TheUpland GameBird Management Handbook forTexas ......LesserPrairieChicken Tympanuchuspallidicinctus...

The UplandGame Bird

ManagementHandbookfor Texas

Landowners

Produced by The Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentSmall Game and Habitat Assessment Program

The UplandGame BirdManagementHandbookfor TexasLandownersProduced by The Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentSmall Game and Habitat Assessment Program

4200 Smith School RoadAustin, Texas 78644www.tpwd.state.tx.us

Compiled Under the Direction ofthe Texas Quail Council and theGame Bird Advisory Board:

Tim ConnollyChairman, Texas Quail Council

Billy OsbornChairman, Game Bird Advisory Board

Contributors:Steven Bender, Vernon Bevill, Larry Butler, Steve DeMaso, David Forrester,

Jason Hardin, Gary Homerstad, Robert Perez, David Riskin, Dale Rollins,

T. Wayne Schwertner, Gene Miller, Jay Whiteside, and Heather Whitlaw

Cover illustration by Orville Rice; graphic design and layout by Tim Peterson;

editorial review by Karen Blizzard

Dispersal of this publication conforms with Texas State Documents Depository Law, and it is available at Texas StatePublications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries.

© 2008 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD RP W7000-1558 (08/08)

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CCRP Continuous Conservation Reserve Program

CP-33 Conservation Practice 33 (Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds)

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CTA Conservation Technical Assistance Program

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program

FIP Forestry Incentive Program

FSA Farm Service Agency

LPC Lesser Prairie Chicken

LPCCI Lesser Prairie Chicken Conservation Initiative

LRGV Lower Rio Grande Valley

LWRCRP Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan

NBCI Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWSG Native Warm Season Grass

NWTF National Wild Turkey Federation

PLS Pure Live Seed

QU Quail Unlimited

SAF Society of American Foresters

SEQSG Southeast Quail Study Group

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

TQC Texas Quail Council

TQCI Texas Quail Conservation Initiative

TTT Trap, Transport, and Transplant

UGBC Upland Game Bird Council

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program

WMP Wildlife Management Plan

WRP Wetlands Reserve Program

Texas Parks andWildlife Department | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Overview and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II. The Upland Game Birds of Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

III. Conservation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

IV. Upland Game Bird Conservation Today . . . . . 18

V. What Are the Incentivesfor Game Birds in Texas? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

APPENDICES

A. Habitat Management in Different Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

i. Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

ii. Agricultural Cropland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

iii. Southern Pine Forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

B. TPWDWildlife Regions and Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

C. Contact Information for Game Bird Conservation Partners . . . . . . . . . . 33

D. Books and Other Game Bird Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

E. Web Sites with Game Bird Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

F. Background Information for Habitat Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

G. Eastern Wild Turkey Habitat Evaluation Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

H. Quail Management and Survey Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

I. Rio Grande Wild Turkey Management and Survey Information . . . . . . . 51

2 | The Upland Game Bird Management Handbook for Texas Landowners

Purpose

This handbook is a template for landowners, land managers

and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) staff to use

to implement the Texas Quail Conservation Initiative (TQCI),

the Lesser Prairie Chicken Conservation Initiative and other

landscape-level, habitat-driven game bird conservation efforts.

This handbook provides information regarding the current

status and distribution of game birds in Texas and describes

the challenges facing game bird conservationists today.

This handbook also outlines game bird habitat incentives

available to landowners and land managers and describes

how these incentives tie into the Joint Venture approach

to integrated bird management.

The appendices of the handbook are designed to help land

managers (1) understand game bird population and habitat

management, (2) learn how to estimate game bird numbers, and

(3) find sources of additional information about game birds.

OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTIONI

Introduction

Texas is a diverse place! According toNatureServe’s 2002 States of the Union:Ranking America’s Biodiversity, Texasranks second to California in terms ofoverall ecological diversity nationwide.It has the highest number of bird andreptile species and second-highest numberof plants andmammals.

Texas is a large and ecologically complexstate with deserts, mountains, hills, prairies,forests, caves, springs, rivers, wetlands andcoastal habitats. Ecologists typically dividethe state into areas with distinctly similarvegetation, climate, geology and soils.These readily identifiable ecoregions arepictured in Figure 1.

The conservation of game birds and otherwildlife species in Texas depends onlandowners and land managers, whomanage the majority of the important

habitats. The Land and Water ResourcesConservation and Recreation Plan(LWRCRP, 2005) (Figure 2) was written toguide the Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment in conserving the state’snatural and historic heritage and inproviding public access to the outdoors. TheLWRCRP specifically addresses conservationof land and water resources. It alsoestablishes priorityhabitat types andecoregions basedon the conserva-tion status,potential andrealized threats,and biologicalvalue. The suite ofgame birds thatcan be found inTexas occupyalmost everypriority habitattype in Texas.


Pineywoods

Oak Woods & Prairies

Blackland Prairie

Gulf Coast Prairies & Marshes

Coastal Sand Plains

South Texas Plains

Edwards Plateau

Llano Uplift

Rolling Plains

High Plains

Trans-Pecos

Figure 1

Ecoregions map of Texas

Figure 2

TPWD’s Land and WaterResources Conservationand Recreation Plan


The “managed lands” approach to gamebird management in a mostly privatelyowned state directly contributes to theultimate goals outlined in the LWRCRP.

A recurring theme in the LWRCRP is theneed to improve water resources. Thishandbook refers to incentives and technicalassistance that could enable privatelandowners to improve water quantityand quality through enhanced rangemanagement primarily targeted at

benefiting wildlife. When habitat isimproved for game birds, other speciesthat have similar habitat requirementsbenefit as well (Figure 3). This, in turn,benefits the overall health and functionalityof Texas ecosystems.

The entire LWRCRP documentcan be viewed online at:http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_pl_e0100_0867.pdf

‹‹ web link

Figure 3

Many species (such as those listed in thisfigure) rely on the same grassland andsavannah habitat types that some game birdsuse. The species listed here are all consideredto be declining due to habitat loss.

Short-eared Owl Eastern Meadowlark

Common Nighthawk Painted Bunting

Eastern Kingbird Chuck-wills Widow

Loggerhead Shrike Red-cockaded Woodpecker*

Brown Thrasher Brown-headed Nuthatch

Blue-winged Warbler Bachman's Sparrow

Prairie Warbler Lesser Prairie-Chicken

Eastern Towhee Attwater's Prairie Chicken*

American Tree Sparrow Northern Harrier

Field Sparrow Texas Horned Lizard

Savannah Sparrow Texas Tortoise

Grasshopper Sparrow Prairie Dog

Henslow's Sparrow Black-footed Ferret*

Dickcissel

*Endangered

Texas Horned Lizard

Red-cockadedWoodpecker

Northern BobwhiteColinus virginianus

Identification: Bobwhites are the mostpopular and abundant quail found in Texas.Both sexes have a mottled brownish backand wings. Cocks have a white throat andface, while hens have a buff-colored throatand forehead stripe. Their familiar call says“bob-white.”

Habitat:Mixed brush and grassland habitattypes are most characteristic for bobwhites.Brushy rangeland interspersed with bunchgrasses and cactus, stream courses andflood plains dotted with croplands offerprime habitat. In eastern portions of itsTexas range, pine or oak savannah andcoastal prairie that is burned frequently(every three to five years) and properlygrazed become important. In drier portionsof its Texas range, grazing and brushmanagement become importantmanagement tools. Distribution isshown in red.


THE UPLAND GAME BIRDS OF TEXASII


Scaled QuailCallipepla squamata

Identification: Scaled quail (often called“blue quail” in Texas) have a bluish-graycoloration over most of their body. Scaledquail are known for their habit of runningfrom danger rather than flying. They arefound in the western one-third of Texas. Thenamed “scaled quail” comes from the scale-like feathers on the breast. The “cottontop”(white crest) is also a distinguishing charac-teristic of this species. The sexes looksimilar; however, hens tend to have faint,brown streaks running vertically downtheir throats.

Habitat: Scaled quail are usually found insemiarid rangelands characterized by amixture of shrubs, grass and bare ground.Mesquite, prickly pear and sparse grassesare common habitat components. Distribu-tion is shown in red.

Gambel’s QuailCallipepla gambelii

Identification: Gambel’s quail are charac-terized by black, teardrop-shaped plumes,but no scale pattern on their abdomens.Cocks have a rusty crown and a blackforehead, throat and abdomen. Hens have asmaller plume and no black throat orabdomen, but may have brown streaks ontheir underside.

Habitat: Gambel’s are associated withbrushy drainages along the Rio Grandefrom the Big Bend region to El Paso.Mesquite, acacia and mimosa species areused for cover and feeding sites. Gambel’squail are often seen on the ground androost in trees. Distribution is shown in red.



Montezuma QuailCyrtonyx montezumae

Identification: Also known as Mearn’s,Harlequin, or fool’s quail, cocks have astriking harlequin or “clown face” pattern ofwhite patches separated by black streaks,black breast and undersides, white orcinnamon colored spots on their flanks, anda grayish-brown back and wings. Hens havea cinnamon body coloration with blackflecks, and a whitish chin and throat.

Habitat: The Montezuma quail routinelydigs for its food, which consists of smallbulbs and tubers. Montezuma quail inhabitthe pine, oak and juniper grasslands ofsouthwest Texas. While considered a gamebird in Texas, there is no open huntingseason for Montezuma quail in Texas.Distribution is shown in red.

Eastern Wild TurkeyMeleagris gallopavo silvestris

Identification: The upper tail coverts ofadult males (gobblers), which cover thebase of the long tail feathers, are tippedwith chestnut brown and its tail feathers aretipped with dark buff or chocolate brown. Incontrast, its breast feathers are tipped inblack. Rich, metallic, and copper/bronzeiridescence characterize other bodyfeathers. At a distance however, gobblerslook almost black. Hens (adult females) aresimilar in color to the males but morebrown, and the metallic reflections are lessbrilliant. Feathers of the hen's breast, flanksand sides are tipped with brown rather thanthe black and white tips of the male.

Habitat:Mainly found in deciduous or pineforests mostly in east Texas. Range hasincreased in Texas as a result of TPWDrestoration efforts in conjunction with con-servation partners including the NationalWild Turkey Federation. Distribution isshown in red.



Rio Grande Wild TurkeyMeleagris gallopavo intermedia

Identification: The Rio Grande wild turkeysare comparatively pale and copper colored.They are distinguished from the easternsubspecies by having tail feathers andtail/rump coverts tipped with a yellowish-buff or tan color rather than medium ordark brown. Although there has been morevariation in the shade of buff/brown in thetail feathers among Rio specimens, thecolor is consistently lighter than that foundin the eastern subspecies. Hen feathers ofthe breast, sides and flanks are tipped withpale pinkish buff.

Habitat: The Rio Grande wild turkeyinhabits riparian areas and mesquite orscrub oak forests. Suitable roosting coveris important for successful populations.Distribution is shown in red.

Lesser Prairie ChickenTympanuchus pallidicinctus

Identification: Adult lesser prairie chickens(LPC) average 15 to 16 inches in length.They have a feather pattern of crosswisebars of brown, buff, blackish and whitecoloration. Elongated “ear” feathers calledpinnae are erect during mating displays,and are located on the neck. Below thepinnae on males are reddish, featherlessareas of skin called gular air sacs. Thesesacs are inflated during mating displays. Inaddition to the pinnae and air sacs, the LPChas a conspicuous bright yellow eye combabove each eye. Eye combs are the mostprominent on males.

Habitat: The LPC inhabits shrub-grasslandcommunities composed of sand shinneryoak or sand sagebrush with an understorycomposed of mixed-grass or tallgrassspecies and a variety of forbs. However, theamount, structure, and patterns of sandshinnery oak or sand sagebrush needed asLPC habitat continue to be active areas ofresearch. LPCs use varying heights,densities and species of vegetation inaccordance with their seasonal life-historyrequirements. Harvested grain sorghum andcorn fields may be used as winter foragingareas. Distribution is shown in red.



Plain ChachalacaOrtalis vetula

Identification: Plain chachalacas are aboutthe size of a small crow. The body is olive-brown, with a long tail glossed with greenand a white tip. The head is slightly crested,with patches of bare, pinkish-red skin atthe sides of the throat. Males and femalesare similar.

Habitat: Dense thorn scrub and riparianwoodland habitats throughout the RioGrande Valley define the northernmost limitof the chachalaca’s distribution. Thisspecies is more common in Mexico. Distribu-tion is shown in red.

