Dryocopus Pileatus)

Home , Dryocopus, Pileated woodpecker, Sun Pass State Forest

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

MIS Information Sheet Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

Table of Contents Locally Specific Citations:...... 2 Distribution:...... 2 Global: ...... 2 Oregon and Washington: ...... 2 Habitat Use: ...... 3 Western Oregon and Washington ...... 3 General description: ...... 3 Habitat specifics: ...... 3 Columbia Basin ...... 4 General description: ...... 4 Habitat specifics: ...... 4 Habitat Assessment: ...... 7 Western Oregon and Washington ...... 8 Interpretation: ...... 9 Columbia Basin ...... 10 Interpretation: ...... 11 Home Range Size:...... 11 Threats and Risk Factors: ...... 12 Conservation Status: ...... 12 Population Trend: ...... 12 Large Scale “Viability” Assessments: ...... 13 Northwest Forest Plan ...... 13 Columbia Basin ...... 14 Survey Protocols: ...... 16 References: ...... 16

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Locally Specific Citations:

Table 1. Citations by geographic area. Geographic Area Citations Northeast Oregon Bull (1975, 1980, 1987, 2001); Bull et al. (2005); Bull et al. (2007); Bull and Holthausen (1993); Nielson-Pincus (2005); Nielson-Pincus and Garton (2007)

Central Oregon Raley and Aubry (2004, 2005, 2006b)

Western Oregon Mellen (1987); Mellen et al. (1992)

Olympic Peninsula Aubry and Raley (1996, 2002); Raley and Aubry (2006a)

Vancouver Island Hartwig (1999); Hartwig et al. (2004)

Western Montana McClelland and McClelland 1999; McClelland et al. 1979

Distribution:

Global: NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Dryocopus+pil eatus) “RESIDENT: from southern and eastern British Columbia and southwestern Mackenzie across southern Canada to Quebec and Nova Scotia, south in Pacific states to central California, in the Rocky Mountains to Idaho and western Montana, in the central and eastern U.S. to the eastern Dakotas, Gulf Coast, and southern Florida, and west in the eastern U.S. to Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas (AOU 1983).”

Oregon and Washington: Wide-spread resident in forested areas of Oregon and Washington including the Olympic Peninsula, Coastal Mountains, Klamath Mountains, Cascade Mountains, Blue Mountains, Northeast Washington, and forested fringes of the Puget Trough, Willamette, Rogue and Umpqua Valleys. Absent from higher and lower elevations due to lack of large trees for nesting, roosting, and foraging (Marshall et al. 2003).

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Habitat Use:

Western Oregon and Washington

General description:

Pileated woodpeckers use mature and older, closed canopy stands for nesting and roosting, but may use younger (40-70 years), closed-canopy stands for foraging if large snags are available; large snags and decadent trees are critical habitat components for pileated woodpeckers; down logs do not appear to be an important foraging substrate for pileated woodpeckers on the west side of Oregon and Washington (Hartwig et al. 2004, Mellen et al. 1992, Raley and Aubry 2006).

Habitat specifics:

In the Coast Range of western Oregon, pileated woodpeckers preferred deciduous riparian habitats and forest stands > 40 years of age for foraging, however, nests and roosts were located only in forest stands > 70 years of age (Mellen et al. 1992).

On the Olympic Peninsula sites used for foraging had higher densities of large snags (>51cm (21”) dbh and > 7.5 m (25’) tall); the average density of large snags in plots with recent pileated woodpecker foraging activity was 100% greater than in plots with no recent foraging activity (Raley and Aubry 2006). Patches of these large, relatively hard snags in closed-canopy habitat conditions provide optimal foraging habitat.

On Vancouver Island pileated woodpeckers used mature structural stages for nesting (Hartwig et al. 2004).

Large snags and decadent trees are used for nesting (Table 2). · Olympic Peninsula: nest trees were in both decadent live trees and snags; Pacific silver fir was the preferred species, but many nests were in decadent (dead top) western hemlock trees; nests snags were primarily broken topped (Aubry and Raley 2002). · Oregon Coast Range: nests were predominantly in broken topped snags; Douglas-fir was the primary species used, with a few nests in red alder (Mellen 1987).

