SPECIES: Scientific [common] Coccothraustes vespertinus [Evening ] Forest: Salmon–Challis National Forest Forest Reviewer: Mary Friberg Date of Review: 2/22/2018 Forest concurrence (or No recommendation if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

FOREST REVIEW RESULTS:

1. The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes___ No_X__

2. Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ___X____

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION:

1. Is the Species Native to the Plan Area? Yes_X__ No___

If no, provide explanation and stop assessment.

2. Is the Species Known to Occur within the Planning Area? Yes__X_ No___

If no, stop assessment. Table 1. All Known Occurrences, Years, and Frequency within the Planning Area Year Number of Location of Observations (USFS Source of Information Observed Individuals District, Town, River, Road Intersection, HUC, etc.) 2012 2 North Fork Ranger District Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (January 2017) 2013 4 Leadore Ranger District Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (January 2017)

a. Are all Species Occurrences Only Accidental or Transient?

Yes___ No_X__

If yes, document source for determination and stop assessment. b. For species with known occurrences on the Forest since 1990, based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?

Yes_X__ No___

If no, provide explanation and stop assessment

c. For species with known occurrences on the Forest predating 1990, does the weight of evidence suggest the species still occurs in the plan area?

Yes___ No___

Provide explanation for determination

NA – occurrences have been documented since 1990

If determination is no, stop assessment

d. Map 1, Evening grosbeak range in Idaho (IDFG 2017a)

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2017a. Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus). Internet website: https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/17261. Accessed on August 30, 2017.

e. Map 2, Evening grosbeak range in Montana (MNHP and MFWP 2017)

MNHP and MFWP (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2017. Montana Field Guides – Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus). Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=ABPBY09020. Accessed on August 30, 2017.

f. Map 3, Evening grosbeak range in North America (NatureServe 2017)

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed on September 26, 2017. g. Map 4, Evening grosbeak occurrences on the Salmon–Challis National Forest (Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System [January 2017])

3. Is There Substantial Concern for the Species’ Capability to persist Over the Long-term in the Plan Area Based on Best Available Scientific Information?

Table 2. Status summary based on existing conservation assessments

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other) NatureServe G5—Secure (Common; widespread and abundant) Global Rank State List S4—Apparently Secure (Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors) Status IDAPA: Protected nongame Not SGCN USDA Forest Not Region 1 or Region 4 Sensitive Service

USDI FWS Not listed Other PIF: D (Species with population declines and moderate to high threats) Not BLM Type 2

Table 3. Status summary based on best available scientific information.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 1 B2 Only a few occurrences of the evening grosbeak on the Forest have been eBird. 2017. eBird: An online Distribution on recorded in the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System and none in database of distribution and Salmon–Challis the U.S. Forest Service database (Map 4 and Table 1). However, eBird abundance [web application]. National Forest (eBird 2017), which provides an online database of unverified eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, observations submitted by the public, supports Map 1 above indicating Ithaca, New York. Available: the species is distributed across all Ranger Districts at least during the http://www.ebird.org. Accessed: breeding season. Based on this information and habitat distributions (see 2/23/2018. Criterion 6), the species is probably broadly distributed across the Forest with the exception of gaps where suitable habitat does not occur (Rank B2). Confidence is medium due to limited occurrence data on the Forest.

Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 2 C The evening grosbeak’s breeding range extends from British Columbia, Gillihan, S.W., and B. Byers. 2001. Distribution in northern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, across southern to Nova Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes surrounding Scotia; south through the mountains to central California and Veracruz, vespertinus). In The of North geographic area Mexico; and east to Minnesota and the northeastern US (see Map 3). America, No. 599 (A. Poole and F. Wintering occurs throughout the breeding range and extends irregularly Gill, Eds.). Academy of Natural to the Gulf Coast and central Florida (Gillihan and Byers 2001; Sciences of Philadelphia and NatureServe 2017). Thus, the species is widely distributed outside the American Ornithologists’ Union. Forest (Rank C). NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed on August 30, 2017. Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 3 C The evening grosbeak is considered an irruptive migrant, meaning flocks Bekoff, M., A. Scott, and D. Conner. Dispersal may move irregularly eastward and southward, beyond their normal 1987. Nonrandom Nest-Site Capability range when populations are high, or seed food crop is low (NatureServe Selection in Evening . 2017). Birds form feeding flocks from September to early May and may The Condor, 89(4), 819-829. move freely in and out of groups throughout the year (Bekoff et al. 1987). In mountainous regions of western Montana migration to higher MNHP and MFWP (Montana elevation breeding habitat may occur during mid- to late-May and fall Natural Heritage Program and migration begins in early September (MNHP and MFWP 2017). Thus, the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). species can readily disperse across landscapes with few habitat-related 2017. Montana Field Guides – restrictions (Rank C). Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus). Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDe tail.aspx?elcode=ABPBY09020. Accessed on August 30, 2017.