Ring-necked PheasantPhasianus colchicus

Identification: Cocks (adult males) arecharacterized as a composite of a copperbreast merging into russet brown sides; richbrown flecked with bars of black and whitecovers most of the rest of the body. Thelower back and rump are a bluish gray witha greenish tinge. There is usually a whitering around the neck, but not always. Abovethe ring, the neck and head are aniridescent black with olives, violets andgreens flashing through. There is often agray patch on the crown of the head. Asizable crimson red patch covers the areaaround the eyes and the wattles. The tail islong, brown and barred with black. The legson adult males possess spurs. The drabhens are a fairly uniform brown color withbuff and black markings on the feathers.The undersides are light buff or creamcolored with some faint mottling. The tail isabout half as long as the tail on males.

Habitat: Although pheasants are anintroduced species, they remain animportant game bird in the Texas Panhandle.Pheasant habitat requirements are bestprovided with diverse farming practicesincluding lands enrolled in the ConservationReserve Program. However, the presence ofareas such as marshes, potholes, non-agri-cultural areas, railroad right-of-ways,unmowed roadsides, drainage ditches, grasswaterways, weedy brushy draws, ravines,and other idle lands with plant growthincrease the value of the land as pheasanthabitat. Distribution is shown in red.



Understanding ComplexNatural Systems

Nature changes so gradually that peopleusually don’t notice. People tend to assumethat the way landscapes look today is“normal” and the way they should look. AChinese tallow forest on the Texas Coast isassumed to be “natural” by most people, andthis causes little concern. The relatively rapidecological transformation from a coastalprairie to a scrub forest of exotic trees in acouple of decades causes a huge impact onnative wildlife. Similar ecological transforma-tions have taken place across Texas. Thesetransformations have created manychallenges for Texas game birds (Figure 4).

Although culprits such as roadrunners,raccoons, cattle egrets, skunks, hawks,weather, and especially fire ants are oftenblamed for the demise of game birdpopulations, the fundamental reason fordeclining game bird numbers is loss ofhabitat.While predation can certainlyinfluence game bird populations, impacts ofpredation increase as areas of habitat getsmaller and are separated by longerdistances. Local populations of game birdson these islands of habitat are too few innumber and too far from other game birdpopulations to withstand catastrophicevents such as floods, snow and ice,drought, etc. Therefore, isolated populationsof game birds have a greater possibility ofbecoming locally extinct.

ConservationChallenges Identified

There are many challenges to managingwildlife habitat and plant communities in thestate; some are specific to particularecoregions, while others occur statewide. Ofcourse, landscapes do not change overnight.For more than a century, the lands thatgame birds historically occupied in Texashave been undergoing a gradual alterationby human actions (fire suppression,changing farming practices, timber andrangeland management practices, and anincreasing human population). An excellentresource that shows just how landscapeshave changed is the book Texas NaturalHistory: A Century of Change (2002)by David J. Schmidly.

The following section describes the generalchallenges to game bird habitats statewide.

CONSERVATION CHALLENGESIII

‹‹book

Figure 4

A photo of anopen savannah(top) comparedto a photo of aclosed-canopyforest (bottom).

Changing Demands onLand Resources

Projected population growth and habitatfragmentation, or the division of singleownership properties into two or moreparcels, have had profound effects on gamebird habitat and the landscape. Conversionof natural habitats threatens the viabilityand sustainability of game bird populations.For example, the Texas A&M publicationFragmented Lands: Changing LandOwnership in Texas (Wilkins et al. 2000),reports that the conversion of rural land tourban use in Texas exceeded 2.6 millionacres from 1982 to 1997. Such changes havealready affected game bird populations,habitats and distributions throughout thestate, especially near metropolitan areas.

Fragmentation poses a serious threat towildlife habitat. In general, smallerproperties provide less diversity of habitattypes and less usable space to supportgame bird populations. Many other factorscause a decrease in game bird populations,such as the presence of people, dogs, catsand other disturbances. In some cases, aslandholdings become smaller than 500acres, property owners tend to convertnative rangeland to improved pasture if anincrease in forage is desired for livestock orhorses, thus reducing game bird habitat.The intensity of use on such areas usuallyincreases, as landowners have historicallyhad to maintain some degree of “ag use” tomaintain an open-space or ad valorumvaluation. Other small property owners maytotally remove grazing animals from theirlands, thus also reducing game bird habitatdue to excessive vegetation.

Note: Open-space valuation can be maintainedby managing for wildlife, including game birds.See the TPWD Web site:http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/conserve/private_lands/agricultural_land.

Grazing

Grazing is included as a challenge becauseit must be planned and applied properly tobenefit game bird habitat. Grazing bydomestic livestock is a tool for game birdhabitat management on rangelands andother grasslands. As with any tool, it can beused properly or improperly.

Grazing intensity, timing, duration, and classof livestock must be prescribed for aspecific property to accomplish the desiredgoal(s) of management. The landowner,wildlife biologist and a rangelandmanagement specialist should worktogether to design and implement aprescribed grazing plan that will improvethe game bird habitat. An inventory of thecurrent conditions is absolutely necessaryin order to plan the appropriate grazingplan. Land that has been severelyovergrazed may need total rest fromgrazing for a period of time prior todeveloping a sustainable grazing plan. Landthat has not been grazed and has a buildupof too much vegetative material may needto be heavily grazed or burned prior todeveloping a sustainable grazing plan.Grazing can be planned and implemented to


web link ››

Improper grazing can be devastating to theproduction of game birds.


manipulate the vegetative community in away that favors the growth of desired plantsthat are essential for game bird habitat.

Grazing can be a double-edged sword whenmanaging rangelands for game birds andother wildlife. When the right amount ofgrazing is combined with adequate rainfall,game birds can greatly benefit. Toomuchgrazing—along with too little rainfall and toomuch hot weather—can be devastating to theproduction of game birds. Improper grazingmanagement (toomany livestock for too longa period and/or at the wrong time of year)results in decreased diversity in wildlifeforage, cover and other wildlife needs. Theimpacts are exacerbated during times ofdrought if stocking rates are not reduced intime to protect wildlife cover. Accordingly, thelandowner interested in maintaining goodgame bird habitat should work with arangelandmanagement specialist to developa prescribed grazing plan with a stocking ratethat can be adjusted depending on plantgrowth conditions.

When rangeland soils are disturbed, varietiesof plants that are favorable to game birdsrespond. Many bird species relish seeds from

species such as croton and western ragweed,which are among the first types of plants toemerge after a disturbance. Grazing canencourage the growth of such preferredplants. Grazing can also be used to promotea desirable habitat structure for many birdspecies at ground level. Most game birdspecies prefer areas with some bare ground.Care must be taken not to promote long-term overgrazing that could change thecomposition, species diversity and structureof vegetation by eliminating tall bunchgrasses. The tall bunch grasses providequality nesting cover, the lack of which is themost widespread limiting factor in game birdproduction across most of Texas.

Fire

Fire is much like grazing in that it must beapplied properly to benefit game birdpopulations. Fire can be used to manipulatethe vegetative community on the landscape,creating a mosaic of habitat types and moreusable space for game bird populations. Theplanned use of fire—“prescribed burning”—can be a useful and inexpensive tool forgame bird management, considering thatmost game birds will not thrive in areas

Prescribed fire,proper grazingand brushmanagement areimportant toolsused to createand maintaingood bird habitat.

where the proportion of brush-woodlandforest exceeds 50 percent of available cover.One of the challenges resource managersface is the conservation of fire-dependentecosystems in the face of ever-increasingurbanization and land fragmentation.Although fire plays a bigger role in shapinggame bird habitat in higher rainfall zones,much of Texas can be considered a semi-aridenvironment where even historic fires wereinfrequent. In these areas, however, fireremains an important tool in themaintenance of open areas created bymechanical or chemical methods (Frost1998, Guthery 2000). Only trained andproperly equipped individuals should planand implement a prescribed burn.

Noxious Plant Species

Undesirable or noxious brush and woodyplant species such as mesquite, salt cedar,Chinese tallow, Russian olive, red-berryjuniper, Ashe juniper, yaupon and condaliacan become so numerous that they begin tocompete with the grassland community forwater and space. In this situation, livestockforage and the production of native grassesused by game birds can become limited.Although many of these invasive woodyplants are native, they have increased inabundance to such a degree that many

grassland and savannah species can nolonger use much of the landscape theyformerly occupied. Through the use ofimproved range management techniques,e.g., “brush sculpting” (Rollins et al. 1997),these species can be significantly reducedor controlled to benefit water quality andquantity and also help restore nativegrasses that benefit game birds and otherwildlife, as well as livestock.

Introduced Grasses

Introduced grass species such as coastalBermuda and bahia can create monocul-tures devoid of quality game bird nestingcover, brood-rearing cover and feedingareas. Monocultures tend to limit insectavailability, which greatly reduces the valueof these areas for young game birds. Forsome ground-dwelling birds, like quail, thesedense turf-type grasses cannot be traversedby young chicks. Species such as weepinglovegrass, Lehman’s lovegrass, guinea grassand buffel grass—introduced bunch grasses—provide limited nesting cover, especiallyduring drought years, but can reduceoverall plant diversity and make findingfood more difficult for seed- and insect-eating birds, like quail and turkey.


Forests witha high densityof trees andundergrowth,and exotic

grasses such asBermuda, do notprovide usable

habitat for quail.


What Is Being Done forUpland Game Birds?

Currently, there are numerous national,regional and state planning efforts to addressthe plight of game birds, as well as otherspecies who share their habitats. Below is abrief summary of some of those efforts.

Northern Bobwhite ConservationInitiative (NBCI): The NBCI was prepared

by the Southeast QuailStudy Group TechnicalCommittee at therequest of the directors

of the Southeastern Association of Fish andWildlife Agencies. The charge issued to thecommittee was to develop a quantitativehabitat-oriented plan to restore bobwhitesto the density they enjoyed during thebaseline year 1980. The NBCI is organizedto delineate population and habitatobjectives for 15 Bird Conservation Regionsacross 22 states that comprise that portionof the bobwhite's range incorporated in theplan. This approach was selected tofacilitate coordination and cooperation withother bird management plans, e.g., Partnersin Flight. The NBCI also includes threechapters detailing specific managementpractices to be employed on agriculturalland, grasslands and forests, and onechapter outlining the approaches to betaken to implement the plan. For moreinformation about the NBCI, visit:http://www.seqsg.org

Texas Quail Conservation Initiative(TQCI): The initiative is a step-down versionof the NBCI which was prepared by theSoutheast Quail Study Group (SEQSG)Technical Committee. The TQCI includesnorthern bobwhite, scaled quail, Gambel’squail and Montezuma quail. However, due toa lack of basic population and ecologicalinformation regarding Gambel’s andMontezuma quail in Texas, population goalsand habitat objectives are not included forthese two species. The TQCI plan includesthree chapters that detail specific quailhabitat management practices to be usedon agricultural land, grasslands and forests,and one chapter outlining the approachesto be taken to implement the TQCI. Imple-mentation strategies for the TQCI includeoutreach and training needs, managementneeds, research needs, and funding needsand sources. For more information aboutthe TQCI, visit:http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_1025.pdf

UPLAND GAME BIRDCONSERVATION TODAY

IV

web link ››

‹‹ web link

National and Texas Wild Turkey Plans:The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF)is currently developing a National WildTurkey Strategic Plan. The plan, developedby the Federation’s biologists, in cooperationwith federal and state wildlife biologistsfrom across the nation, will focus on issuesof national concern including habitat con-servation, nuisance turkey issues,population management and restoration,and disease issues. The Texas Parks andWildlife Department’s Wild Turkey Taskforceincludes TPWD staff and NWTF state repre-sentatives who are working together todevelop a similar plan to address wildturkeys in Texas.

Texas Lesser Prairie-Chicken Conserva-tion Initiative (LPCCI): The Texas LPCCI isan effort to develop a state-levelmanagement and conservation strategy forLPCs in Texas. It was developed concur-rently with the Interstate LPC ConservationStrategy and the National Prairie GrousePlan. In its current form, the Texas LPCCIhas a stated goal to manage, conserve andenhance LPC populations and habitat in theRolling Plains and High Plains ecological

regions of Texas. The Conservation Initiativewill address statewide issues and strategiesrelated to population numbers and distribu-tion, habitat quality and quantity, privatelands concerns, regulations, outreach andeducation, and research needs.

