Recovery Plan for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (Campephilus Principalis)

Home , Bayou De View, Black woodpecker, Campephilus, Dryocopus, Great slaty woodpecker, Hairy woodpecker

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis)

I Recovery Plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) April, 2010

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia

Approved: Regional Director, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Date:

II Disclaimer Notice of Copyrighted Material Cover Illustration Credit: Recovery Plans delineate Permission to use copyrighted A male Ivory-billed Woodpecker reasonable actions that are illustrations and images in the at a nest hole. (Photo by Arthur believed to be required to final version of this recovery plan Allen, 1935/Copyright Cornell recover and/or protect listed has been granted by the copyright Lab of Ornithology.) species. Plans published by holders. These illustrations the U.S. Fish and Wildlife are not placed in the public Service (Service) are sometimes domain by their appearance prepared with the assistance herein. They cannot be copied or of recovery teams, contractors, otherwise reproduced, except in state agencies, and other affected their printed context within this and interested parties. Plans document, without the consent of are reviewed by the public and the copyright holder. submitted for additional peer review before the Service adopts Literature Citation Should Read them. Objectives will be attained as Follows: and any necessary funds made U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. available subject to budgetary 200x. Recovery Plan for the and other constraints affecting Ivory-billed Woodpecker the parties involved, as well as the (Campephilus principalis). need to address other priorities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery plans do not obligate Atlanta, Georgia. 156 pp. other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the Additional copies of this Recovery views nor the official positions Plan are available on the U.S. or approval of any individuals or Fish and Wildlife Service web agencies involved in developing site at: http://endangered.fws. the plan, other than the Service. gov/RECOVERY/RECPLANS/ Recovery plans represent the Index.htm official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, only after Common names for birds are in they have been signed by the accordance with the American Regional Director or Director as Ornithologists’ Union (American approved. Approved recovery Ornithologists’ Union 1983). plans are subject to modification Scientific names of species in the as dictated by new findings, text are found in Appendix G. changes in species’ status, and the completion of recovery actions. By approving this recovery plan, the Regional Director certifies that the data used in its development represent the best scientific and commercial data available at the time it was written. Copies of all documents reviewed in the development of this plan are available in the administrative record located at the Service Field Office in Lafayette, Louisiana.

III Although the Ivory-billed Ralph Costa, Chuck Hunter, Erin Acknowledgments Woodpecker has been listed as an Rivenbark, Laurie Fenwood, and endangered species since 1967, no Robert V. Smith made substantial recovery plan was ever prepared contributions. for the species. Charles Baxter and Bill Uihlein Perspectives with regard to of the Lower Mississippi Valley the need for a plan changed Joint Venture Office and their dramatically when substantial and interagency partners at the compelling evidence suggesting USGS National Wetlands the presence of at least one Research Center in Lafayette, bird in the Bayou DeView Louisiana, contributed many area of Cache River National technical aspects of the plan. Wildlife Refuge was announced in April 2005. Primary needs The following individuals provided for recovering the Ivory-billed summaries of information on Woodpecker were to learn more the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in about the bird’s occurrence, to their respective state: Dwight locate birds, and to determine Cooley, Alabama; Mike Harris, how to improve conditions for Georgia; Cliff Shackelford, long-term recovery. Texas; Richard Hines, Kentucky; Catherine Rideout, Arkansas; As might be imagined about such Laurel Barnhill, South Carolina; a charismatic species, there was Erik Baca, Louisiana; Karl Miller, widespread interest in assisting Florida; Nick Winstead and Paul with Ivory-billed Woodpecker Hamel, Mississippi; and Bob Ford recovery. A team of more than 60 and Scott Somershoe, Tennessee. technical experts, scientists, and managers was identified. This The hard work and dedication list eventually grew to nearly 80 of those mentioned above, as people. A list of team members well as the Recovery Team is provided in Appendix A. All members listed in Appendix A, members are acknowledged for are gratefully acknowledged. The their expertise and commitment Recovery Plan is much better to the recovery planning effort. for the involvement and critical thinking of this talented group The Nature Conservancy of of people. The thoughtful peer Arkansas, the Cornell Laboratory review of 7 scientists, led by The of Ornithology, the Arkansas Wildlife Society, was essential in Game and Fish Commission, making the final recovery plan a the Arkansas Natural Heritage better document. Foundation, and Audubon Arkansas contributed greatly Importantly, the work of James during the initial stages of the Tanner must be acknowledged search and recovery effort as the basis of much of what and as the plan began to take we currently understand about shape. Especially instrumental this magnificent bird. His early in preparing the plan were contributions to the conservation Scott Henderson and David of the species through scientific Goad, Arkansas Game and field work allowed us a window Fish Commission; Tom Foti, into the life history and habitat Arkansas Natural Heritage of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Commission; Robert Cooper, We stand on his shoulders and University of Georgia; Kenneth gratefully acknowledge his Rosenberg, Cornell Laboratory of contributions. Ornithology; and Kenny Ribbeck, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Martjan Lammertink from Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, and Jerome Jackson from Florida Gulf Coast University contributed written portions of the plan. Among U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff, Deborah Fuller, IV Current Status Number for the Ivory-billed Executive Summary The Ivory-billed Woodpecker Woodpecker is 5, indicating a high (Campephilus principalis) degree of threat and low recovery belongs to a genus composed potential for this species (U.S. of 11 species of woodpeckers Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). inhabiting the Western When additional compelling Hemisphere— primarily Central evidence exists of a nest or roost, and South America. Two forms or there are repeated sightings of Ivory-billed Woodpecker have of birds, the actions described in been recognized (American the recovery plan will provide the Ornithologists’ Union 1983): the initial guidance for conservation North American form with a of the species. historical range covering most of the southeastern and a small Habitat Requirements portion of south-central United The Ivory-billed Woodpecker States (Figure 1) and the Cuban was historically described as form with a historical range a resident of large, contiguous throughout Cuba. The Ivory- forests with numerous large billed Woodpecker was listed as trees. A significant portion of the endangered throughout its range forest must also be in some stage on March 11, 1967, (32 FR 4001) of decay, providing a continuous and June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495). supply of food (Jackson 2002). Information on the status of the Bottomland hardwood forests are population is limited, and current frequently noted as important population size and distribution is (Jackson 2002, Tanner 1942). It not known. In 2005, information is unclear if this view is biased was released on the presence of at by the scant information on least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat use having been gathered in Central Arkansas (Fitzpatrick near the end of a long period et al. 2005, see Appendix B). of population decline. Habitats Additionally, the existence of occupied at the time most of the potential habitat and numerous studies occurred may not have reports from credible sources been typical or preferred by of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers the species. Rather, the habitat in recent decades provided may have been occupied simply motivation to carry out surveys because it was the last suitable for the species throughout its habitat available. range. Searches have taken place in Texas, Arkansas, In Florida, bald cypress was Louisiana, western Tennessee, noted as an important component Mississippi, southern Illinois, of the forest used by Ivory- Georgia, South Carolina, North billed Woodpeckers, especially Carolina, and Florida. While in conjunction with an adjacent suggestive evidence has been pine forest (Jackson 2002). On found in several states, no clear, the Singer Tract near Tensas conclusive photograph or video in northeastern Louisiana, has been made as of the date of Tanner (1942) documented use in this writing. State, Federal and higher parts of “first bottoms,” private partners will continue to bottomland forests infrequently search for evidence of the species’ flooded and forested primarily presence (e.g., sightings, nest with species such as Nuttall cavities) in order to document oak (Quercus texana Buckley an active nest or roost when [syn., Q. nuttallii]), sweetgum sufficient additional evidence (Liquidambar styraciflua), warrants such a response. The and green ash (Fraxinus species may also persist in a few pennsylvanica). Tanner also locations in Cuba (Garrido and observed that habitat used by Kirkconnell 2000; Kirkconnell, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers was pers. comm.). also highly favored by other species of woodpeckers, a high No critical habitat has been density of other woodpecker designated for this species, and species being indicative of good none is required due to the date Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. of listing. The Recovery Priority

V Habitat requirements likely over forests. Nevertheless, it Americans. Collection of Ivory- vary seasonally and with habitat stands to reason that the Ivory- bills for scientific purposes has conditions, population density, billed Woodpecker, as one of been documented since the 1800s. food resources, and other factors. the largest picids, may have Jackson (2002) presented data None of these influencing factors particular food demands that indicating that such collecting is understood for this species. It are only met in large tracts of resulted in the taking of over 400 is clear, however, that the Ivory- mature forest during at least specimens, mostly between 1880 bill requires large tracts of forest part of its life cycle. Specific to and 1910. By itself, collecting for foraging and trees large the Singer Tract, before large- or hunting may not have caused enough for nesting and roosting. scale logging had commenced, the widespread decline of Tanner (1942) also commented Ivory-bill numbers. However, Limiting Factors that the reduced occurrence of collecting in combination with Two main reasons for the recently dead and dying wood was the concurrent habitat loss precipitous decrease in Ivory- probably responsible for declines likely hastened the decline of billed Woodpecker numbers have of woodpeckers there. He notes the species. Local populations been proposed. Throughout that their overall population could have been extirpated the species’ range, beginning in loss throughout the southeast is by collecting. For example, the early 1800s, there has been probably not directly caused by Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are a reduction in suitable habitat hunting. believed to have been reduced and potentially a direct impact by excessive collecting, rather on suitable nest trees as well as Habitat loss has probably affected than as a result of the conversion an indirect destruction of their Ivory-billed Woodpeckers of forest habitats in a small area food source due to large scale since the original cutting of of the Suwannee River region logging and conversion of forest virgin forest. Some losses were of Florida. In addition, Tanner habitats (Jackson 2002). During probably gradual while other (1942) indicated that many Ivory- this period settlement, logging losses occurred very rapidly. billed Woodpeckers were killed roads, and slash fires improved Tanner (1942) reported that by merely to satisfy curiosity. access for hunters, trappers, and the 1930s only isolated remnants commercial collectors, increasing of the original southern forest Ivory-billed Woodpecker the potential for lethal contact. remained. Forest loss continued populations appear to have Rather than habitat loss, the with another period of accelerated been in a state of continuous direct killing of Ivory-billed clearing and conversion to fragmentation and decline since Woodpeckers could have been the agriculture of bottomland the early 1800s (Jackson 2002, primary cause for their decline hardwood forests of the Lower Tanner 1942). Early accounts (Snyder 2007). Other factors Mississippi Valley during the gave no accurate or definite such as disease or non-human 1960s and 1970s. The combined estimates of abundance, but predation are not documented by effect of those losses has resulted populations by the 1890s were Tanner or Jackson as important in reduction and fragmentation probably not large and were causes. of the remaining forested lands. limited to habitats subject to The conversion rate of forest to high tree mortality, e.g., areas Essential features of Ivory-billed agricultural lands has reversed that were regularly flooded or Woodpecker habitat include: in the past few years. Currently, burned (Jackson 2002). The extensive, continuous forest many public and private agencies small population size and limited areas, very large trees, and are working to protect and distribution of the Ivory-billed agents of tree mortality resulting restore forest habitat; however, Woodpecker place this species, in a continuous supply of recently it may be many years before where it may occur, at risk from dead trees or large dead branches these restored forests mature natural events and environmental in mature trees (Jackson 2002). and are capable of providing factors. According to Tanner (1942), “In ideal habitat for the Ivory-billed many cases [the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Therefore, until Additionally, the exact number Woodpecker’s] disappearance more is learned about the Ivory- and genetic health of any almost coincided with logging billed Woodpecker’s habitat remaining birds are unknown. operations. In others, there was requirements, the extensive In general, small populations no close correlation, but there habitat loss and fragmentation are at risk from genetic and are no records of Ivory-billed and the lack of information on demographic stochastic events inhabiting areas for any length specific habitat requirements (such as normal variations in of time after those have been cut remain a primary threat to this survival and mortality, genetic over.” Snyder (2007) argues that species. drift, inbreeding, predation, and the close correlation between disease). However, other species, timber harvesting activities and Historical records indicate such as the California Condor the decline of the Ivory-bill may that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Gymnogyps californianus) reflect an increased exposure to (bills and the plumage) were and the Seychelles Warbler poaching and collecting rather collected and used for various (Acrocephalus sechellensis) than food limitation in logged- purposes by Native and colonial (Komdeur 2002) have survived

VI narrow genetic bottlenecks. major focus is learning more 1. Identify and delineate any Mattson et al. (2008) applied a about where the birds may existing populations stochastic modeling approach persist, then examining those to evaluate the potential for habitats to reveal ways in which 2. Identify and reduce risks to persistence under multiple specific conservation actions any existing population, scenarios for large, longer-lived could be developed. Many of the 3. Protect and enhance suitable woodpecker species. Their potential recovery actions will be habitat once populations are results support the determination made only where a nest or roost identified, and; that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is located or where there are new could also survive with a very multiple sightings, video, physical 4. Reduce or eliminate threats small population size. evidence, or a photograph of a sufficiently to allow successful bird. restoration of multiple Though not a threat directly populations when those related to a species’ biology or life Spatially explicit, objective, and populations are identified. history, the inability to identify or measurable population goals have delineate a population to obtain not been identified. However, The emphasis in this recovery basic life history information can those goals are recognized as plan of documenting and greatly limit the recovery of that a key part of future recovery conserving viable populations species. Difficulty in confirming efforts. Habitat modeling and in the historical range is based and delineating populations other analysis tools have been upon two widely recognized and and the limited basic biological completed for Arkansas and other scientifically accepted goals for and ecological information on parts of the species’ range. These promoting viable populations the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is models inform search efforts and of listed species. These goals therefore another primary factor broadly identify potential areas are: (1) the creation of multiple that currently threatens our for conservation. Population populations so that a single or ability to recover the species. modeling has provided an series of catastrophic events does indication that the persistence of not result in species extinction; Recovery Strategy the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in and (2) the increase of population Our understanding of most low numbers throughout its range size to a level where the threats aspects of the ecology and biology is possible (Mattson et al 2008). from genetic, demographic, of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is These efforts will help inform and normal environmental limited. It has proven extremely the development of spatially uncertainties are diminished difficult to locate or relocate explicit, objective and measurable (Mangel and Tier 1994, National individuals despite extensive population and habitat goals for Research Council 1995, Tear et al. survey efforts. Much of what future recovery plans. 1995, Meffe and Carroll 1994). By is known is derived from the maintaining population numbers studies by James Tanner (1942) Recovery Goal and viable breeding populations on one small population and The goal of the Ivory-billed at multiple sites, the species his rangewide evaluation of Woodpecker recovery program will have a greater likelihood of reports and habitat availability. is to locate, protect and increase achieving long-term survival and Other information comes from existing populations and recovery. knowledge of other Campephilus associated habitat and recover the species, woodpeckers in general, species to the point at which it can Recovery Criteria interpretations of photographs, be downlisted from endangered to At present, the limited and anecdotes gathered by other threatened status, and ultimately knowledge on the population observers. The current strategy to remove it completely from abundance, distribution, habitat must focus first on locating the Federal list of threatened requirements, and biology of the and confirming the presence of and endangered species when Ivory-billed Woodpecker prevents individuals. Then we can add to the protections provided by development of more specific our knowledge about the ecology the Endangered Species Act recovery criteria. The following and biology of the species once a are no longer necessary. This interim criteria will lead us to population is identified, providing goal is consistent with current the development of more specific, a feasible approach to habitat requirements for all listed quantifiable criteria that should protection, given its potential species. be met before considering the presence. delisting of this species: Recovery Objectives Our poor understanding of the This recovery plan identifies 1. Potential habitats for any species has largely directed many interim actions needed to occurrences of the species are the recovery strategy to one of achieve long-term viability for surveyed. learning more about the species the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and status and ecology, rather than accomplish these goals. Recovery 2. Current habitat use and needs undertaking specific habitat of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker of any existing populations are management actions. Habitat focuses on the following determined. management and land protection objectives: 3. Habitat on public land where efforts are important, but the VII Ivory-bills are located is 7. Education and outreach on the conserved and enhanced. If conservation of the species needed, more acreage is added to public habitat inventory via 8. Management of public use land acquisition from willing in areas where the species sellers is known to occur to avoid possible adverse impacts from 4. Habitat on private lands is intense public use conserved and enhanced through the use of voluntary 9. Management of rediscovered agreements (e.g., conservation populations and forested easements, habitat habitats to aid recovery conservation plans) and Total Estimated Cost of Recovery public outreach to facilitate The total estimated cost of appropriate management recovering the Ivory-billed actions. Woodpecker is unknown at this 5. Viability of any existing time because of our limited populations (numbers, breeding knowledge concerning its success, population genetics, occurrence, distribution, and and ecology) is analyzed. long-term actions required. See Appendix C for recovery and 6. The number and geographic other expenditures to the date of distribution of subpopulations drafting the plan. needed for a self-sustaining metapopulation and to evaluate suitable habitat for species reintroduction is determined. Recovery Actions The primary interim actions needed to accomplish delisting and/or downlisting recovery goals and achieve recovery criteria are: 1. Population surveys and monitoring in the historical range where habitat and sighting information indicate potential for the presence of the species 2. Habitat inventory and monitoring in the historical range of the species 3. Population and habitat modeling to facilitate survey efforts and to inform potential management actions 4. Research directed at testing biological assumptions otherwise implicit in modeling and management actions 5. Landscape characterization and assessment of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and other areas of the historical range 6. Conservation design aimed at defining the spatially explicit landscape conditions needed to support the species

VIII Table of Contents Acknowledgments ...... IV Executive Summary ...... V List of Figures ...... XI List of Tables ...... XII I. Background A. Overview ...... 1 B. Species Description and Taxonomy ...... 1 C. Status ...... 2 D. Population Trend and Historical Distribution ...... 9 E. Life History and Ecology ...... 10 F. Habitat Characterization ...... 12 1. General Observations on Historical Conditions ...... 12 2. James Tanner’s Observations on the Singer Tract ...... 13 3. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat Along Bayou DeView ...... 13 4. History of Habitat Rangewide (for individual records and sightings see Appendix E) ...... 14 5. Current Conditions in the area of Cache River NWR in Arkansas ...... 16 6. Current Regional Forest Conditions Within the Historical Range ...... 17 G. Management Considerations ...... 18 1. Current Landscape Management in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV) ...... 18 2. Bottomland Hardwood Forest Management ...... 18 3. Favored Tree Species ...... 18 4. Impact of Changing Hydrologic Regimes on Tree Species ...... 19 5. The Role of Disturbance ...... 19 6. Dead Trees ...... 20 7. Current Forest Management ...... 21 H. Reasons for Listing/Current Threats ...... 21 1. Habitat Loss and Degradation (Factor A) ...... 21 2. Over-Utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes ( Factor B) ...... 22 3. Disease or Predation (Factor C) ...... 22 4. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Factor D) ...... 22 5. Other Natural or Anthropogenic Factors Affecting the Ivory-bill’s Continued Existence (Factor E) ...... 22 I. Conservation Efforts ...... 22 1. Conservation Efforts in the Recent Past ...... 22 2. Current Conservation Efforts ...... 23 3. Summary of Conservation Efforts ...... 24 J. Biological Constraints and Needs ...... 24

IX II. Recovery A. Recovery Strategy ...... 25 B. Recovery Goal ...... 25 C. Recovery Objectives ...... 25 D. Recovery Criteria ...... 26 E. Recovery Actions ...... 26 F. Total Estimated Cost of Recovery...... 26 G. Narrative Outline of Recovery Actions ...... 26 1. Population Surveys and Monitoring ...... 26 2. Habitat Inventory and Monitoring ...... 27 3. Population/Habitat Models ...... 27 4. Assumption-Driven Research ...... 27 5. Landscape Characterization and Assessment ...... 28 6. Conservation Design ...... 28 7. Education and Outreach ...... 29 8. Public Use and Access in Occupied Habitat ...... 29 9. Management of Populations ...... 29 III. Implementation Actions ...... 30 IV. References ...... 35 Appendix A. Members of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team and their Affiliation ...... 38 Appendix B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement on existing evidence for Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) occurrence in the Big Woods of eastern Arkansas and elsewhere in the Southeastern U.S...... 42 Appendix C. Expenditures ad accomplishemnts to date of this Draft Recovery Plan ...... 46 Appendix D. Research projects completed or underway in response to Recovery Outline/ Implementation Actions ...... 54 Appendix E. Interpreting historical status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker with recent evidence for the species’ persistence in the southeastern United States ...... 66 Appendix F. Protocol to estimate occupancy and related parameters for the region-wide search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker ...... 92 Appendix G. Example of Action Plan and private lands considerations for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker ...... 108 Appendix H. Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory and assessment: Public lands in the Big Woods of Arkansas ...... 120 Appendix I. Habitat conditions across the historical range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker ...... 126 Appendix J. Species names and acronyms used in the Recovery Plan ...... 142 Appendix K. Service response to public comments on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Plan ...... 144

X List of Figures Figure 1. Male Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Pileated Woodpecker. Heads of Male Pileated Woodpecker and Female Ivory Billed Woodpecker...... 1 Figure 2. Comparison of Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Pileated Woodpecker in flight...... 2 Figure 3. The Range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker according to Tanner...... 3 Figure 4. James Tanner, 1935...... 7 Figure E-1. Numerical summary of all locations with Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports...... 71 Figure E-2. Total locations with at least one specimen known from that location, that decade, range-wide...... 71 Figure E-3. Percent of reported locations with multiple reports within the same decade...... 72 Figure E-4. Percent of locations with multiple reports within one decade during multiple decade time blocks...... 72 Figure E-5. Number of locations with reports across two decades...... 73 Figure E-6. Percent of locations with reports across two decades during multiple decade time blocks...... 73 Figure E-7. Total locations with reports in each Tanner region...... 74 Figure F-1. Possible encounters since 1944 are primarily in large patches of contiguous bottomland forest...... 95 Figure F-2. River basins within the former range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker...... 96 Figure F-3. Example grid of survey units for basin surrounding Congaree National Park...... 97 Figure F-4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed...... 100 Figure F-5. Four adjacent patches plus initial trigger patch searched five times...... 100 Figure F-6. New trigger found during visit to adjacent patch. Three patches adjacent to new trigger patch searched five times. Process continues until no new triggers are found. This will result in edge patches...... 101 Figure G-1. Functional chart for Initial Response for Action Plan...... 112 Figure H-1. Schematic demonstrating: (A) the delineation of management compartments within a management area; and (B) the delineation and allocation of sampling units within stands across a management compartment...... 121 Figure H-2. Sensitivity analysis to assess implications of sample size on the coefficient of variation for density of large trees based on pilot data from White River NWR...... 122 Figure H-3. Schematic of a point-transect depicting a cluster of five plots spaced four chains apart upon which habitat metrics were sampled...... 122 Figure H-4. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data, Cache River NWR and Dagmar WMA, September-October 2005...... 124 Figure H-5. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data, White River NWR, September-October 2005...... 125

XI List of Tables Table 1. Implementation Actions ...... 31 Table C-1. Accomplishments of Endangered Species Recovery (1113) FY 06 Funds Ivory-billed Woodpecker ...... 46 Table C-2. Accomplishments of Endangered Species Recovery (1113) FY 07 Funds Ivory-billed Woodpecker ...... 48 Table C-3. Accomplishments of Endangered Species Recovery (1113) FY 08 Funds Ivory-billed Woodpecker ...... 50 Table C-4. Draft Proposed Allocation of 1113 FY 09 Funds Received for Preventing Extinction of Ivory-billed Woodpecker ...... 52 Table H-1. Location, number of forest stands and acreage inventoried in the Big Woods of Arkansas, September-October 2005...... 122 Table H-2. Parameters and definitions of metrics collected during the habitat inventory and assessment project in the Big Woods of Arkansas, September-October 2005...... 123 Table I-1. Counties included in analysis of USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis data...... 129 Table I-2. USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis physiographic tree species/ species group codes used as a filter in the analysis...... 130 Table I-3. USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis physiographic class codes used as a filter in the analysis. Physiographic class is the general effect of land form, topographical position, and soil on moisture available to trees...... 131 Table I-4. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data used for this analysis...... 132 Table I-5. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas...... 132 Table I-6. Net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas...... 133 Table I-7. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Alabama (2003 Annual Survey)...... 133 Table I-8. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Arkansas (2004 Annual Survey)...... 134 Table I-9. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Georgia (2003 Annual Survey)...... 135 Table I-10. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Louisiana (2003 Annual Survey)...... 136 Table I-11. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in North Carolina (2002 Periodic Survey)...... 137 Table I-12. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in South Carolina (2001 Annual Survey)...... 138 Table I-13. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Texas (2003 Annual Survey)...... 139

XII need to develop cooperation at I. Background the international level to address A. Overview conservation of the species across The Ivory-billed Woodpecker its entire range (Thomas Barbour (Campephilus principalis), once 1923 from Jackson 2004). an inhabitant of forested habitats B. Species Description and throughout the Southeastern Taxonomy United States and Cuba, was The Ivory-billed Woodpecker reduced to very low numbers (Campephilus principalis) by the early 20th Century belongs to a genus composed of 11 (Tanner 1942). Little hope was species of woodpeckers inhabiting held for its continued existence the Western Hemisphere— until compelling evidence of the primarily Central and South species was obtained in 2004 and America. Two forms of Ivory- announced in 2005 (Fitzpatrick billed Woodpecker have been et al. 2005). Observers reported recognized: the Continental multiple sightings and recorded subspecies, with a historical range audio and video interpreted to covering most of the southeastern be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker and a small portion of south- within a section of Bayou central United States (Figure 1), DeView, located in the Cache and the Cuban subspecies with River National Wildlife Refuge a historical range throughout (NWR) in east-central Arkansas. Cuba. The Cuban form has been This evidence is not universally recognized by some authors to accepted (Sibley et al 2006). be a distinct species, C. bairdii While there continues to be (American Ornithologists’ Union disagreement as to the validity 1983; Fleischer et al. 2006) while of this and other reports, the others define the 2 forms as Fish and Wildlife Service has subspecies -- C. p. principalis received sufficient information and C. p. bairdii (e.g., Integrated to warrant additional searches Taxonomic Information System and preparation of a recovery 2008). plan. Please see Appendix B for a discussion. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is noted for its striking black-and- The Fish and Wildlife Service white plumage; robust white, recommend that the recovery chisel-tipped bill; lemon-yellow strategy initially focus on eye; and pointed crest. Males completing surveys and studies are red from the nape to to determine the species’ status, the top of their crest with distribution, ecology, and habitat black outlining the front relationships. Results from of the crest. Females these investigations will help us have a solid black crest formulate specific conservation which is somewhat more actions for the species throughout pointed and slightly its range in the United States. recurved to point forward Specific population goals (Figure 2). are not identified, but they Figure 1. Male Ivory-billed are acknowledged as key to The bases of the male’s red crest Woodpecker perched (top) and recovery. Recent efforts included feathers are white and may allow Pileated Woodpecker perched development of predictive a spot of white to be displayed (below). Heads of female Pileated habitat models and additional on the side of the crest when the Woodpecker (left) and female research that will generate feathers are fully erect. This Ivory-billed Woodpecker (right). spatially-explicit population goals trait was illustrated by Wilson Copyright by David Allen Sibley. in the future, as needed. The (1811) and shown on a specimen recovery strategy contained in by Jackson (2004). Morphological (Ridgway 1914 from Tanner this recovery plan pertains only data from live birds are lacking. 1942). Available information to the population of Ivory-billed The best estimates of size are from such sources suggests the Woodpeckers in the United States from measurements given by Ivory-billed Woodpecker has an but could be applied to recovery John J. Audubon (although these overall length of approximately efforts for the Cuban population lack locality, date, and other data) 48-51 centimeters (cm), an of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. The and ornithologists of the late estimated wingspan of 76-80 cm, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 19th Century, such as Robert and a weight of 454-567 grams (g). and its partners recognize the Ridgway, who collected specimens These figures are based on values 1 of “1 pound” and “20 ounces” Compelling evidence of given in the historical records. the species’ existence was However, no clearly documented obtained when the Ivory-billed data are available (Jackson 2002). Woodpecker was reported in In comparison, the more common Arkansas and presented by Pileated Woodpecker has an Fitzpatrick et al. (2005). On overall length of approximately 40- February 11, 2004, kayaker 48 cm and a weight of 250-355 g. Gene Sparling observed a large woodpecker with characteristics The most commonly described of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas. The encounter vocalization is a nasal “kent” call spurred an extensive search resembling the sound obtained by led by the Cornell Laboratory of blowing on the mouthpiece of a Ornithology and the Arkansas saxophone or clarinet. Audubon Nature Conservancy. In 2004 likened the sound to that of a toy and 2005 observers reported trumpet. This call and variants multiple sightings and recorded of it seem to function as a contact audio and video interpreted to call, a distress call, or as a call be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker given during displays at the nest. within the same area as Sparling Mnemonics for these calls have along Bayou DeView, located in varied greatly, including such the Cache River National Wildlife renditions as “kent,” “yent,” Refuge (NWR) in east-central “yap,” and “kient.” The notes Arkansas. Interpretation of the of these calls are often given video has been challenged by singly, doubly, or in a series of others (Jackson 2006, Sibley et al. three (a single note followed by a 2006). double note) such as “yent-yent- yent” and were recorded at a An alternative interpretation nest in 1935 (Allen and Kellogg is that the recorded bird is a 1937, Allen 1939). There is also Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus a far-carrying call described as pileatus). In rebuttal Fitzpatrick “kient-kient-kient” for which et al. (2006) provided additional no recording exists. This far- analysis of the Arkansas video. carrying call, often used among An additional paper supporting group members in chorus prior Sibley et al. was published by to a long-distance flight, is Figure 2. Comparison of the Collinson (2007). Both Sibley reportedly the loudest contact call Ivory-billed Woodpecker (above) et al. and Fitzpatrick et al. of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker to the Pileated Woodpecker recognize that the identity of and can be heard up to a quarter- (below), both in flight. Copyright the woodpecker in question is mile away (Tanner 1942). Non- by David Allen Sibley. not inherently obvious as either vocalized sounds made by the an Ivory-bill or a Pileated. bird include a rapid, loud double population is limited and has Taking all information into knocking characteristic of most been debated for many years. consideration, the Service concurs members of the genus. This Some authorities suspect the with Fitzpatrick et al. (2006) “rapping” is often described as a species might persist in a few that alternative explanations “double rap” or “double knock” locations in Cuba (Garrido and of the Luneau video are based since it consists of two rapid Kirkconnell 2000, Kirkconnell, on misinterpretations of video knocks. Raps may also occur pers. comm.). Potential artifacts and faulty models singly. When taking flight, the population size and distribution of bird flight. Dispute in the Ivory-bill has been described are not known. Since the last ornithological community to have noisy wing-beats. In commonly agreed upon sightings continues to the time of this direct flight they are said to have of the species in Louisiana in the writing. See Appendix B for a rapid wing-beat as well as a 1940s, there have been numerous additional detail. slender appearance, resembling a reports of possible sightings Northern Pintail (Tanner 1942). and photographs as well as Additional sightings and audio recordings of potential Ivory- and video recordings from the C. Status billed Woodpecker vocalizations search have suggested that the The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was or double-knocks across the Ivory-billed Woodpecker may still listed as endangered throughout historical range of the species. persist. The Fish and Wildlife its range on March 11, 1967, These observations cannot be Service accepted the initial (32 FR 4001) and June 2, 1970 independently verified, but can be evidence of the presence of one (35 FR 8495). Information on evaluated (Appendix E). bird in the Cache River National the current status of the U.S. Wildlife Refuge and on the

2 basis of all available information there will continue to be debate species). We believe the more believes that it is prudent to plan regarding the evidence. The appropriate RPN for the Ivory- for the recovery of the species as Service recognizes and supports bill is currently a 5 (indicating part of our responsibilities under these exchanges of views on a high degree of threat and a the ESA. Additionally, the Fish alternative interpretations as a low recovery potential for this and Wildlife Service, in response part of the scientific process. species) which more accurately to the potential that the species reflects the significant reduction may exist in isolated locations in Every federally listed species in the species’ habitat and the its former range, initiated region- is assigned a Recovery Priority general consensus over 60 years wide search efforts with state and Number (RPN) on a scale of 1 that it was near extinction (some non-government partners. Initial (indicating highest priority) to 18. think it is already extinct). searches and actions, as well as The number assigned is based on Consequently, in November of any others deemed necessary in first, the degree of threat to the 2005, the Service changed the the future, are consistent with our entity (either high, moderate or RPN to 5; this change was also interpretations of the evidence, low); second, the species’ potential based on the 2004 sightings our responsibilities under the for recovery (either high or reported in Arkansas and a ESA, and the urgency of the low); and, last, the listed entity’s reassessment of the degree situation. taxonomic level (either monotypic of threat to the species (U.S. genus, species or subspecies) Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Many State, Federal and (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Specifically, an RPN of 5 means private partners will cooperate 1983a, 1983b). This is an internal that a species’ extinction is almost to continue searching for review process, with the final certain in the immediate future evidence of the species’ presence number representing a set of because of rapid population (e.g., sightings, nest cavities), values that the biologist assigns decline or habitat destruction promoting habitat protection and each of the 3 factors described in (high degree of threat), and that management, and supporting the prior sentence. Until 2005, the biological and ecological necessary research to conserve the RPN for the Ivory-billed limiting factors are poorly this species and the ecosystem Woodpecker was 17 (indicating understood; the threats to the upon which it depends. a low degree of threat and a species’ existence are also poorly Additionally, we recognize that low recovery potential for the

Figure 3. The Historical Range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker according to Tanner. 3 understood or pervasive and In addition to Arkansas, state-led Florida: difficult to alleviate; intensive searches were conducted during Florida Fish and Wildlife management is needed, but the winter of 2005-2006 in South Conservation Commission staff the probability of success is Carolina primarily at Congaree and volunteers searched for the uncertain; or the techniques National Park, in Georgia at Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the needed to recover the species are Okefenokee National Wildlife Apalachicola and Chipola River unknown or experimental (low Refuge, and along the Louisiana- Basins from January through recovery potential). No critical Mississippi border using ultralight early June 2007. They covered habitat has been designated for aircraft over the Pearl River. 23 2-square km search patches this species and none is required Several other searches were during an effort of approximately due to the date of listing. undertaken because of recent 820 hours in the field using 33 possible encounters with Ivory- volunteers. There were no visual Search results since the original billed Woodpecker in other states or audio detections of Ivory-billed Arkansas report for the species within the species’ historical Woodpeckers. in each of the states within the range. No conclusive evidence historical range is summarized emerged from these efforts, but The Auburn University Search below. These data were obtained information has been gathered Group spent five months of from the state and university year- that can be used to guide further searching the forested wetlands end search reports provided to searches in these states. along the Choctawhatchee River the Service. Analysis of historical on the Florida panhandle. On state records or sightings is The most publicized search seven occasions, searchers saw included in Appendix E. independent from state-led what they identified as Ivory- efforts was conducted in billed Woodpeckers. On 47 2005-2006 northwest Florida by Dr. Geoff occasions, searchers heard what Led by the Cornell Laboratory Hill, Auburn University, and Dr. they thought were kent calls of Ornithology, The Nature Daniel Mennill, University of or double knocks. Listening Conservancy, and Audubon Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Hill stations recorded 94 putative Arkansas, the 2005-2006 search et al. 2006). Evidence to date is kent calls and 58 putative double season focused on the Big considered promising; however, knocks. These encounters Woods area in eastern Arkansas. the species’ presence has not been provide additional evidence that Twenty-two full-time searchers, confirmed. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers may armed with state-of the art persist in the forests along the audio and video monitoring 2006-2007 Choctawhatchee River. devices, searched portions of a Arkansas: 550,000-acre area including the Cornell reported 6,033 hours of A specific, reported encounter Cache River NWR, White River searches covering about 11,075 occurred on December 24, 2006, NWR., Dagmar WMA, and other hectares. A robotic camera, Tyler Hicks, an experienced properties. The searchers were developed by University of birdwatcher, reported observing aided by volunteers who spent California Berkeley and Texas a female Ivory-billed Woodpecker two weeks at a time searching the A&M University, was placed perched on the trunk of a tree at forest. Scientists from the Cornell on Bayou DeView (powerline a distance of 15 meters. Hicks Laboratory of Ornithology right-of-way between Stab and stated he clearly saw a black and researchers from several PawPaw lakes). One million crest, white dorsal stripes, an state and federal agencies have images from 79 Reconyx ® ivory-colored bill, and a large reviewed all evidence that was camera deployments captured no area of white across the lower gathered during the previous potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker portion of the folded wings of the winter’s search season, including images. bird. Hicks was drawn to the potential sightings, thousands of bird by kent calls, and two other hours of audio recordings, and The official search team logged observers heard kent calls and examinations of tree cavities, 24 (13 acoustic, 11 visual) possible double knocks in the same area and bark scalings. Although encounters during the five-month just prior to this sighting. the search resulted in no better field season, none definitive. documentation than previous Six of these encounters were South Carolina: searches, four potential sightings reported by members of the Searching began on December 7, based on a single field mark public. This includes two visuals 2006, and ended on May 13, 2007. were documented, and additional in the Wattensaw WMA from The TNC Crew, Cornell Mobile acoustic evidence was gathered Ross Everett, a duck hunter Search Team, the National Park from both the Cache River NWR (12/31/2006, 3/25/2007), and Allan Service and volunteer searchers and White River NWR. While Mueller, retired Field Supervisor logged 4190 hours covering this suggests that Ivory-billed US Fish and Wildlife Service Congaree National Park and Woodpeckers may be present in Arkansas Ecological Services public areas within the Wambaw the Big Woods, the inability to (5/7/2007). Visual and acoustic Creek and the Pee Dee River relocate Ivory-billed Woodpeckers encounters took place in both the system. No definitive encounter casts doubt on whether there are Cache and White River National with an Ivory-billed Woodpecker breeding pairs in the Big Woods. Wildlife Refuges as well. was documented. A total of 1.3 4 million Reconyx® images were days of sitting and watching were were heard on the White River recorded. Analysis has provided completed on Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge. images of only non-target NWR. The crew surveyed 3,560 woodpeckers, raptors, ducks, and acres of federal land transects, Six days of helicopter surveys in mammals. Thirteen autonomous 2,010 acres at Chickasaw NWR these same areas were completed recording units were deployed, and 1,550 acres at Lower Hatchie in cooperation with the USDA recording one kent call and NWR. Possible encounters Forest Service, The Nature three double knocks that were include single and double raps Conservancy, Arkansas Game and plausible signs of an Ivory-billed heard on January 8th and 9th, Fish Commission, Cornell Lab Woodpecker. 2007. of Ornithology, and the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. The majority of the search effort Texas: These flights covered occurred in Congaree National Randomized patch surveys were approximately 152,877 acres. No Park. Thirty-one volunteers completed in the Big Thicket Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were were utilized in the search National Preserve, Trinity River photographed. Woodpecker flush efforts. A total of 15 participants National Wildlife Refuge, and the rates were very low in comparison reported 29 acoustic encounters adjacent Wallisville Lake Project. with known numbers. Although consisting of kent calls or double No encounters were recorded. the birds sighted during the flights knocks. Six of these occurred on could be readily identified and May 11, 2007. One participant Cornell Mobile Search Team: photographed, a helicopter survey described briefly seeing a large Total field effort was 469 person- seems unproductive as a method black and white woodpecker with days. A total distance of 3,566 km for documenting an Ivory-bill. characteristics consistent with was covered by canoe or on foot Ivory-billed Woodpecker in flight during daylight hours. The four Florida: (February 11, 2007). main study areas were Congaree The Auburn search continued National Park, SC (177 person on the Choctawhatchee River. Tennessee: days), Choctawhatchee River, The search effort totaled 895 Possible visual and auditory FL (62 person days), Atchafalaya hours (149 search days). During encounters in January 2006 on Basin, LA (51 person days) and this season 3 sightings that the federal and private land led to the Apalachicola River basin, FL group considers credible were research into the presence of (40 person days). Another 10 reported. All activity (earlier Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in areas, including Ebenezer Creek, video, double knock recordings, Tennessee. In addition, a follow- GA, Big Thicket, TX, Santee, sound detections, and sightings) up on records submitted to the Wateree, and PeeDee Rivers, occurred in clusters. Cornell Ivory-billed Woodpecker SC, Pearl River, LA, Pascagoula sighting database has added River, MS, and the Appalachicola South Carolina: great interest to two focal search and Escambia Rivers, FL were A total of 41 people participated areas in west Tennessee. The searched, consuming 3 to 36 in the 2007/2008 South Carolina Tennessee Wildlife Resources person days each. No sightings Ivory-billed Woodpecker search Agency personnel focused their of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers from 26 November 2007 to 2 search on Meeman-Shelby Forest were made by the team, and no May 2008. A four-person full- State Park and Shelby Forest possible kent calls were heard. time field crew, 36 volunteers, WMA abutting a heavily forested There were two incidents of and a Student Conservation landscape and the Mississippi possible double knocks heard by Association intern with Congaree River. About 100 hours was spent team members, on April 6th and National Park comprised the in the field conducting transects, 10th in Congaree National Park. participants. The field crew kayaking, and sitting, watching, searched a total of 1922.4 hours and listening in areas of interest. 2007-2008 in Congaree National Park, the One possible single rap was heard Arkansas: Francis Marion National Forest, by two observers. The search team employed 6 and other areas of interest in the full time members. The crew Lower Pee Dee and Little Pee About 102 hours of additional imitated double knocks, deployed Dee Basins. A total of 2.3 million effort were spent searching and cameras, walked transects, and Reconyx® camera images were cavity monitoring on the Hatchie did stationary watches. Bayou obtained from the cameras during River, the Lower Hatchie NWR, DeView (Cache River National the search season, and review of and Chickasaw NWR. One Wildlife Refuge) and the White these images for the presence of Reconyx® camera was deployed River National Wildlife Refuge Ivory-billed Woodpeckers yielded for 13 days on private land, were surveyed. This effort no positive images. A total of recording approximately 108,000 totaled 852 hours of stationary 15 ARUs were deployed and images. In the refuges, random watches and 31,521 acres of analyzed by Cornell University. GPS points on a 10 square chain visits. No responses to the Of the 15 units deployed, 3 spacing were assigned, then double knocks were noted and returned a total of 4 double-knock priority areas were searched. no sightings were made by team detection events. No positive Cavity trees were monitored. In members. On January 27, 2008, encounters were obtained during total, 46 transect days and 15 3 sets of double knock sounds the search season. 5 Tennessee: the vast majority living trees. Freeze/Wattensaw Wildlife Observers were in the field from Double-knock “playback” Management Area, Cache River March through mid-May 2008, series were performed with a National Wildlife Refuge – Bayou averaging 2-3 people in the field. mechanical device. No Ivory-bills DeView, Sheffield Nelson/Dagmar There were 4 ARU deployments were sighted. No clear double- Wildlife Management Area, and as well as Reconyx® cameras at 2 knocks were heard. White River National Wildlife locations. These recorded about Refuge - Prairie Lakes. Trained 150,000 images with no positive Illinois: volunteers assigned to each area. results. A total of about 1000 man During the January-March A GPS unit was used to record hours were spent on searches. season 1160 hours were spent IBWO encounters and cavities. The Lower Hatchie and 3 WMAs on field surveys. No conclusive Each volunteer had a high quality were surveyed. Double knock evidence was obtained from camera at all times, and used sounds, kent calls, and brief search effort or Reconyx @ their own or boats supplied by encounters continued to make camera deployments. Cornell and TNC. Untrained this area interesting. North Carolina: supplemental volunteers The state group led by Audubon frequently assisted the trained Texas: volunteers. Surveys were conducted in the North Carolina, continues Big Thicket National Preserve, to follow-up on any credible Despite significant field efforts in the Trinity River NWR, and sightings in the state and is doing past years, local hunters, anglers, the Army Corps of Engineers surveys in the Juniper Creek and other outdoor recreation Wallisville Lake Project, which area. participants spent more time is adjacent to the refuge on Cornell Mobile Search Team: in the field than Ivory-billed its southern boundary, and Areas surveyed included the Woodpecker search groups. The that contains 23,000 acres of Atchafalaya, Pascagoula, and previous $10,000 reward amount unsurveyed bottomland forest Mobile River Basins. The effort did not generate enthusiasm and swamp. Conditions were totaled 414 person days. from local users. The reward was moderately difficult due to forest increased to $50,000 which greatly damage from Hurricane Ike in Kentucky, Mississippi, and increased the number of reports mid September. These surveys Georgia: and generated a new wave of will be concluded in March No searches were conducted in press coverage and publicity. The 2009. One possible brief visual 2007-2008. local community was then alerted encounter was noted in June 2007 to the continued interest in the at the Trinity River NWR, but no 2008-9 scientific community in the Ivory- subsequent ones. Arkansas billed Woodpeckers. Several The search used 4 methods reports from the public were Louisiana: which included 3 full-time paid of high enough quality that we Three sites in the Atchafalaya searchers, volunteer searchers, directed our searches to the areas Basin and the Pearl River WMA increased local participation, and of their reports, but none resulted were surveyed by helicopter. remote cameras. The effort took in any detections or additional Approximately 646 miles of place from December 2008-May evidence. transects were completed in 2009 and was a partnership the period of January 28 to of the Cornell Laboratory of During this search season February 1, 2008. No Ivory-billed Ornithology, the U.S. Fish there was no paid, full-time Woodpeckers were sighted or and Wildlife Service, Audubon remote camera person. Several photographed. Opportunity for Arkansas, the Arkansas Natural experienced partners coordinated use of helicopters is limited by Heritage Commission, and this effort. Seventeen cameras time, funding, and availability. the Arkansas Game and Fish were deployed on potential Large numbers of other species Commission under the leadership cavities and feeding sign. No of woodpeckers flushed, and were of The Nature Conservancy. The Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were easily identified in the canopy three person full-time search recorded. cover. crew was in the field daily (except

on rainy days) and focused their Florida 2 The 1200-ha study area in St. efforts on following up on leads, A 23 mi 2 (60 km ) area within the Mary Parish, Louisiana was searching previously uncovered Choctawhatchee River Basin in searched during December or poorly searched sites, and Holmes, Washington, and Walton through May. Cavity and visiting “traditional” hot spots. counties in Florida. This study foraging sign inventories were No Ivory-billed Woodpeckers site was limited to land owned conducted. 120 vegetation plots were encountered. by the Northwest Florida Water were also surveyed during Management District within the this time. A total of 309 large Volunteer searches were Choctawhatchee River Basin. cavities in 155 trees were located designed around five Special The main search areas included and their entrance dimensions Search Areas located in the tributaries and distributaries estimated. Large cavities were White River National Wildlife Old Creek, Cypress Slough, overwhelmingly in cypresses, Refuge – Maddox Bay, Mike Gum Creek, Yates Mill Creek, 6 Carlisle Lakes, and Bruce Creek, 2009, searches were conducted and the East River Island area. within the Santee River Basin Eastern and western boundaries in the Francis Marion National of the study site were defined Forest and adjacent areas along by Northwest Florida Wildlife the lower Santee River; within Management District property. the Congaree River Basin in Congaree National Park; within The search used a multistrata the Savannah River Basin in the sampling design to search for Savannah River National Wildlife Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and Refuge, and on small public and all other bird species during the private lands locations along the search season from January lower Savannah River. A total of 4, 2009 to May 1, 2009. To 750 survey hours were dedicated conform to the floodplain of to searches in these three main the Choctawhatchee River, the areas. Active transect surveys, study area was divided into 0.077 2 2 double-knock (DK) trials at a total mi (0.25-km ) grids. All bird of 296 stations, and stationary species detected were noted watches of open vistas in high using a checklist of species. quality habitat, and observation Within each search grid we also of large cavities were conducted repeatedly surveyed 100 sites Figure 4. James T. Tanner, 1935. throughout each search area. using randomly placed point Photo by Arthur Allen/Copyright Autonomous Recording Units transects from January 4, 2009 Cornell Lab of Ornithology (ARUs) and remote cameras through February 25, 2009. Each were not deployed in South to obtaining a photograph of an point was surveyed using three Carolina as part of the Ivory- Ivory-billed Woodpecker. This consecutive 10-min point counts billed Woodpecker 2009 search method obtained numerous on two different days, totaling effort. On April 4th, a Pileated photographs of Pileated six counts. Technicians were Woodpecker was observed Woodpeckers, Red-bellied ordered to immediately abandon performing a “double-knock” in Woodpeckers, and Northern point counts if they heard or Congaree National Park. The Flickers. These cameras are saw anything that suggested an observer witnessed it through capable of monitoring a foraging Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Each binoculars from a distance of site for over two months with technician set and monitored about 30 yards. It did not appear no maintenance. The cameras three Reconyx ® cameras set to that the bird was disrupted must be set with the appropriate record time-lapse surveillance during the display. There sensitivity. After a period of cavities as well as seismically were other calling Pileated of learning the appropriate triggered targets. Woodpeckers in the area. The settings, the average deployment double-knock was muffled but Seismically triggered of two weeks resulted in only could be heard easily at a distance configurations were used on large about ten photographs of of about 30 yards. woodpecker foraging sign that is which approximately 30% were frequently found on dead trees. woodpeckers. This compares No Ivory-billed Woodpecker After morning point counts, while to a burdensome analysis of detections were made within the searching their assigned grid, 20,000 images from a three-day Santee River Basin, Congaree each technician also searched time lapse camera deployment. National Park, or the Savannah for potential foraging sites and Images were in 3.1 megapixel River Basin. cavities. From February 26 to color images were sufficient March 31, point counts were for clear identification of Tennessee halted and remaining surveys woodpeckers in images. There was a reduced search effort were 0.77 mi2 (2-km2) grids in 2009. Two part-time, contract searches and Reconyx ® camera Future searches could invest in searchers performed 48 days surveillance. Reconyx ® cameras with more of field work. Approximately reliable wireless seismic triggers. 80 field days from February The search team did not detect Such monitoring could be through April 2009 were any Ivory-billed Woodpeckers incorporated into any bottomland completed. Methods included during search season. Zero monitoring projects range wide sitting observation periods over sightings and sound detections at low cost compared to the cost a 5 section grid of the area. were recorded. Although our of sustaining large scale search Searchers attempted to equally seismically triggered cameras efforts. divide their effort across sections. photographed many species of No standardized searches for South Carolina woodpecker, no ivorybill pictures cavities were conducted and no The Cornell Mobile Search were obtained. Reconyx ® cameras or Autonomic Team (MST) crew arrived on Recording Units were deployed. Seismically triggered cameras March 23, 2009, and searched Double knock simulations were appear to be a low-cost approach through March 25, 2009. During

7 conducted on several mornings. a speed of 40 knots. Observers were passively searched. Over 1.2 On two occasions, suspicious focused their attention in forested million Reconyx ® images were knocks resembling Campephilus habitats on a narrow swath no screened. No compelling sightings were encountered. Follow up more than approximately 100 feet were noted and no evidence of searching did not yield additional on either side of the helicopter. the presence of an Ivory-billed evidence. Approximately 900 miles of Woodpecker within the areas was transects were flown in 2 areas found. The search group still feels of the Atchafalaya River Basin confident that an as yet (Duck Lake, and Bayou Sorrel), North Carolina unidentified species of bird that one area in the Pearl River Basin Search for evidence of the makes Campephilus double (Pearl River Wildlife Management Ivory-billed Woodpecker (IBWO) knocks in isolation from other Area), 2 areas in Three Rivers along the Waccamaw River and calls infrequently uses the area. Wildlife Management Area, and Juniper Creek (Brunswick and In 2008, there appeared to be one area in Red River Wildlife Columbus County, NC) began in more regular use of the site than Management Area. Flights were January 2008. Effort increased in 2009. conducted January 28 through in October and continued through February 4, 2009. May 2009. Daily trips involved Texas canoeing and/or hiking to a A team of two field technicians A total of 6,680 individuals of 43 gridded, randomly selected GPS began work in September 2008. avian taxa were recorded from point, and conducting a 10-minute Field work continued, using 134 transects on 6 sites. No point count and 2-hour sit at the habitat model protocols, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were each waypoint. During this time through February 2009. observed. However, 4 other all birds heard or seen were Vegetation profiles, data entry, woodpecker species (Northern recorded. After each 2-hour sit, and organization of GIS data Flicker, Pileated Woodpecker, transects were walked through a gathered during the full time field Red-bellied Woodpecker, and 40 acre plot, marked by waypoints season have continued through Red-headed Woodpecker) were at each corner. Within each 2009. The Trinity River National readily identified. Individuals plot, any evidence suggestive Wildlife Refuge and two adjoining were conspicuous and frequently of a potential IBWO was tracts will have been profiled. observed, as they flew within the photographed and its coordinates Louisiana canopy of the cypress-tupelo and were recorded. The Pearl and Atchafalaya bottomland hardwood forest of the study areas. The implication After conducting 107 point counts, river basins in Louisiana with nearly as many 2-hour sits represent our last large tracts of these observations is that, had an Ivory-billed Woodpecker been and plots searched, there were of contiguous bottomland no visual or auditory detections hardwood and cypress-tupelo flushed below the helicopter, it would have been detected by suggesting the presence of an swamps in Louisiana. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker within most detailed reported public the crew. Numerous Red-bellied Woodpeckers were observed, the swamps of the Waccamaw sightings have come from areas River and Juniper Creek. in the Atchafalaya River and a considerably smaller and probably much less detectable Less than ten large cavities Pearl River basins, although an were documented, but none occasional report has come from species, which lends credibility to the use of helicopters as an exemplifying the size and shape areas around the confluence of the associated with the Ivory-billed Mississippi, Red, and Atchafalaya. investigative tool for an Ivory- billed Woodpecker search. Woodpecker. Plots surrounding These reported sightings led these cavities were canvassed, to the interest in performing Illinois and point counts/2-hour sits additional surveys of these areas From January through June 2009, were conducted at surrounding for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. totals of 4,200 person-hours in waypoints. Aerial Transects, spaced at the field and 400 person-hours screening digital images were In addition to surveying the 1,500-ft intervals in parallel habitat, local residents were north/south lines, were surveyed spent searching for Ivory- billed Woodpeckers in Illinois. questioned about the Ivory- over the Pearl River Wildlife billed Woodpecker. All those Management Area, 2 sites in The systematic search effort 2 2) questioned who had a firm the Atchafalaya Basin, and in included 10-0.77 mi (2-km plots of bottomland forest, 140 knowledge of the surrounding an area of the confluence of the swamp and had resided in the Pearl, Mississippi, and Red River winter point-counts across the 10 plots, and deployment of color area for much, if not all, of their basins. Surveys were completed lives were able to recognize using a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter Reconyx ® cameras to trees with large cavities or bark scaling. the Pileated Woodpecker as a carrying 3 biologists and an bird that they frequently see. experienced pilot. Numbers and In addition, 15 sites in mature bottomland and swamp forest Some were familiar with its species of all birds observed were scaling habits and call. Some recorded. Transect were flown habitat during spring migration and the early breeding season individuals distinguished plumage at an altitude of 150 feet and at differences between Ivory- 8 billed Woodpeckers and Pileated forests with large numbers of Kentucky, Georgia Woodpeckers in photographs. All trees killed by hurricanes and No searches were conducted in concluded that they had never lightning strikes, large expanses 2008-2009 seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. of recently burnt pine forests, cabbage palm stands, hardwood General Observations A portion of the Lumber River hammocks with big oaks and During the searches, many was searched by canoe; however maples, and cypress strands with large cavities and feeding signs this effort did not involve 2-hour trees up to 59 inches dbh. The similar to what James Tanner sits or area searches. There were congregation of these quality described in Louisiana’s Singer no detections. habitats, and its location within Tract were noted. Though some of these observations remain Mississippi large contiguous protected areas, indicates a high potential to interesting, none of these “signs” A 4 person team surveyed can be attributed with certainty the bottomland hardwood support Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Nevertheless, even in areas to Ivory-billed Woodpecker forests of the Pascagoula River nesting or feeding activity. This Basin between January 22 most difficult to access, such as the Gator Hook and Sig Walker type of information was used and March 20, 2009 under the to help search groups focus in coordination and logistic support cypress strands, there are old signs of selective logging during particular areas or determine of the University of Southern remote camera placement. Mississippi and the Mississippi ca. the 1920s and 1930s. Access by tram lines was available to Acoustic encounters were treated Department of Wildlife, Fisheries in the same manner. Though and Parks. Survey areas included collectors and trophy hunters in those years, and cypress were several recordings are similar to the entire Upper and Lower historical recordings of “kent” Pascagoula Wildlife Management selectively logged. Pine forests in the region offer good habitat calls or match the “double Area and parts of the Ward knocks” of other Campephilus Bayou Wildlife Management Area now but were intensively logged in the 20th century. Double knock woodpeckers, this information and The Nature Conservancy’s remains useful, but is not a Charles Deaton Preserve and imitations were done at 1,744 stations spaced in distance and confirmation of the presence of Herman Murrah Preserve. The the Ivory-bill. team spent 1150 hours searching, time, and no responses of interest mostly on foot. Of the 43 patches were recorded. Several cavities The results of searches already searched (total area: approx. of the appropriate size and shape conducted suggest it is likely 14500 ha) 38 were high quality for Ivory-billed Woodpecker that any extant populations and 5 were low quality patches. were found, but were not in use, of Ivory-bills are extremely 5% search effort was dedicated and these cavities can be old, small. Potential remaining for the low quality patches. or exceptionally large Pileated habitat for this species has been The region was impacted by Woodpecker cavities, or mammal- preliminarily identified, and work Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and enlarged PIWO cavities. The is underway to refine methods the resulting damage in the team did not observe Ivory-billed which will aid in identifying what forests still supports an abundant Woodpeckers. we believe is the best potential woodpecker community. However, Given the results, it is unlikely habitat. In many locations, the search produced no evidence an Ivory-billed Woodpecker the forests of the southeastern that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. population of a meaningful size United States continue to expand exists in south Florida. The in size and age, leaving some hope Cornell Mobile Search Team that as habitat conditions improve Search Team: habitat in its current state has a lot of potential and South Florida any remaining populations, if they The Mobile Search Team worked are there, will increase in number. in southern Florida from January parks, preserves, agencies, and 3 through March 16, 2009 with birders should remain attentive D. Population Trend and a crew of seven, and in South to reports of the species in the Historical Distribution Carolina from March 23 through region. The extreme rarity of the species April 29 with a crew of four. In South Carolina, the team for over a hundred years has resulted in a lack of population In south Florida the team worked in the Congaree and lower Santee River basins data which could be used to explored areas with Ivory-billed establish a definitive trend in Woodpecker specimen and to follow up on Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports from 2009 population size or distribution. It sighting records, and areas that is possible to sketch a distribution were remote, had large trees and 2007, respectively. The Savannah River was explored of the historic range in the and/or concentrations of dead U.S. on the basis of museum trees. Many of the search areas because it showed up as potential habitat in the Forest Service records and the observations of were difficult to access but were early explorers and naturalists. reached with logistical support model of Forest Inventory and Analysis data. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker from Florida partners. Habitats appears to have been relatively explored included old-growth widespread throughout the mangrove stands, mangrove southeastern United States prior 9 to European settlement (Figure (17 square miles or about 11,000 temporal flexibility, due to their 3). It once roamed forests of the acres of bottomland forest in use of disturbed sites containing southeastern United States from Louisiana). Thus, 50 breeding increased volumes of stressed and the coastal plain of Texas and pairs of Ivory-billed Woodpecker dead trees. Such trees are useful eastern Oklahoma into North in the late 1930s would need 777 for a limited period, normally Carolina, southward to include square kilometers (300 square when the trees and limbs are all of Florida, and the Mississippi miles or about 200,000 acres) of freshly dead or damaged after Alluvial Valley northward to habitat in Florida or 2,201 square the disturbance. Ivory-billed the confluence with the Ohio kilometers (850 square miles or Woodpeckers are thought to River and then eastward on the about 550,000 acres) in Louisiana. be dependent on extensive Ohio River bordering Kentucky Snyder (2007) argues that these forested areas with old-growth and Illinois (Hasbrouck 1891). estimates are inaccurate. Since characteristics and naturally high Archaeological evidence indicates Tanner’s study in Louisiana was volumes of dead and dying wood that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker based on very few birds in an needed to sustain the species may have occurred eastward to altered landscape, it should be in between disturbance events southern Ohio and north along used for information and guidance such as fires, storms, or other the Mississippi River to the St. only. If populations persist phenomena expected to kill or Louis, Missouri area at least today, the needs of individuals stress trees (Tanner 1942). 300 years prior to European and family groups could be very settlement (Warner, pers. comm., different (Tanner 1942, p. XII). When faced with habitat J. L. Murphy and J. Farrand, Jr. fragmentation or habitat 1979 from Jackson 2004). E. Life History and Ecology degradation, other large Our knowledge of the Ivory- woodpeckers have been found Population numbers prior to billed Woodpecker’s life history to adapt by expanding their European settlement will never and ecology is limited and based home range sizes. For example, be known. According to Warner primarily on just a few studies in southern Sweden, Black (pers. comm. Appendix D, and information extrapolated Woodpeckers expanded their p. 85), the common farming from other similar species. The home ranges four-fold yet practices (e.g., girdling trees Ivory-billed Woodpecker is larger maintained the same breeding to create openings) of Native than a Pileated Woodpecker. success in forests fragmented by Americans may have provided a Weights are reported at 454 and agricultural fields (Fitzpatrick et rich food source for woodpeckers 567 grams (16 and 20 ounces) in al. 2005). In Borneo, Great Slaty along river bottoms. Ivory- historical records (Jackson 2002). Woodpeckers maintained similar billed Woodpecker declines Therefore, an Ivory-bill should group sizes in logged and primary corresponded closely with require a greater amount of food forests (Lammertink 2004a), but European settlement and the to maintain its body mass and average densities in commercially clearing and alteration of forest feed its young than a Pileated logged forests were only 17% habitats (Appendix E). The long- Woodpecker. This greater food of those in primary forests of term decline in habitats important demand suggests that an Ivory- similar soil type and elevation to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker billed Woodpecker must range (Lammertink 2004b). Ivory- began in the early 1800s with farther and may be more sensitive billed Woodpeckers could have essentially all of the historical to habitat alterations than the expanded home range sizes in sub- range affected in some way by Pileated Woodpecker. That optimal habitats, such as in the the early 20th Century. This Ivory-bills have relatively large regenerating southern forests. If impact also increased access for home ranges and a sensitivity Ivory-billed Woodpeckers reduced hunting the species for curiosity, to habitat alterations is further densities five-fold as observed in food, and collection for private supported by the fact that three the Bornean study of Great Slaty and public museums. Through other very large woodpecker Woodpeckers, core home ranges the early 1940s, there was a species that weigh over 400 g (13 of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers could gradual decrease in the number ounces) (Lammertink 2007) also be up to 52 square kilometers (20 of specimen and sight records. have large home ranges and are square miles) and home range The last commonly agreed upon sensitive to habitat alterations. densities might be as low as +one sighting was in the Tensas River The Ivory-billed Woodpecker per 220 square kilometers (85 region of northeastern Louisiana was known to fly distances of at square miles). At such densities, in April 1944. least several kilometers each day encounter rates with Ivory-billed between favored roost sites and Woodpeckers, even with a large Tanner (1942) estimates that feeding areas. Such movements number of observers in the field, Ivory-billed Woodpecker density are associated with maintaining can be expected to be very low ranged from 1 breeding pair per large home ranges. However, (Scott et al. 2008, Mattson et al. 15.5 square kilometers (6 square information on daily movements 2008). miles [about 4,000 acres of mixed is limited to Tanner’s study. upland pine and bottomland There is no evidence to suggest forest in Florida]) to 1 breeding The ecology of the species likely that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker pair per 44 square kilometers includes substantial spatial and is migratory (Allen and Kellogg

