SPECIES: Scientific [common] Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker] Forest: Salmon–Challis National Forest Forest Reviewer: Mary Friberg Date of Review: 2/21/2018 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.) 1998–2003 17 Salmon–Cobalt District USFS Natural Resources Information System Wildlife (April 2017) 2011–2013 15 Lost River Ranger District Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (January 2017) 2011–2013 20 Challis–Yankee Fork Ranger Idaho Fish and Wildlife District Information System (January 2017) 2013 16 Leadore Ranger District Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (January 2017) 1999–2012 30 Middle Fork Ranger District Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (January 2017) Year Number of Location of Observations (USFS Source of Information Observed Individuals District, Town, River, Road Intersection, HUC, etc.) 1981–2013 18 North Fork 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, Clark’s nutcracker range map for Idaho (IDFG 2017a)

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2017a. Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). Internet website: https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/ 16032. Accessed on October 1, 2017.

e. Map 2, Clark’s nutcracker range map for Montana (MNHP and MFWP 2017)

MNHP and MFWP (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2017. Montana Field Guides – Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=ABPAV08010&sort=3. Accessed on October 1, 2017.

f. Map 3, Clark’s nutcracker 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 October 1, 2017.

g. Map 4, Map of Clark’s nutcracker occurrences on the Salmon–Challis (Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System [January 2017]; USFS Natural Resources Information System Wildlife [April 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, abundant) Global Status NatureServe S2— Imperiled (At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations [often 20 or fewer], steep declines, or State Status other factors) State List IDAPA— Protected non-game Status SGCN Tier 3 (species that do not meet criteria for tiers 1 and 2, yet still have conservation needs. In general, these species are relatively more common, but commonness is not the sole criterion and often these species have either declining trends rangewide or are lacking in information) USDA Forest Not Region 1 or 4 sensitive Service

USDI FWS Not listed Other Not on PIF Watchlist Not BLM Type 2

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

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 1 B2 Clark’s nutcracker is a year-round resident throughout the Forest (Map 1) Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information Distribution on and recent occurrences have been documented on all ranger districts System (January 2017) Salmon–Challis (Table 1, Map 3). Thus, the species appears to be broadly distributed National Forest throughout the Forest and can easily travel between patches of suitable USFS Natural Resources habitat (Rank B2). Information System Wildlife (April 2017)

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low

2 C Clark's nutcracker inhabits montane regions of the western US and IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish Distribution in Canada year-round. Specifically, the distribution ranges from central and Game). 2017. Idaho State surrounding British Columbia and west-central Alberta south through the mountain Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise, geographic area ranges and pine-covered ridges of west to southern California, Arizona, ID. and New Mexico; an isolated population persists on Cerro el Potosi in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, and the species may wander irregularly beyond this MNHP and MFWP (Montana range (see Map 3; MNHP and MFWP 2017; NatureServe 2017). Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). The nutcracker’s range extent in Idaho is ~61,200 mi2, and observations 2017. Montana Field Guides – are broadly distributed in the northern, central and southeastern Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga portions of the state. About 5% of the US population resides in Idaho columbiana). Internet website: (IDFG 2017). http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDe tail.aspx?elcode=ABPAV08010&sor Thus, Clark’s nutcracker is widely distributed outside the Forest (Rank C). t=3. Accessed on October 1, 2017.

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Accessed on October 1, 2017. 3 C Clark's Nutcracker is typically non-migratory, but may exhibit elevational IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish Dispersal movement, moving upslope in the summer after breeding season (IDFG and Game). 2017b. Idaho State Capability 2017b). The species occasionally travel to areas outside its normal range Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise, (NatureServe 2017) and large irruptions to lowland deserts, plains, and ID.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations coastal areas irregularly occur during winter in response to poor conifer seed crops (Vander Wall et al. 1981). The average home range size of Lorenz, T.J., K.A. Sullivan, A.V. Clark’s nutcrackers studied in Washington State was 13.3 km2, but varied Bakian, and C.A. Aubry. 2011. considerably (from 1.4 to 52.1 km2) (Lorenz et al. 2011). Large home Chache-site selection in Clark’s ranges in this species may be a result of life history traits and habitat nutcracker (Nucifraga Columbiana). quality (Lorenz et al. 2011). Auk 128(2):237-247.