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed on August 30, 2017. Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 4 B Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) and Christmas Bird Count (CBC) surveys are eBird. 2017. eBird: An online Abundance on the not adequate to determine abundance of the evening grosbeak on the database of bird distribution and Salmon–Challis Forest. Data from the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) indicate abundance [web application]. National Forest a density of 2.84 birds per km2 on the SCNF in 2016, corresponding to an eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, estimated population size of 38,563 individuals. However, the variability Ithaca, New York. Available: in this estimate is high (coefficient of variation is 103%) and only 1 http://www.ebird.org. Accessed: detection was used in the analysis (RMBO 2017). 2/23/2018.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Of the five BBS routes that intersect the Forest, the evening grosbeak has only been detected on one. This suggests the species may be uncommon RMBO (Rocky Mountain Bird (Rank B). While eBird (eBird 2017) observations are spread across the Observatory). Bird observations in Forest during the breeding season, the density is low also suggesting it is Salmon Challis National Forest. uncommon. Confidence is moderated by the cryptic nature of this Internet website: species during the breeding season, which makes it difficult to detect. http://www.rmbo.org/new_site/ad c/QueryWindow.aspx#N4IgzgLgTgh Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low hCuBbEAuEBJAIgWgEIGEAlARgAZsB lAQRQAIKYAbRAewDtt8ALJxgSzC0A cnD7smtAGIsoAU0ggAvkAA. Accessed on: November 13, 2017. 5 A Evening grosbeak populations have experienced range-wide declines in Bonter, D.N., and M.G. Harvey. Population Trend recent years (Bonter and Harvey 2008). Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data 2008. Winter survey data reveal on the Salmon– for Idaho show a decreasing trend over the past 50 years (NAS 2017). range wide decline in evening Challis National Data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicate a grosbeak populations. The Condor Forest significant long-term decrease (-5.08% per year) and a non-significant 110(2):376-381. short-term increase (0.89% per year) in populations throughout the US. In Idaho, significant decreasing trends were measured over both long- NAS (National Audubon Society). term (-3.3% per year) and short-term (-2.09% per year) scales (Sauer et 2017. The Christmas Bird Count al. 2017). BBS results are considered significant if the credible intervals of Historical Results. Internet website: the estimates do not overlap 0 (Sauer et al. 2013). http://www.christmasbirdcount.or g. Accessed on September 6, 2017. Based on these data for the state of Idaho, evening grosbeak populations on the Forest are suspected to be decreasing (Rank A), but confidence is Sauer J. R., W.A. Link, J.E. Fallon, low due to lack of trend data specific to the Forest. K.L. Pardieck, and D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr. 2013. The North American Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Breeding Bird Survey 1966–2011: Summary Analysis and Species Accounts. North American Fauna 79: 1–32.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations

Sauer, J.R., D.K. Niven, J.E. Hines, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr, K.L. Pardieck, J.E. Fallon, and W.A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 6 A In the Rocky Mountains the evening grosbeak is associated with mixed- Bekoff, M., A. Scott, and D. Conner. Habitat Trend on and spruce-fir forests during breeding. Ponderosa pine and aspen 1987. Nonrandom Nest-Site the Salmon–Challis stands are used, although less frequently (Gillihan et al. 2001). Several Selection in Evening Grosbeaks. National Forest studies have indicated that grosbeaks prefer mature forests with high The Condor, 89(4), 819-829. structural diversity (Bonter and Harvey 2008; Hayes et al. 2003) over old- growth (Hejl and Woods 1991 and Manuwal and Huff 1987 in Gillihan et Bonter, D.N., and M.G. Harvey. al. 2001). Camouflaged nests are built close to the main trunk of Douglas 2008. Winter survey data reveal fir, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine (Bekoff et al. 1987). Key features range wide decline in evening for nest sites may include high visibility for detection of potential grosbeak populations. The Condor predators and for parents to see their nests from a distance, easy access 110(2):376-381. for departure and arrival, ability to aid in thermoregulation, protection from wind and rain, and high nest stability (Bekoff et al. 1987). Snags may IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish be important for perching and foraging sites and for adding to structural and Game). 2017. Idaho State diversity (Bekoff et al. 1987). Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise, ID. In winter, the birds form flocks and often irrupt out of their breeding range. This includes lower elevation aspen forests, woodlands, Gillihan, S.W., and B. Byers. 2001. shrublands, and urban and suburban areas where they feed on buds and Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes seeds of deciduous trees, shrubs, and (Bonter and Harvey 2008; vespertinus). In The birds of North Gillihan and Byers 2001; NatureServe 2017). America, No. 599 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Academy of Natural

