generate (“+”) signs the general approach is to use buffer to generate circles at the desired distances, and then generate
points at the North, South, East and West points of the circles.
• Only 1 of the following 2 methods (A and B) is needed.
Process A of generating the hash grid (intersects circle and bounding square):
1. Generate multiple ring buffer, 50m, 100m, 250m, 500m.
2. From the results of that buffer run, run tool “Minimum bounding geometry,” Set geometry type envelope, Group option
None.
3. Use Polygon to Line (ArcInfo tool) to make the squares lines.
4. Intersect the square lines with the 50m, 100m, 250m, 500m buffer circle. For some reason, it will miss some points, and these
need to be manually added.
5. Review each point to check for problems.
Process B of generating the hash grid (buffers the circle lines to use as the intersect with envelope boxes): (This method was not used
in Kentucky.)
1. Generate multiple ring buffer, 50m, 100m, 250m, 500m.
2. From the results of that, generate minimum bounding geometry.
3. Geometry type envelope, group option None.
4. Use Polygon to line on the circles to make circle lines.
5. Buffer the circle lines by 50 ft.
6. Intersect the circle lines buffer with the square lines and make an output type of line (this avoids some of the missed points).
7. Use Feature vertices to points with Point type of mid, on that intersect to make the hash points.
8. Review each point to check for problems.

11
!"#$%&'( )#"*+"'+
!"#$%&'()*+"#, -'.&+,)*/0"%)"+,")"'1),'.&+,)+,*,+,'0,)"+,"2))3,0/##,'1,1)4"#$%&'()&'.,'4&.5)
46/7%1)0/8,+)9:;)/*)*/0"%)"+,"<)/+)*/%%/=)>70?%"'1)@9::AB2
C,"47+,4)/*)
+,*,+,'0,
3,*,+,'0,)4&.,4)#"'1"./+5)*/+)4$+&'(<)$+,*,++,1)*/+)*"%%2))3,*,+,'0,)"+,"4<)=6,')
4"#$%,1<)46/7%1)6"8,).6,)4"#,)4"#$%&'(),**/+.)"4)*/0"%)"+,"4)@,2(2<)4"#,)'7#D,+)/*)
$/&'.4<)4"#,)'7#D,+)/*)8&4&.4)=&.6&')4,"4/'B2))!"#$%&'()+,*,+,'0,)"'1).+,".#,'.)
@*/0"%)"+,"4B)4&.,4)46/7%1)D,)=&.6&')E)1"54)./)#&'&#&F,).,#$/+"%)8"+&"D&%&.52)G1,"%%5<)
$+,H#"'"(,#,'.)47+8,54)46/7%1)"%4/)D,)0/'170.,1)./)$+/8&1,)")D"4,%&',),4.&#".,)&*)
/.6,+)+,0,'.)1".")4/7+0,4)"+,)'/.)"8"&%"D%,2
I/&'.J).+"'4,0.)
$%"0,#,'.
3"'1/#)4,%,0.&/')/*)$/&'.4)@!&1,D"+)9B<).+"'4,0.4<),.02<).6+/7(6/7.).6,),'.&+,)*/0"%)
"'1)+,*,+,'0,)"+,"42)I/&'.4)46/7%1)D,)$%"0,1)/')+/"142)K/=,8,+<)4/#,)$/&'.4)@7$)./)
L:;B)#"5)D,)$%"0,1)/**)+/"1)./)0/#$"+,)$/$7%".&/'),4.&#".,4)D,.=,,')/**)"'1)/')
+/"1)$/&'.42
M,#$/+"%)
+,$%&0".&/')"#/'()
5,"+4
N''7"%%5)@&2,2<)1/)'/.)4?&$)5,"+4B2)
I/&'.)$%"0,#,'.)
/8,+).&#,
!.".&0)*/+)L)5,"+4)"'1).6,')+,H,8"%7".,2
O'&.)/*)#,"47+, P,'4&.5)@/007$"'05)&')"+,"4)=&.6).//)*,=)1,.,0.&/'4)./),4.&#".,)1,'4&.5B2
M,#$/+"%)
+,$%&0".&/')=&.6&')
4,"4/'
!$+&'(Q)N.)%,"4.).=/R)S"%%Q)/',)&')6&(6,+)1,'4&.5)"+,"4<).=/)/+)#/+,)&')%/=,+)1,'4&.5)
"+,"42)I/=,+)"'"%54&4)&1,"%)./)1,.,0.)")+,4$/'4,)L:;)"'1)A::;)/*)."+(,.)@S&(7+,)9B2
-**,0.)4&F, N.)%,"4.)L:;)/*)T>UG)#"'"(,1)1,'4&.5)(/"%)&')L)5,"+42)
!.".&4.&0"%)#,"47+,4)
/*)$+,0&4&/'
N00,$."D%,)%,8,%4)/*)$+,0&4&/')*/+)1,'4&.5),4.&#".,4)46/7%1)D,)1,8,%/$,1)74&'()
$+,%&#&'"+5)1".")@V9:;)U/,**&0&,'.)/*)W"+&".&/')")."+(,.B2
P,.,0.&/')
$+/D"D&%&.5
C74.)D,),4.&#".,1)./)"00/7'.)*/+)&#$,+*,0.)1,.,0.&/')/*)0/7'.42
U/8"+&".,4 K"D&.".)#"'"(,1<)=,".6,+<)6"+8,4.<)%"'1)0/8,+<)6"D&.".)&'1,X2
U/8"+&".,4)*/+)
,4.&#".&'()1,.,0.&/')
$+/D"D&%&.5
Y&'1<)'/&4,<)=,".6,+<)D"+/#,.+&0)$+,447+,<)/D4,+8,+)GP2)
N447#$.&/'4 N447#&'()6&(6,+)1,'4&.5)&4)"')&'1&0"./+)/*)Z7"%&.5)6"D&.".2))S/+)#,.6/1)"447#$.&/'4<)
4,,)+,.+,".)/D[,0.&8,)]2
Table 1. Standardized focal area monitoring criteria to measure density for the focal and reference area. The standards also
permit estimation of the percent of area occupied (occupancy) for focal and reference areas with low populations.

12
!""#$%&"' ('")*+*,*-.
!"#$%&'!%()*+ ,#%%-.+/')%()*+0'-"#.+/'12%'3%(4'5(66.+/'3%#.*-'7*#'8*892.1%)'.+'12%'(#%(:'8"1'(6)*'
5*+).-%#.+/'*12%#')3%5.%)'*7'.+1%#%)1;
<%+/12'*7')"#$%&'3%#.*- =33#*>.?(1%6&'('@'9%%4'9.+-*9:'5%+1%#%-'*+'3%(4'*7'5(66.+/;
!3%5.%)'?%()"#%- !1(1%'8&',.#-'A*+)%#$(1.*+'B%/.*+'3#.*#.1&')3%5.%)'C'8*892.1%)'(+-'"3'1*'@'*12%#'
/#())6(+-D)2#"8'3#.*#.1&')3%5.%)'E"3'1*'F')3%5.%)'1*1(6G;
H.+"1%)'(1'('3*.+1 I'?.+"1%)'9.12'*+%'?.+"1%'.+1%#$(6);
!1(#1'(+-')1*3'1.?% J(67'2*"#'8%7*#%')"+#.)%'"+1.6'K'2*"#)'(71%#')"+#.)%0'#%5*#-')1(#1'1.?%'7*#'%(52'
3*.+1;
L8)%#$(1.*+) B%5*#-'(51"(6'6*5(1.*+'*7'7.#)1'-%1%51.*+'*7'1(#/%1'8.#-)'").+/'MN6%11%#')3%5.%)'5*-%'
*+'(%#.(6'?(3)'9.12'-.)1(+5%'5#*))2(.#)'3#.+1%-'7*#'/".-%)'.+1*'(33#*3#.(1%'ON
?.+"1%'.+1%#$(60'6*5(1.*+)'1*'8%'%+1%#%-'.+1*'PQ!;''E!.-%8(#'10G
H.+.?"?'-.)1(+5%'8%19%%+'
3*.+1)
IRR'?'E,"546(+-'SRROG;
T*.+1'5*"+1'#(-.") SIR'?')3#.+/'E5(;'MU'(5#%)G'
!3(1.(6'#%36.5(1.*+'E+"?8%#'
*7'3*.+1)G
V%1%#?.+%-'8&'-%).#%-'%77%51').W%'(+-'3#%5.).*+;'A*66%51'3.6*1'-(1('7.#)1'O*#'S'&%(#)'
)(1"#(1.+/'(#%('9.12'#(+-*?'3*.+1);''!"8)(?36%'3*.+1)'1*'#%3#%)%+1'SRX'*7'(#%('
7*#'K'#%3%(1%-'$.).1)'1*'?%()"#%'*55"3(+5&;''
B(-.") Y+6.?.1%-'.+'12%'7.%6-:'6.4%6&'1#"+5(1%'(1'SIR'?'7*#'(+(6&).);
Z%?3*#(6'#%36.5(1.*+'9.12.+'
)%()*+
B%5*??%+-'S'9%%4)'1*'.?3#*$%'52(+5%)'*7'5(31"#.+/'12%'3%(4;
L#-%#'*7'$.).1.+/'3*.+1) B%$%#)%'#*"1%)'7*#'%(52'#%3%1.1.*+;
Table 2. Spring NBCI coordinated monitoring protocol (Distance Removal Method), attributes and methodologies.