10 1937), however Tanner (1942) Breeding phenology (annual other. They also reported the suspected that the species may cycle) is poorly known. Generally, Ivory-billed Woodpecker to be a become nomadic in response to it is thought that breeding late riser, leaving its roost after a fluctuating and undependable occurs between January and sunrise. food supply. April (Tanner 1942). Cavities are excavated in a dead or dying Individuals can be faithful to Diet is poorly understood and portion of a live tree, although the same roost cavity for at based on anecdotal observations in some cases a dead tree may least a year and a half (Tanner and the examination of the be used. Nest cavities have 1942). Nest cavities are often stomach contents from eight ranged from 4.6 m to over 21 m constructed in favored roosting collected birds (Jackson 2002). up the nest tree with nests rarely areas and may later become Large beetle larvae appear to being excavated below 9 m from roost cavities. Thus, in several be an important component of the tree’s base. Nest openings respects, the roosting area is the the diet throughout the year, but are characteristically oval, with center of activity for an Ivory- especially during breeding when an irregularly shaped rim, and billed Woodpecker. feeding young with potentially somewhat taller than wide, high energetic demands (at least Reported clutch size ranges ranging between 10.2 -14.6 cm from 1-5 eggs, but most reports more so when compared with the wide and 15.2-17.1 cm tall. The young of the smaller Pileated are of clutches of 2 to 4 eggs. size and shape of an Ivory-billed Incubation period has never been Woodpecker). These beetle Woodpecker’s nest opening is larvae are obtained according quantified for an Ivory-billed generally distinguishable from Woodpecker, but if it parallels to Tanner (1942) primarily by those of Pileated Woodpeckers, stripping large pieces of bark the measured incubation period which typically have a regular of the Magellanic Woodpecker, from recently dead or dying tree oval or round rim and a width trunks and branches as well as it takes about 20 days. This also under 8.9 cm. The frequently approximates Tanner’s estimate by the more typical woodpecker oval-shaped cavity entrance approach of excavating rotted (1942) for the gestation period of of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Both wood. Most notable in both the Pileated Woodpeckers and other stomachs of collected birds as sexes of the Ivory-bill incubate crested woodpeckers may be an the eggs, and Tanner documented well as remains in nests were adaptation to accommodate the the members of the beetle family that both parents feed the young bird’s crest (Jackson 2004). The for a period of about 35 days until Cerambycidae (long-horned and inside diameters of Ivory-billed roundheaded borers), but many the young have fledged. The Woodpecker nest cavities that young may be fed by the parents other species of wood-boring have been measured ranged from larvae also have been documented for an additional two months and 17.8 to 26.7 cm with a possible forage with and roost near the in the diet. In addition to animal depth from roof to floor of 44.4 to matter, the contents of three parents into the next breeding 63.5 cm. The outside diameters season. stomachs examined in detail of the limb supporting the from birds collected outside the cavities ranged from 33 to 55.9 cm The only quantified data breeding season (1 during August, (Tanner 1942, Allen and Kellogg regarding reproductive success 2 during November; described 1937). for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Tanner 1942, Jackson 2002), is from Tanner (1942). While he illustrated a high percentage and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers reported little difference between broad range of vegetable matter excavate and/or use roost cavities. the average number of young was also eaten when available. Roost cavities are similar in fledged per successful nesting Included in these stomachs, with appearance to nest cavities. In effort from 1931-1939 between anecdotal observations from other woodpeckers, the roost Ivory-billed Woodpecker and others, were various nuts, such as cavity of the male often becomes Pileated Woodpecker (Tanner pecans and acorn, and fruits and the nest cavity. Observations 1942, p. 81), it is important to seeds, such as from hackberry, by Tanner (1942) and Allen and note that most of the successful persimmon, wild grape, poison Kellogg (1937) suggest that roost nesting efforts were based ivy, magnolia, black gum, and cavities are used by single Ivory- year-after-year from only one of tupelo. Due to the paucity of data billed Woodpecker individuals, the seven areas at Singer Tract on food items actually consumed but this may not always be the supporting Ivory-bills (John’s by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, case. In other large woodpecker Bayou, p. 39), with no more than only limited conclusions can be species such as the Megallanic two successful nests in any one drawn concerning preferences. Woodpecker (Campephilus year between 1934 and 1939. Current research projects with magellanicus), members of a While he identified up to seven Pileated Woodpecker and with pair sometimes roost together potential family groups during the community of wood-borers (Ojeda 2004). Tanner (1942) and this six year period, only three of associated with decaying wood Allen and Kellogg (1937) found the seven produced young in at in bottomland forests may shed that pairs or group members least one year. Ultimately during additional light on this issue (see often roosted in trees within the period of 1934-1939, 9 of the Appendix D). a few hundred meters of each 16 young observed came from one 11 area (again John’s Bayou), and 6 Therefore any future habitat large tracts of mature forest from another area (Mack’s Bayou protection and management will during at least part of its life combined with Titepaper), with require consideration that much cycle. the other five areas mostly failing is unknown about the bird’s to produce any young (the only habitat requirements, as well However, the importance of exception being Bayou Despair in as comparison and evaluation of uncut forests may be only part of 1937). what is understood. the habitat requirements of this species. Additionally, the species No incidences of predation on 1. General Observations on may have sought older forests Ivory-billed Woodpecker are Historical Conditions subjected to recent catastrophic known, and it is likely that natural Bottomland hardwood forests are events such as drought, fire, predators are few. However, frequently noted as important hurricanes, tornadoes, ice nest predators could have had (Jackson 2002, Tanner 1942). It storms, and flooding, leading an impact on the species’ decline is unclear if this view is biased to the death of large patches of under certain conditions. Typical by the scant information on trees. In more modern times, nest predators, such as squirrels, habitat use having been gathered Tanner documented that Ivory- raccoons and rat snakes could near the end of a long period billed Woodpeckers used forests prey on nestlings or eggs while of population decline. Habitats that had undergone some birds, such as Great Horned Owls occupied at the time of Tanner’s partial logging, as long as many (Bubo virginianus), Barred Owls study may not have been typical damaged, dying, and stressed (Strix varia), and Red-shouldered or preferred by the species. trees were left standing and there Hawks (Buteo lineatus) could The habitat may have been were nearby remaining large prey upon recently fledged occupied simply because it was areas of unlogged, older forests. birds. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers the last suitable habitat available. These observations do not in any could also be killed by sudden However, the Lentz (1928) way suggest foraging in logging catastrophic damage to nest or report stated that hardwood slash was prevalent for the roost trees (e.g., lightning strike, and woodland areas accounted species. Logging, when followed hurricane or tornado winds) and for 81 percent of the parish, and by conversion of forests to other by disease, such as West Nile of that 67% was classified as land uses (mostly agriculture and Virus and Avian flu. virgin timber. Additionally, the shorter rotation forests) likely led specimen record shows that at to this species’ overall decline and Humans have killed the bird for least in the case of the Tensas extirpation throughout much of the usual reasons. Historically basin, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers the historical range (Tanner 1942, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was were known to populate the area Jackson 2004). valued for its ivory-colored bill, long before significant logging which was used as an ornament and human encroachment was Although most records and or collected as a curiosity by both a factor (Roaring Bayou:1899, 3 reports have been from Native and European Americans. birds. West Carroll Parish: 1903, bottomland forests, the literature The striking black and red crest 1 bird. Madison Parish: 1908, suggests that the species also of males was also used to decorate 1909, 1891, 4 birds, et al.). In made substantial use of mature Native American war pipes 1938, the R. K. Winters report pine forests, not only in Cuba, but (Jackson 2004). Additionally, estimated that 2,682,700 acres also Florida and elsewhere in the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were were hardwood timberlands (69% coastal plain (Allen and Kellogg sometimes eaten by humans in of the delta), of which 577,600 1937, Jackson 2004). Observers the United States and Cuba. By acres was considered uncut noted Ivory-billed Woodpeckers the late 19th Century, the rarity old-growth and was available to foraging on “very small” to of the species made it desirable to wildlife in the north Louisiana medium diameter pines, recently amateur and scientific specimen delta. killed by fire (from Florida and collectors (Jackson 2004). Cuba; Allen and Kellogg 1937, Literature on habitat Dennis 1948, Lamb 1957). F. Habitat Characterization characteristics favored by the What is known regarding Ivory-billed Woodpecker creates In many cases, occurrences the habitat requirements of the impression that this species in pines were associated with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was associated with expansive fire-killed trees, often adjacent comes mostly from historical patches of uncut forests with to bottomland forests. There observations, the work of James a relatively high proportion of were known nesting cavities Tanner, and current reports very large and old trees. These in pine, and almost all recent from sites where observers types of forest areas, in general, nesting cavities in Cuba were in may have encountered the support a high proportion of dead pine (Jackson 2004). The factor bird. Any surviving birds may and dying trees and it stands in common between hardwood have persisted under less than to reason that the Ivory-billed and pine habitat use appears to optimal conditions if historical Woodpecker, as one of the largest be disturbance events. These assumptions—and those of picids, may have particular food disturbances led to the availability Tanner—regarding the needs demands that are only met in of many recently dead and dying of the Ivory-bill are accurate. trees, which in turn, supported 12 the beetle larvae (protein) Tanner’s data suggest that large 3. Ivory-bill Habitat Along considered by many to be trees were preferred for foraging Bayou DeView essential forage for the successful (feeding). Of Tanner’s foraging The forest along Bayou DeView fledging of young woodpeckers. observations, 49% (frequency of is relatively narrow (about one feeding) were on trees between mile wide) through Cache River 2. James Tanner’s Observations 12-24 inches dbh (diameter at NWR and Benson Creek State on the Singer Tract breast height). These trees Natural Area surrounded by According to Lowery (1974) represented about 18% of forest agriculture, with the forest along until 1932, ornithologists had composition. Thirty-five percent Bayou DeView expanding within come to believe that the Ivory- of the feeding took place on trees Dagmar Wildlife Management billed Woodpecker no longer that were between 24-36 in dbh. Area (WMA). Specifically all of existed. As Lowery recounts it Trees this size made up about the published sightings of the “A comment to this effect in the 5% of the overall forest. Tanner Ivory-billed Woodpecker and offices of the Louisiana Wildlife notes that on the Singer Tract the Luneau video during 2004 and Fisheries Commission 87% of the foraging was observed and 2005 at Bayou DeView were prompted a quick denial from on the largest trees, comprising within Cache River NWR in the Mason Spencer, a resident of 25% of the total trees available for tupelo/bald cypress swamps. As Tallulah, who happened to be foraging. However, the smallest described in the previous section, present. So incredulous was trees also were utilized. Foraging cypress-tupelo swamp was a everyone of his assertion that occurred on trees 3-12” dbh over rarely used habitat according Ivory-bills still lived near Tallulah three times as often as on the to Tanner (1942). After 2005, that a permit was immediately largest trees 36+” dbh. Tanner additional sightings and auditory issued to him to shoot one.” also found that sweetgum was evidence came from along the Apparently, commissioners were the most common tree species White River from Wattensaw certain that he would return that the birds fed on during his WMA (directly west of Bayou with a Pileated Woodpecker. Mr. 1935-1938 study (43% of foraging DeView) and at the southern end Spencer returned with an Ivory- observations, while making up of the White River NWR where billed Woodpecker. As previously about 21% of stand composition). bottomland hardwood forests is stated in the plan, the Ivory-bills Nuttall oak was the second most more prevalent and more typical of the Singer Tract in northern often selected tree by Ivory-bills of what Tanner described as Louisiana were the last known at 27% of observations compared optimal habitat for this species United States population to be with about 11% availability in the (see Appendix H). studied (Allen and Kellogg 1937 forest. and Tanner 1942). Historical information has While forest inventories in been gathered from the USDA James Tanner’s 1942 report is the area during the 1920s and Forest Service, Continuous based on his observations in the 1930s indicate that the extent of Forest Inventory (CFI) data and Singer Tract of northeastern virgin forest specifically on the interviews with local residents Louisiana (now Tensas River Singer Tract appears to have and managers. The first major NWR), on his visits to remaining been overestimated by Tanner, human disturbance event in habitat throughout the US range it is clear that this forest was Bayou DeView occurred around of the species in the 1930s, and within an area containing some 1920 to 1940 when the area on a review of all literature up to of the largest acreage of older- was first logged. Logging was the time of his writing. It is the growth forest remaining in the likely extensive and removed best available source of historical Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Lentz a large amount of old growth information. Tanner reported 1928, Winters et al. 1938, Pough baldcypress. However, some that the sweetgum/oak association 1944). Winters et al. (1938) baldcypress were left, either was the primary forest type reported in northeast Louisiana because of size, infeasibility of used by Ivory-bills within the that at the time of Tanner’s logging, or poor grade. The Mississippi Alluvial Valley. study 577,600 acres out of 2.68 cutover swamp responded with Tanner refers to these forests as million acres of forest cover were regeneration and release of tupelo associated with the higher parts classified as “uncut old growth,” stands beneath the residual trees. of the “first bottoms,” relatively but most of this virgin forest removed from frequent and was habitat typically not being Additionally, during this time long-term flooding. According used by Ivory-billed Woodpecker, period, forests surrounding to Tanner, cypress-tupelo forest including cypress-tupelo and the Bayou were cleared for was rarely used in the Mississippi overcup oak-water hickory. agriculture. Forests were Alluvial Valley. In Georgia and Almost all bottomland forest in likely similar in composition Florida Ivory-billed Woodpeckers the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, to that of stands now extant. were more frequently associated if not the entire historicl range These forests located above the with cypress swamps, though it is of the Ivory-billed woodpecker, normal floodplain were mostly unclear whether birds foraged in had been cut over, cleared hardwood containing mature such habitats. for agriculture, or otherwise sweetgum, willow oak (Quercus damaged from fire by the 1930s. phellos), water oak (Quercus

13 nigra), Nuttall oak, sugarberry center of distribution in Alabama Illinois (Celtis laevigata), American was severely restricted. Six The northern extent of the elm (Ulmus americana), post records of the species are from historical range of the Ivory- oak (Quercus stellata), white the once vast forested areas billed Woodpecker was thought oak (Quercus alba), and other drained by the Tombigbee and to include the southern tip of common hardwood species, with Alabama Rivers in west Alabama. Illinois, particularly along the scattered pockets harboring Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. native loblolly pine (Pinus Florida Audubon noted seeing Ivory- taeda). As the demand for Most historical Ivory-billed billed Woodpeckers along the agricultural land increased more Woodpecker habitat in Florida can Mississippi River from near of the surrounding forests were be characterized as river swamp, the confluence of the Ohio and cleared. From approximately although stillwater swamps, Mississippi Rivers to as far north 1960 to 1970 the swamps of particularly cypress swamps and as the Missouri River, and Robert Bayou DeView were extensively cypress strands, were a significant Ridgway believed that he saw logged again; this time removing component. A habitat unique to one not far from the confluence more tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) Florida was the extensive Big of the Wabash and Ohio Rivers than baldcypress (Taxodium Cypress region of flat, poorly in the mid-1800s (Jackson 2004). distichum). Logging continued drained limestone topography There is little to no information until much of the Bayou was in the southwestern part of the available on habitat use or historic acquired by the U.S. Army peninsula (Duever et al. 1986). numbers of birds in these areas, Corps of Engineers as mitigation Tanner (1942) stated that “all but these birds likely occurred in for the Lower Cache River Ivory-bill records have been the once-vast bottomland forests channelization project. The located in or very near swamps associated with the floodplains of Bayou was posted as federal or Florida hammocks.” However, these major river systems. What property at that time, but there most of Tanner’s intensive field little old-growth bottomland was no enforcement to guard studies were done in bottomland forest remains in Illinois is against encroachment, poaching, forests and this may have moderately to highly fragmented or timber theft, until the influenced his perception of ideal and found primarily in the Cache mitigation land was transferred to Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. River watershed in southernmost the Cache River NWR in 2000. The salient feature of Ivory-billed Illinois. There are presently Woodpecker habitat appeared to several thousand acres of old- The remaining habitat, primarily be old-growth forest, including, growth and mature bottomland/ cypress-tupelo bottoms, had and perhaps favoring (Jackson swamp forest along the Cache been previously dismissed by 1996), the ecotone between River in Illinois, and an ongoing many authors describing Ivory- bottomlands and uplands. effort by conservationists has billed Woodpecker habitat resulted in the conversion of over requirements. Arkansas was Georgia The original range of the Ivory- 15,000 acres of agricultural land considered one of the least likely to early-successional bottomland states with potential to support billed Woodpecker in Georgia probably was the extent of the forest within the watershed this species during the last status during the past 20 years. survey in 1985 (U.S. Fish and coastal plain up to the fall line, Wildlife Service 1985). although it is likely that birds Kentucky occasionally traveled up some The earliest record for the 4. History of Habitat Rangewide of the major river systems (i.e., species, provided by Col. William (for individual records and Savannah, Oconee, Ocmulgee, Fleming in his journal (A. W. sightings see Appendix E) Chattahoochee, and Flint) into Schorger 1949 from Jackson Alabama the Piedmont. As with other 2004), placed the species in Data on the original range of parts of its range, the bird Lincoln County on the foothills the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in probably was primarily associated of the Knobs Physiographic Alabama is meager. Published with the floodplains of major Region, a distinctive geologic records and the historical range river systems, including the region with higher elevations of the species in surrounding Okefenokee Swamp in extreme reaching 1,000 feet (above mean states would suggest that the southeast Georgia (Tanner 1942, sea level) in forest habitat. suitable habitat was located in Burleigh 1958, Jackson 2002). In The forest in this region is the eastern gulf coastal plain of addition, areas of mature pine drastically different from most Alabama south of the fall line (the surrounding large expanses of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat area where continental bedrock bottomland hardwoods were documented to date. Wharton meets coastal plain). It was likely apparently used for foraging. As (1945) described the region’s found in forests along major large forested areas, including different upland forest types riverine systems in the west and many bottomland forests, were as pine (Pinus spp.), oak-pine, south and in extensive longleaf cleared for agriculture, replanted chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), pine (Pinus palustris) forests for pine silviculture, or otherwise scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), in the southeast. Available data developed, the species range white oak, and mixed mesophytic indicates that by 1850 its main continued to shrink. (not particularly dry or wet)

14 forest. Pre-colonial Ivory-billed Mississippi around 1800. Wilmington is Woodpecker populations could Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in near the primary river system have extended up the Ohio Mississippi were probably in the southeastern corner of River and its tributaries. Due originally distributed essentially North Carolina, which includes to the lack of documentation of statewide in floodplain forests the Waccamaw and the Lumber the Ivory-billed Woodpecker along major river systems. Rivers. in Kentucky, it is impossible to These systems included the determine range changes over Pearl, Wolf, Pascagoula, and South Carolina time. By the early 1800s, the Tombigbee rivers; the lower Sprunt and Chamberlain Ivory-billed Woodpecker had tributaries and main stem of the (1949) suggest that Ivory-billed all but disappeared from the Big Black River; and the Yazoo Woodpecker was formerly majority of Kentucky’s landscape, and Mississippi River deltas common over much of the with some residual numbers (Turcotte and Watts 1999). Most eastern part of the state but its remaining until the early 1870s in records for the species are from virtual extinction was due to the Fulton County. the Pascagoula, Tombigbee, Yazoo encroachment of civilization. The and Mississippi River floodplain original range of Ivory-billed Louisiana forests (Hasbrouck 1891, Tanner Woodpecker in South Carolina Jackson (2002), Oberholser (1938) 1942). Specimens have been was the extent of the coastal plain and Tanner (1942) discussed collected from Bolivar and bordered to the north by the fall known Ivory-billed Woodpecker Harrison Counties (Hahn 1963). line and extending to the Atlantic distribution in Louisiana prior Other counties with apparently coast. This area was comprised to the 1940s which can generally acceptable records include Clay, of bottomland hardwood riverine be described as occurring in the Coahoma, Hancock, Jackson, systems surrounded by longleaf bottomland forests along the Monroe, Warren and Yazoo pine uplands intermixed with Mississippi corridor from the (Jackson 2004). Habitat used by farms and plantations. Rice, Arkansas state line south to the the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in indigo, and cotton were the coast. Specimens and sightings Mississippi is believed to be the primary agricultural crops. The (as reported by Tanner 1942) same as the habitat described state of South Carolina was date back to the late 1800s and in the life history account of the extensively logged after three in northern Louisiana came from species in this recovery plan. significant historical events, the the general area between the Civil War, the Chicago fire, and Mississippi River and Ouachita Reports of the species in World War II. Tanner reported River, south to the area where Mississippi were most numerous Ivory-billed Woodpecker suitable they are joined by the Red River. before 1940 and included 16 of range was decreasing due to Specimens and sightings were the 27 known records from the logging operations in the Santee reported from the bottomland state (Appendix E). Subsequent River swamp around 1939. forests along the Mississippi reports have been made in areas River and Atchafalaya River near or within the same river The Savannah River swamp south to the forested coastal area systems as the earlier ones, system has been impacted to of Iberia Parish. McIlhenny suggesting that the range of the varying degrees by timber (1941) recorded his earliest species did not change over the harvest since colonial times, with childhood memories of Ivory- recorded history of its known and cypress timber being important billed Woodpeckers being suspected occurrence in the state, in the region as early the 1730s resident in the forested areas of but that the abundance within (White 2004). As elsewhere, Avery Island and in the “great that range declined throughout, capacity to cut increased forest” extending east to the presumably as the extant stands dramatically in the 1840s and 50s Atchafalaya River. of timber were harvested and with the construction of larger, local populations were extirpated. steam-powered sawmills. In Tanner (1942) noted that The most recent specimen the mid 1850s, 2000 ac per year logging in the southern part of records are from 1893. of old growth longleaf pine and Louisiana began around 1905, bottomland hardwood were gradually moving north. The last Several Ivory-billed Woodpecker probably harvested. Until around universally accepted observation encounters have been recorded 1900, timber harvest was mostly of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Mississippi, including 13 restricted to areas within one mile in the southern part of the state unverified reports since 1944 of navigable waterways. Logging was by E.A. McIlhenny in 1923 (Appendix E). Areas with railways entered the central (McIlhenny 1941). Logging reported encounters since 1944 Savannah River area in the early began to spread southward include the Pearl, Pascagoula, 1900s and began harvesting the into Louisiana from Arkansas Leaf, Big Black, Noxubee, Yazoo remaining uncut swamp forest, about 1910 and met the logging and Mississippi rivers. but major activities there may not movement from the south in have begun until the late 1920s. northern Louisiana where it North Carolina Indications are that 6400 ac of the peaked about 1925 and then One definitive record (Jackson 9400-acre Savannah River swamp declined (Tanner 1942). 2002), from Alexander Wilson, on the DOE’s Savannah River was from the Wilmington area 15 Site (SRS) in Aiken and Barnwell traveling the Mississippi River contiguous; the forest block in Counties had been disturbed during the winter of 1820–1821 which the Ivory-billed Woodpecker prior to 1950, and some of this (Corning 1929). Although sightings have occurred stretches harvest most likely included some Audubon reported this species from two miles south of Dagmar second growth. Since that time, from a stretch of river bordering State WMA to six miles above a few large tracts of bottomland Tennessee, he did not specifically Cotton Plant, Arkansas, an forest (6000-10000 ac) have mention the presence of Ivory- approximate aerial distance of been protected (e.g., SRS, Webb billed Woodpeckers on the 20 miles. The corridor is fairly Wildlife Center, Savannah NWR, Tennessee side of the Mississippi narrow, averaging less than 1 mile and some private tracts) but some River. wide, with the exception of the harvest has continued. area at Dagmar WMA. Habitat was very likely limited The Congaree-Wateree-Upper to the relatively few acres of The Bayou now contains a dense Santee River Focus Area (220,000 bottomland hardwood forest in stand of mostly second growth acres) represents the largest, Tennessee occurring within the tupelo that range in age from intact expanse of bottomland floodplain of the Mississippi River 35 to 135, mixed with large relic riverine system remaining and its tributaries. By the end baldcypress and tupelo that are within the state. Portions of this of the 1940s, intensive logging several centuries old, with some area received extensive logging practices further reduced possible cypress over 1000 years old. The around 1900, while others did not Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat interconnected channels of Bayou because of poor accessibility and in the state. DeView create a broad floodplain intermittent flooding. Timber or swamp that presents an prices soared in 1969, and some Texas increased mortality and decline private landowners resumed According to Oberholser (1974) (senescence) of live trees within logging operations; however, some the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was its distinct border. The perimeter areas were not cut, and large, never common in Texas. Records of the Bayou is lined with mature cypress and tupelo trees exist from only 16 counties in hardwood forests that are subject characterize the current habitat. the state restricted to areas east to limited annual flooding but Hurricane Hugo swept across the of the Brazos River. Tanner’s contain a diversity of hardwood state in September 1989, leaving publication indicates breeding species. These perimeter forests a large number of dead and dying records along the Brazos and are all second or third growth, trees still present today in this Neches rivers in the 1880s. with prevalent species including area. The lower Santee River Most accounts provide little or sweetgum, green ash, overcup is separated from the upper no information about the bird’s oak (Quercus lyrata), Nuttall oak, portions by Lake Marion and habitat, but strongly suggest water oak, willow oak, red maple Moultrie (156,000 acres) created the species resided in mature (Acer rubrum), American elm in 1940 by the Santee Cooper bottomland forests (Oberholser and locust (Gleditsia spp.). The Hydroelectric and Navigation 1974, Shackelford 1998). perimeter hardwood forests also Project, and a number of Tanner’s Changes in the Ivory-billed exhibit elevated levels of decline recorded sightings were located Woodpecker’s range are directly and senescence. In proximity to in the area that is now flooded. associated with changes in the the Bayou DeView forest block but outside of the Bayou corridor Bottomland hardwood habitat is distribution of mature forests. Forests throughout eastern are larger forest blocks of diverse still present along the Congaree- hardwood forests mostly under Wateree-Upper Santee Rivers, Texas were greatly reduced and fragmented before World War the management of the Cache Savannah River, and Waccamaw River NWR or Dagmar WMA. Complex. The Savannah II. Agriculture, logging, and reservoir construction were the The forest types represented River and Waccamaw Complex in these outlying blocks are are predominately in private main causes. However, some large forested tracts remained primarily sweetgum/willow oak, ownership, and much of the willow oak/water oak/diamond remaining mature bottomlands along the river bottoms of eastern Texas until the 1960s when the leaf oak, sugarberry/ash-elm, and are contained within easements, overcup oak/bitter pecan (Carya public lands, and some large Sam Rayburn and Toledo Bend Reservoirs were constructed. aquatica). However, caution plantations along the Savannah must be taken in consideration River. Unconfirmed accounts of locations persisted from 1956 into the of conditions where the bird Tennessee 1970s, mostly along the Neches was briefly observed. Nearly While Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and Trinity Rivers and Village all sightings have been of flying almost certainly occurred in Creek in the region known as the birds; there were no observations bottomland hardwood forests “big thicket.” of foraging, roosting, or nesting of Tennessee historically, no in the Bayou DeView area. There definitive records from the state 5. Current Conditions in the area is no certainty that these habitat are known. Audubon reported of Cache River NWR in Arkansas conditions are preferred or Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, for Currently the Bayou DeView optimal. example, from a flatboat while forest corridor is long and 16 In order to document forest small patches in the Mississippi the area of private hardwood habitat conditions in proximity Alluvial Valley, most if not all on timberland is predominantly to the 2004-5 Ivory-billed public lands). In recent years, in the large diameter size class Woodpecker sightings, an conditions in many forests, (60.2% of private hardwood extensive habitat survey was particularly on public lands, have timberland area) with much undertaken on the Cache River been gradually moving closer less area in medium (23.4%) NWR, White River NWR, and toward what is thought to be and small diameter (16.4%) state WMAs surrounding the suitable Ivory-billed Woodpecker size classes. Public timberland reported Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat requirements as trees area is predominantly in large- sightings/recordings. The survey age and the forests are being diameter-class forests for pine inventoried live trees, recording managed to encourage retention and hardwood types (60.7% species, diameter and stress of older forest characteristics. and 81.6% of publicly owned condition, dead tree volume and (LMVJV Forest Resource pine and hardwood timberland, condition, and other habitat Conservation Working Group respectively). parameters attributed to forest 2007) stands (Appendix H). Field work Although the majority of was completed on 152,260 acres Thirty sites in 8 states were mortality is occurring in the of White River NWR, 27,515 identified as areas of possible large diameter classes, the total acres of Cache River NWR, 7,532 post-1944 encounters with volume of mortality is relatively acres of Dagmar WMA, 2,091 Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. low (<1% of total live volume). acres of Henry Gray/Hurricane To characterize the area and However, mortality of hardwoods Lake WMA, 2,698 acres of Rex structure of forests on private on public lands was 50% of net Hancock/Black Swamp WMA, lands and all ownerships that growth in that size class. Public 5,244 acres of Bayou Meto could potentially provide Ivory- land management appears to WMA, 843acres of Wattensaw billed Woodpecker habitat, USDA be more heavily focused than WMA, and 2,862 acres of Trusten Forest Service Forest Inventory private lands on large-diameter- Holder WMA. Foresters and and Analysis (FIA) data for class removals, especially in biologists have inventoried a total relevant counties is provided in hardwoods, yet total removals of approximately 200,000 acres. Appendix I Tables 1-4. are still minimal overall. More Data gathered in the field was detailed forest characteristics In counties for which FIA by state for private and public sent to the Lower Mississippi data were available, there are Valley Joint Venture Office for ownerships are described in more than 20.1 million acres Appendix I, Tables 7 through 13. entry and analysis. Summary of forestland (land capable statistics were generated for of growing trees, 10% area In summary, approximately parameters of interest by forest stocked) and 19.8 million acres of 89% of forest cover is privately stand and cross-walked with a timberland (forestland capable owned and 11% publicly owned. Geographic Information System of producing in excess of 20 Of this, approximately 44% of to produce spatially-explicit cubic feet per acre per year all timberland is in hardwood maps depicting stand conditions. of industrial wood in natural types. Large-diameter-size These forest stand maps were stands) in the forest types and class forests dominate the used in overlay models to develop physiographic classes of interest hardwood timberland, 63% of preliminary decision support (Appendix I). Approximately total lands, private and public. models to facilitate search efforts 88.6% of all forestland is privately All ownerships tend to focus in the Big Woods area. owned. Similarly, 89.9% of all more toward development of 6. Current Regional Forest timberland is privately owned, large-diameter-class stems in the Conditions Within the Historical including 93.7% of pine types and hardwood timberland while public Range 84.3% of hardwood types. Public ownership focuses more toward Forests in the Southeast today and private timberlands differ in larger-diameter-class stems in are mostly young (<100 year old) species composition. Of the 17.8 pine timberland than private and mid-seral (sequence of plant million acres of privately owned ownership. Overall, the majority communities leading to the climax timberland in the counties, 37.6% of timberland volumes (pine and vegetation). If the Ivory-billed is in hardwood forest types and hardwood) are represented in the Woodpecker has indeed persisted 62.4% is in pine types. Of the 2.0 large-diameter size classes for at some minimal population million acres in public timberland, all ownerships. Net growth in level for the last 60 years, it did 62.6% is in hardwood types and hardwoods and pines on private so under conditions very unlike 37.4% is in pine types. timberland was primarily in the large-diameter class, and for those described in the historical The area of privately owned pine literature. There are only a few both hardwood and pine types on timberland is approximately public lands. patches of bottomland forest equivalent in small, medium, and considered to be characterized large diameter size classes (35.4, by older-growth conditions 32.1, and 32.4% of private pine (e.g., Congaree National Park timberland area, respectively, in South Carolina and scattered Appendix I, Table 17). However, 17 G. Management Considerations physiographic region plan for species of wildlife dependent Current forest management the bird conservation group on that system. Any Ivory- practices affecting Ivory-billed Partners in Flight (Brown et billed Woodpecker populations Woodpecker habitat in the al. 1999). Although it focuses throughout the southeast may Mississippi Alluvial Valley have solely on birds, it contains many benefit from increasing the been examined in the context features of ecosystem approaches connectivity and continuity of maintaining sustainable to management (e.g., multiple of existing forest patches. landscapes capable of supporting scales, focus on ecosystem Accomplishing this will require desired forest conditions integrity, change in administrative detailed, site-specific planning for a variety of important structure, focus on research to identify the most beneficial species. Recommendations and monitoring; see Grumbine and practical opportunities have been published by the 1994). The effort involved (1) for connecting and enlarging Lower Mississippi Valley inventorying large patches of existing forest patches. Efforts Joint Venture (LMVJV Forest the priority habitat (bottomland to enhance the connectivity Resource Conservation Working hardwood forest) that was to of forests among the Florida Group 2007). The publication be promoted, (2) developing a panhandle river systems may Restoration, Management and plan to enlarge, connect, and serve as a possible example. Monitoring of Forest Resources enhance those patches so as to in the Mississippi Alluvial provide source populations of 2. Bottomland Hardwood Forest Valley: Recommendations for priority land bird species, and (3) Management Enhancing Wildlife Habitat has implementing the plan, primarily Over the last decade, common guidelines which will benefit the through afforestation (planting ground has been reached on many full suite of bottomland species, trees) of priority locations using issues regarding the management including the Ivory-billed various landowner incentive of bottomland hardwood forests Woodpecker. Application of these programs. Determining priority for wildlife. Providing for both recommendations forms the areas for afforestation has been a diverse forest structure and backbone of our approach to the an evolving process that has used composition (including hard conservation of potential Ivory- increasingly sophisticated sources mast, soft mast, and light-seeded billed Woodpecker habitat. of data and algorithms (e.g., species) is now widely accepted Twedt and Uihlein 2005, Twedt et as critical for covering the needs The Singer Tract studied by al. 2006). of all priority wildlife, along the Tanner apparently did not lines of ecosystem management. provide enough habitat to sustain Currently, the land bird Many recent forest management even a small population due conservation plan calls for plans have emphasized the need to a variety of factors which creating large patches of mature for greater structural complexity, Tanner discusses. An actual bottomland forest, with target “balanced” composition of shade- minimum area needed to support sizes of at least 10,000, 20,000 tolerant and shade-intolerant a sustainable population may be and 100,000 acres for different species, along with hard-mast and substantially higher or it may be groups of area-sensitive land soft-seeded species, and greater lower, depending on the actual birds. Because it is ecosystem- amounts of standing dead and quantity of preferred food items based, and emphasizes area- dying wood in stands. Tanner available. That threshold of sensitive species, this approach provides forest management size is unknown. The quality of also works for large-scale recommendations for the Ivory- habitat for any given species may management potentially needed billed Woodpecker that in most affect the quantity of forested for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. ways sound very similar to acres needed. Even, as proposed Guidelines on the sorts of land current direction. If additional in Snyder (2007), if habitat loss management within those forest information is produced by were not a major factor in the patches, compatible with the locating or studying birds, or decline of this species, suitable objectives of the Joint Venture better interpretation of historical habitat would be needed for landbird conservation plan data is produced in the future, its recovery. Maintaining and appear in next section and can different approaches can be enhancing the appropriate quality, be found in the publication considered. quantity, and distribution of Restoration, Management, and habitat is a commonly accepted Monitoring of Forest Resources 3. Favored Tree Species conservation principle. in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Sweetgum and Nuttall oak were Recommendations for Enhancing the two species clearly favored 1. Current Landscape Wildlife Habitat (LMVJV Forest by Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Management in the Lower Resource Conservation Group Tanner’s study. Enhancing the Mississippi Alluvial Valley 2007). Although the Ivory-billed amount of sweet gum and Nuttall (LMAV) Woodpecker is the focus of the oak in future forests can be a goal Starting in the early 1990s, a recovery plan, the recommended in appropriate forest management large-scale bird conservation approach is ecosystem-based, prescriptions. Both of these tree effort was developed for the and if followed, should begin to species need openings of several LMAV that became the prototype develop adequate habitat for all acres to regenerate successfully

18 and produce large-diameter 4. Impact of Changing 5. The Role of Disturbance trees. Unless Ivory-billed Hydrologic Regimes on Tree Tanner concluded that Ivory- Woodpeckers are considered, the Species billed Woodpeckers respond general belief is that sweetgum Changing hydrological regimes positively to disturbances as is less desirable than hard mast are causing deteriorating long as many standing recently red oak for promotion of wildlife conditions for many forest dead, stressed, and dying trees values. This is understandable communities in the Mississippi remained after the disturbance. because small diameter sweetgum Alluvial Valley (MAV). Conditions Woodpecker activity was usually is prolific in today’s younger in Arkansas’ portion of the greatest two to three years forests. Stimulating the growth MAV are becoming wetter after the disturbance. This of large sweetgum trees such as for longer periods during the response indicates that these those that formerly occurred at growing season to the point disturbances such as fire, wind the Singer Tract (Tensas River that loss of drainage is leading storms, flooding, and some types NWR) may require cutting trees toward a shift in tree species to of timber removal can produce surrounding desired sweetgums those more tolerant of wetter the kinds and amounts of boring in current forests to foster the conditions. Without correction insect larvae favored by Ivory- growth of large, emergent trees of this hydrologic regime, most billed Woodpecker. on appropriate sites. This will be existing sweetgum and Nuttall a challenge, even on public land, oak will not survive into the older Tanner described in detail the where most forests were high- age class apparently preferred occupation by Ivory-billed graded before or shortly after by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Woodpecker of specific areas in (if the previous owner retained and subsequent stands will likely the Singer Tract associated with timber rights) they came into be dominated by species such as major recent disturbances. He public ownership. Today, however, overcup oak and water hickory, discussed the role of a major fire there is growing recognition that neither of which is considered that passed through the Singer sweetgum can play an important by Tanner as important foraging Tract in 1924 and how that may role in establishing healthy red trees for Ivory-bills. In even have influenced the abundance oak stands that will form mature wetter conditions, tupelo gum of dead and dying trees in the forests of the future. would tend to spread. The home ranges of several of the importance of this tree for Ivory- most reliably productive pairs More important than merely billed Woodpeckers remains he closely studied. In addition, favoring sweetgum and Nuttall unclear despite the presence he recounts the observations of oak is management aimed at of tupelo gum along the Bayou J.J. Kuhn (the State Wildlife producing older forest conditions DeView portion of the Cache official, who helped locate birds with adequate dead and dying River NWR (tupelo gum was and assisted James Tanner trees over large enough acreages absent from the Singer Tract and with his study) that Ivory- to allow a more sustainable, still is absent from the Tensas billed Woodpecker ranges soon functioning forest ecosystem. River NWR). expanded to include the area Gaps created for management through which a 1931 cyclone purposes or from dying trees will In contrast to conditions in had passed. This area contained allow development of a diverse much of eastern Arkansas, much substantial dead and dying wood forest structure and provide of Louisiana’s portion of the which remained after salvage regeneration conditions necessary LMV is becoming drier. This logging. A pair also expanded for a resilient ecosystem. change is also leading to some their range to the edge of a Currently, this should be the dramatic changes in forest 1930-31 timber harvest area with appropriate habitat management condition, with substantial die- substantial numbers of dead objective for Ivory-billed offs underway in some areas and dying trees. According to Woodpecker. It is possible that that are forcing a shift from Kuhn, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers the apparent preference for Nuttall oak eventually to willow had been absent prior to these these trees in Tanner’s study oak stands. Willow oak also was disturbances, but adults were area could have been due to their not considered an important observed frequently foraging greater susceptibility to long, foraging tree for the Ivory-billed within them during 1933 and gradual decline after an extended Woodpecker on the Singer Tract. 1934. drought and subsequent fire that Nevertheless, such die-offs occurred about ten years prior might be considered beneficial Ice storms, tornadoes, to Tanner’s study. To complicate for Ivory-billed Woodpecker, hurricanes, floods, fires, and the picture further, a photograph providing a short-term pulse of other natural disturbances are included in Allen and Kellogg foraging opportunity. However, important factors that can lead to (1937) documents an Ivory-billed the apparent shifts in tree favorable conditions, especially Woodpecker on a pine tree in species composition calls into in older-growth forests. Where Florida, and the species’ reliance question whether older-growth these natural forces occur, they on pine is well known in Cuba. conditions can be achieved can create the favorable habitat without correcting hydrological needed for the Ivory-billed conditions. Woodpecker as well as providing

19 for regeneration of shade The fact that the appropriate size are two studies investigating intolerant species. However, of a disturbance patch is unknown the occurrence and abundance the amount of bottomland further complicates the issue. of wood-boring insects after hardwood forest in the Southeast different girdling and harvesting U.S. has been greatly reduced Managers may be able to use techniques and comparing these from its former expanse. In the prescribed fire in bottomland to wood-boring insect occurrence Mississippi Alluvial Valley the forests to beneficial effect. and abundance in unharvested reduction is staggering, shrinking Tanner’s data strongly suggest stands. These studies can be used from about 24 million acres that fire was a major influence to inform future management before European colonization on which stands were most decisions, as needed (see to less than 5 million. Today’s productive, in terms of young Appendix D for abstracts). forest is also predominately produced, within bottomland fragmented across the landscape. hardwood habitat. However, Beavers (Castor canadensis) are It is debatable whether natural today the practice of many land presently an important source of forces alone can provide a managers is to suppress fires disturbance in the MAV. Beavers sufficient amount or appropriate rapidly in bottomland habitats. historically created large patches distribution of disturbance. Potentially, this practice should of dead and dying trees due to be replaced by allowing natural prolonged flooding during the Small storm events, although or managed fires to continue growing season (Kellison et often locally devastating, have through these areas to stress or al. 1998). Today, aggressive done little regionally to improve kill trees purposefully. beaver control programs have structure in today’s mostly been implemented on public and mid-seral forests. Given the Another area of uncertainty is private lands in this area. Due dominance of mid-seral forest to what extent certain forestry to altered hydrology, beavers conditions, storms often are practices might enhance habitat often lead to an unpredictable either too weak to break open conditions for this species. J.J and disproportionate amount densely stocked stands to Kuhn reported to Tanner (1942, p. of mature forest loss, given the make much difference in forest 46) that about three years after smaller amount (5 million acres structure or they are too strong, cutting occurred within a private compared to 24 million acres causing stand replacement holding in the Singer Tract, of estimated pre-European events. Hurricanes or large Ivory-billed Woodpeckers foraged bottomland hardwood) and storms causing catastrophic in dead and stressed timber more fragmented condition of damage provide abundant along the edge of the cutover remaining bottom land hardwood recently dead and dying wood, area. In addition, Tanner wrote forest patches. Potentially, but only temporarily and likely to Richard Pough (Jackson 2004, beavers could be managed to at the expense of losing many pp. 147-148) explaining that he provide the sort of disturbance suitable nesting and roosting had observed a similar response suggested above. trees. Observations along the from Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Pearl River, post-2005 Hurricane taking advantage of the flush of 6. Dead Trees Katrina, and along the Trinity, wood-borers in freshly killed slash Providing habitats with mostly Neches, and Sabine Rivers, along the edges of the cutover older and larger trees in addition post-2005 Hurricane Rita, may area. It must be emphasized, to larger patches of recently dead provide additional information to however, that these examples and dying trees on a regular determine the validity of these likely were exceptions. The basis presents a management assumptions with respect to Ivory-billed Woodpeckers used challenge, in part because the forest dynamics and responses cut-over areas for brief periods appropriate quantity of recently to severe storms. Storms are of time, and only where directly dead and dying wood to provide is important, but we have no control adjacent to extensive older forests unknown. Tanner (p. 47) reports over their location or intensity. in the Singer Tract. In general, that the areas Ivory-billed Ivory-billed Woodpeckers avoided Woodpecker used for foraging Although managers have no direct foraging in extensively cut-over on the Singer Tract contained influence over storms, forests can areas and did not use the slash thirteen trees per acre with dead be managed in ways that allow and waste on the forest floor in wood (this included live trees for storm damage more closely such areas. Regardless of the with large dead limbs as well to mimic likely pre-European potential for short-term use of cut as entirely dead small trees). settlement effect patterns. The stands, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers Balancing older forest conditions challenge lies in producing the disappeared entirely from areas with frequent development of effects of large-scale disturbances that had been subjected to appropriately sized disturbance where needed within these extensive timber harvesting. patches will be particularly smaller isolated forests while challenging in today’s fragmented also promoting older-growth Today, forest managers consider forest (i.e., <15,000 acres). conditions, which require an many objectives and use a wide Ideally, individuals or pairs of emphasis on large trees, large variety of silvicultural methods. birds will have the possibility to senescent limbs, and dying wood. Some of these are similar to find sites with temporary optimal his recommendations. There 20 conditions within the landscape. using selection cuts. The harvests the landscape level, and guidance If management of larger tracts would be focused on healthy, is provided for how to achieve of forested land to benefit Ivory- growing trees and retain dead, these objectives with individual billed Woodpeckers is needed, it dying, damaged, and otherwise stands. This methodology allows may require public and private stressed trees. This would the manager to apply appropriate cooperation. maintain and potentially improve silvicultural practices at the stand the food sources for the Ivory- level to meet habitat needs in In many areas, there are billed Woodpecker. each situation. The publication increasing numbers of dead and Restoration, Management and dying trees due to changing The practice of retaining dead Monitoring of Forest Resources hydrological conditions as well and dying wood is not viewed as in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: as storm damage. The general negatively as it was in the past, Recommendations for Enhancing approach in the past was to Some public land managers are Wildlife Habitat provides these salvage log the stand in order experimenting with ways to recommended objectives and to stimulate regeneration of provide more dead and dying guidelines. Application of the more flood-tolerant or drought- wood following some of Tanner’s recommendations found in the tolerant species, without much suggestions. The amount of document forms the backbone of consideration for the importance recently dead and dying wood our approach to the conservation of dead and dying trees for many that should be provided for the of potential Ivory-billed species of wildlife. This practice Ivory-billed Woodpecker is still Woodpecker habitat. These may need to be reconsidered if unclear and may vary among guidelines should be considered Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are forest types. The publication for bottomland systems across present. Restoration, Management and the southeast. There are no Monitoring of Forest Resources The total number of dead and specific guidelines suggested for in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: other forest types potentially dying trees in bottomland forests Recommendations for Enhancing today is perhaps less relevant used by Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Wildlife Habitat provides but focusing on other priority than the size and ages of those recommended prescriptions trees. Potentially, an adequate species that depend on mature (LMVJV Forest Resource forests may lead to proper habitat flow of dead and dying wood from Conservation Working Group large stems (including entire conditions (e.g., open pine forests 2007). Additional adaptive that are regularly burned). trees as well as large branches on change may be required as more still living trees) from one 3-year is learned about the habitat H. Reasons for Listing/Current period to the next will sufficiently preferences of the Ivory-billed Threats support desirable wood-boring Woodpecker. The final listing notice (32 FR beetle larvae. Preliminary data 4001 and 35 FR 8495) did not (Hamel et al. and Pearson et 7. Current Forest Management contain an assessment of the al; unpublished presentations) In 2003, the Lower Mississippi primary threats to the Ivory- indicate an abundance of large Joint Venture Forest Resource billed Woodpecker. A description larvae are produced from Conservation Working Group of these threats is presented experimentally wounded trees. specifically started to address below; each is classified according issues related to the management If Cerambycid and other wood- to the five listing/ delisting factors of the forest resources within identified in section 4 of the boring insect larvae are a the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. preferred food, the peak foraging Endangered Species Act (“Act”; Management issues of concern 16 USC 1531 et seq.) window is more narrow than included management of that of other woodpeckers. existing bottomland hardwood 1. Habitat Loss and Degradation Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are forest resources, reforestation (Factor A) described as seeking beetle larvae of agricultural lands, and The historical decrease in Ivory- associated with “freshly” dead inventory and monitoring of billed Woodpecker numbers sapwood (Tanner). The beetle all these resources. Instead throughout the range appears larvae found in dead and dying of placing restrictions on to be mainly due to large-scale wood become most available when individual silvicultural practices, reduction and conversion of the death of the wood is recent recommendations target defining forest habitats, though this is not (1-3 years). The Ivory-billed certain habitat characteristics universally accepted. Essential Woodpecker habitually used its that are necessary to meet features of historical Ivory-billed bill as a wedge to remove bark the annual requirements of Woodpecker habitat included: from the freshly dead sapwood. the multitude of wildlife extensive, continuous forest Therefore, the size and time since species dependent on these areas, very large trees, and death of the tree is important as forest resources. How forest agents of tree mortality resulting well as the amount of available managers achieve and maintain in a continuous supply of recently dead wood. Tanner recognized these habitat characteristics is dead trees or large dead branches the importance of providing dead determined by the individual in mature trees (Jackson and dying trees. He suggested situation. Objectives are set at 2002). According to Tanner, that areas could be managed 21 “In many cases [Ivory-billed 400 specimens, mostly between Woodpecker is protected under Woodpeckers’] disappearance 1880 and 1910. Noel Snyder the ESA, Migratory Bird Treaty almost coincided with logging (2007) concludes that the close Act, and state laws. operations. In others, there was correlation between timber no close correlation, but there are harvesting activities and the 5. Other Natural or no records of Ivory-billed [sic] decline of the Ivory-bill reflected Anthropogenic Factors Affecting inhabiting areas for any length an increased exposure to poaching the Ivory-bill’s Continued of time after those have been cut and collecting rather than food Existence (Factor E) over.” In addition, before large limitation in logged-over forests. Ivory-billed Woodpecker scale logging had commenced, He asserts that direct killing of populations appear to have Tanner also commented that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers was been in a state of continuous the reduced occurrence of the primary cause for the species’ fragmentation and decline since recently dead and dying wood original decline. Collecting, in the early 1800s (Jackson 2002, was probably responsible for combination with the concurrent Tanner 1942). Early accounts declines of woodpeckers in the habitat loss likely hastened the gave no accurate or definite Singer Tract. Habitat loss has decline of the species, and it is estimates of abundance. As probably affected Ivory-billed possible that local populations habitat loss progressed, coupled Woodpeckers since the original could have been extirpated by with collection, population cutting of virgin forest; with some collecting. For example, Ivory- numbers dwindled, and losses being gradual and others billed Woodpeckers are believed fragmentation isolated the occurring very rapidly. Jackson to have been reduced by excessive species into discrete communities, (1989) estimated that by the collecting rather than as a result of contributing to the decline. Small 1930s, only isolated remnants the conversion of forest habitats in population sizes and limited of the original southern forest a small area of the Suwanee River distributions put species at risk remained. Forest loss continued region of Florida. In addition, from naturally occurring events with another period of accelerated Tanner indicated that many Ivory- and environmental factors. While clearing and conversion to billed Woodpeckers were killed a substantial amount of habitat is agriculture of bottomland merely to satisfy curiosity. The protected in Arkansas and other hardwood forests of the Lower direct utilization of Ivory-billed states where recent sightings Mississippi Valley (LMV) during Woodpeckers for commercial, have been reported, threats exist the 1960s and 1970s. The recreational, scientific or from continued fragmentation combined effect of those losses educational purposes is currently and normal environmental has resulted in reduction and not a significant threat due to changes. For example, sporadic fragmentation of the remaining the current laws protecting the natural events such as tornadoes forested lands. The conversion species (see Factor D), and there is or ice storms could destroy rate of forest to agricultural lands no recent evidence of take. the only remaining nest or in some parts of the southeastern roost trees, or severe weather United States has reversed in the 3. Disease or Predation conditions could result in nesting past few years. Currently, many (Factor C) or fledging failures. There is no public and private agencies are Little is known regarding the information on the number and working to protect and restore past or current roles of disease genetic health of any remaining forest habitat. Nevertheless, and predation in the decline of birds. Small populations are until more is learned about the the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. normally at risk from genetic and Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s habitat No mortality due to disease or demographic stochastic events requirements, the extensive predation has been recorded. (such as normal variations in habitat loss and fragmentation However, there may be future survival and mortality, genetic and the lack of information on potential for avian flu, West Nile drift, inbreeding, etc.). Also, specific habitat requirements Virus or other diseases to impact difficulty in confirming and remain a threat to this species. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. It is delineating populations and unlikely disease or predation was the limited basic biological and 2. Over-Utilization for a primary factor in the original ecological information on the Commercial, Recreational, decline of the species or in the species is an important factor that Scientific, or Educational current status of the species. currently threatens our ability to Purposes (Factor B) recover the species. Historical records indicate 4. The Inadequacy of Existing that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers Regulatory Mechanisms I. Conservation Efforts were killed and used for various (Factor D) 1. Conservation Efforts in the purposes by native and colonial The lack of adequate regulatory Recent Past Americans. Collection of Ivory- mechanisms may have Wherever the Ivory-billed bills for scientific purposes has contributed to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was reported, been documented since the 1800s. Woodpecker’s original decline. both excitement and action Jackson (2002) presented data Currently, existing regulatory followed. In the early 1970s, indicating that such collecting mechanisms appear to be Sam Houston National Forest in resulted in the taking of over adequate as the Ivory-billed east Texas proposed to modify

22 timber harvests on the basis on area, severely impacting the created habitat that best meets three unconfirmed Ivory-billed study site as well as the entire the requirements of the Ivory- Woodpecker sightings by their lower Pearl River drainage billed Woodpecker. Managers staff (Ruediger 1971). These basin. No confirmed Ivory-billed of the adjacent state lands at and other sightings in east Texas Woodpecker sightings have been Dagmar and Rex Hancock/Black were never widely accepted and made in the area. Swamp WMAs also established consequently did not stimulate a temporary moratorium on widespread forest management 2. Current Conservation Efforts harvesting or thinning stands changes to promote the welfare Current conservation efforts for forest management. This of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. in Arkansas have focused on short term passive management Most stories of unconfirmed learning more about the status was implemented under the sightings have generated no and distribution of the species assumption that some birds change in land management in the Cache River and White were present throughout the throughout the southeast, though River drainages; managing public contiguous block of forested there have been some local access to potentially sensitive habitat in the lower White exceptions. sites and directing visitors to River basin. Current forest appropriate areas; protection management prescriptions An unconfirmed sighting of of land through acquisition of allow the manager to apply Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the easements or fee interest; forest appropriate silvicultural practices White River NWR during the management, reforestation; and for individual stands to meet late 1970s by the head forester public education. habitat needs for a wide variety led to a distinct and repeated Habitat improvement and of target species. The publication emphasis to retain many older- Restoration, Management and age-class trees. The emphasis on restoration may be essential to the future recovery of the Monitoring of Forest Resources larger trees has continued for 30 in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: years and was adopted upon the Ivory-billed Woodpecker should additional birds or locations of Recommendations for Enhancing purchase of the adjacent Cache Wildlife Habitat provides these River NWR and the subsequent birds be confirmed. In related actions, various quantitative recommended objectives and acquisition of about 55,000 acres guidelines (LMVJV Forest of former timber company land. models were developed to identify the amount and quality Resource Conservation Working The result is that very large trees Group 2007). (>30” dbh) are retained in about of habitat needed to support 200,000 acres of forest. With recovery. Additionally, NWR In 2005 limited morticulture staff moves and communication forest management activity was (stressing/killing live trees) between Service foresters, this carefully reviewed for potential management was implemented practice spread to the South impacts on the Ivory-billed as an experiment along Bayou Arkansas Refuge Complex, Holla Woodpecker. DeView on the Benson Creek Bend NWR, Theodore Roosevelt About 326,000 acres of the Cache Natural Area, which is jointly Complex, West Tennessee River-White River basin is in owned by TNC and the Arkansas Complex, Tensas River NWR, public ownership as national Natural Heritage Commission. and other NWRs (J. Denman, wildlife refuges, state natural Management is similar to what pers. comm.). areas, or state WMA. In the LDWF did on the Pearl River addition, private conservation WMA. Four 4-acre blocks were A well known, but unconfirmed, treated with varying amounts of 1999 sighting in the Pearl River interests, primarily TNC and Ducks Unlimited, hold nearly tree girdling to create potential WMA (WMA) in southeast Ivory-billed Woodpecker Louisiana did prompt the 20,000 acres. These fee title ownerships are supplemented feeding habitat and to attract Louisiana Department of the birds for observation. The Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) by approximately 52,882 acres of Wetland Reserve Program results are being monitored and to modify a prescribed harvest may serve as a pilot for larger in an attempt to improve Ivory- easements administered by the Natural Resources Conservation studies in the future. Additional billed Woodpecker foraging modified harvesting practices habitat and to attract the birds Service. Together these lands total almost 400,000 acres of and morticulture plots have for easier observation. In 2002 at been developed and established 11 sites, ranging from three to 40 current and future habitat that is being managed and conserved. by the LDWF on WMAs and acres, chainsaw felling, selective Tensas NWR in Louisiana. These girdling (25-75%), and chemical Active forest management activities are part of ongoing injection was used to fell, kill, or (thinning and other tree cutting) research the better to understand weaken trees in an attempt to on Cache River and White dynamics associated with establish a concentration of beetle River National Wildlife Refuges insect colonization of stressed larvae suitable for Ivory-billed was temporarily suspended trees in bottomland hardwood Woodpecker feeding. In August (2005-7) while the existing forests; potentially informing of 2005, Hurricane Katrina made forest management plans were the development of Ivory-billed landfall near this particular reviewed to ensure that they Woodpecker foraging habitat.

23 Land acquisitions at Cache River cornell.edu/ivory/identifying/). and international conservation NWR, in cooperation with TNC, In May 2005 three “Town organizations. There was strong also provide long-term habitat Hall” meetings were held in support for taking the necessary benefits for a multitude of species. the communities of Brinkley, steps to assess population status, This refuge is a regional priority Stuttgart, and Augusta to delineate habitat, and determine for additional acreage, primarily provide information on the the proper management actions driven by North American announcement of rediscovery needed for recovery. Subsequent Waterfowl Management Plan and the first steps which are controversy over the evidence objectives for the mid-continent expected to be taken towards supporting the announcement did mallard population. Since 1995 recovery. Concerns over potential not reduce the necessity for these the Fish and Wildlife Service land acquisition plans, impacts initial actions, most of which are has purchased 23,456 acres as on public use, and questions complete. additions to Cache River NWR. about the natural history of Lands were purchased primarily the species were answered. In Research, modeling, and habitat using revenue from the Migratory Arkansas, the Corridor of Hope inventory projects have been Bird Conservation Fund, also serves as an important method undertaken to understand known as the Duck Stamp Fund. of communicating with the local the distribution of potential The remainder of the lands was community in the lower White habitat better, and to enhance purchased with appropriations River basin. Other outreach the methods used to detect under the Land and Water efforts include interpretive Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. In Conservation Fund. In 2004 and materials on how to identify an addition, models focused on 2005 they acquired title, options, Ivory-billed Woodpecker, where foraging energetics, habitat or easements on approximately to report sightings, informational characterization and assessment, 18,500 acres in the Bayou DeView signage, and interpretive and potential population viability area. Reforestation efforts are programs. are being developed (see underway on much of this land. Appendix D for abstracts). The surveys and related research All lands were acquired from J. Biological Constraints and willing sellers. will be adapted as more is learned about the locations and habits Needs The Natural Resources of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. The most significant biological Conservation Service has been Surveys have been made in other constraint to recovery of this a leader in restoring bottomland portions of the historical range in species is that the population, hardwood habitat in the lower east Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, where there may be one, is White River basin. Since the 2005 Alabama, South Carolina, North very small, and individuals are announcement of rediscovery of Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, extremely difficult to detect with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker their Georgia and Florida. any degree of certainty. The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) species is so rarely reported that has enrolled 3,601 acres, and 3. Summary of Conservation learning more about the species the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Efforts and its habitat requirements and Program has established Conservation efforts to date basic aspects of its ecology will be easements to reforest or enhance have been directed towards the primary interim conservation existing forests on 5,958 acres confirming the existence of the action. of privately owned land. The species in multiple locations as well as Arkansas and taking The capacity of such a small Wetland Reserve Enhancement population to recover and Program is committed to initial habitat improvement and restoration actions. multiply is unknown, though supplemental tree planting on examples of successful increases 1,000 additional acres of WRP The principal conservation in numbers exist in other species. lands. actions included improving and (Komdeur 2002). The Fish and Wildlife Service’s expanding the survey effort in Arkansas, as well as in other Clutch sizes in the Ivory-billed Partners for Fish and Wildlife Woodpecker range from 1-6 eggs Program committed $1 million in formerly occupied locations, and describing potential habitat but more typically consist of 2 to support of habitat improvement 4. Incubation is by both sexes activities on private lands in sufficiently, so that the most likely locations for other possible and takes about 20 days. Both Arkansas and Louisiana. In 2005, adults feed the young for a period 996 acres were enrolled in and existing populations may be identified and surveyed. Current of about 35 days and the young reforested by this program in and may be fed by the parents for around the Big Woods. In 2006, management practices were evaluated and modified as needed. an additional two months. Life an additional 1,362 acres were span has been estimated to be planted in the same area. Public outreach and education was conducted. in excess of 10 years, although A central database has been this is also not known for certain. established where all Ivory- The announcement of rediscovery In sum, our current knowledge billed Woodpecker sightings can generated significant interest on of the species suggests that be reported (http://www.birds. the part of the public and national the relatively low reproductive 24 capacity of the species may Population modeling has provided require many years for significant II. Recovery an indication that the persistence population growth. A. Recovery Strategy of the Ivorybill in low numbers throughout its range is possible Protocols for captive breeding Our understanding of most aspects of the ecology and (Mattson et al 2008).These efforts of this species are also poorly will help inform the development understood. Significant work biology of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is limited. It has of spatially explicit, objective with surrogate species, such as and measurable population and the Magellanic Woodpecker may proven extremely difficult to locate or relocate individuals habitat goals for future recovery be needed. This effort would take plans. some time since there is currently despite extensive survey efforts. no person or institution engaged Much of what is known is derived B. Recovery Goal in the captive breeding of large from James Tanner’s studies The goal of the Ivory-billed woodpeckers. on one small population and Woodpecker recovery program Tanner’s range-wide evaluation is to locate, protect, and To the best of our knowledge, of reports and habitat availability. increase existing populations the species requires large tracts Other information comes from and associated habitat and to of forested habitat (several knowledge of other Campephilus recover the species to the point thousand acres per breeding species, woodpeckers in general, at which it can be downlisted pair) with large portions of the interpretations of photographs, from endangered to threatened tract containing large trees for and anecdotes gathered by other status, and ultimately to remove feeding, nesting and roosting. observers. The current strategy it completely from the Federal On some public lands within must focus first on locating list of threatened and endangered the historical range, forests are and confirming the presence of species. This goal is consistent in suitable or close to suitable individuals. Then we can add to with current requirements for all condition, though still highly our knowledge about the ecology listed species. fragmented. Conditions continue and biology of the species once a to improve on many public population is identified, providing C. Recovery Objectives lands as the forest ages. Most a feasible approach to habitat This recovery plan identifies contemporary public forests protection, given its potential many interim actions needed to are only beginning to approach presence. achieve long-term viability for the the older forest conditions we Ivory-billed Woodpecker and to think suitable for Ivory-bills, Our poor understanding of the accomplish these goals. Recovery and they may have insufficient species has focused the recovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker large, dead, and stressed trees. strategy largely on learning more focuses on the following In addition, major gains in about the species status and objectives: recovering this species potentially ecology rather than undertaking require the cooperation of private specific habitat management 1. Identify and delineate any landowners. In the southern U.S. actions. Habitat management existing populations and land protection efforts are 89% of the forests are privately 2. Identify and reduce risks to owned. (Appendix I). important, but the major focus is learning more about where the any existing population, birds may persist, then examining 3. Protect and enhance suitable those habitats to reveal ways habitat once populations are in which specific conservation identified, and; actions could be developed. Many of the potential recovery actions 4. Reduce or eliminate threats will be made only where a nest sufficient to allow successful or roost is located or where there restoration of multiple are new multiple sightings, video, populations when those physical evidence, or a picture of populations are identified. a bird. The emphasis in this recovery Spatially explicit, objective, and plan on documenting and measurable population goals have conserving viable populations not been identified. However, in the historical range is based those goals are recognized as upon two widely recognized and a key part of future recovery scientifically accepted goals for efforts. Habitat modeling and promoting viable populations of other analysis tools have been listed species. These goals are: completed for Arkansas and other parts of the species’ range. 1. the creation of multiple These models inform search populations so that a single or efforts and broadly identify series of catastrophic events potential areas for conservation. does not result in species extinction; and 25 2. the increase of population size E. Recovery Actions a. Ivory-bill surveys were to a level where the threats The primary interim actions initially focused in the from genetic, demographic, needed to determine explicit Cache and White river and normal environmental recovery criteria and ultimately basins. Surveys have uncertainties are diminished to achieve recovery criteria and been completed there and (Mangel and Tier 1994, accomplish delisting/downlisting elsewhere in the historical National Research Council recovery goals are: range. Survey protocols 1995, Tear et al. 1995, have been developed, Meffe and Carroll 1994). 1. population surveys and and state search groups By maintaining population monitoring in the historical have been formed. A numbers and viable breeding range where habitat and sightings database is being populations at multiple sites, sighting information indicate maintained by Cornell the species will have a greater potential for the presence of Laboratory of Ornithology. likelihood of achieving long- the species, Criteria for evaluating term survival and recovery. 2. habitat inventory and encounters were developed monitoring in the historical for that information (see D. Recovery Criteria Appendix F); At present, the limited range of the species, knowledge on the population 3. population and habitat i. A survey design abundance, distribution, habitat modeling to facilitate survey developed for search requirements, and biology of the efforts and to inform potential efforts throughout the Ivory-billed Woodpecker prevents management actions, range is adaptive, uses development of more specific ancillary data (e.g., recovery criteria. The following 4. research directed at testing previous sightings, interim criteria will lead us to biological assumptions output from biological the development of more specific, otherwise implicit in modeling models, distribution quantifiable criteria that should and management actions, of stressed or dying be met before considering the trees), and results delisting of this species: 5. landscape characterization and in consistent survey assessment of the Mississippi methodology. Search 1. Potential habitats for any Alluvial Valley and other areas teams used a sampling occurrences of the species are of the historical range, design provided by the surveyed. 6. conservation design aimed at University of Georgia 2. Current habitat use and needs defining the spatially explicit (see Appendix F). This of any existing populations are landscape conditions needed to design, if birds are determined. support the species, detected, will allow determination of the 3. Habitat on public land where 7. education and outreach on the probability of species Ivory-bills are located is conservation of the species, detection based on conserved and enhanced. If survey effort, search needed, additional acreage is 8. management of public use area, and population acquired from willing sellers in areas where the species size. and listed in the public habitat is known to occur to avoid inventory. possible adverse impacts from ii. Searches have been intense public use, and conducted throughout 4. Habitat on private lands is many areas in the conserved and enhanced 9. management of rediscovered historical range, through the use of voluntary populations and forested including the Cache and agreements (e.g., conservation habitats to aid recovery. White river basins, by easements, habitat F. Total Estimated Cost of Recovery state-based groups. conservation plans) and public Our limited knowledge of the outreach. iii. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s survey and monitoring 5. Viability of any existing occurrence and distribution as technologies were populations (numbers, breeding well as of necessary long-term developed (including the success, population genetics, actions precludes any informed use of helicopter surveys). and ecology) is analyzed. estimate of recovery costs for See Appendix F. the species. See Appendix C for 6. The number and geographic recovery expenditures to date. b. If birds are located, develop distribution of subpopulations monitoring protocols to needed to create conditions G. Narrative Outline of assess population size and favorable to a self-sustaining Recovery Actions trend. metapopulation and to evaluate 1. Population Surveys and habitat suitable for species re- Monitoring introduction is determined.