Large snags, decadent trees and hollow cedar are used for roosting (Table 2). · Olympic Peninsula: roost trees were larger than nest trees; typically roosts were in western hemlock snags or live western redcedar; roost trees contained extensive hollows created by heartwood decay; pileated woodpeckers used an average of 7 different roost trees per year (Aubry and Raley 2002). · Oregon Coast Range: roosts were in snags and live trees and significantly larger in dbh than nest trees; Douglas-fir was the predominant species used, but also red alder, big- leaf maple, and western redcedar (Mellen 1987).

Large snags are important foraging substrate for pileated woodpeckers (Table 2). · Olympic Peninsula: foraging snags were primarily > 51 cm (20”) dbh and were sound or moderately decayed (Raley and Aubry 2006).

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Table 2. Sizes of snags and trees by tolerance level (tl) used by pileated woodpeckers for nesting, roosting and foraging in western Oregon and Washington and coastal British Columbia, in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Larger Trees vegetation condition class (DecAID Tables WLCH_L.sp- 17, 18, 19, & 25 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)). Snag size (dbh in inches) Type of Sample size Number Use 30% 50% tl 80 50% tl of tl (mean) % tl (30 & 80% tl) studies Citations Nesting Aubry and Raley 2002, Hartwig et al. 2004, Hartwig 1999, Lundquist 25.3 32.3 43.0 83 (74) 6 (4) 1998, Mannan et al. 1980, Mellen 1987, Nelson 1988 Roosting Aubry and Raley 2002, Mellen 42.8 36.0 54.2 44 2 1987 Foraging 14.2 26.4 33.3 125 (94) 2 (1) Hartwig 1999, Mannan et al. 1980

Table 3. Densities of large snags (>50 cm (20”) dbh) by tolerance level (tl) at pileated woodpecker nesting, roosting, and foraging sites in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Larger Trees vegetation condition class (DecAID Tables WLCH_ L.sp-22 and WLCH_ S.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)). Snag density snags/ha (snags/acre) Use Number 30% (mean) 80% Sample of tl 50% tl tl size studies Citations Nesting and 11.7 17.4 26.0 Aubry and Raley 2002, Mellen 169 2 roosting (4.7) (7.0) (10.4) 1987 Foraging 19.0 30.2 47.0 Raley and Aubry 2006 86 1 (7.6) (12.1) (18.8)

Columbia Basin

General description:

Late-seral stages of the subalpine, montane, lower montane forests. Specifically, the old-forest single- and multi-strata stages of grand fir-white-fir, interior Douglas-fir, western larch, western white pine, western redcedar-western hemlock; and the old-forest multi-strata stage of Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, Pacific silver fir-mountain hemlock (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Special habitat features are snags, down logs, and large hollow trees (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Habitat specifics:

Blue Mountains (Bull et al. 2007): · Densities of nesting pairs of pileated woodpeckers were positively associated with the amount of late structural stage forest and negatively associated with the amount of area 4

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

dominated by ponderosa pine and the amount of area with regeneration harvests since 1970. · Stands of pure ponderosa pine typically lack the abundance of snags and downed wood necessary for foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Nests in ponderosa pine snags are typically in stands of mixed conifer (Bull et al. 1986). · Pileated woodpecker densities remained steady over 30 years in areas where canopy cover dropped below 60% due to mortality; older stands of grand fir and Douglas-fir consisting primarily of snags continued to function as nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers. · The amount of area that was harvested was significantly less (P<0.01) in home ranges of pairs that successfully raised young than in home ranges of pairs that failed to raise young. Harvest was primarily fuels reductions which resulted in loss of snags and logs used for foraging by pileated woodpeckers.

Blue Mountains (Bull and Holthausen 1993): · Density of large snags (>51 cm (20”) dbh) was the best predictor of density of pileated woodpeckers. · Pileated woodpecker abundance increased with increasing amount of forest that was unlogged forest, > 60% canopy closure, and old growth. · Home range size increased with increasing amounts of ponderosa pine forest, suggesting that this type is poor habitat. · Radio-tagged birds selected the following more than expected based on availability: grand fir types, old growth, > 60% canopy closure, no logging.