13
!""#$%&"' ('")*+*,*-.
!"#$%&'!%()*+ ,(--.
/%+012'*3')"#$%&'4%#5*6 744#*859(1%-&'(':;<'=%%>'=5+6*=?'@%+1%#%6'*+'@(--5+0'4%(>?'A"1'1%#95+(1%6'4#5*#'
1*'2"+15+0.''B1'5)'#%@*99%+6%6')(94-5+0'A%05+'%(#-&'5+'12%')%()*+'1*'9(8595C%'
*44*#1"+51&'1*'@*--%@1'6(1('"+6%#'A%)1'=%(12%#'@*+6515*+).
D5+"1%)'(1'('4*5+1 EF'95+"1%).
!1(#1'(+6')1*4'159% EF'95+"1%)'A%3*#%')"+#5)%'"+15-')"+#5)%.
G(--5+0'H"(5-'*A)%#$(15*+) I%@*#6'(@1"(-'-*@(15*+'(+6'159%'*3'35#)1'6%1%@15*+'*3'@*$%&)'J=512'"+5H"%'+"9A%#K'
*+'(%#5(-'9(4)'=512'@#*))2(5#)'4#5+1%6'3*#'0"56%)?'1*'A%'%+1%#%6'5+1*'LB!.'G(--5+0'
H"(5-'4%#@%5$%6'1*'A%'MNO'9%1%#)'(4(#1'(#%'@-())535%6'()'MP'@*$%&.'Q%'@*+)%#$(15$%'
=2%+'6%@565+0'=2%12%#'*#'+*1'12%#%'5)'MP'@(--5+0'@*$%&'5+'('R)9(--S'(#%(.
,-")2%6'H"(5-'*A)%#$(15*+) I%@*99%+6%6'12(1'MPO'@*$%&)'A%'3-")2%6'1*'@*"+1'+"9A%#'*3'5+65$56"(-)'4%#'
@*$%&'3*#'@(-@"-(15*+'*3'H"(5-'4%#'(@#%?'$%#)")'@*$%&)'4%#'(@#%?'(+6'1*'-%(#+'
*A)%#$%#'(@@"#(@&'5+'56%+153&5+0'-*@(15*+)'*3'@(--5+0'H"(5-.
D5+59"9'65)1(+@%'A%1=%%+'
4*5+1)
P?OOO'9'JQ"@>-(+6'TOOPK.
U*5+1'@*"+1'#(65") FOO'9'JV%--%+6*#3'%1'(-.'TOOE?'!%5-%#'%1'(-.'TOOFK.',*#'4-(@5+0'4*5+1)'3*#'A*12')4#5+0'
(+6'3(--'@*"+1)W'#(+6*9-&'@2**)%'3(--'4*5+1)'35#)1?')2#5+>'6*=+'#(65")'(+6'12%+'
@2**)%'#%9(5+5+0')4#5+0'4*5+1).
X"9A%#'*3'4*5+1)'1*')(94-%'
(+6'*A)%#$(15*+)'4%#'4*5+1
Y%1%#95+%6'A&'6%)5#%6'%33%@1')5C%'(+6'4#%@5)5*+.'V512*"1'45-*1'6(1('(')1(#15+0'
+"9A%#'=*"-6'A%'%+*"02'4*5+1)'1*')"#$%&'(1'-%()1'TOZ'*3'3*@(-'(#%(.'L5$%+'TOZ'
)(94-5+0'(+6'('3*@(-'(#%('*3'(1'-%()1'P?FOO'(@#%)'J(A*"1'<?'FOO;9')(94-5+0'@5#@-%)K?'
#%@*99%+6%6'+"9A%#'*3')(94-5+0'4*5+1)'5+'3(--'5)'(1'-%()1'T.'G*--%@1'6(1('3#*9'
%(@2'*3'12%)%'4*5+1)'MP'159%.
[#6%#'*3'$5)515+0'4*5+1) I(+6*95C%'*#6%#'*3'$5)51)'53'+*1'$5)515+0'(--'4*5+1)'5+'*+%'6(&.
X*5)%'-%$%- O?P?T?N'+*5)%'5+6%8'()'@*$(#5(1%.
V%(12%# I%@*99%+6%6'1*'($*56')(94-5+0'53'@-*"6'@*$%#'MFZ'*#'Q%("3*#1'=5+6'5+6%8'ME.'B3'
4*5+1)'(#%'*+-&'$5)51%6'*+@%'JP'#%4-5@(15*+K?'51'5)'#%@*99%+6%6'A%)1'=%(12%#'
@*+6515*+)'A%')*"021?'5.%.?')1(A-%'*#'#5)5+0'A(#*9%1#5@'4#%))"#%?'@-%(#')>&'(+6'=5+6'
)4%%6']T'JQ%("3*#1K.
^5)"(-_'("651*#&'6%1%@15*+ 7"651*#&'*+-&.
`-%@1#*+5@'@*$%&'@(--) I%@*99%+6%6'*+-&'(31%#'P'@*94-%1%'#%4-5@(15*+.
[A)%#$%# `(@2'=512'('"+5H"%'56%+1535%#'*#'3"--'+(9%).'I%@*99%+6%6W'(++"(-'1#(5+5+0'3*#'(--'
*A)%#$%#).'[+%'*#'9*#%'*A)%#$%#'4%#'4*5+1.
Y%1%@15*+'4#*A(A5-51& D")1'A%'%)159(1%6'1*'(@@*"+1'3*#'594%#3%@1'6%1%@15*+'*3'@(--5+0'H"(5-.
G*$(#5(1%) a(A51(1'9(+(0%6?'=%(12%#?'2(#$%)1?'-(+6'@*$%#?'2(A51(1'5+6%8.
G*$(#5(1%)'3*#'%)159(15+0'
6%1%@15*+'4#*A(A5-51&
Q(#*9%1#5@'4#%))"#%'(1'OPOO'(+6'OOO'2*"#)b'=5+6;Q%("3*#1')@(-%b'4%#@%+1'@-*"6'
@*$%#b'+*5)%'-%$%-'(+6'*A)%#$%#'BY.'
7))"9415*+) c'[Ad%@1)'*+'12%'4*5+1'(#%'6%1%@1%6'=512'@%#1(5+1&b
c'[Ad%@1)'(#%'6%1%@1%6'(1'12%5#'5+515(-'-*@(15*+b'(+6
c'D%()"#%9%+1)'(#%'%8(@1'JQ"@>-(+6'%1'(-.'TOOPK.
Table 3. Fall NBCI coordinated monitoring protocol (Covey Point Count) attributes and methodologies.