26 2. Habitat Inventory and intended to increase d. Develop, as needed, a Monitoring foraging habitat. population viability model (currently a theoretical Additional Ivory-bill habitat 3. Population/Habitat Models model is available). inventory focused primarily in the Cache and White river To facilitate survey efforts and 4. Assumption-Driven Research basins. Coordination and inform potential management implementation of a multi- actions, there is a need to Given the limited information scale habitat inventory and develop quantitative population available, certain assumptions monitoring program are and habitat relationship are necessary to establish needed in other parts of the models. These models should management guidelines. historical range where sighting address landscape-quality Research directed at testing information indicates presence and site-quality factors the biological assumptions of the species. presumed to limit Ivory-billed otherwise implicit in Woodpecker populations. management actions is a. Develop additional protocols Models and risks of uncertainty necessary. The following and techniques, as needed, will be presented as testable tasks are designed to test for habitat inventory and hypotheses. Habitat-specific assumptions implicit in monitoring program. parameters will be based on biological goals, objectives, currently available information, and the biological response i. Refine ground-based research results, new data, and presumed to occur from forest inventory expert opinion. See Appendix management actions. protocols which will D for description of model identify characteristics development. a. Compile and summarize important to Ivory-billed additional literature. Woodpecker, including a. As needed, refine the Cache disturbance history. and White river basin b. Assess causes of tree Ivory-billed Woodpecker mortality, decay rates, ii. Conduct additional population-habitat model and stand-replacement remote sense-based for application at larger processes on the assumption (e.g., LiDAR, ASTER) spatial scales (e.g., MAV, that cavities, foraging forest inventories to rangewide). The outputs habitat, and/or prey may be augment ground-based from this model would be limiting factors for Ivory- habitat inventories. used to: billed Woodpecker and that these can be evaluated by b. Priority search areas 1. develop a Mississippi gathering information on were identified by state Alluvial Valley tree mortality. search groups. Prioritize population/habitat additional search areas model; i. Gather information on throughout the historical naturally-occurring range in cooperation with 2. guide the development tree mortality, snag state search groups. of forest inventory/ formation, and decay monitoring programs; rates across elevation c. Conduct habitat inventory gradients, hydrologic and monitoring using both 3. facilitate landscape regimes, and soil classes. ground-based techniques characterizations and and remote technologies, as assessments; and ii. Gather information needed. Forest inventories on tree mortality and in the Cache and White 4. refine forest snag formation as River basins were management to a result of “typical” completed. As needed, reach Desired Forest silvicultural treatments conduct forest inventories Conditions if needed. (e.g., thinning) across in priority areas throughout b. Refine, as needed, the elevation gradients, the range. range-wide potential hydrologic regimes, and soil classes. d. Develop a web-based, forest occupancy model to inventory geodatabase to facilitate search efforts c. Assess the relationship of consolidate and archive across the southeastern tree mortality to forage data. This task would allow portion of the United availability. This is a focus web-based connection States. of current studies. with other bird monitoring c. When birds are confirmed, databases. i. Gather information develop estimates of on wood-boring insect e. Assess the efficiency and populations using life table populations, life history, effectiveness of forest methodology and data on and natural densities management prescriptions available habitat quality and and on factors which use. 27 contribute to their a. Conduct an assessment of measurable population and density, richness and the extent and distribution habitat objectives cannot be abundance (e.g., tree of foraging habitat (e.g., determined for the Ivory- mortality, decay rates). stressed and dying trees) billed Woodpecker but will be within the Cache and Lower needed to support decision- ii. Gather data on tree White River basins based making for conservation and species mortality and on high resolution, color management of the species. decay rates and on infrared aerial photography. These tasks are designed to beetle densities at establish biological objectives different dead and dying b. Develop forest type maps (population and habitat) as tree stand volumes of the Cache and Lower determined by biological and where “artificial” White River basins using a models. This information will silvicultural treatments hydrogeomorphic (HGM) be used to develop spatially (e.g., girdling, injection) model augmented with explicit models that define are used. Collect this fall 2004 and 2006 high the landscape conditions data across elevation resolution color infrared believed to support Ivory-billed gradients, flooding aerial photography, ground Woodpecker populations. regimes, and soil classes. survey data, multi-spectral satellite data and any other a. Establish population d. Expand and re-examine available data. goals and objectives when research priorities when appropriate information is active nest trees are c. Analyze 1938 Singer available. discovered and/or when Tract aerial photography other appropriate reports for a retrospective b. Establish habitat goals occur. look at Tanner’s data and objectives to support using new ancillary population goals and e. Investigate the data and technologies objectives when appropriate ecology of Ivory-billed (e.g., stereoscopic photo information is available. Woodpecker through interpretation SURRGO Habitat goals at all spatial detailed investigations soils data, Saucier scales would consider of appropriate surrogate geomorphology data) and management, protection, species. any other available data. and restoration of extant f. Disseminate research Compare it with 1940 southern (bottomland) findings via symposia and Lower White River basin forests. aerial photography. peer-reviewed publications. c. Develop, as needed, any 5. Landscape Characterization d. Assess “suitable” habitat additional forest restoration and Assessment across the MAV and the and management guidelines historical range based (Desired Forest Conditions) The ability of the Mississippi on the application of designed to support Alluvial Valley to support biological models to population goals. recovery populations is currently available data unknown. The capacity of sets (e.g., FIA, NLCD, d. Refine habitat management other habitats within the aerial photography, LIDAR, guidance for Ivory-billed historical range to support Cornell mobile search Woodpecker. recovery populations is also teams) e. Produce maps and unknown. The following tasks technical documents (e.g., are intended to characterize e. Use data obtained by remote sensing (e.g., management guidelines) the ability of the Cache/ that land managers Lower White River basin ASTER, LiDAR) and population habitat models and planners can use to and the Mississippi Alluvial implement conservation Valley Bird Conservation to identify forested habitat conditions that attract programs across multiple Region to support Ivory-billed spatial scales. Woodpecker populations based and support Ivory-billed on current and/or projected Woodpecker, then ground- f. Develop decision-support landscape and site quality proof the results. tools based on biological conditions. Additionally, these f. Conduct a hydrogeomorphic models that facilitate the tasks will allow assessment of assessment of existing delivery of conservation other parts of the species range and potential wetland and programs by maximizing in terms of their capability upland habitats of the MAV. the biological and cost to support Ivory-billed efficiency of management Woodpeckers. Abstracts of 6. Conservation Design actions. these studies are provided in Appendix D. At this time, spatially explicit, objective and

28 7. Education and Outreach are possibly located. Initially, c. Assess the need for a portion of the Cache River intervention to enhance The 2005 announcement that NWR was closed temporarily, reproductive success, an Ivory-billed Woodpecker then full access was managed productivity and survival. had been encountered in via permit. No restrictions the Big Woods of Arkansas currently exist. See Appendix d. Determine the genetic generated a substantial G. These actions should be health and viability of the amount of interest among the discussed and applied, as population. public. Information for the needed, where roosting or general public and numerous e. Implement reforestation nesting birds are documented activities and forest stakeholders involved or or a bird is confirmed. concerned with the recovery management practices of the species have been a. Develop guidelines for to benefit Ivory-billed developed. Community- public use and other Woodpecker habitat. based programs to enhance activities in Ivory-billed f. Use decision-support opportunities to learn about Woodpecker habitat. models and other biological and promote the conservation Develop additional planning tools to determine of the species and its habitat guidelines, as needed, on the need and location of have been provided in the types of use including additional land protection cooperation with partners. The the timing, amount, and measures. purpose of these tasks is to nature of activities near convey a consistent message roost or nest trees and regarding recovery efforts foraging habitat. and to facilitate those efforts through public awareness and b. Develop public access and education. viewing points such as boardwalks, towers, blinds, a. Communication plans and platforms. and strategies have been developed and 9. Management of Populations implemented. Ensure that Increased interest on the part continuing communications of researchers will require the address the need for development of research and information at various levels monitoring protocols to assure and for various stakeholders that adverse impacts are (e.g., birdwatchers, local minimized. citizens, government agencies, industry). a. Protect occupied habitat and priority lands needed b. Outreach tools to help for recovery. private landowners and land managers must be i. Acquire additional developed. See Appendix G. acreage from willing sellers and list it in the c. Species identification public habitat inventory, brochures have been if needed. developed and distributed. Monitor future need for ii. Acquire additional these products and provide area through them where needed. voluntary agreements (e.g., conservation d. Coordinate and cooperate easements, habitat with the government of conservation plans) Cuba regarding the status and public outreach to and recovery of the Cuban facilitate appropriate population of the Ivory- management actions, if billed Woodpecker. needed. 8. Public Use and Access in b. Develop guidelines for Occupied Habitat monitoring Ivory-billed Due to the potential for Woodpecker nesting, adverse impacts resulting roosting, and feeding from intense public interest, behavior (e.g., permitting guidelines were developed to procedures, procedures for manage public use where birds researchers).

29 III. Implementation Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Following Table A Factor A of reasons for listing (see Section H) Actions ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Recovery plans are intended to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife AGFC Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Service and potential Federal, ANHC Arkansas Heritage Commission state, and private partners in AMWPT Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team planning and implementing actions to recover and/or protect CLO University of Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology endangered and threatened Coop. USGS cooperative research unit with a university species. The Implementation Schedule that follows lists the CSU Colorado State University initial recovery actions completed E Factor E of reasons for listing (see Section H) and planned for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. It is a guide for EA FWS, External Affairs meeting the recovery goals ES FWS, Field Office outlined in this plan. Parties FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with authority, responsibility, or expressed interest to implement FY Fiscal Year a specific recovery action are GOV Other local, state, and Federal agencies identified in the Implementation Schedule. When more than one K Thousand dollars party has been identified, the LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries proposed lead party is indicated by an asterisk (*). The listing of M Million dollars a party in the Implementation MAV Mississippi Alluvial Valley Schedule does not require that MB FWS, Migratory Birds the identified party has agreed to implement the action(s) or to NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration secure funding for implementing NGO Non Governmental Organization the action(s). However, parties willing to participate may benefit NRCS USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service by being able to show in their NWR FWS, National Wildlife Refuge own budgets that their funding request is for a recovery action NWRC U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Complex identified in an approved recovery PVT Private landowners plan and is therefore considered R2 FWS, Southwest Regional Office, Albuquerque a necessary action for the overall coordinated effort to recover the R4 FWS, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta Ivory-billed Woodpecker. RE FWS, Realty Section 7 (a)(1) of the RF FWS, Refuges Endangered Species Act (ESA) RT Recovery Team directs all federal agencies to utilize their authorities in Smith. Smithsonian Institution, Museum of Natural History, furtherance of the purposes of the Department of Vertebrate Zoology ESA by carrying out programs States State wildlife agencies within Ivory-billed Woodpecker for the conservation of threatened historical range and endangered species. Any expenditures by identified TNC The Nature Conservancy agencies/partners will be UAR University of Arkansas contingent upon appropriations and other budgetary constraints. UGA University of Georgia Expenditures for completed UID University of Idaho tasks and research projects are UMD University of Maryland included in Appendix C. Unk Unknown UNI University researchers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture FS USDA Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey

30 Table 1. Implementation Actions (*denotes lead agency)

Task description Threat Responsible Organization Status and Comments FWS Other Complete and implement protocols and E R4, R2, ES CLO*, States Initial protocols and procedures for recording, classifying, procedures are completed. and responding to reported Ivory-billed The sightings database Woodpecker sightings. is established and will be updated by CLO. Develop teams to rapidly assess the E R4, R2, ES, CLO*, States State Search Groups perform veracity of sightings in other areas. RF this task Develop a repository for all previous E R4, ES CLO* Completed sightings. Develop survey designs for search efforts E R4, ES UGA, USGS- Completed throughout the range. UGA Coop. Determine the probability of species E R4, ES USGS-UID Completed detection based on survey effort, search Coop., CLO area and population size. Implement searches in the Cache and E R4, ES, RF See notes Numerous partners are White River basins. involved in the search. Implement range-wide searches based on E R4, R2, ES, States, CLO, Completed, additional priority areas defined in the habitat tasks. RF NGOs searches will be completed with partners as necessary Develop state-based implementation E R4, ES, R2 States, CLO groups. Enhance existing and develop new Ivory- E R4, ES CLO, USGS Complete as needed billed Woodpecker survey and monitoring technologies. Develop monitoring protocols to assess E R4, ES UNI Implementation of this task population size and trend. depends on search results. Develop ground-based forest A A,E States, NGOs Costs are negligible since the inventory protocols which will identify task is already a part of staff characteristics important to Ivory-billed duties. Woodpecker, including disturbance history. Conduct remote sense-based (e.g., LiDAR, A R4, R2, ES, USGS, UMD, Initial inventories are ASTER) forest inventories to augment MB*, RF NASA, completed ground-based habitat inventories. States, NGOs Prioritize search areas in the Cache and A, E R4, ES, RF, State of Completed White River basins. MB* Arkansas, CLO, TNC Prioritize search areas throughout the A, E R4, R2, ES, States, CSU, Completed historical range using information from RF, MB* USGS-CSU expert opinion and tasks Coop. Conduct forest inventories in the Cache A R4, ES, RF*, State of Completed and White River basins. MB* Arkansas Conduct forest inventories in priority A ,E R4, R2, ES*, States, Perform as needed. areas throughout the range. MB, RF NGOs, PVT Characterize and assess the adequacy of A R4, ES, AGFC, TNC, Completed foraging habitat in the Cache and White MB*RF CLO River Basins. Consolidate and archive data. A RF, MB* States Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of A R4, ES, USGS, USFS, Complete as needed forest management prescriptions intended MB*, RF ANHC, LDWF, to increase foraging habitat. AGFC 31 (*denotes lead agency) Task description Threat Responsible Organization Status and Comments FWS Other Express Tanner’s Ivory-billed Woodpecker E R4, ES, MB* UGA, USGS- Study is being completed. See study conclusions for the Singer Tract UGA Coop., Appendix D population as an energetic foraging model. USFS, NWRC Develop a Cache-White River basin E R4, ES, MB* RT Complete as needed. Ivory-billed Woodpecker population- habitat model to guide forest inventory and monitoring programs and to facilitate landscape characterizations and assessments. Refine the Cache and White River basin E R4, ES, MB* RT, CSU, Data have been developed in Ivory-billed Woodpecker population- USFS, CSU- conjunction with other tasks. habitat model for application at larger Coop. spatial scales (e.g., MAV, range-wide). Develop a range-wide potential occupancy E R4, R2, ES, States, CSU, Research project is being model to facilitate search efforts across RF, MB* USGS-CSU completed, see Appendix F the southeastern portion of the United Coop. States. Develop estimates of the possible existing E R4, ES UAR Complete as needed population using Life Table methodology and information on available habitat and territory size. Develop a Population Viability Model. E R4, ES, MB USGS-UGA Appendix D Coop. Summarize and compile the existing A, E R4, ES, MB Smith. Complete literature into a database. Gather information on naturally-occurring A R4, ES, USGS, USFS, tree mortality, snag formation, and MB*, RF ANHC, LDWF, decay rates across elevation gradients, AGFC hydrologic regimes, and soil classes. Gather information on tree mortality and A R4, ES, USGS, USFS, snag formation as a result of “typical” MB*, RF ANHC, LDWF, silvicultural treatments (e.g., thinning) AGFC across elevation gradients, hydrologic regimes, and soil classes. Gather data on tree species mortality A R4, ES, USGS, USFS, Experimental treatments and decay rates and on beetle densities MB*, RF ANHC, LDWF, completed, data collection and at different dead and dying tree stand AGFC analysis is continuing volumes and where “artificial” silvicultural treatments (e.g., girdling, injection) are used. Collect this data across elevation gradients, flooding regimes, and soil classes. Expand and re-examine research priorities E R4, ES, MB, RT, CLO Complete as needed when active nest trees are discovered. RF Investigate the ecology of Ivory- E R4, ES States, UNI, See Appendix D billed Woodpecker through detailed The Walt investigations of appropriate surrogate Disney Co. species. Conduct an assessment of the extent A ANHC NWRC* Completed and distribution of foraging habitat (e.g., stressed and dying trees) within the Cache and Lower White River basins based on high resolution, color infrared aerial photography.

32 (*denotes lead agency) Task description Threat Responsible Organization Status and Comments FWS Other Develop forest type maps of the Cache A R4, ES, MB ANHC*, Completed and Lower White River basins using a USGS, ACOE, HGM model augmented with fall 2004 AMWPT and 2006 high resolution color infrared aerial photography, ground survey data, multi-spectral satellite data and any other available data. Analyze 1938 Singer Tract aerial A R4, ES, MB, NWRC*, Study being completed. photography for a retrospective look at RF LDWF Extend to other portions of the Tanner’s data using new ancillary data and historical range as needed to technologies. Compare it with 1940 Lower inform habitat management. White River basin aerial photography. Assess “suitable” habitat across the A R4, R2, ES, CSU*, USFS, Completed MAV and the historical range based on MB* RT, ACOE, the application of biological models to ANHC currently available data sets. Use data obtained by remote sensing A R4, ES, NWRC*, Basic data gathered (e.g., ASTER, LiDAR) and population MB*, RF NASA, UMD habitat models to identify forested habitat conditions that attract and support Ivory- billed Woodpecker, then ground-proof the results. Conduct a hydro-geomorphic assessment A R4, ES, MB, ANNHC*, Completed of existing and potential wetland and RF USGS, ACOE upland habitats of the MAV. Establish population goals, objectives and E RF States Complete as needed timelines for the species’ historical range. Establish habitat goals, objectives, and A, E R4, R2, ES*, RT, States Selected members of the RT timelines to support population goals, MB, RF will assist. Costs are largely objectives, and timelines. for RT members’ time and travel and for workshop development. Complete as needed. Develop forest restoration and A R4, R2, ES, States, USFS, Completed. management guidelines (Desired Forest MB*, RF ANHC, TNC, Conditions) designed to support population USGS, PVT, goals. NRCS Refine habitat management guidance for A R4, R2, ES, States, USFS, PVT partners include private Ivory-billed Woodpecker. MB*, RF ANHC, TNC, timber companies. USGS, PVT, NRCS Produce maps and technical documents A R4, ES, MB* USGS, USFS Costs for this task will continue (e.g., management guidelines) that land until recovery is completed. managers and planners can use to These tools are part of larger implement conservation programs across bird conservation initiative. multiple spatial scales. Develop decision-support tools based on A MB* USGS Models will be internet-based biological models that facilitate the delivery and refined annually as habitat of conservation programs by maximizing management and restoration the biological and cost efficiency of occurs. These tools are part management actions. of larger bird conservation initiative. Develop an outreach plan and strategy A EA*,R4, R2, RT-Outreach Tasks and Funding are based which addresses community-based ES, MB, RF, Team on potential discoveries programs that promote conservation of the AFGC in other states, requiring species and its habitat. additional outreach. 33 (*denotes lead agency) Task description Threat Responsible Organization Status and Comments FWS Other Communication plan and strategy A, E R4, ES, EA RT-Outreach Tasks and Funding requests addresses the need for information Team are based on potential at various levels and for various discoveries in other states, stakeholders (e.g., birders, local citizens, requiring additional outreach. government agencies, industry). Develop outreach tools to help private A R4, ES, EA RT-Outreach Tasks and Funding requests landowners and land managers. Team are based on potential discoveries in other states, requiring additional outreach. Develop and distribute species E R4, R2, ES, RT-Outreach Tasks and Funding requests identification brochures. RF, MB, EA Team, NGOs, are based on potential States discoveries in other states, requiring additional outreach. Coordinate and cooperate with the E CLO* NGO action government of Cuba regarding the status and recovery of the Cuban population of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Develop guidelines on the types of use E RF, MB UNI, States Guidelines will be assessed and the timing and amount of activities continually based on findings in the vicinity of roost or nest trees and and species status. foraging habitat. Develop public access and viewing points E R4, R2, ES, The current focus is on the such as boardwalks, towers, blinds and MB, RF NGOs, States Cache and White River NWRs. platforms. Completed Protect occupied habitat. A R4, R2, ES, States, Complete additional land RF NGOs, PVT acquisition, protection, and management as needed Develop guidelines for monitoring Ivory- E R4, R2, ES, States, CLO Initial protocols have been billed Woodpecker nesting, roosting and RF, MB developed and will be feeding behavior. reviewed annually or as needed. Assess the need for intervention E R4, ES*, MB CLO, NGOs This depends on locating to enhance reproductive success, birds for possible captive productivity and survival. propagation. Partners such as the San Diego Zoo will be consulted. Determine the genetic health and viability E R4, ES UNI Costs are unknown and of the population. depend on obtaining appropriate biological material. Implement reforestation activities and A R4, R2, RF States, Complete where needed forest management practices which will NGOs, NRCS, or as a part of current bird benefit Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its PVT conservation initiatives. habitat. Use decision-support models and other A, E RE NGOs Complete where needed biological planning tools to determine or as a part of current bird the need and location of additional land conservation initiatives. protection measures. Protect priority lands identified in task. A, E RE NGOs, PVT Some examples for protecting land are fee purchases, easements, USDA agreements, and voluntary landowner agreements. Current conservation initiatives can incorporate this task.

34 IV. References Allen, A. A. 1939. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pages 1-12 in Life Histories of North American Woodpeckers (A. C. Bent, ed.). U. S. National Museum Bulletin 174. Allen, A. A. and Kellogg, P. P. 1937. Recent Observations on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Auk 54:164-184. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. Sixth edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp. Brown, C.R., C. Baxter, and D. N. Pashley. 1999. The Ecological Basis for the Conservation of Migratory Birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 1-22 in Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process (R. Bonney, D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles, eds). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay. Burleigh, T. D. 1958. Georgia Birds. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Collinson, J. M. 2007. Video Analysis of the Escape Flight of Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus: Does the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis Persist in Continental North America? BMC Biology 5:8. [online] URL: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/5/8. Corning, H. 1929. Pages 40-83 in Journal of John James Audubon made during his trip to New Orleans in 1820-1821 (H. Corning, ed.). The Club of Odd Volumes, Boston. Dennis, J. V. 1948. A Last Remnant of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Cuba. Auk 65(4):497-507. Duever, M. J., J. E. Carlson, J. F. Meeder, L. C. Duever, L. H. Gunderson, L. A. Riopelle, T. R. Alexander, R. L. Myers, and D. P. Spangler. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. Research Report No. 8, National Audubon Society, New York. Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, B. R. Harrison, G. M. Sparling, K. V. Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh, E. C. H. Swarthout, P. H. Wrege, S. B. Swarthout, M. S. Dantzker, R. A. Charif, T. R. Barksdale, J. V. Remsen, Jr., S. D. Simon, and D. Zollner. 2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in continental North America. Science 308:1460-1462. Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, K. V. Rosenberg. 2006. Response to Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America” (technical comment). Science 311:1555b. Fleischer, R. C., J. J. Kirchman, J. P. Dumbacher, L. Bevier, C. Dove, N. C. Rotzel, S. V. Edwards, M. Lammertink, K. J. Miglia, and W. S. Moore. 2006. Mid-Pleistocene Divergence of Cuban and North American Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Biol. Lett. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0490. (Online pub.) Garrido, O. H. and A. Kirkconnell. 2000. Field Guide to the Birds of Cuba. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 272 pp. Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology 8(1):27–38. Hahn, P. 1963. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus prinicipalis). Pages 236-266 in Where is that Vanished Bird? An Index to the Known Specimens of the Extinct and Near Extinct North American species. Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Hill, G. E., D. J. Mennill, B. W. Rolek, T. L. Hicks, and K. A. Swiston. 2006. Evidence Suggesting that Ivory- billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) Exist in Florida. Avian Conservation and Ecology - Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 1(3): 2. [online] URL: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol1/iss3/art2/. Hasbrouck, E. M. 1891. The Present Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Auk 8(2):174-186. Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2008. ITIS Report for Campephilus principalis [online] URL: http://www.itis.gov/index.html. Last updated August 20, 2008. Accessed December 2, 2008. Jackson, J. A. 1989. Past History, Habitats and Present Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in North America: A Final Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of Work Completed. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 199 pp. + ill. Jackson, J. A. 1996. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pages 103-112 In: Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida (J. A. Rodgers, H. W. Kale II, and H. T. Smith, eds.). University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Jackson, J. A. 2002. Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Campephilus principalis. The Birds of North America, No. 711 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 28 pp. + ill.

35 Jackson, J. A. 2004. In Search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C., 294pp. + ill. Jackson, J. A. 2006. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis): Hope, and the Interfaces of Science, Conservation, and Politics. Auk 123(1):1-15. Kellison, R. C., M. J. Young, R. B. Braham, and E. J. Jones. 1998. Major Alluvial Floodplains. Pages 291-324 in Southern Forested Wetlands (M. G. Messina and W. H. Conner, eds.). Lewis Publishers, New York. Komdeur, J. 2002. Daughters on Request: About Helpers and Egg Sexes in the Seychelles Warbler. [online] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 270:3-11. Lamb, G. R. 1957. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Cuba. Research report No. 1. Pan-American Section, International Committee for Bird Conservation, New York. Lammertink, M. 2004a. Grouping and Cooperative Breeding in the Great Slaty Woodpecker. Condor 106:309-319. Lammertink, M. 2004b. A Multiple-Site Comparison of Woodpecker Communities in Bornean Lowland and Hill Forests. Conservation Biology 18(3):746-757. Lammertink, M., K.V. Rosenberg, J.W. Fitzpatrick, M.D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, and M. Dantzker. 2006. Detailed Analysis of the Video of a Large Woodpecker (the “Luneau video”) Obtained at Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, on 25 April 2004. Internet article located at http://www.birds.cornell. edu/ivory/evidence/segments/segments. Originally published February 8, 2006. Updated February 22, 2006. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Lammertink, M. 2007. Community Ecology and Logging Responses of Southeast Asian Woodpeckers (Picidae, Aves). Ph.D thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam. LMVJV Forest Resource Conservation Group. 2007. Restoration, Management, and Monitoring of Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat (R. Wilson, K. Ribbeck, S. King, and D. Twedt, eds.). Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Lowery, G. H. 1974. Woodpeckers. Pages 415-419 in Louisiana Birds. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 651 pp. Mangel, M., and C. Tier. 1994. Four Facts Every Conservation Biologist Should Know About Persistence. Ecology 75(3):607-614. Mattsson, B.J., R.S. Mordecai, M.J. Conroy, J.T. Peterson, R.J. Cooper, and H. Christensen. 2008. Evaluating the Small Population Paradigm for Rare Large-bodied Woodpeckers, with Implications for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Avian Conservation and Ecology - Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 3(2): 5. [online] URL: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol3/iss2/art5/. McIlhenny, E. A. 1941. The Passing of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Auk 58(4):582-584. McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and M. K. Schwartz. 2008. Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards. doi:10.1641/B580611. BioScience 58(6):549-555. Meffe, G. K., and C. R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. First edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 729 pp. National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act, Commission on Life Sciences. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C. 271 pp. Oberholser, H. C. 1938. The Bird Life of Louisiana. Bulletin of the Louisiana Department of Conservation 28:380-382. Oberholser, H. C. 1974. Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Campephilus principalis. Pages 527-530 in The Bird Life of Texas. University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Ojeda, V. S. 2004. Breeding Biology and Social Behavior of Magellanic Woodpeckers (Campephilus magellanicus) in Argentine Patagonia. European Journal of Wildlife Research 50:18-24. Ruediger, B. 1971. Management Plan for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Unpublished report for Compartment 20, Sam Houston National Forest. 6 pp.

36 Shackelford, C. E. 1998. A Compilation of Published Records of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Texas: Voucher Specimens Versus Sight Records. Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society 31(2):34-41. Sibley, D. A., L. R. Bevier, M. A. Patten, C. S. Elphick. 2006. Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America” (technical comment). Science 311:1555a. Snyder, N. F. R. 2007. An Alternative Hypothesis for the Cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s Decline. Monograph No. 2. Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Camirillo, California. Sprunt, A., and E. B. Chamberlain. 1949. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Pages 340- 342 in South Carolina Bird Life. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 585 pp. Tanner, James T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Research Report No. 1. National Audubon Society, New York. 111pp. + ill. Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P. H. Hayward, and B. Griffith. 1995. Recovery Plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are Criticisms Supported by Data? Conservation Biology 9(1):182-195. Turcotte, W. H., and D. L. Watts. 1999. Birds of Mississippi. University of Mississippi Press, Jackson, Mississippi. Twedt, D. J. and W. B. Uihlein III. 2005. Landscape-level Reforestation Priorities for Forest Breeding Landbirds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 321-340 in Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of Our Understanding (L. H. Fredrickson, S. A. King, and R. M. Kaminski, eds.). Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No. 10. University of Missouri-Columbia, Puxico, Missouri. Twedt, D. J., W. B. Uihlein III, and A. B. Elliott. 2006. A Spatially Explicit Decision Support Model for Restoration of Forest Bird Habitat. Conservation Biology 20(1):100-110. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Priority Species Change Form: Ivory-billed Woodpecker [unpublished]. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983a. Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidance. Federal Register 48:43098-43105. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983b. Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines Correction. Federal Register 48:51985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Status Review on Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 10(5):7. U.S. Geological Survey, Unpublished Data. Retrospective Analysis of the Singer Tract. Barrow, W., L. Handley, C. Wells, H. Baldwin, and T. Hatch. National Wetland Research Center, Lafayette, Louisiana. Wharton, M. E. 1945. Floristics and Vegetation of the Devonian-Mississippian Black Shale Region of Kentucky. Ph.D. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. White, D. L. 2004. Deerskins and Cotton: Ecological Impacts of Historical Land Use in the Central Savannah River Area of the Southeastern US Before 1950. Final Report to USDA Forest Service, Savannah River, New Ellenton, SC. 324 pp. Wilson, A. 1811. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pages 20-26..In: American Ornithology, Volume 4. Bradford and Inskeep, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Winters, R. K., Putnam, J. A., and Eldredge, I.F. 1938. Forest Resources of the North-Louisiana Delta. Miscellaneous Publication Number 309. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 50 pp. Personal Communications Denman, J., Forester, White River National Wildlife Refuge, St. Charles, Arkansas. Comment part of Recovery Team member response to draft ivory bill recovery plan. Kirkconnell, A. Curator, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Cuba, Havana, Cuba. Personal communication with Jon Andrew and Chuck Hunter of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Cuba. Conversation occurred during a seminar on Cuban birds given by Arturo Kirkconnell at the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, on September 20-21, 2005.

37 38 Appendix A. Members of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Team and Their Affiliation

Laurie Fenwood, Coordinator Steering Committee Biology Working Group U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Recovery Team of the Recovery Team Executive Committee Jon Andrew, Chair David Allen of the Recovery Team Regional Chief, NWRS North Carolina Wildlife Resource U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Commission John Bridgeland Southeast Region Civic Enterprises LLC Eric Baka Robert Cooper, Co-Chair Louisiana Department of Greg Butcher Warnell School of Forest Wildlife and Fisheries Audubon Resources, University of Georgia Laurel Barnhill General Robert Crear Tom Foti, Co-Chair Bird Conservation Coordinator Army Corps of Engineers Retired Research Chief, Arkansas South Carolina Department of Nancy DeLamar Natural Heritage Commission Natural Resources Vice President and State Director David Goad, Co-Chair Wylie Barrow The Nature Conservancy - Deputy Director, Arkansas Game U.S. Geological Survey, National Arkansas Field Office and Fish Commission Wetlands Research Center Kirk Dupps Kenny Ribbeck, Co-Chair Jim Bednarz National Fish and Wildlife Louisiana Department of Arkansas State University Foundation Wildlife and Fisheries Roger Clay John Fitzpatrick Ken Rosenberg, Co-Chair Alabama Division of Wildlife Cornell Lab of Ornithology Director, Conservation Science and Fisheries Sam Hamilton Program/ Partners In Flight Cornell Lab of Ornithology Dwight Cooley Regional Director, Project Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Southeast Region Robert Cooper Scott Henderson Co-Chair, Warnell School of Director, Arkansas Game and Forest Resources Fish Commission University of Georgia Tim Kelly Dean Demarest National Geographic Global Migratory Bird Management Media Group U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Robert Nixon Southeast Region Chairman, Earth Conservation Richard Fischer Corps Environmental Laboratory Regional Forester U.S. Army Engineer R & D Southern Region, Forest Service Center Larry Wiseman Robert P. Ford American Forest Foundation Supervisory Wildlife Biologist Memphis Migratory Bird Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Deborah Fuller Ecological Services Lafayette Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region

39 Gary Graves Northeast Regional Coordinator, Habitat Working Group Department of Vertebrate Zoology Cornell Lab of Ornithology of the Recovery Team National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution Dan Scheiman James Baker Bird Conservation Director State Wildlife Biologist, Natural Paul Hamel Audubon Resources Conservation Service Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research Cliff Shackelford Martin Blaney USDA Forest Service Texas Parks and Wildlife Arkansas Game and Fish Department Commission Mike Harris Chief, Nongame Wildlife and Jim Tate Robert Bonnie Natural Heritage Section Retired Science Advisor to the Environmental Defense Georgia Department of Natural Secretary, Department of the Interior George Bukenhofer Resources, Wildlife Resources Threatened and Endangered Division Dan Twedt Species Program Manager Richard Hines Wildlife Biologist USDA Forest Service, Southern Refuge Biologist US Geological Survey - Patuxent Region Wildlife Research Center White River National Wildlife Jimmy Bullock Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Michael Warriner International Paper Company Service, Southeast Region Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission Mike Carloss Jerome Jackson Program Manager – Habitat Florida Gulf Coast University Randy Wilson Section, Louisiana Department Whitaker Center, College of Arts Lower Mississippi Valley Joint of Wildlife and Fisheries & Sciences Venture James Cummins Douglas A. James Nick Winstead President, Mississippi River Department of Biological Bird Conservation Coordinator Trust Sciences, University of Arkansas Mississippi Department of Jeff Denman David Krementz, Arkansas Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks Museum of Natural History Forester, White River National Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Research Unit Mark Woodrey Wildlife Service, Southeast Department of Biological Research Coordinator/Biologist Region Sciences, University of Arkansas Mississippi State University, Coastal Research and Extension Todd Engstrom Martjan Lammertink Florida State University Cornell Lab of Ornithology Center, Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Tom Foti, Co-Chair David Luneau Research Chief, Arkansas University of Arkansas at Little Natural Heritage Commission Rock Leigh Fredrickson David Mehlman Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Director of Conservation University of Missouri Programs, The Nature Conservancy, Migratory Bird Larry Handley Program National Wetlands Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey Karl Miller Florida Fish and Wildlife John D. Hodges Conservation Commission Mississippi State University Wildlife Research Library Chuck Hunter Allen Mueller Regional Refuge Biologist The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Southeast Region Catherine Rideout Eric Johnson Songbird Program Coordinator Forester, Cache River National Arkansas Game and Fish Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Commission Wildlife Service, Southeast Region Ken Rosenberg, Co-Chair Director, Conservation Science David Kulivan Program/ Partners In Flight, National Rifle Association

40 Bobby Maddrey Wendi Weber Division Wildlife Biologist Assistant Regional Director, Georgia-Pacific Corporation Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jim Neal Migratory Bird Management Bently Wigley Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Council of the Paper Service Industry for Air and Stream Improvement David Pashley American Bird Conservancy Scott Yaich Director of Conservation Mike Phillips Programs, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Turner Endangered Species Fund Doug Zollner The Nature Conservancy of Bruce Reid Arkansas Deputy State Director National Audubon Society- Mississippi State Office Kenny Ribbeck, Co-Chair Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Ron Rohrbaugh Director, Ivory-billed Woodpecker Research Project Cornell Lab of Ornithology Mike Scott U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho Cooperative Research Unit Gregory J. Smith Director, National Wetlands Research Center, US Geological Survey Peter Stangel National Fish & Wildlife Foundation - Southeast Region Mike Staten Wildlife Manager, Anderson- Tully Company Mike Thomas Management Chief, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Office of Forestry Bill Uihlein Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Buck Vandersteen Louisiana Forestry Association Russell Watson Field Supervisor, Lafayette Ecological Services Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region

41 42 Appendix B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Statement on Existing Evidence for Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Occurrence in the Big Woods of Eastern Arkansas and Elsewhere in the Southeast U.S.

Prepared by William C. Hunter, Interpretation of the Evidence: possible alternative explanations U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Debate for sight records, the most likely Atlanta, GA 30345 One of the most significant, alternative explanation involves yet controversial, wildlife potential confusion with the much The U.S. Fish and Wildlife conservation events during the more numerous and superficially Service (FWS) recognizes that first decade of the 21st Century similar Pileated Woodpecker substantial evidence for the was the announcement by (Dryocopus pileatus). In persistence of the Ivory-billed Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) that at fact, most reported sightings Woodpecker (Campephilus least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers principalis) into the 21st had been located in the Big Woods in the past have turned out Century emerged from recent within the Mississippi Alluvial to be misidentified Pileated search efforts that began in Valley. This announcement Woodpeckers. Nevertheless, eastern Arkansas (hereafter the included the presentation of at there are a number of sightings Big Woods). The presentation least seven detailed first-hand before and since 1938 (when the of this evidence triggered accounts of presumably the last definitive photo was taken implementation of conservation same individual male Ivory- in the U.S.) that cannot be easily provisions as stipulated by the billed Woodpecker (Gallagher dismissed raising the issue Endangered Species Act of 2005, Rosenberg et al. 2005). of whether all sightings were 1973, as amended. In the case However, it was a four-second mistakes in the past and are also of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, video (“Luneau” video) of a large mistakes in the present. That these provisions include the woodpecker flying away from is an important issue described development of a recovery plan, the camera that has been the elsewhere (see Appendix E). consultation on all Federal actions focus for most of the debate on While detailed sightings and proposed within the Big Woods, whether or not this evidence was auditory evidence remain and working with conservation conclusive (Jackson 2006, Sibley important in evaluating whether partners further searching et al. 2006, 2007, Fitzpatrick et al. or not Ivory-billed Woodpeckers both in the Big Woods as well 2006, 2007, Collinson 2007). may persist in an area, it is the as throughout the historical Luneau video that is potentially distribution of the species. The Recorded auditory and repeated the best hard evidence that at FWS also recognizes that there detailed sighting evidence least one Ivory-billed Woodpecker continues to be scientific debate contributed to the original was present in the Cache River regarding the interpretation of conclusion reached by Fitzpatrick National Wildlife Refuge at least this evidence. We take seriously et al. (2005), but are not all by in April of 2004. our responsibility to promote themselves considered conclusive. conservation and potential While recorded auditory evidence Both Sibley et al. (2006) and recovery of this species, while continues to be suggestive of Fitzpatrick et al. (2005, 2006) recognizing that this evidence is Ivory-billed Woodpecker (both recognize that the identity of not universally accepted within “kent” calls and Campephilus- the woodpecker in question is the scientific community. With this like double-knocks), careful not inherently obvious. While in mind, we remain committed analyses are necessary to exclude universal agreement on the along with our conservation a wide range of other alternative identity of the woodpecker in partners to promoting explanations from other plausible the Luneau video may never appropriate habitat protection sources (see Jones et al. 2007 be possible, both Sibley et al. and management based on an and http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ (2006, 2007) and Fitzpatrick et ecosystem approach that includes ivory/multimedia/sounds/index_ al. (2006, 2007) remain confident consideration for this very rare html/document_view ). Sightings that enough information can be species, and supporting necessary not accompanied by diagnostic derived from the Luneau video research to conserve this species video or photographs, no matter to reach an identification of the and the ecosystem it depends how detailed or how qualified woodpecker in question. Sibley upon in the Southeast U.S. the observers, are all subject to et al. (2006, 2007) stated that some level of doubt. While there the video evidence is insufficient may be a wide range of remotely to reject the null hypothesis of

43 a normally plumaged Pileated support the identification of the of known Pileated Woodpeckers, Woodpecker and that “the woodpecker in the Luneau video that the Luneau video point by evidence firmly supports this as an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. point does not match any known hypothesis” in that it “cannot These alternatives are: (1) an normal Pileated Woodpecker. be an ivory-billed woodpecker abnormally white plumaged They further concluded that there and is consistent only with Pileated Woodpecker, or (2) a is broad consistency with what a pileated woodpecker.” In normally plumaged Pileated would be expected with an Ivory- contrast, Fitzpatrick et al. (2006, Woodpecker. To date there has billed Woodpecker. 2007) “disagree that Sibley et been no published detailed al. showed that the bird in the analysis describing the bird Sibley et al. (2006) countered Luneau video ‘is consistent’ only depicted in the Luneau video as that the flapping models are not with a pileated woodpecker,” an abnormally white plumaged realistic portrayals due to “stiff” “showed their analysis and Pileated Woodpecker. Regardless, wings. Instead, Sibley et al. assumptions to be flawed or the possibility of a white Pileated (2006) presented an alternative lacking on many counts,” and Woodpecker was addressed interpretation using mostly “continue to regard all aspects thoroughly by Rosenberg et line drawings as support for of the Luneau video as fully al. (2006) and dismissed. The the alternative that the bird consistent with ivory-billed challenge published by Sibley et captured on film is a normal woodpecker.“ al. (2006) focuses on the second Pileated Woodpecker. Since alternative by claiming the there is extensive video footage After weighing the various identity of the woodpecker is available of Pileated Woodpeckers positions, the FWS accepts the obscured due to the angle of the in flight, careful review of this interpretation of Fitzpatrick bird relative to the camera along footage (including videos cited by et al. (2005, 2006, 2007). FWS with flight mechanics. Sibley et al. 2006) is compelling concludes that other published in demonstrating the flaws in the interpretations by Sibley et A critical interpretation of the Sibley et al. (2006) interpretation al. (2006), and by extension Luneau video hinges on the for the extensive amount of white Collinson (2007), are based on use of comparative materials. on wings evident on most frames misinterpretations of video These materials include videos in the Luneau video. artifacts as plumage, and novel and photographs of Pileated interpretations of typical bird and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers While Sibley et al. (2006) flight. In Collinson’s comparison (the latter available only from reject the use of flapping of the Luneau video to videos of the archives at the Cornell models as comparable to flying known Pileated Woodpeckers Laboratory of Ornithology and woodpeckers, it is instructive in flight, we believe the based on the work of A. A. Allen to note that the Pileated misinterpretations also include and colleagues during the 1930s), Woodpecker model closely inappropriate comparison of the use of mounted specimens matches actual downstroke video interlaced images of known and museum skins, models, and images of Pileated woodpeckers Pileated Woodpeckers in flight illustrations. Both Sibley et al. and not the downstroke images with the de-interlaced images of (2006) and Fitzpatrick et al. of the woodpecker in the Luneau the woodpecker in the Luneau (2006) used most of these types video (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006, video. While other interpretations of comparative materials, but Lammertink et al. 2006). The of the Luneau video may yet only Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) black trailing edges on the emerge, to date no video of an analyzed the Luneau video using underwing are evident in many actual Pileated Woodpecker customized “flapping” life-sized frames in all these videos of exhibits from frame to frame the models for both Pileated and Pileated woodpecker, regardless same plumage characteristics and Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. of the quality of video or the flight mechanics exhibited by the camera angle. Even when the woodpecker in the Luneau video. Specifically, Fitzpatrick et al. black trailing edge disappears (2006, also see Lammertink et in certain frames, it quickly FWS review of the al. 2006) used these flapping reappears and is apparent in David Luneau Video Evidence models under conditions similar virtually every wingbeat. This is Support for the hypothesis to those when the Luneau not the case with the woodpecker that the Luneau video captures video was taken. This allowed captured in the Luneau video. an Ivory-billed Woodpecker an experimental comparison In all the videos of Pileated is appropriate when possible of what should be expected in Woodpeckers, the consistent alternative hypotheses have been video images from a normally “twisting” wing flight style as reviewed and rejected. The null plumaged Pileated Woodpecker proposed by Sibley et al. (2006) is hypothesis in this case is that the and a normally plumaged Ivory- undetectable. In particular, it is Luneau video captures a Pileated billed Woodpecker during the the upperwing, not the underwing, Woodpecker. There are two wing downstroke. Fitzpatrick et that is most apparent in both widely suggested alternatives of al. (2005, 2006, 2007) concluded, upstroke and downstroke when this null hypothesis that need to using direct comparisons between a woodpecker is flying level or be rejected before it is possible to models, specimens, and videos rising relative to the line of sight

44 of the camera (as the woodpecker and extensive white in the wings In conclusion, the FWS accepts does in the Luneau video). (more than is typical for Pileated the original Fitzpatrick et Woodpecker) could reasonably al. (2005) interpretation of However, some key features escape being definitively the Luneau video and other proposed by Fitzpatrick et al. photographed since 1938 (Tanner evidence gathered during (2005) as diagnostic are not 1942, Jackson 2004). This the last five years as the best necessarily so. Specifically, the question becomes more important information available to support extrapolated size of the perched as search efforts over five years, the hypothesis that Ivory-billed bird prior to launching (which if while leading to additional Woodpecker has persisted into correct would eliminate Pileated potential encounters, have failed the 21st Century. On the basis Woodpecker as a possibility) could to reliably locate Ivory-billed of this conclusion, the FWS will be subject to several differing Woodpeckers in Arkansas. Similar continue to appropriately act interpretations, including the results have occurred with on behalf of the Ivory-billed possibility that the woodpecker organized searches in Florida, Woodpecker under the authority was already in flight when it South Carolina, Tennessee, of the Endangered Species Act of first appeared in the Luneau Texas, and Louisiana (USFWS 1973, as amended. video (Sibley et al. 2005, 2007). 2006, 2007, Hill et al. 2006), again Nevertheless, once the video despite similar increases in the artifacts are dismissed, the number of potential encounters woodpecker in the Luneau video, in several of these states across when it first becomes visible, still the historical range of the species shows characteristics consistent (more detail provided in Appendix with Ivory-billed Woodpecker and E.). So while we cannot conclude not with Pileated Woodpecker that a population of Ivory-billed (i.e., lack of any indication of Woodpeckers is established black secondaries), regardless of in this region, any declaration whether it is the underwing or the proclaiming the Ivory-billed upperwing in view (Fitzpatrick Woodpecker is extinct would be et al. 2006, Lammertink et al. premature. 2006). All videos of launching Pileated Woodpeckers at roughly The FWS recognizes and comparable angles invariably supports exchanges of views on exhibit clear evidence of black alternative interpretations as secondaries. a part of the scientific process, and we understand that the Conclusion accumulated information in The FWS has made every Fitzpatrick et al. (2005) will effort to objectively review continue to be questioned as published interpretations of the constituting confirmation of the Luneau video. Our review of the species’ persistence in eastern presented arguments leads us Arkansas. We will review any new to conclude that the alternative published information to ensure interpretations of Sibley et al. that our conclusions and actions (2006) and Collinson (2007) fail to supported by the best available credibly support their assertion information. Although the FWS that the woodpecker in the continues to welcome constructive Luneau video could reasonably debate over the interpretation of be a Pileated Woodpecker. the Luneau video, the repeated Subsequent published analyses potential visual and auditory with additional comparative video encounters alone in the Big Woods footage or the use of improved of Arkansas and elsewhere within (including computer generated) the historical range of the species models may lead to new insights cumulatively present enough into the identification of the evidence to support the region- woodpecker in the Luneau video. wide search effort. In addition, Regardless of the debate over the potential presence of this the Luneau video, the lack species justifies continuing habitat of more definitive evidence conservation and restoration would understandably lead to efforts that were already well increasing doubt about the initial underway in eastern Arkansas reports from 2004 and 2005. The before any recent evidence of the question that must be addressed Ivory-billed Woodpecker became is whether a large species of known to the FWS. woodpecker with a black body

45 Literature Cited Collinson, J. M. 2007. Video Analysis of the Escape Flight of Pileated Woodpecker

Drycocopus pileatus: Does the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis Persist in Continental North America? BMC Biology 2007 5:8.

Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, B. R. Harrison, G. M. Sparling, K. V. Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh, E. C. H. Swarthout, P. H. Wrege, and others. 2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America. Science 308:1460-1462.

Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2006. Response to Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America.” Science 311:1555b.

Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, K. V. Rosenberg, T. W. Gallagher, and R. W. Rohrbaugh. 2007. Response to Sibley et al. 2007. Science 315:1496.

Gallagher, T. W. 2005. The Grail Bird. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Hill, G. E., D. J. Mennill, B. W. Rolek, T. L. Hicks, and K. A. Swiston. 2006. Evidence Suggesting that Ivory- billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) exist in Florida. Avian Conservation and Ecology 1(3):2.

Jackson, J. A. 2004. In search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.

Jackson, J. A. 2006. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis): Hope, and the Interfaces of Science, Conservation, and Politics. Auk 123:1-15.

Jones, C. D., J. R. Troy, and L. Y Pomara. 2007. Similarities between Campephilus Woodpecker double- raps and mechanical sounds produced by duck flocks. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:259-262.

Lammertink, M., K. V. Rosenberg, J. W. Fitzpatrick, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, and M. Dantzker. 2006. Detailed Analysis of the Video of a Large Woodpecker (the “Luneau video”) Obtained at Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, on 25 April 2004. [Online.] Available at www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/ rediscovery/support/intro.

Rosenberg, K. V., M. Lammertink, K. Brady, S. Bass, and U. Setiorini. 2006. White Pileated Woodpecker Documented in the Big Woods. {Online.] Available at www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/field/from_field_html/ whitePIWO.

Sibley, D., L. R. Bevier, M. A. Patten, and C. S. Elphick. 2006. Comment on “Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America.” Science 311:1555a.

Sibley, D., L. R. Bevier, M. A. Patten, and C. S. Elphick. 2007. Ivory-bill or Pileated Woodpecker. Letter to Science 315:1495.

Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Research Report Number 1. National Audubon Society, New York, New York.

USFWS. 2006. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Season Summary for 2005-2006.

USFWS. 2007. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Season Summary for 2006-2007.

Appendix C. Expenditures and Accomplishments to Date of This Draft Recovery Plan

Table C-1.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY (1113) FY 06 FUNDS IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER Received $1,135,945 FUNDS ORG Recovery Plan, Team EXPENDED TARGETED CODE PARTNER/OFFICE ACCOMPLISHMENT

NWR, RO existing staff/recovery Planning, inventory, management, needs, Recovery Plan Draft $ 83,360 Refuges RO 40130 White River NWR support stakeholder and team meetings Planning, inventory, management, $ 46,168 Refuges RO 40130 Cache River NWR support stakeholder and team meetings $ 129,528

Search Teams State Searches

Athens Field Office, GA Dept of Georgia $ 28,312 ESFO 41460 Natural Resources Georgia Search Charleston Field Office, Nature South Carolina $ 75,000 ESFO 42410 Conservancy South Carolina Search Field Office, LA Wildlife Lafayette Department, Operation Louisiana and Arkansas $ 51,108 ESFO 43440 Migration Lousianna Search, Arkansas Search Cornell University Technology support and coordination by Louisiana and Arkansas $ 138,000 Refuges RO 40130 Laboratory of Ornithology Cornell, Arkansas Search Alabama $ 50,000 RO 40120 USGeological Survey Alabama/Florida Search Gulf Coast Bird Texas $ 100,000 Refuges RO 40130 Observatory Texas Search $ 442,420

Biological Planning Development of a Population LMV JV University of Georgia, Viability Model P1 $ 9,000.00 office 47750 Athens Complete-report provided 1 Work completed-- model assumptions Development of a Foraging LMV JV and parameters developed, based on Energetics Model P2 $ 9,000.00 office 47750 see above forest habitat inventory Cache/Lower White Habitat Characterization and Assessment Arkansas Game and Fish Phase II L1 $15,000.00 Refuges 40130 Commission Work completed--habitat mapping

Preliminary layers to search teams, additional field data collection needed, next steps will develop decision support tools. Training on Data Analysis completed, large amount of data to MAV Habitat Characterization and LMV JV handle, issue with geo-location on field Decision Support Model L2 and C1 $39,000.00 office 47750 Ducks Unlimited data Ecological Dynamics of Tree Completed, FWS contribution to $75,000 Mortality and Forest Regeneration LMV JV project-management scenarios, R1 $ 5,000.00 office 47750 US Geological Survey mortality--2-3 year project Development of a Range Wide Potential Occupancy Model P5 and LMV JV Draft model developed, L7 $40,000.00 office 47750 US Geological Survey circulated/revised

Assessment of IBWP and other Point count surveys completed, to be breeding birds relative to forest LMV JV Univ of AR $30,150 coupled with ground based stand structure and composition R5 $30,150.00 office 47750 401816J047 inventory and lidar data Partnership with NASA, UMD, lidar flights completed, Spatial analysis of Cache/Lower White Forest LMV JV University of Maryland, existing conditions, support tools will Structure Mapping Project L4 $78,570.00 office 47750 NASA allow better focus of restoration efforts

Under development--real time tracking of habitat conditions using forest Development of a Web-enabled management and inventory data in a Forest Management Geodatabase LMV JV 2 user-friendly environment-expertise M3 $79,240.00 office 47750 US Geological Survey provided by USGS

Assessment of Attack Rates and LMV JV US Department of Part of larger Forest Service Project on Density of Wood-boring Beetles R4 $15,000.00 office 47750 Agriculture tree mortality/insects $319,960

Recovery Activities 47 Salary, Travel, Printing Field and Regional Office staff support-- (includes coordinated recovery actions, developed Staff time $72,209 ES RO 40120 ClemsonUniversity) partnerships, assisted search efforts Lafayette $49,904 ESFO 43440 Salary, Travel Conway $63,953 ESFO 43421 Salary, Travel $186,066

TOTAL 1113 FUNDS $1,077,974 TOTAL OBLIGATIONS

FUNDS REMAINING AT END OF FY $57,971

The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 07 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

Partnership with NASA, UMD, lidar flights completed, Spatial analysis of Cache/Lower White Forest LMV JV University of Maryland, existing conditions, support tools will Structure Mapping Project L4 $78,570.00 office 47750 NASA allow better focus of restoration efforts

Under development--real time tracking of habitat conditions using forest Development of a Web-enabled management and inventory data in a Forest Management Geodatabase LMV JV user-friendly environment-expertise M3 $79,240.00 office 47750 US Geological Survey provided by USGS

Assessment of Attack Rates and LMV JV US Department of Part of larger Forest Service Project on Density of Wood-boring Beetles R4 $15,000.00 office 47750 Agriculture tree mortality/insects $319,960

Recovery Activities Salary, Travel, Printing Field and Regional Office staff support-- (includes coordinated recovery actions, developed Staff time $72,209 ES RO 40120 ClemsonUniversity) partnerships, assisted search efforts Lafayette $49,904 ESFO 43440 Salary, Travel Conway $63,953 ESFO 43421 Salary, Travel $186,066

TOTAL 1113 FUNDS $1,077,974 TOTAL OBLIGATIONS

FUNDS REMAINING AT END OF FY $57,971

The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 07 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

Table C-2.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY (1113) FY 07 FUNDS IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER Received $1,182,000 FUNDS ORG Recovery Plan, Team EXPENDED TARGETED CODE PARTNER/OFFICE ACCOMPLISHMENT

RO existing staff/recovery actions, Planning, management, support search technical assistance, Recovery and team meetings, technical Plan Draft, and search support $ 58,482 Refuges RO 40130 Regional Office, Refuges assistance, and analysis Planning, management, support stakeholder and team meetings, search Regional Office, coordination, agreements, technical $ 146,720 ES RO 40120 Ecological Services assistance, and analysis Manage Public Comment process, draft Lead Field Office Plan Support $ 77,916 Lafayette ES Field Office plan support Contract for Peer Review Process- Peer Review $ 18,000 ES RO 40120 The Wildlife Society completed $ 301,118

Search Teams State Searches

Athens Transferred funds to Georgia $ - ESFO 41460 Charleston Georgia Search Charleston Field Office, Nature South Carolina $ 67,691 ESFO 42410 Conservancy , NPS South Carolina Search White River National Arkansas $ 54,239 WRNWR 43670 Wildlife Refuge Arkansas Search

Conway TNC, AUD-Arkansas, Arkansas Search (Some funds to be Arkansas $ 39,700 ESFO 43421 AFGC used for Helicopter search 2008) Cornell University Lafayette Laboratory of Technology support and coordination by Arkansas $ 225,000 ESFO 43440 Ornithology Cornell, Arkansas Search US Geological Survey- Florida Search (FWC search supported Florida $ 100,000 RO 40120 Auburn4 University by 2006 carryover funds-$43,000 Gulf Coast Bird Texas $ 16,000 R2 40130 Observatory Texas Search Cookeville TN DNR, Hatchie Tennessee $ 4,000 ESFO 4230 National Wildlife Refuge Tennessee Search Lafayette LA Department of Louisiana Search (Some funds to be Louisiana $ 50,000 ESFO 43440 Wildlife and Fisheries used for Helicopter search 2008) MS Department of Jackson Wildlife, Fisheries, and Mississippi Search(Some funds to be Mississippi $ 30,000 ESRO 43910 Parks used for Helicopter search 2008) Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge, IL DNR, Illinois $ 9,850 R3 IL Natural History Survey Illinois Reconnaisance Search North Carolina Search for 2008 North Carolina $ 71,784 ES RO 40120 Audubon North Carolina agreement

$ 668,264

Biological Planning

Search Survey Design and University of Georgia, Development of Occupancy Model $ 112,777 USGS 40120 Athens Continuing Model development Surrogate Species Study Pileated Woodpecker Productivity and Arkansas State Ecology $ 56,500 ES RO 40120 University First Year of Study completed

$ 169,277

Recovery Activities Field and Regional Office staff support recovery actions such as brochures, Outreach $17,667 ES RO 40120 Salary, Travel, Printing partnerships, web management Tensas Interpretive Kiosk plus $11,925 with RO Education $15,954 NWR 43690 Salary, Travel for Tensas traveling display design) 5 Loxahatchee Support Refuge Management $2,975 NWR Helicopter Use

$36,596

TOTAL 1113 FUNDS $1,175,255 TOTAL OBLIGATIONS FUNDS REMAINING AT END OF FY $6,742 The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 08 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

49 White River NWR, USDA Challenge Cost Share Project $ 30,000 Refuges Forest Service Decay and Beetle infestation study

Lower Mississippi Joint Venture Line Item Projects $396,000 Appropriated

Development of PNV maps for planning habitat restoration in the region, and MAV Habitat Characterization specifically for restoration of potential Habitat expanded by Mapping the Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. This Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV) Contracted with the US area is additional potential habitat of the Tensas Basin and Army Corps of outside of Arkansas, particularly in Mississippi River in Northeastern LMV JV Engineers, 5 Oaks Louisiana and Mississippi. Study Louisiana. $100,000 office 47750 Wildlife Services underway. US Geological Survey, Development of a Range Wide LMV JV Colorado State Potential Habitat Suitability Model $24,000.00 office 47750 University Improved model under development

Field and Regional Office staff support recovery actions such as brochures, Outreach $17,667 ES RO 40120 Salary, Travel, Printing partnerships, web management Tensas Interpretive Kiosk plus $11,925 with RO Education $15,954 NWR 43690 Salary, Travel for Tensas traveling display design) Loxahatchee Support Refuge Management $2,975 NWR Helicopter Use

$36,596

TOTAL 1113 FUNDS $1,175,255 TOTAL OBLIGATIONS FUNDS REMAINING AT END OF FY $6,742 The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 08 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

White River NWR, USDA Challenge Cost Share Project $ 30,000 Refuges Forest Service Decay and Beetle infestation study

Lower Mississippi Joint Venture Line Item Projects $396,000 Appropriated

Under development--tracking of habitat conditions using forest management and Remotely Sensed Data 6 inventory data at the compartment level Interpretation, Forest Structure using remotely sensed data, Forest Mapping, Management Decision Composition and stress mapping Support Tool Development, (AVIRIS), Forest structure mapping Science Workshop, Historical LMV JV National Wetlands (LiDAR) Development of 1-2 workshops Habitat Analysis $ 121,000 office 47750 Research Center for IBWO science updates

Assessment of Attack Rates and LMV JV US Department of Part of larger Forest Service Project on Density of Wood-boring Beetles R4 $ 15,000 office 47750 Agriculture tree mortality/insects GIS Product Development and LMV JV Data Dissemination $20,000 office 47750 The Nature Conservancy Under development Development of agreements, Project LMV JV Officer and management, technology Project Management Support $ 95,850 office 47750 transfer, financial accountability

Table C-3.

ACCOMPISHMENTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY (1113) FY 08 FUNDS IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER $1,163,561 Appropriated FUNDS ORG Recovery Plan, Team EXPENDED TARGETED CODE PARTNER/OFFICE ACCOMPLISHMENT RO existing staff/recovery actions, technical assistance, Recovery Planning, management, support Plan Draft, and search Regional Office, search and team meetings, technical support $ 55,484 Refuges RO 40130 Refuges assistance, and analysis Planning, management, support stakeholder and team meetings, Regional Office, search coordination, agreements, $ 152,850 ES RO 40120 Ecological Services technical assistance, and analysis Lead Field Office Plan Lafayette ES Field Manage Public Comment process, Support $ 77,916 Office draft plan support $ 286,250

Search Teams State Searches Charleston Field Office, Nature South Carolina $ 76,132 ESFO 42410 Conservancy , NPS South Carolina Search White River National Arkansas $ 5,000 WRNWR 43670 Wildlife Refuge Arkansas Search Cornell University Technology support and coordination Arkansas and Regional Laboratory of by Cornell, Arkansas Search, Mobile Search $ 225,000 ES RO 43440 Ornithology Search Team USGeological Survey- Florida Search (FWC search Florida $ 101,932 ES RO 40120 Auburn University supported by 2006 carryover funds Gulf Coast Bird Texas $ 93,000 R2 40130 Observatory Texas Search TN DNR, Hatchie Cookeville National Wildlife Tennessee $ 18,000 ESFO 4230 Refuge Tennessee Search Lafayette LA Department of Louisiana Search (Some funds were Louisiana $ 66,380 ESFO 43440 Wildlife and Fisheries used for Helicopter search 2008) MS Department of Jackson Wildlife, Fisheries, and Mississippi Search $30,000 2007 Mississippi ESRO 439108 Parks Funds Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge, IL DNR, IL Illinois $ 30,000 ES RO Natural History Survey Illinois Reconnaisance Search Audubon North North Carolina Search for 2008 North Carolina ES RO 40120 Carolina agreement $71,784 2007 Funds $ 615,444

Biological Planning Surrogate Species Study Pileated Woodpecker Arkansas State Productivity and Ecology $ 56,500 ES RO 40120 University Second Year of Study completed

$ 56,500

Recovery Activities Field and Regional Office staff support Salary, Travel, recovery actions such as brochures, Outreach ES RO 40120 Printing partnerships, web management Interpretive Kiosk (FY 2007 and Tensas $11,925 with RO for Tensas traveling Education NWR display design) Support Refuge Management $1,500 Hunt Brochures

$1,500

LMJV Projects $ 200,000

TOTAL TOTAL 1113 FUNDS $1,159,694 OBLIGATIONS FUNDS REMAINING AT END OF FY $3,867 The remaining funds noted above have been used for Dec/Jan FY 09 Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Projects

Lower Mississippi Joint Venture Projects $200,000 Appropriated

MAV Habitat Development of PNV maps for Characterization Habitat planning habitat restoration in the expanded by Mapping the region, and specifically for restoration Potential Natural of potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker Vegetation (PNV) of the Contracted with the habitat. This area is additional Tensas Basin and US Army Corps of potential habitat outside of Arkansas, Mississippi River in LMV JV Engineers, 5 Oaks particularly in Louisiana and Northeastern Louisiana. $50,000 office 47750 Wildlife Services Mississippi. Study underway. Development of a Range US Geological Survey, Wide Potential Habitat LMV JV Colorado State Improved model under development Suitability Model office 47750 University (2007 Funds) Assessment of Attack Rates and Density of LMV JV US Department of Part of larger Forest Service Project Wood-boring Beetles R4 $ 15,000 office 47750 Agriculture on tree mortality/insects Cache/Lower White Habitat structure Characterization and Assessment Phase II L1 $ 5,000 GIS Product Development LMV JV The Nature and Data Dissemination $20,000 office 47750 Conservancy Under development Development of agreements, Project Project Management LMV JV Officer and management, technology Support $ 110,000 office 47750 transfer, financial accountability

$200,000

52 Table C-4.

53 54 Appendix D Research Projects Completed or Underway in Response to Recovery Outline/Implementation Actions

The following are abstracts of four treatments involving Service, Rocky Mountain papers presented at the Ivory- progressively greater wounds to Research Station, Fort Collins, billed Woodpecker Science living trees. Wounded trees will CO 80526 Symposium on June 10, 11, 12, be harvested at two exposure 2008 at the National Wetlands intervals after one wounding ABSTRACT: Rediscovery of Research Center in Lafayette, and placed into emergence once thought extinct species is Louisiana. Most of the authors cages. Three samples from each more common than we may think. plan to publish their results in the tree will assess emergence of Within the last few decades, future. insects over a five-year period over 30 species that were once to accommodate long-lived thought vanquished from the TITLE: Food of Ivory-Billed larvae. Expected results involve biota have been rediscovered. Woodpecker: Experimental determination of expected These rediscovered species are Determination of Attack Rates of biomass, species composition, often found on islands or are Cerambycid Prey on Forest Trees energy return, and nutritive value local endemics. The Ivory-billed in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley of larval wood-boring insects Woodpecker is an exception to this pattern because it had AUTHORS: Paul B. Hamel1 in early stages of infestation after injury, when Ivory-billed a widespread historical range and Nathan M. Schiff1, Ellen that spanned portions of up to Green4, Annie Spikes2, Matt Woodpeckers are believed to have a competitive advantage over 13 states from east Texas to Ginzel2, Wiley C. Barrow3, southeastern North Carolina. Clinton W. Jeske3, Thomas C. other woodpeckers in extracting these foods. Generation of large Monitoring to confirm rediscovery Michot3, Heather Q. Baldwin3, of a wide ranging species would Jennifer K. DiMiceli3 and numbers of the supposedly preferred Hardwood stump benefit from searches informed Tyson L. Hatch3. 1U. S. Forest by measures of habitat suitability Service, Southern Research borer (Mallodon dasystomus dasystomus) will demonstrate derived from spatially extensive Station, Center for Bottomland forest inventories. This project Hardwoods Research, P. O. Box how food supply for Ivory- billed Woodpeckers can be developed a range-wide habitat 227, 432 Stoneville Rd., Stoneville, suitability model derived from MS 38776 USA, 2 Department of enhanced by specific tree wounding treatments. To historical accounts, primarily Entomology, Purdue University, from the Singer Tract. The model 901 W. State St., West Lafayette, date, approximately 180 of 192 emergence cages have been was structured as a decision IN 47907-2089. 3USGS National tree with threshold values for Wetlands Research Center, 700 constructed, and 24 of 96 trees harvested and put into them. classifying U.S. Forest Service Cajundome Blvd., Lafayette, Forest Inventory and Analysis LA 70506 [email protected], Additional work on pheromones of Mallodon, and energetic value of data as “suitable” or “unsuitable” [email protected], 4 Delta State habitat. Because food is the University, Greenville, MS this, of the carpenter worm, and other species has been initiated. likely limiting factor affecting ABSTRACT: This is a bundled occupancy, our model focused project including a primary TITLE: Searching For Where To on attributes of foraging habitat study of attack rates of Search: Sifting Forest Inventories including forest type, tree size Cerambycid beetles and other For Singer Tracts distribution, foraging substrate, and landscape context to identify wood boring insects as potential AUTHORS: Flather, Curtis prey organisms of Ivory-billed potentially suitable habitat. H.†, Jeff A. Tracey‡, Barry R. Uncertainty was incorporated Woodpeckers, with a growing Noon‡, Raymond Sheffield§, and number of collateral projects into the model by estimating Michael S. Knowles*†USDA, distributions of threshold values made possible by the initial Forest Service, Rocky Mountain design. The primary study for these attributes based on data Research Station, Fort Collins, from historical accounts. This addresses the concern that food CO 80526; ‡Department of availability is a likely limiting permitted the mapping of suitable Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation habitat probabilities across factor for the woodpecker. By a Biology, Colorado State carefully controlled experiment the South. Spatially explicit University, Fort Collins, CO comparisons of model predictions using randomly selected trees, 80523; §USDA, Forest Service, we assess the response of against the Big Woods search Southern Research Station, area and historical locations wood-boring insects producing Asheville, NC 28802;*Anadarko medium and large larvae to provided initial validation of Industries, USDA, Forest model performance. Probability 55 maps of suitable habitat were the Pearl River by organized ABSTRACT: The rediscovery of generated for Alabama, South searches during 2002, though the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida disappointing, was not without the bottomland hardwood forests to inform the 2007/2008 mobile precedent. In contrast to all of eastern Arkansas prompted search teams. Twentieth Century reports a reexamination of management (besides the Singer Tract), initial practices and habitat TITLE: Evaluating Evidence of visual encounters during 2004 improvement efforts. Lack of Persistence for Ivory-billed in Arkansas were repeated suitable foraging sites (near-dead Woodpecker (Campephilus by experienced observers but trees inhabited by cerambycid principalis) in the Southeastern always with brief glimpses of larvae) is often cited as one United States From 1900 to the a flying bird (presumably the reason for its initial decline. Present. same male bird). The public 2005 As part of an effort to increase AUTHOR: William C. Hunter. announcement of Ivory-billed suitable forage for Ivory-billed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Woodpecker persistence (of at Woodpecker, we implemented 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite least one male bird) in Arkansas a morticulture project in which 420, Atlanta, GA 30345. 404/679 energized searches for this 614 bottomland hardwood trees 7130 (office) 770/331 4475 (cell) species across the southeastern were treated with girdles or [email protected] U.S. from the Carolinas, Georgia, glyphosate injections. Treatments Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, were performed in 2005 and ABSTRACT: The persistence Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, and 2006, and trees were monitored of Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Illinois. Results thus far include annually for signs of impending the Twentieth Century is firmly many additional potential visual mortality. An associated monthly documented with many specimens and auditory encounters. To date, Picidae-oriented point count prior to 1920, two specimens and none of these reports provide was conducted in four of the photos in 1924 (of a pair in east- any better evidence than the treatment areas. After one year, central Florida), and a specimen original Arkansas reports of this 24.5% of trees showed no signs along with many photos and other species’ continued persistence. of decline. However, 18% of documentation (including video The lack of any indisputable treated trees showed complete and auditory recordings) during evidence following the 2005 mortality. Within the first year the 1930s (of a small population announcement despite relatively Celtis laevigata and Ulmus in northeast Louisiana). All extensive searching raises many americana most frequently other reports prior to 1950 were questions regarding search experienced greater than one- only of visual encounters (most strategies for firmly documenting third crown dieback. Preliminary accepted by Dr. James Tanner) a very rare species, if present. results suggest that greater at locations that support the Addressed here specifically is crown dieback occurs within hypothesis that small numbers whether the current pattern the second year. Girdling also (populations) of Ivory-billed differs from reports prior to the produces greater crown mortality Woodpeckers persisted across 1930s, between 1930 and 1960, than herbicide injections. While the historical range at least into and between 1960 and 2000. no Ivory-billed Woodpecker were the 1940s. After 1950, reports of Elsewhere, the history of reports observed using these treatment visual encounters from prominent has been presented state-by- areas, seven Picidae species were ornithologists are generally state. In this analysis, range- recorded in treatment areas. accepted from southern Georgia wide reports have been compiled Many recently dead, treated trees and Florida, but other reports to compare encounters within had large amounts of insect frass of visual encounters during this the last 10 decades and also to surrounding them. This work has decade also come from South compare these records to potential potential implications in a variety Carolina, Alabama, and Texas. encounters from recent searches. of restoration and improvement Although generally considered These patterns are discussed to projects for the Ivory-billed inconclusive after 1960, many generate alternative hypotheses Woodpecker and other visual encounters, several regarding the detection and bottomland hardwood species. photos, feathers, and auditory documentation of the Ivory-billed encounters and recordings Woodpecker since 1940. TITLE: Acoustic Methods in the were reported from over most Ivory-bill Search and Beyond TITLE: Morticulture Use for of the historical range through AUTHORS: Russell A. Charif, to the 1999 report along the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Habitat Improvements Harold Figueroa, Michael Pearl River, Louisiana. During Powers, Michael Pitzrick, Ron the Twentieth Century (before AUTHORS: Seth Pearson, Rohrbaugh, Ken Rosenberg , or after 1950), at no location TNC, Little Rock, AR; Zollner, Martjan Lammertink, Martin during any one decade was this D., TNC, Little Rock, AR; Piorkowski species regularly reported year- Melnechuk, M., TNC, 601 N. after-year except at the Singer University Ave. ,Little Rock, AR Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Tract in Louisiana during the 72205 501-912-9080 Cornell University, 159 Sapsucker 1930s. Thus, failure to document 501-663-8332 [email protected] Woods Rd., Ithaca, NY 14850 Ivory-billed Woodpeckers along 56 ABSTRACT: Acoustic methods unobserved for long periods bird’s former range, (2) assess have been an integral part of of time, making it difficult (or relationships among occupancy, the search for the Ivory-billed impossible) to determine their use, and habitat characteristics Woodpecker since the Pearl status (Scott et al. in press). The at those scales, (3) eventually River effort in 2002. The needs human and financial resources allow the development of a of this search have spurred a required to conduct surveys of population viability model that number of advances in hardware sufficient magnitude to assess depends on patch occupancy and software technology. We will with confidence that a species is instead of difficult-to-measure summarize key components of extinct are frequently prohibitive, demographic parameters, and the evolving acoustic methods, making autonomous systems (4) be adaptive, allowing newly including hardware, software, an attractive alternative for collected information to update and data analysis and review future endangered species the above models and search protocols. We will discuss research. Furthermore, these locations. The approach features lessons learned from the review systems, especially when random selection of patches to be and analysis of over 36,000 networked to provide real- searched from a sampling frame hours of audio recordings time data, afford the ability to stratified and weighted by patch from bottomland hardwood gather important population and quality, and it requires multiple forest habitats, including the behavioral information on more visits per patch. It is adaptive discovery of unexpected “Ivory- common species. Some example within a season in that increased bill impostor” sounds from applications include monitoring search activity is allowed in some common species and the migration via nocturnal flight and around locations of strong need for caution in interpreting calls, determining volume and visual and/or aural evidence, isolated acoustic events. Finally, composition of raptor migration, and adaptive among seasons in we will discuss ways in which and identifying timing and that habitat associations allow technology advances resulting causation of bird strikes at wind modification of stratum weights. from the Ivory-bill search may turbines. Future successful This statistically rigorous benefit efforts to apply acoustic development and application approach is an improvement over monitoring methods to other of these technologies will rely simply visiting the “best” habitat species of conservation concern. on strong partnerships among in an ad hoc fashion because we biologists, engineers, and can learn from prior effort and TITLE: Acoustic and Digital information systems specialists. modify the search accordingly. Image Technologies for Detecting Results from the 2006-07 and Monitoring Ivory-billed TITLE: Design for a Region- search season indicate weak Woodpeckers and Other Avifauna. wide Adaptive Search for the relationships between occupancy Ivory-billed Woodpecker with and habitat (although we AUTHORS: Ron Rohrbaugh, the Objective of Estimating Cornell Lab of Ornithology, suggest modifications of habitat Occupancy and Related measurement protocols), and a Ithaca, NY; Charif, R., Cornell Parameters. Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, very low detection probability, NY; Farnsworth, A., Cornell AUTHORS: Robert J. Cooper, suggesting more visits per Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Rua S. Mordecai, Brady J. patch are required. Sample size Goldberg, K., U. California, Mattsson, Univ. of Georgia, requirements will be discussed. Berkeley, Berkeley, CA; Song, D., Athens; Michael J. Conroy, TITLE: From the Ground Up: Texas A&M, College Station, TX; Krishna Pacifici, James T. Evidence for the Wide Distribution Luneau, D., U. Arkansas, Little Peterson, USGS Georgia of the IBW in the Southeast in the Rock, AR. [email protected] Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Archeological and Ethnographic Research Unit and UGA, Athens; Record ABSTRACT: Intensive search Clinton T. Moore, Patuxent efforts for the Ivory-billed Wildlife Research Center, Athens, AUTHOR: Richard Warner, Staff Woodpecker (Campephilus GA. Archeologist, Region 4, USFWS, principalis) have resulted 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, in numerous technological Robert J. Cooper, Warnell Georgia 30345, 404-679-7110 advancements related to bird School of Forestry and Natural monitoring methodologies. These Resources, University of Georgia, ABSTRACT: The current include autonomous acoustic- and Athens, GA 30602, 706-542-6066 scientific and popular literature image-recording systems with (phone), 706-542-8356 (fax), on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker potential applications for remote [email protected] acknowledges the archeological detection and constant effort and ethnographic evidence monitoring of avian populations. ABSTRACT: We describe a for a wide distribution of the These devices are important for survey design and field protocol Ivory-billed Woodpecker, well monitoring endangered species for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker beyond its known and suspected and conducting spatially explicit research effort that will: (1) allow current range. This presentation avian research. Exceedingly estimation of occupancy, use, and will review and evaluate the rare species, especially those detection probability for habitats published archeological evidence in remote habitats, can go at two spatial scales within the from the perspective of an SE 57 archeologist, and will conclude NWR were photo interpreted River, Arkansas. Planning efforts with a distribution map that using the National Wetlands are underway for extensive may be useful in assisting in the Inventory mapping conventions. searches to find more birds in long-term recovery of the species. Ancillary data sources utilized Arkansas and other river bottoms In addition, this presentation include USGS topographic maps, of the southern United States. will include a brief overview digital NRCS soil surveys, Anecdotal reports of Ivory-billed of the cultural context of the Digital elevation models, and Woodpeckers in the southern Ivory-billed Wooddpecker and 2004 and 2005 digital Roth United States continue to this day. other woodpeckers in the pre- quarter quads. Additionally the Potential habitat for Ivory-billed Columbian Southeastern United 1938 imagery was interpreted Woodpeckers is vast throughout States, along with a discussion of to create a disturbance, texture, the southeastern US and Gulf of how Native American populations and transportation layer. The Mexico coastal areas. may have had a significant photography was interpreted influence on the distribution of to reveal disturbances of any The authoritative natural history this species over the last thousand kind, human related or natural. of the woodpecker is James years. A texture layer was also created Tanner’s 1942 publication. to reveal patterns that would Accepting that work as TITLE: Historical Ivory-billed indicate forest growth trends complete, accurate, and factual, Woodpecker Habitat Mapping as well as logging areas. A we searched for historical Within the Tensas National transportation layer was created photography with coverage of Wildlife Refuge, 1938 and 1998. to document transportation approximately the same date features, including roads and as Tanner’s field work and at AUTHORS: Handley, L.R., C. a scale that could demonstrate J. Wells, National Wetlands railroad tracts which were indicative of logging activity. habitat characteristics that Research Center, U.S. Geological Tanner reported as important Survey, Lafayette, LA; J. Dugas, Argos software was used to create and maintain topological to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. R. Mouton, D. Lichtenberg, We located a private source of National Wetlands Research relationships between features. Habitats were classified and photography (P2Energy, formerly Center/IAP World Services, Inc., Tobin Aerial Surveys) that was Lafayette, LA attributed on-screen using Arc Map. 1938 hard copy stereo pairs originally taken about August of ABSTRACT: The Ivory-billed were viewed under a stereoscope. 1938 at the Singer Tract when Woodpecker has always been This allowed for higher resolution, Tanner was conducting his field described as rare, even before stereo viewing of the project area. work. Some of the important the catastrophic loss of habitat Polygonal features begin and factors found on the photography between the 1880s and 1930s. end at the same point, contain no included dead and dying The woodpecker’s preferred overshoots or undershoots, and vegetation, very large trees, a habitat varied by region. In contain a single label. The 1938 heterogeneous canopy, forest the Mississippi Delta it seems habitat mapping photography will canopy gaps, and disturbance. to have preferred temporarily provide additional information in Limitations of the 1938 flooded, palustrine, deciduous documenting the known historical photography were lack of forest dominated by sweetgum. habitat of this rare bird. The horizontal control, resulting in no In the Lower Mississippi Valley 1998 habitat mapping will allow GPS or gyroscopic positioning; area, including the Mississippi- a comparison with the historical monochromatic emulsion (black Atchafalaya distributary system, data. & white) which makes tree the Ivory-billed Woodpecker species identification difficult; foraged in seasonally flooded TITLE: Habitat Characteristics of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker In the low altitude flight required oak flats and adjacent oak- for high resolution, which caused hickory uplands, and in the lower, Louisiana: Analysis of 1938 Aerial Photography considerable buffeting of the permanently flooded cypress-gum aircraft with resultant camera swamps. Photography covering AUTHORS: Christopher Wells*, axis differences from the ground the Singer Tract in both 1938 Larry Handley*, Jason Degas**, between flight lines and even and 1998 were obtained and Wylie Barrow* PhD, Tommy between individual frames; photointerpreted. Habitat data Michot* PhD, National Wetlands and extremely problematic dating from 1938 were derived Research Center, * United States ground control points for from 1:18,000 scale, black and Geological Survey, ** IAP World rectification. Finally, since the white, aerial photography. The Services, Inc. U. S. Geological 1938 photography was taken 1938 photography was scanned Survey, National Wetlands during the growing season, we and rectified using Leica Imagine Research Center, Lafayette, were unable to observe either software. 1998 habitat data Louisiana 70506. the middle stories or the ground were derived from USGS NAPP cover except under the most 1:40,000 scale, color infrared, ABSTRACT: The Ivory-billed unusual circumstances. aerial photography, digital Woodpecker, long suspected to be ortho quarter quads. Using this extinct, is now known to persist We developed a statistically valid photography, areas of Tensas in remnant lowlands of the Cache method of stereo-photographic 58 analysis that allowed the quads of the area using ERDAS erythrocephalus), Yellow-shafted quantification of many factors of Imagine software. A mosaic Flicker (Colaptes auratus), interest in describing the habitat of the rectified photographs Yellow-bellied Sapsucker requirements of the Ivory-billed was exported to ArcMap and (Sphyrapicus varius), and Woodpecker in the early 20th boundaries were drawn of 7 Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides Century. This method required Ivory-billed Woodpecker home villosus). The effective survey some compromises that we ranges (mean = 871 ha, range distance varied by species, believe are tolerable, especially = 501 ha – 1369 ha) and 3 “best season and area. Except for the given the paucity of actual data areas” (Tanner 1942, p. 38 and p. Hairy Woodpecker, we were able regarding the habits and habitats 91; respectively). Boundaries of at least to estimate 1 season- of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. an additional 7 randomly selected specific density per species which areas were created (each area ranged from a low of 9 (95% CI TITLE: Ivory-Billed Woodpecker = 871 ha) to delineate areas not 4.5 – 18.1) Pileated Woodpeckers/ Habitat Relations for the Singer used by Ivory-bills during the km2 during winter 2007 to a high Tract, Louisiana: A Retrospective breeding seasons 1934-1939. We of 161 (95% CI 144.2 – 180.6) Analysis. described categories of dead and Red-bellied Woodpeckers/ km2 AUTHORS: Wylie C. Barrow, Jr., dying trees, forest disturbance, during spring 2007. Densities of Christopher P. Wells, Thomas C. canopy texture, canopy gaps, Downy Woodpecker and Red- Michot, James B. Grace, Larry R. super-emergent trees, and habitat bellied Woodpecker were about Handley, Heather Q. Baldwin1., types in areas used and not used five times greater than Pileated Tyson L. Hatch1., and Jason by Ivory-bills. Results provide Woodpecker densities across Dugas1., U. S. Geological Survey, insight into how Ivory-bills used seasons. We were only able National Wetlands Research the Singer Tract, and will inform to estimates winter densities Center, and 1.IAP World Services, forest restoration/management for Red-bellied Woodpecker, Inc., Lafayette, Louisiana 70506. and searches for potential Ivory- Yellow-bellied Sapsucker and bill habitat. Yellow-shafted Flicker. Our ABSTRACT: Currently, there estimated woodpecker densities are no known Ivory-billed TITLE: Woodpecker Densities and usually exceeded comparable Woodpecker activity areas that Habitat Use in the Big Woods of species-specific densities from can be carefully delineated and Arkansas. other study sites, indicating that studied to determine habitat AUTHORS: David G. Krementz the Big Woods may be unique relations. Work conducted on the - USGS Arkansas Coop Unit, in attracting and/or holding last known populations by James Dept. Biological Sciences, Univ. woodpeckers. Our next step Tanner (Singer Tract, Louisiana; Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, Jason will be to relate woodpecker 1930s) and George Lamb (Cuba; D. Luscier – Dept. Biological abundance and distributions 1950’s), have provided thirteen Sciences, Univ. Arkansas, to habitat variables thought known locations of Ivory-billed Fayetteville, AR important to woodpeckers. Woodpecker home ranges. Aerial photographs corresponding ABSTRACT: To understand TITLE: LiDAR “Images” of Forest to the dates and locations of the potential habitat use of the Structure: Will They Help Us their studies are known to Ivory-Billed Woodpecker better, Improve Wildlife Habitat Quality? exist. We created an ArcMap we investigated the habitat use of AUTHORS: Helen J-H Whiffen, GeoDatabase of the Singer Tract all woodpeckers in the Big Woods PhD and Ken Reinecke, PhD, by combining interpreted 1938 of Arkansas. With the Big Woods Lower Mississippi Valley Joint aerial photographs (mapped Ivory-billed habitat inventory Venture, Vicksburg, MS, USGS and sampled stereoscopic sampling scheme as a sampling – National Wetlands Research interpretation) and ancillary frame, we used a stratified Center, Lafayette, LA, USGS historical data (e.g., 1815-55 sampling approach to select – Patuxent Wildlife Research surveyor’s maps, 1830 – 1943 92 sites across 3 areas (Cache Center, Laurel, MD Madison Parish tax records, 1863 River NWR, White River NWR, confiscated Confederate Army AR Game & Fish Comm.). We ABSTRACT: Quality wildlife maps, 1935 and 1941 Singer Tract surveyed each site 5 times during habitat – forested acreage is maps created by James Tanner, spring 2006 and winter and spring not enough. To thrive, wildlife and 1931-1938 topographical quad 2007 (15 surveys per site total) for requires specific forest structure maps) to characterize habitat woodpecker use. We estimated and other habitat conditions. To used by Ivory-bills. For the density by species using the improve wildlife habitat quality photo-interpretation, we used program DISTANCE. We in these fiscally thin times, panchromatic photography of the recorded 3,585 detections across managers need to know where Singer Tract that was flown in the following species: Pileated to apply management actions to August 1938 at a nominal scale Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker induce optimal wildlife responses. of 1:18,000. All photographs (Picoides pubescens), Red- were scanned at high resolution bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes What is the quality of the existing (12 microns) and rectified to carolinus), Red-headed forest habitat? To answer this the 2004 digital ortho quarter Woodpecker (Melanerpes question, foresters, wildlife 59 biologists – land managers – need Woods Road, Ithaca 14850. 1York University Las Nubes a scale-relevant, affordable, E-mail: [email protected] 2 Project, Faculty of Environmental accurate and robust means of The Evergreen State College, Studies, 4700 Keele Street, monitoring the vertical structure 2700 Evergreen Parkway NW, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3. of the forest over space and time. Olympia, Washington 98505. E-mail: [email protected] The hypothesis: large footprint, E-mail: [email protected] waveform LiDAR (Light 2Cornell Laboratory of Detection and Ranging) provides ABSTRACT: Temporary Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker an innovative means for these concentrations of dead and dying Woods Road, Ithaca NY 14850. land managers to quantify forest trees are important as feeding E-mail: [email protected] sites for Ivory-billed Woodpecker. structure and, consequently, 3Congaree National Park, 100 evaluate wildlife habitat quality. Hurricane impact, a major agent of concentrated tree death in the National Park Road, Hopkins SC To assess this hypothesis southeastern U.S., is generally 29061. E-mail: theresa_thom@ NASA – Goddard Space Flight expected to benefit the species. nps.gov 4York University Center, in conjunction with In February 2002 we conducted Las Nubes Project, Faculty of Drs. Dubayah and Hofton, point counts to assess woodpecker Environmental Studies, 4700 University of Maryland, flew densities in mature bottomland Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario the Region of Rediscovery in forests of the Pearl River basin, M3J 1P3. E-mail: jaguar@yorku. June, 2006, collecting large Louisiana. In 2005 these forests ca footprint, waveform LiDAR were severely damaged by the ABSTRACT: A mechanical (Light Detection and Ranging) Katrina and Rita hurricanes. device for imitation of double- data over 1.2 million acres to map We repeated our Pearl River knock drums of Campephilus the forest structure of potential point counts in February 2006, woodpeckers was developed Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. 2007, and 2008 to monitor the at the Cornell Laboratory of Direct products from LiDAR data hurricane impact on woodpecker Ornithology. Thirty copies of collection (e. g., forest canopy populations. No Ivory-billed the device have been distributed height, percent canopy cover) Woodpeckers were observed. to aid Ivory-billed Woodpecker have already been used to inform Following Tanner, we used density surveys across the southeastern Ivory-billed Woodpecker search of Red-bellied Woodpecker U.S. We examined whether use and planning efforts. and Pileated Woodpecker as of the double-knocker device a proxy for habitat suitability improves the detection rate We continue to assess the abilities for Ivory-billed Woodpecker. of LiDAR data to of Campephilus woodpeckers, Densities of these woodpeckers and whether it causes undue Quantify forest basal area were greatly reduced in all of disturbance to these birds, using the three post-hurricane years. the Pale-billed Woodpecker Quantify forest biomass Red-headed Woodpecker has (C. guatemalensis) as a model. disappeared from the area. Experiments were conducted Quantify the vertical structure of Standing hurricane-killed trees the forest between late September 2007 were in an advanced state of and early February 2008 in the Assist managers to visualize decay as soon as 18 months after Alexander Skutch Biological complete forest stands in 3D the hurricanes. We conclude Corridor, Southern Pacific Slope that bottomland forests in the of Costa Rica. We conducted 49 Assist managers with land full impact zone of a hurricane tests with the double-knocker, management decisions path are too severely damaged to under a variety of conditions, in benefit woodpecker populations. Merge with other types of three Pale-billed Woodpecker Historically, in a contiguously home ranges. Responses remotely sensed data (e. forested landscape, any hurricane g., Hyperion, ASTER) and were detected in 45% of the left moderately damaged forests experiments. Often the first accurately describe forest peripheral to its pathway that structure and composition. detection cue was the sound may well have benefited Ivory- of wing beats of a woodpecker Our presentation will illustrate billed Woodpeckers. This is no coming in to investigate. our findings. longer the case with the present Responses were most prevalent fragmented distribution of when the woodpeckers were TITLE: Are Hurricanes Good for the bottomland forests of the confirmed to be in the immediate Ivory-bills? Impact of Hurricanes Southeast. vicinity (<100 m) at the time on Woodpecker Populations in the of the experiment. The device Pearl River Basin, Louisiana TITLE: Imitation of Double-knock Drums in Ivory-billed Woodpecker also proved successful in AUTHORS: Martjan Surveys: Tests with Pale-billed generating responses from Lammertink, Utami Setiorini1, Woodpeckers in Costa Rica birds not confirmed to be in the and Alison Styring vicinity prior to the experiment, AUTHORS: Chris Saker1, especially in hours of high bird 1Cornell Laboratory of Martjan Lammertink2, Theresa activity in the early morning Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Thom3, and Howard Daugherty4 and late afternoon. Comparisons 60 with similar experiments using boles of live trees (vigorous to ecology of large woodpeckers in vocalization and double-knock decadent). Nest and roost sites bottomland hardwood forests recording playbacks, showed contained more trees >50 cm in the southeastern U.S. We a greater rate and intensity dbh than did availability plots. present preliminary findings of response when the double- Foraging observations were on large woodpecker ecology in knocker tool was used. Pale- conducted in 31 territories of bottomland hardwood habitats, billed Woodpeckers generally radio-tagged and non-radio- using Pileated Woodpeckers resumed routine activities within tagged Pileated Woodpeckers. as our model species. These 30 minutes after use of the Pileated Woodpeckers spent data suggest that certain double-knocker, and no birds left the highest proportion of their characteristics of nest trees, territories or roost holes after foraging time excavating (58%), cavity trees, and forage trees use of the device. In conclusion followed by pecking (14%), selected by large woodpeckers the double-knocker proved to be gleaning (14%), scaling (7%), were different between the an effective and safe means for berry-eating (4%), and probing lower and higher bottomland improving detection probability (3%) on trunks with bark, habitats. Specifically, Pileated of Campephilus woodpeckers, (41%) dead branches (27%), live Woodpeckers nested in trees making it a promising tool in branches (13%), trunks without that were shorter, had a smaller the search for Ivory-billed bark (10%), and vines (9%). dbh, and were more advanced in Woodpeckers. Woodpeckers preferred bitter decay than trees they selected pecan, avoided sugarberry, and as roosts. In 2007, we estimated TITLE: Ecology of Pileated used overcup oak in proportion mean spatial use patterns in Woodpecker (Dryocopus Pileatus) to availability. They avoided dbh 9/13 radio-marked Pikeatd Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging classes 10-20, selected dbh classes Woodpeckers as 264.4 ha (range and Saproxylic Beetles in Partial 50-70, and used dbh classes 30-40 = 22.4 – 994.3 ha). In addition, Cut and Uncut Bottomland in proportion to their availability nesting, roosting, and foraging Hardwood Forests in most treatments. In partial locations were documented for AUTHORS: Patricia Newell1 cuts, extremely large trees (dbh radio-marked and unmarked and Sammy L. King2, 1School of classes 80-90+) were selected. individuals. Adult Pileated Renewable Natural Resources, Pileated Woodpeckers either Woodpeckers exhibited smaller LSU Ag Center, Baton Rouge, avoided vigorous and decadent home-ranges ( = 27.3 ha) than LA 70803 2Louisiana Cooperative trees for foraging or used them reported in the literature (ca. 53– Fish and Wildlife Research in proportion to their availability. 160 ha), suggesting high-quality Unit, USGS, 124 School of Woodpeckers preferred trees habitats. Four of 13 radio-marked Renewable Natural Resources, in early stages of decay in all individuals were depredated in LSU AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA treatments, but in two-year- the lower bottomland habitat: 70803 old partial cuts they preferred perhaps dispersal or mate trees in late stages of decay. The searching is very dangerous ABSTRACT: Relative abundance mean proportion of thatching in this environment. Most and species richness of saproxylic ant individuals was (44 ± 7.1), recent Ivory-billed Woodpecker beetles and nesting, roosting, followed by unknown seeds (26.6 sightings occurred in these lower and foraging ecology of Pileated ± 5.4), poison ivy seeds (15.4 bottomland habitats. Further, we Woodpeckers were studied in ± 2.7), carpenter ants (10.6 ± documented nest depredation, recent partial cuts and uncut 3.9), and beetles (4.9 ± 1.4). The which could be another limiting forest during 2006 and 2007. proportion of food items in scat factor affecting Ivory-billed Relative abundance of saproxylic did not vary among treatment Woodpecker population growth, if beetles was greater in partial types. extant. cuts than in uncut forest in both years but species richness was TITLE: Pileated Woodpecker TITLE: Using Hydrogeomorphic the same. The number of dead Nesting Ecology in the Big Woods Community Maps to Better trees and period of capture also of Arkansas: Possible Inferences Understand Potential Ivory-billed influenced beetle abundance. to Limiting Factors Affecting Ivory- Woodpecker Habitat in Arkansas Partial cuts and uncut forest billed Woodpecker Population and Louisiana Growth? provide similar habitat for AUTHORS:Thomas Foti, nesting and roosting Pileated AUTHORS: Brandon L Noel; Charles Klimas, Jody Pagan and Woodpeckers. Woodpeckers used Bednarz, J. C.; Rowe, Z. F., Elizabeth Murray a variety of species of trees that Arkansas State University, State were between 42 and 150 cm University, AR. bnoelmarinebio@ ABSTRACT: Varying flow diameter at breast height (dbh) hotmail.com regimes and depositional for nesting (n = 24, 60.5 ± 3.02; environments throughout the mean ± SE) and roosting (n = ABSTRACT: One significant Quaternary Period have left 15, 70.3 ± 7.03). Bald cypress obstacle to the recovery of a subtly complex landscape of was selected in all treatments. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is depositional features within Nests (22 of 24) and roosts (12 the lack of information about the Mississippi Alluvial Valley of 15) were predominantly in this species’ biology and the (MAV). Those variations 61 produce spatial complexity and valuable insight particularly female induced, on average, 0.4- diversity, with the distribution when used in conjunction with 3.2% (range: 0-28%) reduction of plant communities reflecting descriptions by scientists such as in extinction rate. Increasing abiotic site characteristics Tanner, early forest inventories, initial population size from 5-30 such as geomorphology, soil, General Land Office surveys, and drove extinction rate <0.05 hydrology and topography. other sources. A limitation of the under limited conditions: 1) all Recent studies have established HGM approach is that it is based input values were intermediate, hydrogeomorphic (HGM) criteria in part on flood frequency maps or 2) Allee effect was present for wetland classification over a that are somewhat uncertain even and annual adult survival was ≥ large part of the MAV. Detailed, with modern data; projecting site- 0.8. On the basis of our model, spatially explicit geomorphology specific conditions into the past these species can persist as rare and soils data are available over must be approached with caution. (as few as 5 females), and thus the entire MAV, along with flood difficult-to-detect, populations frequency maps at varying levels TITLE: A Stochastic Population provided they maintain ≥ 1.1 of detail. Therefore the tools Viability Analysis for Rare Large- recruited females annually per exist to apply HGM principles to bodied Woodpeckers, with adult female and an annual develop maps of potential plant Implications for the Ivory-billed adult survival rate ≥ 0.8. While a community distribution based Woodpecker demographic-based PVA is useful on identifiable combinations of AUTHORS: Brady J. Mattsson to predict how extinction rate abiotic characteristics of sites, [email protected]), Rua S. changes across scenarios for life whether they are currently Mordecai (rstob@warnell. history attributes, the next step forested or in agriculture or uga.edu), Michael J. Conroy for modeling these populations other use. These Potential ([email protected]), James T. should incorporate more easily- Natural Vegetation (PNV) Peterson (jpeterson@warnell. acquired data on changes in patch maps provide an indication of uga.edu), Robert J. Cooper occupancy to make predictions the multi-scale complexity that ([email protected]), and about patch colonization and once characterized the MAV, and Hans Christensen (ssphanc@ extinction rates. can serve as planning tools for get2net.dk). restoration. PNV maps have been TITLE: Causes of the Ivory-bill’s completed for most of the MAV in ABSTRACT: Six large-bodied Decline Arkansas; the approach currently (i.e., ≥120 g) woodpecker species AUTHOR: Noel F.R. Snyder is being applied to northeastern are listed as near threatened Louisiana, and it can be expanded to critically endangered by the ABSTRACT: In most modern to the entire MAV. IUCN. The small population accounts the endangerment of paradigm assumes that these the Ivory-billed Woodpecker has These maps provide insight into populations are likely to become been attributed mainly to (1) the composition and distribution extinct without an increase in feeding specialization leading of forests occupied by Ivory-billed numbers, but the combined to a dependency of individuals Woodpeckers along the Tensas influences of initial population size on huge areas of pristine forest, River of Louisiana ca. 1940 and and demographic rates (annual and (2) the logging of nearly in the area of rediscovery along adult survival and fecundity) all virgin forests in the species’ the White and Cache rivers in may drive population persistence original range. However, the Arkansas at present. The maps for these species. We applied a direct evidence for feeding are particularly useful in the stochastic, stage-based single- specialization in the Ivory-bill is Tensas area since much of the population model to available weak, and early reports strongly forest there has been cleared or demographic rates for Dryocopus suggest the species was once substantially altered since the and Campephilus woodpeckers. common in bottomland forests. time of Tanner’s studies in the In particular, we determined the The Ivory-bill did show evidence Singer tract. His studies provided change in predicted extinction of sparse populations and often considerable detail on habitat rate (i.e., proportion of simulated a close association with remnant relationships of the Ivory-billed populations that went extinct virgin forests as it closely Woodpecker at that time, but within 100 years) to proportional approached extinction, but these typically his descriptions were changes in six input parameters. features may have been caused general and his detailed tables To our knowledge, this is the first by factors other than difficulties of composition and structure study to evaluate the combined with food procurement. In cannot be extrapolated to the importance of initial population particular, human depredations entire area or to specific sites. size and demographic rates for on the species provide a plausible Therefore questions remain as the persistence of large-bodied alternative explanation for decline to the distribution, composition woodpeckers. Under a worse- that poses no inconsistencies and structure of the forests at case scenario, the median time with early abundance of the that time. HGM mapping can to extinction was 8 years (range: species. At the same time, provide insight into the first 1-50). Across the combinations human depredation is as good two questions. Maps produced of other input values, increasing an explanation for last habitat through this process can provide initial population size by one associations of the species as are 62 problems with food procurement of the historical floodplain, thus dependent wildlife species. because remote virgin forests affecting the delivery of water However, forest loss, were likely the regions least and nutrient-rich sediments. fragmentation, and hydrological impacted by depredations. These flood control activities also change have markedly altered Human depredations also have altered river stage which habitat conditions within provide a plausible explanation can affect the water table at a bottomland forests such that for the disappearance of some variety of spatial and temporal some species of concern (e.g., populations prior to logging and scales. The overall goal of this Ivory-billed Woodpecker, for long persistence of the last study is to quantify hydrologic Louisiana black bear (Ursus known Cuban population in spite and geomorphic processes americanus luteolus),and some of logging. Better survival of within and among floodplains migratory songbirds) have been the Pileated Woodpecker to the and determine their influence on severely impacted. To provide present may have resulted mainly forest community composition habitat for these and other from lesser vulnerability of this and tree growth. The study area priority wildlife species, we species to human depredations, is located in NWRs and WMAs advocate forest conditions that not to any foraging superiority. in the LMAV. Study sites are are conducive to the continued Logging’s most negative impact uneven-aged forests selected viability of this suite of priority on the Ivory-bill may not have along a flooding gradient and wildlife species. Forest-dependent been decreases in food supplies stratified by geomorphic feature (silvicolous) wildlife is responsive but increases in depredations, (ridge, swale, and flat). We will to habitat conditions at multiple resulting from enhanced access present initial results from a spatial scales (e.g., landscape to, and increased human densities dendroecological study comparing quality and site quality).To in, forested areas. Under the green ash growth between ridges address this issue, we define human depredations hypothesis, and swales at White River NWR, Desired Forest Conditions as there is no reason to assume Arkansas. We also compare those forested landscapes that Ivory-bills were limited to old- Nuttall oak growth between three meet both Desired Landscape growth forests, had huge range ridges, swales, and flats at Bayou Conditions and Desired Stand requirements, or were a “disaster Cocodrie NWR, Louisiana. Trees Conditions. Traditional forest species” highly dependent on selected for dendrochronological management has focused on food-enhancing catastrophes such analysis were overstory trees production of forest products as fire or storm damage of forests, from 30 sample plots per (i.e., lumber or pulp) through as suggested by some observers. geomorphic feature. Time-series silviculture that promotes optimal Conservation priorities under a analysis was used to compare growth and vigorous health human depredations hypothesis tree growth with climate of economically desirable tree are quite different from (temperature, precipitation, species. Often these traditional conservation priorities under a and Palmer Drought Severity silvicultural methods are not feeding specialization hypothesis. Index) and river stage. Future optimal for silvicolous wildlife. plans include quantifying fine Indeed, quality habitat for TITLE: Spatial and Temporal scale hydrology (surface and priority wildlife species likely Dynamics of Tree Growth in Two subsurface) in monitoring wells requires some sacrifice in timber Floodplain Forests across each geomorphic feature production and the retention AUTHORS: Hugo K. W. Gee1, and historical flooding regime at of less healthy trees. Even so, Sammy L. King2 water wells extrapolated from commercially viable, wildlife- nearby gauges. oriented silviculture (i.e., wildlife 1 LSU AgCenter, 227 School of forestry) employing variable Renewable Natural Resources, TITLE: Restoration and retention harvests can be used Baton Rouge, LA 70803, hgee1@ Monitoring of Forest Resources in conjunction with forest lsu.edu, 2 USGS Louisiana in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: restoration, regeneration, and Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Enhancing natural processes to achieve Research Unit, 124 School of Wildlife Habitat desired forest conditions Renewable Natural Resources, LMVJV Forest Resource within bottomland hardwood Baton Rouge, LA 70803, Consservataion Working Group. forests. The recommendations [email protected] 2007:. contained within this report were developed specifically to ABSTRACT: Hydrologic and AUTHORS: Edited by R. Wilson, address issues surrounding geomorphic processes that K. Ribbeck, S. King, and D. restoration, management, and structure floodplain forests of the Twedt. monitoring of forest resources in Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley the MAV. However, the working (LMAV) have been altered at ABSTRACT: The conservation group believes that these the regional, landscape, and local objective in the Mississippi recommendations are applicable level. Levees, channelization, and Alluvial Valley is to provide to other bottomland hardwood other flood control activities have forested habitat capable systems across the southeastern eliminated or altered overbank of supporting sustainable United States provided and backwater flooding in much populations of all forest- users consider differences 63 in geomorphology, soils, and Big Woods more systematically. initially encouraged by the hydrology where applicable. Although >35,000 hours were identification of some stands logged (at a cost of ~$1.6 that had not been searched in This document provides million), only 12% of the area previous seasons. Nevertheless, technical guidance for the was searched. Continued failure after scouting some areas, restoration and management of to document the bird, high costs searches were discouraged by bottomland hardwood forests associated with systematic the lack of conformity of the where conservation of wildlife sampling, and the acquisition sites to perceptions of Ivory-bill resources is a central purpose and of stand and site-scale habitat habitat and the similarity of those objective. As such, the document data within the region prompted locations to marginal and suitable integrates habitat conditions for searchers to seek a prioritization forest stands. Future attempts priority wildlife with technical tool that could focus search areas to develop a search prioritization recommendations for the on locations with the highest tool should use biological data restoration and management of habitat quality. Twenty habitat to set objective thresholds for bottomland hardwood forests. To variables derived from three marginal, suitable, and optimal achieve these habitat conditions sources (National Landcover habitats to restrict potential requires managers to reassess Dataset, field-based sampling, search areas more effectively traditional methods of silviculture, and LiDAR) representing three to sites with the best potential placing greater emphasis on scales (landscape, stand, and habitat. retaining and promoting forest site, respectively) were identified structure and senescence to as potential model parameters. TITLE: Field-based Forest benefit priority wildlife. We We asked six experts to rank Structure Mapping Cache Lower envision these recommendations these variables and provide White River will aid on-the-ground managers threshold values for non-habitat, and program managers AUTHOR: Jeff Denman, as well as marginal and suitable USFWS, White River NWR responsible for managing forest habitat quality. We weighed these resources in implementing variables equally within scales ABSTRACT: The announcement forest management strategies and weighed each scale equally of rediscovery of the Ivory-billed for wildlife conservation. to develop a single, preliminary Woodpecker in the Cache/Lower Furthermore, we anticipate that model for review at an August White River basin of Arkansas set these recommendations will be 2007 meeting. Attendees at that in motion a series of conservation instructive to private landowners meeting dropped consideration actions. As Cornell and their targeting wildlife conservation of landscape-scale factors due to partners continued to search and as part of their overall land their inability to inform searches document evidence (e.g., sightings stewardship objectives, especially (i.e., there was little variability and sound recordings), it was on lands under conservation in landscape-scale factors across imperative that a concurrent easement. the search area). Additionally, habitat inventory and assessment TITLE: Modeling Ivory-billed they preferred to use the be conducted to facilitate the Woodpecker Habitat Quality information hierarchically (i.e., search efforts and to document to Prioritize Search Areas in individual models for each scale) existing habitat conditions. Arkansas rather than combine the data into a single model. Five factors This inventory quantifies current AUTHORS: John M. Tirpak1, were identified for inclusion in habitat conditions on public lands Amy S. Keister1, Helen J-H. the stand-level model: three within proximity to recent Ivory- Whiffen2, and Blair E. Tirpak3. associated with forage availability billed Woodpecker sightings 1Lower Mississippi Valley Joint (density of trees with moderate to and audio recordings and areas Venture, 2524 South Frontage heavy bark disfiguration, density perceived likely to harbor Ivory- Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 of trees exhibiting crown dieback, billed Woodpecker on the basis USA; 2USGS National Wetlands and the density of recently of information provided by local Research Center, 2524 South dead trees) and one (density of land managers. These data were Frontage Road, Vicksburg, trees >24” dbh) associated with used to: (1) develop a spatially- MS 39180 USA; 3The Nature appropriate timber size class. explicit decision support model Conservancy, 2524 South Threshold values for optimal, to facilitate search efforts, (2) Frontage Road, Vicksburg, MS suitable, and marginal habitat provide ground-truth data to 39180 USA; [email protected] were determined via quantiles enhance accuracy of remotely- for all model parameters related sensed data, and (3) provide land ABSTRACT: Initial searches to forage. Stands with >7.5 managers with a basis for making for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker trees/acre with a dbh <24” were management decisions. in the region of rediscovery considered marginal habitat. At The habitat inventory covered predominantly focused on the site-scale, two variables were locations in the immediate bottomland hardwood forest used in the model: canopy height (excluding reforestation and vicinity of previous sightings. In and canopy cover. Searchers the following years, a concerted bodies of water—for example, approached the results with oxbow lakes—within the effort was made to search the guarded optimism and were 64 boundaries of the individual amount of variation expressed in WMAs and NWRs. Due to the the replicates and also produced large acreage of interest, the acceptable levels of precision. inventory was sample-based. None exceeded 15%. To accomplish this, individual management compartments Given the current funding within the area of interest were constraints, availability of broken down into homogenous manpower, the large area of stands approximately 500 acres interest in the Big Woods of in size. Each management Arkansas (Cache River NWR, compartment and stand was White River NWR, and Dagmar digitized to create a GIS shapefile WMA) and the desire to maintain for use in the allocation process, an acceptable level of precision as well as in analysis of the data. (i.e., low CV values) in parameter As with any sampling effort, estimates, a sample size of 4 there are trade-offs in terms of clusters per sampling unit, for cost (e.g., number of samples and example, a stand, appears to be manpower) and the reliability of the best option. That is, sample the data. One means of assessing sizes of ≤3 clusters were not these trade-offs was to examine sufficient to produce a high level pilot data collected from the area of precision consistently. Sample of interest to generate summary sizes ≥4 clusters produced statistics which provided insight precise parameter estimates with into distributional properties sample sizes ≥6 clusters being of the data. To facilitate the very precise in the parameter determination of sample size estimates. A closer examination requirements for conducting reveals that a sample size of four habitat inventories for Ivory- clusters is sufficient to maintain billed Woodpeckers (e.g., the the desired level of precision in density of large diameter trees parameter estimates. [≥24inches]; density of dead/ dying trees), pilot data from White River NWR was subjected to sensitivity analyses to assess precision—that is, stability of the coefficient of variation values—under different sample sizes. To accomplish this, we subjected the pilot data (n=15 clusters of 5, 1/5th acre plots) to simulation models that randomly selected clusters of points at varying sample sizes and generated summary statistics for the parameter of interest, for example, density of trees ≥24 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). In these simulations, CV values were calculated for sample sizes of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 clusters by randomly selecting clusters and then replicating the procedure 10 times. Simulations resulted in the calculation of 10 CV values for each sample size (Fig. 2). The simulations revealed great variation in precision estimates (e.g., CV values) for sample sizes ≤3; whereas sample sizes ≥6 demonstrated little variation in the precision estimates. Precision estimates calculated for sample sizes of 4 and 5 clusters were similar in the 65 66 Appendix E. Interpreting Historical Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker with Recent Evidence for the Species’ Persistence in the Southeastern United States.

Prepared by William C. Hunter which persisted in many parts With his study of this small U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Southeast into the early remnant population and search Atlanta, GA 30345 1900s. However, associations of other areas likely to support between forested wetland the bird, Tanner was the last to Regardless of the debate over systems and this species may be document thoroughly the range of the meaning of evidence for the only part of the story leading to this species. He also documented persistence of the Ivory-billed the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s the reduction of their numbers, by Woodpecker (Campephilus demise in the Southeast. the mid-1940s, to about 20 birds principalis) into the 21st Century scattered in Louisiana (the Singer as described in Appendix B, was In addition to habitat loss, by the Tract), the Gulf coast of Florida this species difficult to relocate late 1800s the species was already (from Apalachicola River basin once located through time going targeted as a valuable commodity to the Lower Suwannee River back to 1800? Was the Ivory- for collectors and trophy hunters basin and adjacent swamps), the billed Woodpecker truly resident as something very rare and Highlands Hammock and Big in local areas or more periodically unusual (Snyder 2007). This Cypress regions of south Florida, nomadic than previously realized? already rare species became even and central South Carolina (the Specifically, is there strong rarer, especially in remaining “Santee” River region, now evidence in the historical record suitable habitat. By the early fragmented by Lake Marion, and that once located, this species 1900s, it was generally thought adjacent swamps). could be reliably relocated from extinct in continental North one year to the next within a America until Dr. Arthur Allen There has not been an decade and across decades, and his wife documented a pair undisputed report of Ivory-billed throughout much of its historical in central Florida in 1924. When Woodpeckers in the United States distribution? The following that pair was collected by local since 1944, when an individual of sections provide an historical taxidermists, this species again the small population studied at summary of reports and of the disappeared from science. the Singer Tract, Louisiana, was species’ status. last seen. Reputable sightings By the time conservationists of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers Historical Summary-1800 to 1944 began to raise the alarm about continued in and near the Singer The Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s the future survival of the Tract at least until 1946, and decline since the 1800s is well Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the possible encounters continued into documented in several resources early 1900s, most remaining the 1980s, but nothing has been (Allen and Kellogg 1937, Tanner populations already were doomed considered definite since 1944. 1942, Jackson 2002, Jackson 2004, to extirpation from habitat Hoose 2004, Gallagher 2005). fragmentation, demographic However, since the end of World Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in the isolation, and shooting. This point War II, numerous reports have United States formerly ranged in was driven home with what was surfaced elsewhere across the the coastal plain stretching from later to be understood as the last Southeastern U.S. suggesting eastern Oklahoma and Texas known Ivory-billed Woodpecker the persistence of at least some eastward into North Carolina, population in the United States Ivory-billed Woodpeckers well southward to include all of being studied by Allen and after the 1940s in areas such Florida, and in the Mississippi Kellogg (1937) and particularly as the Piney Woods of eastern Alluvial Valley northward to the by Dr. James Tanner (1942). As Texas, the Atchafalaya Basin of confluence with the Ohio River Allen and Tanner documented southern Louisiana, the Delta and then eastward on the Ohio behavior and habitat use of the in Mississippi, the coastal plain River bordering Kentucky and birds at the Singer Tract, the of South Carolina, and Florida. Illinois (with archaeological habitat surrounding the study Most of these reports occurred evidence that Ivory-billed area was disappearing at an before the 1970s with some having Woodpecker may have occurred alarming rate. These researchers been shown to be more credible northward to the Missouri River understood that without than others, but none represented confluence and eastward to immediate conservation action firm documentation that Ivory- southern Ohio at least 300 years this remaining population would billed Woodpeckers still occur in prior to European settlement). be lost. the Southeastern United States. The best understood habitat for Without any additional tangible this species is expansive, mature evidence, this essentially remains (“old-growth”) forested wetlands true today outside of Arkansas.

67 Potential Encounters-1944 to 1999 alive and not a mounted specimen However, in the spring of 1968 Since the 1940s, Ivory-billed secured to each of the two trees. the tree in question blew over Woodpeckers have existed The pose is similar on both trees and feathers were found. The essentially as ghost birds of the and neither the bill nor feet are feather of most interest was a swamps. Reports regularly visible in either photograph, secondary that was subsequently come in of fleeting glimpses both of which are also grainy in identified by the Smithsonian between dense stands of mature quality. The photograph was Institution as that of an Ivory- or regenerating forests and of recently revealed to be taken by billed Woodpecker and considered mysterious noises sounding Mr. Fielding Lewis of Franklin, relatively fresh and not worn like tin horns or loud pounding Louisiana (Gallagher 2005). Both (see pages 407-410 in Stevenson double-raps on wood emanating Lowry and Dr. Van Remsen and Anderson 1994). However from across a bayou. Most of the (Lowry’s successor at the LSU’s intriguing this feather is, its sightings upon investigation can Museum of Natural History) age remains unknown, so it is be quickly assigned to Pileated treated these photographs relatively useless in establishing Woodpeckers (Dryocopus as reasonably firm evidence a date at which the Ivory-bill pileatus) or Red-headed that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers was extant in central Florida. Woodpeckers (Melanerpes persisted at least into the early (A different secondary feather erythrocephalus). The tin-horn 1970s. As is often the case with identified as that of an Ivory- sounding “toot” calls possibly evidence concerning this bird, billed Woodpecker purportedly could be assigned to Blue Jays however, many ornithologists from the Appalachicola region (Cyanocitta cristata) that have doubt the authenticity of these found during the 1980s remains been observed and taped giving photographs. In essence, no mysterious.) “toots” considered very similar evidence since World War II has but not identical to known Ivory- undisputedly documented that Despite these reasonably credible billed Woodpecker calls. The Ivory-billed Woodpeckers persist reports, no firm documentation source of double-raps may be of in Louisiana. has ever been received to confirm any sort in the woods, including that a pair or even an individual other woodpeckers, limbs After 1950 and the demise of bird persisted in Florida after rubbing against each other under Louisiana’s Singer Tract, many World War II. Reputable breezy conditions, colliding duck searchers came to consider observers contend that the wingtips, or even vehicles going Florida the most likely State species could still exist in Florida, over bumps on a distant highway. to support this species, due to and a recent analysis of bill marks the extensive amount of remote (grooves) at the cavity entrance Despite all of these potential forested wetlands that persisted, where feathers were found in explanations for what people have despite most of these areas being 1968 was determined to be in seen or heard, there remain a cut over at least once. Florida, line with bill marks from known number of reports that are not despite a rapidly growing Ivory-billed Woodpecker cavities easily dismissed but which lack population, still had large areas (P. Sykes, USGS, pers. comm.). detail to constitute firm evidence of remote swampland and mature that the species persists. Interest forests throughout the State (at In South Carolina, credible generally has been restricted to a least until the 1970s). The most reports continued into the 1930s few large areas in the Southeast consistent area of observations in the vicinity of the Santee U.S., especially in Louisiana, but and credible sightings come from River swamp in Georgetown also in Florida, South Carolina, the Apalachicola and Chipola County, but there has been no and Texas. Rivers in the Florida Panhandle, confirmed report since then. In at least through the 1950s. 1971, Mr. Robert Manns, then After the loss of the Singer with the National Audubon Tract, attention in Louisiana The most intriguing reports after Society, reported a bird calling in shifted to the remote reaches of the 1950s are from 1967 to 1969 response to a tape recording as southern Louisiana, particularly (Agey and Heinzmann 1971). an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, again the Atchafalaya Delta south These reports involved birds along the Santee River but this of Interstate 10, which many using a cavity in central Florida time near Columbia. However, authorities believe is the most as a roost site. Although at least all followup surveys resulted in likely place a population of Ivory- one Ivory-billed Woodpecker was no confirmation that Ivory-billed billed Woodpeckers could escape seen in the vicinity of this cavity Woodpeckers persisted in the notice. In 1971, Dr. George tree on eleven separate days, swamps of South Carolina. Lowry from Louisiana State as well as a bird thought to be University came into possession calling from within the cavity, no Elsewhere in the Southeast of two color photographs of an photograph or convincing tape U.S., for a period of about a Ivory-billed Woodpecker perched recording was ever produced (a decade between 1965 and 1975, half-way up the side of two very tape was produced that Cornell numerous reports of Ivory- large trees. However, critics Laboratory of Ornithology billed Woodpeckers emerged pointed out that it was not clear audio experts identified as a from the Piney Woods of eastern the bird involved was actually call of Pileated Woodpeckers). Texas, in the vicinity of what is now Big Thicket National 68 Preserve, between the Trinity the Southeastern U.S. Jackson’s decade of relative silence, it came and Neches rivers. One of the findings were inconclusive as as a great surprise to many in the sightings was by Mr. John Dennis he found no hard evidence to conservation community that an (who was principally involved confirm the species’ existence apparently solid report of a pair in the rediscovery of Ivory- but discussed in some detail his of birds had been observed in the billed Woodpeckers in Cuba own possible encounters with late 1990s, this time along the during the late 1940s) and Mr. the species. Jackson provides Pearl River on the Louisiana side. Manuel Armand Yramategui in two accounts of his experiences, 1966 along the Neches River. one along the Noxubee River Mr. David Kulivan, a wildlife Also along the Neches River, in Alabama just across the student at Louisiana State Dennis in 1968 recorded what Mississippi state line and the University, waited a couple of he believed was an Ivory-billed other in Mississippi along the weeks after his wild turkey Woodpecker, which was analyzed Yazoo River confluence with hunting adventure during the by Hardy (1975) who concluded the Mississippi River. For spring of 1999 at the Pearl River it could have been an Ivory-billed the Noxubee River account WMA, but he finally contacted Woodpecker or possibly a Blue he glimpsed what he thought Van Remsen at the Museum of Jay. Recent analysis of this tape could have been an Ivory-billed Natural History, Louisiana State by the Cornell Laboratory of Woodpecker in 1973, but no University to discuss what he Ornithology determined that further evidence has emerged had observed. He claimed to the calls could have been made since the 1970s in Alabama. For have observed two Ivory-billed by an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, the Yazoo River account, Jackson Woodpeckers, one adult male a White-breasted Nuthatch and his graduate student, Mr. and one adult female, foraging (Sitta carolinensis), or a Blue Malcolm Hodges (who now works together for about 10 minutes. Jay. In addition to the Dennis for The Nature Conservancy Although he had a camera with tape, Mr. George Reynard used in Georgia), reported hearing a him, he claimed he was too much for his “Bird Songs in Cuba” bird in 1987 that in their view focused on observing the birds record, a recording apparently closely matched the Cornell tape to move an inch from his hunting of a “double-knock” attributed recording of the species. The position. After several hours of to an Ivory-billed Woodpecker bird in question apparently was interviews, Remsen concluded he heard from the Big Thicket responding to their playing of the that the details in Kulivan’s in 1969. Dr. Jerome Jackson Cornell tape, but never came in report were the most solid (2004) asked Tanner to review close enough for a visual contact, evidence he had heard in 22 years this tape, and he concluded and Jackson and Hodges had no of keeping track of information to that he did not think the noise capability to record what they suggest Ivory-billed Woodpeckers recorded is the double rap of heard. are still extant (Williams 2001, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Gallagher 2005). In addition, Reynard donated In sum, there have been numerous reports of Ivory-billed Once Kulivan’s sighting was copies of two slides to VIREO announced to the general public purporting to show a female Woodpeckers since the 1940s, and Jackson’s plea for the public nearly a year later, numerous Ivory-billed Woodpecker at a expeditions were organized cavity that were taken by Mr. to provide information during his status review resulted in to search for Ivory-billed Neil Wright during the 1960s Woodpeckers at Pearl River (see Collins 1970, also Jackson hundreds of letters and phone calls to Service biologists. Most WMA. Many folks believed 2004). So despite the credentials they glimpsed Ivory-billed of these two ornithologists of these reports again were dismissed easily as misidentified Woodpeckers or heard their calls making observations in Texas, far in the distance during various credible evidence of Ivory-billed Pileated Woodpeckers and in some cases Red-headed searches. Large cavities and Woodpeckers at any time during stripped bark aroused curiosity the mid-1900s in the vicinity Woodpeckers. Still, as suggested above, tantalizing reports as to their makers and occupants. of Big Thicket remains a hotly Finally as a last effort to locate debated issue to this day. including photographs, tape recordings, and a feather suggest this species, a well-funded In part due to the Big Thicket that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers corporately-sponsored team reports, the Southwest Region could have persisted in very of searchers during January- of the Service during the late low numbers in highly isolated February, 2002, raised everyone’s 1980s initiated a range-wide locations at least till the late interest when they reported and status review for the Ivory-billed 1980s. Nevertheless, near the taped a mysterious rapping sound Woodpecker and contracted end of the 20th Century there that could have been a large Jackson (2004) to conduct the was absolutely no undisputed woodpecker but upon analysis work. Jackson’s report provides evidence acceptable to the proved to be semi-automatic a thorough review of all past scientific community to back pistol fire. Once again, despite reports and an assessment up any claim that Ivory-billed this promising lead and very of whether the Ivory-billed Woodpeckers persisted past the intensive searching, no further Woodpecker could still persist in 1940s. Thus, after more than a hard evidence was produced to

69 document persistence of this most prior and post 1940) encounters where reports in Tanner lacked endangered bird in the United may reveal important patterns references to specimens found States. Even some of those who useful for guiding any future in Hahn with the same date and have raised doubts, claiming that organized searches. Perhaps location. Other reports were Mr. Kulivan’s report was “too as important, this assessment matched successfully to location, detailed,” admit it is possible the should generate important collector, or name of owner Ivory-bill is still extant, but hard research questions that should (museum, collection, etc.), but evidence again is lacking. More be considered with respect to were off by year or decade (e.g., recently, Hurricane Katrina searching for any rare, widely 1897 as opposed to 1898, or 1898 has produced numerous snags occurring, and/or otherwise versus 1889; one or the other and damaged trees in the Pearl difficult to detect species reference apparently contained a River basin but also toppled requiring conservation attention. typographic error). Since Tanner over nearly all of the older and was the primary reference, his larger hardwoods in the area. It For consistency, Tanner’s treatment of such reports took remains to be seen whether on geographical regions are used precedence, but documentation balance the quality of habitat here for all reports: (1) Carolina, (2) of discrepancies are provided as has improved or decreased for Georgia-northern Florida, (3) appropriate (many of these were Ivory-billed Woodpecker after southern Florida, (4) Alabama in fact corrected by Tanner in Katrina. (including the Florida panhandle his unpublished 1989 update to west of the Apalachicola River his report). In addition, multiple Treatment of Recent along with and also drainages in Mississippi specimens often were collected at all Previous Documented and outside the Delta, (5) lower the same location during the same Potential Encounters Mississippi Delta (Louisiana decade; some are identified by After the 2005 Arkansas and adjacent Mississippi), Tanner, but some were revealed announcement, organized search (6) upper Mississippi Delta only when compared with efforts were initiated across the (Arkansas, Missouri, and adjacent Hahn. In such cases, notations historical range to include (in Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and treatments are based on a addition to Arkansas) Texas, and Illinois), (7) Arkansas (west combination of these two primary Louisiana, South Carolina, and of the Delta)-Oklahoma, and (8) sources. Georgia. Additionally, several east Texas. Within each region, reports since 2005 surfaced from subregions are identified which All specimens collected were areas initially not considered are composed of groups of prior to 1940, and Jackson (2004) from southern Illinois, western locations and serve again as the presents a summary of the Tennessee, southeastern North basis for comparing patterns of number of specimens collected Carolina, the Florida panhandle, occurrence within each region, per decade now in museum and extreme south Florida. each decade, and among regions. collections. This information Organized search efforts spread is used to make comparisons to these locations, along with The smallest common unit used between reports accepted, but additional areas included in the in this treatment is location without specimens, during the Cornell Lab’s Mobile Search of report(s) within a decade, decades prior to 1940 with reports Team efforts over several following and building upon after 1940 where no universally years. As of 2009, no better the list of locations provided in accepted documentation exists documentation has come forth Tanner. A data point represents beyond the reputations of the than what had been announced at least one report from a location involved observers. There are in 2005, but with this combined had occurred during a specified two exceptions to this rule where effort a relatively high number of decade. Confirmation of a report photographs have been widely credible-sounding reports were is established at locations when accepted as documentation. compiled compared with any a specimen is identified as These are also locations where other post-1930s decade. having been collected from that specimens were known to have location during the decade in been taken during the same If any of these potential question. Specimens serving decade (Taylor Creek, FL, in the encounters, added to those as documentation of occurring 1920s and the Singer Tract, LA, in between 1944 and 1999, are at a location during a decade the 1930s, respectively). All other considered in the realm of what are identified in Tanner (1942), reports are considered potential is possible, then it is possible Hahn (1963), and Jackson (2004). encounters of varying quality that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker An attempt was made here depending upon the authority of may persist in isolated locations to cross-reference specimens the observer as judged by Tanner, throughout the historical listed with dates and locations Jackson, and other authoritative distribution mapped by Tanner of collections presented in these ornithologists. (1942). Conducting a decade-by- three major references. Most decade assessment of documented such reports of specimens listed Here, a potential encounter is (by specimen and/or universally in Tanner were successfully defined as a report not easily accepted video or photograph; all identified in Hahn, but there explained as something other prior to 1940) and potential (both were some inconsistencies than an Ivory-billed Woodpecker

70 on the basis of description of Tanner himself prior to 1940 are In summary, there is no evidence the bird, the type of habitat in provided in Tanner (1942, with that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker which it was encountered, and cross-reference to location on his was ever widely or consistently distribution. After the Arkansas maps, his figures 3-10) and are so relocated in the same areas from announcement was made, post- noted here. year to year or from decade to 1944 reports were compiled decade prior to 1940, despite the prior to the 2005 announcement Results and Discussion impression one may have about of an Ivory-billed Woodpecker The number of locations with birds at the Singer Tract during being sighted in Arkansas. A Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports the 1930s. Actually, during map was produced of these peaked between 1880 and 1910, Tanner’s study the chore in potential encounters in Service the same period when most locating birds often took days or brochures. These potential specimens were collected (Figures weeks even where pairs or family encounters were based on those 1, 2). The number of locations groups were known to occur from discussed by Jackson (2004) with potential reports after previous years (and actually only or otherwise in Service files as 1940 generally dropped below one nesting pair at John’s Bayou “probably reliable,” defined here the number of locations with all was consistently relocated during as not obviously another species. reports between 1900 and 1940. his entire study). Whether the A review of other published However, when including only birds were truly more nomadic literature and files maintained potential encounters between 1900 than previously thought, or by some State working groups and 1939, the range in number whether the low percentage of included other potential of locations among decades was repeated locations historically has encounters that are cited and roughly similar to the number of been due to the search patterns used in this treatment (both locations with potential encounters of ornithologists and collectors before and after 1950). Excluded in the decades between 1940 and is unclear. What is clear is that from further consideration were 2009, only dropping below 10 the present pattern of reports reports that likely described locations during the 1990s. The that do not effectively document other species (especially Pileated, number of locations within each occurrence of the species has but also Red-headed and decade with multiple reports been repeated from decade to sometimes other woodpecker among years never exceeded 10 decade for more than a century species), as well as those reports per decade prior to the extensive and that the number of locations outside the historical range efforts underway after 2005 to with potential encounters within of the species (as depicted in search for this species. the same decade has varied little Tanner 1942) and in unlikely Prior to 1940, only a small since the 1870s. habitats such as golf courses and percentage of locations from Whether or not many or all post- backyards. The reports between decade to decade provided the 1945 and 2005 considered further 1944 reports pertain to actual source of reports from multiple Ivory-billed Woodpeckers will vary in detail, with some accepted years within any one decade, based solely on the credibility continue to be debated in some ranging from 12 to 28 percent of circles, and it also is possible that and reputation of the observer. all locations with birds reported Reports since April 2005 (i.e., some of the reports dismissed within each decade (Figures 3, for purposes of this treatment the Arkansas announcement) 4). After 1940, there was a slight are similarly treated, but at least perhaps should not have been increase in the percentage of discounted so lightly. However, one diagnostic field mark had locations with multi-year reports to be observed (most often the the pattern of credible-sounding in the later decades, ranging from reports accepted for this white trailing edges on a flying or 9 to 51 percent of all locations with perched large woodpecker). treatment from locations without birds reported within each decade. firm documentation was from It is important to understand the Despite this increase in locations decade to decade slightly lower type and level of documentation with reports from multiple between 1940 and 2009 than the accepted for this species’ years there was no definitive pattern recorded between 1890 persistence at the time when most documentation of persistence at and 1939. Most interestingly, the collecting of specimens began to any of these locations. Similarly, exceptional increase in locations trail off (i.e., after 1900) compared a very low percentage of locations with potential encounters during with those reports which were with reports spanning more than the present decade is on the accepted without question one decade is documented in surface similar to what was previously. While most previous the historical record, but again recorded during the 1930s, given treatments break down reports with a slight increase during the both of these decades experienced by State, here it is believed that latter decades (Figures 5, 6). a notable increase in amount important insights can be made Reports continue to come from of effort to firmly document by comparing reports, type and most of Tanner’s regions into the the persistence of this species level of documentation, by decade present day with an obvious shift (with similar results despite starting with the 1800 and ending from those regions that included substantially fewer observers with the present. References for Florida to regions elsewhere involved in the 1930s than in the those reports besides those of (Figure 7). present decade).