Large snags are used for nesting (Table 4). · Blue Mountains (Bull 1987): o Typical nests are in snags with broken tops, and little remaining bark; Ponderosa pine and western larch were preferred species. · Central Oregon – Sun Pass State Forest (Raley and Aubry 2004): o Nests were in broken topped, white fir snags or live and dead aspen. o Dbh of nest snags and trees ranged from 44 to 111 cm (17-44”).

Large snags, decadent trees and hollow grand fir are used for roosting (Table 4). · The majority of roosts were in hollow grand fir infected with Indian paint fungus; large ponderosa pine snags were also used as roosts (Bull et al. 1992).

Large snags and down logs are important foraging substrate for pileated woodpeckers (Table 4). · Blue Mountains: o Dead, down and live trees were used in similar proportions for foraging (Bull 1987). o Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western larch were preferred species for foraging substrate (Bull and Holthausen 1993). · Central Oregon – Sun Pass State Forest (Raley and Aubry 2004, 2005): o Snags > 36 cm (14”) dbh were used more than expected based on availability for foraging; average dbh ranged from 29.0 to 45.9 cm (11-18”) on 4 study areas. o White fir and ponderosa pine were the primary species of snags used for foraging. 5

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

o Down logs used for foraging averaged 19.9 to 22.3 cm (8-9”) large end diameter and 4.9 to 8.9 m (16-29’) long on 4 study areas. o Most down logs used for foraging were sound to moderately decayed pines (Ponderosa, sugar, and Lodgepole).

Table 4. Sizes of snags by tolerance level (tl) used by pileated woodpeckers for nesting, roosting and foraging in the Columbia Basin, Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest, Larger Trees vegetation condition class (DecAID Tables EMC_L.sp-17, 18, 19, & 25 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)). Snag size (dbh in inches) Type of Number Use 30% 50% tl 80% Sample of tl (mean) tl size studies Citations Nesting Bull 1987; Madsen 1985; McClelland and McClelland 1999 and McClelland et al. 1979; 25.2 29.5 36.0 190 4 Nielsen-Pincus and Garton 2007 and Nielsen-Pincus 2005 Roosting Bull 1987; McClelland and McClelland 1999 25.8 28.0 31.2 155 2 and McClelland et al. 1979 Foraging 12.9 19.9 30.4 75 1 Bull 1980

Table 5. Snag densities by tolerance level (tl) at pileated woodpecker nest and roost sites in the Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest, Larger Trees vegetation condition class (DecAID Table EMC_S/L.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)). Snag density snags/ha Sample Number of (snags/acre) size studies Snag 30 & 30 & Size 30% (mean) 80% 80% 50% 80% 50% tl 50% tl tl tl tl tl tl Citations >25 cm Bull 1987; Nielsen-Pincus and 37.2 75.2 123.2 dbh 32 137 1 2 Garton 2007 and Nielsen-Pincus (14.9) (30.1) (49.3) 2005 >50 cm Bull 1987; Madsen 1985; Nielsen- 8.8 19.4 45.9 dbh 32 166 1 3 Pincus and Garton 2007 and (3.5) (7.8) (18.4) Nielsen-Pincus 2005

Table 6. Amount of down wood by tolerance level (tl) within pileated woodpecker home ranges (DecAID Table EMC_L.sp32 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)). Down wood % cover (volume m3/ha) Number 50% tl Sample of Type of Use 30% tl or mean 80% tl size studies Citations Home range 4.5% Torgersen and Bull 1995 4.0% 5.1% 12 1 average (110.8)

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Habitat Assessment: Determine the amount of habitat available at the forest and project scale using established habitat relationship models or GIS queries based on the habitat use information above. Pileated woodpecker habitat models are available for some forests already and are under development for other forests as follows: · Westside: A habitat relationship model for pileated woodpecker is being developed by PNW’s Integrated Landscape Analysis Project. The model will cover the range of the spotted owl (NWFP area). The model will be peer reviewed by species experts, and validated with known location information. This model will be applicable at the forest scale. The model should be available by the end of May, 2011. · Eastside forest undergoing plan revision: Habitat relationship models and viability assessments for current condition have already been completed for northeast Washington and the Blue Mountains forests. · Other eastside forests (DES, OCH, FRE-WIN): Wildlife Viability Models currently developed for forest plan revision will be applied to Fremont-Winema, Deschutes, and Ochoco National Forests for pileated woodpecker. Models will be validated with known locations. This information should be available by the end of June 2011.