14
three frequencies at which the habitat survey can be done:
• Best- Annual Survey
• Good- Survey every other year
• Minimum- Survey at years 1,5, and 10
We developed a habitat classification system (Appendix A)
and data sheet that should be used for the habitat surveys
and the cover mapping. The data sheet asks for values
to characteristics considered important for bobwhite
habitat. These values can then be used to determine if
a habitat patch is considered quail habitat according
to the classification system. The classification system
is considered an a priori model of quail habitat. Future
analysis will help inform the accuracy of the model and
help improve the classification system.
Habitat surveys should record the lowest habitat type
category for all habitat patches within 250 m from the bird
sampling point. Habitat survey mapping (sidebar #12 of
example point map) is conducted with a recent (within
the last five years,) high resolution, aerial photograph
(≤2 m-resolution) printed on standard letter paper. The
minimum size patch that should be delimited is 900 m2
,
which is a 30m by 30m square. Each delineated polygon
should be numbered and characterized using the habitat
data sheet (sidebar #11 of example datasheet). Special
focus is afforded to protective cover mapping (sidebar
#12 of example point map). Protective cover is defined as
vegetation that provides year-round overhead protection
from predators and inclement weather. The composition of
protective cover can vary by region and habitat but should
be a minimum of 314 sq. ft., which is approximately a
10-foot diameter circle or a 10 ft. X 31 ft. rectangle. Field
maps should be digitized in ArcGIS (sidebar #13 example
image). State-specific training should be conducted before
any individual conducts a habitat survey in every survey
year.
Two options exist for determining the habitat type for the
surveys. They are:
• Gold—An observer will visually group habitat
types from a distance and then verify the habitat
classification by walking through each grouping of
habitat types.
• Silver—An observer will identify habitat
classification from a few points within the 250 m
radius of the bird sampling point. The area is not
walked. This method is likely the only level that can
be achieved from roadside surveys.
Sidebar #11 Example of a Habitat Data Sheet

15
Sidebar #12 Example of a Habitat Point Map
1. Note mapping of like vegetation areas delineated and numbered by a fine-point Sharpie. Polygon ID number is carried over to
the field data sheet.
2. Note the mapping of protective cover using a highlighter. Protective cover is vegetation that provides year round overhead
protection from predators and inclement weather. Its interpretation is established by the state quail coordinator.
3. Note use “H” to denote herbaceous and “W” to denote woody protective cover.
H
H H
H
H
W
W
W
W
W

16
The primary difference between the cover mapping
and the habitat surveys is the level of detail within the
habitat classification systems that can be achieved. Cover
mapping should be performed using a high-resolution
aerial photograph (≤2 m-resolution) at a 1:8,000 scale.
The minimum patch size delimited for cover mapping is
the same as the habitat survey. Habitat for the cover maps
should be done to the lowest habitat type category possible
within the classification system. For example, within the
open habitat types it may only be possible to distinguish
crop from herbaceous and shrub, but not grass dominant
from forb dominant.
Monitoring Practice Implementation
A primary tenet of the NBCI Focal Area Program is to
demonstrate the relationship of bobwhite density with
available habitat. Habitat can be manipulated through a
multitude of practices. Although it is unlikely that focal
area data will be robust enough to tie bird response to
specific practices, monitoring practices within a focal area
can help generate cost estimates for quail restoration and
serve as a measure of conservation effort. The tracking
of practices within focal areas will be required annually
as a component of the NBCI Annual Inventory. Ideally,
practices would be spatially explicit to avoid double
counting of acres managed. A bobwhite management
practice is defined as an activity that a state fish and
wildlife agency would be willing to pay a landowner to
implement for the benefit of bobwhite. The following is a
list of practices that would require tracking in acres:
1. Herbaceous Chemical Control – using herbicides to
control unwanted non-woody vegetation including
invasive exotic control and setting back succession.
2. Growing-Season Fire – using a controlled burn
during the growing season to thin grass, promote
forbs, control woody plants, or reduce litter, among
others.
3. Dormant-Season Fire – using a controlled burn
during the dormant season to promote grass,
control woody plants, create bare ground, or reduce
litter, among others.
4. Partial Disking – using a disk to create at least 80%
bare ground in a contiguous patch or block (> ¼
acre) within a field or by breaking the field into
strips.
5. Whole-Field Disking – using a disk to create at least
80% bare ground across an entire field.
6. Patch-Burn Grazing – using annual, rotational
controlled burning to manipulate livestock grazing
pressure across a management unit.
7. Rotational Grazing – using fencing and animal
movement to systematically direct livestock grazing
pressure across a management unit.
8. Deferred Grazing – removing livestock from a
management unit during the nesting period.
9. Chemical Brush Management – using herbicides
to control woody encroachment in a management
unit.
10. Mechanical Brush Management – using
saws, cutters, or mulchers to control woody
encroachment in a management unit.
11. Edge Feathering – using herbicides or mechanical
techniques to remove woody vegetation aimed at
“softening” the edge between a forest and field.
12. Brush Piles – creating loose brush piles to provide
escape cover (reported as a number not acres).
13. Clear Cut – using mechanical techniques to
completely remove woody vegetation from a
forested area (≥ 5 acres).
14. Thinning – using chemical or mechanical
techniques to reduce basal area of trees within a
forested area to appropriate levels for bobwhite.
15. Forest Opening – using mechanical techniques
to completely remove woody vegetation from a
forested area (1-5 acres).
16. Deferred Haying – eliminating the cutting of hay
during the nesting season.
17. Establishing herbaceous cover – planting native
grasses or forbs for the benefit of bobwhite.
18. Establishing trees – planting trees for the benefit of
bobwhite.
19. Establishing shrubs – planting shrubs for the
benefit of bobwhite.
20. Fallowing/idling – leaving food plots or crop fields
undisturbed over the growing season with no other
management.
21. Food Plots – planting annual grains for the benefit
of bobwhite.
Harvest Monitoring
The effects of hunting pressure (i.e., hunters/ac) on harvest
can vary by skill and effort of hunters or many other
factors. Therefore, we recommend harvest be accounted
for and managed with either annual measures of fall quail
abundance (Table 3) or harvest and/or a conservative
prescription based on previous data. Measures of harvest
require estimation of bias and precision if mandatory bag
checks are not conducted. The minimum recommended
approach for harvest is to collect data annually and/or
to use outreach to inform hunters and landowners of
appropriate harvest rates and the importance of reporting
bobwhite harvest.
Measuring or estimating harvest is a common practice
in wildlife management. As a result there are numerous
methods for collecting this data. Below is a list of
recommended methods for estimating harvest ordered by
reliability. However, the most reliable method may not be

17
appropriate for all situations, so advantages and drawbacks
are discussed.
• Trained check station operator with mandatory
check-in: This provides the most reliable and
informative data, but may not be feasible for focal or
reference areas with a large portion of private land.
Self-reporting can be unreliable (unreported bag) on
areas where a fixed number of birds can be harvested
throughout season (i.e., season closes when number
is met),
• Trained bag checker with timed systematic sampling
schedule and volunteer response: bag checker sets
up and/or searches convenient locations (roads,
parking lots, residences, etc.).
• Mandatory self-reporting, daily or periodic (weekly,
monthly or end-of-season). Requires special permits
and enforcement, (e.g., eligibility for future hunts,
etc.). This is common practice for deer and wild
turkey.
• Voluntary daily self-reporting via survey cards (lacks
enforcement mechanism). This low-cost approach
can be unreliable, with some hunters exaggerating
their effectiveness, and others under-reporting
harvest because they are secretive or they know
reported bag affects closure of hunting season. This
approach has some merit as an index of harvest, but
little value as an unbiased estimator, unless bias is
measured and understood.
• Voluntary post-season questionnaire via telephone,
Internet or mail. This approach is even more
unreliable, mixing exaggeration with memory recall,
but at least the motivation to under-report is not an
issue.
Weather Monitoring
Extreme weather events are unpredictable and can
significantly impact bobwhite populations across
their range. These events have the potential to negate
population gains associated with habitat change on a
focal area. Therefore, when a strong relationship does
not exist between habitat and bobwhite population, it is
recommended to explore the relationship of populations to
Sidebar #13 Example of a Digitized Field Datasheet with Buffers on Protective Cover Areas