How Do These Plans andInitiatives Get Put onThe Ground?

Today, most conservation challenges aredaunting! They require a landscape-scaleapproach built on partnerships amongwildlife agencies, conservation organiza-tions and private landowners. They havelarge price tags and require a lot of work.In addition, when the challenge is habitat-based, it may take some time to seethe results and the final product. JointVentures (JVs) are a way to address someof these large conservation challengesand integrated bird conservation becausethey are partner-based initiatives capableof dealing with multiple species atlandscape scales.



A JV is a regional, self-directed partnership ofgovernment agencies and non-governmentalorganizations, as well as individuals. JointVentures deliver science-based conservationand work in support of national and interna-tional bird conservation plans. Joint Venturesare directed by a management board madeup of partner representatives. Joint Venturepartners are dedicated to the conservation ofhabitats within their region. There are manylevels of participation, ranging frommembership on the management board toparticipation with technical teams andworking groups. Joint Ventures are aneffective bird conservation tool throughoutmuch of North America. Joint Venturepartners work cooperatively to obtain dataneeded on bird populations and habitats. Byproviding more information about theresource, land managers and landowners canmake better decisions. Working with partnersavoids repetitive efforts and allows fundingfrommultiple sources to be combined,increasing the size and scope of work thatcan be accomplished.

This approach to conservation requires thatsite-scale management decisions reflectmulti-scale management considerations.Incentives can be an important tool thatdrives site-scale (i.e., a landowner’s property)management decisions. When theseincentives are delivered in a focused areaapproach, we are fulfilling habitat goals forlarger scales. Therefore, incentives that allowlandowners flexibility and a means ofimproving the quantity and quality of habitaton their lands are a means to increaselandowner participation and deliver conser-vation at the site-specific scale. In essence,the landscape is tied together acrossmultiple ownerships. The Joint Venture is aperfect delivery approach to help build andwork with wildlife cooperatives.

How Incentive Programs CanHelp Upland Game Birds

The idea ofincentivesprogramsstarted out asa “reward”program forlandownerspracticing good

management. After the first couple of years,the TPWD Commission and leadershipclearly and repeatedly stated that themanaged lands program is an “incentive-based” and “habitat-focused” program. It isobvious that incentives within the programhave significantly increased landowner par-ticipation in this program. This is good. Thisprogram needs more incentives. Themanaged lands program incentives haveresulted in a significant increase in thenumber of landowners who want toparticipate in the managed lands program.However, if it weren’t for the incentive-driveninterest, some landowners would still be outthere on their own with no contact withTPWD staff or its conservation partners,getting no information; or, even worse,getting bad information about managing thewildlife on their properties. More landownerstalking to and visiting with TPWD wildlifebiologists and technicians and their conser-vation partners across Texas is a VERYGOOD THING!

As we move forward in our efforts to restoregame bird populations, it is important to keepin mind that it will take years or perhapsdecades to build the partnerships, researchand projects needed to ensure that gamebirds are still around in the next century.

Assistance in DevelopingGame Bird Cooperatives

Purpose: To allow landowners, especiallywith smaller landholdings, to combineproperties and partner to improve habitatquantity and quality to manage viable gamebird populations and other wildlife. Perhapsthe single most important long-term stepthat can be taken to improve game birdmanagement across landscapes will be thedevelopment of game bird cooperatives

Incentives for Developing Cooperatives:

• Assistance from TPWD staff and conser-vation partners in developing game birdcooperatives.

• Trap, Transport, and Transplant (TTT)permit, if needed and permit require-ments have been met. See Appendix Hfor Quail and/or Appendix I for RioGrande Turkey.

Requirements:

• Recommended minimum acreage of~1,000 acres (3,500 acres preferred ) ofcombined potential habitat space

• TPWDwildlife management planprepared or certified by a TPWD biologist.

• Meet the TTT requirements in Title 31,Part 2, Chapter 65, Rule §65.103 of theTexas Administrative Code.

Responsibilities:

• Conduct an evaluation of the habitatusing a standardized procedure(conservation partner or TPWD biologist

and landowners). See Appendices B andC. See examples in Appendices F, G, Hand I.

• Develop a wildlife managementplan (written or certified by aTPWD biologist). See examplesin Appendices H and I.

• Implement the priority habitatmanagement practices recommended inthe wildlife management plan. Thesepractices can be phased in based onexisting conditions as guided by thebiologist (landowners).

• Train landowners in properly conductingfall and spring (if required) populationmonitoring (conservation partner orTPWD biologist). See examples inAppendices G and I.

• Conduct fall and spring (if required)population monitoring. Initial counts willbe made with a conservation partner orTPWD biologist (landowners). Seeexamples in Appendices G, H and I.

• Assist landowners in analysis and inter-pretation of fall and spring (if required)population data (conservation partneror TPWD biologist and landowners).See examples in Appendices H and I.

• Verify that priority habitat work hasbeen accomplished and habitatresponse is in place (conservationpartner or TPWD biologist).

• Determine if a TTT is needed, secondyear post-habitat work (TPWD biologist).(If base population is not present ordoes not find its way to the property inquestion, a TTT may be considered).


WHAT ARE THE INCENTIVES FORGAME BIRDMANAGEMENT IN TEXAS?

V


Leveraging LandownerDollars for Habitat Work

Purpose: To use the Federal Farm BillPrograms to financially assist landowners inimplementing game bird friendly habitatpractices on their properties.

Incentives for LeveragingDollars for Habitat Works:• Assistance from TPWD staff and/or aconservation partner in finding andunderstanding which cost-shareprograms might be most feasible in im-plementing the habitat work needed onthe property. This can be done throughpublications, Web sites and workshops.

Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS) Programs

The NRCS has many cost-incentiveprograms available for landowners. For abetter picture of what’s available and where,see the NRCSWeb site or visit with yourcounty USDA-NRCS office. Examples ofprograms that can be used to benefit wildlifeinclude the Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram (EQIP), Wildlife Habitat IncentiveProgram (WHIP), Wetlands Reserve Program(WRP) and the Conservation TechnicalAssistance (CTA) Program. The CTA inparticular provides technical assistancesupported by science-based technology andtools to help people conserve, maintain andimprove their natural resources.

Due to the complexity of the programsmentioned above, landowners areencouraged to visit their local NRCSoffices or Web site:http://www.tx.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CSP/

Farm Services Agency (FSA) Programs

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)signups are held at irregular intervals. CRPrequires establishment of a permanentcover on highly erodible farm land. Suchcover normally consists of a mix of warm-season grasses and forbs, potentially idealgame bird habitat. Contracts last 10 to 15years and provide 50 percent cost-share forestablishing cover and yearly rental andmaintenance payments. Recent contractsalso provide cost-share for midcontractmanagement practices such as burning,disking and shrub planting that can increaseCRP’s habitat quality for game birds.

The Continuous Conservation ReserveProgram (CCRP) is open to landowners ofworking lands year round. There are avariety of practices such as filter strips,field borders, riparian buffers and othersthat can be very beneficial to game birds.

‹‹ web link

Trap, Transport and Transplant(TTT) Permits for BobwhiteQuail, Scaled Quail, and RioGrande Wild Turkey

Purpose: To facilitate introduction ofbobwhite quail, scaled quail, and RioGrande wild turkeys into unoccupied,suitable habitat, where the probability ofnatural colonization by these species hasproven to be low.

Requirements:

• Recommended minimum acreage of1,000 (3,500 preferred) acres for quailand 5,000 (10,000 preferred) acres forRio Grande turkey, of potential usablehabitat space.

• Recommended minimum habitatacreage may occur on multiple land-holdings, whether these holdings areenrolled in the program or not, but mustbe functionally contiguous (i.e.,containing no gaps across which a quailand/or wild turkey would not bereasonably expected to disperse).

• Cooperatives are eligible for TTTs if theymeet the program requirements.

• No hunting for a minimum of threeyears for quail and five years for turkey,and thereafter determined by annualevaluations, with the local TPWDbiologist making the “hunt” or “not tohunt” decision.

• TPWD wildlife management planprepared or certified by a TPWDbiologist.

• Meet the TTT requirements in Title 31,Part 2, Chapter 65, Rule §65.103 of theTexas Administrative Code.

Responsibilities:

• Conduct an evaluation of the habitatusing a standardized procedure (conser-vation partner or TPWD biologist andlandowners). See Appendix C forConservation Partners. See examplesin Appendices G, H and I.

• Develop a wildlife managementplan (written or certified by aTPWD biologist). See examples inAppendices H and I.

• Implement and establish the priorityhabitat management practicesrecommended in the wildlifemanagement plan. These practices canbe phased in based on existingconditions as guided by the biologist(landowners).

• Train landowners in properly conductingfall and spring (if required) populationmonitoring (conservation partner orTPWD biologist). See examples inAppendices G, H and I.

• Conduct fall and spring (if required)population monitoring. Initial counts willbe made with a conservation partner orTPWD biologist (landowners). Seeexamples in Appendices G, H and I.

• Assist landowners in analysis and inter-pretation of fall and spring (if required)population data (conservation partneror TPWD biologist and landowners).See examples in Appendices H and I.

• Verify that priority habitat work hasbeen accomplished and habitatresponse is in place (conservationpartner or TPWD biologist).

• Determine if a TTT permit is needed,second year post-habitat work (TPWDbiologist). (If base population is notpresent or does not find its way to theproperty in question, a TTT may beconsidered).



Game BirdStewardship Program

This incentive is non-competitive andcan be recommended for any number ofproperties in a given year to show appreci-ation for a job well done in managing gamebird habitat. If implemented by one ormore NGOs, this program can betterconnect the NGOs to conservation on theground in Texas.

Purpose: To recognize landowners who aredoing an outstanding job of managing gamebirds on their properties.

Requirements:

• Have a TPWD-approved wildlifemanagement plan that focuses on orincludes one or more Texas uplandgame birds (quail, turkey, ring-neckedpheasant, lesser prairie chicken andchachalaca).

• The landowner must be implementingthe recommendations in the abovewildlife management plan.

Implementation:

• TPWD field staff will deliver the signs tocooperating landowners who aremeeting the requirement of theprogram, as stated above.

Habitat ManagementEquipment Incentive

Purpose: To put landowners in touch withpersons who have the equipment and/oroperate the equipment to conduct wildlife-related habitat work on the landowner’sproperty.

• Compile contact lists for conservationeasements, land trusts, habitatmanagement, GIS/mapping, herbicidesand other useful links.

Audubon Texas has begun developmenton their Web site at:http://www.tx.audubon.org/BSC_Landowner.html

‹‹ web link

Grasslands(Pasture/Hayland/Rangeland)

Ecology and Status

Grasslands were important habitat formany game birds across their range in pre-settlement times. In the East, thegrasslands were primarily savannahs, and inthe Midwest and Great Plains, the vastnative prairies sustained quail populations.Over the past 300 years, four factors addedup to reduce the quality and quantity ofthese grassland habitats: (1) continuousgrazing livestock operations of the newEuropean settlers, (2) tallgrass prairieconversion to cropland, pasture andwoodland, (3) fire suppression permittingwoody invasion and, more recently, (4) theintroduction of exotic grass species.

Native grasslands evolved with intermittent,intense grazing by bison and elk. Desertgrasslands were maintained by infrequentnatural fire (once every 13 to 25 years) andexperienced very little natural grazingpressure. Native Americans periodicallyburned the grasslands, especially those inthe east. The European settlers brought adifferent approach to husbandry thatconfined the livestock and introducedcontinuous grazing. This pattern reducedthe vigor and shifted species composition toincreasers, less palatable grasses andinvaders, and opened the prairies to invasionby woody species.

On the Great Plains, fire suppressionpermitted a deterioration of the grasslandswith shrub and cool season grass invasion.At first, the addition of shrubs to the prairiesincreased some game bird habitat andnumbers, while decreasing others, such asthe lesser prairie chicken and Attwater’sprairie chicken. However, over time, intensivegrazing combined with fire suppressionbrought about a decline in some game birdpopulations as brush and exotic cool seasongrasses increased; thus, the grasslands dete-riorated as game bird habitat.