Because availability of large snags is likely limiting for pileated woodpeckers, a snag analysis needs to be completed. On the east-side of the region, down logs are also be an important foraging habitat component, thus a down wood analysis should also be completed.

Do not rely on current forest plan snag and down wood standards, which were based on wildlife species models (e.g., biological potential for snags) and tools that were developed in the 1970s and 1980s. Rose et al. (2001) report that results of monitoring indicate that the biological potential models are a flawed technique (page 602). We are directed to use the best available science to manage ecosystems, and the best available science simply will not support business as usual for managing dead wood. DecAID (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009) was developed to collect and synthesize the best available science on wildlife relationships with dead wood. The information in DecAID should be used to determine adequate amounts of snag and down wood.

The Guide to the Interpretation and Use of the DecAID Advisor (DecAID Guide) (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid-guide/index.shtml) outlines steps for conducting a dead wood analysis. Specifically, refer to “Distribution Analysis” and “Wildlife Tolerance Level Analysis” in Table 3 of the guide.

Following steps in the DecAID Guide, use GNN data to determine how much of the habitat contains densities of large snags and down wood adequate to support nesting and roosting habitat for pileated woodpeckers and compare that to estimates of HRV. Information from DecAID is summarized below (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009). These data can and should be developed at the forest scale.

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Western Oregon and Washington

Table 7. Distribution-free tolerance limits (trees per hectare) for snags > 50.0 cm (19.7 in) dbh and > 2.0 m (6.6 ft) tall on unharvested plots, with and without measurable snags, by vegetation condition. The summaries are based on all BLM and CVS plots (all grids), and no FIA plots (DecAID Table inv-4b (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)). 30% 50% 80% Vegetation tolerance tolerance tolerance condition n Min. limit limit limit Max. Pileated WP 8.8 7.8 18.4 WLCH_WCO_L 22 0.0 18.3 26.2 37.7 59.0 WLCH_WCA_L 88 0.0 13.1 21.0 39.3 78.6 WLCH_OCO_L 141 0.0 9.9 16.7 29.1 86.2 WLCH_OCA_L 247 0.0 10.5 15.1 28.8 109.8 SWOMC_L 163 0.0 4.4 8.9 19.3 55.0 MMC_L 313 0.0 14.4 21.3 36.7 91.7

Figure 1. Percent of the unharvested landscape in snag density classes for snags >50 cm dbh, in 6 vegetation condition classes: Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forest, Washington Cascades, Washington Coast, Oregon Cascades, and Oregon Coast; Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer Forest, and Montane Mixed Conifer Forest; all for the Larger Trees Structural Condition Class (DecAID Figures WLCH_WCO_L.inv-15, WLCH_WCA_L.inv-15, WLCH_OCO_L.inv-15, WLCH_OCA_L.inv-15, MMC_L.inv- 15, SWOMC_L.inv-15 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)).

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Table 8. Approximate proportion of the Large Tree landscape that should be at the 30, 50, and 80% tolerance intervals for large snag densities to meet HRV for nesting and roosting habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Snags/ha 0-11.7 11.7-17.4 17.4-26.0 >26.0 (snag/acre) (0-4.7) (4.7-7.0) (7.0-10.4) (>10.4) PIWO Tolerance Level <30% tl 30-50% tl 50-80% tl >80% tl

Wildlife Habitat Type Percent of landscape at tolerance interval WLCH_WCO_L 22% 13% 20% 46% WLCH_WCA_L 36% 15% 21% 29% WLCH_OCO_L 42% 16% 23% 19% WLCH_OCA_L 41% 23% 18% 18% SWOMC_L 64% 17% 12% 8% MMC_L 30% 16% 25% 31%

Interpretation: · Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forests in Washington naturally provide more nesting and roosting habitat across the landscape than the same habitat type in Oregon. · Only a small portion of the landscape in the Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood forest, late-seral stands are capable of providing nesting and roosting habitat for pileated woodpecker. However, species specific data are not available for southwest Oregon. · Down logs are not considered important foraging substrate in western Washington and thus are not assessed (Aubry and Raley 2006).