18
weather. Currently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) monitors weather at over 8,000
weather stations nationwide. The following weather factors
are most likely to have the greatest effect on bobwhite
populations and can be monitored using NOAA data
(other weather related factors may be important as well).
1. Excessive Rainfall
2. Snow/ Ice Coverage
3. Temperature
• Over winter Low
• Summer High
4. Drought
Domesticated Bird Monitoring
We strongly recommend selecting NBCI focal and
reference areas where domesticated bobwhites can
be prohibited for the 10-year life of the program,
and secondarily where there is little or no history of
domesticated bobwhite releases. Additionally, release
of domesticated bobwhite should be prohibited in an
adjacent 1-mile wide buffer. With the realization these
restrictions may not be feasible, we also recommend
developing a system for documenting the possible
existence of domesticated bobwhites including what,
when, where, how many, and fate. Documentation will
include purpose of possession, location (geo-referenced
and mailing address), dates and number present or
released, and fate of released bobwhites (i.e., of number
released how many were killed?). Documentation can
be done by enforced regulations and record-keeping or
annual questionnaires to landowners. In areas that wildlife
agencies do not have direct control of the release of
domesticated bobwhites we also recommend the following
steps:
• Outreach to inform landowners of the problems
associated with domesticated bobwhites, and that
eliminating these birds as soon as possible after release
is desirable;
• The release of domesticated bobwhites should be
timed so as not to bias abundance monitoring in fall
or breeding season (i.e., avoid 8-weeks prior to/during
monitoring);
• Released birds should be inspected by a veterinarian
for general health condition;
• Released birds should be banded with metal leg bands
prior to release.
Data Management and Analysis
Data management is essential to any research or
monitoring project. It becomes more difficult as the
number of partners and amount of data collected
increases. A database management subcommittee has
been formed to deal with this issue. It is expected that this
subcommittee will find a near-term solution for entering
and storing focal area monitoring program data. A long-
term solution will later be identified that allows all NBCI
data to be stored and accessed. When the data storage
solutions have been identified they will also provide
recommendations on data analysis. Ideally, this would be
part of the data storage system.
Program Assessment
The NBCI Focal Tiers program is voluntary program for
NBCI partners. However, the standards outlined in this
document must be met to be considered as part of the
program. Therefore, a committee composed of NBCI staff
and NBTC state quail coordinators should be formed
to evaluate the success of the program. This committee
should review if proposed focal areas meet the criteria
outlined in this document and can be an official NBCI
Focal Area. They should also set criteria for maintaining
the NBCI brand. Suggested criteria for maintaining the
NBCI brand include collecting and submitting bird and
habitat monitoring data and actively conducting habitat
management that benefits bobwhite.
In addition, the committee should conduct a performance
evaluation of each focal area in years 1, 5 and 10 after
establishment. The purpose of this second review is to
provide feedback on how the focal area is progressing
towards its goal and provide suggestions on how to
improve their program. The annual NBCI inventory will
be used to facilitate data exchange, monitor progress,
and ensure the project meets program standards. A
grading system should be implemented to assess annual
performance and create a sense of competition across the
bobwhite range. Focal areas with the best reviews will be
recognized at the annual NBTC Conference.
Monitoring NBCI Regions and Landscapes:
Currently, monitoring is not required within NBCI Focal
Regions and Landscapes. Existing statewide bobwhite
surveys and other regional surveys such as the North
American Breeding Bird Survey could be used to monitor
these areas. Developing a survey specific to these areas in
the future would be beneficial. It is recommended that if
a new survey is developed it should be coordinated across
state boundaries so data from multiple states can easily
be combined. We also recommend following a similar
approach for developing these surveys as was taken for the
focal area monitoring protocols.
4. Process Used to Develop the NBCI
Coordinated Implementation Plan
The National Bobwhite Technical Committee Steering
Committee believed that the viability of range-wide

19
bobwhite conservation depended upon documenting the
validity of NBCI’s habitat-based strategy in the near-term
(5-10 years). They asserted that the concentration of effort
and resources by states and partners into well-designed
focal areas optimizes the ability to produce and document
improvement.
To address this need, the NBTC Research Subcommittee
nominated John Morgan (KDFWR) to chair an ad hoc
Monitoring Subcommittee that was fully formed at
the 2011 NBTC Conference in Tallahassee, FL. Under
Chairman Morgan, ad hoc Monitoring Subcommittee
active members included Laurel Barnhill (United States
Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]), Tom Dailey (NBCI),
Steve DeMaso (Gulf Coast Joint Venture), Ken Duren
(Ohio Division of Wildlife [ODW]), Kristine Evans
(formerly Mississippi State University [MSU], now
USFWS), Jay Howell (Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries), James Martin (MSU), Nathan Stricker
(ODW), and Theron Terhune (Tall Timbers Research
Station).
A primary tenet of the committee’s charge was to be
inclusive. The result was a committee with a diversity of
perspectives that sought opportunities to gain information
and opinions from state bobwhite coordinators first,
and, subsequently, the broader conservation community.
Tom Dailey, NBCI Science Coordinator, conducted an
inventory of current bobwhite monitoring programs as
a component of the annual State of the Bobwhite report
(NBCI 2012). The survey collected opinions regarding
monitoring at multiple spatial scales, standardized and
coordinated monitoring, and leadership and field staff
support for monitoring. The result was a strong desire
for focal area monitoring, a willingness to conduct
standardized or coordinated monitoring, and support of
collaborating with the NBCI (Appendix C).
With this information, the ad hoc committee began
preparation for a retreat aimed to draft an NBCI
monitoring program at the focal area level. To further
understand on-going focal area monitoring projects,
Tom Dailey, Ken Duren, and Chair Morgan interviewed
state quail coordinators leading focal area monitoring
efforts and incorporated that information into the retreat
discussions. Innumerable hours of planning via conference
call were used to maximize efficiency during the retreat.
Each talking point was outlined including facilitation
approach and time investment.
The focal area monitoring retreat was May 14-16, 2012
at Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill in Kentucky. Chairman
Morgan, Tom Dailey, Billy Dukes (South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources), Ken Duren, Kristine
Evans, Jim Giocomo (Oaks and Prairies Joint Venture), Jay
Howell, and Theron Terhune participated in the retreat,
and then-NBCI Agriculture Policy Coordinator Bridget
Collins served as facilitator. The following six steps were
agreed upon by retreat participants to draft a monitoring
plan:
1. Articulate the relationship between Focal Areas and
range-wide bobwhite conservation.
2. Create a rough definition of a “Focal Area.”
3. Draft a conceptual framework for standardization
and options for focal area evaluation
4. Write two coordinated (spring and fall) monitoring
protocols.
5. Develop the concept of a centralized data
management and decision support structure.
6. Create a review process for the draft monitoring
program.
All six steps were completed during this retreat. However,
participants also developed a list of other essential steps
that were needed but could not be finished in during the
meeting. This included:
1. Focal area design and implementation issues.
2. Developing a standardized habitat survey.
3. Measuring harvest.
4. How to deal with domesticated bobwhite.
The first draft of the NBCI focal area monitoring was
completed based on this meeting. This draft was reviewed
by the full ad hoc Monitoring Subcommittee, the Research
Subcommittee, and the NBTC steering committee prior
to the 2012 NBTC meeting in Abilene, TX. The majority
of 2012 NBTC Quail Coordinators Meeting was devoted
to discussing the States’ ideas and recommendations
on the focal area concept, design, implementation, and
draft monitoring protocol. Brief opening remarks and
presentations were followed by a much longer period
during which state quail coordinators and other state
biologists were able to discuss focal areas and monitoring
in facilitated break-out groups (roughly 5 states/group)
and report-back sessions. Each group appointed a
representative for a conference committee. The appointees
convened with 2 representatives from the research
subcommittee to edit the monitoring draft. Changes made
to the program through the conference committee process
were reported at the business meeting.
The business meeting also served as the first introduction
of the focal tiers concept. Reggie Thackston, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, presented the focal tiers
paradigm created for Georgia’s bobwhite recovery plan.
The conservation planning approach was openly discussed
during the meeting and the steering committee requested
it be considered as a component of the focal area program.