The species’ ability to travel long distances indicates a high capability for NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe dispersal (Rank C). Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed on October 1, 2017.

Vander Wall S. B., Hoffman S. W., and Potts, W. K. 1981. Emigration behavior of Clark’s Nutcracker. Condor, 83: 162–170.

Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 4 B Surveys for Clark’s nutcracker are inadequate to determine their IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish Abundance on the abundance on the Salmon-Challis. The estimated breeding population in and Game). 2017. Idaho State Salmon–Challis Idaho is 12,000 birds (IDFG 2017). The BBS reports a relative abundance Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise, National Forest of 0.45 in Idaho, which is less than half the value survey-wide (1.02) ID. (Sauer et al. 2017). Areas of relative high density occur on nearby habitat in Montana but are patchily distributed, presumably due to availability of MNHP and MFWP (Montana

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations suitable habitat (MNHP and MFWP 2017). Considering occurrence data Natural Heritage Program and (Table 1) and the amount of suitable habitat on the Forest (see Criterion Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 6), the species may be uncommon on the Forest (Rank B), but confidence 2017. Montana Field Guides – is low due to few surveys on the Forest. Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDe tail.aspx?elcode=ABPAV08010&sor t=3. Accessed on October 1, 2017.

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.

Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 5 D Clark’s nutcracker populations fluctuate annually, primarily owing to food IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish Population Trend availability (IDFG 2017). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data and Game). 2017b. Idaho State on the Salmon– indicate a non-significant, long-term (1966–2015) decline of -0.38% per Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise, Challis National year and a non-significant, short-term (2005–2015) increase of 0.94% per ID. Forest year in populations across the US. Corresponding data for Idaho show non-significant increases of 1.55% and 8.7% per year, respectively (Sauer NAS (National Audubon Society). et al. 2013; Sauer et al. 2017). Analysis of BBS trends in several other 2017. The Christmas Bird Count

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations states and Canadian provinces within the range of whitebark pine (CO, Historical Results. Internet website: MT, WY, UT, CA, OR, WA, BC, AB) show negative population trends over http://www.christmasbirdcount.or the last decade (USFS 2011). Christmas bird Count (CBC) data do not g. Accessed on August 28, 2017. show significant trends (NAS 2017). Annual bird counts such as the BBS and CBC have limitations for monitoring Clark’s nutcrackers because 1) Sauer J.R., W.A. Link, J.E. Fallon, most routes are along roads where the species is most often poorly K.L. Pardieck, and D.J. Ziolkowski, sampled, 2) surveys do not coincide well with breeding, 3) the Jr. 2013. The North American nutcracker’s erratic movements in search of food, large home range, and Breeding Bird Survey 1966–2011: inconspicuous nature (USFS 2011). Summary Analysis and Species Accounts. North American Fauna Because data sources show contrasting trends and data specific to the 79: 1–32. Forest is lacking, Rank D was assigned to this criterion. 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.