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Columbia Basin

Table 9. Distribution-free tolerance limits (trees per hectare) for snags > 50.0 cm (19.7 in) dbh and > 2.0 m (6.6 ft) tall on unharvested plots, with and without measurable snags, by vegetation condition. The summaries are based on all BLM and CVS plots (all grids), and no FIA plots (DecAID Table inv-4b (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)). 30% 50% 80% Vegetation tolerance tolerance tolerance condition n Min. limit limit limit Max. Pileated WP 8.8 19.4 45.9 EMC_ECB_L 159 0.0 0.0 6.0 18.1 55.8 EMC_NCR_L 30 0.0 0.0 3.6 39.3 73.0 MMC_L 313 0.0 14.4 21.3 36.7 91.7 PPDF_L 70 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 39.3

Figure 2. Percent of the unharvested landscape in snag density classes for snags >50 cm dbh, in 4 vegetation condition classes: Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest, East Cascades/Blue Mountains and North Cascades/Rocky Mountains; Montane Mixed Conifer Forest; Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir Forest, all for the Larger Trees Structural Condition Class (DecAID Figures EMC_ECB_L.inv-15, EMC_NCR_L.inv-15, MMC_L.inv-15, PPDF_L.inv-15 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)).

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Table 10. Approximate proportion of the Large Tree landscape that should be at the 30, 50, and 80% tolerance intervals for large snag densities to meet HRV for nesting and roosting habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Snags/ha 0-8.8 8.8-19.4 19.4-45.9 >45.9 (snag/acre) (0-3.5) (3.5-7.8) (7.8-18.4) (>18.4) PIWO Tolerance Level <30% tl 30-50% tl 50-80% tl >80% tl

Wildlife Habitat Type Percent of landscape at tolerance interval EMC_ECB 38% 12% 31% 18% EMC_NCR 72% 11% 9% 7% MMC 8% 10% 46% 38% PPDF 75% 13% 10% 2%

Interpretation: · EMC_ECB – Tolerance levels for snag densities at pileated woodpecker nest and roost sites are fairly similar to tolerance levels for vegetation from unharvested plots. This is the area of the forest that should be emphasized for management of pileated woodpecker habitat. · Densities of large snags are relatively high in MMC late-seral stands. This is another area of the forest that should be emphasized for management pileated woodpecker habitat. · Only a small portion of the landscape in the EMC_NCR and PPDF late-seral stands are capable of providing nesting and roosting habitat for pileated woodpecker. PPDF is not considered good habitat for pileated woodpeckers (see Bull et al. 1986). Other areas of the forest should be emphasized for management of pileated woodpecker habitat.

Home Range Size:

Table 11. Home range sizes of pileated woodpeckers by geographic area. Geographic Area Home Range Size Citations Western Oregon Mean = 478 ha (1180 acres) Mellen (1987); Mellen et al. range = 267-1056 ha (660-2608 acres) (1992)

Northeast Oregon Paired birds Bull and Holthausen (1993) mean = 407 ha (1005 acres) range = 321-630 ha (793-1556 acres) Single birds mean = 597 ha (1475 acres) range = 200-1464 ha (494-3616 acres) Olympic Peninsula Females Aubry and Raley (1996) mean = 960 ha (2371 acres) Males mean = 894 ha (2208 acres) Pairs mean = 863 ha (2132 acres)

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Threats and Risk Factors:

· Habitat loss (NatureServe 2010) · Declines in densities of large snags (>21” dbh) and large hollow trees (Wisdom et al. 2000). · Possibly unsustainable conditions in late-seral montane forests. Due to fire exclusion and past management, forests are susceptible to catastrophic fire, insect, and disease problems in parts of the Columbia Basin (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Conservation Status:

USFS – MIS on all forests

NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Dryocopus+pileatus) · Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure · Oregon – S4 – Apparently secure · Washington – S4 – Apparently secure

ODFW – Vulnerable (Blue Mountains, Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills, Klamath Mountains) (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf)

WDFW – Priority species (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008- sept_woodpeckers.pdf ), rank Candidate (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/)

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008. pdf) – The pileated woodpecker is not listed as a species of concern in any of the Bird Conservation Regions occurring in Oregon and Washington. · BCR 5 – No · BCR 9 – No · BCR 10 – No

Population Trend:

Breeding Bird Survey – (Sauer et al. 2008) - watch reliability ratings (http://www.mbr- pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/cred.html) · Oregon - Positive trend but yellow reliability rating (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgi- bin/atlasa99.pl?ORE&2&07) · Washington – Negative trend but yellow reliability rating (http://www.mbr- pwrc.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/atlasa99.pl?WAS&2&07)

Partners in Flight (PIF) Database (http://www.rmbo.org/pif/scores/scores.html) Regional Combined Scores can range from 5 to 25. Regional Combined Score > 13 may be a species of Regional Concern (Panjabi et al. 2005).

Pacific NW Coast – BCR 5 · Population trend – Highly variable, OR Unknown

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

· Threats - Expected future conditions for breeding populations are expected to remain stable; no known threats. · Regional Combined Score - 12

Great Basin – BCR 9 · Population trend – Highly variable, OR Unknown · Threats - Severe deterioration in the future suitability of breeding conditions is expected. · Regional Combined Score - 13

Northern Rockies – BCR 10 · Population trend – Large population increase · Threats - Expected future conditions for breeding populations are expected to remain stable; no known threats. · Regional Combined Score - 10

Large Scale “Viability” Assessments:

Viability analysis for MIS can tier to large-scale assessments, especially where a viability assessment has not been completed for the forest.

Northwest Forest Plan

The selected alternative for the Northwest Forest Plan was determined to meet the NFMA requirement to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities (USDA and USDI 1994a).

The pileated woodpecker was one of 36 birds determined to be closely associated with late- successional and old-growth forests, with occurrence of large snags necessary for optimal habitat (USDA and USDI 1994b; 3&4-177). A viability assessment was completed by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) (1993). The viability outcome for the pileated woodpecker was 100 percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands” (USDA and USDI 1994b; 3&4-179). This outcome determination was based on provisions of: 1) a large system of late-successional reserves, 2) standards and guidelines for riparian reserves, and 3) retention of green trees, snags, and coarse woody debris within the matrix.

The Forest Service has been implementing the NWFP and monitoring late-successional habitat trends since 1994. The 10-year monitoring report (Haynes et al. 2006) states “…it appears that the status and trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological functions of older forests are generally consistent with expectations of the Plan. The total area of late-successional and old- growth forest (older forests) has increased at a rate that is somewhat higher than expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.” The 15-year monitoring report (Davis et al. 2011) found a slight loss in late-successional habitat over the 15-year period, but “in all cases changes were small relative to the sources of error and uncertainty.” They concluded the NWFP-wide decline in late-seral habitat was slightly less than what was

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

anticipated in the NWFP (FEMAT 1993, USDA and USDI 1994b); however, in the Oregon Klamath province losses to wildfire where higher than anticipated.

As a result projects consistent with the NWFP should be expected to maintain viability of late- successional associated species such as the pileated woodpecker.

Columbia Basin

The assessment process that was used by the ICBEMP and forest plan revisions is based on using the concept of Historic Range of Variability (HRV) to assess likelihood of maintaining viable populations of species. By managing habitat within HRV it is assumed that adequate habitat will be provided because species survived those levels of habitat in the past to be present today. Thus, if we manage current habitats within the range of historic variability, we will likely do an adequate job of ensuring population viability for those species that remain (Landres et al. 1999).

Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications (Wisdom et al. 2000) provides valuable information on habitat trends in the Columbia Basin.