In the East and especially in the Midwest,prairie soils held outstanding cropproduction potential, and the vast majorityof the prairies were converted to agricul-tural production, reducing some game birdhabitat dramatically in the “corn belt,” withpheasants being the exception. With theexception of a few prairies that existed oververy shallow rock strata, these old prairiesnow produce the country's corn, milo andsoybeans, not game birds and othergrassland wildlife. Similar but less extensiveconversion has occurred in midgrassprairies, where center-pivot irrigation hasbeen developed.

Another change in the grasslands that hashad a negative impact on game birdpopulations is the tremendous acreage ofdegraded grassland that has been reseededto exotic forages, such as Bermuda grass,bahia grass, introduced bluestems, weepinglovegrass and a host of other exotic


HABITAT MANAGEMENT IN DIFFERENTLANDSCAPES (GRASSLANDS,CROPLAND, AND FORESTS)

Appendix A.


forages. These are mostly dense sod-formers that produce habitat inhospitableto game birds. The conversion of crop fields,native pastures and hay meadows to theexotic grasses accelerated dramaticallyin the 1940s as tenant farmers moved tothe cities, and landowners in many casesseeded the numerous small fields toexotic forage.

Grasslands as Game Bird Habitat

During the last half of the 20th century,large areas of native Texas grasslands wereconverted to forest lands, plowed andadded to adjacent cropland acres, orconverted to or invaded by exotic forages.Where they still exist, native grasslands canbe fine game bird habitat if they are largeenough. However, a high percentage ofthese native grasslands have been lost orare in danger of becoming fragmented,isolated tracts of native grass. Conversionand fragmentation have rendered theseformer high-quality nesting and brood-rearing habitat almost useless to gamebirds. Most game birds have difficultymoving through this dense vegetation,where there are limited amounts of seedsand insects. Leading chicks to good brood-rearing cover takes a toll, as young chicksand poults struggle through this densevegetation. As a consequence, henstypically select alternate nesting habitats,resulting in reduced nesting success andhigher predation rates on chicks and poults.

Native warm-season grasses providenesting and brood-rearing cover for gamebirds. Big bluestem, little bluestem,Indiangrass, switchgrass, broomsedgebluestem, tobossa, four-flowered trichloris,tanglehead and many grama grassesprovide the vegetative structure that game

birds need to nest. These grasses grow inclumps interspersed with bare ground,which allow adult birds, chicks and poults tomove about. Grass clumps should be 9 to 12inches in diameter, and the residual growthin the center of the clump should be 16 to 18inches tall. Most game birds nest in theresidual grass in the center of a clump leftfrom the previous growing season. Small-scale soil disturbances produce the forbswhich provide food in the form of seeds andinsects that are attracted to these areas.

Specific Problems

• The suppression of fire from thelandscape has been a major factor inthe declining health of Texas grasslandsand savannahs. Brush and exotic cool-season grasses have invaded theseonce-luxurious prairies, and closedcanopy forests are devoid of anherbaceous layer.

o Prescribed burning, prescribedburning cooperatives, and thedevelopment of new burning lawsfor habitat improvement arepotential solutions.

• Fencing permits more intensive, year-around grazing, which has dramaticallyreduced the condition of these pasturesas increaser and invader species replacenative grass plant communities. Thenative bunch grasses that characterizedthese prairies are gone or depressed,resulting in poor game bird habitat.

o In some areas of the state, newergrazing methods, such as patch-grazing, that promote mixed nativeplant communities, can bepromoted through education andoutreach and through thedevelopment of new incentives.

• Introduced forages such as Bermudagrass form a dense sod, which gamebirds, especially newly hatched chicksand poults, find difficult to travelthrough. They also support lowernumbers of insects, which are a largecomponent of game bird chick andpoult diets.

o Research is underway to findcost-effective means to convertexotic pasture back to nativesfor landowners interested inwildlife habitat.

• High costs for fuel, fertilizer andmachinery are encouraging ranchers toconsider switching land from exoticgrasses back to native perennial grasses.

• Grassland restoration is hampered by alack of locally adapted native grassseed and proper planting equipment.Native grass/forb seed is oftenexpensive and short in supply.Harvesting equipment for seed is alsoexpensive and difficult to obtain. Thesecreate difficulties with obtainingsufficient appropriate native seed tomeet the demands for CRP, grassedterraces, field/riparian borders, etc.

o Native plant organizations in a fewareas of the state have begun tocultivate locally adapted varietiesof native plants for sale and distri-bution to interested landowners.This greatly increases the chanceof success for restoration projects.

o Some wildlife cooperative groupshave recently launched programsto preserve remnant tracts andrestore other, native pastures byproviding technical help,equipment and native grass seedor hay.

• Native grasses and forbs take longer (upto three growing seasons) to establishthan do agricultural crops and mostexotic grasses. This has tended to givenative grasses a poor reputation amongranchers in some parts of Texas.

o Research and demonstration canillustrate the benefits of a nativeplant community adapted topersist in harsh environments.

• Brush control operations tend to reducethe value of the grasslands to gamebirds by placing escape cover atexcessive distances. Brush control inTexas has had mixed impacts on somespecies of game birds, depending on theapproach taken.

o Newer approaches, such as brushsculpting, keep wildlife needs inthe picture and can maintain plantdiversity on the landscape.

Grassland Aspects to Consider in GameBird Management• Long, narrow strips of grasses are likelyto offer less insulation against nestdepredation than contiguousblocks/pastures of grasses.

• The inclusion of forbs in a native grassmix improves food (seed and insect)availability.

• Livestock forage planting rates (7 to 8pounds of PLS/acre) are higher thanrates where wildlife is the primary con-sideration (5 pounds of PLS/acre).

• Game birds nesting in residual grassesneed adequate bare ground formovement.



• Livestock stocking rates and duration inpastures should leave at least 300 nestsites/acre to reduce depredationof nests.

• Burn frequency varies, but most nativegrasslands need to be burned everythree to five years.

• Where annual rainfall is less than 25inches, the lack of bare ground is rarelya factor in game bird management;appropriate stocking rates that leaveenough native ground cover becomemore important.

Grazing and Game Bird Management

• Where game bird management isintended to be a priority, it must beaccepted that game birds and cattlemay not be maximized concurrently onthe same pasture.

• Grazing management should be used tomaintain a density of approximately 300basketball-sized clumps of bunchgrassper acre. Grass should be grazed to aheight no lower than about 8 inches.

• Stocker calves have the potential to bemore flexible than cow-calf operationswhen it comes to using grazing as a toolto maintain game bird habitat. Stockersallow for a way to quickly reduce thenumber of grazing animals at the onsetof drought conditions.

Agricultural Cropland

Ecology and Status

Inefficient row crop agriculture, character-ized by small weedy crop fields interspersedwith fallow fields and frequently disturbedopen canopy woodlands, once created anenvironment productive of early successionwildlife across the region. Technologicaladvances during the 20th century

increased productivity and yields of farmcommodities, but the value of cropland towildlife has steadily decreased. Farmingintensity continues to increase, with doublecropping becoming more prevalent. At theregional level, land use for agriculturalcrops has been consolidated on the moreproductive soils. Field consolidation, surfaceand subsurface drainage, and hedgerowremoval have reduced habitat interspersionand diversity at the field level. On an evensmaller scale, plant community structureand plant and insect diversity have beenreduced by chemical pesticides, faster-growing crops, and increased efficiency ofharvest equipment. In contrast to the inter-spersion of complex plant communitiescharacteristic of early agriculture, today’scrop fields are for the most part true mono-cultures. Some game birds exist in somecropland situations; however, this is morethe exception than the rule in landscapesdominated by cropland.

Cropland Types

Cropland is devoted to the annual plantingand harvesting of grains and othercommodities. In certain instances, an annualrotation of different crops occurs on thesame acreage, but continuous cropping ofthe same plant (e.g., corn) may take place forseveral successive years. One positivedevelopment is increased use of minimal-tilland no-till planting for certain crops in recentyears. Major crops of concern are corn,soybeans, cotton, peanuts, rice, sorghum andsmall grain (wheat, rye, barley, etc.).

Resources provided by commercialcommodity crops sometimes provideimportant life requisites for game birds.However, natural early-succession habitatassociated with field edges and fallow areasare essential game bird habitat in theseagricultural landscapes.

Specific Problems

• The trend toward larger field sizethrough farm consolidation hasdecreased the value of cropland asgame bird habitat. Larger and moreintensively cropped landscapes havecontributed to lower densities of gamebirds in intensively cropped areasbecause of reduced nesting andbrood- and poult-rearing cover.

• The quality of nesting cover adjacentto or in association with cropped fieldshas declined drastically in recent years.The widespread use of introduced,aggressive grasses (e.g., fescue, bahiaand Bermuda grass) that form dominantmonocultures, frequent mowing, andforestry practices that result in closedcanopy stands has aggravated thissituation.

• Brood and poult habitat quality incropland and remaining field bordershas declined because of greater use ofherbicides, changes in annual set-asideprograms, and changing crop rotationpatterns. However, the use of no-till andin some instances, double cropping (e.g.,soybeans planted into grain stubble),has resulted in improved conditions forgame bird broods and poults.

• Loss of cropland to long-term landretirement (CRP) that is not maintainedin early-succession habitat, especiallyconversion to loblolly pine plantations,has dramatically reduced game birdhabitat at the landscape level in severalecoregions. However, recent increases inthe promotion and acceptance of NativeWarm Season Grasses (NWSG) in someecoregions and conversion of CRPfields from exotic grasses (old worldbluestems, weeping lovegrass, Bermudagrass) to NWSG may be improving thequantity and quality of habitat for somegame birds.

• Consolidation of cropland by species,farmland leasing, social stigma againstbrushy field borders, excessivemaintenance mowing, and doublecropping have lowered habitat qualityand quantity for game birds.

Southern Pine Forests

Ecology and Status

Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors,most southern pine forests are onlymarginally suitable for habitation bybobwhites and eastern wild turkey, or notsuitable at all. Within pine plantations, highstocking rates, short rotations, lack ofopenings, lack of prescribed burning, andchanges in pre-plant site preparationmethods have all contributed to adegradation of habitat quality for bobwhitesand eastern wild turkey. Many mixed pine-hardwood stands resulting from naturalsuccession have matured, developed closedcanopy overstories and hardwoodmidstories that have shaded out understoryvegetation, and greatly reduced habitatquality for quail and other early succes-sional wildlife species.

Over the last two decades, the conversionof croplands to pine plantations withinlandscapes already dominated by forestcover has taken place on a broad scalethrough federal government cost-shareprograms such as CRP and FIP. Biologistshave noted that cropfields established inpine are characterized by low diversity ofunderstory plants compared to traditionalclearcut and naturally regenerated orplanted sites. Bobwhites and other earlysuccessional habitat-dependent speciessimply cannot thrive in these areas.



Pine Forest Management Types

The Society of American Foresters (SAF,1980) recognizes 10 forest cover typeswithin the southern yellow pines group, andfive cover types within the oak-pine group.For the purposes of bobwhite and easternwild turkey management, these can becombined into three basic categories:longleaf-slash, loblolly-shortleaf and oak-pine. Longleaf-slash pine comprises amajority of the trees in the overstory, andwithin its range, slash pine may grow inassociation. Both longleaf and slash mayoccur on a variety of sites from dry sandyridges to poorly drained flatwoods.Common woody associates may includedogwood, southern red oak, blackjack oak,water oak, sweet gum, gallberry, sawpalmetto and others, depending ongeographic location and site characteristics.Ground cover composition is typicallybluestems, panicums, wiregrass, smilax(greenbriar) and asters, as well as partridgepea and other legumes.

Historically, longleaf pine forests covered anestimated 92 million acres, stretching fromsoutheast Virginia to east Texas. Today, lessthan 4 percent of the original longleafacreage remains, and much less than thatrepresents an intact, functioning longleafecosystem. Longleaf pine lends itself partic-ularly well to management for bobwhite andeastern wild turkey, due to the tree’s morecompact growth habit and tolerance forprescribed burning as a management tool.

Loblolly-Shortleaf: This type is composedof either pure stands of loblolly pine, ormixtures with shortleaf and/or otherspecies. Pure shortleaf stands are rare.Associates are many, with sweetgum beingone of the more common. Others includehickories, white and southern red oaks, red

maple, water oaks and yellow poplar. Woodyunderstory species include beauty berry,blackberry, yellow jasmine, sumac, grapesand japanese honeysuckle. Throughout therange, herbaceous ground cover is usuallysparse because of heavy shading. Pureplantations of loblolly are broadlydistributed, especially on industrial papercompany lands, and on other privateholdings where croplands have beenconverted to pine. These habitats are quitedifficult to manage for bobwhites andeastern wild turkey, if maximum fiberproduction is the primary land-use goal.