20
A revised draft was completed with changes from the
conference committee representatives and was approved
by the NBCI Management Board in September.
A second retreat was organized through extensive
conference calls to work on unfinished tasks from the first
retreat and to clarify unresolved issues after the review
process in Abilene. The most daunting task for the second
retreat was the development of a habitat monitoring
protocol. New participants were appointed through their
NBTC resource subcommittees (forestry, grasslands, and
agricultural policy) to diversify expertise for the task.
Care was taken so participants represented states from the
north, south, east and western portions of bobwhite range
The second planning meeting for NBCI focal area
monitoring was also held at Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill
in Harrodsburg, KY from Nov. 13- 16, 2012. The meeting
was a day longer than the first retreat given the longer task
list, and feedback from the first retreat for exceptionally
long working days. Chairman Morgan, Tom Dailey, Ken
Duren, Jim Giocomo (Oaks and Prairies JV), Jay Howell,
Bill White (MO), Bob Gates (OSU), Todd Boegenschutz
(IA), Jena Donnell (OK), James Tomberlin (GA), Robert
Glennon (NRCS), and Larry Heggemann (Central
Hardwoods JV) participated in the retreat. Brittney Viers
(KY) and Ben Robinson (KY) also helped with facilitation
and note taking.
The main subjects covered during this meeting included:
1. Redefining “useable space;”
2. Providing clarification on how to deal with
domesticated bobwhites;
3. Clarifying attributes of the reference areas;
4. Further outlining how focal area monitoring fits
within the strategic habitat conservation (SHC)
model;
5. Providing guidance on developing and implementing
the ideal focal area;
6. Providing recommendations for why and how to
monitor habitat change;
7. Tracking conservation implementation;
8. Monitoring weather;
9. The importance of managing and monitoring
harvest;
10. Review of the focal tiers concept as a component of
the focal area program.
During the second retreat, participants realized there was
not enough representation for rangeland habitats. To offset
this weakness, state quail coordinators from Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas were the first group of
people to review the report from the retreat. Their
comments were used to modify the habitat classification
system. The report was then sent to the NBTC Steering
Committee and to each NBTC subcommittee for review.
The steering committee discussed and accepted the focal
tiers concept with input from the monitoring committee
in February.
Also during the meeting, participants realized the habitat
monitoring protocol should be tested prior to the NBTC
meeting in Roanoke, VA. Missouri, Iowa, Georgia,
Virginia, and Kentucky agreed to test the protocol during
the summer of 2013 (NBCI 2013, pgs. 22-23). Focal
area and reference areas were selected and monitoring
points were established. States piloted bird and habitat
monitoring, and tabulated manpower and expertise
required to implement the focal area program (Sidebar
#14).
The state quail coordinators’ meeting was again used
for review during the 2013 NBTC meeting in Roanoke,
VA. The meeting followed the outline used in 2012.
Presentations were given explaining the decisions made
at the retreat. Pilot states also gave brief presentations
on how the habitat monitoring worked for them. State
coordinators had the opportunity to provide input
through facilitated break out groups (approximately 5
states/group). A conference committee was reconvened
where changes were vetted. The research subcommittee
also played a significant role in editing the focal area
program. Changes were presented during the NBTC
business meeting and the steering committee accepted the
focal tier program as a whole at the end of the Roanoke
meeting.
5. Periodic Updates of this Coordinated
Implementation Plan
The Ad Hoc Monitoring Subcommittee, the NBTC
Steering Committee and all involved in developing this
program acknowledge that this NBCI Coordinated
Implementation Plan is a work in progress. Getting this
first full draft completed and approved is a milestone in
bobwhite conservation, but the NBTC recognizes that this
plan will need to be re-assessed periodically in light of new
information resulting from implementation experiences
across numerous states.
6. Conclusion
The evolution of the NBCI is naturally moving towards
collaborative plan implementation across the bobwhite
range. The BRI and the State of the Bobwhite Report
demonstrate the NBTC’s unity and strength. Without

21
coordinated implementation and evaluation, stagnation
of the NBCI 2.0 could result in a loss of momentum and
risk the range-wide bobwhite conservation movement as a
whole. Coordinated monitoring across state lines has been
one of the greatest challenges of bird conservation (with
the exception of waterfowl). The bobwhite community has
the infrastructure and has voiced their support for this
next step. The time is now to set a new standard.
Focal tiers are the next major step towards implementing
the SHC process by coordinating conservation delivery
and monitoring among 25 state agencies and conservation
partners. Across the 25 NBCI states there is tremendous
variability in the biological capacity for bobwhite, the
cultural interest in bobwhite, and the institutional capacity
for habitat restoration. The only way we can find unity,
initially, is in a narrowly focused approach. Regardless of
focal area size, feedback from monitoring, and research in
some cases, will improve the effectiveness of conservation
delivery and outcome.
The key to success on all fronts is partner engagement.
Establishing and implementing focal areas within focal
tiers should be an open, inclusive process. This program
is proof that facilitated forums can yield solutions for
difficult and complex challenges. The years ahead will
represent a radical shift in the NBTC culture, shifting
from one that was focused more on planning and national
policy to one that focuses on nationally coordinated,
state-based plan implementation. It will also solidify
the ideology of SHC within the constructs of bobwhite
restoration.
Finally, this implementation and monitoring program
is a beginning. The focal tiers concept identifies focal
landscapes and regions. To achieve the full vision of the
NBCI 2.0, the NBTC must continue to collaborate towards
expanded habitat conservation at larger landscape contexts
supported by coordinated monitoring. New leaders and
engaged team members must build on this collaborative
foundation. Together, the NBTC can set a new standard
for 21st Century natural resource conservation across state
lines.
Sidebar #14 Staff and Resource Needs
Implementation of an NBCI Model Focal Area project requires a near year-round focus and seasonal increases in labor
before, during and after field data collection. Staffing should be lower after the first couple of years because of start-up preparation,
systematic adjustments in protocol and proposed increased services from NBCI (e.g., Pittman-Robertson funding).
Components of the process include Planning and Coordination (site selection, landowner data and communication, ordering
supplies, supervision of field work, data management, preliminary analysis and reporting, review at NBTC annual meeting, etc.;
most components repeated annually), Geographic Information System analysis (GIS) (initially intensive, followed by annual
assessment of habitat configuration), Field Training Development (breeding season bird observations, habitat evaluation and fall
covey call counts; repeated annually), Observer Field Training (breeding season bird observations, habitat evaluation and fall covey
call counts; repeated annually), Field Data Collection (breeding season bird observations, habitat evaluation and fall covey call
counts; repeated annually, May through November duration), and Data Entry (repeated annually). A similar, but detailed, guidance
to management-driven bird monitoring can be found in Knutson et al. (2008).
Pilot-state projects in 2013 in Georgia, Kentucky, Iowa, Missouri, Texas and Virginia identified a wide range of staffing.
The size range of study (focal and reference) areas was mostly about 6,000, but up to 12,000-acres/study area. Each state included a
coordinator, but the range of other participating individuals ranged from 2 to 12. Components of the process and a summary of staff
time are listed below. These estimates do not include travel time. Some states made extensive use of volunteer labor, and the amount
of effort and other costs (e.g., distance to, and between, focal and references areas) vary across states; consequently, monetary
estimates of project cost are speculative. However, for a turn-key operation, $20,000-$70,000 per year should be budgeted for the
first couple of years.
GUIDANCE
• Planning and Coordination: 1-2 staff, 30-50 days total;
• GIS: 1 staff, 3-14 days;
• Field Training Development: 1-2 staff, 3-6 days total;
• Observer Field Training: 1-2 days per data type, 3-6 days total;
• Field Data Collection Breeding Season (in focal and reference areas, 24 sample points each, each point repeated > 2 days at a
rate of 10 points/[3 hour data period/person/day]): 2-12 staff, 4-12 days of sampling; presumably these observers daily follow
3-hour bird observations with habitat evaluation;
• Field Data Collection Habitat Evaluation (ca. 1.5 hours/point); 2-12 staff, 4-12 days of sampling;
• Field Data Collection Fall Covey Count (assuming option to sample focal area only, 24 points, each point observed once at a
rate of 1 point/[1 hour data period/person/day]): 2-12 staff, 2-12 days of sampling;
• Data Entry: 1 staff, 10 days