Table 12. Percent of Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs) in pileated woodpecker habitat for current and historical conditions, and the relative change in habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000). Pileated Percent of ERU in Woodpecker Source Habitat1 ERU Relative ERU Name Number Historical Current Change2 Trend Category Northern Cascades 1 8.32 10.76 29.44 Increasing Southern Cascades 2 7.96 20.20 >100 Strongly increasing Upper Klamath 3 1.21 29.80 >100 Strongly increasing Blue Mountains 6 4.0 17.04 >100 Strongly increasing Northern Glaciated 7 20.24 1.37 -93.22 Strongly decreasing Mountains 1From Volume 3 - Table 5 – pg 494. 2From Volume 1 – page 33

Densities of large-diameter snags (>21 inches dbh), which are important habitat components for pileated woodpeckers, have declined basin-wide from historical to current levels (Wisdom et al. 2000, Korol et al. 2002).

The pileated woodpecker is part of Group 6 which includes other species with similar habitat requirements and thus would be an “indicator” for these species. These other species include: Vaux’s swift, Williamson’s sapsucker, Hammond’s flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, brown creeper, winter wren, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat.

The ICBEMP analysis was downscaled and updated with new data for forest plan revision analyses. As forest-level viability assessments become available, they should also be incorporated into the MIS assessment for pileated woodpeckers. Viability analyses for current conditions are available for northeast Washington forests and Blue Mountains forests.

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Survey Protocols:

The Rocky Mountain Research Station has developed protocols for MIS monitoring of pileated woodpeckers (Wightman and Saab 2008). The methodology involves surveying 2700 m transects with 10 calling stations per transect. Playback calls of pileated woodpeckers are used at each calling station to determine presence/absence of the woodpeckers. This protocol should be used as the basis for any monitoring of pileated woodpeckers at both the project and forest scale.

References:

Aubry, K.B., and C.M. Raley. 2002. Selection of nest and roost trees by pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 66(2):392-406.

Aubry, Keith B., and Catherine M. Raley. 1996. Ecology of pileated woodpeckers in managed landscapes on the Olympic Peninsula. Wildlife Ecology Team 1996 Annual Report, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia WA, pp 70-74.

Bull, E.L. 2001. Survivorship of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. J. Field Ornithology 72(1):131-135.

Bull, Evelyn L. 1975. Habitat utilization of the pileated woodpecker, Blue Mountains, Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 58 pp.

Bull, Evelyn L. 1980. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Idaho, Moscow. 109 pp.

Bull, Evelyn L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 51(2):472-481.

Bull, Evelyn L., Abe A. Clark, and Jay F. Shepherd. 2005. Short-term effects of fuel reduction on pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon - a pilot study. PNW-RP-564, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 17 pp.

Bull, Evelyn L., Nicole Neilsen-Pincus, Barbara C. Wales, and Jane L. Hayes. 2007. The influence of disturbance vents on pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 243:320-329.

Bull, Evelyn L., Richard S. Holthausen, and Mark G. Henjum. 1992. Roost trees used by pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:786-793.

Bull, Evelyn L., and Richard S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 57(2):335-345.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Government Printing Office 1993-793-071.

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Hartwig, C.L., D.S. Eastman, and A.S. Harestad. 2004. Characteristics of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) cavity trees and their patches on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 187:225-234.

Hartwig, Carol L. 1999. Effect of forest age, structural elements, and prey density on the relative abundance of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus abieticola) on south-eastern Vancouver Island. M.S. Thesis, University of Victoria, B.C. 162 pp.

Haynes, Richard W.; Bormann, Bernard T.; Lee, Danny C.; Martin, Jon R., tech. eds. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 292 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr651/

Korol, Jerome J., Miles A. Hemstrom, Wendel J. Hann, and Rebecca Gravenmier. 2002. Snags and down wood in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. In: Laudenslayer, William F., Jr.; Valentine, Brad; Weatherspoon, C. Philip; Lisle, Thomas E., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. 1999 November 2-4; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr- 181/049_Korol.pdf

Landres, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F.J. 1999. Overview of the use of natural range of variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4):1179-1188.

Lundquist, R.W. 1988. Habitat use by cavity-nesting birds in the southern Washington Cascades. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Washington, Seattle. 168 pp.