FigureFigure E-1.1. Numerical Numerical summary summary of of all locations with with Ivory-billed Ivory-billed Woodpecker Woodpecker reports. reports. Figure 1. Numerical summary of all locations with Ivory-billed Woodpecker reports.

Figure 2. Total locations with at least one specimen known from that location, that decade, Figure 2. Total locations with at least one specimen known from that location, that decade, range-wide Figurerange-wide E-2. Total locations with at least one specimen known from that location, that decade, range-wide

42 42

FigureFigure E-3.3. Percent Percent of of reportedreported locationslocations with with multiple multiple reports reports within within the samethe same decade. decade. Figure 3. Percent of reported locations with multiple reports within the same decade.

Figure 4. Percent of locations with multiple reports within one decade during multiple decade Figure 4. Percent of locations with multiple reports within one decade during multiple decade time blocks. timeFigure blocks. E-4. Percent of locations with multiple reports within one decade during multiple decade time blocks.

43 43

Figure E-5.5. Number Number of of locationslocations with with reports reports across across two two decades. decades. Figure 5. Number of locations with reports across two decades.

Figure 6. Percent of locations with reports across two decades during multiple decade time blocks.Figure 6. Percent of locations with reports across two decades during multiple decade time blocks.Figure E-6. Percent of locations with reports across two decades during multiple decade time blocks.

44 44

Figure 7. Total locations with reports in each Tanner region

Figure E-7. Total locations with reports in each Tanner region

Reports of Ivory-billed 1800-1849 1870-1879 Woodpecker by Geographic (A-1) 12 miles north of (B-1*) Cheraw, SC (spec.; another Region Wilmington, NC; about 1800 (#1; specimen with unknown date); (October 10, 2009) specimen at Smithsonian said to April 1876 (#2) be from Wilmington, NC; possibly Locations alpha-numeric codes collected by Wilson who reported (F-2) Johnson’s, Pritchard’s, in green bold type represent taking three in February 1809) and Edding Islands, SC; 1880 reports from more than one year and before (#13; Hasbrouke within the decade; * indicates at (C-1*) Cypress swamp north 1891 is more specific in citing a least one specimen known from of Charleston, SC (spec., letter from W. Hoxie whereby that location during that decade. presumably same area where a specimen was taken, and now Unless otherwise indicated, two other spec. collected without unaccounted for, from Johnson’s reference to Tanner is for his 1942 date, but Hasbrouke 1891 reports Island in 1879 or 1880) report and reference to Hahn is that G. N. Lawrence received for his 1963 list of specimens and two specimens from J. G. Bell 1880-1889 where they were housed. apparently sometime in the late (B-1) Pee Dee River, near Cheraw, 1840s or early 1850s); 1840 (#9) SC; April 1889 (#2) Carolina Region (#’s where indicated are cross-referenced to (G-1) Frequently between (F-2) Johnson’s, Pritchard’s, Figure 3 in Tanner), subregions: Augusta and Savannah along and Edding Islands, SC; 1880 (A) Wilmington, NC, (B) Pee the Savannah River; about 1800 and before (#13; Hasbrouke Dee-Waccamaw, SC-NC, (C) (#11; three specimens listed by 1891 is more specific in citing a Lower Santee (including the Hahn are from Georgia and dated letter from W. Hoxie whereby he Black River which is actually a 1806, 1807, and 1809; collected by reports a sighting on Pritchard’s tributary of the Pee Dee), SC, Wilson?) Island during the winter of 1886- (D) Upper Santee (including 1887, but Hoxie refers elsewhere Congaree and Wateree), SC, (E) 1850-1859 that his last report was 1884) Edisto, SC, (F) Coosawhatchie- (C-2) Pine Barrens of SC; about 1850 (#3) (G-1) Miller’s Island, Column Broad-Mary rivers, SC, (G) 45 lake, 30 miles north of Savannah Savannah (including Ogeechee 1860-1869 (“shot” by C. B. Prescott); 1886 and Canochee), SC-GA (F-1) Hunting Id., Beaufort (Jackson 2004) County, SC; before 1870 (#12)

75 1890-1899 warden,” both reported to J. evidence from followup by P. (G-2) Savannah River, Barnwell Dennis); 1959 (USFWS 2007) Sykes); 1970 (Jackson 2004) County, SC; 1898 (#10; Jackson 2004 has as location “near Beldoc, 1960-1969 (D-1) Congaree Swamp, Allendale County” for what (C-8) Six reports within the Richland County, SC (reported appears to be the same report) Francis Marion National Forest to have nested by T. Dabbs); 1970 and Cape Romain National (Jackson 2004) 1900-1909 Wildlife Refuge, Berkeley County (G-2) Savannah River, Allendale area: (D-2) Upper Santee Swamp, County, SC; September 1907 vicinity of Broadwater Creek (#10) Bulls Island, Cape Romain NWR, about 40 miles northeast of Berkeley County, SC (three Francis Beidler Forest in Four 1910-1919 separate reports by H. Mills, H. Holes Swamp (a response to None Waller, and a “Brookline, MA, Singer Tract tape by R. Manns, Bird Club member” according reportedly recorded but doubts 1920-1929 to A. Sprunt, L. Vaughan, and D. on what was heard by Manns (C-1) Fairlawn Plantation, Crompton in replies to J. Dennis); expressed by Jackson; several Charleston County, SC (two January to December 1960 media references to a report of a separate reports); 1929 (Sprunt (USFWS 2007) pair by Audubon staff and photos and Chamberlain 1949) implied to be associated with West of Summerville (Great these reports actually pertain (C-3) Santee Swamp, near St. Cypress Swamp?), Dorchester Stephens, SC; about 1925 (#5) to Fielding Lewis’s photos from County, SC (sighting by L. Rush Louisiana during this same year); 1930-1939 according to Sprunt in reply to February 1971 (Jackson 2004, (C-4) Black Oak Island, near St. J. Dennis); spring 1962 (USFWS USFWS 2007) Stephens, Clarendon County, SC; 2007) about 1930 (#4) (G-3) Ogeechee River, 25 miles Iron Swamp Road, west of US west of Savannah, Chatham (C-5, C-6, C-7) Santee Swamp, Highway 17, Cape Romain NWR County, GA (C. D. Gerow); July Georgetown and lower Berkeley and Francis Marion National 1973 (Jackson 2004) Counties, SC; 1930-1937 (# 6, Forest, Berkeley County, SC (one 7, and 8; in addition Post and seen flying crossing road by J. 1980-1989 Gauthreaux 1989 state that a Edwards); April 1963 (USFWS (B-2) Lower Waccamaw River, report of two birds by Murray 2007) Georgetown County, SC (a report from B. Doyle given to L. Short); and Sanders in 1938 at Wadmacon Near McClellanville (“Buck Hall” was the “last official” sighting in unclear date perhaps 1980s area), Francis Marion National (Jackson 2004) SC) Forest, lower Santee River (E-1) Four Holes Swamp, Edisto system, Berkeley County, SC (C-11) Black River, eastern River, Orangeburg County, SC (two birds observed on pines by portion of Clarendon County, (SC Audubon); 1930s (SCIBWO E. DeBold); May 1967 (USFWS SC (one supposedly seen but Working Group Files 2009) 2007) observer not named); 1981 (Jackson 2004) 1940-1949 (D-1) Cedar Creek, Congaree (C-3 through 7) Santee region, Swamp, Richland County, SC (D-1) Congaree National Park, SC (Figure 13 in Tanner; reach (“aerial sighting…of a bird in Richland County, SC (multiple between Black Oak Island flight” by J. Dennis and two reports); 1982 (near RCW cluster, and Atlantic Ocean; unknown additional reports to J. Dennis S. Pfaff), 1987 (W. Sweeny) number); 1940s (Tanner) [one of a pair]; also reported to (SCIBWO Working Group Files have nested by T. Dabbs); 1964- 2009) (C-8) Coastal Highway 17 1966, 1969 (Dennis 1966, Jackson (Francis Marion National Forest, 2004, USFWS 2007) (D-2) Near confluence of Little Berkeley County?), SC (report Congaree (Wateree?) and Santee from Chuck Horn for John Lynes 1970-1979 River, Sumter County (one heard to Cornell); 1945 (SCIBWO (C-9) Lower Santee River, 2 and seen by J. Williams) another Working Group Files 2009) miles south of Greeleyville, near Camden Kershaw County Williamsburg County, SC (one apparent female by Sara 1950-1959 (seen by D. Hill as reported to Davis-Hyman), SC; September (C-8) Francis Marion National D. Chamberlain); late 1970s 1984 (USFWS 2007), 1988 Forest between Awendaw and (SCIBWO Working Group Files (SCIBWO Working Group Files Moore’s Landing (Bull Island 2009) 2009) Ferry), Berkeley County, SC (two separate reports: one heard and (C-11) Black River, eastern 1990-1999 briefly seen by L. Vaughan, P. portion of Georgetown County, (D-1) Congaree National Park, W. Smith, and D. Crompton and SC (two heard and silhouettes Richland County, SC (seen by the other reported by a “game seen by T. Dabbs, no additional L. Askins); May 1998 (SCIBWO Working Group Files 2009) 76 (D-2) Wateree River, Poinsett 2001, 2002, March 2003 (SCIBWO (G-3*) Oklawaha River swamp, State Park, Sumter County, Working Group Files 2009) FL (two specs.); March 1879 SC (single male seen by park (#42) naturalist) and Upper Santee (E-2) Near Four Holes Swamp, River swamp, Lone Star, Calhoun Edisto Drainage, Dorchester (G-4*) Lake George, FL (spec.); County, SC (seen by J. Pittard); County, SC (one seen by B. July 1877 (#44) Teagardin); December 2006 1993 and April 1997 (SCIBWO (G-10*) Near Palatka, FL (two Working Group Files 2009) (SCIBWO Working Group Files 2007) specs.); March 1878 (Hahn) 2000- (F-3) Near Grays, Coosawhatchie 1880-1889 (B-3) Green Swamp, Brunswick (A-3) Frederica River, St. Simons County, NC (pair seen by J. River, Jasper County, SC (three seen by D. Hamilton); June 2005 Island, Glynn County, GA (a pair Condrey); 2005 (SCIBWO seen in flight by R. Brasher); late Working Group Files 2007) (SCIBWO Working Group Files 2009) 1880s (Jackson 2004) (B-4) Little Pee Dee River, (F-4) Rosehill Plantation between (B-2) Okefenokee region, GA; Marion County, SC (female 1888 (#6) seen both times by F. Ervin); Mary and Colleton Rivers, September 2004, September 2006 Beaufort County, SC (heard and (D-1) Chattahoochee River, a (SCIBWO Working Group Files seen by D. Dunlap); October 2006 day’s journey south of Columbus, 2009) (SCIBWO Working Group Files GA; 1887 (#8) 2009) (B-5) Woodbury Tract, Great (D-2) Bristol (Apalachicola Pee Dee River, Marion County, Georgia-northern Florida Region River), FL; December 1889 SC (female seen by J. Godbold); (#’s where indicated are cross- (#9; Hasbrouke 1891 mentions March 2007 (SCIBWO Working referenced to Figure 4 in Tanner), a specimen at the Smithsonian Group Files 2009) subregions: (A) Altamaha, GA, (B) apparently from Bristol taken Okefenokee (including Satilla, during this time period, but it is (B-6) Lumber River, Robeson Pinhook Swamp, Oseola NF), now unaccounted for) County, NC, north and west of GA-FL, (C) Red Hills, GA-FL, (D) Lumberton (large woodpecker Apalachicola-Chipola (including (D-3) Apalachicola River swamp, with bold black and white pattern Chattahoochee), FL-GA-AL, (E) FL; March 1887 (#10) on the wings and white trailing Wakulla-Aucilla, FL, (F) Lower edge seen while conducting a NC Suwannee, FL, (G) North Peninsula (E-1) St. Marks River (several Wildlife Resources Commission (including lower St. John’s River miles upstream), FL; April 1886 aerial waterbird survey by A. and tributaries, Ocala National (#14; Hasbrouke 1891 states that Houston); April 2008 (reported to Forest), FL H. A. Kline killed one in March W. Golder with Audubon North of 1886, but if so specimen is Carolina 2008) 1800-1849 unaccounted for) None (C-8) Wabmaw Creek Wilderness, (E-2) St. Marks, FL; March 1885 Francis Marion National Forest, 1850-1859 (#15) Berkeley County, SC (a pair well (A-1) Altamaha Swamp, GA; after 1853 (#2) (F-2*) Rosewood, FL (five specs.); described in 2007 in comparison 1881-1883 (#32; Hahn also lists with pair of Pileateds by J. Cork); (F-1*) Cedar Key, FL (spec.); specimen taken 1885 included in September 2007 (SCIBWO January 1859 (#33) total here) Working Group Files 2009) 1860-1869 (F-3*) Gulf Hammock, Levy (C-10) Near Cross, Lower Santee (A-1) Altamaha Swamp, GA; County, FL (five specs.); August River, Berkeley County, SC before 1865 (#2) 1883 and March 1887 (#35; (seen by L. Riney); January 2005 Hahn also lists specimens taken (SCIBWO Working Group Files (B-1*) Okefenokee, GA (spec.); December 1881 included in total 2009) 1860 (#4) here) (D-1) Congaree National Park, (G-1*) Volusia, FL (three specs.); (G-5*) St. John’s River, north of Richland County, SC (multiple February 1869 (#45; all three Green Cove Springs, FL (three visual reports and recordings); listed in Hahn with possibly an specs.); 1887 (#38; appears to 2005-2009 (SCIBWO Working additional specimen listed at be same report listed as 1877 in Group Files 2009) University of Michigan Museum Hahn, acknowledged later by of Zoology with same date and Tanner as a possibility in an 1989 (D-2) Wateree and Congaree location) river confluence, Sumter County, update to his 1942 report) SC (several observations by C. 1870-1879 (G-6) Juniper Creek, Marion Reed) and Upper Santee River (G-2) St. John’s and Oklawaha County, FL; March 1886 (#43) swamp, Lone Star, Calhoun Rivers, FL; 1873 (#41) County, SC (seen by J. Pittard);

77 1890-1899 (F-9*) Old Town, FL (four specs.); apparently a 1912 specimen (B-3) Small tributary of the April 1892 (#30; Hahn lists three is from Craven Island in the Satilla River, 20 miles southeast specimens dated April 1892, Philadelphia Academy of Science Blackshear, GA; about 1895 (#3) an additional specimen dated collection, but not clear in Hahn February 1897 included in total though cited by Tanner in his (D-2*) Bristol (Apalachicola here) 1989 update to his 1942 report) River), FL (two specs.); November 1894 (Hahn) (F-10) Suwannee Hammock, Levy (B-2*) Waycross (Okefenokee County, FL; 1893 (#31; Jackson region), GA (spec.); April 1913 (E-3) Waukeenah River, Jefferson 2004 adds two sight records by F. (Hahn; specimen is a skeleton; County, FL; April 1894 (#16) Chapman at Vista Creek in 1890 acknowledged by Tanner in his (E-4*) Wacissa River region, and near Fort Fanning in 1891) 1989 update to his 1942 report) Jefferson County, FL (eleven 1900-1909 (B-7*) Baker County specs.); February to June 1894 (B-4) Minnie’s Lake Island, (Okefenokee-Pinhook region), (#17; includes two specimens Okefenokee, GA; 1903 (in FL (four specs.); February 1914 from Cow Creek taken February Tanner’s 1989 update, citing (#37; Tanner listed this report 1894 listed in Hahn, who also Elliott 1932, to his1942 report) without dates or references to lists a specimen taken April specimens that are listed in Hahn; 1896 included in total here; also (E-2*) St. Marks, FL (spec.); acknowledged by Tanner in his Hasbrouke 1891 reports that in January 1900 (#15; Tanner does 1989 update to his 1942 report) March 1890 “Captain” Gregg not indicate that a specimen had killed two but these were was taken, while Hahn lists one (E-4*) Jefferson County (Wacissa discarded) specimen taken in 1901; these region), FL (spec.); January 1910 likely refer to the same event (Hahn) (E-5*) Aucilla River, FL (spec.); as the one cited by Tanner March 1894 (#19) from Pennock 1901 entitled (E-5*) Aucilla River, FL (spec.); May 1917 (#19) (E-6) Big Muddy swamp, Taylor “Recent capture of Ivory-billed County, FL; February 1894 (#20) Woodpeckers in Florida) (E-11) Wakulla Springs, FL (a pair seen by H.L. Beadle; (F-4*) Pumpkin swamp, Dixie (E-4*) Jefferson County (Wacissa reported by Stoddard to Sprunt); County, FL (spec.); April 1893 region), FL (spec.); June 1905 April 1918 (Sprunt 1954; (#25; neither Tanner nor Hahn (Hahn) acknowledged by Tanner in his list a specimen with specific (E-7) Leon County, FL; about 1989 update to his 1942 report) location or date for this location, 1900 (#13) but such a specimen is listed at (F-10) Suwannee Hammock, Levy the Smithsonian collected by H. (E-8) Taylor County, FL; January County, FL; 1917 (#31) Parker) 1900 (#21) (G-8) Alachua County, FL; about (F-5) California swamp, Dixie (E-9*) Taylor County, FL (two 1910 (#39) County, FL; February 1893 (#26) specs.); March 1904 (#22; Tanner does not indicate that specimens (G-2) Between Welaka and (F-6*) California swamp, were taken, while Hahn lists two Rodman, FL; 1916 (#41) Lafayette County, FL (two specimens from January 1904 specs.); 1893 (#27; Tanner cites 1920-1929 included in total here) MCZ as having a specimen from (A-2) Altamaha River, Tattnall 1893, but this was not found in (F-11*) Stephensville, Taylor County, GA; around 1925 (#1) Hahn which lists two specimens County, FL (spec.); January 1901 (B-4) Okefenokee (Minnie’s from this location during March (#23) Island), GA (still nesting 1896 housed at Bowling Green according to B. Carter); 1924 State University, OH, included in (F-12*) Lafayette or Dixie (S. Willis, pers. comm., USFWS total here) County, FL (three spec.); 1905 (#24; Hahn also lists specimen 2007) (F-7) Branford, FL; April 1892 taken February 1904 included in (D-4) Apalachicola River Swamp, (#28) total here) FL; 1920 (#11) (F-8*) Suwannee River, near (F-13) Otter Creek, Gulf (E-10) Wacissa River Swamp, FL; Old Town, FL (six specs.); 1890 Hammock, Levy County, FL; 1923 (#18) and 1893 (#29; Hahn 1963 up about 1905 (#34) to fourteen collected according (F-10) Suwannee Hammock, Levy to accounts by Brewster and (G-7) Micanopy, FL; 1909 (#40) County, FL; about 1925 (#31) Chapman [one] in 1890 and 1910-1919 Wayne [thirteen] in 1893) (G-3) Oklawaha River Swamp, (B-1*, B-4, B-5) Okefenokee FL; 1923 (#42) Swamp (Craven Island, Minnie’s Lake Island, Suwannee Canal), GA; 1910-1915 (#4, 5, and 7;

78 1930-1939 (G-9) Silver Spring swamp near to Eastman); December 1963 (B-4) Okefenokee (Minnie’s Ocala, FL (pair seen by L. L. (USFWS 2007) Lake Island), GA (possible Henniger); October 1949 (Sprunt nesting C. Elliot); 1931 (Jackson 1954; acknowledged by Tanner 1970-1979 2004; various other references in his 1989 update to his 1942 (D-3) Apalachicola National during the 1930’s give conflicting report) Forest, Liberty/Gulf County, FL interpretations but suggesting (pair with female sticking head persistence with Greene 1936 1950-1959 out of cavity by J. Stevenson); and especially Burleigh 1958 (A-2) Altamaha River, Tattnall March “late 1970s” (Stevenson quoting F. Hebard that not until County, GA (H. Stoddard 2006, letters between D. Pashley, the “great fire” of 1932 was this observed one from plane); 1958? C. Hunter and H. Stevenson 1990- species noted since 1912, and with (Stoddard 1969, Jackson 2004, 1991, USFWS 2007 [see 1980s]) USFWS 2007) Jackson recounting that Tanner 1980-1989 had spoken with E. Adams, (C-1) Red Hills, Thomas County, (D-3) Apalachicola National a technician for the refuge, GA (H. Stoddard observed two Forest, Liberty/Gulf County, FL about his sighting presumably birds feeding in beetle killed (J. Stevenson reported finding in the mid-1930s, but with spruce pine); Spring 1952 breast and secondary feathers Tanner himself treating these (Stoddard 1969; Crawford 1998, inside the cavity of the same as “rumors” and on the basis of Jackson 2004) tree as in previous decade that what he did observe of the habitat was blown down November 1985 in 1939 he considered to look (D-5) Chipola River, Calhoun from Hurricane Kate, [location unsuitable, mostly pond cypress) County, FL (numerous observers, of feathers are at present known most prominent H. M. Stevenson to J. Stevenson and the museum (D-4) Apalachicola River Swamp, along with R. West); 1950-1951 FL; about 1935 (#11) curator who identified them (Stevenson and Anderson 1994, as from Ivory-bill; also in the (E-11) Wakulla County, FL; June J. V. Dennis 1967, 1979, and aforementioned correspondence, 1936 and January 1937 (#12) W. Eastman 1958; the original H. Stevenson describes a possible reports doubted by both Stoddard sighting in the same general area (E-4, E-10) Wacissa River and Tanner, who were aware at himself in 1985 or 1986]); Spring Swamp, FL; December 1932 up to the time, but did not discount, 1986 (Stevenson 2006, letters 1937 (#17 and 18) Stevenson’s observation during between D. Pashley, C. Hunter the same time period) (F-14) Sim’s Ridge, Gulf and H. Stevenson 1991, USFWS Hammock, Levy County, FL; (E-12) Wakulla County, FL (flying 2007 [see 1970s]) 1932-1934 (#36) across road between Wakulla 1990-1999 Station and St. Marks by S. 1940-1949 (D-3) Lower Chipola-Apalachicola Grimes along with R. Hallman); River (reports given to J. Jackson (A-2) Altamaha River, GA; 1940s July 1952 (Stevenson and (Stoddard 1969) considered “tantalizing”); 1990- Anderson 1994; acknowledged by 1991 (Jackson 1996) (B-5) Suwannee Canal, Tanner in his 1989 update to his Okefenokee, GA; 1941-1942, 1946, 1942 report) (F-8) Lower Suwannee River, 1948 (Loftin 1991, Jackson 2004) Gilchrist County, FL (possible (E-5) Taylor County, FL (female multiple sightings by M. Rupp (D-2 through D-4) Apalachicola 1 mile east of Aucilla River, west and E. Rupp); May 1995 (USFWS region, FL (Figure 16 in Tanner; of Perry, by W. L. Rhein); 1959 2007) reach from Bristol to Apalachicola (Jackson 1996) 2000- Bay; 4 individuals estimated on 1960-1969 the basis of Tanner’s assessment (D-3) Lower Apalachicola River (B-6) Stephen Foster State (heard possible kent calls by of “carrying capacity of region Park, Okefenokee Swamp, and reports of natives;” also a pair Spahr); January 2003 (Spahr Charlton County, GA (supposedly 2006) reported by Eastman in March photographed by Park 1949); 1940s (Tanner) Superintendent and Nova Scotia (E-13) Between Aucilla River (F-2 through F-13) Gulf naturalist [names?] relayed to and Exit 35 (Highway 221 to Hammock-Suwannee region, J. J. Shoman and then to L. R. Greenville) along I-10, Madison FL (Figure 15 in Tanner; area Short); 1965? (USFWS 2007) County, FL (female fly-over female seen flying across highway from Steinhatchie River to (C-1) Red Hills, Thomas County, Gulf Hammock; 4 individuals in front of vehicle and then briefly GA (G. B. Reynard); 1963 from the side of same vehicle, estimated on the basis of Tanner’s (Jackson 2004) assessment of “carrying capacity rear of bird, as it entered woods, of region”); 1940s (Tanner) (D-6) West of Apalachicola, FL by S. Willis); April 2007 (USFWS (bird flew across road near Indian 2007) Pass and flew north to Lake Wimico, J. H. Merritt reported

79 Southern Florida (#’s where (A-4) Turnbull Swamp or only specimen from Kissimmee as indicated are cross-referenced to Hammock, Volusia County; 1872 housed at the Peabody Museum Figure 5 in Tanner), subregions (all (#8; Hasbrouke 1891 cites this of Natural History at Yale restricted to FL): (A) East-Central report as from New Smyrna University with date January 15, (including upper St. John’s River Beach) 1890; however, Hahn does list and tributaries), (B) North-Central two specimens from an unknown (including Orlando, Green Swamp, (A-5*) Merritt Island (spec.); location at the Field Museum and upper Kissimmee River), (C) 1870 (#22; Tanner did not list with the year 1887 and the Chassahowitzka to Tampa Bay, (D) a specimen, but Hahn lists a Field Museum itself does list a Lower Kissimmee-Highlands-Lake specimen from “Brevard” in specimen from Kissimmee dated Okeechobee, (E) Charlotte Harbor- April 1870, presumably the same October 1892) Fort Myers, (F) Big Cypress- report as Merritt Island is within Everglades, (G) Loxahatchee Brevard County) (B-10*) Near Orlando (two specs.); April 1886 (Hahn) 1800-1849 (B-1*) Panasofkee Lake, Sumter None County (spec.); spring 1876 (#3; (C-1) Mouth of Withlacoochee Tanner did not list a specimen, River; 1879-1880 (#1) 1850-1859 but Hahn lists a specimen from (A-1) Enterprise (now Benson February 1876) (C-3*) Crystal River, Citrus Springs), Volusia County; County (spec.); July 1889 (#2) about 1859 (#5; Hahn lists four (C-1) Mouth of Withlacoochee River; 1879-1880 (#1) (C-4*) Cypress swamp near specimens from “April” with no Tarpon Springs (five specs.); year nor collector listed, but in (C-2*) Hernando County (two March 1887 (#24; Hahn lists the collection records for MVZ specs.); March 1876 and January three specimens from March one specimen [107106] has Bryant 1877 (#10) 1887, but also one from October as the collector whom Tanner 1886 and one from April 1889, references for this report) 1880-1889 included in total here) (A-2) Sanford; around 1885 (#6) 1860-1869 (C-5) Clearwater; 1880 (#26) (A-1*) Enterprise (now Benson (A-3*) Wekiva River (three springs), Volusia County (spec.); specs.); about 1885 (#4; Tanner (C-6*) Tampa (two specs.); March 1869 (#5; Tanner did not did not list any specimens, but September 1883 (#27) list a specimen, but Hahn lists Hahn lists two specimens with a specimen from March 1869 dates of February 1883 and one (C-7*) Southeast of Tampa (three taken by J. Allen whom Tanner March 1883) specs.); 1883-1889 (#28; Hahn references for this report) lists specimens dated October (A-6*) Indian River (spec.); 27, 1881, February 10, 1885, and (A-2*) Hawkinsville and Lake February 1885 (#9) 1885) Jessup (two specs., one each from each location); March and winter (B-2*) Linden (spec.); March 1886 (C-8*) Manatee County (four 1869 (#6; Hasbrouke 1891 reports (#11) specs.); March 1889 (#30; Hahn from essentially an anonymous lists three specimens collected in (B-3*) Polk County (spec.); 1889 March 1889, two specifically listed author, “W.A.D. of Hawkinsville, (#13; Tanner cites the Museum of that he and his brother collected as collected at Mill Creek; Hahn Comparative Zoology at Harvard also lists one taken in May 1885) 20 to 25 for a taxonomist in College as housing this specimen, Palatka, possibly during the possibly from Brewster as cited (E-1) Punta Rassa; 1889 (#40) 1870s with the last bird seen by Hasbrouke 1891, but Hahn during May 1885, but no specific does not list a specimen with (E-2*) Fort Myers (#38; spec.); locations or dates for any of the either this location or date there, winter 1887-1888 (Hahn) specimens) while listing a specimen from Polk (E-3*) Caloosahatchie River 1870-1879 County not otherwise cited by (spec.); 1881 (#39; Hahn) (A-3*) Wekiva River (twelve Tanner collected by John Lamb specs.); June 1878 (#4; Tanner on March 28, 1899, not 1889, (E-5*) Desoto County (six specs.); cites one specimen being at MCZ, and housed at the Charleston 1886-1887 (#35; Tanner listed but Hahn lists two there with the Museum, Charleston, SC) no date but cited Hargitt 1890 date of June 1876 with another entitled “Catalogue of birds of (B-4*) Davenport (spec.); June the British Museum,” and Hahn two specimens with date August 1889 (#14) 1876; in addition Hahn lists from 1963 lists a total of five specimens other collections three specimens (B-5*) Kissimmee (spec.); 1887 from the British Museum at this dated July 1876, one with date (#17; Tanner cites the Field location with one December 1886, of July 1877, two with dates of Museum at Chicago [Hahn refers three February 1887, and one August 1877, and two with dates to this as the Chicago Natural May 1887; another specimen is of dated September 1877) History Museum) as housing this listed at the American Museum specimen, but Hahn lists as the dated February 1887)

80 (F-7*) Big Cypress, Dade County the other at Milwaukee Public (F-9*) Everglades, interior (two (three specs.); May 1889 (Hahn; Museum dated March 1893) specs.); 1890 and November there is some confusion over 1896 (Hahn; neither mentioned what constitutes the Big Cypress (D-1) Fort Drum; May 1899 (#34) in Tanner with the 1890 report in Dade County as this county (D-2*) Lake Okeechobee (three from Wayne of a skeleton and the overlaps the very peripheral specs.); May 1898 (#36) November 1896 specimen said eastern edge of the swamp, to be from the “Florida keys;” perhaps this location is best (E-2*) Fort Myers (six specs.); the latter is housed at Cornell considered the “eastern” Big November and December 1891 University and is actually dated Cypress; Hasbrouke 1891 does (#38) November 1898 and may not cite Brewster as the source of this refer to the Florida Keys but to report and specimens) (E-3) Caloosahatchie region; the “keys” from the interior of 1891 (#39; Stevenson and the Everglades and is treated this (F-8*) Everglades, coastal, Anderson 1994 state that Scott’s way here) “Marco” (spec. by W. Calhoon observations spanned from 1891 at Smithsonian, presumably to 1892) 1900-1909 Marco Island, presently in Collier (A-4) Turnbull Swamp or County, not listed in Tanner nor (F-1*) Big Cypress (three specs.); Hammock, Volusia County; 1907 Hahn), Chatham Bay (presently February 1898 (#43; Tanner (#8) Chevalier Bay), Monroe County cites Ridgway 1898 and states (spec.); March 1886 and July that the U.S. National Museum (A-7*) Taylor Creek, (three 1888 (Hahn 1963, Stevenson and [Smithsonian] housed the specs.); December 1907 (#20, Anderson 1994) specimen with date of collection Hahn lists two specimens housed February 15, 1898, while at the Field Museum taken (F-9*) Everglades, interior (two Ridgway reported collecting two on December 20, 1907, one specs.); 1884 (Hahn; no mention specimens on successive days; specifically lists Orange County, of these specimens in Tanner Hahn does not list specimens but there is some question and it is unclear what area at the U.S. National Museum whether this and location A-9 specifically is being referenced, specific to Big Cypress, but [Tanner’s #19) were both either but it is assumed here that when does list two specimens from in Orange or Osceola County, the “Everglades” is listed as the “Corbett’s” in Florida collected as raised by Jackson 2004 with location it is likely in reference to on February 16 and 18, 1898, the 1924 report by Allen; a third the forested “keys” in the interior which appear to be at nearly specimen with date March 20, of the Everglades, such as Long the time Ridgway’s birds 1907, housed at the Field Museum Pine Key and Paradise [Royal were collected but no collector is listed from “Halfway Cypress, Palm Hammock] Key) is named in Hahn; further Orlando, Osceola County, but complicating the picture, two Orlando is in Orange and not 1890-1899 skeletons in the same collection particularly close to Osceola (A-13) Chuluota, Seminole are attributed to Ridgway County) County; 1896-1899 (Stoddard and are both dated February 1969; between 12 and 16, 1898, from “Okalocoochee (A-8*) Brevard County (two Slough,” Okaloacoochee Slough spec., one specifically from Lake 15 observed prior to 1900 by Washington); 1901-1902 (#23) Stoddard, who was between seven near Immokalee, Collier County, and ten years old; acknowledged is indeed within the vicinity (B-5) Kissimmee; 1900 (#17) by Tanner in his 1989 update to of the Big Cypress where his 1942 report) Ridgway appears to have been (B-7*) Lake County, various searching, but it remains unclear locations including “near (B-6) Reedy Creek; October 1892 whether the skeletons and skins Clermont” (two specs., also egg (#16) are from the same birds and collected); March 1904 and March whether “Corbett’s” is the same 1905 (#12; Tanner cites Hoyt (B-10*) Near Orlando (spec.); as Okaloacoochee Slough; in 1905 for this report and did not December 1894 (Hahn) addition, Hahn lists one specimen list any specimens, other than the (C-9*) Eastern Hillsborough dated January 2, 1899, again with egg, but Hahn lists two specimens County (two specs.); March 1890 no name given for the collector) with dates of February 1906, with Hoyt named as the collector) and March 1893 (#29; Tanner (F-3*) Big Cypress, Lee County cited Scott as the collector and (two specs., prior to 1930 Collier (B-8*) Gotha, Orange County the specimen housed at the and Hendry Counties were part (five specs.); 1906 (#15) American Museum of Natural of Lee County and this location is History, where no specific date presumably near or in Corkscrew (D-2*) Lake Okeechobee (two is listed; two other specimens Swamp, now in Collier County); specs.); February 1904 (#36) are listed by Hahn, but no name March 1896 (#42, Hahn; not (D-3) Kissimmee River, 50 miles of the collector: one at Regar mentioned in Tanner, but two Memorial Museum, Anninston, below Kissimmee; November specimens listed from “Lee 1908 (#33) AL, dated March 1890, and County”) 81 (E-1*) Punta Rassa (nine specs.); that yet another record of a report mentioned by Robertson to February 1904 (#40) specimen taken in 1919 reported Jackson?); (Sprunt 1954, Jackson from “Long Key” was potentially 2004); March 1938 (E-4*) Punta Gorda (two specs.); misinterpreted as from Dry January 1904 (#37) Tortugas when it possibly (F-6) Big Cypress, East Crossing region; around 1937 (#46) (E-6*) Charlotte Harbor (two referred to Long Pine Key in the specs.); March 1904 (Hahn) Everglades) (F-8) Shark River and Lostman’s River; around 1935 (#47) (F-2*) Naples (two specs.); April 1920-1929 1902 (#41) (A-7*) Taylor Creek, (photo and 1940-1949 specs. of nesting pair); April 1924 (D-5) West-central, Highlands (F-4*) Big Cypress, Lee County (#20; same general area as #19, County (2 individuals estimated (spec., near Deep Lake, now part but there is confusion on whether based on Tanner accepting that of Collier County); February 1908 reports along Taylor Creek were they were “Known to be there (Hahn) in Orange or Osceola County, in late 1937 by O. E. Baynard”); or both; a report of four birds 1940s (Tanner) 1910-1919 seen by W. H. Mann on Taylor (A-4) Turnbull Swamp or Creek in Osceola County 1923 not (F-3 through F-6) Big Cypress Hammock, Volusia County; 1911 mentioned by Tanner, but was by area, Collier and Hendry (#8) Howell 1932 and Jackson 2004, Counties (Figure 14 in Tanner; (A-9) Taylor Creek, Osceola likely sparked Allen’s interest in 6 individuals estimated based on County; about 1916 (#19; north of visiting this area the following Tanner’s assessment of “carrying area visited by Allen in 1924, may year; the whereabouts of the capacity of region and locations of be Orange County?) pair collected soon after Allen reports,” one report of a female left Taylor Creek in April 1924 at Deep Lake [F-4] May 1941; (B-8) Bear Bay, west Orange remains a mystery with Jackson Meyer de Schauensee 1941); County; October 1913 (#15) suspecting that the pair of birds 1940s (Tanner) at the Florida Natural History (D-4) “Fort Capron” near Museum labeled as being taken (F-9) 12 miles southwest of Kissimmee River (specific location at Bull Creek, Osceola County Homestead, Dade County (one not known); 1916 (Tanner) more than 20 miles to the south report of a female apparently of Taylor Creek, about June 1925, near Royal Palm Park today (F-3) Big Cypress, Lee County within the Everglades National (near or at Corkscrew Swamp, is in his view likely the Taylor Creek pair; further confusing the Park; Meyer de Schauensee now in Collier County); March 1941); May 1941 1911 and March 1913 (#42) issue, Tanner in his 1989 update to his 1942 report added Bull 1950-1959 (F-4*) Big Cypress near Deep Creek 1925 to his list of Reports, (C-9) Polk-Hillsborough County Lake (spec.); February 1914 (#44; suggesting that he considered line (male flying across road by W. Hahn lists Kennard’s specimen as these specimens to be separate Eastman); March 1954 (Eastman taken in March 1914) from Allen’s Taylor Creek birds) 1958, USFWS 2007) (F-5) Near Everglades; 1917 (A-10) Wolf Creek, Osceola (C-10) Eight miles south of (#45; J. Ellis who reported this County; 1920s? (#21) Homosassa Springs, near Citrus location gave his residence as and Hernando County line (a pair Chokoloskee and Everglades City (A-12) Lake Poinsett, along the St. Johns River, Brevard County seen flying across US 19 by J. and his accounts of birds foraging Terres); April 1955 (Terres 1986, in dead pines and nesting in (a pair by D. J. Nicholson; Howell 1932); February 1924 Stevenson and Anderson 1994, cypress suggests the specific Jackson 1996) locations of his reports was 1930-1939 somewhere in the vicinity of (A-11) Jim Creek, Orange 1960-1969 present-day Collier-Seminole County; December 1936 (#18) (B-9) Green Swamp north of State Park to Everglades City) Haines City, Polk County (visual (B-3) Northwest of Polk City, Polk of female flying across road at (F-9) Royal Palm Park, County; about 1930 (#13) close range by D. Lee); Summer Paradise Key, Long Pine Key, all 1967 (Jackson 2004) Everglades interior (pair with (B-6) Reedy Creek, Polk County; young, other reports); May 1917, about 1930 (#16) (D-5) Highland Hammock State 1919 (Howell 1932, Sprunt 1954, Park (F. C. Davis); fall 1968 Stevenson and Anderson 1994, (D-5) Highlands Hammock, (USFWS 2007) Jackson 2004; several authorities Highlands County; 1937 (#32) including later Howell himself (D-6) South Central, Highlands (F-4) Deep Lake, Big Cypress or Polk County (multiple reports doubted the original 1917 report, 10 miles north of Tamiami Trail but Jackson adds the 1919 report including a cavity that held a (flew over Highway 29 seen by A. secondary identified as “fresh not from the same area as a potential Cruickshank; same as the 1950’s encounter along with speculation worn” by Alexander Wetmore,

82 but not known how old the feather Alabama (#’s where indicated (D-2) Big Black River, MS (one was when found; both now at are cross-referenced to Figure pair reported by M. Vaiden); 1908 Florida Museum of Natural 6 in Tanner), subregions: (A) FL (Jackson 2004, USFWS 2007) History); 1967-1969 (Agey and Panhandle, FL-AL, (B) Lower Heinzmann 1971, Jackson 2004) Tombigbee-Alabama-Mobile 1910-1919 rivers, AL, (C) Upper Tombigbee None 1970-1979 River, AL-MS, (D) Pascagoula None 1920-1929 River and coastal Mississippi, MS, (D-3) Pascagoula Swamp, Jackson 1980-1989 (E) Pearl River, MS-LA County; December 1921 (#11) (A-3) Wekiva River (two 1850-1859 independent reports given to J. 1930-1939 (B-1) Near the Alabama River (A-2) Escambia River, FL; 1936 Jackson); 1987 and 1988 (Jackson and Selma, Dallas County, AL; 2004) (Weston 1965, Stevenson and around 1850 (#6; two specimens Anderson 1994) (F-4) Fakahatchee Strand, Collier now unaccounted for, but two County (two independent reports specimens in Hahn dated “abt. 1940-1949 given to J. Jackson); 1980s 1850” may refer to these at the (A-3) Perdido River, FL; 1945 (Jackson 1996) collection in Kessel, Germany) (Weston 1965, Stevenson and Anderson 1994) (G-1) Loxahatchee River, 1860-1869 Jonathan Dickinson State Park (B-2) Tombigbee River, Marengo 1950-1959 (D. G. Garratt); April 1985 County, AL (Tanner mistakenly (D-4) About 30 miles north of (Jackson 2004) listed MS); 1865 (#5; specimen Meridian, MS (B. Chauncey); now unaccounted for) 1953 (Moore 1954, Jackson 2004) 1990-1999 (F-4) Fakahatchee Strand, 1870-1879 (E-2) East side of Pearl River, Collier County (several reports None adjacent to lock #1, St. Tammany given to J. Jackson considered Parish, LA, Hancock County, 1880-1889 MS (one male foraging on sweet- “tantalizing”); 1990-1991 (Jackson (A-6*) Blackwater River, FL 1996) gum, by J. Merritt); October 1955 (two specs.); March 1883 (Hahn; (USFWS 2007) 2000- Tanner did mention this report (F-4) Fakahatchee Strand, Collier but did not know location nor the 1960-1969 County (three independent date) (A-4) Eglin Air Force Base near Yellow River, FL (two birds seen reports given to J. Jackson); since (B-3) Cypress Slough, 10 miles 1999 (Jackson 2004) Boiling Creek; B. Brown and J. west of Greensboro, Hale County, Sanders reported to Dennis); (F-8) Shark River, Lostman’s AL; 1886 (#4; specimen now August 1966 (Jackson 2004) River, Whitewater Bay, Monroe unaccounted for) County (several reports of large (D-5) Leaf River swamp (1 mile (B-4) Wilcox County, AL; 1889 north of US Hwy 98), Perry black woodpecker unlike Pileated (#7) Woodpecker, including one by W. County, MS (2 seen briefly in Hodge with view of underwing (C-1) Monroe County, MS; 1885 “big gum” trees); December 1960 which was white along the leading (#1) (USFWS 2007) and trailing edge with black (C-2) Crump Springs, Lamar 1970-1979 band separating the white in (C-4) Noxubee River, near 2003 and another seen in 2007 County, Buttahatchie River, AL; 1886 (#2) junction with Tombigbee River, from above with more white on Sumter County , AL (possible wing tops than a typical Pileated, (C-3) Clay County, MS; 1885 (#3) flyby by J. Jackson); March 1973 larger than Pileated, and with a (Jackson 2004) straight flight while conducting (E-1) Near Bay St. Louis, MS; an Everglades National Park 1885 (#9) (D-6) Near where Black Creek aerial waterbird survey by L. joins Pascagoula River, Jackson Oberhofer); February 2003 1890-1899 County, MS (one possible heard and January 2007 (reported (D-1*) Mississippi City, Harrision “kenting” but never seen by R. to S. Snow and S. Bass with County, MS (two specs.); March Sauey and C. Luthin); January Everglades National Park) 1893 (#10; Hahn 1963 also lists 1978 (Jackson 2004) a specimen taken in April 1893 included in total here) 1980-1989 (D-3) West side of Pascagoula 1900-1909 River, north of Vancleave, Jackson (A-1) Conecuh Swamps, north of County, MS (two birds in a pine Troy, Pike County AL; 1907 (#8; by M. Morris); February 1982 specimen now unaccounted for) (Jackson 2004)

83 (E-2) Pearl River, St. Tammany 1870-1879 (C-2*) Cow Bayou, Iberville Parish, LA (a male observed one None Parish, LA (two specs.); March year, a female the following year, 1906 (#15) both by N. Higginbotham); 1986, 1880-1889 1987 (Steinberg 2008) (A-1) Sunflower Delta, MS; about (D-1) Avery Island, Iberia Parish, 1888 (#1) LA; 1900-1909 (#17) 1990-1999 1910-1919 (E-2) Pearl River, St. Tammany (B-8*) Tensas River, East (B-4) Boeuf River swamp, West Parish, LA (a pair reported seen Carroll Parish, LA (spec.); spring Carroll Parish, LA; about 1912 for 10 minutes by D. Kulivan 1888 (#6; Tanner did not list a (#4) while turkey hunting; extensive specimen was taken, but one, possibly two, listed in Hahn) followup searches in subsequent (D-1) Avery Island, Iberia Parish, years unsuccessful); April 1999 1890-1899 LA; 1910-1919 (#17) (Jackson 2004) (A-2) Yazoo River Delta, MS; 1890 (D-2) Lafourche Parish, LA; 1918 (#2) 2000- (#18) (A-5) Choctawhatchee River, (B-2*) Madison Parish, LA 1920-1929 FL (multiple visual and auditory (spec.); 1891 (#8) encounters by many observers, (B-6) Bayou Macon Swamp, West including many recordings of (B-3*) Roaring Bayou, Franklin Carroll Parish, LA; 1926 (#5) Parish (four specs.), LA; July putative kents and double-knocks (B-7) Tensas Parish, north of 1899 (#10; Tanner did not and a very poor video); 2005-2007 St. Joseph, LA; May 1929 (#11; mention a specimen, but it is (Hill et al. 2006, Hill 2007) Hasbrouke 1891 referenced a listed in Hahn along with three report from G. Marbett from this (E-2) Pearl River WMA – Stennis additional specimens listed at location with no date, but must Space Center, St. Tammany LSU collected by Beyer 1900, have been at least 39 years prior Parish, LA, Hancock County, who reported taking seven to Tanner’s citation) MS (multiple sightings, several specimens) very poor but at least one (C-3) Bayou des Ourses, St. (D-1*) Avery Island, Iberia suggestive video in 2006 of a large Martin Parish, LA; about 1920 Parish, LA (two specs.); 1892, woodpecker, possibly lacking (#14) red in the crest; a more recent 1895 (both specs.) (#17) video of a woodpecker in flight (C-4) Catahoula, St. Martin 1900-1909 in 2009 was determined to be a Parish, LA; about 1920 (#16; (B-2*) Madison Parish (six Red-headed woodpecker, a 2008 not Catahoula Lake as listed specs.), LA; December 1908, (#8; video is still undergoing review in Tanner, which is in La Salle specimens and dates listed in by M. Collins and others); 2000, Parish) 2005-2009 (USFWS 2007; Collins Hahn are two taken in December 2005-2009) 1908 and four taken in March and (D-1) Avery Island, Iberia Parish, April 1909) LA; 1920-1923 (#17) Lower Mississippi Delta (#’s where indicated are cross- (B-4) Bowling Green, West 1930-1939 referenced to Figure 7 in Carroll Parish, LA; August 1903 (B-5) Near Bear Lake, Madison Tanner), subregions: (A) Lower (#4) Parish, LA; September 1937 (#7) Yazoo Basin, MS, (B) Northeast (B-5) Bear Lake, Madison Parish, (B-8) Tensas River swamp, East Louisiana (includes Tensas River, LA; February 1904 (#7) Carroll Parish, LA; about 1930 lower Red River, and south to (#6) Lake Ophelia), LA, (C) Upper (B-10*) Holly Ridge 18 miles Atchafalaya, LA, (D) Lower north of “station” (?), Richland (B-9*) Tensas River Swamp Atchafalaya_Deltaic (includes or West Carroll Parish, LA; [i.e., Singer Tract], Madison coastal forests), LA 1907 (specimen attributed to E. Parish, LA (spec.); 1930-1939 (#9; L. Moseley and housed at the one spec. collected in 1932, not 1800-1849 University of Michigan Museum specifically mentioned by Tanner, (C-1) Bayou Sara, West Feliciana of Zoology, while Tanner in his was mounted and is now housed Parish, LA; June 1821 (#13) 1989 update to his 1942 reported at the state Headquarters for LA 1850-1859 it to be from West Carroll Parish Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries; in (B-1*) Prairie Mer Rouge (spec.), and housed at the Smithsonian addition many photos, movie, and LA; Sept.1853 (#3; Tanner did and acknowledged Hahn [no recordings) specific reference was found in not list a specimen taken, but it is 1940-1949 listed in Hahn) Hahn; the specimen appears to have been collected near the (B-9) Singer Tract (i.e., Tensas River Swamp), Madison Parish, 1860-1869 Beouf River where the Parish LA (6 individuals estimated None line between Richland and West Carroll is directly north of the as “five individuals observed town Holly Ridge]) and sign of at least one other individual”) 84 In addition to Tanner’s report, 1980-1989 (C-1) Junction of Ohio and Jackson (2004) lists other reports (A-3) Yazoo River confluence Mississippi Rivers; about 1825 (none supported by photographs with Mississippi River, north of (#2) or other hard evidence) as follows: Vicksburg, Warren County, MS (one possibly heard for about (C-6) Along Mississippi River, R. Peterson (2 females); 1942 20 minutes after playing Singer either Carlisle or Hickman County, KY (reports by Audubon); R. Pough (1 female); 1943-1944 Tract tape, but never seen, by J. Jackson and M. Hodges); and early 1800s (Jackson 2004) D. Eckelberry (1 female [sketch March 1987 (heard kent calls, 1850-1859 made]); 1944, the last generally but not seen, by W. Davis and F. (C-2) White County, 40 miles accepted sighting of the species in Sibley); August 1988 (Jackson south Mount Carmel, IL; about the United States 2004) 1852 (#1) R. Peterson (reported to Peterson (A-4) Headwaters of Yazoo 1860-1869 that one remained); 1946 River near confluence with None Yalobusha River, LeFlore County, A. MacMurray (one or a pair Mississippi (one possibly seen and 1870-1879 “believed to be in the region,” as heard giving a “rhythmic” tooting (B-4*) St. Francis River (near reported to Tanner); 1948 by C. Bryson); May 1988 (Jackson Helena?), Phillips County, AR The draft Recovery Plan 2004) (two specs.); 1870 (Hahn) (USFWS 2007) adds the following (B-9) Singer Tract, Madison (C-3) Fulton County, KY; 1872- reports, again none confirmed by Parish (G. Heinrich and C. Welch 1874 (#4) photographs: possibly heard on two occasions); 1880-1889 G. Bick and J. Parker (three seen November 1981, April 1982 (Jackson 2004) (A-1) Newport, Jackson County, in John’s Bayou area, including AR; about 1885 (#6) apparent female hatch-year (D-3) Near Duck Lake, young; Bick 1942, J. Tanner pers. Atchafalaya Basin, St. Martin (B-1) Osceola, Mississippi comm.); August 1941 Parish (T. Michot and D. Hankla); County, AR and Northeast AR; 1887 and 1888 (#5) J. Tanner (an adult and juvenile April 1981 and Duck Lake, female on); 21 and 28 December, Atchafalaya Basin, LA (E. (B-2) Marked Tree, Poinsett 1941 Broussard, LWFD); April 1986 County, AR; March 1889 (#7) (USFWS 2007) J. Baker (single female; Peterson 1890-1899 1948); November 1942 1990-1999 (B-3*) Bolivar County, MS (two None specs.); March 1893 (#9) 1950-1959 None 2000- (C-4) Little River, Stoddard (D-3) Bayou Sorrel and near County, MO; November 1895 1960-1969 Patterson, St. Mary Parish, (#3; Jackson 2004 clarifies (B-9) Singer Tract, Tensas River LA (former, one seen from that allegedly a bird was shot near Tallulah, Madison County, LA flyover by R. Boustany, latter near Morley, Scott County, (one possibly heard and glimpsed multiple sightings and auditory then brought to St. Louis from by L. Binford, B. Monore, D. encounters); 2005-2006 (Steinberg Stoddard County, supposedly Berrett, and K. Arnold); March 2008) mounted but there is no longer any 1962 (Jackson 2004) Upper Mississippi Delta (#’s where record of the mount ever existing) 1970-1979 indicated are cross-referenced to 1900-1909 (C-5) Atchafalaya Basin, I-10 Figure 8 in Tanner), subregions: (C-5) Ullin, Pulaski County, IL (flyover, R. Hamilton and flyover, (A) White-Cache rivers (i.e., Big (one possibly heard by B. Gault); R. Bean); one 1973 and the other Woods), AR, (B) Mississippi 1900 (Jackson 2004) November 1974 (Jackson 2004) mainstem from MS-AR-TN north to Reelfoot, (C) Ohio River to 1910-1919 (D-3) Atchafalaya Basin, south confluence with Mississippi south (B-4) Helena, Phillips County, of US 90 (several sightings, two to include Reelfoot, MO-TN-KY-IL AR; 1912 (#8) diagnostic photos by F. Lewis given to G. Lowrey); May 1971 1800-1849 1920-1929 (for photos, some suggest they (B-6) Along Mississippi River, None could have been staged; Jackson north of Fulton, Lauderdale 2004, Gallagher 2005); and (J. County, TN (reports by Audubon 1930-1939 Maroney and B. Crider following but not clear which side of the (B-3) Nine miles south of up on report from hunter, heard river, possibly Mississippi County, Rosedale, Bolivar County (6 calls, also one possibly seen from AR); November 1820 (Jackson pairs present until World War helicopter); March 1978 (Jackson 2004) II until logged over to support 2004) war effort); 1930s (Jackson 2004, USFWS 2007) 85 1940-1949 one brief sighting by R. Everrett, (B-1) near Gainesville, Cooke (B-3) Nine miles south of one brief sighting by A. Mueller, County, TX; 1849 (Oberholser Rosedale, Bolivar County (6 multiple kents [many recorded 1974, Shackelford 1998; pairs present until World War by hand-held video camera] and acknowledged by Tanner in his II until logged over to support double-knocks [several recorded 1989 update to his 1942 report) war effort); 1930s (Jackson 2004, by ARU]); December 2006-May USFWS 2007) 2007 (USFWS 2007) (C-1) Near the “falls” of the Canadian River, OK; 1820 (#2) 1950-1959 (B-5) Hatchie River, Lauderdale None and Tipton Counties, TN 1850-1859 (followup to reports from the (B-1) near Gainesville, Cooke 1960-1969 1990s, numerous auditory County, TX; 1851 (Oberholser None encounters, both kents and 1974, Shackelford 1998; double-knocks, one visual acknowledged by Tanner in his 1970-1979 1989 update to his 1942 report) None encounter by R. Ford); January 2006 (continued searching (C-2) Timber of the Arkansas 1980-1989 in February resulted in no River, OK; 1850 (#1) (A-1) Near Diaz in Village Creek additional reports, but additional floodplain, Jackson County, AR sounds detected in January 2007; 1860-1869 (possible visual encounter by H. USFWS 2007) None Hagar); October 1985 (Jackson 2004, USFWS 2007) (B-7) Moss Island WMA, Dyer 1870-1879 County, TN (several brief (B-1) Cooke County, TX; about 1990-1999 sightings by multiple observers of 1875 (#5) None large woodpeckers with extensive white in wings, numerous double- (B-2) Old Boggy Depot, Atkoa 2000- knocks, one series recorded County, OK; 1870-1874 (#3) (A-2) South end of White River thought by some to possibly be a 1880-1889 NWR and adjacent properties response to distant simulations); Desha/Phillips/Arkansas Counties (B-3) Blue River, near Caddo, 2007-2009 (TN Working Group, OK; 1883-1884 (#4) County, AR (visual encounter of Pulliam 2009) female by M. Scott [but not seen 1890-1899 by others present]; multiple kents (C-5) Cache River, Pulaski (B-4) Bonham area, Fannin heard and large woodpecker County, IL (several independent County, TX; 1890 (Oberholser briefly seen by J. and B. Denman; visual reports of large black 1974, Shackelford 1998; visual encounter of one bird by woodpeckers with extensive acknowledged by Tanner in his S. Sietler; multiple recordings of white trailing wing edges, most 1989 update to his 1942 report) possible vocalizations and double- notably by J. White in 2005 knocks;) March 2003 (Gallagher and by A. Albores in 2008; also 1900-1909 2005; USFWS 2007), 2004 (Refuge inconclusive reconyx images and None Staff), and January-December auditory encounters by G. Erdy; 2005 (Rosenberg et al. 2005, a color photograph by S. Sheridan 1910-1919 USFWS 2007) [search through reportedly taken in June 2007 None White River refuge files by D. of an unknown woodpecker, 1920-1929 Sharp and interviews of retired examined and determined (E-1) Red River Parish (birds staff by J. Denman, Refuge unlikely to be of an ivory-billed seen by S. Christopher whose Forester, revealed references to woodpecker, was latter exposed description convinced J. Jackson previously unknown reports from as a doctored image); 2005-2008 that she had observed this the 1920s, May 1952, and 1979] (USFWS 2007) species); 1927-1928 (Jackson (A-3) Bayou de View, Cache Arkansas-Oklahoma (#’s where 2004) River NWR, Monroe County, AR indicated are cross-referenced to 1930-1939 (multiple visual reports of male Figure 9 in Tanner), subregions: None bird, possible vocalizations and (A) Ouachita and Saline Rivers, double-knocks, and a 4-second, AR-LA, (B) Red River, OK-TX, (C) 1940-1949 poor, grainy (and controversial) Canadian and Arkansas Rivers, None video of woodpecker of unknown OK-AR, (D) Red and Little Rivers, sex; many observers); February AR-OK, (E) Red River, LA 1950-1959 2004 to December 2005 None (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005, Gallagher 1800-1849 (A-1) Ouachita River, near 1960-1969 2005, Rosenberg et al. 2005, None USFWS 2007) junction of Saline (Tanner said Caddo, but shows Saline River); 1970-1979 (A-4) Wattensaw WMA, Prairie 1834 (#6) None County, AR (one 10-minute and

86 1980-1989 1870-1879 by Tanner in his 1989 update to (D-1) Porter Tract near Millwood None his 1942 report) Lake and Grassy Lake, Little River County (possible visual 1880-1889 (C-6) Boisd’Arc Island, Trinity encounter with pair by R. (B-1) Neches River, Jasper River bottoms, Dallas Co. (W. A. Weaver); late 1980s or early1990s County, TX; May 1885 (#1) Mayer); 1910 (Oberholser 1974, (USFWS 2007) Shackelford 1998; acknowledged (B-2) Russell Creek area, by Tanner in his 1989 update to 1990-1999 Tyler County, TX; about 1880 his 1942 report) None (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 1998; acknowledged by Tanner (C-8) Spring Creek, Harris 2000- in his 1989 update to his 1942 County (F. Schneider); June 1913 (A-1) Within and near Felsenthal report) (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford NWR, Ashley County, AR 1998) (several visual reports by Refuge (C-3) Northern Harris County, staff, the most detailed from TX; about 1880 (#5) 1920-1929 (B-7) Tyler County, (B. M. Reid); the Saline River where refuge (C-4) Northern Montgomery forester L. Threet and a private April 1929 (Oberholser 1974, County, TX; 1880-1881(Oberholser Shackelford 1998) citizen reportedly saw two birds 1974, Shackelford 1998) at close range, one with a black (C-6) Bois d’Arc Island, Trinity (D-2) Brazos River, TX; around crest the other with possibly a River bottoms, Dallas or 1880 (#7) small amount of red in the crest, Kaufman County, (collected by otherwise described as large 1890-1899 J.E. Stillwell, but specimen not woodpeckers with extensive white None located); about 1920 (Oberholser in the wings dorsally and flying 1974, Shackelford 1998; like crows); August 2007 (USFWS 1900-1909 acknowledged by Tanner in his 2007) (B-3) Near Sour Lake, Hardin 1989 update to his 1942 report) County (J. H. Gaut); March- (D-1) Near Pond Creek NWR, April 1905 (Oberholser 1974, (C-9) Mouth of East Fork, Trinity Sevier County, AR (visual by B. Shackelford 1998) River, Kaufman County (caught Petersen, while deer hunting, in trap by B. C. Hays, examined of large black woodpecker with (B-4) Neches River bottoms (R. by E. R. Huck, specimen extensive white trailing edge Gann); pre-1910 (Oberholser 1974, not preserved); winter 1927 when the bird swoop up into a Shackelford 1998; acknowledged (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford cypress stand); October 2007 by Tanner in his 1989 update to 1998) (USFWS 2007) his 1942 report) (D-3) Near Brazoria, Brazos East Texas (#’s where indicated (C-5*) Tarkington, Liberty County, Brazos River bottoms are cross-referenced to Figure County, TX (2 spec., total of six (one found freshly killed by 10 in Tanner), subregions: (A) birds observed); November 1904 F. C. Clarkson, specimen not Sabine and southwest Louisiana (#3) preserved); May 1927 (Oberholser (including Calcasieu River), LA-TX, (C-6*) Bois d’Arc Island, Trinity 1974, Shackelford 1998); (B) Neches and Angelina rivers River bottoms, Dallas Co., (1 (includes Big Thicket), (C) Trinity 1930-1939 spec.; collected by W. A. Mayer, (B-8) Junction of Village Creek and San Jacinto rivers, (D) Brazos spec. #6216 at Dallas Museum River and Neches River, Hardin of Natural History); 1900 County (C. H. Hooks and B. M. 1800-1849 (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford Reid); 1933 (Oberholser 1974, (C-1) Buffalo Bayou, San Jacinto 1998) Shackelford 1998) River, Harris County, TX; (C-7) Tarkington road, east of (B-9) Angelina River, Jasper around 1840 (#6; Jackson states Cleveland, Liberty County (J. County (B. M. Reid); 1934 1837 and Audubon considered H. Gaut); April 1905 (Oberholser (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford the species abundant there 1974, Shackelford 1998) as well as at nearby Ft. Bend 1998) County; Shackelford 1998 notes 1910-1919 that Audubon secured several (B-5) Near Lufkin, Angelina (B-10) lower Neches River specimens but these are now County (J. Shotwell); 1910-1915 bottoms, Jefferson-Orange county unaccounted for) (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford line (B. M. Reid); May 1937 1998; acknowledged by Tanner (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford 1850-1859 in his 1989 update to his 1942 1998) None report) (B-11) Orange County (B. M. 1860-1869 (B-6) Near Marshall, Harrison Reid); 1938 (Oberholser 1974, (C-2) Trinity River, TX; 1864 (#4) County (A. D. Martin); March Shackelford 1998); (D-1) Brazos River, TX; May 1864 1918 (Oberholser 1974, (#8) Shackelford 1998; acknowledged 87 (B-12) Bunn Bluff area, Jefferson Big Thicket National Preserve (C-10) Raven District, Sam County (B. M. Reid); prior to area (recording of double-knock Houston National Forest, San October 1938 by G. Reynard); 1969 (Reynard Jacinto County (up to four and Garrido 1988 [“Bird Songs sightings and calls heard on two of (Oberholser 1974, Shackelford of Cuba”], Jackson 2004 [not them by collectively W. Ruediger, 1998) thought to be Ivory-bill by F. Wojcik, B. Ruediger, and T. 1940-1949 Tanner], Shackelford 1998) Davis; led to development of forest None management plan for the District); (B-8) Big Thicket area of Hardin December 1970-February 1971 1950-1959 County including the following (USFWS 2007) (B-4) Big Thicket area (B. M. accounts: (C-11) Tanner Bayou of lower Reid); March 1956 (Oberholser Sternberg Tract on Village Creek 1974, Shackelford 1998) Trinity River bottoms, Liberty in Neches River bottoms, Hardin County (flyover by L. Risner); 1960-1969 County (sighting and kent calls July 1972 (Fisher et al. 1972, (A-1) Sabine River valley, along heard and recorded by J Dennis, Shackelford 1998) State Highway 87 between M. Isleib, G. Watson); February Evadale and Kirbyville, Newton 1968 (Hardy 1975 [recording 1980-1989 County (bird flushed off of large deemed inconclusive but (A-3) Toledo Bend Reservoir, rotting log by R. Parker); spring favored Ivory-bill], Dennis 1967, Sabine River, north of Pendleton 1968 (USFWS 2007) Shackelford 1998) Bridge, compartment 101 of Sabine National Forest, Sabine (A-2) Navasota River, near Village Creek area of Big County (family group [4-5 birds], Highway 158 bridge (several Thicket National Preserve, at least one bird observed for observations including R. Lys and Hardin County (J. Dennis); 1968 more than 10 minutes, bill gray- M. Steward); 1968-1969 (perhaps (Shackelford 1998) ivory, trailing edge of wing white to 1972; USFWS 2007) Big Thicket area, presumably both above and below, observer familiar with Pileateds, J. Hyde); (B-4) Big Thicket area of Tyler near Silsbee, Hardin County (a summer 1985 (USFWS 2007) and Jasper counties including the pair reported and photographed, following accounts: Neches River nesting attempted but (A-4) Calcasieu River, LA (H. bottoms, Dam B Reservoir area, unsuccessful each of three years; Ardoin, heard notes like child’s Tyler and Jasper Counties (by at least two slides of apparent tricycle horn); May (?) 1986 J. Dennis and A. Yramatequi); female protruding from a cavity (USFWS 2007) February 1966 (Dennis 1967) in hackberry by N. Wright [one of the observers interviewed in (B-8) Silsbee, Big Thicket area, Near Evadale in Neches River previous accountby P. Sykes, but Hardin County (pair of birds seen bottoms, Tyler and Jasper he was not made aware of these twice, presumably same, first Counties (followup to initial slides at the time] copied by G. time feeding on loblolly pines sighting by O. Lloyd, heard kents Reynard who donated them to killed by pine beetles and in direct on three separate days and poor VIREO); 1967-1969 (Collins 1970, comparison with many Pileateds view of one bird with distinct Jackson 2004, Hunter et al. in in view by A. McKinnon); July white trailing edge to wings by prep.) and October 1981 (USFWS 2007) J. Dennis and A. Yramatequi); December 1966 (Dennis 1967, (B-13) Between Trinity and (B-15) Multiple locations 1979, Shackelford 1998, USFWS Neches rivers (2 pairs, one lone including Big Thicket, Steinhagen 2007) female, and others noted by W. Lake, (reports in all areas with Eastman); 1960-1963 (Oberholser observer searching in “old- North of Evadale in Neches 1974, Shackelford 1998) growth areas” located from River bottoms, Jasper County soil conservation service maps, (observed by K. Newsom); April (B-14) Pine Island Bayou, including a pair with 2 young 1967 (Dennis 1967, Shackelford Hardin County (G. Watson and [which location?] by E. Allen); 1998) D. Watson); December 1968 May, June, and November 1985 (USFWS 2007) Neches River bottoms, Jasper (USFWS 2007) County; February 1967 (Dennis 1970-1979 (B-16) Chireno, southeast 1967, Shackelford 1998) (B-15) Near Wolf Creek by Nacogdoches County (5-7 minute Steinhagen Reservoir, Jasper observation, extensive white Neches River, Tyler and Jasper County (two sightings by W. counties (multiple sightings in wings and bill dirty white Mounsey and students from “The otherwise similar to Pileateds, and kent calls heard by five University of the Wilderness”); separate observers interviewed with 1-note calls given by W. May 1976 (Dennis 1979, Whitehead); February 1985 by J. Dennis; three of these Shackelford 1998) observers were also interviewed (USFWS 2007) by P. Sykes, who did not consider 1990-1999 these reports reliable); 1967-1969 None (USFWS 2007) 88 2000- Historic locations north, east, Reports from southern Missouri; None and west of distribution as into the 1930s and as late as 1949 defined by Tanner (1942) along (AOU 1931, Jackson 2002, Moore Extralimital (with respect the Mississippi and Ohio 1949 [G. E. Moore, Elusive Ivory- to Tanner’s 1942 range map) drainages: bills. Bluebird 16(12):1]) published reports of Ivory-billed Near Stanford, Lincoln County, Woodpeckers in the United States KY (two observed, one of these Historic locations west or north collected, by Col. W. Fleming); of distribution as defined by Historic documented locations Tanner (1942) in Oklahoma: north or west of distribution as March 1780 (Schorger 1949, McKinley 1958, Jackson 2004; Alluwee, along the Verdigris defined by Tanner (1942) along River, Nowata County, OK (stated Atlantic seaboard: acknowledged by Tanner in his unpublished 1989 update to his by G. Sutton as northward range Fort Macon, near Morehead limit); (Sutton 1967, Jackson 2004) City, NC ; 1878 (Hasbrouke 1891, 1942 report) Jackson 2004; single sighting Ross, Scioto, and Muskingum House Creek, Pawnee County, OK reported to Coues and Yarrow county, OH (tarsometatarsi found (one seen by S. W. Woodhouse); by “an apparently respectable from an excavated archaeological October 1849 (Jackson 2004; source…the statement given for sites and argued likely to have Sutton apparently thought what it is worth, no specimen…”) not been trade items); dated from Woodhouse collected the bird he 1100s to 1500s (Wetmore 1943, saw, but Jackson could not find a Fairchance, Moundsville, tagged specimen Sutton thought Marshall County, WV (two Peterjohn 2001, Jackson 2004; acknowledged by Tanner in his was at the Academy of Natural lower bill sections recovered in Sciences in Philadelphia) midden debris, not a burial site, unpublished 1989 update to his suggesting it could be either 1942 report) Historic locations west or south discarded trade item or locally Franklin and Monroe counties, of distribution as defined by acquired); 0-200 A.D. (Parmalee IN (reported to have occurred, a Tanner (1942) in east Texas: 1967, Jackson 2002) specimen from Franklin County is San Marco and Guadalupe rivers mentioned but not now known to and from New Braunfels, Comal Between Martinsburg, WV, and County, all south-central TX Winchester, VA (one reported exist); prior to 1869 and possibly during the 1890s (Jackson 2004) (multiple reports including a collected by A. Wilson); prior to bird killed but not preserved); 1810? (Hall 1983, Jackson 2004) Along the Mississippi River north around 1900 (at least for one of Doddridge County, WV; about to near the confluence with the these reports; Shackelford 1998, 1900 (Hall 1983, Jackson 2004) Missouri, MO and IL (reported Jackson 2004) by Audubon); early 1800s Maryland (statement attributed (Jackson 2004) to Audubon from Audubon and Chevalier, The Birds of America, Cahokia, Madison County Volume 4, that “now and then an near East St. Louis, IL individual may be accidentally (tarsometatarsus found from found in Maryland); prior to 1844 excavated site, not part of the (Jackson 2004) skull suggesting it was locally acquired and not a trade item); Reedy River, Greenville County, 1500s or earlier (Parmalee 1958, SC (in the Piedmont, to the west Jackson 2004; acknowledged by of Tanner’s boundary, nest with Tanner in his unpublished 1989 eggs collected by E.J. DeCamps, update to his 1942 report) later lost); May 1896 (listed by Sprunt and Chamberlain 1949, as Near the confluence of the only known “definitive” nesting in Missouri and Mississippi rivers South Carolina) at Forest Park (spec. near St. Louis), MO, May 8, 1886 (Hahn Etowah Mounds, near 1963, Jackson 2004; acknowledged Cartersville, Bartow County, by Tanner in his unpublished 1989 GA (in the Ridge and Valley of update to his 1942 report) northern Georgia, well north and west of Tanner’s boundary, Along the Missouri River from archeological specimens at at Fayette and Kansas City, Smithsonian Institution, central to western MO (scattered presumably considered not to be reports); late 1800s and early a trade item, but requires further 1900s (Cooke 1888, Jackson 2004) discussion); pre-Columbian (Richard Warner, USFWS, pers. comm.).