Oak-Pine: Subtypes are longleaf pine-scruboak and loblolly pine-hardwood associa-tions. The longleaf-scrub oak communitytends to occur exclusively on droughty,infertile soils. The scrub oaks include turkey,blackjack, bluejack and sand post oaks withpersimmons, sumacs and hawthornssometimes present. Herbaceous groundcover is sparse but may include wiregrass,bluestems, milkpeas and panicums.

The loblolly pine-hardwood type isubiquitous, occurring on a wide range ofsites. Loblolly usually comprises 20 percentor more of the stocking. Typical associatesrange from sweet bays, swamp tupelos andmagnolias on moister soils to various oaksand hickories on uplands. Understoryspecies may include dogwood, gallberry,blueberry, honeysuckle and yellow jasmine.Herbaceous ground cover is usually sparse,and succession favors the hardwoods.The success of bobwhite and eastern wildturkey management within the oak-pinetypes is highly dependent on burning ormechanical disturbances, usually combinedwith selective removal of hardwoods. Oak-pine forests are usually viewed more as“deer and turkey woods” than bobwhitemanagement opportunities.

Southern Pine Forests as Bobwhiteand Eastern Wild Turkey Habitat

Pine forests in the south historicallyprovided moderate to excellent habitat forbobwhites and eastern wild turkey, both inthe nesting season and as winter range.Low-intensity silvicultural practices,frequent “controlled” burning andwidespread free-ranging of livestockensured high understory plant diversity anda frequent disturbance regime. In the last40 to 50 years, demand for wood fiber andhigher profits have led to increasinglyintensive forest management. Use ofprescribed fire has greatly diminished, andlivestock operations have been moved toimproved pastures. Forests have becomedense and are poor bobwhite and easternwild turkey habitat.

Specific Problems

• Although professional foresters havebegun to prescribe lower density initialstocking rates for pine plantations,planting rates of 700–900 trees peracre are still common. This results inrapid canopy closure and very low tozero ground cover for bobwhites andeastern wild turkey. Even stands withstocking rates of 500 trees per acrerapidly close canopy.

• Conversion of croplands to pineplantations continues, especially inareas already dominated by forest cover.

• Many pine plantations are not thinned.Of the stands which are thinned, thefrequency and intensity of thinning isinsufficient to elicit a positive bobwhiteand eastern wild turkey habitatresponse.

• Use of prescribed burning has greatlydeclined, primarily due to smoke-management liability issues.

• Most CRP pine stands can be improvedfor bobwhites, eastern wild turkey andother wildlife. The 50-point Environmen-tal Benefits Index, established under the1996 Farm Bill, requires 15 to 20 percentopenings. Thinning and prescribedburning has the potential to greatlyenhance this habitat type. However,these stands were exempted from thethinning requirement during the firstthree years of the CRP contract. Atpresent, most of this acreage has notbeen thinned and burned at theintensity necessary for substantialimprovement in habitat conditions.

• Pine rotations are becoming shorter dueto rapid growth of improved seedlings,weed competition control and fertiliza-tion of established stands. Theseintensively managed, short rotationstands rarely reach sufficient age tohave an open canopy and do notproduce bobwhite and eastern wildturkey habitat.

• Pre-plant site preparation techniqueshave evolved away from mechanicalmeans toward almost exclusive use ofherbicides. Tank-mixes of variouscompounds effectively control mostherbaceous and woody understoryspecies until the pine seedlingsdominate the site. Clearcuts thatformerly could be relied on to producebobwhites and eastern wild turkeys forfive to seven years post-harvest, nowproduce no quail or eastern wild turkeyat all.

• Raking pine straw and marketing it formulch has become lucrative, resulting inpine stands with clean understories.



Appendix B.

III III

IV

2

1

3

4

8

7

6

5

REGION IRegional Director:Ruben Cantu(325) 651-4748Fax: (325) 651-47523407-B S. ChadbourneSan Angelo, TX 76904

District Leaders:(1) Billy Tarrant(432) 837-2051Fax: (432) 837-5987109 S. Cockrell St.Alpine, TX 79830

(2) Danny Swepston(806) 655-3782Fax: (806) 655-4045P.O. Box 659Canyon, TX 79015

REGION IIRegional Director:Clay Brewer(325) 641-9234Fax: (325) 641-1679301 Main St., Suite DBrownwood, TX 76801

District Leaders:(3) Kevin Mote(325) 643-5977Fax: (325) 643-6192301 Main St., Suite DBrownwood, TX 76801

(4) Mike Krueger(830) 896-2500Fax: (830) 792-6167309 Sidney Baker SouthKerrville, TX 78028

REGION IIIRegional Director:Nathan Garner(903) 566-1626Fax: (903) 566-327311942 F.M. 848Tyler, TX 75707

District Leaders:(5) David Sierra(903) 566-1626Fax: (903) 566-553811942 F.M. 848Tyler, TX 75707

(6) Gary Calkins(409) 384-6894Fax: (409) 384-73421342 S. WheelerJasper, TX 75951

REGION IVRegional Director:Len Polasek(361) 790-0306Fax: (361) 729-8940715 S. Hwy. 35Rockport, TX 78382

District Leaders:(7) David Forrester(979) 968-3501Fax: (979) 968-3086111 East Travis, Ste. 200La Grange, TX 78945

(8) Joe Herrera(830) 569-8700Fax: (830) 569-64001607 2nd St.Pleasanton, TX 78064

TEXAS PARKS ANDWILDLIFE DEPARTMENTWILDLIFE REGIONS AND DISTRICTS

IV

IIIIII

Audubon Texas427 Sterzing, Suite 109Austin, TX 78704Phone: 512-236-9075Fax: 512-236-9077www.tx.audubon.org

Farm BureauP.O. Box 2689Waco, TX 76702Phone: 254-751-2263Fax: 254-751-2671www.txfb.org

Farm Service AgencyP. O. Box 2900College Station, TX 77841Phone: 979-680-5150Fax: 979-680-5235www.fsa.usda.gov/tx

National Wild TurkeyFederationPost Office Box 530Edgefield, SC 29824-0530Phone: 800-843-6983www.nwtf.org

Natural ResourcesConservation Service101 South MainTemple, TX 76501Phone: 254-742-9800Fax: 254-742-9819www.tx.nrcs.usda.gov

The Nature ConservancyP. O. Box 1440San Antonio, TX 78295-1440Phone: 210-224-8774Fax: 210-228-9805www.nature.org/texas

North American GrousePartnershipP.O. Box 408Williamsport, MD 21795Phone: 301-223-1533www.grousepartners.org

Pheasants Forever1783 Buerkle CircleSt Paul, MN 55110Phone: 877-773-2070Fax: 651-773-5500www.pheasantsforever.org

Playa Lakes Joint Venture103 East Simpson StreetLafayette, CO 80026Phone: 303-926-0777www.pljv.org

Quail UnlimitedP. O. Box 610Edgefield, SC 29824Phone: 803-637-5731Fax: 803-637-0037www.qu.org

Quail Forever1783 Buerkle CircleSt Paul, MN 55110Phone: 877-457-8245Fax: 651-209-4988www.quailforever.org

Texas AgrilifeExtension Service312 Nagle Hall, TAMUS 2258College Station, TX 77843-2258Phone: 979-845-7473Fax: 979-845-7103http://wfscnet.tamu.edu/extension/index.htm

Texas Mining andReclamation Association100 Congress Ave, Suite 1100Austin, TX 78701Phone: 512-236-2325Fax: 512-236-2002www.tmra.com

Texas Wildlife Association2800 NE Loop 410, Suite 105San Antonio, TX 78218Phone: 210-826-2904Fax: 210-826-4933www.texas-wildlife.org

Wildlife Habitat Federation3285 FM 947Cut Spring, TX 78933Phone: 979-732-8362Fax: 979-738-8498www.whf-texas.org


CONTACT INFORMATION FORGAME BIRD CONSERVATION PARTNERS

Appendix C.


Allen, D. L. (editor). 1956. Pheasants in North America. Stackpole books, Harrisburg, Penn-sylvannia, USA.

Archer, S. 1994. Woody plant encroachment into southwestern grasslands and savannas:rates, patterns and proximate causes. Pp. 13–68 in: Vavra, M., Laycock, W. A. andPieper, R. D., editors. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the west.Society for Range Management, Denver, CO.

Baxter, W. L., and C. W. Wolfe. 1973. Life history and ecology of the ring-necked pheasant inNebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Technical Publication 58.

Brennan, L. A. 1999. Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). In Birds of North America,No. 397 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, USA.

Brennan, L. A. (editor). 2007. Texas Quails: Ecology and Management. Texas A&M UniversityPress, College Station, Texas, USA.

Brown. D. E., J. C. Hagelin, M. Taylor, and J. Galloway. 1998. Gambel’s quail (Callipeplagambelii). In Birds of North America, No. 321 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). Birds ofNorth America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Cantu, R. et al. 2006. Scaled Quail Management in Texas. Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment, Austin, Texas, USA.

Cearly, K. A. (editor). Preserving Texas’ Quail Heritage into the 21st Century. Proceedings ata Symposium. Texas Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,Texas A&M University System.

Crawford, J. A., and E. G. Bolen. 1976. Effects of land use on lesser prairie chickens in Texas.Journal of Wildlife Management 40:96-104.

Dickson, J. G. (editor). 1992. The wild turkey: biology and management. Stackpole books,Harrisburg, Pennsylvannia, USA.

Eaton, S. W. 1992. Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). In Birds of North America,No. 22 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, USA.

BOOKS AND OTHER SOURCES OFINFORMATION ABOUT GAME BIRDSAND GAME BIRDMANAGEMENT

Appendix D.

Farris, A. L., E. D. Klonglan, and R. C. Nomsen. 1977. The ring-necked pheasants in Iowa. IowaConservation Commission, Des Moines, Iowa, USA.

Frost, C. C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: a firsapproximation. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings 20:70-81.

Giesen, K. M. 1998. Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). In Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 364 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). Birds of North America, Inc.,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Giudice, J. H., and J. T. Ratti. 2001. Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). In Birds ofNorth America, No. 572 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). Birds of North America, Inc.,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Guthery, F. S. 2000. On Bobwhites. Texas A&M University Press, College Station,Texas, USA.

Hallet, D. L., W. R. Edwards, and G. V. Burger. (editors). 1988. Pheasants: symptoms ofproblems on agricultural lands. North-central section of the Wildlife Society,Blommington, Indiana, USA.

Hagen, C. A., B. E. Jamison, K. M. Giesen, and T. Z. Riley. 2004. Guidelines formanaging Lesser Prairie-Chicken populations and their habitats.Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:69-82.

Hays, K. B., M.Wagner, F. Smeins, and R. N.Wilkins. 2004. Restoring Native Grasslands. TexasCooperative Extension. L-5456.

Hellickson, M., and A. Radomski. 1999. Bobwhites of the Wild Horse Desert: Status ofour Knowledge. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Wildlife ManagementBulletin 4, Kingsville, Texas, USA.

Hewitt, O. H. 1967. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildlife Society,Washington, D. C., USA.

Hill, D. A., and P. Robertson. 1988. The pheasant: ecology, management, and conservation.BSP Professional Books, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Jackson, A. S., and R. DeArment. 1963. The lesser prairie chicken in the Texas panhandle.Journal of Wildlife Management 27:733-737.

Johnsgard, P. A. 2002. Grassland grouse and their conservation. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, D. C. (157pp.)

Jones, R. E. 1963. Identification and analysis of lesser and greater prairie chicken habitat.Journal of Wildlife Management 27:757-778.



Masters, R. E., K. Robertson, C. Ambrose, J. Cox, L. Green, K. McGorty and B. Palmer. 2003.Red Hills Forestry Stewardship Guide. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee,Florida. (78pp.)

McAtee, W. L. (editor). 1945. The ring-necked pheasant and its management in NorthAmerica. American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D. C.

McPeherson, G. R. 1997. Ecology and management of North American savannas.The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, USA.

Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service and Oklahoma State University. 2001. Ecologyand management of the lesser prairie-chicken. Oklahoma Cooperative ExtensionService Publication No. E-970, Stillwater Oklahoma, USA.

Peterson, M. J. 2000. Plain chachalaca (Ortalis vetula). In Birds of North America,No. 550 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). Birds of North America, Inc.,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Rollins, D., D.N. Ueckert, C. G. Brown. 1997. Brush Sculptors. Texas Agricultural ExtensionService, College Station, Texas.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon and G. Gough. 1999. The North AmericanBreeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis, 1966-1998. United States GeologicalService Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA.

Schemnitz, S. D. 1994. Scaled quail (Callipepla squamata). In Birds of North America,No. 106, (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). Birds of North America, Inc.,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Schmidly, D. J. 2002. Texas natural history: a century of change. Texas Tech UniversityPress, Lubbock, Texas.

Schorger, A. W. 1966. The wild turkey its history and domestication. University of OklahomaPress, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.

Stromberg, M. R. 2000. Montezuma quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae). In Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 524, (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). Birds of North America, Inc.,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980. Status, ecology, and management of the lesser prairiechicken. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, GeneralTechnical Report RM-77, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Trautman, C. G. 1982. History, ecology, and management of the ring-necked pheasant inSouth Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. Pierre, SouthDakota, USA. Bulletin No. 7.

Whiteside, R. W., and F. S. Guthery. 1983. Ring-necked pheasant movements, home ranges,and habitat use in west Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:1097-1104.

Wilkins, N, A. Hays, D. Kubenka, D. Steinbach, W. Grant, E. Gonzalez, M. Kjelland, and J.Shackelford. 2003. Texas Rural Lands: Trends and Conservation Implications for the21st Century. Publication number B-6134. Texas Cooperative Extension. Texas A&MUniversity System. College Station, Texas. (26pp.)

Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology, United States and southern Canada. JohnWiley and Sons, New York, USA.

*National Quail Symposium proceedings I through V are available from Tall TimbersResearch Station: http://www.talltimbers.org/info/pubcategories.html

**National Wild Turkey Symposium proceedings I through IX are available from theNational Wild Turkey Federation, Post Office Box 530, Edgefield, SC 29824-0530Phone: 800-843-6983.



Team Quailhttp://teamquail.tamu.edu

Texas Parks & Wildlife Departmenthttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us

Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institutehttp://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu

Texas Brigades Youth WildlifeLeadership Programhttp://www.texasbrigades.org

Southeast Quail Study Grouphttp://seqsg.qu.org/seqsg

Land Fragmentation andChanging Land Usehttp://landinfo.tamu.edu

Bollenbach Chair in Wildlife Ecologyhttp://bollenbachchair.okstate.edu

Forming Wildlife Cooperativeshttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/conserve/pdf/72wildlife_co-op.pdf

Private Lands Enhancementhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/conserve/private_lands

Nature Tourismhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/programs/tourism/

Texas Natural Resource Serverhttp://texnat.tamu.edu

Texas Forest Servicehttp://txforestservice.tamu.edu

Texas Master Naturalist Programhttp://masternaturalist.tamu.edu

North American BirdConservation Initiativehttp://www.nabci-us.org

Playa Lakes Joint Venturehttp://www.pljv.org

Gulf Coast Joint Venturehttp://www.gcjv.org

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venturehttp://www.lmvjv.org

Central Texas Joint Venture andRio Grande Joint VentureWatch Texas Parks and Wildlife’s Web sitefor more information.http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us

Pastures for Upland Birds Programhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/habitats/post_oak/upland_game/pub/

South Texas Nativeshttp://www.southtexasnatives.org/

North Texas Ecotype Projecthttp://www.tarleton.edu/~ntephttp://stephenville.tamu.edu/~jmuir/ecoproj

Wildlife Habitat Federationhttp://www.whf-texas.org

WEB SITESWITH GAME BIRDINFORMATION

Appendix E.

Note to habitat evaluator: A managementprescription for habitat improvementshould be developed only after careful on-the-ground examination of all requiredcomponents for a particular species (basedon its life history) in order to determinewhat factor(s) may be limiting or absent.When formulating recommendations tocorrect habitat deficiencies, particularimportance should be given to (1) whatfactor is most limiting, and (2) interspersionof all required habitat components on thescale that is being considered formanagement (i.e., pasture, section, propertyor properties, watershed). In manyinstances, a manager may wish to considerthe needs of multiple species whenformulating comprehensive landmanagement treatments. As such, habitatevaluation for a particular species may beconducted in the context of “plannedcompromise” for an array of wildlife inwhich optimum suitability for no single

species is achieved; rather, improvement inoverall habitat quality (land health) for asuite of wildlife occurs. Therefore, basicknowledge of life history and ecology ofindividual/multiple species is essential notonly for development of a habitat (land)prescription that is ecologically sound andeconomically feasible, but also so thatreasonable expectations for increasein wildlife numbers due (in part) to imple-mentation of land improvements designedto address the needs of multiple speciescan be met.

Currently, the appendices of this handbookonly include a habitat evaluation guide foreastern wild turkey. Habitat evaluationguides are under construction for RioGrande turkey and bobwhite quail in Texas.The Oklahoma state wildlife agency has abobwhite guide which is applicable forportions of the Rolling Plains of Texas.


BACKGROUND INFORMATIONFOR HABITAT EVALUATION

Appendix F.


This is a basic evaluation guide for eastern wild turkey habitat in East Texas, and will give a roughestimate of an area’s suitability for wild turkeys. It is based on the TPWD procedure for evaluatingpotential turkey restoration sites. For illustration purposes, the guide has been filled out to represent ahypothetical site of good quality. For a more comprehensive habitat evaluation procedure, please seeSchroeder, R.L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: eastern wild turkey. Biological Report82(103106). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA.

A. Owner’s ability and willingness to manage the area for turkeys.Little or none Moderate Serious0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x 10 = 100B. Size of release area.

<15,000 acres 15,000–20,000 acres >20,000 acres5 8 10 x 10 = 100

C. Public access control.Open to public By permission only Posted0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x 10 = 90D. Composition of open land.Coastal Tame Thick Native or OpenBermuda Pasture Native or Tame diverse

Pasture w/ clover0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x 6 = 48E. Interspersion of habitat types (number of edges bisecting area).0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x 7 = 42F. Proportion of area forested.

30–50% 51–70% 71–85% 86–95%5 8 10 7 x 8 = 56

G. Controlled burning and thinning rotation.None 0–2 year 4-5 year 3 year1 4 7 10 x 7 = 49

EASTERNWILD TURKEYHABITAT EVALUATION GUIDE

Appendix G.

H. Timber Harvest (Uneven-aged and even-aged stand management are both viable turkeymanagement strategies. Please select and score the category that best describes your property.)

a. Uneven-aged (stand entry):None 15+ year 10–15 year 5–10 year1 5 8 10 x 6 = n/a

ORb. Even-aged

I. Stand size (acres)>320 201–320 101–200 51–100 <511 3 5 8 10 x 2 = 16

II. Riparian zones (% of area)<1% 1–4% 5–9% 10-20% >20%1 3 5 8 10 x 2 = 20

III. Cutting interval between stands (years)<3 3–10 >101 5 10 x 2 = 20

I. Proportion of forest in mature, favored upland hardwood species<10% 10–30% 31–50% >50%1 3 7 10 x 6 = 18

J. Proportion of forest in mature, favored bottomland hardwood species<10% 10–30% 31–50% >50%1 3 7 10 x 10 = 100

K. Hardwood species diversity (bottomland and upland) (no. of species)Zero species 10+ species0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x 6 = 36L. Understory woody plant density (feet of horizontal visibility)

<50 >100 50–75 76–1002 4 6 10 x 6 = 36

M. Understory woody plant diversity (no. of species)1 2–3 4–6 7–10 10–15 15+1 3 5 7 9 10 x 6 = 42

Total Score = 773÷ 918*= 84%

*Out of a possible 918 points



Sample quail management section (6b)from a wildlife management plan:See the full TPWD wildlife managementplan template (WMP) athttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/private/pubsforms

Biologists of the Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment provide guidance and recom-mendations to landowners and managerswho want to include wildlife managementconsiderations in present or future land usedecisions. This service is provided withoutcharge through the private lands program.Department biologists work with

landowners to develop and then meet thewildlife management goals and objectivesfor all species of landowner interest on agiven property. The following hypotheticalscenario is general representation of quailmanagement techniques and rules ofthumb. If you have an interest in developinga WMP for your property, please contactyour local biologist to arrange a site visit.

The contact information for biologists bycounty can be found on our Web site at:http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/technical_guidance/biologists/

QUAIL MANAGEMENT ANDSURVEY INSTRUCTIONS

EXAMPLE QUAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Appendix H.

web link ››

‹‹ web link

SECTION 6BUPLAND GAME BIRDMANAGEMENTQuail/pheasant/prairie chicken (specify): Bobwhite quail

1. Bird Population Management Goals:

a. Population Management Goals:Desired Density Goal For Bobwhite Population (Acres/Bird): 2/1Fall OR Spring

Desired Production by Nov. 1st (Juvenile/Adult): 3/1(Juvenile-to-adult ratio in the fall population)

b. Methods used to determine population density and date to submit data:

Survey Techniques

Call Counts (specify count type): Complete during:

Fall morning covey call October 1st - November 15thSpring breeding male point counts May 1st - June 7thIncidentals (comments): Submit by date:

Collect incid ental observations whil e September 15thon the property during summer(date, broods observed, size of chicks).Other (comments): Submit by date:

Collect number of coveys observed Upon completionwhil e completing the fall helicopterd eer c ensus.

(See Appendices J and K for instructions and forms for the call count surveys.)



2. Specific Habitat Management Goals and Recommendations:

Practices listed below can be used to increase the amount of space that is usable by quail,by evenly distributing (interspersion) the cover types (nesting, brooding, escape, screeningand loafing) needed for survival.

a. Nesting/screening cover management:

Prescribed burning: This practice is highly compatible with bobwhite quail managementand is essential to maintaining grassland and grassland savannah plant communities.It invigorates desired grasses (nesting cover), removes ground litter, and inhibits brushencroachment. Burns that leave behind a mosaic of burned and unburned areas aremost desirable.

Prescribed burning can be used to maintain natural openings, shift woodlands/brushtoward relatively open savannah, and create better nesting habitat for quail and turkey.Develop burn plans for pastures with the assistance of qualified resource professionals,and see the following publication for more information on how to safely conduct burns:http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0196.pdfWhen putting in fire lanes, target the times outlined in Section B, “brood covermanagement,” to complete both goals at the same time.

Prescribed grazing: Used to increase and maintain native bunch grass health, vigor anddominance on the landscape in order to provide suitable nesting, roosting, brooding andscreening cover for bobwhite quail. It is crucial that livestock be moved out of any givenpasture before the native grass stand density falls below a level at which it cannot recover,and more importantly, below a level at which it becomes unusable by quail. About 6 to 8inches average stubble height is considered the lowest height to provide just enoughscreening cover for a quail to move across the pasture unnoticed.

A key consideration to remember is that over time, most continuous grazing systemsbecome dominated by cool-season annual and other “increasers,” and the preferrednesting cover for bobwhites—native warm-season grasses—decreases. Lack of suitablenesting cover is the weak link or limiting factor over much of the bobwhite’s range inTexas. If livestock are deferred for at least two full growing seasons (ideally removed inearly March and not returned until after the second summer), native warm-season grassescan begin to recover. Prescribed fire can be used to increase the vigor and density of nativebunch grasses. Late winter/early spring burns (February – March) favor the grasscomponent more than forbs. The goal is to have an even interspersion of native bunchgrasses (about 12 inches in diameter and at least 8 inches tall) at a density of 200 to 400clumps per acre depending on location in Texas.

Heavy spot grazing around salt blocks and feed areas that are moved around pastures willenhance brooding cover. Cattle should be excluded from sensitive sites such as wooded,riparian and bottomland areas, which can be accomplished with cross fencing, whichbenefits a number of wildlife species. Sensitive sites can be maintained with flash grazingand winter prescribed burns.

Native grass restoration: Bobwhite quail are grassland birds that prefer to use two- tothree-year-old clumps of native warm-season bunch grass for nest sites. These clumps areabout 12 inches in diameter and 2 to 3 feet high. Nest sites are often associated with someform of low, woody cover. Ideal bunch grass density lies somewhere between 250 to 400clumps per acre. This translates to a clump about every 6 to 12 steps and allows for ease ofmovement by adults and chicks.