USFS (United States Forest Service). 2011. A Monitoring Challenge: Clark’s Nutcracker Population Trends. Internet website: https://ecoshare.info/wp- Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low content/uploads/2012/01/Clarks- nutcracker-sheet-6- populationtrends.pdf. Accessed on October 23, 2017.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 6 B Clark’s nutcrackers breed in open coniferous forests from montane to Barringer, L. E., Tomback D.F., Habitat Trend on subalpine zones usually between 5900 and 8200 ft in elevation. They Wunder M.B., McKinney S.T. 2012. the Salmon–Challis typically nest in ponderosa pine, limber pine, and Douglas fir at lower Whitebark pine stand condition, National Forest elevations. They will move to the subalpine later in the summer if tree abundance, and cone whitebark and/or limber pine forests are available (IDFG 2017). This bird production as predictors of relies heavily on conifer seeds throughout the year and feeds them to visitation by Clark's nutcracker. nestlings. Seed sources vary regionally, but pine seeds are most PloS One. 7(5). important. In the northern Rocky Mountains ponderosa, whitebark, and limber pine seeds are taken as well as Douglas fir seeds (Tomback 1998), IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish although the latter are much less nutritious on a per seed basis (Hutchins and Game). 2017. Idaho State and Lanner 1982 and Smith 1970 in Schaming 2015). While whitebark Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise, pine is an obligate mutualist with the Clark’s nutcracker, the nutcracker is ID. facultative (Barringer 2012). Ponderosa pine seeds were the most important food eaten by volume and frequency in a western Montana Lowrey, L. 2017. Salmon-Challis study where whitebark pine was also present (Giuntoli and Mewaldt National Forest Plan Revision: 1978). In a year of abundant ponderosa pine seed crop they were eaten Forest disturbances; insects and in exclusion of a moderate whitebark pine crop. In addition, when the disease. Region 4 State and Private ponderosa pine seed crop was down, but the Douglas fir crop was high, Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Douglas fir seeds provided the bulk of the diet. Boise Office. 8/14/2017. On file at Salmon-Challis National Forest, Ponderosa pine savannah and ponderosa pine/Douglas fir forests Salmon, ID. comprise roughly 16% of the SCNF, Douglas fir 20%, and whitebark pine 18% (USFS 2017). The overall condition of Clark’s nutcracker habitat has Tomback D. F. 1982. Dispersal of departed by 17-50% from historical reference conditions, with the whitebark pine seeds by Clark’s exception of much of ponderosa pine savannah departing by as much as nutcracker: a mutualism 66%. On-going fire suppression has altered the quantity and quality of hypothesis. Journal of Animal conifer forests on the SCNF (USFS 2017). The absence of fire has Ecology 51: 451–467. increased conifer forest cover overall, but more crowded forest conditions and succession of fire-intolerant species such as spruce or Tomback, D. F. 1998. Clark's subalpine fir has likely degraded some nesting habitat (USFS 2017). Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana).

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations The Birds of North America (P. G. Five-needled pines such as whitebark pine are being threatened by the Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab synergistic effect of fire suppression; the rapid expansion of an invasive of Ornithology. Internet website: pathogen, Cronartium ribicola, which causes white pine blister rust; https://birdsna.org/Species- mountain pine beetle outbreaks; and changes in climate (IDFG 2017). Account/bna/species/clanut. These threats are causing widespread declines in high-elevation Accessed on October 1, 2017. whitebark pine forests across the SCNF and have led to the recent listing of whitebark pine as a Candidate Species under the Endangered Species USFS (United States Forest Service). Act across its range (USFS 2017). Over 50% of whitebark pine acres on 2017. Salmon–Challis National the Forest were damaged by the recent mountain pine beetle outbreak Forest Data Assessment, Terrestrial and percentage killed reached over 90% on some landscapes (Shotzko Ecosystems Section (Draft). 2013, Kegley 2008, Fins and Hoppus 2010 in Lowrey 2017). Roughly 36% of whitebark pine forest on the SCNF has burned with high severity between 1984 and 2015 (USFS 2018) and 20% of regenerating whitebark pine on the Forest today is infected with blister rust, which reduces the likelihood it will reach maturity (Lowrey 2017).

Although not as heavily impacted by the bark beetle outbreak, mortality in ponderosa pine forests on the North Fork District reached 90% for the first time in recorded history for the Forest (Lazarus 2014 in Lowrey 2017).

Thus, Clark’s nutcracker breeding and foraging habitat quantity and quality have likely declined on the Forest (Rank A), although overall habitat likely remains moderately abundant.

Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 7 A The Clark’s nutcracker on the SCNF may be moderately vulnerable to Barringer, L. E., Tomback D.F., Vulnerability of changes in habitat due to climate warming. To project the future climate Wunder M.B., McKinney S.T. 2012. Habitats on the and impacts to resources in the Intermountain Region including the Whitebark pine stand condition, Salmon–Challis Salmon-Challis, the Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) used tree abundance, and cone National Forest Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP] 4.5 and 8.5, which capture production as predictors of a moderate and high future warming, respectively (Halofsky et al. 2018). visitation by Clark's nutcracker. Although pathways predicting lower warming exist, the 4.5 and 8.5 PloS One. 7(5). pathways were chosen by the IAP because they are, in comparison, well studied providing a large set of projections that enhance our Behrens, P.N., R.E. Keane, D.L. understanding of the possible range in future climate. Thus, this Peterson, and J.J. Ho. 2018. represents best available science for our Forest with regard to a warming Chapter 6: effects of climatic climate. variability and change on forest vegetation. In Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Although uncertainty exists about the magnitude and rate of climate Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.L. Little, L.A. change (For a discussion of this see Behrens et al. 2018), warming Joyce, editors. 2018. Climate temperatures are the most certain consequence of increased CO2 in the change vulnerability and atmosphere. By 2100, median minimum and maximum temperature in adaptation in the Intermountain the Middle Rockies subregion, which includes the Salmon-Challis, is Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- projected to rise about 5-6˚F under the moderate warming scenario and xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US about 10˚F under the high warming scenario. Regardless of scenario, the Department of Agriculture, Forest greatest departure from historical seasonal minimum temperatures Service, Rocky Mountain Research occurs in the summer. Annual precipitation projections are highly Station. Xxx p. variable with no discernible trend under moderate warming and a slight increasing trend with high warming (Joyce and Talbert 2018). Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.L. Little, L.A. Joyce, editors. 2018. Projected warming temperatures, reductions in snowpack, and altered Climate change vulnerability and timing of snowmelt would increase the extent and severity of stand- adaptation in the Intermountain replacing wildfires, disease outbreaks, and insect infestations (Malesky et Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- al. 2018) and result in changes in coniferous forest structure, extent, and xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US species composition that are outside the natural range of variability Department of Agriculture, Forest

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations (Rank A; Behrens et al. 2018). Larger more frequent and intense fires Service, Rocky Mountain Research could result in the predominance of younger forests. However, climate Station. Xxx p. changes are projected to occur slowly allowing for upslope expansion of conifer forest, but insects and disease may significantly impact the Joyce, L.A. and M. Talbert. 2018. already stressed whitebark pine population (Behrens et al. 2018). Decline Chapter 3: Historical and projected of whitebark pine may be furthered on the Forest if large areas of killed climate. In Halofsky, J.E., D.L. mature cone-bearing trees do not meet threshold seed densities for Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.L. Little, L.A. foraging Clark’s nutcrackers (Keane et al. 2012). Loss of whitebark pine Joyce, editors. 2018. Climate may threaten Clark’s nutcracker populations where other important seed change vulnerability and sources do not occur (Schaming 2015). However, fire adapted species adaptation in the Intermountain such as ponderosa pine are expected to benefit under climate warming Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- (Behrens et al. 2018) and presumably, extensive ponderosa pine forests xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US on the SCNF would buffer effects to Clark’s nutcracker due to the loss of Department of Agriculture, Forest whitebark pine (Giuntoli and Mewaldt 1978). Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Xxx p. Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Keane, R.E., D.F. Tomback, C.A. Aubry, A.D. Bower, E.M. Campbell, C.L. Cripps, M.B. Jenkins, M.F. Mahalovich, M. Manning, S.T. McKinney, and M.P. Murray. 2012. A range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-279. Fort Collines, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p.

McKinney S. T. and Tomback D. F.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 2007. The influence of white pine blister rust on seed dispersal in whitebark pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37: 1044–1057.

Schaming TD. 2015. Population- wide failure to breed in the Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). PloS One. 10(5).

USFS (United States Forest Service). 2017. Salmon–Challis National Forest Data Assessment, Terrestrial Ecosystems Section (Draft).