89 Literature Cited Agey, H. N., G. M. Heinzmann. 1971. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker Found in Central Florida. Fla. Nat. 44 (3):46–47, 64. (Available here: http://www.coastalgeorgiabirding.org...heinzmann1.pdf; http://www. coastalgeorgiabirding.org...heinzmann2.pdf; http://www.coastalgeorgiabirding.org...heinzmann3.pdf) Allen, A. A., P. P. Kellogg. 1937. Recent Observations on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Auk 54: 164–184. Audubon, J. J. 1835-38. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. In: Birds of America 4. ISBN 0-8109-2061-1 (H. N. Abrams 1979 edition – The book itself is in the public domain; ivory-bill entry available here: http://www. audubon.org/bird/BoA/F26_G1b.html) Beyer, G. E.. 1900. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Louisiana. Auk 17:97–99. Bick, G. H. 1942. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and Wild Turkeys in Louisiana. Auk 59: 431–432. Collins, G. F. 1970. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Texas. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University. 35 pages. (Available here: http://www.houstonaudubon.org/html/GFCIvorybill1970.pdf ) Collins, M. 2005-2010. Log of Search Efforts Along the Pearl River, MS/LA: http://www.fishcrow.com/index. html Cooke, W.W. 1888. Report on Bird Migration in the Mississippi Valley in the Years 1884 and 1885. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Economic Ornithology Bulletin 2. 313 pp. Crawford, R. L. 1998. The birds of Thomas County, Georgia: revised through 1997. Oriole 63:1-28. Dennis, J.V. 1966. A Preliminary Report on the Woody Plants, Birds, and Mammals of the Congaree Swamp, South Carolina. Report to National Park Service, Congaree National Park, Hopkins, South Carolina. Dennis, J.V. 1967. The Ivory-bill Flies Still. Audubon 69:38-44. Dennis, J.V. 1979. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Avicultural Magazine 85:75-84. Eastman, W. 1958. Ten-Year Search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Atlantic Nat. 13: 216–228. Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., T. W. Gallagher, B. R. Harrison, G. M. Sparling, K. V. Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh, E. C. H. Swarthout, P. H. Wrege, and others. 2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America. Science 308:1460-1462. Fisher, C. D., D. D. Hall, H. L. Jones, J. D. McCullough, A. P. McDonald, E. S. Nixon, J. R. Singer, and J. E. Coster. 1972. A survey of the environmental and cultural resources of the Trinity River. Unpublished report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth, Texas. Pages 336-337. Gallagher, Tim W. 2005. The Grail Bird: Hot on the Trail of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. ISBN 0-618-45693-7 Hahn, P. 1963. Where is that vanished bird? Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. Hall, G. A. 1983. West Virginia Birds. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication No. 7. Pittsburgh, PA. 180 pp. Hardy, J. W. 1975. A tape recording of a possible Ivory-billed Woodpecker call. American Birds 29 (3): 647- 651. Hasbrouck, E. M.. 1891. The Present Status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Auk 8: 174–186. Hill, Geoffrey E.; Mennill, Daniel J.; Rolek, Brian W.; Hicks, Tyler L. & Swiston, Kyle A. 2006. Evidence Suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) Exist in Florida. Avian Conservation and Ecology - Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 1:2. (Available here: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol1/iss3/ art...CO-2006-78.pdf) Hill, Geoffrey E. 2007. Ivorybill Hunters: The Search for Proof in a Flooded Wilderness. Oxford University Press, Oxford, N.Y. ISBN 978-0-19-532346-7 Hoose, Phillip M. 2004. The Race to Save the Lord God Bird. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York. ISBN 0-374-36173-8 Howell, A. H.. 1932. Florida Bird Life. Florida Dep. Game Fresh Water Fish, Tallahassee.

90 Jackson, J. A. 1996. Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pp. 103–112 in Rare and endangered biota of Florida (J. A. Rodgers, Jr., H. W. Kale II, and H. T. Smith, eds.). Univ. Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Jackson, J. A. 2002. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). In The Birds of North America, No. 711 (A Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28 pages. Jackson, J. A. 2004. In Search of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 1-58834-132-1. Loftin, R. W. 1991. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers Reported in Okefenokee Swamp in 1941–42. Oriole 56:74–76. McKinley, D. 1958. Early record for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Kentucky. Wilson Bulletin 70:379-380. Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1941. Rare and extinct birds in the collections of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. XCIII: 281-324. Moore, G. E.. 1949. Elusive Ivory-bills. Bluebird 16:1. Oberholser, H. C.. 1974. The Bird Life of Texas (edited by E. B. Kincaid). Vol. 1. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. Parmalee, P. W. 1958. Remains of rare and extinct birds from Illinois Indian sites. Auk 75: 169–176. Parmalee, P. W. 1967. Additional noteworthy records of birds archaeological sites. Wilson Bull. 79:155–162. Pennock, C.J. 1901. Recent Capture of Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Florida. Proc. Del. Valley Ornith. Club 4:8. Peterjohn, B. G. 2001. The Birds of Ohio. The Wooster Book Company. Wooster, OH. 637 pp. Peterson, R. T. 1948. Birds over America. Dodd, Mead, and Company, New York. Post, W., and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 1989. Status and Distribution of South Carolina Birds. Contributions from the Charleston Museum 18. 83 pp. Pulliam, B. 2009. Notes from Soggy Bottoms Blog: describing the Moss Island search. Posts from July 31, 2009-November 9, 2009. http://bbill.blogspot.com Reynard, G. B., and Garrido. 1988. Bird Songs in Cuba. 2 Records, 33 1/3 RPM. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Ridgway, R.. 1898. The Home of the Ivory-bill. Osprey 3:35–36. Rosenberg, K. V., R. W. Rohrbaugh, and M. Lammertink. 2005. An Overview of Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Sightings in Eastern Arkansas in 2004-2005. North American Birds 59:198-206. Schorger, A. W. 1949. An early record and description of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Kentucky. Wilson Bulletin 61:235. Shackleford, C.E. 1998. A Compilation of Published Records of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Texas: Voucher Specimens Versus Sight Records. Bull. Texas Ornithol. Soc. 21:34-41. Spahr, T. 2005. Searches for Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in the Apalachicola River basin in Florida in 2003. North American Birds 59:210-215. Sprunt, A. 1954. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Pages 282-285 In: Florida Bird Life. Coward-McCann Inc., New York and the National Audubon Society Sprunt, A., and E.B. Chamberlain. 1949. Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Pages 340-342 In: South Carolina Bird Life.University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 585 pp. Snyder, Noel. 2007. An Alternative Hypothesis for the Cause of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s Decline. Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Camarillo, California. Stevenson, H.M. and B.H. Anderson. The Birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 1994. Stoddard, H. L. 1969. Memoirs of a Naturalist. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Sutton, G. M. 1967. Oklahoma Birds. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. National Audubon Society, N.Y. Tanner, J. T. 1980. Unpublished update to The Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Division of Rare Manuscripts Collections at the Cornell University Library, Ithaca, NY 91 Terres, J.K. 1986. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. Linnaean Society of New York Newsletter 40:1-2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft Recovery Plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. (Available here: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/ IBWDraftRecoveryPlan.pdf ) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Search Season Summary for 2006-2007. (Available here: http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill ) Weston, F. M. 1965. A survey of the birdlife of Northwestern Florida. Bulletin of Tall Timbers Research Station. Number 5. 147 pages. Wetmore, A. 1943. Evidence of the former occurrence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Ohio. Wilson Bull. 55: 55. Williams, J. J. 2001. Ivory-billed Dreams, Ivory-billed Reality. Birding 33: 514–522.

92 Appendix F. Protocol to Estimate Occupancy and Related Parameters for the Region-wide Search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

Michael J. Conroy, USGS Georgia Background to learn about the ecology of this Cooperative Fish and Wildlife The Ivory-billed Woodpecker species. To this point, significant Research Unit and Warnell was once relatively abundant money and effort have been spent School of Forestry and Natural in floodplain forests of the on searching. Although great Resources, University of Georgia, southeastern U.S. By 1900, advances have been made on Athens its range and numbers had search techniques and associated declined precipitously due to technology, little information Robert J. Cooper, Warnell habitat loss and various types of useful to management and School of Forestry and Natural maltreatment. The last known recovery has been obtained. Resources, University of Georgia, population was studied in a Athens remnant patch of old-growth An Ivory-billed Woodpecker forest known as the Singer Tract recovery team has been formed Brady J. Mattsson, Warnell and a recovery plan has been School of Forestry and Natural in northeast Louisiana in the late 1930s by Tanner (1942). The written. Among the recovery Resources, University of Georgia, actions in that plan are at Athens tract was subsequently logged, and since that time, numerous least a dozen that pertain to Clinton T. Moore, Patuxent individual sightings have developing an adaptive search Wildlife Research Center, occurred, mostly in and near the design, estimating occupancy and University of Georgia, Athens. few remaining large patches of detection probability, assessing contiguous bottomland forest habitat associations, and modeling Rua S. Mordecai, Warnell (Figure 1). Also since that time, population viability. The School of Forestry and Natural however, a number of bottomland approach we advocate will begin Resources, University of Georgia, forest patches have come under to address all of these actions. Athens public protection and have grown Justification for the Occupancy James T. Peterson, USGS Georgia to mature forests, and others Estimation Approach Cooperative Fish and Wildlife have been reforested under There are several problems Research Unit and Warnell several large-scale conservation with searching only in what are School of Forestry and Natural efforts (e.g., Twedt et al. 2006). believed to be the best places. Resources, University of Georgia, The stunning rediscovery of the For example, (1) optimal sites Athens Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the have not been confirmed, so that it is not known what and where Objective Statement: Cache-lower White River Basins initiated a new search effort. The those places are, (2) searching The purpose of this document only in the “best” places does not is to describe a survey design primary objective of the search has been to find the bird and permit inferences about places and field protocol for the Ivory- not searched; that is, one cannot billed Woodpecker search effort document its existence, searching mostly those locations that were make an inference about the that will: (1) allow estimation of larger population because the occupancy, use, and detection believed—mainly on the basis of the limited data provided selection of search locations lacks probability for habitats at two randomization, (3) one cannot spatial scales within its former by Tanner—to be optimal. Meanwhile, other searches estimate occupancy, use, detection range, (2) assess relationships probability, or the sampling between occupancy, use, and were initiated in other locations within the former range where effort required to estimate habitat characteristics at those those parameters, (4) in order to scales, (3) allow the development unsubstantiated sightings have been reported in recent decades, understand habitat associations, of a population viability model a range of habitat values needs that depends on patch occupancy again focusing on places that were believed to have the best to be represented in the sample instead of difficult-to-measure being analyzed, and until this demographic parameters, and chance of being occupied. Some observations and other promising happens (5) it is not possible (4) be adaptive, allowing newly to build predictive habitat and collected information to update data have been collected in these places, but many other population models, or to learn in a the above models and search systematic, repeatable way from locations. A more statistically observations were made in areas that were not consistent with the data collected how to improve detailed version of this document the search. will undergo peer review by the prior expectations (i.e., smaller USGS. tracts, few large trees and snags). It is apparent that we have much 93 Rather than focus solely on prior belief of their suitability and randomly on the basis of recent finding the bird, we advocate results from existing searches; so historical sightings. Remaining a primary focus of estimating that most but not all effort is still basins in the sampling frame occupancy and use, from which expended in the “best” locations should be randomly selected many other useful parameters (see below). with weights based on the and products can be obtained, subjective probability of Ivory- and in the process of conducting This approach is substantially billed Woodpeckers occurring the surveys with that paramount different from what is being in the area. This process will objective, follow good leads and done now, although the field yield many basins with high find the bird. methodology is not. Field occupancy probability and few methodology can include any of with low occupancy probability. Occupancy is the actual the major techniques now being Eventually, exact criteria for occurrence of an animal at a used (e.g., ground surveys for selection will be developed jointly site of interest, as opposed to birds, cavities or feeding sign, by experts in order to gain its detection or non-detection, recording devices, aerial surveys). consensus. A step towards this and is defined as the probability Costs may be slightly higher (see consensus was attained at the that a randomly selected site is below), but the benefits in terms recent Congaree meeting. occupied; alternatively, it is the of the quality of information proportion of sites in an area of obtained will be a substantial Secondary level. Within selected interest that are occupied by a improvement over current river basins, sampling units species (MacKenzie et al. 2006). approaches. We believe that the in the secondary level will be It is possible (arguably likely) additional costs will be more than defined as approximately 2km2 that one can visit a site that is justified by the gain in the quality patches of land. As individual occupied and not detect a bird on of inference obtained under this birds are almost certain to a given occasion (a false negative). approach. The approach does not use areas greater than 2km2, Thus, one does not know if an detract from efforts to document the secondary level will be “absence” (i.e., non-detection) is the bird’s existence; indeed, we estimating probability of a unit actually due to non-occurrence, suggest that our approach may being used. These patches can or rather the failure to detect the even increase the likelihood of be a consistent square or some species when it is in fact present. finding birds at multiple locations. other shape in a grid as in Figure This problem is addressed by 3, or a variable shape and, to multiple visits to a site, which Approach some extent, size in order to allows estimation of detection The following represents our follow existing features of the probability, which is then used thinking now, after one search landscape such as water features to “adjust” occupancy estimates. season (2006-07) and could be or management compartments. If an animal is likely to move in modified in the future; however, Squares can be problematic if, for and out of the surveyed area, and data collected under this plan will example, they include both sides that movement is random, it is be useful under future variations of a watercourse large enough to also possible to apply the same of this design. Survey sites prevent easy crossing. The 2km2 methodology used to estimate will be defined and selected at size was chosen because it seems occupancy, only in this case it will two levels or spatial scales, the functional, and it is currently estimate the probability of use primary level (river basins) and in use as part of the Lower (MacKenzie et al. 2006). Habitat secondary level (patches within Mississippi Valley Joint Venture variables are also measured in river basin). habitat survey (LMVJV refers each site. Occupancy can be Primary level. The primary site to these patches as stands, which related to habitat variables using will be a river basin within the are subunits of management a variation of typical logistic former range of the Ivory-billed compartments on public land in regression corrected for detection Woodpecker (Figure 2). Many the survey). Feedback from most probability. of those can be eliminated from groups that used this sampling further consideration due to design in the 2006-07 search In order to develop occupancy season supports this patch size. models, sites must be randomly their (believed) complete lack of chosen to make inferences suitability. Culling unsuitable Again, patches that are that can be generalized to the sites will help to create a defined inaccessible due to logistics or entire population. Inaccessible sampling frame. River basins landowner permission can be sites and sites that are judged with consistent sightings and/ omitted from the sampling frame, to be entirely unsuitable for or sound recordings (i.e., high as will completely unsuitable woodpeckers (e.g., non-forested quality evidence) will always patches; the resulting system sites) can be eliminated from be selected to survey. At this of patches constitutes the the sampling frame (the list of point those would be the Cache/ sampling frame at the secondary sample units in the population lower White in Arkansas, the level. Selection of patches will that could potentially be included Choctawhatchie in Florida, occur in a similar fashion to the in the sample). Further, selection and the Congaree/Wateree in primary level except no patches of patches can be weighted by South Carolina. Other river in the sampling frame will be basins may also be selected non- 94 guaranteed selection. Patches models that involve multiple river are done for a patch, they do not will be randomly selected with basins (i.e., the primary level). need to be done again, unless weights based on the probability Investigators that make extensive additional or different data of Ivory-billed Woodpecker use of ARUs or other methods are required, or the patch has use. Exact criteria for selection unique to particular river basins undergone significant change eventually will be developed by can use those data to develop since the last survey. expert consensus. basin-specific models, but results may not be comparable with other Database and Data Entry Note that an investigator in sites unless those areas also used All data should be entered into a particular area can survey similar survey methods. the centralized database within additional patches not selected two months of the end of the in the sample. However, because Habitat surveys field season. Long-term data of the need for randomization, in The habitat protocol stems from storage options are currently our approach only the patches the LMVJV habitat measurement being discussed with a strong selected in the sample will be protocol, which involves taking possibility that data for the 2007/8 included in the analysis. As many measurements on 4 field season will be entered into an approximate rule of thumb, “transects” of 5 plots each, or the USGS point count database about 90% of overall search effort n=20 plots per patch. Circular (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/point/) should be done in randomly plots are 0.2 acres (0.08 ha) in selected patches. If new size, with a 52.7’ radius. However, Literature Cited information is obtained, such as this level of time commitment Fitzpatrick, J. W., M. a hunter reporting a bird in a may not be within the means of Lammertink, M. D. Luneau, Jr., patch that is not in the sample, all investigators. In this case, a B. R. Harrison, G. M. Sparling, K. then the design can and should be reduced number of measurements V. Rosenberg, R. W. Rohrbaugh, modified on the basis of the new can be taken on these plots. We E. C. H. Swarthout, M. S. information. Eventually, a formal suggest that, as a minimum, Dantzker, R. A. Charif, T. R. set of protocols will be developed density of large (>24” dbh and that will allow searchers this >36” dbh) trees, density of snags, Barksdale, J. V. Remsen, S. flexibility in a truly adaptive and dominant tree species should D. Simon, and D. Zollner. search design. For now, if this be recorded. Based on feedback 2005. Ivory-billed Woodpecker situation (i.e., new or ‘found’ data) from searchers in the 2006-07 (Campephilus principalis) should arise, then the search team season, we believe that most of Persists in Continental North should consult with the UGA the data on dominant tree species America. Science 308:1460-1462. team as to how the design might can be obtained using remotely be altered. sensed data, so tree species does MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, not need to be recorded. J. A. Royle, K. H. Pollock, L. L. Field Procedures Bailey, and J. E. Hines. 2006. Searches However, two additional Occupancy Estimation and Again, field methodology measurements requiring more Modeling. Academic Press, New can include any of the major precision must be made. Rather York. techniques now being used (e.g., than measuring all trees, only ground or canoe/kayak surveys trees >24” dbh and >36” dbh Royle J.A. and W.A. Link. 2006. for birds, cavities or feeding sign, and all snags >10” dbh are Generalized Site Occupancy recording devices, aerial surveys). counted, using one or several 52.7’ Models Allowing for False However, in order to develop sections of cord to ascertain the Positive and False Negative models that use and learn from plot boundary, and a Biltmore Errors. Ecology 87(4):835-841. data collected from multiple river stick to assess dbh class quickly. Tanner, J. T. 1942. The Ivory- basins, it would be better to have We estimate that, with a little billed Woodpecker. Research comparable field methods to help practice, a plot such as this should Report No. 1, National Audubon build more rigorous detection take < 5 minutes to complete by Society, New York. models. We suggest that active one person. ground surveys for birds and sign Twedt, D. J., W. B. Uihlein, III, should be the standard approach The 20 plots per patch should and A. B. Elliott. 2006. A Spatially that all surveys use. In the 2007- be randomly located and Explicit Decision 08 search season, this design established using a GPS unit. may be altered to include active They can be located using simple Support Model for Restoration double-raps using sticks and a random sampling or systematic of Forest Bird Habitat. resonating wooden box. random sampling. The latter Conservation Biology 20:100-110. is likely to be more practical if Standard survey units can also double-rapping is to be done be developed for techniques systematically throughout the such as autonomous recording patch anyway. Alternatively, units (ARUs), but it is likely that habitat surveys can all be done in only a few sites will use ARUs in the middle of the day at random quantities large enough to use in locations. Once habitat surveys 95

Figure F-1. Possible encounters since 1944 are primarily in large patches of contiguous bottomland forest.

Figure F-2. River basins within the former range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Figure 2. River basins within the former range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Figure F-3. Example grid of survey units for basin surrounding Congaree National Park. Boundaries shown as crosshatched area. Colors represent percent of square classified as swamp and/or bottomland hardwood (0-10%: white, 10-40%: yellow, 40-70%: orange, 70-100%: red) by the 2001 National Landcover Dataset (NLCD).

Figure 3. Example grid of survey units for basin surrounding Congaree National Park. Boundaries shown as crosshatched area. Colors represent percent of square classified as swamp and/or bottomland hardwood (0-10%: white, 10-40%: yellow, 40-70%: orange, 70- 100%: red) by the 2001 National Landcover Dataset (NLCD).

98 ADDENDUM. Implementation of Justification: Visual Encounter Ranking System Adaptive Design for Ivory-billed We have modified the survey Any large woodpecker falling into Woodpecker Occupancy Protocol design to allow for additional either of the following categories: information coming from outside Michael J. Conroy, USGS Georgia sources, e.g. hunter sightings, Category 1—an encounter Cooperative Fish and Wildlife which potentially would not be with documentation that can be Research Unit and Warnell from areas surveyed originally. repeatedly interpreted the same School of Forestry and Natural We have also updated the protocol way by independent observers, Resources, University of Georgia, to allow for more effort in areas such as where definitive Athens with defensible detections of photographic evidence is collected by the field observer. Robert J. Cooper, Warnell Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. The School of Forestry and Natural allocation of more effort is two- Category 2 - an encounter with at Resources, University of Georgia, fold, 1) we have allocated more least two diagnostic field marks Athens patches, specifically, adjacent clearly observed and described, patches to be searched when a and the bird remaining in view Brady J. Mattsson, Warnell high-quality detection has been long enough for the observer School of Forestry and Natural made or confirmed, and 2) we to reconfirm the observed field Resources, University of Georgia, have allocated an increase in marks, but no independently Athens repeat visits in those patches with verifiable evidence such as a a high-quality detection and in Clinton T. Moore, Patuxent photograph. Diagnostic field the adjacent patches. We believe marks include: Wildlife Research Center, these modifications increase our University of Georgia, Athens. overall flexibility and ultimately a. White trailing edge of wing Rua S. Mordecai, Warnell our probability of observing a on either the dorsal or ventral School of Forestry and Natural bird. surface. Resources, University of Georgia, Approach: b. White ‘shield’ formed by folded Athens The original approach will stay wings over the lower back of a Krishna Pacifici, USGS Georgia intact at both the primary and perched bird. secondary level. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife c. White lines starting behind the Research Unit and Warnell The survey design will change eye, continuing down the neck School of Forestry and Natural only when a specific type of and onto the back of the bird. Resources, University of Georgia, encounter is confirmed. This Athens specific encounter will be called d. Black chin James T. Peterson. , USGS a trigger. A trigger can be of e. Large woodpecker with one Georgia Cooperative Fish and several forms: visual detection, of the above diagnostic field Wildlife Research Unit and auditory detection, or detection marks and clearly heard giving Warnell School of Forestry and from helicopter survey. ‘kent’ calls or double knocks. Natural Resources, University of Visual Detections: Georgia, Athens Category 3—an encounter that A visual detection trigger is any includes the description of one Objective: visual detection of category 1, definitive or several partial or As we originally intended for the category 2, or category 3 on the poorly observed field marks. survey design and field protocol CLO visual encounter ranking for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker system (see below and pages 21 Auditory Detections: to be adaptive, we have and 31 of RFP). These visual An auditory detection can be used augmented the current protocol detection triggers can come from as a trigger only if it meets the to incorporate newly collected the following sources: following criteria: information. In response to 1. a randomly selected patch 1. It is a clear double-knock or feedback from search teams within secondary level kent call, and regarding search behavior and sampling frame, specific concerns about effort, 2. It was made by personnel we have also updated our survey 2. a patch searched during the with extensive experience and design in an attempt to increase 25% allocated free time in training (i.e. member of the the chance of finding the bird either primary or secondary search team). while maintaining the current sampling frame, or outside of probabilistic framework and the primary sampling frame or, 3. Does not displace more than scientific rigor. This document 25% of the search time for the provides the minor modifications 3. an outsider’s report (e.g. a original occupancy protocol. hunter) and potentially in to the survey design and field Auditory detections can be protocol. a patch not in primary or secondary level sampling frame followed at any time during and not originally intended to the search period regardless of be surveyed. whether it originates in a selected 99 sample plot or in a plot within If no additional triggers are the sampling frame, given that it found, return to the random meets the above criteria. patches originally selected for the occupancy model. Helicopter Survey Detections At this time we are not addressing 5. Continue process to create the sampling procedure and/or network of patches until no approach for helicopter surveys. new triggers have been found. We can however give procedures This will result in edge patches for the incorporation of high- (Figure 3). quality detections (CLO visual encounter category 1, 2, or 3) 6. Follow the normal occupancy from a helicopter survey. The protocol for all other high-quality detections will be detections. used in the same manner as found Time Allocation data from an outside source The adaptive augmentation (e.g. a hunter) to reallocate the described here will not come out sampling effort. This can be of allocated free time and will be done for helicopter detections in considered as part of the directed any area regardless of whether occupancy protocol (75% of the it is in the primary or secondary total time spent searching). If sampling frame. The site of the Category 3 visual detections detection (gps units) will be used become abundant and are to determine the appropriate requiring a significant amount of initial trigger plot. The protocol the search team’s time (> 25%) will then follow the steps outlined the search team should consult below. with the University of Georgia Adaptive Field Procedure Research Team to modify the Once a detection trigger has protocol as needed. been confirmed the protocol will change in the following fashion. 1. The patch containing the trigger and the four adjacent patches in the cardinal directions (North, East, South, and West) will be searched. If the patches are not square, but are of some other shape dictated by landscape features, then the adjoining or most adjacent patch in each of the four cardinal directions should be surveyed (Figures 1 and 2). 2. These five patches (trigger patch plus four adjacent patches) will be visited a total of five times instead of the original three visits. 3. Any new trigger detections in the adjacent patches will constitute a new trigger and the three adjacent patches of the new trigger patch will be surveyed a total of five times (Figure 3). 4. If at least one more trigger follows the initial trigger, reallocation of search effort will be left up to each search team with the provision that the adaptive protocol is followed. 100

Figure F-4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed.

Figure 4. Initial detection trigger identified and confirmed.

Figure F-5. Four adjacent patches plus initial trigger patch searched five times.

Figure 5. Four adjacent patches plus initial trigger patch searched five times.

101 95 Figure F-6. New trigger found during visit to adjacent patch. Three patches adjacent to new trigger patch searched five times. Process continues until no new triggers are found. This will result in edge patches.

Figure 6. New trigger found during visit to adjacent patch. Three patches adjacent to new trigger patch searched five times. Process continues until no new triggers are found. This will result in edge patches.

102 96 Guidelines for Ivory-billed is being tested with Pale-billed at times of day with high bird Woodpecker Searches in the 2007- Woodpeckers (Campephilus activity, typically early or late in 2008 Season guatemalensis) from September- the day, but on crisp, clear winter Recommendations from Cornell December 2007, to assess days bird activity can remain Lab of Ornithology response patterns. First results high, permitting DK sessions indicate that the Pale-bill is highly to be conducted throughout the Double Knock Imitations and the responsive to these imitated day. If a searcher plans to be at Double Knocker Loan Program sounds, much more so than to one spot for an extended period For the 2007-08 search season no Pale-bill calls or double knocks (i.e., a stationary watch, lunch large-group searches are planned played through a speaker from a break, vegetation sampling) it is as in previous years in Arkansas recording. recommended that a DK session and Florida. Instead, small be initiated at the beginning of teams of searchers will explore During the summer of 2007, the this period. priority areas. Although areas carpentry shop at Congaree cannot be searched exhaustively National Park produced 30 A DK session consists of a bout with a small team, broadcasting double knocker (DK) tool sets of seven double knocks spaced of double knock playbacks after the CLO design. These 10 seconds apart, a 4-minute can increase the effective area double knockers are now pause, and another bout of seven searched. Tanner (1942) reported available as part of the equipment double knocks at 10 second a higher response rate of Ivory- loan program for Ivory-billed intervals. This temporal spacing billed Woodpeckers to double- or Woodpecker searches in the 2007- of double knocks is modeled after single-knock imitations than 08 season and can be requested recordings of other Campephilus to kent-call imitations. Other by sending an e-mail to Marty drum signals. The spacing is Campephilus species generally Piorkowski . Instructions for using the observed in recordings, aiming knock imitations. Because of a DK tool set will be distributed to arouse the attention of a bird large carrying distance, double- with each loan. if present. If working in a team, knock imitations sample a larger and if the team uses Garmin GPS search area than kent-call or Double Knocker Use Protocol units with radio function, several double knock playbacks through We recommend using double- minutes in advance of a DK a speaker system. For these knock imitations frequently to session a searcher should send reasons, double-knock imitations try to elicit a response when out the coordinates and timing of appear a more suitable technique exploring areas with suitable the session so that co-searchers than playbacks. habitat and/or recent reports of are aware of the upcoming Ivory-bills. If an Ivory-bill is imitations and can listen for During the 2006-2007 season, confirmed or strongly suspected responses. Sessions should start the Mobile Search Team of to be present, double knock at the top of a minute according to the Cornell Laboratory of imitations should be avoided standardized, satellite-corrected Ornithology (CLO) in cooperation or used very rarely to avoid time on a GPS unit. A log must with D. Martin developed and potential harassment. be kept of all imitated double tested a mechanical device The DK tool set can be carried in knocks, so that if members of the designed to imitate double public or team members who are knocks. It consists of a wooden a small day backpack, permitting each member of a field team to beyond radio reach report double box, open on two sides, which knocks, these can be compared is strapped to a tree trunk and have a DK tool set with them. DK sessions should be conducted with the log of broadcasts. rapped upon with a hand-held The log should contain GPS tool consisting of two wooden along the searcher’s route of travel and are best done in areas coordinates of the broadcast site dowels that are attached in such and exact time of the onset of the a way as permits them to pivot of good visibility, such as open forest. Working from a lightly two one-minute imitation bouts of independently of each other. The a session. It is recommended that angle and length difference of elevated location (i.e. a hill or high river bank or fallen tree) will help each searcher perform between 3 the dowels causes them to strike and 6 DK sessions per day. the box in succession, producing facilitate sound travel and permit a signal with the sound quality, a better line of sight [this is said If a double knock or kent call spacing, and amplitude ratio of a again below]. If an unprovoked is heard, or an Ivory-billed large Campephilus woodpecker double knock is heard during Woodpecker flies in: (1) prepare double knock. The signal carries the course of regular searching your camera, (2) if the sound 400-600 m in denser woods with and attempts to see the bird or bird is close and the forest foliage, and up to 1.4 km in fail, then a DK series should be navigable, leave your double more sparse winter woods and conducted immediately. In Pale- knocker box strapped to the tree under ideal weather conditions. billed Woodpeckers it has been and carefully approach the bird, In collaboration with C. Saker found that birds already engaged (3) take the picture or video, (4) of York University, Toronto, a in drumming are especially clean up your pants; alternatively, double knocker of CLO design responsive to DK imitations. DK if the source cannot be found, or if imitations should be concentrated 103 the landscape prevents approach, falls within the boundaries of the Conducting Helicopter Searches try bringing the bird closer with patch, and the name of the specific for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker occasional double knocks, each locality must match the name of separate by about one minute. To the patch. After November 15, Background avoid harassment, interactions 2007, an electronic file from which In April 2005, rediscovery of should preferably remain under a data sheet can be printed for the endangered Ivory-billed 30 minutes, and should never daily bird data, consisting of a Woodpecker on Cache River extend beyond 60 minutes. species checklist and the required NWR in Monroe County, east- data fields, can be requested from central Arkansas was announced. Keeping a List of Bird Marty Piorkowski . evidence for the persistence In the 2007-2008 season, each of the Ivory-bill in Florida searcher is asked to keep a What to Do in Case of an Ivory- was presented by a group daily record of the number of billed Woodpecker Find of researchers from Auburn individuals of each bird species If an Ivory-billed Woodpecker University. seen for entry into the eBird is convincingly seen in a search project database (http://ebird. area (with two or more diagnostic Thousands of hours of intensive org). Special emphasis is on the characters reported) but not searching using a variety of keeping of records on species of documented with an image (i.e., a techniques (boats, walking, conservation concern, i.e. Rusty Category 2 sighting), the dilemma blinds, cameras, sound recording Blackbird, Swallow-tailed Kite, arises whether continued search units) during the 2004-05 and and Swainson’s Warbler, as well effort should continue with a 2005-06 field seasons produced as on woodpeckers, because small team or whether a larger only six additional observations woodpecker abundance can be team should be formed. A small in Arkansas. Intriguing sound used as a measure of habitat team minimizes the risk of recordings and a number of suitability for Ivory-billed disturbance but undermines the possible sightings were also Woodpecker. If two searchers chances for repeated encounters documented, but this massive travel together, for instance in a and documentation. Conversely, search effort with few positive shared canoe, only one list should a large team brings risks of results demonstrates the difficulty be kept. Along with the daily disturbance but increases the of finding this charismatic and checklist of birds the following chances for documentation. As elusive bird. data should be recorded: a compromise, it was decided No state search group is during the July 2007 Atlanta compelled or required to perform (1) length of the day’s route by meeting of Ivory-bill searchers non-motorized means, during helicopter surveys. The following that in case of an undocumented, guidelines are the result of daylight hours, according to your plausible find, both methods will GPS track, several conference calls and be tried, in sequence. A small review by a sub-set of the search (2) the coordinates of the central team of 4-6 people, typically groups’ membership with interest (mid-way) point of the track (in the team that made the original and expertise in aerial surveys. decimal degrees, not UTMs – to find, will try daily for up to 4 These guidelines may be used to get these, temporarily switch the weeks after the initial sighting help formulate an appropriate, coordinate format in your GPS to obtain an image of the bird. consistent strategy if helicopters settings at the end of the day), If that fails, additional teams are used at some point during the that are active with searches in 2007 search season. (3) start time of the survey, other states should be called in to assist. The contact persons Rationale (4) duration of the survey in to discuss expansion of search Adding aerial helicopter searches hours, effort towards the end of the can make the total regional, (5) main observer and co- initial 4-week small team multi-state effort more efficient, observers, effort are Laurie Fenwood by systematically covering a larger area, and/or accessing (6) mode of transportation and Ron Rohrbaugh . Developments techniques (due to hurricane will be treated with appropriate damage, lack of roads, lack of (7) name of the general area and discretion. Credits for the original flooding for water access, no state (e.g., Congaree NP, SC), discovery, and decisions how and public right of way, etc.), thereby (8) specific location of the when to release the discovery increasing the chance of locating searched area (e.g., Boggy Gut). information, remain with the a center of activity for the Ivory- original finders. bill. If the day’s efforts include exploration of a 200-ha patch for The feasibility of using fixed-wing the Occupancy Model, a separate ultra-light aircraft for Ivory-billed track and list must be kept for Woodpecker aerial searches was the part of the search route that tested on a portion of the White

104 River NWR in the winter of 2006. Safety observers should have a high From this slow aircraft, common Aircraft are mechanical devices quality SLR camera pre-set/ forest birds could be identified that can malfunction or be focused and ready to point and and video imagery collected; affected by wind, weather, and shoot still images of flushed however, the ultra-light aircraft earth-based objects such as trees Ivory-bills. Observations will were unstable at low altitudes and hills; therefore, safety must likely be brief, no more that with even slight winds produced be the number one priority. Our two-three seconds, and the over the forest. This finding led decision-makers for this will be observers will have to be familiar to the recommendation to use the helicopter pilots. Additionally, and very proficient with SLR the more powerful and stable Federal and state resources are use. Additionally, there should helicopter. Other commonly bound by strict requirements, be a high-definition video camera available fixed-wing options and acceptable contractors will be mounted to the helicopter. do not maximize the ability to required to meet these standards Preferably, the camera will be fly close to the canopy at lower as determined by the hiring/ fitted with a wide angle lens airspeeds to enable identification acquisition agency. Occupants directed down and forward and photo-documentation of of the helicopter must adhere of the flight path, capturing flushed birds. to all required safety rules and constant video footage of the area respective agency requirements immediately in front of the ship. Helicopter searches and surveys while conducting the surveys. In addition to documenting Ivory- are an accepted, cost effective billed Woodpecker sightings, the means for locating and counting Search Areas video imagery will be a way to wildlife or finding habitat Each state search group will record and later to assess habitat features. Though population determine geographic priorities characteristics in inaccessible estimates derived from this using historical information, areas. type of aerial survey frequently recent and reliable reports of underestimate the actual sightings, and habitat information Transects number of individuals present (see Request for Proposals The pilot will fly previously due to visibility bias (i.e., not all Criteria). Additionally, selection defined transects downloaded animals are sighted), helicopter of areas will depend on several into GPS units monitored by searches can be used to document variables including the type of the pilot and cockpit observer. the presence of at least one helicopter as well as its cost and Transects will be defined using individual. This can be followed availability, logistics for aerial landform characteristics and up with a thorough ground search and ground crews, local weather shape of the survey area with of areas where the Ivory-billed conditions, issues associated consideration for making the Woodpecker is documented. with public lands management or most efficient use of available private lands, season of search, flight time on individual flights. The first objective of a helicopter and accessibility. Randomization Individual flights should last no search is to locate and capture can be included for development more than 2 to 2.5 hours in order definitive still camera or video of the occupancy model. to minimize observer and pilot imagery of an Ivory-bill. fatigue. Flights can be planned to Widely accepted proof would be Search Guidelines take place during the hours 0900 invaluable in resolving differences Observers and Cameras through 1600, to take advantage of opinion within the scientific If searches involve low altitude of maximum sunlight. Additional community over the rediscovery helicopter flights, a total of 3-4 flights can be scheduled in early of this species as well as in observers including the pilot or later daylight hours depending promoting appropriate, effective, should be used, depending on on effective times for flushing and on-going conservation efforts. the type and capacity of the observing birds. Flight times and aircraft and pilot discretion. Pilot duration can be varied according If Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are observations will be subordinate located during the aerial search, to local needs and issues. to flight operations. Safety will Adaptive changes are expected ground crews can be deployed to be the first priority for all of the a much smaller area to focus on as the crew learns from initial flights. In addition to looking efforts. roosting or nest cavity location. actively for flushed Ivory-bill, the Locating these important habitat port side cockpit observer can Transect spacing can be varied elements will enable researchers help coordinate the operation, and to allow adequate observation of to gather information that could monitor on-board or handheld flushed birds. Airspeed should make significant contributions GPS equipment. Ideally, there be consistently maintained, if to the knowledge and recovery will be two observers positioned possible. Depending on the ship of the species. This sharper in the back seat of the ship with used, slower airspeeds (40 miles focus can be expected to be much doors removed. These observers per hour) will aid observers. more efficient and likely to yield will be tethered to the ship with Altitudes will depend on local results, since searching habitat on safety harnesses. In addition to issues and safety concerns. The the ground is difficult and time- scanning constantly for flushed pilot can adjust flight parameters consuming. Smaller areas can be Iviroy-bills, each of the back-seat and transect orientation to searched more intensively. 105 maximize viewing ability and balance calculations for each cause energy expenditure and adapt to local conditions and flight. An analysis of aerial stress. Again, the trade-off is safety considerations. hazards will be done prior to explicit between the management/ searches, and maps displaying conservation need to find and Preliminary test flights can aerial hazards will be provided to document the bird, then reliably help determine what will work, the pilot. locate a roost or nest cavity adapting for optimum results, and a temporary disturbance of then maintaining a flight pattern, Timeline extremely short duration. Under speed, and altitude that are as Air searches are best conducted the Endangered Species Act, consistent as possible. These test during leaf-off condition in order harm or “take” of a listed species flights would ideally use a ground to have the greatest chance of without a permit is expressly crew making simultaneous detecting and capturing still or prohibited. In this case, the observations of flushed and/or video imagery of a flushed Ivory- “take” potentially occurring is hiding birds during the helicopter bill. Due to the high costs of harassment via disturbance of run. ferry time the helicopter searches whatever activity the bird was should be completed in blocks engaged in prior to flushing. Crew and Pilot of use. Late January, February, Onboard GPS units monitored and March are expected to be the The 2007 helicopter searches will by the pilot and cockpit observer most effective months. be performed by state search will record waypoints of Ivory-bill groups in cooperation with sightings, waypoints of habitats Issues the Fish and Wildlife Service. of interest, and track logs of all Waterfowl Barring an aerial strike, which flights. The primary purpose for much of will be avoided by the pilot the NWR lands to be searched is Crew members may come from for obvious reasons, the only to provide habitat and protection disturbance that will occur is partner agencies. Completion of for wintering waterfowl. AMD Basic Aviation Safety (B-3) flushing one or more birds to Conducting the flights at any flight. Currently, all search online training is mandatory for time during the leaf-off period all Federal flight crew members. and monitoring activities which will temporarily disturb and may potentially harass a bird All personnel should wear an displace waterfowl in the specific approved flight helmet, nomex are permitted via the Service’s area where the flights take own Section 10(a)1(a) permit clothing and gloves, and leather place. The disturbance will be a boots during the flight. If flights or the Cornell Laboratory of short-duration, single-day event Ornithology permit. Location of are to be made over water, an and should not offer significant aircraft, approved, personal ground searchers in response to a impacts to wintering waterfowl. helicopter sighting may allow the flotation device will be worn by all For example, January through occupants when flying beyond the location of a nest or active roost mid-February are the peak which can result in additional glide slope of the land. During months of wintering waterfowl all surveys the two observers disturbance/harassment. The use on the Arkansas refuges; unlikely worst case scenario positioned in the back seat of scheduling after this time period the ship will remain tethered to would include nest abandonment, would offer the least disturbance although this is extremely the ship with approved safety to wintering waterfowl. harnesses. On-board radio unlikely. Additional minor communication between the Local managers have a good impacts would include flushing pilot and flight crew will be understanding of how seasonality, the bird(s) repeatedly. Given the maintained via flight helmet weather, and water levels habitat conditions and results of voice activated microphones. concentrate wintering waterfowl. the last two years of intensive Air-to-ground communication Where wintering waterfowl searching, birds will likely between the helicopter search concentration has been identified temporarily leave the immediate team and ground search teams as an issue, input from local area. Care will be required in will be established via cell phone managers should be used to the observation, monitoring, after Ivory-bill encounters. If modify flight plans and avoid and photography of a cavity needed, additional air-to-ground areas of waterfowl concentration. believed to be a roost or nest. communication capability Requirements are documented will be maintained between Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the current region-wide the helicopter search team Helicopter Ivory-bill sightings Cornell permit and should be and ground search team via would enable immediate adhered to for follow-up, focused, programmable handheld radio. redirection of searchers to ground searches. The intra- areas of Ivory-bill encounters. service Section 7 consultation All project flights will file flight Accurately located sightings will for this permit resulted in a plans using the FAA Flight help search teams dramatically Not Likely to Adversely Affect Service or Agency Flight increase chances of locating an determination by the Regional Dispatch Offices. The pilot is active roost or nest cavity. This Office and was concurred with responsible for the accurate means the bird(s) will be flushed. by three Ecological Services performance, and weight and Flushing an animal to flight does Field Offices (Conway, Panama

106 City, Lafayette). Copies of the about government intrusion, permit are held by the Fish and lack of confidence in assurances Wildlife Service and Cornell that no trespassing will occur, Laboratory of Ornithology, with and fear of potential regulation specific requirement information associated with owning habitat available from Ron Rorbaugh, used by endangered species Cornell University and Laurie make this a sensitive issue. Some Fenwood, US Fish and Wildlife over-flight of private lands will Service. be unavoidable as the helicopter makes turns to follow transects Other Wildlife determined for surveys focused If extensive areas are flooded, only on public land. Potential some unsubmerged lands may negative reactions to this can be harbor wildlife concentrations managed by assuring adjacent which could be disturbed landowners that public lands are by a low-flying helicopter. the focus of the flights. Over- This disturbance will be of flights on private lands are not short duration, and if large illegal and are largely constrained concentrations of sensitive only by safety concerns (via species are noted by local officials/ FAA regulations and advisories). coordinators, these areas could However, good sense and gauging be avoided. Most migratory, local reactions must prevail in non-waterfowl species will not each case in order to promote have arrived in the bottomland the long-term conservation of hardwood habitats. Resident this species, which will depend species will, however, be in a on appropriate private land relatively stressful period of the management. A public outreach year. Recognition of these trade effort should be undertaken offs should be made. Where where needed. compatible with the primary objective, efforts to minimize disturbance and fulfill additional objectives, such as eagle surveys, can be accomplished. Hunting Dates chosen for the flights will have an impact on whether this disturbance is an issue. Any disturbance will be of short duration, though flushing waterfowl from the immediate area can affect the availability of animals to shoot. Depending on the closeness of hunters or hunting blinds to the flight path, impact varies from none (similar to crop dusting/seeding) to significant (ducks gone for the day). No impact is anticipated if hunting seasons are closed. Private Lands Efforts to locate the Ivory- billed Woodpecker ideally would include all lands within what is now (to the best of current understanding) considered suitable habitat. However, in many areas observing private lands via low altitude helicopter flights might generate negative reactions from landowners or those who worry about landowner rights. Suspicion 107 108 Appendix G. Example of Action Plan and Private Lands Considerations for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

Action Plan In the Event of evidence of the species will be and clarity of the observation, Definitive Information of the forthcoming. and context of the sighting Presence of the Ivory-billed (habitat type, location, observer Woodpecker In Arkansas Sighting information collected credibility). Several years in association with the winter of experience have provided Need for Action Plan search effort could significantly an education in assessing The search for the Ivory-billed inform species management and the significance of reported Woodpecker is on-going in any associated public use. There encounters, and such is done Arkansas, with intensive search is a need to describe how this routinely by Service and Cornell efforts occurring from December information is handled in the personnel. through April. Search activities short term, including how and continue to be more specific when to convey the information to This Action Plan is in effect to and highly targeted with each the general public and the media. streamline a swift and effective search season as search areas response to the identification incorporate several years of This brief action plan is an of the location of Ivory-billed sighting data, search experience attempt to map out a sequence Woodpecker(s) by Service and and narrowing of the field of of events that should take place ESA permittee decision-makers. search, as well as investigations if significant information on the It is not valuable or effective to in previously untargeted areas status of the species is obtained. respond to each and every Ivory- through use of occupancy model Definition of Events bill sighting report according protocols. Search activity is It is considered likely that to the Response Sequence laid significantly enhanced annually information on the rediscovery out in this document, but rather and more focused on the basis will result from the efforts of the to those judged to be actual of information gained from search teams under permit. It observations of the species the each previous field season. is, however, quite possible that and with significant behavioral Searches are conducted by significant information could components likely to lead to professional employees from be obtained from independent further observations. Therefore several organizations, as well as parties. To maintain awareness sightings which are judged to volunteers. Cornell Laboratory of possible independent sightings be ‘Confirmed Encounter with of Ornithology (CLO), Audubon the various list serves used Documentation’ or ‘Probable Arkansas (AA), The Nature by the birding public will be Encounter’ will initiate the Conservancy of Arkansas monitored daily. Management Action Plan Response Sequence. (TNCA) and Arkansas Game & of the response in these cases Less definitive sighting reports Fish Commission (AGFC) are is dependent on obtaining (‘Possible Encounter’, ‘Putative participators in the organized information from parties who Encounter’) will be shared among search effort. All search efforts may or may not be willing to primary agency and permittee are unified under the field share it. Given the high degree representatives, but will not coordination and permits of CLO. of interest, it is likely that any initiate the Response Sequence. It is anticipated that there will significant information will come Particular attention will be given continue to be a great number to the attention of the search to this shared information if the of birders and curiosity seekers teams or government officials in a sighting report investigator is in the field, as has occurred in matter of days or less. Therefore, inclined to believe that the report previous years. Traditional users we will consider the sequence of is likely to lead to ‘Confirmed’ such hunters and anglers will events to be the same regardless or ‘Probable’ encounters, given also be in the field and are aware of the source of information, further investigation. The of the search for the Ivory-billed with the response dependent on Response Sequence is, in effect, Woodpecker. Additionally, a cash the quality of the information the equivalent of calling ‘the red reward (initially $10,000 and received. phone’ to notify the Incident currently $50,000 for leading Response Team of a significant an official to an Ivory-billed Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting event which will require team Woodpecker) has been offered reports are no longer infrequent decision-making. to the public for locating the in the Big Woods of Arkansas. bird, and this incentive has Reports vary tremendously in Possible Significant Events raised both public awareness and credibility due to differences Significant events could take participation. It is therefore more such as observer experience, several forms. For purposes of likely than ever that additional field marks observed, length developing appropriate responses 109 the following scenarios are e. White trailing edge of wing Action 1—Communicate considered here: on either the dorsal or ventral Information to Initial Response surface. Team (Attachment 2): 1. Fly-by Ivory-bill - Credible The below persons will be sighting reports of a bird flying f. White ‘shield’ formed by folded considered members of the Initial by a location with no known wings over the lower back of a Response Team. This group is focus of activity. perched bird. kept to a minimal size to facilitate 2. Foraging Ivory-bill - g. White lines starting behind the quick response and decisions. Documentation is received of eye, continuing down the neck Membership is dictated primarily IBWO feeding in a specific and onto the back of the bird. by legal requirements (access and area, possibly on an identified permits) and those in the lead food resource. Flood killed h. Black chin on conducting the search. Team trees or possibly one of the members will be responsible e. Large woodpecker with one for informing other personnel “morticulture” sites could of the above diagnostic field result in attracting a bird or within their program/agency as marks and clearly heard giving appropriate. birds on a regular basis. ‘kent’ calls or double knocks. 3. Roosting Ivory-bill - A bird All the members of the Initial Category 3 Response Team will be informed or birds are documented An encounter that includes the frequenting a roost tree. of the information as soon as description of one definitive or possible regardless of where 4. Nesting Ivory-bill - A bird or several partial or poorly observed the definitive record occurs in birds are observed exhibiting field marks. Arkansas. Contact should be nesting behavior at a cavity Category 4 made by phone if possible and tree. An encounter based solely on backed up by e-mail. Emphasis in the observer’s impression of the order of contact should be based 5. Dead or Injured Ivory-bill on the location of the sighting, - The remains of a bird are bird with no identifiable field marks unambiguously observed; e.g., on Cache River NWR recovered or an injured bird is priority should go to contacting recovered. encounter lacks sufficient information to make qualitative Jonathan Windley first. There are of course other possible assessment about the identity of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scenarios or combinations but the bird. these five likely encompass most Primary Contacts: of the general types of situations In conveying information on which could be encountered. sightings use should be made of ????? the categories above so all team Encounter Classifications: members are aware of the degree Arkansas Game and Fish Each sighting will undergo an of confirmation with regard to the Commission assessment led by CLO personnel sighting. Primary Contacts: to determine the degree of confirmation of the particular Response Sequence ????? encounter. The review will result (Attachment 1.): in a classification of the encounter For confirmed Ivory-bills fly- Arkansas Natural Heritage into one of four categories: bys or probable encounters, Commission notification of the Initial Category 1 Response Team members should Primary Contact: An encounter with documentation be made, and the need for any ????? that can be repeatedly management action should be interpreted the same way by assessed via a conference call or Cornell Laboratory of independent observers, such as meeting. Ornithology where definitive photographic evidence is collected by the field The following numbers may be Primary Contacts: observer. used at any time to convene a conference call: ????? Category 2 Phone number = ????? Action 2: Convene Initial An encounter with at least two Response Team diagnostic field marks clearly Passcode = ????? An Initial Response Team observed and described, and Meeting will be convened. It is the bird remaining in view For all other definitive sightings expected that this meeting will long enough for the observer information (e.g., confirmed be convened within hours of the to reconfirm the observed field or probable nesting, roosting, information becoming available. marks, but no independently feeding, dead or injured) the Representatives of the following verifiable evidence such as a following actions should be taken: shall be present if feasible: FWS- photograph. Diagnostic field Refuges, Ecological Services marks include: and External Affairs programs, 110 State of Arkansas (individuals in question should be included similar to that employed for Bald to be identified by State of in the initial response meeting. Eagles. Management actions and Arkansas), the Cornell Search Likewise, State of Arkansas Law permitted activities in the vicinity Team leaders or their designees, Enforcement personnel should be of the nest tree will be limited to and the person(s) providing the offered the opportunity to attend those necessary to assure the well information or sightings. the meeting. being of the bird or birds present. Research methods will be non- The purpose of the meetings If an injured bird or abandoned invasive in nature. will be quickly to review the nestling (e.g., from a fallen nest information received, confirm the tree) is encountered, speedy Public use and viewing should validity, and determine the initial assessment will provide the be discouraged in the initial steps which would need to be best chance for recovery. The response. Once the behavior taken to assure protection of the welfare of the bird should be of the birds and the terrain bird or birds being observed. the primary concern, but notify surrounding the sighting are the Initial Response Team and more clearly known, options for If the sighting occurs on law enforcement officials as some type of public viewing could public lands, such protective soon as possible–preferably be evaluated. measures may include cessation before transport of the bird. If or modification of public use the nature of the injuries bird In the event the birds are using activities, management programs, warrant it, e.g., gun shot wounds, private lands, discussion with search effort, or any other activity notify State and Federal law the land owner on how best to that may be deemed to have an enforcement officials immediately provide protection for the bird(s) adverse impact on the birds. and be careful to preserve any as well as the interests of the land owner will be necessary. If the definitive sighting evidence of a crime. The bird should be conveyed to the facility Involvement of the Corridor of information is on private Hope Conservation Team should land, a meeting of the Initial identified in Attachment 1 as soon as practicable. be considered when dealing Response Team should with private land owners. Their still be convened as soon as Contact information for injured involvement will be somewhat possible and should include birds or nestlings: dependent on the circumstances, the land owner if the person The initial response meetings e.g., the desires of the private is willing and circumstances will continue at least once per land owner. In addition, should allow. The presence of Ivory- day or as agreed to until no trespass issues develop, Federal billed Woodpecker on private longer needed. Involvement of or State law enforcement lands will obviously create a other conservation partners in could assist with this to assure different scenario in terms of these meetings may be expanded thatdisturbance to the bird(s) protective measures that can following the initial response and does not occur and that the be implemented. Involvement placement of protective measures private property owner is not of members of the Corridor of should an y be needed. adversely impacted. Discussions Hope Team should be considered with the private landowner depending on the circumstances. Concurrent with the convening regarding future management Special consideration should be of the Initial Response Team, and liability avoidance as well as given to the desires of the private bird list serves such as Bird incentives for management and land owner to maintain privacy Chat and Rare Bird Alerts such protection of his/her land will be and protect his/her property and as Birdingonthe.net will be required. activities from birders or others. monitored to evaluate awareness in the birding community. Action 4: Review Permit An assessment of the methods Requirements and Issue Permits for monitoring activity will be Action 3: Implement Protective as Appropriate necessary. In general, the least Measures Permits (ESA and refuge/ obtrusive methods should be Put protective measures in State) for work proposed by used. Remote cameras or blinds place. This may require tasking researchers or other personnel should be considered. The need enforcement personnel, signage will be evaluated and permits for predator control devices or other measures. In some cases issued as appropriate. A separate such as snake guards should there may be minimal need for ESA permit may be required for be assessed. Deployment will these actions. The response will work in association with a nest or depend on the location of the nest be tailored to fit the particular roosting bird(s), although this is and time of year, among other situation. It is not possible dependent on the nature of the factors. to identify the combination of anticipated activity. In addition, protective measures that may If a dead bird or parts of a bird if the event occurs on State or or may not be needed until the Federal land there may be a need are recovered, the events above specific location of the activity should still take place, but the for an additional permit from the is known. In the case of a nest land-managing entity. Office of Law Enforcement and or roost tree it is likely a buffer the refuge officers for the area zone approach will be used that is

111 Action 5: Notify Public of greatly by the specific Significant Information characteristics of the individual Once protective measures are in case. It may be necessary place, notify the public. External to deploy remote cameras. Affairs personnel of the FWS Some type of monitoring and the State will have the will probably be needed for lead with coordinating media/ research and protection public outreach in consultation purposes. with members of the Initial Response Team. The Outreach 4. Development/revision of and Communications Committee Section 7 guidelines and all formed under the Recovery Team other ESA compliance may be could serve as an appropriate necessary. vehicle for disseminating 5. Compatibility determinations information over the longer term. and refuge step down plans Action 6: Monitor Response of for public use, forestry Birds and Public and Adjust as management, and other Necessary management will need review Action 5 will complete the initial to assure they are consistent response. This does not mean with the recovery and that the events which follow the management of Ivory-billed initial response will be predictable Woodpeckers. or manageable. It will be necessary to monitor and evaluate the situation continuously as it develops and to adjust permitting, protection, and communication as needed. Long-Term Management Longer term management of the birds and the habitat used will require additional discussion and review. The following factors should be considered with regard to the longer-term management approach: 1. Long-term public use management—this will evolve as we learn more about the habits and behavior of the bird(s). Management actions considered necessary as an initial response may not be needed later in the process. Conversely, there may be a need to expand protective measures. 2. Research needs will be an important consideration, but they must be balanced against the welfare of the bird(s). Learning more about the ecology, habitats and behavior of the species would greatly benefit recovery efforts and search methodologies. 3. Some means of providing access for viewing should be considered for nests or roost trees. This will be influenced

112

Figure G-1. Functional chart for Initial Response for Action Plan: In the Event of Definitive Information Tableof the 1 .Presence Functional of the chart Ivory for billed Initial Woodpecker Response in for Arkansas. Action Plan: In the Event of Definitive Information of the Presence of the Ivory billed Woodpecker in Arkansas.

113

113 Living With the Ivory-billed Recent Surveys with little or no information on Woodpecker: Private Landowner Efforts to document the presence the focal point of activity. In any Considerations of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers have of these cases, the immediate been underway since late winter question will be “What should the “The plain lesson is that to be a of 2004. Additional surveys have landowner do?” practitioner of conservation on a taken place in 2005, 2006, 2007, piece of land takes more brains, and 2008. Since much of the best Private landowners who believe and a wider range of sympathy, remaining forested habitat is they may have Ivory-billed forethought, and experience, found on public lands, search Woodpeckers on their land than to be a specialized forester, efforts have been focused in should be encouraged to share game manager, range manager, areas such as Cache and White such information with the Fish or erosion expert in a college or a River NWRs, and State lands and Wildlife Service or the conservation bureau.” on Dagmar and Rex Hancock/ appropriate state fish and game - Aldo Leopold, 1934 Black Swamp WMAs in Arkansas, agency (contacts are listed at the end of this paper). The Background Congaree National Park in South Carolina, Municipal Water District following concepts help assure The announcement of the that landowner interests will be rediscovery of the Ivory- land on the Choctawhatchee River in Florida, the Big Thicket protected and that the bird is billed Woodpecker on Cache conserved: River NWR was made on areas in Texas, Pearl River in April 28, 2005. This was the Mississippi and Louisiana and 1. Don’t kill, harm, wound, or first scientifically documented the Atchafalaya River Basin harass a listed species such as sighting of a magnificent bird in Louisiana, as well as the the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. that had not been seen for Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. Such things are prohibited almost 60 years. The Recovery While some of these areas have under the Endangered Team was established; the yielded intriguing sightings Species Act (ESA). Habitat Corridor of Hope Conservation and vocalizations, no additional destruction or removal may Team was convened; Town Hall photographic or videographic constitute a violation of the meetings were held to involve evidence has been obtained. ESA. Cooperation and seeking public citizens. Additionally, Debate in the scientific community opportunities for partnership there has been consultation continues regarding if and where are the best approach to with ornithological experts, an Ivory-billed Woodpeckers exist. conserving listed species, which assessment of habitat in the Big Rediscovery of an Ivory-billed is the real purpose of the law. Woods, communication exchanges Woodpecker on Private Land Through cooperation, potential among scientists about the A significant amount of private concerns can be addressed, Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and land could support the Ivory- and the habitat conditions discussions about survey and land billed Woodpecker. Some of this supporting this rare and acquisition needs. land is intermixed with public elusive bird can be maintained and improved. The most important conservation land or adjacent to it. It is discussion continues. How can possible that use of private lands 2. Existence of a resident bird we manage for the needs of this by Ivory-bills could be occurring is a good indicator that the species? While the Recovery and the search team or private landowner’s current use, Plan is still undergoing review, landowners may find evidence of management, and protection of the reality is that we all have the such activity. Increased search the land has offered something opportunity to work together intensity during 2006 and 2007 attractive to the Ivory-billed towards recovery. The Ivory- added to the general awareness Woodpecker. The Fish and billed Woodpecker presents all of of the possible presence of the Wildlife Service, other Federal us with real challenges, mainly Ivory-bill and improved the and state agencies, and private because there is so little biological likelihood of its discovery on conservation organizations information about its ecology, life private lands. will be interested in providing history, nutritional requirements, Rediscovery could take several financial and technical habitat preferences, and current forms. A landowner sees a bird assistance to the landowner threats. James Tanner’s 1942 feeding on private forest land. A aimed at continuing these work provides us with perhaps roost tree or even nesting of a benefits. the best information we currently pair of Ivory-bills could also be have. 3. Providing information about documented. Evidence of past a bird passing through the As Jerome Jackson writes in the nesting could be discovered. area may mean that the larger ending of his book on the Ivory- The characteristic call of the landscape is still capable billed Woodpecker “If there is Ivory-billed Woodpecker, which of supporting Ivory-billed habitat, there is hope. If there resembles the “toot-toot” of a Woodpeckers. This information are Ivory-bills out there, there is toy tin horn, could be detected. will assist ongoing search and hope” (Jackson, 2004). We all now Potentially, a bird could be seen location efforts, lending to the know there is hope. flying through private property recovery of this species.