22
Literature Cited
Brennan, L.A. 2011. A Biological Basis for the National
Bobwhite Conservation Initiative: northern
bobwhite habitat and population ecology.
Pages 6-26 in Palmer, W.E., T.M. Terhune, and
D.F. McKenzie, eds. The National Bobwhite
Conservation Initiative: A range-wide plan
for recovering bobwhites. National Bobwhite
Technical Committee Technical Publication, ver.
2.0, Knoxville, TN.
Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, J.L. Laake,
D.L. Borchers, and L.Thomas. 2001. Introduction
to Distance Sampling. Oxford University Press,
Oxford. 432 pp.
Dailey, T.V. 1997. Quail Population Ecology. Final
Report W-13-R-51. Missouri Department of
Conservation. Columbia, Missouri.
Dailey, T. V. 2009. Use of human dimensions information
as a tool for selecting large-scale quail restoration
areas. Pages 185-192 in L. W. Burger, Jr., ed.
Managing working lands for northern bobwhite
quail: The USDA-NRCS Bobwhite Restoration
Project. 209 pages.
Daley, S. S., D. T. Cobb, P. T. Bromley, and C. E. Sorenson.
2004. Landowner attitudes regarding wildlife
management on private land in North Carolina.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:209-219.
DeVos, T. and D. W. Speake. 1995. Effects of releasing
pen raised northern bobwhites n survival rates of
wild populations of northern bobwhites. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 23:267--273.
Dimmick, R.W., M.J. Gudlin, and D.F. McKenzie. 2002.
The northern bobwhite conservation initiative.
Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South
Carolina. 96 pp.
Evans K.O., M.D. Smith, L.W. Burger, Jr., R. J. Chambers,
A.E. Houston, and R. Carlisle. 2009. Release of
pen-reared bobwhites: potential consequences to
the genetic integrity of resident wild populations.
Pages 121--133 in S.B. Cederbaum, B.C. Faircloth,
T.M. Terhune, J.J. Thompson, J.P. Carroll, eds.
Gamebird 2006: Quail VI and Perdix XII. 31
May--4 June 2006. Warnell School of Forestry and
Natural Resources, Athens, GA.
Evans, K.O., L.W. Burger, Jr., C.S. Oedekoven, M.D.
Smith, S.K. Riffell, S.T. Buckland. 2013. Multi-
region response to conservation buffers targeted
for northern bobwhite. Journal of Wildlife
Management 77:716-725.
Farnsworth, G. L., K. H. Pollock, J. D. Nichols, T. R.
Simons, J. E. Hines, and J. R. Sauer. 2002.
A removal model for estimating detection
probabilities from point-count surveys. Auk
119:414-425.
Fies, M. L., J. E. Fischer, and D. E. Steffen. 2000. Survival
of game farm, f1 wild progeny, and wild relocated
northern bobwhites using two release methods.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies 54:350--364.
Gerhold, R. W., L. R. McDougald, and R. B. Beckstead.
2012. Construction of species-specific PCR
primers for detection of coccidia parasites in
captive-reared northern bobwhites. Proceedings
of the National Quail Symposium 7:107.
Guthery, F.S. 2000. On bobwhites. Texas A&M
University Press. College Station. 213 pp.
Guthery, F. S., M. J. Peterson, and R. R. George. 2000.
Viability of northern bobwhite populations.
Journal of Wildlife Management 64:646-662.
Hurst, G. A., W. R. Davidson, T. Devos, E. L. Kozicky,
and A. D. Peoples. 1993. Strategic plan for quail
management and research in the United States:
Issues and strategies: Releases of pen-raised quail.
Pages 178–179 in K. Church and T. Dailey, editors.
Quail III: National Quail Symposium. Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks, Pratt, KS.
Hutchins, A. R., and F. Hernandez. 2003. Effects of
pen-raised northern bobwhite introductions
on wild bobwhites in south Texas. Proceedings
of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 57:181–
191.
Knutson, M.G., N.P. Danz, T.W. Sutherland, and B.R. Gray.
2008. Landbird monitoring protocol for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest and Northeast
Regions, Version 1. Biological Monitoring Team
Technical Report BMT-2008-01. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, La Crosse, WI. 25 pages + 11
Standard Operating Procedures.

23
Morrison, M. L. 2012. The habitat sampling and
analysis paradigm has limited value in animal
conservation: A prequel. Journal of Wildlife
Management 76:438-450.
National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. 2011. T. V.
Dailey, D. F. McKenzie, D. E. Figert and J. G. Doty.
State of the Bobwhite 2011 Report: Grassland
Conservation at a Crossroads. National Bobwhite
Technical Committee Technical Publication,
Knoxville, TN. 37 pages.
National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. 2013. D.F.
McKenzie, T.V. Dailey, K.M. Puckett, K.A. Brazil,
M.W. Black, and J.G. Doty. NBCI’s Bobwhite
Almanac, State of the Bobwhite 2013. National
Bobwhite Technical Committee Technical
Publication, Knoxville, TN. 46 pages.
National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. 2012. D.F.
McKenzie, T.V. Dailey, K.M. Puckett and J.G.
Doty. NBCI’s Bobwhite Almanac, State of the
Bobwhite 2012. National Bobwhite Technical
Committee Technical Publication, Knoxville, TN.
48 pages.
National Bobwhite Technical Committee. 2012. W.E.
Palmer, T.M. Terhune, T.V. Dailey, D.F. McKenzie,
and J. Doty, eds. Executive Summary: National
Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, NBCI 2.0…the
unified strategy to restore wild quail. Proceedings
of the National Quail Symposium 7:370-380.
Palmer, W. E., S. D. Wellendorf, L. A. Brennan, W. R.
Davidson, and F. E. Kellogg. 2002. Hunting
success and northern bobwhite density on
Tall Timbers Research Station: 1970–2001.
Proceedings of the National Quail Symposium
5:213–216.
Perez, R.M., D. E. Wilson, and K.D. Gruen. 2002. Survival
and flight characteristics of captive-reared and
wild northern bobwhite in South Texas. Pages 81-
85 in S.J. DeMaso, W.P. Kuvlesky, Jr., F. Hernandez
and M.E. Berger, eds. Quail V: Proceedings of the
Fifth National Quail Symposium. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, Austin, TX.
Pollock, K.H., C.T. Moore, W.R. Davidson, F.E. Kellogg,
and G.L. Doster. 1989. Survival rates of bobwhite
quail based on band recovery analyses. Journal of
Wildlife Management 53:1-6.
Rolland, V., J. A. Hostetler, T. C. Hines, H. F. Percival, and
M. K. Oli. 2010. Impact of harvest on survival of
a heavily hunted game bird population. Wildlife
Research 37:392−400.
Roseberry, J. L., D. L. Ellsworth, and W. D. Klimstra. 1987.
Comparative post release behavior and survival
of wild, semi wild, and game farm bobwhites.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:449 455.
Sands, J. P. 2010. Testing sustained-yield harvest theory to
regulate northern bobwhite hunting. Dissertation.
Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville,
USA.
Seiler, T., R. D. Drobney, and T. V. Dailey. 2005. Observer
group accuracy in plotting locations of northern
bobwhites when using fall covey calls, in Everson,
A. C., Wong, K. C., Miller, D. A., and Galvez, J.
I., Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. 59:57-65.
S. J. Hannon. 2010 Critical thresholds associated with
habitat loss: a review of the concepts, evidence,
and applications. Biological Reviews 83:35-53.
Sisson, D. C., D. W. Speake, and H. L. Stribling. 2000.
Survival of northern bobwhites on areas with
and without liberated bobwhites. Pages 92– 94
in L. Brennan, W. Palmer, L. W. Burger, Jr., and
T. Pruden, eds. Quail IV: Proceedings of the
Fourth National Quail Symposium. Tall Timbers
Research Station, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Stoddard, H. L. 1931. The bobwhite quail: its habits,
preservation and increase. Charles Scribner’s
Sons, New York, NY. 559 pp.
Terhune, T. M., D. C. Sisson, W. E. Palmer, B. C.
Faircloth, H. L. Stribling, and J. P. Carroll.
2010. Translocation to a fragmented landscape:
survival, movement, and site fidelity of Northern
Bobwhites. Ecological Applications 20: 1040-52.
Terhune, T. M., T. V. Dailey, D. M. McKenzie, and W. E.
Palmer. 2012. A tool to bring back bobwhites:
Biologists create a conservation planning tool to
rescue wild quail. The Wildlife Professional 6:64-
66.
Thackston, R. E., D. C. Sisson, T. L. Crouch, D. L. Baxley,
and B. A. Robinson. 2012. Hunter harvest of
pen-reared northern bobwhites released from the
Surrogator®. Proceedings of the National Quail

24
Symposium 7:72-76.
The National Bobwhite Technical Committee. 2011.
Palmer, W.E., T.M. Terhune, and D.F. McKenzie
(eds). The National Bobwhite Conservation
Initiative: A range-wide plan for recovering
bobwhites. National Bobwhite Technical
Committee Technical Publication, ver. 2.0,
Knoxville, TN.
USFWS. 2008. Strategic habitat conservation handbook:
a guide to implementing the technical elements
of strategic habitat conservation (Version 1.0).
Report from the national technical assistance
team. USFWS, Washington, D.C. 22pp.
Wellendorf, S. D., W. E. Palmer, and P. T. Bromley. 2004.
Estimating calling rates of northern bobwhite
coveys and measuring abundance. Journal of
Wildlife Management 68:672-682.

25
Appendix A. NBCI Focus Area Habitat Classification System
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
1000. Deciduous 2000. Coniferous 3000. Mix (at least 33% of each)2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub/
Woody Cover
(>33% woody cover,
vegetation height <12 ft)
20000. Forest
(>10% Canopy coverage
& vegetation height >12 ft tall)
See page A2
See page A3
See page A5
See page A7 See page A11 See page A15
A1
Purpose, directions, and definitions for the Habitat Classification System
1. The NBCI Focus Area Habitat Classification System is an attempt to standardize what constitutes bobwhite habitat across the range through
the NBCI Focus Area Program. The system focuses on vegetative structure from the perspective of the bobwhite. It characterizes vegetation in
layers starting from the treetops and working down to the bare soil level. The classification system is aimed at a seasonal technician that is locally
trained to conduct an in-field assessment.
2. Beginning at the top, add the value of each split to the value of the splits above it to get the unique ID number for each habitat type. For example a
crop field within 50 m. of other habitat would have the number 11100, while a crop field more than 50 m from other habitat would have the value
11200.
3. Planned quail habitat is marked with a check mark while habitat not considered planned quail habitat is marked with a null symbol.
4. Protective cover is vegetation that provides year round overhead protection from predators and inclement weather.
5. Bare ground is an estimate of exposed soil that may or may not be under vegetation (consider quail chick mobility).
6. Appropriate access is less than 50 m from protective cover.