Although native grass seed persists in the soil bank, it may take several years of rest fromgrazing for bunch grass recovery. The cultivation of native grasses may be a more timelyway to boost grasslands. Species such as switchgrass, little bluestem and plains bristlegrass are some of the native species that are available from native seed companies. It isimportant to use seed that is cultivated as close as possible (within about 200 miles) toensure that it will be locally adapted and increase the chance of success. Choose a smallarea (smaller than 5 acres) with a good soil layer and experiment with some native grassplantings. Contact your local NCRS, Texas Argrilife Extension Service, or TPWD biologist forsuggestions of what native species might work in your county.

Native grass restoration sites should be chosen based on soil type, topography, and abilityto exclude cattle. Preparation of the seedbed begins with a deep disking (16 to 20 inches)just before the fall rains to allow for moisture penetration. The following spring the areacan be lightly disked (2 to 4 inches) or shredded to remove weeds. Next, native seed can bebroadcast and packed or drilled (depending on seed type) 1/2 inch below the surface.

b. Brood cover management:

Fallow field disking for quail and other wildlife: Promotes seed-producing plants (forbs),creates ideal brood cover (bugging areas for quail chicks), and is more cost-effective thanfood plots.

If sufficient brood cover is a limiting factor, a four-year rotation of fallow disking can be in-corporated into your wildlife management plan: Disk one-quarter of designatedroadside/highline strips each year (each strip re-disked no sooner than every fourth year).Try to evenly distribute strips across the ranch so that one-, two-, three- and four-year-oldstrips are in close proximity. Width of roadside strips should be the width of your disk and2 to 4 inches deep, just deep enough to break up the sod (deeper in heavier soils). Avoidthe shallow soils (gravel areas) and areas with a >10 degree slope to prevent erosionproblems. Time of year should be October to February with the ideal months being October,and December through January. Burn Unit boundaries should be disked the same year thatthey are scheduled to be burned so that they may serve as fire lanes. See the followingpublication for more information on fallow disking for wildlife:http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_1128.pdf



c. Escape and loafing cover management:

Brush management/manipulation: In order to increase usable space for quail, maturebrush/woodlands should be reduced to 30 to 40 percent of the total acreage. Thesepercentages leave enough cover for larger species like turkey and deer. Intact areas includea buffer around existing bottomlands and drainages to preserve turkey roost sites, travelcorridors and thermal cover for deer/turkey. Riparian corridors are sensitive areas thatoffer unique wildlife habitat and should be conserved.

Given today’s technology, it is easy to develop a GIS-based map of the property whichintegrates topography and soils and then determine the best locations and orientation offuture strips. Target brush reduction to 30 percent of the total area. Sculpt areas, leavingbehind mottes or strips of of brush. Mottes should be at least 15 feet in diameter, and stripsshould be 30 to 80 yards cleared followed by 30 to 50 yards intact. Consult with your localbiologist to develop the best strategy for your property.

3. Wildlife Harvest and Record-Keeping Recommendations

a. Recommended record-keeping (harvest log, survey sheets, etc., can be included):

Harvest logs should be kept for each hunt which include the date, age (juvenile or adult),sex, and approximate location of harvest (pasture) for each bird taken. Crippled birds notrecovered should be included in the total harvest. The total time in the field for each huntand number of hunters in the party should also be recorded.

Sample Harvest Log Sheet:

Date: Time in: Time out: # of hunters:

AGE(juv/adult/cripple) SEX PASTURE COMMENTS

FALL MORNING COVEY COUNTS(BOBWHITE QUAIL)Background:Although there are numerous methods used to estimate quail populations, the fall morningcovey counts can be easily conducted and require minimal time and energy. These countsrepresent a proportion of all the coveys within the listening radius of the observer (about500 yards). Using a calling rate of 0.78 and average covey size, the density of quail withinthe listening radius can be estimated. However, the covey calling rate was developed by theTall Timbers Research Station in Florida and needs evaluation in Texas. Each point shouldbe conducted at least three times. Multiple observers can be used on the same morning toensure each point is counted under the same conditions. Points should be located at least3/4 mile apart and located away from highways or other noisy areas. Counts should not beconducted in rainfall, high winds (>10mph), or if there is a substantial change in thebarometric pressure.

For more information on quail survey techniques, see the Texas Agrilife Extensionpublication Counting Quail at: http://agrilifebookstore.org

• Prior to conducting covey call counts, observers should receive training that consists oftesting the accuracy of estimation of calling distance, and a minimum of three morningsof field monitoring of wild covey calling. Distance testing may be accomplished usingelectronic callers or pen-reared birds.

• Consistency among years in observers is critical for accurate evaluation and can bemaximizedby thorough training and/or having the same observers at the same points year after year.

• Surveys can be conducted between the last week of September and the second week ofNovember with the optimal time usually being the last two weeks of October, and thelatest measurement occurring before hunting (usually firearms season) commences onsample fields.

• The effective listening radius under most conditions will be out to 500 yards from thesurvey point, which gives an inference area of 194 acres. This may be increased in open,flat landscapes. Adjacent survey points should be spaced at least 1,000 yards apart toensure independence.

• In heterogeneous landscapes it is necessary to locate points to incorporaterepresentative portions of each landscape feature that are considered potentiallyusable by coveys.

Survey Instructions:

Directions: Arrive at the point 45 minutes before sunrise and begin listening for callingcoveys in all directions. Orient yourself to your surroundings on a prior date during daylighthours. Mark covey locations on the diagram below using a small dot and the number (1, 2, 3,etc.) of the covey heard. In the spaces provided, write the TIME that the correspondingcovey began calling. Continue listening for calling coveys until all covey calling has ceased(approximately five minutes before sunrise). After the count, write the total number ofcoveys heard in the appropriate space.



Example date sheet:

Date: 10/25/07 PointID: South pastureObserver: John Cloud (%): 10%Total # of Coveys Heard: 5Covey #: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time: 6:25 6:36 6:38 6:38 6:39

Example Data Summary Sheet:

Cloud Wind No. Calling Corrected Covey Total Area Bobs/Pasture Date Cover Spd Temp Coveys Rate Coveys Size Bobs (acres) acre

Pasture A 10/25/07 10% 5.0 65 8 0.78 10.3 11.5 117.9 125.0 0.9Pasture A 10/30/07 20% 2.0 70 3 0.78 3.8 11.5 44.2 125.0 0.4Pasture A 11/05/07 40% 8.0 50 8 0.78 10.3 11.5 117.9 125.0 0.9

Pasture B 10/25/07 10% 5.0 65 4 0.78 5.1 11.5 59.0 125.0 0.5Pasture B 10/26/02 20% 2.0 70 2 0.78 2.6 11.5 29.5 125.0 0.2Pasture B 11/05/07 40% 8.0 50 6 0.78 7.7 11.5 88.5 125.0 0.7

Average quail per acre = 0.6

N

25m

50m

100m

250m

S

W E

1 2

34

5 Figure 1

DistanceReference

Map

Figure 2

PROCEDURE FOR BREEDING SEASONCALLINGMALE BOBWHITE COUNTSSurvey Instructions:

1. Make sure all points have been clearly marked prior to the survey (flagging, pole,location coordinates) and observers understand directions to the point.

2. Have a data recording sheet ready for observers. A range finder can help in gaugingdistances to reference points.

3. Do not conduct the survey if there are high winds (> 6.5 mph or sustained 4 or greateron Beaufort Scale), cloud cover (>75% cloud cover), rain, or a dramatic drop inbarometric pressure (> 0.05 in/Hg.). If these conditions are encountered, cancel thesampling for the day and reschedule.

4. Multiple points/per morning can be surveyed by a single observer as long as observerscomplete counts within two hours after sunrise.

5. All observers should arrive at the first point of the morning approximately 15 minutesbefore sunrise. Disturbance should be kept to a minimum while at the point.

6. Before calling begins orient the distance reference map in the appropriate direction(facing north) and be prepared to record data.

7. Call counts will consist of a 10-minute observation period in which the number ofuniquely identifiable calling male bobwhites detected will be recorded within each of sixdistance bands (0–25, 25-50, 50–100, 100–250, 250–500, > 500 yards). Use a watch tokeep track of time.

8. Record each uniquely identifiable calling male first by placing a unique sequentialnumber on the distance reference map (Figure 1) and, secondly, indicating in theappropriate line on the data recording sheet whether the bird was heard or seen(Figure 2). Additionally, it is advisable to keep the distance reference map (Figure 1)readily available to help judge distances to objects.

9. The recorded distance band should be based on the estimated distance between thesampling point and the location at which the bird was first detected.



10. During the calling period, rotate to face all cardinal directions to assist in hearing andobserving calling male bobwhites, from all directions.

11. Use mapped bird locations to determine if subsequent calling birds have already beendetected. Add new birds only if it is possible to verify they are unique.

12. At the end of 10 minutes, stop recording bird observations. Do not record any new birdsseen or heard either before or after the 10-minute listening period. Birds detectedoutside of the listening period may be noted in the comments section of the data sheet.

13. At the end of the survey, visually estimate cloud cover and measure or estimate windspeed (use an anemometer if available). Count the total number of calling malebobwhites for each distance category. Complete the datasheet.

Data Recording Sheet Example:

Landowner: Start Time: County: Long:

Phone #: End Time: Contract #

Fog Score: Wind (mph): Temp:(0=no fog; 1=slight fog, impaired in low areas; 2= foggy, visibility impaired in all areas)

Aud/Vis DistanceObs #: (A/V) Time (Yds/Meters) Notes


Sample turkey management section (6b)from a wildlife management plan:See the full TPWD wildlife managementplan template (WMP) athttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/private/pubsforms

Biologists of the Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment provide guidance and recom-mendations to landowners and managerswho want to include wildlife managementconsiderations in present or future land usedecisions. This service is provided withoutcharge through the private lands program.Department biologists work with

landowners to develop and then meet thewildlife management goals and objectivesfor all species of landowner interest on agiven property. The following hypotheticalscenario is general representation of quailmanagement techniques and rules ofthumb. If you have an interest in developinga WMP for your property please contactyour local biologist to arrange a site visit.

The contact information for biologists bycounty can be found on our website at:http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/technical_guidance/biologists/

RIO GRANDEWILD TURKEYMANAGEMENTAND SURVEY INFORMATION

EXAMPLE RIO GRANDEWILD TURKEYMANAGEMENT PLAN

Appendix I.

web link ››

‹‹ web link


SECTION 6BUPLAND GAME BIRDMANAGEMENT

RIO GRANDEWILD TURKEY1. Wild Turkey Population Management Goals:To maintain a population density of approximately one bird per 20 acres across 10,000acres of contiguous suitable habitat.