114 4. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife 1. As with any endangered candidate or other at-risk Service’s goal is to find ways species, there are obligations species. It is designed as for you to maintain your to avoid “take” which is a program whereby states traditional use of the property defined in the Federal can provide technical and while protecting this species. Endangered Species Act as financial assistance to private Hunting, fishing, and other follows: “….to harass, harm, landowners who desire to recreational activities are pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, undertake habitat management unlikely to present a problem kill, trap, capture, or collect, or restoration for federally and timber management or to attempt to engage in any listed endangered, threatened activities may be compatible such conduct.” Frequently, and other at-risk species. as well. It is impossible to existing land use activities can The Service administers predict in advance the exact be continued with little or no this program; funds are situation or circumstances that change. The Fish and Wildlife competitively awarded to the may arise on any particular Service is ready to work with states and tribes to establish piece of property, so we cannot landowners to help avoid “take” a LIP program as well as for make blanket promises about and to continue their current implementing an LIP program. a particular land use activity. land use to the greatest extent State agencies with primary However, no private lands practicable. responsibility for fish and have been taken or condemned wildlife may submit proposals, by any government agency 2. Because the rediscovery of although other agencies or to protect this species, and this bird is so spectacular and organizations may partner with we have no intention of such an exciting conservation or serve as a sub-grantee of the doing so. Our goal is to work opportunity, conservation fish and wildlife agency. The cooperatively with private groups will be very interested States must provide a minimum landowners to meet their needs in assisting any private of 25 percent non-federal and the needs of the bird. landowner who has an matching funds; applications Ivory-billed Woodpecker that propose a higher matching The following website provides regularly using their property. amount will score better, since identification tips. (http://www. Federal, state and private matching funds beyond the fws.gov/ivorybill/seenone.html) conservationists will be anxious required amount is one of the to work with these landowners ranking criteria. To report a sighting, visit http:// to assure that conservation www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/ opportunities are implemented Arkansas received an LIP identifying to protect the bird. The grant in FY 2005 to initiate Conservation Options landowner may have a potential an on-the-ground Landowner Private lands are vitally entrepreneurial enterprise Incentive Program. Rare important to the future of providing viewing opportunities plants and animals (birds, endangered, threatened and of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, fish, mammals, insects, and other at-risk species in the with the requirement that the crustaceans) that are identified United States. For example, bird be fully protected. There by each state include state approximately half of all are many direct assistance and federally listed species, Federally listed endangered programs available to fund and other species with small species depend on private lands conservation activities, and/or declining numbers in for 80 percent of their habitat purchase easements, and the state. These species may needs (Clark and Downes, provide other financial be prevented from becoming 1995). Private lands, at the same incentives for conservation to “listed” as endangered time, are under tremendous the landowner. Some of these or threatened under the pressures for development, and are described below. Endangered Species Act by fragmentation of habitat is a timely habitat or population Federal Programs Available for enhancement on private lands. major conservation issue. Local Endangered Species Conservation conservation groups as well It is expected that LIP funds as Federal and state agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be used in conjunction recognize that they cannot and 1. Landowner Incentive Program with other conservation efforts should not rely solely on land such as Federal farm program acquisition for conservation. The Landowner Incentive conservation initiatives and Many new incentives have Program (LIP) program non-governmental organization been established for private provides financial assistance to funding. states and tribes to establish landowners that desire to This program helps to: undertake actions to help improve or implement programs conservation for imperiled that protect and restore n Encourage private species. habitat on privately-owned landowners to conserve and lands to benefit federally manage important habitat There are two major points that listed endangered and all landowners should know: threatened species, proposed,

115 n Protect habitat through benefit federally protected or certain situations and can serve conservation easements candidate species, migratory a valuable role in the recovery birds, or other trust resources, of endangered and threatened n Prevent rare or declining such as wetlands and stream species. For more information species from being “listed” habitats. Applications are about such an opportunity, For more information: received continuously. discuss plans with the local Fish and Wildlife Service office. http://Federalasst.fws.gov/ In Fiscal Year 2005 (from lip/lip.htm October 1, 2004 through 4. North American Wetlands 2. Partners for Fish and Wildlife September 30, 2005), Conservation Act (NAWCA) Program approximately $2.3 million was available for habitat The North American Wetlands The Partners for Fish and improvement projects in the Conservation Act is a Federal Wildlife (Partners) Program, Southeast Region. Detailed grants program that funds established in 1987, restores, information can be found on the partnership projects for improves, and protects fish Internet Site at: http://www. wetland restoration, wetland and wildlife habitat on private fws.gov/southeast/partners management or acquisition for lands through voluntary waterfowl throughout North partnerships between the 3. Conservation Banks America. There are two major Service, other agencies and types of NAWCA grants, Conservation banking is a standard grants ($50,000 - organizations, and private relatively new practice that landowners, while leaving the $1,000,000) and small grants is becoming more attractive (<$50,000), and the grant land in private ownership. The to private landowners and Partners Program operates in requests for proposals are developers who are interested generally open twice a year. every state and can assist with in protecting endangered and habitat projects in all habitat Competition for these grants threatened species and their is keen; potential applicants types where trust resources habitat to achieve a market are involved. The Partners’ are strongly encouraged to enterprise. A conservation coordinate with the “Joint Program works with private bank is basically a tract of land landowners by providing Venture” contact for their that the landowner has decided area (http://www.fws.gov/ technical and financial to protect for the benefit of a assistance with a flexible goal birdhabitat/NAWCA/jvdir. particular species; in return htm). Specific criteria apply, of achieving 50% of the total for protecting the land in project costs from partners. and a minimum of a 1:1 non- perpetuity, the landowner Federal to Federal match Partners’ projects include those achieves “credits” that can be is required. The Service on private and non-Federal sold to others who need to off- administers this program, lands that conserve native set the environmental impacts but the North American vegetation, hydrology and of their development projects. Wetlands Conservation Council soils associated with imperiled However, conservation banks establishes the policies that ecosystems such as bottomland are not appropriate when the govern the grant selection forest wetlands, longleaf pine, lands in question are already process. For more information native prairies, marshes, rivers protected for conservation; visit: http://www.fws.gov/ and streams, or otherwise conservation banks may birdhabitat/NAWCA/grants. provide an important life also not be effective if they htm requisite for a rare, declining are small in size and neglect or protected species. Typical landscape-level planning. It 5. Willing Seller Purchase of projects include: planting is often quite costly to restore Easement or Fee Title and protect conservation of bottomland hardwood Should a landowner be wetlands and other wetland bank lands; and long-term management needs sometimes interested in sale of his/ restoration; site preparation her property, two sources and planting of longleaf pine are difficult to address. On the other hand, a conservation of Federal funding are and subsequent prescribed available. The Land and Water burning; fencing cattle out of bank provides needed or improved habitat for the Conservation Fund (LWCF) streams; in-stream habitat can be used to purchase land re-establishment; planting of species in question; it reduces risks for developers by for addition to the National riparian vegetation; and many Wildlife Refuge System. other projects that result in the providing regulatory avenues for mitigation; it can simplify Approximately one- quarter of restoration and enhancement Cache River NWR has been of important fish and wildlife Federal and State permitting, thus improving efficiency; and acquired using these funds. It habitat. Interested landowners is also possible to purchase should contact their local Fish it can provide economic return for the owner of the bank. easements with these funds and Wildlife Service Ecological although the cost of easements Service’s Office. Projects must Conservation banking is a new tool that is appropriate in often approaches the value 116 of purchase in fee title and is, where soils are highly erodible, State WHIP Plan, and thus, therefore, infrequently used. cropped wetlands, or on other the program works towards lands with high environmental addressing State wildlife The Migratory Bird values (e.g., riparian corridors; habitat priorities. Landowners Conservation Fund (Duck wetland protection areas). may apply at any time to this Stamp Fund) has been used Contracts may be for 10 – 15 program. The NRCS will work to purchase about 75 percent years. For more information, with the landowner to develop of Cache River NWR. Funds contact: http://www.fsa.usda. a wildlife habitat development are generated through gov/dafp/cepd/crp.htm plan, and this is used in the the purchase, primarily development of the cost-share by waterfowl hunters, of 2. Wetlands Reserve Program agreement. Agreements the Federal Duck Stamp. The Wetlands Reserve typically run from 5 – 10 years. Purchases made with these The NRCS reimburses up funds are generally focused on Program (WRP) is a voluntary landowner program to 75 percent of the wildlife lands and waters of value to restoration costs, but cost- waterfowl. administered by the Natural Resources Conservation share approval may not exceed Some landowners may not Service that offers financial $10,000 per contract. For more want to sell their land. In these and technical assistance to information: http://www.nrcs. instances it may be possible those interested in restoring, usda.gov/programs/whip/ for private landowners to work protecting and enhancing 4. NRCS Environmental Quality with conservation organizations wetlands on their property that Incentives Program (EQIP) on easements or other ways were converted to cropland to facilitate achievement of or pasture prior to December The Environmental Quality protecting or conserving Ivory- 23, 1985. Landowners restore Incentives Program billed Woodpeckers and their the wetlands and may develop (EQIP), also administered habitat. wildlife recreation on the by the Natural Resources lands. In return, NRCS may Conservation Service, and is U.S. Department of Agriculture provide easement payments, designed to address a variety A number of Department of cost-share financial assistance of conservation issues including Agriculture programs provide for wetland restoration, and air quality, water quality, soil funding that can be used to technical assistance. Three health, and at-risk wildlife improve wildlife habitat on types of agreements are habitat. The EQIP program private lands. The Conservation available: 10 year restoration pays up to 75 percent of the Reserve Program, Wetlands cost-share agreements, 30 year project costs (more in some Reserve Program and easements, and permanent cases) and is competitive at Conservation Enhancement easements. For more the State level. Applications Program are all set-aside information, contact: http:// can be filed at any time; upon programs while other programs www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ selection, NRCS will work with are designed to address on-the- wrp/ the landowner to develop the ground habitat improvements. conservation practices. This Short summaries are provided 3. Wildlife Habitat Incentives program has funded important below, but for further information Program (WHIP) conservation projects such as about each of these programs fencing cattle out of streams, we urge private landowners The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) prescribed burning, wetland to contact their local NRCS habitat restoration, and stream representative. provides financial and technical assistance to private habitat improvement. For 1. Conservation Reserve Program landowners who voluntarily more information, contact: desire to improve or restore http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ The Conservation their lands for fish and wildlife programs/equp/ Reserve Program (CRP) habitat. The program is is administered by the 5. Conservation Reserve administered by the Natural Enhancement Program. Commodity Credit Corporation Resources Conservation working with the Department Service’s district offices, In 2001, the Department of of Agriculture’s Farm Service and funding is provided Agriculture and Arkansas Agency. This program is by the Commodity Credit initiated a $10 million designed to provide cost- Corporation. The State Conservation Reserve share assistance and annual Conservationist in each State Enhancement Program rental payments to private seeks input from the State (CREP) to benefit the Bayou agricultural landowners who Technical Committee during Meto Watershed in five voluntarily wish to establish the development of the State counties in central Arkansas, long-term cover on their lands. WHIP Plan. The ranking including Arkansas, Jefferson, Criteria apply and the program criteria for applications to this Lonoke, Prairie and Pulaski focuses on enrolling croplands program are derived from the Counties. Two of these

117 counties are located within businesses to establish local interested in acquiring and the Big Woods, Arkansas groups that can protect land. protecting ecologically-valuable and Prairie. The CREP Some of the main tools used to lands. Through this program, provides landowners with achieve these goals include land the Conservancy identifies and the option of removing land trusts, conservation easements, purchases target properties from agricultural production private reserves and incentives. within priority conservation and planting trees or other In addition, a Private Lands areas, or in zones that buffer vegetation to improve soil Program was developed by The and surround core natural conditions, water quality and Nature Conservancy to use our areas. The Conservancy then wildlife habitat. In return, experience in the United States widely and publicly markets the landowners receive in developing land conservation the property, seeking a buyer rental payments and other tools internationally. committed to protecting the financial incentives. The property’s important natural program is administered by Acquiring Land values and willing to ensure the the Farm Service Agency. For In the United States, The land’s long-term conservation by more information, contact: Nature Conservancy uses land placing a conservation easement http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ acquisition as a principal tool on the land. The value of the land pas/publications/facts/html/ of its conservation effort. The before and after the conservation crepar01.htm Conservancy helps to protect easement restrictions is approximately 15 million acres in established by professional, 6. Healthy Forests Reserve the United States. Outside the independent appraisals. The Program U.S., the Conservancy does not Conservancy prohibits sales of generally acquire land for its own The Healthy Forests Reserve conservation lands to any related protection but instead works with parties. Program was established local communities and national to help restore forest governments to encourage the National Fish and Wildlife ecosystems. Its focus is protection of ecologically sensitive Foundation on restoring or enhancing land. The National Fish and Wildlife habitat for endangered, Foundation (NFWF), a non- threatened and rare species, Conservation Easements profit tax-exempt organization, increasing biodiversity in our Conservation easements are one established by Congress in 1984 nation’s forests, and serving of the most powerful, effective to assist the Fish and Wildlife as an incentive for carbon tools available for the permanent Service in the development of sequestration. The program is conservation of private lands. partnerships with others for the open to private landowners who Their use has successfully conservation of fish and wildlife voluntarily desire to implement protected millions of acres of land and plants. The Foundation conservation practices and while keeping it in private hands has worked with many different place an easement on their and generating significant public partners over the years, as forest lands. Easement options benefits. demonstrated by the fact that it include 10 year agreements, A conservation easement is a has awarded over 7,000 grants 30 year agreements, and 99 to 2,600 organizations and has year agreements. For more restriction placed on a piece of property to protect its associated leveraged over $300 million information, contact: http:// in Federal funds into more www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs resources. The easement is either voluntarily donated or sold by than $1 billion dollars worth of Private Incentives Available for the landowner and constitutes conservation projects (NFWF, Endangered Species Conservation a legally binding agreement 2005). In addition to Federal and State that limits certain types of uses The NFWF issues general programs, there are a number or prevents development from requests for proposals of private organizations that taking place on the land in three times per year and are engaged in conservation of perpetuity while the land remains has numerous special grant endangered species, protection in private hands. Conservation opportunities, ranging from of biological diversity, and land easements protect land for Refuge Friends Group protection efforts. These offer future generations while allowing opportunities to grants that more alternatives for private owners to retain many private enhance carbon sequestration landowners to consider. property rights and to live on and efforts. They prefer on-the- use their land, at the same time The Nature Conservancy ground conservation projects, potentially providing them with and most grantees provide a Private lands conservation is an tax benefits. innovative tactic that leverages 2:1 (two private dollars to every the increasing interest of the Conservation Buyer Projects Federal dollar) matching fund private sector to take part in In recent years, the Conservancy ratio. Project criteria depend on conservation. The Conservancy has begun working with private, the type of grant one is seeking. works with landowners, conservation-minded individuals, The NFWF does not fund communities, cooperatives and or “conservation buyers,” advocacy, litigation, shortfalls in

118 government budgets, overhead Florida National Park Service and indirect costs, multi-year Fish and Wildlife Conservation Congaree National Park projects or research. They do, Commission 100 National Park Road however, provide funding for 620 South Meridian Street Hopkins, SC 29061 land acquisition, conservation, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 803/776 4396, ext. 0 restoration and creative new 850/488 5460 http://www.nps.gov/cosw/ approaches that could serve to http://myfwc.com stimulate similar environmental Non-Government Contacts: projects in other areas. Their U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Nature Conservancy contribution to the conservation Ecological Services South Central Division Office of fish and wildlife resources has Panama City Field Office 601 N. University Avenue been remarkable. 1601 Balboa Avenue Little Rock, AR 72205 Panama City, FL 32405-3721 Phone: 501/663 6699 Contact Information 850/769 0552 Private landowners are National Fish and Wildlife encouraged to explore the Louisiana Foundation options in this paper and contact Department of Wildlife and 1120 Connecticut Ave NW the organizations below if they Fisheries Suite 900 desire more information or 2000 Quail Drive Washington, DC 20036 are interested in supporting Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Phone: 202/857 0166 conservation of the Ivory-billed 225/765 2800 Fax: 202/857 0162 Woodpecker or other fish and http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Contacts Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lafayette Field Office Recovery Coordinator 646 Cajundome Boulevard Refuges and Wildlife Suite 400 Management Lafayette, LA 70506 1875 Century Blvd, Suite 420 Phone: 337/291 3100 Atlanta, GA 30345 Mississippi Phone: 404/679 4016 Mississippi Wildlife, Fish, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Parks Assistant Regional Director – 1505 Eastover Drive Ecological Services Jackson, MS 39211-6374 1875 Century Blvd, Suite 200 Phone: 601/432 2400 Atlanta, GA 30345 http://www.mdwfp.com Phone: 404/679 7085 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Ecological Services Arkansas Fish and Game Jackson Field Office Commission 6578 Dogwood View Parkway Endangered and Threatened Suite A Species Jackson, MS 39213 2 Natural Resources Drive 601/321 1122 Little Rock, AR 72205 South Carolina Phone: 501/223 6300 South Carolina Department of Or 800/364 4263 Natural Resources http://www.agfc.com Rembert C. Dennis Building U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1000 Assembly Street Ecological Services Arkansas Columbia, SC 29201 Field Office Phone: 803/734 3886 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300 http://www.dnr.sc.gov Conway, AR 72032 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Phone: 501/513 4470 Ecological Services http://www.fws.gov/ Charleston Field Office arkansas%2Des/ 176 Croghan Spur Road Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29407 843/727 4707

119 Literature Cited: Clark, Dana and David Downes. What Price Biodiversity? Economic Incentives and Biodiversity Conservation in the United States. Center for International Environmental Law, July, 1995 In Noah, Emily and YinLan Zhang. 2001. Compendium of State Landowner Incentive Programs for the Conservation of Biological Diversity, Yale University Environmental Protection Clinic, Yale University, Connecticut. Jackson, Jerome A. 2004. In Search of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. 294pp. Meine, Curt. 1988. Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 638pp. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 2005. Website Information. Tanner, James T. 1942. The Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Research Report #1, National Audubon Society, Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York. 111pp.

120 Appendix H. Ivory-billed Woodpecker Habitat Inventory and Assessment: Public Lands in the Big Woods of Arkansas

Randy Wilson, Kenny Ribbeck, land managers with information Study Areas Jeff Denman, Eric Johnson, and to facilitate future management The areas inventoried included Martin Blaney with statistical decisions. public lands in proximity to assistance from Ken Reinecke previous sightings and audio To accomplish this habitat recordings in the Big Woods Introduction inventory, the U.S. Fish and area of eastern Arkansas; which In 1942 James Tanner provided Wildlife Service utilized existing included the Bayou DeView the most comprehensive life infrastructure (e.g. Forest area of Cache River National history account of the Ivory- Resource Working Group) within Wildlife Refuge, Jacks Bay billed Woodpecker throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley and Prairie Lake area of White its historical range and the only Joint Venture partnership to River National Wildlife Refuge in-depth, ecological investigation design, implement, collect, and and portions of Dagmar WMA. conducted on a population analyze habitat data within In addition to these primary of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. the Cache/Lower White River locations, additional areas Tanner’s observations of the basin. By utilizing this existing perceived by local land managers Singer Tract population led him partnership, the U.S. Fish and well-acquainted with existing to hypothesize that foraging Wildlife Service and Arkansas forest conditions to be “suitable” habitat was the limiting factor of Game and Fish Commission Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat habitat occupancy and possibly were able to lead a multi- were inventoried. These locations of population growth. Tanner agency team representing included other areas on White went on to describe foraging staff from several NWRs and River and Cache River NWRs, habitat as recently dead trees the Service’s Migratory Bird Bayou Meto WMA, Wattensaw (<4 years) with 84% of the Program, the Arkansas Forestry WMA, Rex Hancock/Black foraging observations occurring Commission, Arkansas Game Swamp WMA, and Henry Gray/ on trees 12-36 inches in diameter. and Fish Commission, Louisiana Hurricane WMA. Unfortunately, this is the only Department of Wildlife and published work detailing habitat Fisheries, and the U.S. Geological Sampling Framework characteristics associated with Survey to complete the habitat This habitat inventory was the occupancy of Ivory-billed inventory. conducted in bottomland Woodpecker. hardwood forest (excluding Objectives reforestation and bodies of Since Tanner’s publication, there The purpose of this inventory water; e.g., oxbow lakes) within have been numerous reports was to quantify current habitat the boundaries of the individual of Ivory-billed Woodpecker conditions on public lands within WMAs and NWRs previously sightings across the southeast, proximity to recent Ivory-billed identified. Within these public but none have had the benefit Woodpecker sightings, audio lands, the inventory focused of being confirmed by a series recordings, and areas perceived primarily on areas with evidence of “re-sightings” or by locating likely to harbor Ivory-billed of Ivory-billed Woodpecker a “base-activity” site (i.e., roost Woodpecker on the basis of local existence (e.g., sightings and or nest site). The confirmed land manager knowledge. These or auditory recordings): Bayou rediscovery of the Ivory-billed data will be used to: (1) develop a DeView area of Cache River Woodpecker in the Cache/ spatially-explicit decision support NWR, Jack’s Bay and Prairie Lower White River basin of model to facilitate search efforts; Lakes region of White River Arkansas has set in motion a (2) provide ground-truth data to NWR, and a large portion series of conservation actions. enhance accuracy of remotely- Dagmar WMA. Additional Key among these activities is the sensed data; and (3) provide land areas were also assessed in a continued search effort led by managers with a basis for making preemptive manner to facilitate Cornell Lab of Ornithology. As future management decisions. search efforts to locate the Cornell staff continue to search Furthermore, it is hoped that bird(s). and document evidence (e.g., these data will also facilitate and sightings and sound recordings), enhance our understanding of Due to the large acreage it is imperative that a concurrent Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat of interest, the inventory habitat inventory and assessment relationships. was sample-based. That is, be conducted to facilitate the sampling effort was allocated search efforts, document existing and conducted in such a manner habitat conditions, and to provide as to reduce the amount of

121 time, manpower cost, and Figure H-1. Schematic demonstrating: (A) the delineation of potential disturbance, all the management compartments within a management area; and (B) the while maintaining a level of delineation and allocation of sampling units within stands across a statistical precision in the data. management compartment. To accomplish this, individual management compartments within the area of interest were broken down into homogenous forest stands approximately 500 acres in size (Fig. 1). Each management compartment and stand was digitized to create a GIS shapefile for use in the allocation process, as well as in analysis of the data.

Sample Size Determination As with any sampling effort, there are trade-offs in terms of cost (e.g., number of samples and manpower) and the reliability of the data. That is, collect too few samples and the data lack statistical power to provide precise parameter estimates. On the other extreme, there is a point Figure 7. Schematic demonstrating: (A) the delineation of management where no additional precision densitycompartments of trees >24 within inches a managementin produce area; a high and level (B) theof precision delineati on and can be obtained regardless of diameterallocation at breast of sampling height [dbh]). units wit hinconsistently. stands across However, a management sample the number of samples taken. In these simulations, CV values sizes > 4 clusters produced One means of assessing these werecompartment. calculated for sample sizes precise parameter estimates with trade-offs is to examine pilot of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 clusters by sample sizes > 6 clusters being data collected fromSample the area Size of Determinationrandomly selecting clusters and very precise in the parameter interest to generate summary then replicating the procedure estimates. Due to the constraints statistics that provide insight into 10 times. Simulations resulted described above, it seems distributional propertiesAs with of any the samplingin the effort, calculation there of are 10 CVtrade-offs values in reasonableterms of cost to opt (e.g for., a number sample of samples data. In particular,and the manpower) coefficient andfor theeach reliability sample size of (Fig. the data.2). Thatsize is, ofcollec 4 or t5 tooclusters, few samplesgiven that and the data of variation (CV) islack the statisticalpopulation powerThe simulationsto provide revealedprecise parametergreat estimatesboth continuously. On the produced other extreme, there is a quantity on which sample size point where no additionalvariation inprecision precision can estimates be obtained acceptable regardless levels of the of precision number (e.g.,of samples depends when one desires to (e.g., CV values) for sample sizes CV 15%). A closer examination control the relativetaken. precision One meansof of 3; assessingwhereas sample these sizes trade-offs >6 is toof examineCV values pilot for these data twocollected sample from the of the data (Thompsonarea of1992; interest to demonstratedgenerate summary little variation statistics in that providesizes reveals insight nearly into identical distributional Sampling. John Wileyproperties and Sons of the data.the precision In particular, estimates the (Fig. coefficient 2). CV of varivaluesation produced (CV) duringis the population Inc. 343pp). Precision estimates calculated for simulation analyses, suggesting quantity on whichsample sample sizes size of depends 4 and 5 clusters when one desiresthat a sample to control size ofthe four relative clusters precision of To facilitate the determinationthe data (Thompson 1992; Sampling. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 343pp). of sample size requirements for were similar in the amount is sufficient to maintain the conducting habitat inventories for of variation expressed in the desired level of precision in Ivory-billed WoodpeckersTo facilitate (e.g., the determinationreplicates and alsoof sample produced size requirementsparameter for estimates. conducting habitat inventories the density of large diameter acceptable levels of precision (i.e., for Ivory-billed Woodpeckersnone exceeded (e.g., 15%). the density of largeAllocation diameter of Samples trees [>24inches]; density trees [>24inches];of density dead/dying of trees), pilot data from White River NWRFrom wasthe sensitivity subjected analyses to sensitivity analyses dead/dying trees),to pilot assess data precision Given (i.e., the stability current of funding coefficient of variatiof piloton data, values) it was under determined different sample from White River NWR was constraints, availability of that cluster sampling yielded th subjected to sensitivitysizes. analyses To accomplish manpower, this, we the subjected large area theof pilot dataequivalent (n=15 orclusters higher of levels 5, 1/5 of acre plots) to to assess precisionsimulation (i.e., stability models interest that randomly in the Big selected Woods of clusters ofprecision points inat parametervarying sample estimates sizes and of coefficient of variationgenerated values) summary Arkansas statistics (Cache for theRiver parameter NWR, of interestthan a simple (e.g., randomdensity samplingof trees >24 inches in under different sample sizes. To diameter at breastWhite height River [dbh]). NWR, In and these Dagmar simulations, scheme. CV valThus,ues we were allocated calculated for sample accomplish this, we subjected WMA) and the desire to maintain samples within a stand using the pilot data (n=15sizes clusters of 2, of3, 4, 5, an6, acceptable8, and 10 levelclusters of precision by randomly cluster-sampling selecting clusters procedures. and then For replicating the 5, 1/5th acre plots)procedure to simulation 10 times.(i.e., Simulations low CV values) resulted in parameter in the calculationexample, plotsof 10 were CV allocatedvalues for each sample models that randomlysize selected(Fig. 2). Theestimates, simulations a sample revealed size ofgreat 4 variationusing in point-transects precision estimates where (e.g., CV clusters of points at varying values) for sampleclusters sizes of per 3; sampling whereas unit sample (e.g., sizeseach >6 demonstratedtransect contains little five, variation in the sample sizes and generated stand) appeared to be the best 1/5th acre plots (52.7 ft radius) summary statisticsprecision for the estimatesoption. (Fig. That2). Precisionis, sample sizesestimates of calculatedspaced four for chains sample (264 sizes ft) apart of 4 and 5 parameter of interest (e.g., 3 clusters were not sufficient to (Fig. 3) and each stand contains

122

129 four randomly allocated point- Figure H-2. Sensitivity analysis to assess implications of sample size transects (Fig. 1B). Additionally, (e.g., number of clusters) on the coefficient of variation for density the use of cluster samplingclusters were similarof large intrees the ( ≥amount24inches of dbh) variation based on expressed pilot data in from the Whitereplicates River and also produced reduced the amount of travel time NWR. required to move fromacceptable point to levels of precision (i.e., none exceeded 15%). point, thus increasing the overall cost efficiency of the inventory. Parameters Collected The data provided by Tanner and discussions with Martjan Lammertink, (Cornell Lab of Ornithology Post-Doctorate Student), who is leading the Cornell search efforts in Arkansas, support the assumption that site-scale Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat occupancy is influenced by the density of large diameter trees (>24 inches dbh) and the density of recently dead/dying or severely stressed trees. To inventory and assess habitat in the areas of interest (e.g., sightings and/or sound recordings) and other areas perceived to meet theseTable criteria 2. S ensitivity analysis to assess implications of sample size (e.g., number of clusters) (as noted by local landon managers) the coefficient of variation for density of large trees (≥24inches dbh) based on pilot data we collected data on a variety of forest metrics thatfrom address White RiverFigure NWR. H-3. Schematic of a point-transect depicting a cluster of five, forest structure, composition, and 1/5th acre plots spaced four chains (264 ft) apart upon which habitat health. Though our knowledgeGiven the currentmetrics funding were constraints,sampled availability of manpower, the large area of interest in is limited in this area,the we Bigbelieve Woods of Arkansas (Cache River NWR, White River NWR, and Dagmar WMA) and that these metrics provide both a quantitative estimatethe desire to maintain an acceptable level of precision (i.e., low CV values) in parameter of parameters of interest,estimates, as a sample size of 4 clusters per sampling unit (e.g., stand) appeared to be the best well as additional qualitativeoption. That is, sample sizes of 3 clusters were not sufficient to produce a high level of estimates that would facilitate the characterization ofprecision Ivory- consistently. However, sample sizes > 4 clusters produced precise parameter estimates with sample sizes > 6 clusters being very precise in the parameter estimates. Due billed Woodpecker habitat. Parameters Collected Furthermore, these datato the are constraints also described above, it seems reasonable to opt for a sample size of 4 or 5 expected to provide additionalclusters, given that both continuously produced acceptable levels of precision (e.g., CV  Figure 8. Schematic of a point-transect depicting a cluster of five, 1/5th acre plots benefits in termsTable of 3.15%)assessing Location,. A closer numberTable examination H-1.of forest Location, standsof CV number valuesand acreage of forforest these inventoriedstands two and sample acreage in t hesizes Biginventoried reveals Woods nearly of identical habitat qualityArkansas for other (through priorityspaced 2006). fourin the chains Big (264Woods ft) ofapart Arkansas upon which (through habitat 2006). metrics were sampled. wildlife species (e.g., CVSwainson’s values produced during simulation analyses, suggesting that a sample size of four Warbler, black clusters is sufficient to maintain the desired level of precision in parameter estimates. bears, etc.). The data provided by Tanner and discussions with MartjanNumber Lammer tink, (Cornell Lab of AllocationOrnithology of Samples Post-Doctorate Student), who is leading the Cornellof search effortsTotal in Arkansas, support the assumptionLocation that site-scale Ivory-billed WoodpeckerStands habitat Acreage* occupancy is Cacheinfluenced River NWR by the – densityBayou of DeView large diameter trees (>24 inches dbh)43 and the density 27,515 of recently From thedead/dying sensitivity or severely analyses stressed of pilot trees. data, To inventoryit was determine and assessd habitat that cluster in the areas sampling of interest yielded equivalentWhite( e.gRiver .,or sightings higher NWR and/orlevels– Jacks sound of Bay/Prairie precision recordings) in Lakes andparameter other areas estimates perceive 241 d than to meet a 152,260simple these criteria random (as samplingDagmarnoted scheme.WMA by local Thus, land managers) we allocated we collected samples data within on a variety a stand of14 forest using metrics cluster-sampling 7,532 that address procedures.Rex Hancock/Blackforest For structure, example, composition, Swamp plots WMA were and health. allocated Though using our point-transects knowledge6 is limited where in 2,698 this each area, transect we containsHenrybelieve Gray/Hurricanefive, that1/5 ththese acre metrics plots Lake provide(52.7 WMA ft both radius) a quantitative spaced estimatefour chains of4 parameters (264 ft) 2,091ofapart interest, (Fig. as 3) and well as additional qualitative estimates that would facilitate the characterization of Ivory- eachTrusten standbilled Holder contains Woodpecker WMA four habitat. randomly Furthermore, allocated these point-transects data are also e xpected(Fig.6 1B). to provide Additionally, 2,862 additional the use ofWattensaw clusterbenefits sampling WMA in terms reduced of assessing the amount habitat quality of travel for other time priori requirety wildlifed3 to move species from ( 843e.g., point to point, thusBayou increasingSwainson’s Meto WMA the Warbler, overall black cost bears, efficiency etc.). of the inventory. 10 5,244 Total 327 201,045

* Represents total acreage within forest stands including bodies of * Represents total acreagewater within that were forest not inventoried.stands including bodies of water that were not inventoried. Summary of Results 130 123 During the months of September and October in 2005, foresters and biologists spent greater than 1,200 man-hours inventorying over 1200,000 acres of potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat (Table 1). Data gathered in the field was sent to the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Office for entry and analysis. Summary statistics were generated for parameters of interest by forest stand then entered into a geographic information system to produce spatially explicit maps depicting stand conditions. Additionally, these forest stand maps were used in overlay models to develop preliminary decision-support models to facilitate search efforts in the Big Woods area. Currently, plans are being developed to inventory the remaining bottomland forest stands during the summer of 2006. Specifically, the remaining portion of White River NWR, additional acreage on Cache River NWR, Dagmar WMA and other parcels of public land in proximity to Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings and/or sound recordings will be inventoried.

131

132 Table H-2. Parameters and definitions of metrics collected during the habitat inventory and assessment project in the Big Woods of Arkansas, September-October 2005.

Parameter Sample Area Value Comments Tree Species 1/5th Acre Alpha Code for Tree Species; Appendix 4 All trees ≥ 10” dbh DBH 1/5th Acre 2” classes (9.0” – 10.9” = 10”) Length in feet or # of 1/5th Acre Dead or down wood: 5’ increment. Cruiser Required for dead wood. logs option: 1 – 4.5 in half-log increments if Cruiser option on # of logs. sawlog, 5’ increment for pulpwood. Crown Class 1/5th Acre D = Dominant C = Co-dominant I = Intermediate S = Suppressed X = Dead Tree Condition 1/5th Acre 1 = No dieback (not very common) 2 = Lower crown dieback, natural pruning 3 = < 1/3 top crown dieback 4 = > 1/3 top crown dieback 5 = Recently dead, retains many twigs 6 = Dead, retains only large limbs 7 = Dead, only bole remains, ≥ 5’ tall 8 = Down wood ≥ 8” @ 3’ from base Stress Factor: 1/5th Acre 1 = Little to None (<20% of bole) Bole is portion of tree beneath Epicormic Branching 2 = Moderate (20% - 50% of bole) the crown. 3 = Heavy (≥ 50% of bole) Stress Factor: Bark 1/5th Acre 1 = Little to None (<20% of bole) Ex: Red Oak w/ blocky bark; Disfiguration: Ex: 2 = Moderate (20% - 50% of bole) Ash w/ smooth bark; Rot; Bare bleeds, tannin stains; 3 = Heavy (≥ 50% of bole) wood from beaver, skinning, bug holes; frass, etc. conks Overstory Canopy Visible Range 1 = < 50% 2 = 50% - 80% 3 = > 80% Vertical sunlight blockage Cover Midstory Cover Visible Range 1 = < 25% 2 = 25% - 60% 3 = > 60% Horizontal vision blockage, 10’ – 30’ height Understory Cover Visible Range 1 = < 25% 2 = 25% - 60% 3 = > 60% Horizontal vision blockage, < 10’ height Vines Visible Range 1 = Sparse (<25% [1 of 4 overstory trees]) # of dominant or co-dominant 2 = Moderate (25-50% [2 of 4 trees]) trees with vines on the bole &/ 3 = Heavy (>50% [3 of 4 overstory trees]) or canopy Cane Visible Range 1 = None 2 = Sparse (1% - 25% area coverage) 3 = Heavy (> 25% area coverage) Station Option Visible Range Alpha Code for Tree Species; Appendix 4 Sufficient presence to occur if Intolerant released Regeneration Potential IBW Cavity Incidentally A = very large irregular oval or rectangle, Cavity size follows Cornell Lab on Unlimited 4.5” x 5.5”. Record tree species, DBH, of Ornithology. Area height to cavity, face (north, west, etc.) and GPS coordinates (UTM, NAD 83). Potential IBW Bark Incidentally Extreme horizontal gouges of tight bark. Scaling on Unlimited Record tree species, DBH, height to Area cavity, face (north, west, etc.) and GPS coordinates (UTM, NAD 83). IBW sighting or Incidentally Record GPS coordinates UTM, NAD 83. hearing of kent calls on Unlimited Also direction and estimated distance or double knocks Area to sighting or sound. ASAP contact inventory coordinator

124 Figure 9. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data (i.e. density of Figuretrees ≥ H-4.24inch Preliminary dbh), Cache analysis River of NWR Ivory-billed and Dagmar Woodpecker WMA, habitat September inventory-October data (i.e. 2005. density of trees ≥24inch dbh), Cache River NWR and Dagmar WMA, September-October 2005.

Cache River NWR Bayou DeView

Dagmar WMA

Summary of Results the remaining portion of White During the months of September River NWR, additional acreage and October in 2005, foresters on Cache River NWR, Dagmar and biologists spent greater than WMA and other parcels of public 1,200 man-hours inventorying land in proximity to Ivory-billed over 1200,000 acres of potential Woodpecker sightings and/ Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat or sound recordings will be (Table 1). Data gathered inventoried. in the field was sent to the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Office for entry and analysis. Summary statistics were generated for parameters of interest by forest stand then entered into a geographic information system to produce spatially explicit maps depicting stand conditions. Additionally, these forest stand maps were used in overlay models to develop preliminary decision-support models to facilitate search efforts in the Big Woods area. Currently, plans are being developed to inventory the remaining bottomland forest stands during the summer of 2006. Specifically, 135 125 Figure 10. Preliminary analysis of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data (i.e. density of trees ≥24inch dbh), White River NWR, FigureSeptember H-5. Preliminary-October analysis 2005. of Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat inventory data (i.e. density of trees ≥24inch dbh), White River NWR, September-October 2005.

White River NWR

Jack’s Bay

Prairie Lakes

126

136 Appendix I. Habitat Conditions across the Historical Range of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

The Forest Products Industry U.S.). Because of variability in production (Smith et al. 2003). The forest products industry management approaches and That year, industrial forests consists of companies and resulting forest structure, site- provided 29% of the Nation’s individuals that operate primary specific conditions and habitat timber harvest and private wood-using facilities and/ opportunities for conservation forests in total provided 92% or manage forests they own of Ivory-billed Woodpecker will (Smith et al. 2003). Therefore, or control primarily for wood differ among companies. the current trend is for increasing products (Society of American wood production from private Foresters, 1998). In the United Over the last several decades, lands in the southern U.S. (Wear States, the forest products ownership of industry land has and Greis 2002). industry directly employs about become even more complex, as 1.7 million people in wood and many forest products companies Existing Habitat Conditions paper production, or about 1.1% have sold lands to organizations for Ivory-billed Woodpecker of the U.S. workforce (American that manage timberlands on To characterize the area and Forest and Paper Association behalf of institutional (e.g., structural characteristics of and Clemson University, 2001). pension funds, foundations, forests on private lands and all For every job that is directly endowments) and other types ownerships that potentially could forest-related, another two of investors. Known as timber support Ivory-billed Woodpecker, jobs are related indirectly (e.g., investment management we summarized USDA Forest transportation, distribution, organizations (TIMOs) or real Service Forest Inventory and sales); thus, about 5.7 million jobs estate investment trusts (REITs) Analysis data for counties listed in the U.S. are linked to the forest (Ravenel et al. 2002, Stanturf et in Table 1. Because forest products industry. This industry al. 2003), some of these ventures products companies harvest wood can be vital to rural economies seek to optimize economic return on lands they own and purchase such as Mississippi where 8.5% of within a much shorter time frame wood from non-industrial private all jobs in the state are forestry- (e.g., 10–15 years) than forest landowners, the characteristics related, and during 2006 forestry products companies and may of all private ownerships is contributed 17.4 billion dollars to include non-timber objectives, particularly relevant to Ivory- the Mississippi economy. such as real estate sales, as a billed Woodpecker recovery. In primary motivation. Thus, a all listed counties, we totaled (http://www.msforestry.net/pdf/ growing number of companies no the acres of forestland and forestryfactsflyer.pdf). longer own forest lands. Rather timberland, number of live trees, they purchase wood from non- and volume of live trees (ft3) by The considerable complexity of industrial private landowners state and ownership for selected the industry is due to the variable (NIPFLOs), REITs, TIMOs, and forest types and physiographic size, character, and objectives others. classes (Tables 2 and 3). For of its constituent companies, counties in Arkansas, Louisiana, including ownership (individuals/ In the United States, over 57% North Carolina, South Carolina, families or stockholders) and of forests are privately owned and Texas, we also totaled volume source of wood supply (extent to with about 26.9 million ha of land (ft3) of annual net growth, which timber is purchased from owned by the forest industry, mortality, and removals. Growth, public or non-industrial private comprising about 9% of total mortality, and removals are forests). Companies that require forest ownership (Smith et al. available only in these five states. wood for solid products often 2003). About 88.0% of forest land Original sources of data are recommend or manage using in the South is privately owned described in Table 4. uneven-aged systems or even- (71.3% owned by NIPFLOs, aged systems with rotations of 30 16.7% owned by industry). Most In counties for which FIA years or more, using thinnings to industry ownership (14.5 million data were available, there are remove wood for paper products ha) is in the USDA Forest more than 20.1 million acres of as part of the silvicultural system Service’s Southern region where forestland and 19.8 million acres to achieve larger, higher quality industry owns about 3 times of timberland in the forest types trees. Companies that primarily the area of national forests and and physiographic classes of require wood for paper products almost 1.5 times that in all public interest (Table 5). Approximately generally favor even-aged ownerships (Smith et al. 2003). In 88.6% of all forestland is privately systems with short rotations 2001, the South supplied 58.0% owned. Similarly, 89.9% of all (<20 years in the southern of America’s total roundwood timberland is privately owned,

127 including 93.7% of pine types and Volume of live trees is and 0.6% of live tree volume in 84.3% of hardwood types. Public approximately 27.4 billion ft3 on that diameter class on private on and private timberlands differ in private timberland and 4.9 billion public timberlands, respectively. species composition. Of the 17.8 ft3 on public timberland (Table Mortality of large-diameter million acres of privately owned 5). On private timberland, this pines was 13.9% of net growth timberland in the counties, 37.6% volume is split almost equally in that diameter class on private is in hardwood forest types and between pine and hardwood timberland and 19.0% on public 62.4% is in pine types. Of the 2.0 types (49.6% of total volume in timberland. For large-diameter million acres in public timberland, pine versus 50.4% in hardwood). hardwoods, mortality was 62.6% is in hardwood types and On public timberland, however, approximately 0.9% of live tree 37.4% is in pine types. volume is predominantly in volume on both private and public hardwood forest types (3.5 billion timberlands. Mortality of large- The area of privately owned pine ft3 for hardwood forests versus diameter hardwoods was 50.3% timberland is approximately 1.4 billion ft3 for pine). On private of net growth in that size class on equivalent in small-, medium-, timberland, most volume is in the private timberland and 57.2% on and large-diameter size classes large-diameter size class for both public timberland. (35.4, 32.1, and 32.4% of pine and hardwood types (61.1% private pine timberland area, for pine and 80.5% for hardwood), For hardwood forests on private respectively) (Table 5). Area of with 33.2% and 16.4% of total timberlands, removals were private hardwood timberland, pine and hardwood volumes, similar in the small- (44.2%) however, is predominantly in respectively, in the medium- and large-diameter (39.0%) the large-diameter size class diameter class. Volume on public classes and least in the medium- (60.2% of private hardwood lands also is predominantly in diameter class (16.8%; Table 6). timberland area) with much the large-diameter class for both In contrast, almost all removals less area in medium- (23.4%) forest types (80.3% for pine and (99.4%) on public timberland and small-diameter (16.4%) 93.2% for hardwood). were in the large-diameter class. size classes. Public timberland Removals for pines on private area is predominantly in large- Net growth in hardwoods and lands were mostly in the small- diameter-class forests for pine pines on private timberland was diameter class (65.7%), but on and hardwood types (60.7% primarily in the large-diameter public lands were mostly in the and 81.6% of publicly owned class (Table 6); this was most large-diameter class (66.9%). On pine and hardwood timberland, especially true for hardwoods. private timberland, volume of respectively). For hardwoods on private large-diameter stems removed timberland, 71.9% of total volume was 1.7 times greater for pines In counties of interest, there are growth was in the large-diameter than hardwood. On public approximately 11.4 billion live class, 19.9% was in the medium- timberland, however, the trend stems on private timberland and diameter class, and only 8.1% was was reversed with total volume 1.0 billion on public lands (Table in the small-diameter class. For removed 2.3 times greater for 5). On private timberland, pine pines, however, 46.8% of total hardwoods than for pines. For stems are most numerous in the volume growth was in the largelarge-diameter pines, removals medium-diameter class (40.0% of diameter class, 37.5% was in were approximately 1.7% and all pine stems) and less abundant the medium-diameter class, and 1.3% of live tree volume in that in the small- (31.2%) and large- 15.8% was in the small-diameter diameter class on private on diameter classes (28.8%). class. On public lands, net growth public timberlands, respectively. Hardwood stems on private was predominantly in the large- Removals of large-diameter timberland are most numerous in diameter class for both pine and pines were 47.0% of net growth the large-diameter class (50.0% of hardwood types (76.7% and 87.6% in that diameter class on private all pine stems) and less abundant of total net growth, respectively). timberland and 45.0% on public in the medium- (29.1%) and small- timberland. For large-diameter diameter (20.9%) classes. On Most mortality for both pines hardwoods, removals were public timberland, number of live and hardwood types was in the approximately 0.8% of live tree stems is similar in the mediumlarge-diameter class for both volume on private timberlands diameter class for pine and private (71.8% and 74.5% of total and 1.0% on public timberland. hardwood timberland (22.8% and mortality, respectively) and public Removals of large-diameter 21.1% of all pine and hardwood timberland (76.8% and 95.9%, hardwoods was 42.2% of net stems, respectively). However, respectively; Table 6). Total growth in that size class on hardwood timberland on public mortality of hardwoods on private private timberland and 66.4% on lands has fewer small-diameter timberland was approximately public timberland. stems than pine timberland (4.4% 2.3 times that for pines, while for hardwood as over against for public lands mortality on Forest characteristics on private 31.2% for pine) and more stems hardwoods was 3.7 times as great and public ownerships are in the large-diameter class (74.5% in hardwood types than in pine described by state in Tables 7 for hardwood versus 46.0% for types. For large-diameter pines, through 13. pine). mortality was approximately 0.5%

128 Potential Contributions Literature Cited of the Industry to Recovery American Forest and Paper Association and Clemson University. The Endangered Species Act does 2001. U.S. forests facts & figures, 2001. American Forest and Paper not require private landowners Association, Washington, DC. http://www.afandpa.org/Content/ to contribute to recovery of listed NavigationMenu/Forestry/Forestry_Facts_and_Figures/Forestry_ species. Nevertheless, several Facts_and_Figures.htm capacities of the forest products industry could potentially be Ravenel, R., M. Tyrrell, and R. Mendelsohn. 2002. Institutional brought to bear upon issues timberland investment: A summary of a forum exploring changing surrounding recovery of the ownership patterns and the implications for conservation of Ivory-billed Woodpecker. For environmental values. Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry, School example, the forest products of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. New Haven, industry often purchases wood Connecticut. YFF Review 5(2). from NIPFLOs, and interacts Smith, W. B., P. D. Miles, J. S. Vissage, and S. A. Pugh. 2004. Forest with them through landowner resources of the United States, 2002. USDA Forest Service General assistance programs and other Technical Report NC-241. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, avenues. Personnel who work Forest Service, North Central Research Station. for land-owning forest products companies commonly interact Society of American Foresters. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry with adjoining landowners and (Helms, J. A., ed.). Bethesda, Maryland. 210pp. others interested in the landscape where their lands are located. Stanturf, J. A., R. C. Kellison, F. S. Broerman, and S. B. Jones. 2003. These contacts offer many Productivity of southern pine plantations: Where are we and how did opportunities to communicate we get here? Journal of Forestry 101(3):26-31. about silvicultural practices, Wear, D. N., and J. G. Greis. 2002. Southern forest resource conservation of rare species such assessment: summary report. USDA Forest Service General Technical as Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and Report SRS-54. other topics. The industry has the capability of recommending and implementing alterations in stand structure through active forest management without the procedural encumbrances sometimes encountered on public lands or by natural resource agencies. Thus, there may be opportunities for industry to contribute to large-scale management objectives for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker through active management and interactions with NIPFLOs. The potential contributions of industry to recovery of this species will become more evident as Ivory-billed Woodpecker birds and populations are identified and as management guidance is developed and refined.

129

The following Data Tables reflect analysis completed in 2005.

The following Data Tables reflect analysis completed in 2005. TableTable I-1. 5 Counties. Counties included included in analysisin analysis of USDA of USDA Forest Forest Service Service Forest InventoryForest Inventory and Analysis and data. Analysis data. State County Name Alabama Baldwin, Choctaw, Clarke, Mobile, Monroe, Washington Arkansas Arkansas, Ashley, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clark, Cleveland, Craighead, Crittenden, Cross, Dallas, Desha, Drew, Grant, Hempstead, Hot Spring, Howard, Independence, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lawrence, Lee, Lincoln, Little River, Lonoke, Miller, Monroe, Nevada, Ouachita, Phillips, Pike, Poinsett, Prairie, Saline, Sevier, St. Francis, Union, White, Woodruff Florida Baker, Bay, Calhoun, Citrus, Columbia, Dixie, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion, Nassau, Taylor, Taylor, Wakulla Georgia Appling, Brantley, Brooks, Bryan, Bulloch, Burke, Charlton, Chatham, Clinch, Colquitt, Cook, Echols, Effingham, Glynn, Grady, Jeff Davis, Long, Lowndes, McIntosh, Mitchell, Montgomery, Richmond, Screven, Tattnall, Thomas, Toombs, Ware, Wayne, Wheeler Louisiana Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Calcasieu, Caldwell, Catahoula, Concordia, East Carroll, Franklin, Iberia, Iberville, La Salle, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Ouachita, Pointe Coupee, Rapides, Richland, Sabine, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa , Tensas, Union, Vernon, Washington, West Baton Rouge, West Feliciana Mississippi Adams, Bolivar, Claiborne, Coahoma, Copiah, De Soto, George, Greene, Hancock, Hinds, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jackson, Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, Lawrence, Marion, Pearl River, Perry, Rankin, Sharkey, Simpson, Tunica, Walthall, Warren, Washington, Wilkinson, Yazoo North Brunswick, Columbus, Robeson Carolina Oklahoma McCurtain South Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Carolina Chesterfield, Clarendon, Darlington, Dillon, Florence, Georgetown, Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Marion, Marlboro, Richland, Sumter, Williamsburg Texas Angelina, Bowie, Chambers, Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Newton, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler

142

130

Table I-2. USDA ForestTable Service 6. USDA Forest ForestInventory Service and Analysis Forest Inventory physiographic and tree species/species group codes used as a filterAnalysis in the analysis. physiographic tree species/species group codes used as a filter in the analysis. Code Description 601 Swamp chestnut oak/cherrybark oak 602 Sweet gum/Nuttall oak/willow oak 605 Overcup oak/water hickory 607 Bald cypress/water tupelo 701 Black ash/American elm/red maple 702 River birch/sycamore 703 Cottonwood 704 Willow 705 Sycamore/pecan/American elm 706 Sugarberry/hackberry/elm/green ash 708 Red maple/lowland 709 Cottonwood/willow 141 Longleaf pine 142 Slash pine 161 Loblolly pine 403 Longleaf Pine/Oak 406 Loblolly Pine/Hardwood 407 Slash Pine/Hardwood

143

131

Table I-3. USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis physiographic class codes used as a filter inTable the analysis. 7. USDA Physiographic Forest Service class Forestis the general Inventory effect and of land Analysis form, topographicalphysiographic position, class codes and soil used on moistureas a filter available in the analysis.to trees. Physiographic class is the general effect of land form, topographical position, and soil on moisture available to trees. Code Class name Description Mesic sites (normally moderate but adequate available moisture) 21 Flatwoods Flat or fairly level sites outside of flood plains. Excludes deep sands and wet, swampy sites. 24 Narrow Flood Flood plains and bottomlands less than 1/4-mile plains/Bottomlands in width along rivers and streams. These sites are normally well drained but are subjected to occasional flooding during periods of heavy or extended precipitation. Includes associated levees, benches, and terraces within a 1 mile limit. Excludes swamps, sloughs, and bogs. 25 Broad Floodplains/Bottomlands Floodplains and bottomlands less than ¼ mile or wider along rivers and streams. These sites are normally well drained but are subjected to occasional flooding during periods of heavy or extended precipitation. Includes associated levees, benches, and terraces within a ¼ mile limit. Excludes swamps, sloughs, and bogs with year-round water problems within the ¼ mile limit. 29 Other Mesic All moderately moist physiographic sites not described above. Hydric sites (normally abundant or overabundant moisture all year) 31 Swamps/Bogs Low, wet, flat, forested areas usually quite extensive that are flooded for long periods except during periods of extreme drought. Excludes cypress ponds and small drains. 32 Small Drains Narrow, stream-like, wet strands of forest land often without a well-defined stream channel. These areas are poorly drained or flooded throughout most of the year and drain the adjacent higher ground. 33 Bays and wet pocosins Low, wet, boggy sites characterized by peaty or organic soils. May be somewhat dry during periods of extended drought. Examples include sites in the Lake States with lowland swamp conifers. 34 Beaver ponds. Beaver ponds 35 Cypress ponds. Cypress ponds 39 Other hydric All other hydric physiographic sites

144

132

Table I-4. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data used for this analysis. Table 8. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data used for this analysis. 1 GMR State Data source Availability Alabama 2003 Annual Table 8. Sources of USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data Arkansasused for this analysis. 2004 Annual Y Florida 1995 Periodic GMR1 GeorgiaState Data2003 source Annual Availability LouisianaAlabama 2003 2003 Annual Annual Y MississippiArkansas 2004 1994 Annual Periodic Y Florida 1995 Periodic NorthGeorgia Carolina 2003 2002 Annual Periodic Y OklahomaLouisiana 2003 1993 Annual Periodic Y SouthMississippi Carolina 1994 2001 Periodic Annual Y TexasNorth Carolina 20022003 Periodic Annual Y Y Oklahoma1Availability of data1993 for Periodic growth, mortality, and removals. Y = South Carolina Yes, 2001data Annualare available for the state.Y Texas 2003 Annual Y 1Availability of data for growth, mortality, and removals. Y = Yes, data are available for the state.

Table I-5. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Table 9. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Table 9. Acres of forestland and timberland, andPublic number Ownerships and volume of live trees by size class in Alabama, Arkansas,Private Georgia,Ownerships Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Variable Size Pine Public OwnershipsHardwood Total PinePrivate OwnershipsHardwood Total Class Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Acres SmallClass 132,829 70,390 203,219 3,941,352 1,107,110 5,048,462 ForestlandAcres Small 132,829 70,390 203,219 3,941,352 1,107,110 5,048,462 Forestland Medium 193,337 206,826 400,163 3,581,273 1,571,284 5,152,557 Medium 193,337 206,826 400,163 3,581,273 1,571,284 5,152,557 Large 528,677 1,170,874 1,699,551 3,614,348 4,051,957 7,666,305 Large 528,677 1,170,874 1,699,551 3,614,348 4,051,957 7,666,305 Total 854,843 1,448,090 2,302,933 11,136,973 6,730,351 17,867,324 Total 854,843 1,448,090 2,302,933 11,136,973 6,730,351 17,867,324 AcresAcres SmallSmall 130,683130,683 43,15543,155 173,838173,838 3,941,352 3,941,3521,101,864 1,101,8645,043,216 5,043,216 TimberlandTimberland MediumMedium 164,085164,085 188,226188,226 352,311352,311 3,575,509 3,575,5091,571,284 1,571,2845,146,793 5,146,793 LargeLarge 456,024456,024 1,023,7951,023,795 1,479,8191,479,819 3,607,623 3,607,6234,043,138 4,043,1387,650,761 7,650,761 Total 750,792 1,255,176 2,005,968 11,124,484 6,716,286 17,840,770 Total 750,792 1,255,176 2,005,968 11,124,484 6,716,286 17,840,770 No. Live Small 134,813,748 26,288,801 161,102,549 2,370,055,051 793,248,878 3,163,303,929 No.Trees Live Small 134,813,748 26,288,801 161,102,549 2,370,055,051 793,248,878 3,163,303,929 Trees Medium 98,408,012 124,450,893 222,858,905 3,037,017,159 1,107,150,711 4,144,167,870 MediumLarge 198,534,36598,408,012 440,419,011124,450,893 638,953,376 222,858,905 2,190,384,501 3,037,017,159 1,902,966,598 1,107,150,711 4,093,351,099 4,144,167,870 LargeTotal 431,756,125198,534,365 591,158,705440,419,011 1,022,914,830 638,953,376 7,597,456,711 2,190,384,501 3,803,366,187 1,902,966,598 11,400,822,898 4,093,351,099 Vol. Live TotalSmall 431,756,12552,075,981 12,638,815591,158,705 64,714,7961,022,914 ,830770,413,505 7,597,456,711 427,383,743 3,803,366,187 1,197,797,248 11,400,822,898 Trees (ft3) Vol. Live Small 52,075,981 12,638,815 64,714,796 770,413,505 427,383,743 1,197,797,248 Medium 229,375,572 223,401,122 452,776,694 4,508,677,562 2,262,286,839 6,770,964,401 Trees (ft3) Large 1,123,160,136 3,240,317,084 4,363,477,220 8,306,398,524 11,090,209,654 19,396,608,178 MediumTotal 1,404,611,689229,375,572 3,476,357,021223,401,122 4,880,968,710 452,776,694 13,585,489,591 4,508,677,562 13,779,880,236 2,262,286,839 27,365,369,827 6,770,964,401 Large 1,123,160,136 3,240,317,084 4,363,477,220 8,306,398,524 11,090,209,654 19,396,608,178 Total 1,404,611,689 3,476,357,021 4,880,968,710 13,585,489,591 13,779,880,236 27,365,369,827

145

133

Table I-6. Net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, TableSouth 1. Carolina,Net growth, and mortality, Texas. and removals by size class in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Net Small 1,963,233 72,173 2,035,406 102,899,014 22,330,079 125,229,093 growth (ft3) Medium 8,142,626 7,156,669 15,299,295 244,978,464 54,765,335 299,743,799 Large 33,309,907 51,236,605 84,546,512 305,428,197 197,582,342 503,010,539 Total 43,415,766 58,465,447 101,881,213 653,305,675 274,677,756 927,983,431 Mortality Small 610,865 171,852 782,717 7,478,633 5,897,618 13,376,251 (ft3) Medium 1,305,897 1,067,327 2,373,224 9,100,347 28,134,709 37,235,056 Large 6,341,342 29,306,732 35,648,074 42,311,763 99,299,409 141,611,172 Total 8,258,104 30,545,911 38,804,015 58,890,743 133,331,736 192,222,479 Removals Small 4,017,463 0 4,017,463 380,795,078 94,456,640 475,251,718 (ft3) Medium 3,414,295 190,993 3,605,288 54,945,206 35,934,745 90,879,951 Large 14,987,420 34,050,244 49,037,664 143,624,047 83,417,887 227,041,934 Total 22,419,178 34,241,237 56,660,415 579,364,331 213,809,272 793,173,603

Table I-7. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Alabama (2003 Annual Survey).

Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 0 2,593 2,593 124,536 82,009 206,545 Forestland Medium 11,101 0 11,101 137,157 94,227 231,384 Large 10,319 30,756 41,075 202,774 173,234 376,008 Total 21,420 33,349 54,769 464,467 349,470 813,937 Acres Small 0 2,593 2,593 124,536 82,009 206,545 Timberland Medium 11,101 0 11,101 137,157 94,227 231,384 Large 0 30,756 30,756 202,774 173,234 376,008 Total 11,101 33,349 44,450 464,467 349,470 813,937 No. Live Small 0 2,458,165 2,458,165 89,342,203 23,881,789 113,223,992 Trees Medium 200,419 0 200,419 89,438,713 64,635,932 154,074,645 Large 0 17,985,123 17,985,123 121,227,442 71,756,471 192,983,913 Total 200,419 20,443,288 20,643,707 300,008,358 160,274,192 460,282,550 Vol. Live Small 0 190,576 190,576 34,220,929 44,199,332 78,420,261 Trees (ft3) Medium 334,810 0 334,810 137,929,872 231,325,509 369,255,381 Large 0 120,446,448 120,446,448 470,911,429 634,729,192 1,105,640,621 Total 334,810 120,637,024 120,971,834 643,062,230 910,254,033 1,553,316,263

134

Table I-8. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removalsTable 10. Acresby size of forestlandclass in Arkansasand timberland, (2004 number Annual and volume Survey). of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Arkansas (2004 Annual Survey). All Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 0 19,241 19,241 732,619 192,583 925,202 Forestland Medium 16,421 39,146 55,567 629,942 389,409 1,019,351 Large 26,721 363,877 390,598 1,079,064 1,112,315 2,191,379 Total 43,142 422,264 465,406 2,441,625 1,694,307 4,135,932 Acres Small 0 11,235 11,235 732,619 192,583 925,202 Timberland Medium 8,372 39,146 47,518 629,942 389,409 1,019,351 Large 26,721 335,399 362,120 1,079,064 1,112,315 2,191,379 Total 35,093 385,780 420,873 2,441,625 1,694,307 4,135,932 No. Live Small 0 8,046,600 8,046,600 476,018,032 92,527,119 568,545,151 Trees Medium 7,678,895 24,788,980 32,467,875 636,571,797 231,171,824 867,743,621 Large 14,616,778 119,670,875 134,287,653 741,864,893 446,278,863 1,188,143,756 Total 22,295,673 152,506,455 174,802,128 1,854,454,722 769,977,806 2,624,432,528 Vol. Live Small 0 2,654,730 2,654,730 200,509,772 39,734,505 240,244,277 Trees (ft3) Medium 15,087,245 48,750,697 63,837,942 785,722,124 484,346,496 1,270,068,620 Large 53,289,436 1,204,991,531 1,258,280,967 2,331,886,730 2,892,340,914 5,224,227,644 Total 68,376,681 1,256,396,958 1,324,773,639 3,318,118,626 3,416,421,915 6,734,540,541 Net growth Small 0 86,959 86,959 29,895,911 4,762,852 34,658,763 (ft3) Medium 695,335 3,266,168 3,961,503 65,215,557 17,825,536 83,041,093 Large 2,626,962 19,546,012 22,172,974 106,001,203 62,181,891 168,183,094 Total 3,322,297 22,899,139 26,221,436 201,112,671 84,770,279 285,882,950 Mortality Small 0 0 0 351,882 1,527,324 1,879,206 (ft3) Medium 0 0 0 2,934,382 3,666,691 6,601,073 Large 450,022 8,124,791 8,574,813 12,123,265 27,120,763 39,244,028

146

135

Total 450,022 8,124,791 8,574,813 15,409,529 32,314,778 47,724,307 Removals Small 0 0 0 107,062,707 15,146,550 122,209,257 (ft3) Medium 921,442 0 921,442 19,057,146 14,705,945 33,763,091 Large 2,171,207 11,269,939 13,441,146 72,992,097 29,455,288 102,447,385 Total 3,092,649 11,269,939 14,362,588 199,111,950 59,307,783 258,419,733

Table I-9. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Georgia (2003Table Annual 11. Acres Survey). of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Georgia (2003 Annual Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 33,977 14,069 48,046 1,025,410 162,650 1,188,060 Forestland Medium 47,567 24,195 71,762 1,110,180 151,012 1,261,192 Large 127,845 27,178 155,023 476,892 260,586 737,478 Total 209,389 65,442 274,831 2,612,482 574,248 3,186,730 Acres Small 33,977 0 33,977 1,025,410 162,650 1,188,060 Timberland Medium 40,232 7,767 47,999 1,110,180 151,012 1,261,192 Large 102,446 27,178 129,624 475,313 260,586 735,899 Total 176,655 34,945 211,600 2,610,903 574,248 3,185,151 No. Live Small 16,338,329 0 16,338,329 510,953,466 146,873,152 657,826,618 Trees Medium 28,313,098 11,672,196 39,985,294 749,859,890 154,915,398 904,775,288 Large 41,254,395 10,083,360 51,337,755 251,885,758 134,727,140 386,612,898 Total 85,905,822 21,755,556 107,661,378 1,512,699,114 436,515,690 1,949,214,804 Vol. Live Small 5,141,872 0 5,141,872 149,468,857 45,573,377 195,042,234 Trees (ft3) Medium 79,491,513 24,860,300 104,351,813 1,469,177,133 241,315,605 1,710,492,738 Large 278,327,670 89,436,004 367,763,674 1,155,108,662 978,595,831 2,133,704,493 Total 362,961,055 114,296,304 477,257,359 2,773,754,652 1,265,484,813 4,039,239,465

Table 12. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Louisiana (2003 Annual Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class

147

136

Table 11. Acres of forestland and timberland, and number and volume of live trees by size class in Georgia (2003 Annual Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 33,977 14,069 48,046 1,025,410 162,650 1,188,060 Forestland Medium 47,567 24,195 71,762 1,110,180 151,012 1,261,192 Large 127,845 27,178 155,023 476,892 260,586 737,478 Total 209,389 65,442 274,831 2,612,482 574,248 3,186,730 Acres Small 33,977 0 33,977 1,025,410 162,650 1,188,060 Timberland Medium 40,232 7,767 47,999 1,110,180 151,012 1,261,192 Large 102,446 27,178 129,624 475,313 260,586 735,899 Total 176,655 34,945 211,600 2,610,903 574,248 3,185,151 No. Live Small 16,338,329 0 16,338,329 510,953,466 146,873,152 657,826,618 Trees Medium 28,313,098 11,672,196 39,985,294 749,859,890 154,915,398 904,775,288 Large 41,254,395 10,083,360 51,337,755 251,885,758 134,727,140 386,612,898 Total 85,905,822 21,755,556 107,661,378 1,512,699,114 436,515,690 1,949,214,804 Vol. Live Small 5,141,872 0 5,141,872 149,468,857 45,573,377 195,042,234 Trees (ft3) Medium 79,491,513 24,860,300 104,351,813 1,469,177,133 241,315,605 1,710,492,738 Large 278,327,670 89,436,004 367,763,674 1,155,108,662 978,595,831 2,133,704,493 Total 362,961,055 114,296,304 477,257,359 2,773,754,652 1,265,484,813 4,039,239,465

Table I-10. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removalsTable 12 by. Acres size of class forestland in Louisiana and timberland, (2003 number Annual and volume Survey). of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Louisiana (2003 Annual Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships

Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 5,038 24,325 29,363 539,045 271,680 810,725 Forestland Medium 25,424 89,667 115,091 473,621 518,452 992,073 147 Large 82,627 590,426 673,053 627,583 1,624,244 2,251,827 Total 113,089 704,418 817,507 1,640,249 2,414,376 4,054,625 Acres Small 5,038 24,325 29,363 539,045 266,434 805,479 Timberland Medium 25,424 89,667 115,091 473,621 518,452 992,073 Large 82,627 541,893 624,520 627,583 1,624,244 2,251,827 Total 113,089 655,885 768,974 1,640,249 2,409,130 4,049,379 No. Live Small 3,385,222 12,502,325 15,887,547 261,162,164 147,619,601 408,781,765 Trees Medium 10,061,234 50,529,840 60,591,074 404,244,553 298,555,337 702,799,890 Large 33,191,041 237,511,525 270,702,566 308,367,936 740,517,322 1,048,885,258 Total 46,637,497 300,543,690 347,181,187 973,774,653 1,186,692,260 2,160,466,913 Vol. Live Small 1,811,628 6,479,326 8,290,954 23,620,772 61,651,843 85,272,615 Trees (ft3) Medium 24,482,340 53,322,420 77,804,760 459,042,277 647,187,066 1,106,229,343 Large 200,693,797 1,499,395,941 1,700,089,738 1,431,910,521 3,936,554,152 5,368,464,673 Total 226,987,765 1,559,197,687 1,786,185,452 1,914,573,570 4,645,393,061 6,559,966,631 Net growth Small 0 -58,516 -58,516 19,354,479 5,184,974 24,539,453 (ft3) Medium 2,259,333 2,065,145 4,324,478 26,330,562 16,179,225 42,509,787 Large 8,000,553 24,488,940 32,489,493 63,345,629 79,974,580 143,320,209 Total 10,259,886 26,495,569 36,755,455 109,030,670 101,338,779 210,369,449 Mortality Small 0 171,852 171,852 2,413,284 610,718 3,024,002 (ft3) Medium 0 555,578 555,578 1,725,218 16,448,954 18,174,172 Large 1,267,526 16,580,581 17,848,107 9,297,470 49,639,612 58,937,082 Total 1,267,526 17,308,011 18,575,537 13,435,972 66,699,284 80,135,256 Removals Small 0 0 0 75,940,948 28,008,326 103,949,274 (ft3) Medium 384,995 190,993 575,988 15,352,341 13,749,078 29,101,419 Large 1,096,239 13,491,464 14,587,703 28,176,218 31,835,313 60,011,531 Total 1,481,234 13,682,457 15,163,691 119,469,507 73,592,717 193,062,224

Table 13. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in North Carolina (2002 Periodic Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 0 0 0 269,026 56,364 325,390 Forestland

148

137

Acres Small 5,038 24,325 29,363 539,045 271,680 810,725 Forestland Medium 25,424 89,667 115,091 473,621 518,452 992,073 Large 82,627 590,426 673,053 627,583 1,624,244 2,251,827 Total 113,089 704,418 817,507 1,640,249 2,414,376 4,054,625 Acres Small 5,038 24,325 29,363 539,045 266,434 805,479 Timberland Medium 25,424 89,667 115,091 473,621 518,452 992,073 Large 82,627 541,893 624,520 627,583 1,624,244 2,251,827 Total 113,089 655,885 768,974 1,640,249 2,409,130 4,049,379 No. Live Small 3,385,222 12,502,325 15,887,547 261,162,164 147,619,601 408,781,765 Trees Medium 10,061,234 50,529,840 60,591,074 404,244,553 298,555,337 702,799,890 Large 33,191,041 237,511,525 270,702,566 308,367,936 740,517,322 1,048,885,258 Total 46,637,497 300,543,690 347,181,187 973,774,653 1,186,692,260 2,160,466,913 Vol. Live Small 1,811,628 6,479,326 8,290,954 23,620,772 61,651,843 85,272,615 Trees (ft3) Medium 24,482,340 53,322,420 77,804,760 459,042,277 647,187,066 1,106,229,343 Large 200,693,797 1,499,395,941 1,700,089,738 1,431,910,521 3,936,554,152 5,368,464,673 Total 226,987,765 1,559,197,687 1,786,185,452 1,914,573,570 4,645,393,061 6,559,966,631 Net growth Small 0 -58,516 -58,516 19,354,479 5,184,974 24,539,453 (ft3) Medium 2,259,333 2,065,145 4,324,478 26,330,562 16,179,225 42,509,787 Large 8,000,553 24,488,940 32,489,493 63,345,629 79,974,580 143,320,209 Total 10,259,886 26,495,569 36,755,455 109,030,670 101,338,779 210,369,449 Mortality Small 0 171,852 171,852 2,413,284 610,718 3,024,002 (ft3) Medium 0 555,578 555,578 1,725,218 16,448,954 18,174,172 Large 1,267,526 16,580,581 17,848,107 9,297,470 49,639,612 58,937,082 Total 1,267,526 17,308,011 18,575,537 13,435,972 66,699,284 80,135,256 Removals Small 0 0 0 75,940,948 28,008,326 103,949,274 (ft3) Medium 384,995 190,993 575,988 15,352,341 13,749,078 29,101,419 Large 1,096,239 13,491,464 14,587,703 28,176,218 31,835,313 60,011,531 Total 1,481,234 13,682,457 15,163,691 119,469,507 73,592,717 193,062,224

Table I-11. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in North Carolina (2002 Periodic Survey). Table 13. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in North Carolina (2002 Periodic Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 0 0 0 269,026 56,364 325,390 Forestland Medium 0 0 0 103,908 17,570 121,478 Large 6,963 3,924 10,887 165,764 50,119 215,883 Total 6,963 3,924148 10,887 538,698 124,053 662,751 Acres Small 0 0 0 269,026 56,364 325,390 Timberland Medium 0 0 0 103,908 17,570 121,478 Large 5,191 0 5,191 165,764 50,119 215,883 Total 5,191 0 5,191 538,698 124,053 662,751 No. Live Small 0 0 0 189,312,013 93,994,009 283,306,022 Trees Medium 0 0 0 75,103,043 19,510,989 94,614,032 Large 2,562,006 0 2,562,006 86,418,045 38,472,999 124,891,044 Total 2,562,006 0 2,562,006 350,833,101 151,977,997 502,811,098 Vol. Live Small 0 0 0 101,667,967 70,790,979 172,458,946 Trees (ft3) Medium 0 0 0 142,536,262 27,785,924 170,322,186 Large 13,139,059 0 13,139,059 473,216,571 202,033,023 675,249,594 Total 13,139,059 0 13,139,059 717,420,800 300,609,926 1,018,030,726 Net growth Small 0 0 0 15,093,147 1,592,130 16,685,277 (ft3) Medium 0 0 0 10,851,922 391,042 11,242,964 Large 319,011 0 319,011 23,703,452 4,614,169 28,317,621 Total 319,011 0 319,011 49,648,521 6,597,341 56,245,862 Mortality Small 0 0 0 722,619 500,293 1,222,912 (ft3) Medium 0 0 0 625,695 0 625,695 Large 77,401 0 77,401 2,912,322 1,060,302 3,972,624 Total 77,401 0 77,401 4,260,636 1,560,595 5,821,231 Removals Small 0 0 0 47,166,239 3,923,987 51,090,226 (ft3) Medium 0 0 0 2,151,275 0 2,151,275 Large 0 0 0 4,613,716 2,923,402 7,537,118 Total 0 0 0 53,931,230 6,847,389 60,778,619

Table 14. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in South Carolina (2001 Annual Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 93,814 5,002 98,816 808,575 247,489 1,056,064 Forestland

149

138

Medium 0 0 0 103,908 17,570 121,478 Large 6,963 3,924 10,887 165,764 50,119 215,883 Total 6,963 3,924 10,887 538,698 124,053 662,751 Acres Small 0 0 0 269,026 56,364 325,390 Timberland Medium 0 0 0 103,908 17,570 121,478 Large 5,191 0 5,191 165,764 50,119 215,883 Total 5,191 0 5,191 538,698 124,053 662,751 No. Live Small 0 0 0 189,312,013 93,994,009 283,306,022 Trees Medium 0 0 0 75,103,043 19,510,989 94,614,032 Large 2,562,006 0 2,562,006 86,418,045 38,472,999 124,891,044 Total 2,562,006 0 2,562,006 350,833,101 151,977,997 502,811,098 Vol. Live Small 0 0 0 101,667,967 70,790,979 172,458,946 Trees (ft3) Medium 0 0 0 142,536,262 27,785,924 170,322,186 Large 13,139,059 0 13,139,059 473,216,571 202,033,023 675,249,594 Total 13,139,059 0 13,139,059 717,420,800 300,609,926 1,018,030,726 Net growth Small 0 0 0 15,093,147 1,592,130 16,685,277 (ft3) Medium 0 0 0 10,851,922 391,042 11,242,964 Large 319,011 0 319,011 23,703,452 4,614,169 28,317,621 Total 319,011 0 319,011 49,648,521 6,597,341 56,245,862 Mortality Small 0 0 0 722,619 500,293 1,222,912 (ft3) Medium 0 0 0 625,695 0 625,695 Large 77,401 0 77,401 2,912,322 1,060,302 3,972,624 Total 77,401 0 77,401 4,260,636 1,560,595 5,821,231 Removals Small 0 0 0 47,166,239 3,923,987 51,090,226 (ft3) Medium 0 0 0 2,151,275 0 2,151,275 Large 0 0 0 4,613,716 2,923,402 7,537,118 Total 0 0 0 53,931,230 6,847,389 60,778,619

Table I-12. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in South Carolina (2001 Annual Survey). Table 14. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in South Carolina (2001 Annual Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class

Acres Small 93,814 5,002 98,816 808,575 247,489 1,056,064 Forestland

Medium 68,872 35,221 104,093 780,932 313,429 1,094,361 Large 205,088 106,477 311,565 612,400 446,173 1,058,573 Total 367,774 146,700 149 514,474 2,201,907 1,007,091 3,208,998 Acres Small 91,668 5,002 96,670 808,575 247,489 1,056,064 Timberland Medium 67,376 33,049 100,425 780,932 313,429 1,094,361 Large 188,083 75,880 263,963 612,400 446,173 1,058,573 Total 347,127 113,931 461,058 2,201,907 1,007,091 3,208,998 No. Live Small 115,090,197 3,281,711 118,371,908 564,598,954 196,645,563 761,244,517 Trees Medium 36,292,790 22,559,833 58,852,623 732,854,138 279,267,039 1,012,121,177 Large 81,106,640 49,710,655 130,817,295 347,369,707 278,423,577 625,793,284 Total 232,489,627 75,552,199 308,041,826 1,644,822,799 754,336,179 2,399,158,978 Vol. Live Small 45,122,481 3,314,183 48,436,664 205,018,866 140,258,565 345,277,431 Trees (ft3) Medium 99,519,137 76,567,684 176,086,821 1,149,032,060 529,298,027 1,678,330,087 Large 395,950,357 301,729,220 697,679,577 1,482,909,746 1,574,308,268 3,057,218,014 Total 540,591,975 381,611,087 922,203,062 2,836,960,672 2,243,864,860 5,080,825,532 Net growth Small 1,963,233 43,730 2,006,963 24,155,671 8,662,143 32,817,814 (ft3) Medium 4,436,631 1,902,121 6,338,752 117,157,850 16,768,069 133,925,919 Large 15,725,846 5,252,048 20,977,894 78,156,571 28,649,941 106,806,512 Total 22,125,710 7,197,899 29,323,609 219,470,092 54,080,153 273,550,245 Mortality Small 610,865 0 610,865 2,868,789 2,792,458 5,661,247 (ft3) Medium 823,549 223,776 1,047,325 3,574,344 7,029,237 10,603,581 Large 3,364,828 4,122,259 7,487,087 12,114,688 12,286,667 24,401,355 Total 4,799,242 4,346,035 9,145,277 18,557,821 22,108,362 40,666,183 Removals Small 4,017,463 0 4,017,463 86,984,223 39,582,861 126,567,084 (ft3) Medium 966,370 0 966,370 12,589,312 3,752,517 16,341,829 Large 5,627,617 0 5,627,617 26,475,370 11,459,584 37,934,954 Total 10,611,450 0 10,611,450 126,048,905 54,794,962 180,843,867

Table 15. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Texas (2003 Annual Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 0 5,160 5,160 442,141 94,335 536,476 Forestland

150

139 Table I-13. Acres of forestland and timberland, number and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removalsTable 1. byAcres size of class forestland in Texas and timberland, (2003 Annual number Survey). and volume of live trees, net growth, mortality, and removals by size class in Texas (2003 Annual Survey). Public Ownerships Private Ownerships Variable Size Pine Hardwood Total Pine Hardwood Total Class Acres Small 0 5,160 5,160 442,141 94,335 536,476 Forestlan d Mediu 23,952 18,597 42,549 345,533 87,185 432,718 m Large 69,114 48,236 117,350 449,871 385,286 835,157 Total 93,066 71,993 165,059 1,237,545 566,806 1,804,351 Acres Small 0 0 0 442,141 94,335 536,476 Timberla nd Mediu 11,580 18,597 30,177 339,769 87,185 426,954 m Large 50,956 12,689 63,645 444,725 376,467 821,192 Total 62,536 31,286 93,822 1,226,635 557,987 1,784,622 No. Live Small 0 0 0 278,668,219 91,707,645 370,375,864 Trees Mediu 15,861,576 14,900,044 30,761,620 348,945,025 59,094,192 408,039,217 m Large 25,803,505 5,457,473 31,260,978 333,250,720 192,790,226 526,040,946 Total 41,665,081 20,357,517 62,022,598 960,863,964 343,592,063 1,304,456,0 27 Vol. Live Small 0 0 0 55,906,342 25,175,142 81,081,484 Trees (ft3) Mediu 10,460,527 19,900,021 30,360,548 365,237,834 101,028,212 466,266,046 m Large 181,759,817 24,317,940 206,077,757 960,454,865 871,648,274 1,832,103,1 39 Total 192,220,344 44,217,961 236,438,305 1,381,599,04 997,851,628 2,379,450,6 1 69 Net Small 0 0 0 14,399,806 2,127,980 16,527,786 growth (ft3) Mediu 751,327 -76,765 674,562 25,422,573 3,601,463 29,024,036 m Large 6,637,535 1,949,605 8,587,140 34,221,342 22,161,761 56,383,103 Total 7,388,862 1,872,840 9,261,702 74,043,721 27,891,204 101,934,925 Mortality Small 0 0 0 1,122,059 466,825 1,588,884 (ft3) Mediu 482,348 287,973 770,321 240,708 989,827 1,230,535 m Large 1,181,565 479,101 1,660,666 5,864,018 9,192,065 15,056,083 Total 1,663,913 767,074 2,430,987 7,226,785 10,648,717 17,875,502

140 Glossary Note: Size class code, which is derived by an algorithm, is a Annual mortality - The average classification of the predominant annual volume of sound wood in (based on stocking) diameter class growing-stock trees that died of live trees within the condition. from natural causes during the Size class is assessed at the period between inventories. plot condition level, not the tree Annual removals - The net level. Large diameter trees are volume of growing-stock at least 11.0 inches diameter for trees removed from the hardwoods and at least 9.0 inches inventory during a specified diameter for softwoods. Medium year by harvesting, cultural diameter trees are at least 5.0 operations such as timber stand inches diameter but not as large improvement, or land clearing. as large diameter trees. Small diameter trees are less than 5.0 Annual growth - Net annual inches diameter. sound cubic-foot growth of a live tree on timberland. The net Timberland - Forest land that change in cubic-foot volume per is producing or is capable of year of this tree (for remeasured producing crops of industrial plots (V2-V1)/(t2-t1)). Because wood and not withdrawn this value is net growth, it may from timber use by statute or be a negative number. Negative administrative regulation. growth values are usually due Note: Areas qualifying as to mortality (V2=0) but can also timberland are capable of occur on live trees that have a net producing in excess of 20 loss in volume because of damage, cubic feet per acre per year of rot, or other causes. industrial wood in natural stands. Physiographic class - The Currently inaccessible and general effect of land form, inoperable areas are included. topographical position, and soil on moisture available to trees. Stand-size class - A classification of forest land based on the size class of all live trees in the area. The classes include: Small diameter - Stands with an all live stocking value of at least 10 (base 100) on which at least 50 percent of the stocking is in small diameter trees Medium diameter - Stands with an all live stocking of at least 10 (base 100); with more than 50 percent of the stocking in medium and large diameter trees; and with the stocking of large diameter trees less than the stocking of medium diameter trees. Large diameter - Stands with an all live stocking of at least 10 (base 100); with more than 50 percent of the stocking in medium and large diameter trees2; and with the stocking of large diameter trees equal to or greater than the stocking of medium diameter trees.

141 142 Appendix J. Species Names and Acronyms Used in the Recovery Plan.

Plants Animals IBWO American Elm (Ulmus americana) Barred Owl (Strix varia) Ivory-billed Woodpecker Ash (Fraxinus spp.) Beaver (Castor canadensis) LDWF Baldcypress (Taxodium spp.) Louisiana Department of Black Woodpecker (Dryocopus Wildlife and Fisheries Bitter Pecan (Carya aquatica) martius) LIDAR Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) Great Horned Owl Light Detection and Ranging (Bubo virginianus) Cotton (Gossypium spp.) LMAV Diamond Leaf Oak (Quercus Great Slaty Woodpecker Lower Mississippi Alluvial laurifolia) (Mulleripicus pulverulentus Valley mohun) Elm (Ulmus spp.) LMVJV Ivory-billed Woodpecker Lower Mississippi Alluvial Green Ash (Fraxinus (Campephilus principalis) pennsylvanicus) Valley Joint Venture Megallanic Woodpecker Hackberry (Celtis spp.) MAV (Campephilus magellanicus) Mississippi Alluvial Valley Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) Pileated Woodpecker NASA Locust (Gleditsia spp.) (Dryocopus pileatus) National Aeronautics and Space Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Administration Nuttall Oak (Quercus nuttalli) Rat Snake (Elaphe spp.) NLCD Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) National Land Cover Data Red-shouldered Hawk Pecan (Carya illinoinensis) (Buteo lineatus) NWR National Wildlife Refuge Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) Squirrel (Sciuridae family) SAF Pine (Pinus spp.) List of Acronyms Society of American Foresters Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) ANHC Arkansas Natural Heritage SURRGO Post Oak (Quercus stellata) Commission Soil Survey Geographic Red Maple (Acer rubrum) ASTER TNC Red Oak (Quercus rubra) Advanced Spaceborne The Nature Conservancy Scarlet Oak (Quercus coccinea) Thermal Emission and USDA Reflection Radiometer U.S. Department of Agriculture Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) CFI Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora) USFWS Continuous Forest Inventory U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Swamp-privet (Forestiera spp.) DBH USGS Sweetgum (Liquidambar Diameter at Breast Height U.S. Geological Survey styraciflua) ESA WMA Tupelo (Nyssa spp.) Endangered Species Act WMA Tupelo Gum (Nyssa aquatica) FIA Water Elm (Planera aquatica) Forest Inventory and Analysis Water Hickory (Carya FRWG myristiciformis) Forest Resource Working Group Water Oak (Quercus nigra) GIS White Oak (Quercus alba) Geographic Information System Wild Grape (Vitis spp.) HGM Hydro Geomorphic Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)

143 144 Appendix K. Service Response to Public Comments on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Recovery Plan

Comment 1 recovery plan. Dispute over Comment 3 [Opposition to plan and recovery the potential cost reflects both [Support for plan and recovery efforts] Approximately 56 philosophical and fiscal concerns. efforts] Approximately 40 comments (including one letter The estimated costs include all commenters supported the search with 70 signatories) did not funds, including non-federal and effort and/or recovery plan but support the draft recovery plan non-governmental, that could provided little, if any, comments development or implementation be considered for expenditure to the plan itself. One comment of recovery efforts because: (1) to assist with recovering the from an organization stated that they believed the evidence for species. It is not a request for, we should increase the funding the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s or commitment of, funding. This for Ivory-billed Woodpecker existence wasn’t strong enough estimate is no longer in the search and recovery efforts. to justify those activities; (2) the recovery plan, it is replaced with Some simply reported their own estimated costs for those tasks actual expenditures found in sightings or other evidence of ($27 million) was too high or Appendix C. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers while could be better spent on other others hypothesized ways the species; and/or (3) the Ivory- The Fish and Wildlife Service bird could still persist and why it billed Woodpecker’s decline is accepted the initial evidence of may be difficult to document the part of the natural selection the presence of one bird in the species properly. process. Some commenters Cache River National Wildlife provided specific information and Refuge and on the basis of all Response 3 references that dispute or provide available information believes The Fish and Wildlife Service alternative explanations for that it is prudent to plan for the appreciated the information recent Ivory-billed Woodpecker recovery of the species as part concerning sightings and evidence. Two commenters stated of our responsibilities under the followed up on this information as ancillary benefits received by ESA. Additionally, the Fish and appropriate. Funding decisions other species during the Ivory- Wildlife Service, in response to take the needs of all listed species billed Woodpecker recovery effort the potential that the species may into consideration, as well as were not sufficient justification exist in isolated locations in its the fact that much has been for using poor evidence for Ivory- former range, initiated region- accomplished to date concerning billed Woodpecker persistence. wide search efforts with state and Recovery Outline and Plan tasks. non-government partners. Initial The Service acknowledges the Response 1 searches and actions, as well as difficulty of documenting the Although the Ivory-billed any others deemed necessary in species. Woodpecker has been listed as the future, are consistent with our an endangered species since interpretations of the evidence, Comment 4 1967, no recovery plan was our responsibilities under the [Habitat Management] Many ever prepared for the species. ESA, and the urgency of the commenters provided a variety The Fish and Wildlife Service situation. See Appendix B of of habitat protection and reconsidered the need for a the final version of the plan for a management recommendations. plan in 2005 when information discussion of recent Ivory-billed Eight simply stated they support was released suggesting the Woodpecker evidence. land protection efforts specific presence of at least one bird for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. in the Bayou DeView area of Comment 2 Five recommended that land Cache River National Wildlife [Discussion of controversy] acquisition and conservation Refuge. Observers reported Approximately 10 commenters be given greater priority or the multiple sightings and recorded felt that the recovery plan did highest priority in the recovery audio and video of what was not provide a balanced discussion plan, and one pointed out that interpreted to be an Ivory-billed of the controversy among any conservation easements Woodpecker. This evidence is not ornithologists and the scientific used to help recover the Ivory- universally accepted. While there community regarding the billed Woodpecker must be held continues to be disagreement as evidence supporting the Ivory- by a non-political public interest to the validity of this and other bill’s existence. conservation organization that reports, the Fish and Wildlife is a 501(c) 3. Three commenters Response 2 provided specific management Service has received sufficient Additional discussion of the information to warrant additional actions to improve Ivory-billed controversy has been added to the Woodpecker habitat (i.e., modify searches and preparation of a Recovery Plan in Appendix B. 145 linear rights-of-way maintenance for large-scale management confirming the existence of the activities to promote food potentially needed for the Ivory- species in multiple locations as supplies; decrease habitat impacts billed Woodpecker. Guidelines well as Arkansas and taking and disruption by adjusting work on the sorts of land management initial habitat improvement procedures; install nest boxes in within those forest patches and restoration actions. forests, such as the Okefenokee can be found in the publication Subsequent controversy over Swamp, to improve nesting Restoration, Management and the evidence supporting the 2005 habitat for the Ivory-billed Monitoring of Forest Resources announcement did not reduce the Woodpecker). One commenter in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: necessity for these initial actions, opposed all development within Recommendations for Enhancing most of which are complete. areas occupied by Ivory-billed Wildlife Habitat (LMVJV Forest Woodpeckers, including public Resource Conservation Group Research, modeling, and access and viewing points. 2007). These guidelines are in use habitat inventory projects have on National Wildlife Refuges and been undertaken to better Response 4 other public lands. Other Fish understand the distribution of The focus on habitat management and Wildlife Programs encourage potential habitat, and enhance is appropriate; however, what bottomland hardwood restoration the methods used to detect is known regarding the habitat and management on private Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. In requirements of the Ivory-billed lands. addition, models focused on Woodpecker comes mostly foraging energetics, habitat from historical observations, Comment 5 characterization and assessment, the work of James Tanner and [Species Management] Six and potential population viability current reports from sites, commenters identified a variety were developed. where observers have potentially of protection, recovery, and encountered the bird. Any management recommendations Knowledge and capabilities for surviving birds may have for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. captive breeding are poorly persisted under less than optimal Such recommendations included: understood for this species. conditions, given the historical (1) keeping all sighting reports Significant work with surrogate assumptions of Tanner and others confidential to ensure protection species, such as the Magellanic regarding its needs. Therefore and scientific study; (2) Woodpecker, may be needed. any future habitat protection increasing fines, jail sentences, There is currently no person or and management will require and penalties under the ESA institution engaged in the captive comparison and evaluation for crimes against the species breeding of large woodpeckers. against what is unknown as well and its habitat; (3) cloning Additionally, it is not appropriate as what is understood about its Ivory-billed Woodpeckers using at this time, since capturing an habitat requirements. Specific museum specimens as source Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not habitat prescriptions for the genetic material and pileated readily accomplished. Surrogate species will be dependent woodpeckers as surrogates; (4) ecological studies have been done upon additional knowledge of including capture protocols in the on the Pileated Woodpecker. a specific population’s limiting recovery plan and establishing a The Ivory-billed Woodpecker factors. Impacts to the species high priority on captive-breeding is currently protected under from potential development Ivory-billed Woodpeckers; (5) the ESA and is afforded the or other management actions initiating efforts to net and tag same level of protection as other permitted, funded, or conducted Ivory-billed Woodpeckers with federally listed species. See by a federal agency can be radio transmitters to obtain the Appendix F for a description evaluated according to the appropriate data needed for of the protocol used to protect Endangered Species Act’s Section recovering the species; and (6) potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker 7 consultation process. The need practicing trapping and tracking sighting locations. Specific for access restrictions may be skills on Pileated Woodpeckers. species management actions, evaluated when it is determined Response 5 such as those received during that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers the public comment period, are actively occupy an area. The most significant constraint to recovery of this species is that only possible when Ivory-billed Currently, the Lower Mississippi the population, where there may Woodpecker populations are Partners in Flight Landbird be one, is very small; therefore, identified. These management Conservation Plan calls for individuals are extremely difficult options may be evaluated if creating large patches of mature to detect reliably. The species is and when such information is bottomland forest, with target so rarely reported that learning available. sizes of at least 10,000, 20,000 and more about the species and its Comment 6 100,000 acres for different groups habitat requirements and basic [Information Updates] Eight of area-sensitive landbirds. aspects of its ecology will be the commenters recommended Because it is ecosystem-based primary interim conservation various updates to the plan. and emphasizes area-sensitive action. Conservation efforts to Specifically, these included: (1) species, this approach also works date have been directed towards additional reports of sightings

146 and other evidence gathered by all states within the historical million on private lands habitat Dr. Geoff Hill and his associates range. State Search Groups restoration. Search effort from Auburn University in the independently run their efforts funding totaled $2.1 million from Choctawhatchee basin, Florida; (searches, outreach, and state Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009. (2) observations reported in 2005 management). This effort is These funds were a portion of and 2006 from Tennessee; and (3) partially funded and coordinated the $4.6 million in total recovery Mexico observations previously by the Fish and Wildlife Service. funds allocated for Ivory-billed investigated by Dr. James Tanner. Woodpecker from Fiscal Year One commenter suggested that Forest industry, academia, 2006 through 2009. State search the plan include the results of the federal and state government, groups decided which areas recent federally-funded search non-government organizations, should be priority for searches efforts from 2005 to present. and other private business using agreed upon criteria. These Two commenters stated that representatives are on the criteria included recent reports, the costs as reflected in the Recovery Team. current and historical habitat Implementation Schedule should Comment 8 condition, historical records, be updated to exclude past fiscal [Editorial and Grammatical] Six size of habitat area, history of years (i.e., 2006 – 2008). commenters provided editorial disturbances, and professional judgment. Selections were also Response 6 and grammatical comments on the plan. assisted by modeled habitat maps. The plan has been updated and Additional search effort will be revised, as appropriate, providing Response 8 at the discretion of state search a response to these comments. The plan has been edited and groups or private organizations. James Tanner’s Mexico revised by a technical editor. observations were descriptions The ESA requires that every of the Imperial Woodpecker, a Comment 9 listed species is to have a species related to the Ivory-billed [Recovery Priority Number] recovery plan unless having one Woodpecker. Three commenters requested would decrease its chances for further explanation of the recovery. This is not the case for Comment 7 Ivorybill’s Recovery Priority Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Many [Oversight of Plan and Recovery] Number (RPN) and the process Recovery tasks and actions are Three commenters expressed and justification for assigning that centered on obtaining more concern regarding the oversight number. evidence and locations of the and management of the recovery species. During 2006-8 these effort and review of the plan’s Response 9 surveys were guided by the study creation. One recommendation The plan has been edited to design and methodology found in was to appoint a person from the respond appropriately to this Appendix F. academic community to oversee comment all search and recovery efforts Comment 11 for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Comment 10 [Habitat] One commenter Another recommended we [Funding] Two commenters requested the plan specify those appoint Ivory-billed Woodpecker supported the recent Ivory-billed responsible for identifying “ambassadors” for every state Woodpecker search efforts, but potential remaining habitat and in which search and recovery not recovery plan development. refining the methods used to efforts take place to coordinate They stated that more funds identify that habitat. all such activity in that state. should be dedicated to obtaining One commenter requested that better evidence of the species’ Response 11 electric generating companies existence. Another believed the The plan identifies current be represented in the Recovery method for ranking search and research efforts aimed at Team since their activities could study areas now and in the future identifying potential habitat in impact large portions of potential for receiving recovery funds Appendix D. Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. should be more clearly defined in the recovery plan. Comment 12 Response 7 [Adverse Effects] Three Many partners and cooperators Response 10 commenters requested greater assist with Ivory-billed Balancing the funding between detail in the definition and Woodpecker searches, research, research, habitat analysis, habitat discussion of actions that could and recovery planning. A team management, search effort, and adversely (or beneficially) impact of more than 60 technical experts, recovery planning was a decision Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and scientists, and managers was of the Recovery Team and the their habitat. One commenter originally identified. This list Fish and Wildlife Service. Initial stated that the plan should eventually grew to nearly 80 funding from multiple programs identify the types of actions that people. A list of team members also focused $3.3 million on would be considered to impact the is provided in Appendix A of the planned refuge land acquisitions, hydrology of that area adversely. Recovery Plan. The Fish and $1 million for habitat acquisition The same commenter requested Wildlife Service cooperates with by the State of Arkansas, and $3 a discussion of the potential 147 impacts to land-use practices, maintained without correcting a factor contributing to the such as hunting and the “taking” hydrological conditions. These species’ imperilment. The same or acquisition of land, caused by questions are a focus of studies commenter also did not support land-management requirements unrelated to the Ivory-billed the hypothesis that poaching and in Ivory-billed Woodpecker Woodpecker, but as knowledge collecting were the main cause habitat. One commenter asked is gained the plan as well as of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s that the plan address the effects management approaches can be decline. One commenter stated to Ivory-billed Woodpeckers from updated. that disease (Avian flu and increased human utilization of West Nile virus) and parasites public areas. Another commenter Comment 13 (Trichonomas, mites, and lice) asked that the plan identify ways [Organization] One commenter may pose a current threat to the to alleviate the adverse impacts to stated that to eliminate species and should be addressed Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat duplication, all Ivory-billed in the plan. Another commenter from hydrological changes. Woodpecker sightings data stated that the plan should (recent and historical) should be acknowledge at the beginning Response 12 located in one section of the plan. of the Reasons for Listing/ More information related to This commenter suggested that Current Threats section (Section current habitat needs of the discussions of all potential Ivory- H) that the cause of the Ivory- Ivory-billed Woodpecker is billed Woodpecker sightings in billed Woodpecker’s decline is needed prior to conducting Arkansas be included in a new unknown. The same commenter a more thorough threats appendix that combines the stated that the discussion assessment for the species. No information found in the draft on Ivory-billed Woodpecker private lands have been taken or plan’s Appendices B, C and D, predation should be limited to condemned by any government and that the intended purpose of the beginning sentence, “No agency to protect this species. Appendix C should be explained incidences of predation on Ivory- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife at the beginning of the appendix. billed Woodpeckers are known”, Service’s goal is to maintain Response 13 as any further discussion on the traditional use of public lands and subject would be speculative. private property while protecting Sections were relocated and revised; however, recent search The commenter also stated that this species. Hunting, fishing, the plan should include recovery and other recreational activities data is still included in the body of the plan. Appendix E now actions to identify the Ivory- are unlikely to present a problem, billed Woodpecker’s threats, prey and most timber management contains historical information and an analysis of sighting data. distribution, the role of disease, activities may be compatible as and the sources and significance well. It is impossible to predict Comment 14 of predation. in advance the exact situation or [Animal behavior] One circumstances that may arise on commenter stated that the draft Response 15 any particular piece of property; plan erroneously claims past The Fish and Wildlife Service therefore, the Fish and Wildlife observers, including James agrees that much is unknown Service cannot make blanket Tanner, described Ivory-billed and often information is promises about a particular land Woodpeckers as having “a more conflicting about the Ivory- use activity. rapid wing-beat relative to billed Woodpecker. However, pileated.” in the interest of balance and Human alteration of hydrology in completeness, discussion of the landscapes of the southeast Response 14 all possible threats and causes has a long history. Changing That statement has been modified of decline are included with hydrological regimes cause in the final plan to the following: appropriate caveats. The ability deteriorating conditions (e.g., “When taking flight, the Ivory-bill to “address” threats such as species mortality) in many forest has been described to have noisy disease is extremely limited at communities in the Mississippi wing-beats. In direct flight they this time. Additional information Alluvial Valley. In Eastern are said to have a rapid wing-beat regarding the species will be Arkansas conditions are becoming as well as a slender appearance, needed to assess current threats wetter, while much of Louisiana’s resembling a Northern Pintail to the species appropriately. portion of the Mississippi (Tanner 1942).” Alluvial Valley is becoming drier. Comment 16 These tree die-offs might be Comment 15 [Diet]: One commenter felt considered beneficial for Ivory- [Threats discussion]: We received that the recovery plan and its billed Woodpecker, providing several comments regarding recovery actions incorrectly a short-term pulse of foraging our discussion of threats to the emphasized a narrow diet (e.g., opportunity. However, these Ivory-billed Woodpecker and its wood-boring beetles, longhorn apparent shifts in tree species habitat. One commenter felt that beetles, bark-stripping behavior) composition make it difficult to the recovery plan and its recovery for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. determine whether old forest actions retain an inappropriate The same commenter provided conditions can be restored and emphasis on food supplies as information about the biology

148 of the longhorned beetle, one of for implementing Recovery Response 19 the bird’s main food sources, and Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of the The Fish and Wildlife Service felt that this material should be draft recovery plan, which are has produced this Recovery included in the recovery plan. all related to quantifying Ivory- Plan with the assistance and billed Woodpecker habitat and input of a large Recovery Team. Response 16 the impacts of HCPs, ITPs, and Required elements are included Research is underway concerning SFAs. and discussed in the amount potential prey species ecology of detail that current data and and biology. Information on Response 18 knowledge permit. Precision completed and current research Comment on these policies and can only match what we know at is found in Appendix D. The programs is appreciated; however, this time. The plan and current primary reference for food habits they will not be addressed in the management approaches can and feeding is James Tanner’s Recovery Plan for the Ivory- be modified as we learn more study on the Singer Tract, and billed Woodpecker. Recovery about the current status of the that is discussed with appropriate Objectives 1,2, and 3 are species and locate individuals. caveats in the plan. The Ivory- generally accepted tenets of basic Service policies and guidelines for billed Woodpecker feeds on conservation. Additional detailed formulating recovery plans allow vegetable and animal matter, but objectives will be developed for modifications of a recovery the importance of beetle larvae as we learn more about the plan to fit current knowledge and found under the bark of newly species and locate nesting pairs. needs of a species. dead wood is emphasized. This Such recommendations may is the literature that we must use be included in future revisions Comment 20 and consider for the recovery of the plan when additional [Cuba] One commenter plan. information on the species’ expressed concern that the current distribution and biological recovery plan and its actions Comment 17 requirements are identified. are too focused on Cuba. [Critical Habitat] Two The commenter felt that the organizations stated the Service Comment 19 statement about the need for should immediately designate [Policy]: One commenter stated international cooperation with critical habitat for the Ivory-billed that the recovery plan appears Cuba in the Overview (Section Woodpecker and direct a “no net more like a species status report, A, page 1) is inappropriate and loss” of that critical habitat. and that the plan does not meet premature given that problems Service policies and guidelines of recovering the species in the Response 17 for planning and coordinating No critical habitat has been United States have not been the recovery of listed species. resolved. This person further designated for this species, nor Specifically, the plan does not is this required due to the date of commented that the statement include management actions would be appropriate only when listing. However, the Secretary necessary to achieve down- of the Interior may choose to international cooperation would listing or a realistic time frame be valuable to recovering the designate critical habitat for the and cost estimate required for species in the future when more species. Finally, the commenter accomplishing recovery that stated that there is no evidence data is available for such an is supported by analyses and evaluation. that the species is observable discussion. Further, it does not in Cuba; therefore, the Cuban Comment 18 set forth “. . . precise, measurable population should not be included [Management tools] One criteria and/or identify research in the plan, and the Ivory-billed organization stated that Habitat needs that will allow the Service Woodpecker’s status in Cuba is Conservation Plans (HCPs), Safe and others to objectively irrelevant because ESA recovery Harbor Agreements (SHAs) determine when recovery has efforts must be focused solely in and species take permits (ITPs) been achieved when it is, in fact, the U.S. issued under Sect 7, 10, and 4(d) achievable.” Also, the commenter of the ESA, should be amended stated that the plan does not Response 20 and revoked while the Service follow Service policy in that the Cuba is mentioned for evaluates critical habitat and recovery tasks designated as information purposes and to recovery planning areas. Further, Priority 1 in the Implementation be complete in describing the the organization stated that Schedule are not justified in the range of the species and potential the Service cannot use HCPs/ Narrative Outline as necessary actions for recovery. No federal ITPs and SHAs as a method for to prevent extinction, and that intervention or management recovering the Ivorybill or any none of the tasks appear to be is contemplated there. Any other listed species, according necessary to prevent extinction cooperation or coordination would to a recent case finding (Spirit of or to prevent the species from come from private entities. Fish the Sage Council vs. Secretary declining irreversibly in the and Wildlife Service policy states Kempthorne et al. (U.S. D.C. foreseeable future. that recovery plans include a Civil Action No. 98-1873(EGS)). species’ status and background They also provided specific ways throughout its entire range

149 (including other countries). to do nothing, reasoning that received during the Ivory-billed When possible or appropriate, if past unconfirmed sightings Woodpecker recovery effort be the Service does work with other are valid and small, difficult to included in those communications. countries to recover and protect detect populations are scattered Two commenters felt that an listed species. A recovery plan throughout eight states, they have explanation should be provided is a planning document only. survived without intervention. for the cost estimates presented Foreign countries choose to The writer commented that in the Implementation Schedule. implement recovery actions at this method may be the only their discretion. reasonable approach, especially Response 24 since it is unlikely we will ever Implementation Cost Estimates Comment 21 gather the information needed are not included in this version. [Citations] One commenter noted to develop effective management Many tasks are completed; that some discussions in the plan plans resulting in some form of therefore, actual expenditures were too speculative and did not measurable recovery. and actions which provide more provide enough cited material, useful information are included particularly regarding discussions Response 22 in Appendix C. Cost estimates of the life history, ecology and The Fish and Wildlife Service for additional activities that are habitat characterization of the completed the Recovery Plan not planned at this time would Ivory-billed Woodpecker. This and many tasks recommended be speculative, given the lack person commented that the by the Recovery Team. Initial of information on the species’ second paragraph of Section searches and actions as well as current status. D, page 4, should end after the any others deemed necessary in statement “Historic population the future are consistent with Comment 25 numbers will never be known” our responsibilities under the [Search locations] One because the remainder of that ESA. If additional information commenter requested that sentence and paragraph is pure is acquired, appropriate plan we search for Ivory-billed speculation that can not be revisions and management Woodpeckers in the Pinhook supported with citations. Further, changes will be made. Swamp, Osceola National Forest, the commenter stated that there and Okefenokee Swamp of are no citable data to support Comment 23 northern Florida and southern the contention that Ivory-billed [Focus] Five commenters felt Georgia. that the draft plan is too focused Woodpeckers have to range Response 25 farther and are more sensitive to on observations in Arkansas and ignores observations from other Coordinated searches have habitat alterations than Pileated been made in suitable habitat Woodpeckers because of greater areas within the bird’s historical range, such as Louisiana and prioritized by State Search food demand (Section E, first Groups, Fish and Wildlife Service, paragraph, page 17). The writer Mississippi. At least one felt that the plan relies too heavily upon Forest Service, and Cornell also requested that the Service Laboratory of Ornithology. The provide citations to support Dr. James Tanner’s study (1942) when describing the species’ commenter’s suggested search the statement that Ivory-billed areas have or will be considered. Woodpeckers were known to fly biology and ecology. several kilometers each day. Response 23 Comment 26 [Adverse projects] Two Response 21 Dr. James Tanner’s study is the most complete work we have commenters identified Additional citations have been construction projects in or near added to the text including concerning this species; our legal requirements and policy dictate potential Ivory-billed Woodpecker support for the contention that habitat that they deemed would large woodpeckers (and perhaps, that we use this data. The plan has been edited to provide a have an adverse impact to the therefore, the Ivory-bill) are species and requested the Service capable of expanding their home more balanced dicsussion of the Arkansas observations as well take action to prevent those ranges. Some extrapolations, activities. based upon use of existing data as new information from other for other species, are made in states. Response 26 the recovery plan to identify Comment 24 The Recovery Plan addresses potential areas of research, draw [Funding] One commenter threats but not specific projects some conclusions about tentative recommended the Service that may pose a threat. Our management direction, and apply improve communication with Endangered Species Act Section biological principles where there the public regarding the 7 Consultation process provides are substantial data gaps. justification for spending the a means to disclose effects and identify requirements for projects Comment 22 resources and funds that have been used or allocated, and with a federal agency component. [Recovery method] One Private persons or businesses are commenter recommended that the ancillary benefits (e.g., economic, recreational, also required not to “take” (harm, that an alternative method of harass, or kill) species listed recovering the species would be environmental,and spiritual) 150 as threatened or endangered Comment 28 Response 29 without authorization from the [Public participation] One person Criteria for evaluating reports Fish and Wildlife Service. believes the recovery actions of of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers the plan should reflect the need are included in Appendix Comment 27 for more public participation, F. The plan follows current [Peer review] Two commenters especially of the youth. organization guidance. The list (one representing members of completed implementation of an organization) asserted Response 28 tasks is included and triggers that additional outside peer The 2005 announcement that for any future actions is included review was needed for the plan. an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the Executive Summary and Approximately 70 members of had been located in the Big the body of the plan. Many of an organization stated that an Woods of Arkansas generated a the Recovery Actions identified independent review panel should substantial amount of interest in the final plan will occur only be established to evaluate the among the public. Informational after additional data on the current Ivory-billed Woodpecker materials for the general public species’ current status, location, data and to publish findings for and numerous stakeholders and biological requirements are the Service to consider prior involved or concerned with the gathered. Much of the habitat to implementing any aspect recovery of the species have identified by our partners has of the recovery plan. They been developed. Community- been surveyed by the date of recommended that members of based programs to enhance publication. Additional effort may the American Ornithologists’ opportunities to learn about and be triggered by new information. Union North American Check- promote the conservation of Fish and Wildlife Service policy list Committee and the American the species have been provided sets protocol for declaring a Birding Association’s Checklist in cooperation with partners. species extinct, which is beyond Committee be considered for such Communication plans and the scope of a recovery plan. a review panel. strategies have been developed and implemented. Continuing Comment 30 Response 27 communications address the need [Search Methods] Four Many partners and cooperators for information at various levels commenters recommended assist with Ivory-billed and for various stakeholders specific search methods be Woodpecker searches, research, (e.g., birdwatchers, local citizens, included in the recovery plan. and recovery planning. A team government agencies, industry). One recommendation was to fund of more than 60 technical experts, Outreach tools to help private 2-man stealth audio and video scientists, and managers was landowners and land managers teams to monitor “hotspots” originally identified. This list were cooperatively developed or areas with recent reports of eventually grew to nearly 80 by the Nature Conservancy for Ivory-billed Woodpeckers within people. Representatives from Arkansas. Youth programs have its historical range, such as North the forest industry, academia, been implemented, and special and South Carolina. Another federal and state government, materials such as coloring books, commenter advocated using non-government organizations, activities, and costumes are acoustical attraction methods and other private businesses are available for use with younger during surveys. Others cautioned on the Recovery Team. A list audiences. The purpose of all against extensive search activities of team members is provided in communication efforts is to because they felt such activities Appendix A of the Recovery Plan. convey a consistent message may disturb the species enough to The Fish and Wildlife Service regarding recovery efforts and cause irreparable harm. cooperates with all state wildlife to facilitate those efforts through Response 30 agencies within the historical public awareness and education. range. A balance of conducting a Comment 29 thorough search and producing The Wildlife Society managed [Methods] One commenter stated potential disturbance is difficult, the peer review of the draft that the recovery plan should be especially when the birds are plan. It was reviewed by reorganized into tiers that include difficult to locate. Searchers seven independent reviewers first confirming the species and employed a variety of methods, representing a variety of implementing specific recovery including imitation of double backgrounds, including wildlife actions only after the species’ knocks and audio playbacks. biologists, avian ecologists, presence is confirmed. Two During 2 years of data collection and environmental scientists. commenters stated the recovery we employed an occupancy model The reviewers are employed plan should provide criteria survey designed to improve our in academia, state or federal for evaluating reported Ivory- chances of detecting and drawing government, and non-government billed Woodpecker sightings conclusions about this hard to organizations. Additional review and thresholds for determining detect species. Search models of recovery plan revisions can be when federally-funded searches used allowed for surveyors to considered when needed. should be stopped and the species visit areas of recent reports of declared extinct. Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. This is explained in Appendix F. 151 Peer Review Comments This evidence is not universally the Service’s priority should and Responses accepted. While there continues focus primarily on locating and The Fish and Wildlife Service to be disagreement as to the confirming the existence of Ivory- contracted with The Wildlife validity of this and other reports, billed Woodpecker. Society to conduct a peer review the Fish and Wildlife Service has of the 2007 Draft Recovery received sufficient information to Response 3 Plan. Seven natural resource warrant additional searches and The Goals and Recovery Actions professionals performed the preparation of a recovery plan. were recommended by the independent review representing The current version contains Recovery Team. As much as a variety of backgrounds, additional discussion concerning possible, these reflect a balance including wildlife biologists, avian the debate over evidence of the adopted by the Fish and Wildlife ecologists, and environmental species in Appendix B. Service of habitat inventory and scientists. The reviewers have analysis, habitat conservation, experience in or are employed Comment 2 search efforts, research, and in academia, state or federal One reviewer felt that the plan is public engagement. These efforts government, and non government simplistic and does not sufficiently all have federal, state, and non- organizations. The seven increase the probability of government partners. Many of individual reviewers made recovery, while another reviewer the initial actions are completed. individual reports;a consensus saw the plan as incomplete and Some of the actions cannot be report was not produced. suggested that it be regarded as characterized more specifically Comments are grouped for a first step of a work in progress. now because information about response, where appropriate. Two recommended rejection of the current locations and the plan as written. conservation needs of the species Comment 1 is limited. Three reviewers commented that Response 2 the plan was a good summary The Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat guidelines for of current information about has produced this Recovery Plan management of National Wildlife the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, with the assistance and input of a Refuge lands have been adopted. better than many other plans large Recovery Team. Required These guidelines serve as the for poorly known species, elements are included and framework for conserving the with well-expressed goals and discussed in the amount of detail habitat characteristics believed objectives. Two reviewers that current data and knowledge to be needed for Ivory-billed supported the current research permit. Precision can only Woodpeckers as well as many direction. However, three match what we know at this time. other bottomland hardwood reviewers expressed their Appendices D and F have been species. dissatisfaction with the plan as augmented to reflect additional historical information and current Searches have been conducted a whole, noting the Ivory-billed throughout the historical range Woodpecker’s debatable existence research projects. Additional search data have been included. in 2006-7, 2007-8, and 2008-9. and subsequently questioning The locations searched by state the drafting of a Recovery Plan However, limited knowledge concerning this species constrains groups reflect a combination of and the spending of limited criteria, including likely old forest resources on a species that may the discussion of many aspects of recovery. The plan and current habitat, recent reports, historical or may not exist. Two reviewers records, tree mortality, and recommended additional management approaches can be modified as we locate individuals patch size. The main focus for discussion of the controversy over the interim Recovery Actions is the continued existence of the and learn more about the current status of the species. locating and delineating Ivory- Ivory-billed Woodpecker. billed Woodpecker populations. Comment 3 Response 1 Comment 4 Although the Ivory-billed Reviewers suggested a number of ways to strengthen the plan. Reviewers encouraged both Woodpecker has been listed as an diversifying the recovery team endangered species since 1967, no Two reviewers felt that the Service should ensure that the to include more members outside recovery plan was ever prepared the federal agencies and utilizing for the species. The Fish and goals and recovery actions are practical and concise and should the expertise of experts who are Wildlife Service reconsidered knowledgeable about woodpecker the need for a plan in 2005 when be streamlined and combined into fewer comprehensive, habitat- management and avian population information was released on the viability. presence of at least one bird in centered recovery actions that the Bayou DeView area of Cache are flexible enough to adapt Response 4 River National Wildlife Refuge. constantly and incorporate new The Recovery Team included Observers reported multiple findings. Reviewers noted the over 70 members representing sightings and recorded audio and need to develop measurable a diverse set of scientists, video of what was interpreted to results or specific timeframes managers, biologists, foresters, be an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. to determine if goals have been and technical experts. A full met. One reviewer felt that 152 list of members can be found and implementing captive photographs, and videos, are at http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/ breeding, and/or translocation subject to intense scrutiny by recoveryteam.html of individuals. Two reviewers the recovery team and the Fish thought that chain-of-custody, and Wildlife Service. Analyses Comment 5 evidentiary, and interview (of and vigorous discussions take Data used should reference people reporting encounters) place in the birdwatching and other sources to reduce reliance protocols were very important; ornithological communities of on Tanner’s data, as he studied one reviewer emphasized rapid- any information regarding this a small, isolated, and stressed response, emergency protection species. Any new photographs Ivory-billed Woodpecker of roost trees and other sensitive submitted to the recovery team population almost 70 years ago. sites. It was noted that adequate will be subjected to forensic Six reviewers were particularly statistical reliability should be analysis for potential fraud. concerned about the validity assured for all protocols. of his data on Ivory-billed The action plan, found in Woodpecker tree preference Response 7 Appendix G of the recovery plan, and his predictions of maximum The USGS Cooperative Research outlines the potential protective population densities. Unit at the University of Georgia measures to be taken if an Ivory- and University of Georgia billed Woodpecker roost cavity or Response 5 professors and graduate students nest is located. Initial efforts on This is a valuable and valid developed a protocol for the the Cache River National Wildlife comment. However, Tanner’s region-wide search for the Ivory- Refuge (location of the Luneau publication is the major reference billed Woodpecker. This survey video) included a limited access concerning the ecology and life design and field protocol for the area managed via permit. No history of this species. Reliance Ivory-billed Woodpecker search extensive closures were deemed on this publication is, of necessity, effort was aimed at collecting data necessary. Normal uses of the evident in the recovery plan. that would: (1) allow estimation refuge continued. Protective Caveats have been added of occupancy, use, and detection measures will be applied as the concerning Tanner’s data, and probability for habitats at two situation requires. recommendations have been spatial scales within its former added to this version of the plan range, (2) assess relationships Comment 8 in response to these concerns. between occupancy, use, and Reviewers questioned the habitat characteristics at those proposed recovery date of Comment 6 2075, noting that there was no It was noted that some references scales, (3) allow the development of a population viability model explanation why that particular mentioned in the text were not date was chosen. Some reviewers included in the literature cited. that depends on patch occupancy instead of difficult-to-measure suggested not choosing a Also, five reviewers pointed out target recovery date until more that relevant literature that demographic parameters, and (4) be adaptive, updating the above information has been gathered has been published since plan and the plan is revised to reflect development began should be models and search locations with newly collected information. the additional information. incorporated and cited in the One reviewer requested an draft plan. Additionally, one Several years of data were collected in different locations explanation of the recovery reviewer pointed out that there is number. redundant historical information. using this protocol. The lack of indisputable positive detections Response 8 Response 6 hampered a full interpretation The recovery date is a common The plan has been edited of the data. However, any new feature of recovery plans and and revised to include new locations of possible populations provides a goal that guides information and delete redundant will have this sampling recovery efforts, but it is not sections,as appropriate. Recent protocol applied in order to required. In response to this or new publications are cited, draw scientifically supportable comment and the current lack of providing a response to this conclusions about occupancy. additional information to evaluate comment. Copies of search protocols and the usefulness or accuracy of a Comment 7 methodologies, a rating system of recovery date for the Ivory-billed Five reviewers suggested that sighting reports, and action plans Woodpecker it has been deleted. protocols be developed (or are included in Appendix F of the The recovery priority number has provided in the plan, if already Recovery Plan. been given additional explanation developed) for surveying Ivory- in this version of the recovery billed Woodpecker populations Chain of custody protocols are plan. including methods for sampling included in the action plan found in the appendices of the Recovery Comment 9 distribution, abundance, Five reviewers mentioned the population size, density, and Plan. It is worth noting that any evidence of Ivory-billed need to expand the search area habitat use. Three recommended and include in the plan more developing protocols for Woodpeckers, including sighting reports, sound recordings, information about sightings and 153 possible remnant populations in Response 11 preferences of the Ivory-billed Florida, southern Louisiana, and In 2003, the Lower Mississippi Woodpecker. Cuba. Joint Venture Forest Resource Conservation Working Group The practice of retaining dead Response 9 specifically started to address and dying wood is not viewed as Search areas have included issues related to the management negatively as it was in the past. habitat throughout the species’ of the forest resources within Some public land managers are historical range in the U.S. This the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. experimenting with ways to information is included in the Management issues of concern provide more dead and dying current version of the plan, as included management of wood following some of Tanner’s well as additional information existing bottomland hardwood suggestions. The amount of on sightings and historical forest resources, reforestation recently dead and dying wood information. The recovery of agricultural lands, and that should be provided for the strategy contained in this inventory and monitoring of Ivory-billed Woodpecker is still recovery plan pertains only to all these resources. Instead unclear and may vary among the population of Ivory-billed of placing restrictions on forest types. Woodpeckers in the United States, individual silvicultural practices, Sweetgum and Nuttall oak were but it could also be applied to recommendations target defining recovery efforts for the Cuban two species clearly favored certain habitat characteristics by Ivory-billed Woodpeckers population. The U. S. Fish and that are necessary to meet the Wildlife Service and its partners in Tanner’s study. Increasing annual requirements of the the amount of sweetgum and recognize the need to develop multitude of wildlife species cooperation at the international Nuttall oak in future forests can dependent on these forest be a goal in appropriate forest level to address conservation of resources. How forest managers the species across its entire range, management prescriptions. achieve and maintain these Both of these tree species need but currently this is not feasible habitat characteristics is for legal and diplomatic reasons. openings of several acres to determined by the individual regenerate successfully and to Comment 10 situation. Objectives are set at produce large diameter trees. One reviewer commented on the the landscape level, and guidance There is growing recognition that issue of size comparison between is provided for how to achieve sweet gum can play an important the Pileated Woodpecker and the these objectives at the stand level. role in establishing healthy red Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Current forest management oak stands that in the future will practices affecting Ivory-billed dominate the mature forest. It Response 10 must be noted that it is possible This statement has been clarified Woodpecker habitat in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley have the apparent preference for these in the current version of the trees in Tanner’s study area could recovery plan. been examined in the context of maintaining sustainable have been due to their greater Comment 11 landscapes capable of supporting susceptibility to gradual decline Four reviewers suggested desired forest conditions after an extended drought and expanding the discussion of for a variety of important subsequent fire that occurred necessary changes in forest species. Recommendations about ten years prior to Tanner’s management to include which have been published by the study. A photograph documenting current practices should change Lower Mississippi Valley an Ivory-billed Woodpecker on and which new practices should Joint Venture (LMVJV Forest a pine tree in Florida suggests be implemented. Stressing the Resource Conservation Working some variety of preference in use of multiple data sources Group 2007). The publication trees; the species’ reliance on pine in decision-making, they also Restoration, Management and in Cuba is well known. pressed for clarification of Monitoring of Forest Resources Important as favoring sweetgum habitat management goals as in the Mississippi Alluvial and Nuttall oak may be, well as specification regarding Valley: Recommendations for management’s larger aim will be the size and species of trees that Enhancing Wildlife Habitat has to produce older forest conditions are prime habitat for the Ivory- guidelines which will benefit with adequate dead and dying billed Woodpecker. Additionally, the full suite of bottomland trees over large enough acreages three reviewers suggested that species, including the Ivory- to allow a more sustainable, there was not a good connection billed Woodpecker. Application functioning forest ecosystem. between loss of food resources of these recommendations forms Gaps created from dying trees or and endangerment of the Ivory- the backbone of our approach management practices will allow billed Woodpecker. Two pointed to the conservation of potential development of a diverse forest out that there is no strong Ivory-billed Woodpecker habitat. structure and provide conditions evidence of niche specialization, However, additional adaptive for the regeneration necessary for such as dependence on change may be required as more a resilient ecosystem. Cerembycid larvae as a primary is learned about the habitat food source.

154 Tanner’s description of food reduces fragmentation by already or will be available in habits remains the most enlarging blocks of bottomland scientific journals. “A Stochastic complete documentation of hardwood and providing Population Viability Analysis for diet. On the basis of anecdotal wildlife corridors between Rare Large-bodied Woodpeckers, observations and the examination areas of suitable habitat. with Implications for the Ivory- of the stomach contents of eight These acquisitions and all our billed Woodpecker” by Mattson, collected birds, large beetle restoration programs benefit et al. applied a stochastic, larvae appear to be an important waterfowl, songbirds, bear, deer, stage-based, single-population component of the diet. Members turkey, and a host of priority model to available demographic of the long-horned beetle family, species. The landscape goals for rates for Dryocopus and Cerambycidae, were noted in these habitats coincide with what Campephilus woodpeckers. This the stomach of Ivory-billed we interpret as good management study evaluated the combined Woodpecker several times, but of the ecosystem. Any additional importance of initial population many other species of woodland acquisitions would be size and demographic rates for boring beetle larvae have also evaluated for their benefit to an the persistence of large-bodied been documented. The diet identified area used by an Ivory- woodpeckers. Matson et al.’s also included various nuts such billed Woodpecker as a potential model suggests that these species as pecans and acorn as well foraging, nest, or roost site. can persist as rare (as few as 5 as fruits, including hackberry, females), and thus difficult-to- persimmon, wild grape, poison Comment 13 detect, populations provided they ivy and possibly swamp tupelo. Three reviewers noted that the maintain ≥ 1.1 recruited females Due to the paucity of data on lack of previous captive breeding annually per adult female and an food items actually consumed and reintroduction programs for annual adult survival rate ≥ 0.8. by the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, large woodpeckers is a critical limited conclusions can be data gap and encouraged further Noel, et al. entitle their study drawn concerning preferences. exploration of an experimental “Pileated Woodpecker Nesting Current research with Pileated captive breeding program. Ecology in the Big Woods of Arkansas.” Their preliminary Woodpeckers may shed additional Response 13 light on this issue. This findings on large woodpecker Knowledge and capabilities for ecology in bottomland hardwood discussion is found in Section G, captive breeding, are poorly Management Considerations. habitats, using Pileated understood for this species. Woodpeckers as a model The current version of the Significant work with surrogate species, suggest that certain recovery plan explores direct species, such as the Magellanic characteristics of nest trees, killing as a cause of the Ivory- Woodpecker may be needed. cavity trees, and forage trees billed Woodpecker decline and This effort would take some selected by large woodpeckers endangerment. Please see time since there is currently no were different between the responses to public comments 15 person or institution engaged lower and higher bottomland and 16 for additional information. in the captive breeding of large habitats. The fact that adults woodpeckers. At this time, no exhibited smaller home-ranges Comment 12 appropriate source population than reported in the literature One reviewer encouraged caution of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers is suggests that the species’ in acquiring land solely on the available to consider for capture currently occupied habitats assumption that the Ivory-billed and breeding. are rich in food resources. The Woodpecker is present. Comment 14 authors also documented nest Response 12 Additional research topics were depredation on the Pileated The State of Arkansas was suggested, including roost tree Woodpeckers studied. awarded Recovery Land availability, surrogate studies on Newell and King’s paper, “The Acquisition Funds in 2005 Pileated Woodpecker ecology, Ecology of Pileated Woodpecker to purchase lands in the Big the effects of climate change on Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Woods area. In 2005, 2006, and the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, and Saproxylic Beetles in Partial 2007 priority land acquisitions and hydrological changes or Cut and Uncut Bottomland were completed for the Cache stress effects. Two reviewers Hardwood Forests,”studies River National Wildlife Refuge. recommended a retrospective relative abundance and species National Wildlife Refuge land population viability analysis to richness of saproxylic beetles and acquisitions were planned before ascertain the possible effects of a nesting, roosting, and foraging the 2005 announcement of the genetic bottleneck. ecology of Pileated Woodpeckers Ivory-billed Woodpecker’s in recent partial cuts and uncut rediscovery, and according to Response 14 The current version of the forest during 2006 and 2007. system and regional priorities, This study provides a wealth of the focus on the Ivory-billed recovery plan contains abstracts of current and completed information concerning nesting, Woodpecker helped to accelerate roosting and feeding preferences. the additions to the refuge. research projects (Appendix Additional suitable habitat D). These have been published 155 Preferred tree species and Palmer Drought Severity Index) sizes, as well as food items are and river stage. Future portions documented. of the study include quantifying fine scale hydrology (surface and Hamel et al are continuing a subsurface) in monitoring wells study that is part of a bundled across each geomorphic feature project which includes a and historical flooding regime at primary study of attack rates of water wells extrapolated from Cerambycid beetles and other nearby gauges. wood boring insects as potential prey organisms of Ivory-billed Additional government studies Woodpeckers, with a growing that focus on the interactions number of collateral projects of hydrologic modification and made possible by the initial climate change not specifically design. The primary study concerned with Ivory-billed addresses the concern that food Woodpeckers may reveal availability is a likely limiting important information needed to factor for the woodpecker. By a manage Ivory-billed Woodpecker carefully controlled experiment habitat in the future. This using randomly selected trees, information can be analyzed and Hamel et al. assess the response incorporated into the plan as of wood-boring insects producing needed. medium and large larvae to four treatments involving progressively greater wounds to living trees. “Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Tree Growth in Two Floodplain Forests” is being studied by Gee and King. Hydrologic and geomorphic processes that structure floodplain forests of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV) have been altered at the regional, landscape, and local level. Levees, channelization, and other flood control activities have eliminated or altered overbank and backwater flooding in much of the historical floodplain, thus affecting the delivery of water and nutrient-rich sediments. These flood control activities also have altered river stage which can affect the water table at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. This study aims to quantify hydrologic and geomorphic processes within and among floodplains and to determine their influence on forest community composition and tree growth. The study area is located in National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and Wildlife Management Areas in the LMAV. Study sites are uneven-aged forests selected along a flooding gradient and stratified by geomorphic feature (ridge, swale, and flat). A time- series analysis was used to compare tree growth with climate (temperature, precipitation, and

156