26
100. Appropriate access1
to other
bobwhite habitat2
200. With out appropriate access1
to other
bobwhite habitat2
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
1.
See page A1 for definition of appropriate access 2.
See page A1 for definition of protective cover.
A2
✓

27
100. Grass 200. Mix of at least 33% each of grass and forbs 300. Forbs
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub/
Woody Cover
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
0.2. Not appropriate access1
to
protective cover2
1. 0-25% bare ground 2. 25-75% bare ground 3. >75% bare ground
10. vegetation height
maintained >8 in for >50%
of the year
maintained <8 in for
>50% of the year
0.1. Appropriate access1
to
protective cover2
See page A4
1.
See page A1 for definition of appropriate access 2.
A3
✓

28
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub/
Woody Cover
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
10. At least 3 species of forbs present 20. <3 species of forbs present
2. <50 of forb cover acts
as protective cover
1. >50% of forb cover acts as
protective cover
to
protective cover2
0.1. 0-25% bare ground 0.2. 25-75% bare ground 0.3. >75% bare ground
1. vegetation height main-
tained >8 in for >50% of the
year
maintained <8 in for >50%
of the year
to
protective cover2
0.1. vegetation height
of the year
of the year
1.
See page X for definition of appropriate access 2.
See page X for definition of protective cover.
0.002. Not adjacent to
other planned quail habitat that
is not protective cover
0.001. Adjacent to other
planned quail habitat that is
not protective cover
A4
✓
✓

29
200. >50% Shrub cover100. 33-50% Shrub cover
1000. Crop
10000. Open 30000. Other
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub/
Woody Cover
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
20. <50% of shrub
cover with stem
density concentrated
near the ground
10. >50% of shrub
cover with stem
near ground
1. Adjacent to other
planned quail habitat
2. Not adjacent to other
1. vegetation height main-
tained >8 in for >50% of the
year
>50% of the year
See page A6
A5
✓
✓

30
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub/
Woody Cover
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
1. At least 3 species of forbs present 2. <3 species of forbs present
0.2. <50 of forb cover acts
as protective cover
0.1. >50% of forb cover acts as
protective cover
of the year
of the year
of the year
of the year
A6
✓
✓

31
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub/
Woody Cover
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
100. >50% canopy cover 200. <50% canopy cover
20. Herbaceous Understroy
(<33% woody cover)
30. Shrub/ Woody Understory
(>33% woody cover,
A7
to
protective cover2
of the year
>50% of the year
to
protective cover2
See page A8
1.
See page A1 for definition of appropriate access
2.
✓
See page A9

32
0.1. At least 3 species of forbs present 0.2. <3 species of forbs present
as protective cover
protective cover
to protective cover2
of the year
of the year
0.001. vegetation height maintained
>8 in for >50% of the year
<8 in for >50% of the year
0.00002. Not adjacent to other planned
quail habitat that is not protective cover
0.00001. Adjacent to other planned
✓
✓
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
1000. Deciduous 2000. Coniferous 3000. Mix (at least 33% of each)
2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub/Woody Cover
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
(>10% Canopy coverage & vegetation height >12 ft tall)
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
See page A9
A8
1.
2.

33
A9
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover, vegetation height <12 ft)
0.2. <50% of shrub
cover with stem
near the ground
0.1. >50% of shrub
cover with stem
near ground
0.02. Not adjacent to other
0.1. Grass 0.2. Mix of at least 33% each of grass and forbs 0.3. Forbs
of the year
>50% of the year
See page A10
✓
✓

34
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
(<33% woody cover)
0.1. At least 3 species of forbs present 0.2 <3 species of forbs present
as protective cover
protective cover
of the year
of the year
0.002. vegetation height maintained <8
in for >50% of the year
✓
✓
A10

35
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub/
Woody Cover
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
(<33% woody cover)
30. Shrub/ Woody Under-
story
(>33% woody cover,
A11
to
protective cover2
of the year
>50% of the year
to
protective cover2
See page A12
1.
2.
✓
See page A13

36
as protective cover
protective cover
of the year
of the year
0.0002. Not adjacent to other planned quail
habitat that is not protective cover
✓
✓
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
See page A13
A12
1.
2.

37
A13
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
0.2. <50% of shrub
cover with stem
near the ground
0.1. >50% of shrub
cover with stem
near ground
of the year
>50% of the year
See page A14
✓
✓
(<33% woody cover)

38
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
(<33% woody cover)
as protective cover
protective cover
of the year
of the year
✓
✓
A14

39
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
(<33% woody cover)
3000. Shrub/
Woody Cover
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
A15
to
protective cover2
of the year
>50% of the year
to
protective cover2
See page A16
1.
2.
✓
See page A17

40
as protective cover
protective cover
of the year
of the year
0.00002. Not adjacent to other planned
✓
✓
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
See page A17
A16
1.
2.

41
A17
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
(<33% woody cover)
0.2. <50% of shrub
cover with stem
near the ground
0.1. >50% of shrub
cover with stem
near ground
of the year
>50% of the year
See page A18
✓
✓

42
1000. Crop
10000. Open
30000. Other
2000. Herbaceous
(<33% woody cover)
(>33% woody cover,
20000. Forest
as protective cover
protective cover
of the year
of the year
✓
✓
A18
(<33% woody cover)

Appendix B. Example datasheets for bird and habitat monitoring.
Bird datasheet example 1.
43

!"#$%&'()&
&
*+,'&-./#%.%&(.%.&0122%&
& &
!"#$%"&''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
()'''''''' ''
!"#$%"&'
()'''''''' ''
!"#$%"&'
()'''''''' &&
!"#$%"&'
()'''''''' && '''''
'3&%1#3&42526"724&6.$4&"8&$"$9
1./#%.%:& ''
'
''
'
&&
'
&&
';&<.$"7=&<"528.>2&"?&52>2%.%#"$&
@AB&?%C&%.66& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&&&&&&&&&;&"?&!"#&<.$"7=&D#%1&
42<#4E"E3&%8223& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&;&"?&!"#$<.$"7=&D#%1&
<"$#?28"E3&%8223& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&;&"?&318E/&<"528&#$&%12&
E$4283%"8=& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&;&"?&!"#&318E/&<"528&DF&
3%2G&42$3#%=&<"$<2$%8.%24&$2.8&
>8"E$4& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&;&"?&318E/&<"528&#$&%12&
E$4283%"8=&%1.%&#3&="E$>&7#$2&& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&
;&>8.33&<"528&#$&%12&E$4283%"8=& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&
;&?"8/&<"528&#$&%12&E$4283%"8=& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&;&"?&?"8/&<"528&%1.%&<.$&.<%&.3&
78"%2<%#52&<"528& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&
*EG/28&"?&?"8/&372<#23&78232$%& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&
;&/.82>8"E$4&H<.$&/2&E$428&52>I& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&'3&%12&128/.<2"E3&52>2%.%#"$&
12#>1%&@&J&#$&?"8&K&LM;&"?&%12&
=2.8:& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&)"'$"*'+"&,-./0'12-,'341+2'1"'5/'
6*4#-1$'6*4-#'245-1417' &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&8"0'90"3'8-/#.,:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&,8"7&
N=72& &&
&
&&
&
&&
&
&&
&!28<2$%&"?&?#264&D#%1&3%.$4#$>&
823#4E2&#$&378#$>&
& & & & & & & &
;<=>?:&&&
& & & & & & & &&
45

Appendix C.
See the following pages containing an excerpt from the NBCI’s State of the Bobwhite Report:
46