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Mixed conifer forests cover roughly 25% of the SCNF (USFS 2017). The Sciences of Philadelphia and amount of mature forest is not known but thought to be high (M. Friberg American Ornithologists’ Union. pers. commun.). Mature forest has likely been reduced locally in the past Internet website: 20 years by stand replacing fires, insect and disease outbreaks, and https://birdsna.org/Species- logging (USFS 2017). Roughly 143,000 acres have been commercially Account/bna/species/evegro/intro harvested over the last 90 years. The majority has been through selective duction. Accessed on August 30, harvesting (B. Baer pers commun.), which may reduce structural diversity 2017. of stands. In addition, the overall condition of conifer forests on the SCNF has moderately departed from historical reference conditions (USFS Hayes, J. P., J.M. Weikel, and 2017). High densities of dead wood across the Forest may reflect M.M.P. Huso. 2003. Response of unhealthy forest conditions due to fire suppression, fires, and insect birds to thinning young Douglas-fir outbreaks (USFS 2017). Fire suppression influences the structure of forests. Ecological Applications 13: conifer and deciduous forests by favoring fire intolerant species and 1222–1232. promoting landscape homogeneity. Fire suppression has also increased the amount of fuel available to burn, which has led to an increase in area MNHP and MFWP (Montana burned by wildfires in recent years (USFS 2017). Overall, fire suppression Natural Heritage Program and and subsequent conifer encroachment have probably increased suitable Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). habitat for grosbeaks in the short term by providing larger areas of 2017. Montana Field Guides – forested vegetation, but may decrease habitat over the long term by Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes decreasing structural diversity and increasing fire occurrence/severity. vespertinus). Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDe Aspen forests and woodlands, which grosbeaks may use as wintering tail.aspx?elcode=ABPBY09020. sites, are a relatively minor component of Forest vegetation, and Accessed on August 30, 2017. conditions suggest reduced vigor (USFS 2017). In contrast, high amounts of lower and upper montane grassland and shrubland habitats (also NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe wintering habitat) exist and are in fair to good condition (IDFG 2017, Explorer: An online encyclopedia of USFS 2017). life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Thus a high amount of winter and breeding habitat for evening grosbeaks Internet website: occurs on the Forest and this amount may be stable, but some declines in http://explorer.natureserve.org.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations quality may have occurred (Rank A). The overall effect of forest structural Accessed on August 30, 2017. changes to the quality of evening grosbeak habitat is uncertain. Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1987. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plan–Challis Forest.

USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1988. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plan–Salmon Forest.

USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2017. Salmon–Challis National Forest Data Assessment, Terrestrial Ecosystems Section (Draft). 7 B Decreasing structural diversity due to even-aged forest management Behrens, P.N., R.E. Keane, D.L. Vulnerability of practices may be a threat to evening grosbeak populations nationwide Peterson, and J.J. Ho. 2018. Habitats on the (Bonter and Harvey 2008; Hayes et al. 2003). Recent commercial timber Chapter 6: effects of climatic Salmon–Challis harvest has focused on less impactive selective harvest and this will likely variability and change on forest National Forest continue into the future (B. Baer pers. commun.). Timber harvest has vegetation. In Halofsky, J.E., D.L. occurred on an estimated one percent of total forested acres on the Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.L. Little, L.A. SCNF in recent years (USFS 2017). Personal and commercial use fuelwood Joyce, editors. 2018. Climate harvest of dead conifers typically occurs in large stands of trees, although change vulnerability and some reductions in snags in green stands important for perching and adaptation in the Intermountain foraging has occurred near roads nearer human population centers. Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- Overall, even if this practice continued, it is expected to impact a small xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US percentage of habitat. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Service, Rocky Mountain Research Changes in climate are projected to affect evening grosbeak habitat. To Station. Xxx p. project the future climate and impacts to resources in the Intermountain Region including the Salmon-Challis, the Intermountain Adaptation Bekoff, M., A. Scott, and D. Conner. Partnership (IAP) used Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP] 4.5 1987. Nonrandom Nest-Site and 8.5, which capture a moderate and high future warming, respectively Selection in Evening Grosbeaks. (Halofsky et al. 2018). Although pathways predicting lower warming The Condor, 89(4), 819-829. exist, the 4.5 and 8.5 pathways were chosen by the IAP because they are, in comparison, well studied providing a large set of projections that Bonter, D.N., and M.G. Harvey. enhance our understanding of the possible range in future climate. Thus, 2008. Winter survey data reveal this represents best available science for our Forest with regard to a range wide decline in evening warming climate. grosbeak populations. The Condor 110(2):376-381. Although uncertainty exists about the magnitude and rate of climate change (For a discussion of this see Behrens et al. 2018), warming Hayes, J.P., J.M. Weikel, and M.M.P. Huso. 2003. Response of temperatures are the most certain consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. By 2100, median minimum and maximum temperature in birds to thinning young Douglas-fir the Middle Rockies subregion, which includes the Salmon-Challis, is forests. Ecological Applications 13: projected to rise about 5-6˚F under the moderate warming scenario and 1222–1232. about 10˚F under the high warming scenario. Regardless of scenario, the greatest departure from historical seasonal minimum temperatures Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, J.J. Ho, occurs in the summer. Annual precipitation projections are highly N.L. Little, L.A. Joyce, editors. 2018. variable with no discernible trend under moderate warming and a slight Climate change vulnerability and increasing trend with high warming (Joyce and Talbert 2018). adaptation in the Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- In spruce-fir and dry mixed conifer forests such as those inhabited by the xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US grosbeak, climate warming may increase overall tree growth, but Department of Agriculture, Forest increased drought may reduce the growth of Douglas-fir, which is not as Service, Rocky Mountain Research drought tolerant as other tree species (Behrens et al. 2018). Reduced Station. Xxx p. winter precipitation, early spring snowmelt, and warmer dry seasons may

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations also increase the frequency of wildfires on the Forest (Malesky et al. Joyce, L.A. and M. Talbert. 2018. 2018). However, fire-adapted species (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir) may Chapter 3: Historical and projected have the ability to survive direct fire impacts, and thus much of the climate. In Halofsky, J.E., D.L. functionality of forests dominated by these species may be retained Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.L. Little, L.A. (Behrens et al. 2018). A decline in suitable climate is expected to occur Joyce, editors. 2018. Climate slowly and would allow for upslope expansion of subalpine pine species; change vulnerability and this expansion along with the resilience of dry mixed conifer forests adaptation in the Intermountain suggests that the effects of climate change on the grosbeak may be only Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- moderate. xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Heavy grazing from livestock or wildlife may impact wintering habitat Service, Rocky Mountain Research such as aspen forests and woodlands (IDFG 2017). Station. Xxx p.

In summary, habitat is probably being impacted by modern stressors, but IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish impacts are within the range of natural variation (Rank B). Confidence is and Game). 2017b. Idaho State medium because effects of changes in climate may have both positive Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise, and negative impacts on the grosbeak. ID.

Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Malesky, D.M., B.J. Bentz, G.R. Brown, A.R. Bruelle, J.M. Buffington, L.M. Chappell, R.J. DeRose, J.C. Guyon II, C.L. Jorgensen, R.A. Loehman, L.L. Lowrey, A.M. Lynch, M. Matyjasik, J.D. McMillin, J.E. Mercado, J.L. Morris, J.F. Negron, W.G. Padgett, R.A. Progar, and C.B. Randall. 2018. Chapter 8: Effects of climate change on ecological disturbances. In Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, J.J.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Ho, N.L. Little, L.A. Joyce, editors. 2018. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Xxx p.

USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1987. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plan–Challis Forest.

USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1988. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plan–Salmon Forest.

USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2017. Salmon–Challis National Forest Data Assessment, Terrestrial Ecosystems Section (Draft). 8 B Information on the species’ breeding biology and reproductive success is Bonter, D.N., and M.G. Harvey. Life History and lacking (Bonter and Harvey 2008). Evening grosbeaks form breeding pairs 2008. Winter survey data reveal Demographics about 3–4 weeks before breeding begins, and arrive at breeding habitat range wide decline in evening as mated pairs. The clutch size averages 3–4 eggs, which the female grosbeak populations. The Condor incubates for 12–14 days. The nestling period is 13–14 days. Both adults 110(2):376-381. feed young up to several weeks after fledging (Gillihan and Byers 2001;

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations MNHP and MFWP 2017). The birds mostly feed on buds and seeds of Fischer, J.R., D.E. Stallknecht, M.P. deciduous trees, shrubs, and conifers; they may also eat insects during Luttrell, A.A. Dhondt, and K.A. summer. Populations may fluctuate with spruce budworm cycles, but this Converse. 1997. Mycoplasmal link is unclear (Bonter and Harvey 2008). Conjunctivitis in Wild Songbirds: The Spread of a New Contagious The causes of range-wide declines in grosbeak populations are uncertain, Disease in a Mobile Host but may be related to reduced breeding habitat (Bonter and Harvey Population. Emerging Infectious 2008; Hayes et al. 2003), which is probably not a major concern on the Diseases, 3(1), 69-72. Forest as described in the previous section (USFS 2017). Collision with residential windowsis a cause of mortality (Gillihan and Byers 2001), but Friggens, M.M., M.I. Williams, K.E. again this is not a concern on SCNF. The species is susceptible to a Bagne, T.T. Wixom, and S.A. number of diseases including bacterial conjunctivitis, salmonellosis, and Cushman. 2018. Chapter 9: Effects West Nile virus as well as parasitic infection by a mite, Knemidokoptes of climatic change on terrestrial jamaicensis (Bonter and Harvey 2008; Fisher et al. 1997). An increase in . In Halofsky, J.E., D.L. transmission of infectious diseases may occur under increased summer Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.L. Little, L.A. temperatures and drought, and increased presence of West Nile virus is Joyce, editors. 2018. Climate expected in Idaho (Friggens et al. 2018). Competition and predation likely change vulnerability and occur, but information on how these affect survival and reproductive adaptation in the Intermountain rates is unavailable. Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US Although more recent and/or local estimates of reproductive and survival Department of Agriculture, Forest rates are not available, potential population fluctuations in response to Service, Rocky Mountain Research increased food source (i.e., budworms), suggest that the evening Station. Xxx p. grosbeak probably has an intermediate capability to recover from disturbance (Rank B). Confidence is low due to lack of information on Gillihan, S.W., and B. Byers. 2001. survival and reproductive rates. Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus). In The birds of North Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low America, No. 599 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Academy of Natural

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Sciences of Philadelphia and American Ornithologists’ Union.

Hayes, J.P., J.M. Weikel, and M.M.P. Huso. 2003. Response of birds to thinning young Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 13: 1222–1232.

MNHP and MFWP (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2017. Montana Field Guides – Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus). Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDe tail.aspx?elcode=ABPBY09020. Accessed on August 30, 2017.

USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2017. Salmon–Challis National Forest Data Assessment, Terrestrial Ecosystems Section (Draft). Summary and recommendations: Current conservation assessments indicate low concern for the evening Date: 9/6/17 grosbeak at the state and regional levels. It is, however, noted as declining and with moderate to high threats by Partners in Flight, and populations in Idaho are declining. Habitat for the species is likely abundant on the Forest and has increased due to fire suppression, at least over the short term.

Decreasing structural diversity due to even-aged forest management practices is not a threat on the Forest. The

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Coccothraustes vespertinus (Evening grosbeak)

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations timber program is small and focuses on selective harvesting, which should be less impactive. Suitable climate for preferred habitat on the Forest will decrease slowly (into the 21st century), but changes to habitat may stabilize with increased growth rates and expansion into higher elevations, although fire could temper this.

Although the species is susceptible to a number of diseases, their role now and into the future in population declines is not known. Other causes of mortality suspected in the species’ decline, such as collision with residential windows, are probably not a concern on the Forest. Little is known of the grosbeak life history or what this means for the species’ sensitivity and ability to withstand disturbances.

Therefore, information is lacking to indicate there is substantial concern for the capability of the evening grosbeak to persist over the long-term on the Salmon-Challis and the bird is not recommended as a potential species of conservation concern.

Evaluator(s): Lindsay Chipman and Mary Friberg