8 B Clark’s nutcrackers specialize on pine seeds, which comprise the majority IDFG (Idaho Department of Health Life History and of their diet, and the species’ morphology, behavior, and annual cycle are and Welfare). 2017. West Nile Demographics closely tied to this specialized diet (Tomback 1998). Notably, the birds Virus. Internet website: have a sublingual pouch, which they use to transport seeds to cache http://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov sites; a long, sharp bill for opening conifer cones, extracting seeds, and /Default.aspx?TabId=112. Accessed placing seeds in caches; a brood patch on both males and females, which on October 2, 2017. allows the male to incubate eggs while the female retrieves seeds from her caches; and a strong spatial memory that enables them to relocate IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish thousands of seed caches (Mewaldt 1956; Tomback 1998). and Game). 2017b. Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise, The birds begin storing seeds in late summer through fall, and rely on ID. cached seeds for overwintering and breeding. Nesting begins in January and February, females usually lay a clutch of 2–3 eggs in March or April, Mewaldt, L. R. 1956. Nesting incubation by both sexes last 17–18 days, and young typically fledge 24– behavior of the Clark nutcracker. 28 days after hatching (NatureServe 2017; IDFG 2017b). Juveniles Condor, 58: 3–23. generally become independent in late spring or early summer once fresh seeds become available and they can forage for themselves (IDFG NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe 2017b). Nutcrackers may forego breeding following seasons with Explorer: An online encyclopedia of inadequate food or climatic conditions; this breeding strategy may life [web application]. Version 7.1. maximize long-term survival and allow birds to exploit unpredictable NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. environments, but can also lead to population declines if pine seed crop Internet website: failures are prolonged (Schaming 2015). http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed on October 1, 2017. Though little information on survival rates is available, the species is known to live up to 17 years, indicating longevity (IDFG 2017). Schaming TD. 2015. Population- Competition with red squirrels for whitebark pine seeds may increase as wide failure to breed in the Clark’s whitebark pine mortality increases and cone production decreases nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). (McKinney and Tomback 2007), but the extent to which competition PloS One. 10(5). impacts populations on the Forest is unknown, especially give the availability of ponderosa pine. Although there are no documented Tomback, D. F. 1998. Clark's accounts of Clark’s nutcracker’s susceptibility to West Nile Virus, the Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). virus occurs in Idaho and the Center for Disease Control lists the species The Birds of North America (P. G. as a carrier (IDFG 2017; USFS 2011). Because nutcrackers are members of Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab the Corvidae family, which show high mortality rates due to West Nile of Ornithology. Internet website:

Virus (USFS 2011), the virus is probably also a threat to Clark’s https://birdsna.org/Species- nutcracker. Account/bna/species/clanut. Accessed on October 1, 2017. Considering potentially low reproduction due to a breeding strategy that emphasizes survival over reproduction, longevity, and the ability to USFS (United States Forest Service). respond to increasing food availability, Clark’s nutcracker may have an 2011. A Monitoring Challenge: intermediate ability to recover from disturbance (Rank B). Confidence is Clark’s Nutcracker Population medium because of the lack of information of reproductive and survival Trends. Internet website: rates. https://ecoshare.info/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Clarks- Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low nutcracker-sheet-6- populationtrends.pdf. Accessed on October 23, 2017.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Nucifraga columbiana [Clark’s nutcracker]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Summary and recommendations: Current conservation assessments indicate the Clark’s nutcracker is secure range- Date: 02/22/2018 wide, but there is moderate to substantial concern for its persistence in Idaho. No population abundance or trends are available for the Forest, but the species is thought to be uncommon. There is some evidence of recent declines throughout its range, but the design of national surveys make detecting trends in this species difficult. Although whitebark pine is an obligate mutualist with Clark’s nutcracker, the relationship is facultative for the bird. Wingless pine species such as whitebark pine are an important and nutritious seed source for the Clark’s nutcracker throughout its range, but the bird exploits other seed sources in the northern Rockies. Ponderosa pine seeds are also well exploited as are those of Douglas fir, although it is not likely the Clark’s nutcracker could be sustained alone by the latter. Both these conifer species are abundant on the Forest now and expected to remain so under with changes in climate and their abundance may buffer effects to Clark’s nutcracker from the loss of whitebark pine. In addition, the reproductive strategy and longevity of this bird is adapted to cycles of boom and bust food resources and this may help the species persist in a variable environment where food resources remain. This information does not support a substantial concern for the capability of the Clark’s nutcracker to persist over the long-term on the Salmon-Challis and the bird is not recommended as a species of conservation concern.

Evaluator(s): Lindsay Chipman and Mary Friberg