42 • NBCI’s Bobwhite Almanac
Background
There is no more a historic tradition among
state wildlife agencies then the surveying of bobwhite
populations using inexpensive statewide roadside
observations of birds seen or heard, with many of these
surveys originating in the 1960s or earlier. This priority
resulted from each state’s need to provide information for
hunting, with a short-term annual focus on production
of chicks, and long-term emphasis on regional and
statewide population trends. Such data have been
invaluable for quantifying the steep decline of bobwhites.
Unfortunately the large-scale and small sample
size inherent in traditional surveys is now inadequate for
evaluating bobwhite restoration. State quail coordinators
are increasingly concluding traditional surveys are
not relevant anymore because remaining quail, and
restoration, exist at a relatively small scale. As far back as
1988, state quail biologists and researchers held meetings
aimed at improving evaluation of bobwhite population
response to management and landscape and climate
changes. Although much quail abundance data was
being collected, many efforts lacked objectives related
to management, techniques were not standardized and
results were not comparable among states, hindering
unified bobwhite conservation efforts.
Substantial progress to improve evaluation did
not occur until the implementation of NBCI in 2002.
This catalyzed the development of 46 state agency focus
areas with statistically valid monitoring programs (see
2011 State of the Bobwhite Report, pages 25-26). This
was followed by the groundbreaking national CP33
monitoring program. CP33 monitoring set a new
standard for evaluation of bobwhite management.
Combining the benefits of these two evaluation efforts,
however, bobwhite conservation is still left with many
states, and many restoration efforts, producing little
evidence of success. This resulted in the call for a more
scientific approach to bobwhite conservation in the new
2011 NBCI plan (pages 9 and 17-18 in the Executive
Summary and pages vii and 191-204 in the full plan;
http://bringbackbobwhites.org/ ).
To begin the process of increasing the use of
scientifically-based population monitoring, we designed
a questionnaire about bobwhite population monitoring
for state agency coordinators to complete in January
2012. (West Virginia did not participate in the survey
because their state quail plan was in development.)
This survey was comprehensive, requiring a minimum
of 37 answers, and for states with many surveys, up to
113 answers. Major contributions to development and
analysis of this survey were made by Matt Arndt, Bridget
Collins, Ken Duren, John Morgan and Theron Terhune.
This report provides a few highlights of the survey.
Results
Bobwhite abundance was being measured
in 2011-12 by 53 surveys across 24 NBCI states
participating in the survey. By far the dominant survey
approach is listening
for calling males in
the breeding season
(29 surveys), typically
during May-June.
The majority of these
surveys (18) measured
large landscapes,
ecological regions or
statewide. Often these
surveys are part of a
multi-species survey
(e.g., North American
Breeding Bird Survey,
NA BBS) (Breeding
Season Auditory and
NA BBS in Figure 1).
Many of these surveys
SURVEY OF STATE AGENCY ATTITUDES
AND PRACTICES FOR MEASURING
BOBWHITE ABUNDANCE
Figure 1. Frequency of types of bobwhite population surveys conducted in 24 NBCI states dur-
ing 2011-12. NA BBS is the North American Breeding Bird Survey. The Mail Carrier survey is
counted twice, a 2nd time in Winter type to reflect a survey that covers multiple seasons.

State of the Bobwhite 2012 • 43
provide a long-term index of abundance, with the BBS
beginning in 1966. Across the survey states, when asked
if NA BBS bobwhite data are used for management
purposes, answers were 21% yes, 33% somewhat and 46%
no. We used the BBS for the 2011 State of the Bobwhite
Report (pgs. 1-2), showing a steep, long-term decline for
bobwhites, 3.75% per year since 1966.
Eleven surveys involve observations of adults
and/or chicks seen, with 4 of these being conducted very
inexpensively by rural mail carriers and 7 categorized
as Breeding Season Visual with more detailed protocol
(Figure 1). One state reported using the annual
Christmas Bird Count, a winter index of bobwhite
abundance, for tracking bobwhite population trends, and
one state’s mail carrier survey includes observations in
October and January.
Because of the large-scale nature of the above
approaches, observations are typically made along
roadsides, and the observations are often not adjusted
for factors that affect whether or not a nearby bird was
actually seen or heard, such as height of vegetation,
topography and observer ability. The inference, or true
meaning, of these surveys is carefully worded, e.g., “this
is an index of male quail heard along roadsides during
June and does not necessarily reflect the abundance
of quail, nor the abundance of male bobwhites across
the landscape”. Further, these estimates typically lack
a measure of precision, making any comparison across
time and space difficult at best. In a recent example of
the weakness of these large-scale surveys, Texas Parks
and Wildlife Commission decided against using such
data for making decisions about hunting regulations.
Despite these
shortcomings, indices
have done a good
job of identifying
major changes in
abundance, and
because of their
long-term nature
(the majority of
these surveys are >40
years old) biologists
are able to better
understand effects of
long-term climate and
landscape change on
bobwhites. However,
the monitoring
survey and state
reports revealed
that some states are
now questioning
some of these values,
partly because quail abundance is so low that the index
approaches are not detecting the positive changes that
do occur. Unfortunately, this is because positive habitat
change has occurred at a relatively small scale, hundreds
or thousands of acres: “we no longer have a statewide
population” (Missouri, North Carolina).
As an alternative to large-scale approaches, many
states have turned to measurement of coveys calling in
the fall, classified as Fall Auditory (12 surveys, Figure
1). In most cases, this is providing population density,
estimated as coveys per acre, typically on restoration
focal areas where quail are a management priority. Much
research has focused on behavior of calling fall coveys
during the past decade (Tall Timbers) and it has become
a popular approach for measuring bobwhite response to
management on smaller (<5,000 acres) landscapes, while
simultaneously providing information most pertinent to
quail hunting.
Because researchers have documented average
calling rates in some parts of the country, biologists in
these regions are able to estimate abundance of quail,
versus other techniques that are limited to abundance
of calling quail, e.g., Breeding Season Auditory. The
weakness of the Fall Auditory approach is that each
observer can only measure one location per day, whereas
during spring each observer can measure 10 or more
locations per day. Thus, preference for the Breeding
Season Auditory approach increases as the size of the
monitoring area increases. Unfortunately for hunters,
there is not a common range-wide technique for
predicting fall hunting prospects based on abundance of
males during the breeding season.
Figure 2. State coordinators’ indication of potential major changes in surveys based on
geographic scale.

44 • NBCI’s Bobwhite Almanac
Many of the Spring and Fall Auditory surveys
reported by states provide higher quality measurements
of quail abundance by following scientific design
principles (e.g., randomly selected listening stations),
and a more meaningful population measure is estimated,
quail per acre. Quail-per-acre estimates typically can
be compared from year-to-year and from place-to-place
across the bobwhite range, whereas population indices
are much less comparable.
Combining the different values of long-
term, large-scale surveys, and recent focused surveys,
coordinators indicated in the survey that both ends of
the spectrum are important (Figure 2). Coordinators
believe the majority of their statewide surveys (17)
will not change, but that change is likely for focus area
surveys, e.g., they are willing to invest more at this scale.
As indicated earlier, both the 2002 and 2011
versions of NBCI called for a more scientific approach
to bobwhite conservation. According to the monitoring
survey, coordinators are supportive of monitoring efforts:
of 24 coordinator responses to a question about the
priority of monitoring quail abundance, 17 indicated
it was very important, 6 chose somewhat important
and one coordinator was neutral. Also, recent history
shows that monitoring on smaller areas, focus areas, is
more scientifically based. In this regard, coordinators
indicated they are much more willing to lead high
quality monitoring (density) programs as the size of the
monitoring area decreases, with a strong preference for
focus areas (Figure 3).
Conclusion
This survey is just one part of a concerted effort
to improve the effectiveness of bobwhite conservation.
Although state coordinators’ responses were
generally supportive of the concepts of science-based
evaluation, they also indicated a dire need for more
resources (funding, labor, technical assistance, etc.)
to get the job done. As illustrated in the 2011 State of
the Bobwhite Report, previous and current focused
monitoring efforts ranged from excellent to non-existent.
A tenet of attitude surveys is that responses
are hypothetical, and not necessarily a good predictor
of future behavior. In order for the good intentions
expressed in this survey to become reality, bobwhite
enthusiasts—agency administrators, non-government
organizations, field biologists, coordinators, hunters and
landowners—have to make evaluation a high priority.
Figure 3. State coordinators’ willingness to lead bobwhite density monitoring during fall and
breeding season at the geographic scales of focus area, sub-state (e.g., ecological region), county
and statewide.

2014 NBCI Coordinated Implementation Plan

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to 2014 NBCI Coordinated Implementation Plan (20)

More from National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, University of Tennessee (8)

Recently uploaded (20)

2014 NBCI Coordinated Implementation Plan