Madsen, Sarah J. 1985. Habitat use by cavity-nesting birds in the Okanogan National Forest, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Washington, Seattle. 113 pp.

Mannan, R.W., E.C. Meslow, and H.M.Wight. 1980. Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir forests, western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(4):787-797.

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR 768 pp.

McClelland, B.R. 1979. The pileated woodpecker in forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. pp 283- 289 in Dickson, J.G., R.N. Conner, R.R. Fleet (and others), eds. The role of insectivorous birds in forest ecosystems. New York: Academic Press.

McClelland, B.R., and P.T. McClelland. 1999. Pileated woodpecker nest and roost trees in Montana: links with old-growth and forest “health”. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27(3):846-857.

Mellen, T. K., E. C. Meslow, and R. W. Mannan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:96-103.

Mellen, T. Kim. 1987. Home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers, western Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 96 pp.

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Mellen-McLean, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2009. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer .

Nelson, S.K. 1988. Habitat use and densities of cavity nesting birds in the Oregon Coast Ranges. M.S. Thesis. Oregon St. Univ., Corvallis. 157 pp.

Nielsen-Pincus, Nicole, and Edward O. Garton. 2007. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to changes in available habitat reveal underlying determinants of nest selection. Northwest Naturalist 88:135-146.

Nielsen-Pincus, Nicole. 2005. Nest site selection; nest success, and density of selected cavity-nesting birds in northeastern Oregon with a method for improving accuracy of density estimates. M.S. Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. 96 pp.

Panjabi, A. O., E. H. Dunn, P. J. Blancher, W. C. Hunter, B. Altman, J. Bart, C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, G. S. Butcher, S. K. Davis, D. W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, W. Easton, H. Gomez de Silva Garza, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, D. N. Pashley, C. J. Ralph, T. D. Rich, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. M. Ruth, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2005. The Partners in Flight handbook on species assessment. Version 2005. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory website: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2005.pdf

Raley, Catherine M., and Keith B. Aubry. 2006a. Foraging ecology of pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(5):1266-1275.

Raley, Catherine M., and Keith B. Aubry. 2006b. Density of potential foraging structures and pileated woodpecker foraging activity on Sun Pass State Forest, Oregon. Update to Final Report. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA. 12 pp.

Raley, Catherine M., and Keith B. Aubry. 2005. Pileated woodpecker foraging ecology on Sun Pass State Forest, Oregon. Final Report. Summary report of data collection efforts for field season 2004, and preliminary analyses of pileated woodpecker foraging habitat on Sun Pass State Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA. 27 pp.

Raley, C. M., and K. B. Aubry. 2004. Pileated woodpecker foraging ecology on Sun Pass State Forest, Oregon. Pilot Study. Summary report of data collection efforts for field season 2003. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA.

Rose, C. L., B. G. Marcot, T. K. Mellen, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, D.L. Lindley, and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management. Pp. 580-623 in: D.H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, ed. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR.

Prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean, Regional Wildlife Ecologists, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region – March, 2011 Updated July 2011

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Gunderson, A.G.; Holthausen, R.S.; Marcot, B.G.; Reeves, G.H.; Sedell, J.R.; Solis, D.M. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Government Printing Office. 530 p.

Torgersen, Torolf R. and Evelyn L. Bull. 1995. Down logs as habitat for forest-dwelling ants - the primary prey of pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. NW Sci. 69(4):294-303.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994a. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 74 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Volume 1. [Place of publication unknown].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 87 pp. (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf)

Wahl, T. R., B. Tweit, and S. G. Mlodinow, editors. 2005. Birds of Washington: status and distribution. Corvallis, OR, U.S.A Oregon State Univ. Press. 436 pp.

Wightman, Catherine, and Vicki Saab. 2008. Management Indicator Species Surveys on the Payette National Forest 2008: Field testing of methods. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Bozeman, MT, Unpublished Report. 24 p.

Wisdom, Michael J., Richard S. Holthausen, Barbara C. Wales, Christina D. Hargis, Victoria A. Saab, Danny C. Lee, Wendel J. Hann, Terrell D. Rich, Mary M. Rowland, Wally J. Murphy, and Michelle R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr485/