2. Specific Habitat Management Goals and Recommendations:

a. Roost site management:

Maintain existing roost sites while encouraging stand regeneration to ensure long-termpersistence of roosting habitat and loafing cover by conducting selective removal ofinvasive woody plants such as Ashe juniper, redberry juniper, eastern red cedar, salt cedar(tamarisk), honey mesquite (dense thickets), and Russian olive. To ensure long-term roostsite quality, consider fencing of known roosts with large buffer zones as their ownpastures/paddocks (especially riparian areas) to enable special grazing management(establish control over season of use and length of grazing period). The desired effect is topromote the growth of valuable food and cover plants for wild turkeys and associatedspecies (mature forms of oaks, pecans, elms, honey mesquite, walnuts, sycamore, willow,cottonwood, chittamwood, hackberry, soapberry, sumacs, grapes and plums). In many areasof the state, this can be safely accomplished without harm to vegetation in sensitive low-lying areas, wetlands, and water quality by the careful use of short-duration grazing withmoderate stocking rates conducted during winter months (contact your local TPWD wildlifebiologist or NRCS range management specialist). Grazing during the dormant season can(1) remove rank herbaceous growth (cured grass and weeds) in the understory while (2) notharming young saplings that are naturally regenerating due to protection afforded duringthe growing season. The amount of horizontal visibility for turkeys as determined byvegetative composition around and underneath roosts is very important as they approachand leave these sites due to their keen sense of sight and hearing (natural defensemechanisms). The ability to see well is especially critical to their physical safety andcomfort level in using particular roosts, as is their ability to see vertically when on theroost. So, vegetation management is especially important to ensure that visibility is good.Generally stated, as vegetative composition gets thicker (denser) and visibility decreases,roost site quality decreases. Therefore, in some cases, careful mechanical removal ofcertain invasive woody species may be recommended to enhance/perpetuate roost siteintegrity. Young, low-growing forms of desirable food/roost trees with smooth, horizontallimbs are particularly important to hens with young poults from the time they can fly (~3weeks of age) in late spring until the end of summer because of the highly protectivebrooding behavior of hens. Picture, if you will, a hen turkey with legs locked firmly in placeon a low, smooth limb no more than 15 to 20 feet off the ground with outstretched wings

held over young, gangly poults on either side of her; and, perhaps one perched on her back.As summer and fall progresses, 3/4-sized young turkeys that have not succumbed toweather or predation (including from owls while on the roost at night) spread outthroughout the roost timber and are more loosely associated with hens while still in closeproximity. In some areas of extremely high deer densities, another benefit of aggressivepopulation management may be prevention of over-browsing on desirable native woodyplants in these key areas.

b. Water management:

Ensure reliable natural or artificial water sources (at least one per square mile). Watersources should be at ground level to facilitate use by poults. Fence off portions of stockpond perimeters to prevent trampling and grazing of surrounding vegetative cover thatgives hens and poults safe pathways to water. Do not use net fencing.

c. Nesting and brood-rearing cover management:

Because of their large size, wild turkeys utilize taller herbaceous vegetation and shrubbyvegetation for cover more than any other upland game birds do. Nesting cover should bemainly grasses with intermittent woody cover, at the rate of shrubs or trees every 50 to 100feet. Hens prefer nest sites that provide both ground-level horizontal cover and overheadcover, which are nest site selection considerations. Rio Grande wild turkeys often prefernesting beneath shrubs or adjacent to a “guard object,” such as a log, tree or fence post.Brood-rearing cover should be predominately grasses and forbs, with about 50 percentbare ground. Vegetation height is critical, especially for brood-rearing. Grass height shouldbe sufficient to hide poults, but short enough to allow hens to see predators. Wildliferesearchers have found that a vertical structure of ~18–24 inches (patchy weeds and grasswith spots of bare ground) is ideal for use by hens with young poults.

An integrated program of planned livestock grazing (with rest periods and rotation), brushmanagement, and prescribed burning will generally facilitate high-quality habitat for RioGrande wild turkeys throughout their range in Texas. As it turns out, these managementtreatments often enhance conditions for grassland birds (including bobwhite quail, scaledquail, lesser prairie chickens, Cassin’s sparrow, lark bunting, scissor-tailed flycatcher),reptilian species (Texas horned lizard, a state-listed threatened species; box turtles), and biggame species (white-tailed deer, desert mule deer), not to mention improvement of nativeforage quality for livestock. The key is to think of all three elements as a system with inter-locking parts. Integration of all three land treatments as appropriate for a particular tractof land starts with comprehensive planning available from professionals (previouslymentioned). Consider that this year’s deferred pasture (fuel load) is next year’s prescribedburn unit. If large pastures are burned to work well within a rotational livestock grazingsystem (and custom-designed systems are myriad), there will no doubt be areas than burn“hotter” and “cooler” to yield a natural mosaic that attract wild turkeys and other nativespecies. The current year’s cool-season burn will be highly palatable as livestock forage,and thus will require careful management (including deliberate protection from grazing fora period of time). The burned area is also this year’s preferred brood-rearing (feeding andbugging area) for wild turkey poults and quail chicks, provided that clumps of overhead



protective cover such as plum thickets, hackberry, shin oak, and soapberry are located inclose proximity. It is also a “salad patch” of native forbs and legumes for deer (weed andbrowse eaters). So, while one must “think like a turkey” when planning brush management,grazing, and burning treatments, he/she will undoubtedly benefit habitat for an array ofhunted and non-hunted species. Planned use of all three techniques suggests theopportunity for cooperation among smaller ownerships in certain parts of the state wherefragmentation of land ownership (and habitat) has occurred. For example, a group ofadjoining landowners might consider “pooling” pastures into a series of grazing units topromote moderate grazing use and rest periods that are generally beneficial to deer, wildturkeys, and quail, and that are needed in order to develop fuel loads for employment ofprescribed fire. And, it turns out that areas of residual cover that are heavy enough(~2,500–3,000 pounds per acre of dry fine fuel) to carry fire, but that are not burned in aparticular year, provide adequate amounts of nesting cover for wild turkeys and quail; inaddition, they serve as fawning cover for deer, not to mention improved hydrologicconditions (increased water infiltration) and aesthetic benefits that occur on the land. So,land management for Rio Grande wild turkeys can easily be considered part of a systemthat relies to a great extent on artificial replication of natural processes that occurredthrough the range of this native upland bird in Texas, and as part of a system that canflourish with cooperative landowner relationships (partnerships). In fact, the same can besaid for other species featured in this booklet.

3. Record-Keeping Recommendations for Rio Grande Wild Turkeys:

a. Recommended record-keeping:

The most important factor in producing trophy wild turkey gobblers is gobbler age.Because spur and beard length tend to increase with age, these factors are indicators ofgobbler age. Records should be maintained on the weight, spur length and beard length ofall gobblers harvested, as well as the proportion of Jakes (juvenile/yearling males) in theharvest. These will help managers determine whether the harvest consists of too manyyoung animals to allow production of older, trophy animals. Normal population ratios arenear 50/50 at hatch, and maintaining an annual log of observations in the early fall andlate winter into March will assist in helping determine the relative abundance of maturegobblers and Jakes from year to year. Most hunters had rather take a mature bird than a“jake” gobbler, but either can be harvested and maintain management objectives.

It is important to maintain a map of the land with roost sites plotted and some details ofwhich ones are primary winter roosts. It is a good practice to establish photo stationsaround roosts to annually update in early spring and late fall to monitor the condition ofthe roost site over a long period of time. Too often, we do not see change in front of oureyes unless we establish a means to record it. Roost trees must be replaced over time tomaintain a healthy population.

PROCEDURE FORWINTERTURKEY ROOST COUNTSBecause of the unique nature of wild turkey biology and behavior, no good methodcurrently exists for estimating wild turkey breeding populations. However, a general idea ofturkey abundance can be obtained using winter roost counts, and that technique ispresented here. Managers should remember that Rio Grande wild turkeys can move manymiles between winter and summer range. Therefore, winter flocks will be composed of birdsfrom many different ranches. Likewise, if a winter roost site is not present on a particularranch, it is likely that ranches breeding birds will winter elsewhere.

The first step in conducting winter roost counts for Rio Grande wild turkeys is to gain an un-derstanding of the species’ behavior as it regards seasonal movements and winter flocking.During late fall, turkeys tend to congregate in traditional roosting areas. These sites arecharacterized by stands of large trees, usually oaks and pecans, and are often located inriparian zones. Examination of such sites in winter will reveal the presence of turkey roosts,either through direct observation of the birds in early morning or late evening, or throughobservation of droppings beneath the roost trees. Once the roost sites on a ranch havebeen identified, it is fairly simple to estimate the size of individual winter flocks using thefollowing technique.

1. Determine the spatial extent to the roost site. Remember that flocks will often roost indifferent parts of a roost site each night. Therefore, it is important to determine totalextent of the grove in which the flock roosts, so that the entire grove can be surveyed.Fortunately, roost sites in most of the Rio Grande turkey’s range tend to be discretestands of large trees in a landscape otherwise dominated by shrubs, small trees andopen land.

2. Roost counts should be conducted during December–January, to ensure that birds arefully aggregated in winter flocks.

3. Turkeys usually leave their roosts very early in the morning. Therefore, it is importantthat counts be completed during the first hour of the day. Counts should commence assoon as there is sufficient light to silhouette birds against the morning sky. It often willbe necessary to use multiple observers in order to survey a roost site completely in theone hour allotted.

4. Observation should be conducted on foot, disturbing the roost site as little as possible.For small or narrow sites, it might be possible to count the entire roost without enteringthe site. In most cases, however, observers will be required to walk though the grove. Insuch cases, it is important that observers cover the entire grove thoroughly and system-atically, to ensure that all birds are counted, but that none are double counted.Remember, winter “flocks” will often break up into smaller groups for the night androost in separate areas of a grove, so a thorough effort is important.

5. To get a precise estimate of flock size, multiple counts will be necessary. Precision of theestimate will increase along with the number of counts conducted. We recommend aminimum of five counts on each site. At this point, precision can be estimated andadditional counts can be conducted if precision is judged to be insufficient (see thefollowing sample data sheet).



Data Sheet and AnalysisFollowing each day’s count, enter the total number of birds observed (combining the countsof all observers) in the space provided in Column 1 on the data sheet. Once at least fivecounts have been completed, you may conduct the analysis as follows:

A. Sum the entries in Column 1 and enter the total as Item 1.

B. Enter the total number of days the roost was counted as Item 2.

C. Subtract 1 from Item 2 and enter as Item 3.

D. To determine the mean count size, divide Item 1 by Item 2 and enter as Item 4.

E. Subtract Item 4 from each days count and enter in the corresponding space in Column 2, thensquare this amount (multiply it by itself) and enter it in the corresponding space in Column 3.

F. Sum the entries in Column 3 and enter the total as Item 5.

G. Divide Item 5 by Item 3 and enter the result as Item 6.

H. Calculate the square root of Item 6 and enter the result as Item 7.

I. Multiply Item 7 by 1.96 and enter the result as Item 8.

J. Subtract Item 8 from Item 4 and enter the result as Item 9.

K. Add Item 8 to Item 4 and enter the result as Item 10.

L. Enter Items 9 and 10 in the space provided to determine the most likely size of theturkey flock at this roost site.

Item 1. Sum of All Counts = ________________________________________________

Item 2. How many days were counts conducted? _____________________________

Item 3. Item 2 – 1 = ________________________________________________________

Item 4. Mean Count = Item 1 ÷ Item 2 = _____________________________________

Item 5. Sum of Column 3 =_________________________________________________

Item 6. Item 5 ÷ Item 2 = _____________ ÷ _______________=__________________Item 7. The square-root of Item 6 = _________________________________________

Item 8. Item 7 x 1.96 = ____________________________________________________

Item 9. Minimum Estimate = Item 4 – Item 8 = _______________________________

Item 10. Maximum Estimate = Item 4 + Item 8 = _______________________________

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3Number of Turkeys Turkeys Counted Today Square the Daily

Date Counted on this Date Minus Item 4 (below) Result of Column 2

1

2

3

4

5

The most likely estimate of the actual size of the flock occupying this roost is

between and _______________ and _______________.*(Item 9) (Item 10)

If this estimate is not precise enough for your purposes (i.e., items 9 and 10 are too farapart), additional counts should yield a more precise estimate.*In statistical parlance, the above calculations yield a 95% confidence interval of the estimate of the flock size.)

7075

4141.4

737.2737.2 4 184.3

13.5826.6

114.8168

12/8 154 12.6 158.7612/15 123 -18.4 338.5612/25 155 13.6 184.961/1 134 -7.4 54.761/16 141 -0.4 0.16

114.8 168

NOTICE: Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment receives federal financialassistance from the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of1973, Title II of the Americans with DisabilitiesAct of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975,and Title IX of the Education Amendments of1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior and itsbureaus prohibit discrimination on the basis ofrace, color, national origin, age, disability, age orsex (in educational programs). If you believethat you have been discriminated against in anyTexas Parks and Wildlife Department program,activity or facility or if you desire furtherinformation, please call or write either:

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department4200 Smith School RoadAustin, TX 78744(512) 389-4800Attn: Lynn McDonald(complaints related to disability)Attn: Al Bingham (all other complaints)

Complaint forms are available atWildlife facilities. If you feel you havebeen discriminated against, pleaseask to speak to a Texas Parks andWildlife Department manager.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceOffice for Diversity and Civil Rights Programs -External Programs4401 N. Fairfax DriveWebb 300Arlington, VA 22203(703) 358-1724

4200 Smith School RoadAustin, Texas 78644www.tpwd.state.tx.us

TheUpland GameBird Management Handbook forTexas ......LesserPrairieChicken Tympanuchuspallidicinctus...

Documents

Transcript of TheUpland GameBird Management Handbook forTexas ......LesserPrairieChicken Tympanuchuspallidicinctus...