SPECIES: Scientific [common] Selasphorus rufus [Rufous hummingbird] Forest: Salmon–Challis National Forest Forest Reviewer: Mary Friberg Date of Review: 3/11/2018 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.) 2006 – 2009 240 North Fork Ranger District Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (January 2017) 1997 4 Salmon–Cobalt Ranger District USFS Natural Resources Information System Wildlife (April 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 No observations prior to 1990
If determination is no, stop assessment d. Map 1, Rufous hummingbird range in Idaho (IDFG 2017a)
IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2017a. Rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus). Internet website: https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/17400. Accessed on September 19, 2017.
Map 2, Rufous hummingbird range in Montana (MNHP and MFWP 2017)
MNHP and MFWP (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2017. Montana Field Guides – Rufous hummingbird – Selasphorus rufus. Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=ABNJB10130. Accessed on September 19, 2017. e. Map 3, Rufous hummingbird occurrences on the Salmon–Challis National Forest (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 (all at species level except NatureServe Global Rank) NatureServe G5—Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure. Global Rank NatureServe S4B (Breeding populations) — Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern. State Rank Idaho State Protected Nongame List Status Not an Idaho Species of Conservation Concern
USDA Forest Region 4—Not listed Service Region 1—Not listed
USDI FWS Not Listed Other Partners in Flight—Rank D Yellow Watch List—Species with population declines and moderate to high threats. BLM—Not listed International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources—LC (Least Concern)—This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion. BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2015. Idaho BLM Special Status Species List Update. Instruction Memorandum ID-IM-2015-009. Internet website: https://www.blm.gov/policy/id-im-2015-009. Accessed on September 5, 2017. BirdLife International. 2016. Selasphorus rufus. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22688296A95213517. Internet website: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22688296A95213517.en. Accessed on September 29, 2017.
Table 3. Status summary based on best available scientific information.
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 1 B2 Range maps indicate the rufous hummingbird is found on the Salmon– eBird. 2017. eBird: An online Distribution on Challis National Forest (SCNF) during the breeding season (see Map 1). database of bird distribution and Salmon–Challis However, minimal occurrences have been reported, but include the abundance [web application]. National Forest North Fork and Challis-Cobalt ranger districts (Map 3). ebird (eBird 2017), eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, an online database of unverified observations submitted by the public, Ithaca, New York. Available: contains a recent record from the southern Lost River Range and the http://www.ebird.org. Accessed: Middle Fork and Challis Yankee Fork Ranger Districts and as well as areas 2/23/2018. surrounding the Forest. This hummingbird species may be an uncommon breeder on the Forest, with abundant migrants using the Forest July and August (B. Waterbury, pers. commun.).
Given these observations and the vast availability of suitable forest stands and openings on the SCNF, the species may be distributed across the Forest on suitable habitat (B2) during the summer. Confidence is moderated by lack of information on the density of this species on the Forest.
Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 2 C The rufous hummingbird breeds as far north as southeastern Alaska and Healy, S., and W.A. Calder. 2006. Distribution in has the northernmost breeding range of any hummingbird in the world. Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus surrounding Of the western hummingbirds that occasionally show up in the east, the rufus), The Birds of North America geographic area rufous hummingbird is the most frequent (Healy and Calder 2006). (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Breeding range extends from southern Alaska, southern Yukon, British Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Birds of Columbia, and southwestern Alberta southward through Washington, North America. Internet website: Oregon, and western Montana to northwestern California and Idaho https://birdsna.org/Species- (NatureServe 2017). The SCNF is roughly at the southern extent of the Account/bna/species/rufhum. breeding range in Idaho. Accessed on September 29, 2017.
During their long migrations, rufous hummingbirds make a clockwise NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe circuit of western North America each year. They move up the Pacific Explorer: An online encyclopedia of
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Coast in late winter and spring, reaching Washington and British life [web application]. Version 7.1. Columbia by May. As early as July they may start south again, traveling NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. down the chain of the Rocky Mountains to southern Mexico and Central Internet website: America (Healy and Calder 2006). http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Accessed on September 29, 2017. Based on occurrence records in the state of Idaho and known historical migration routes, the species appears to be found in the geographic area surrounding the SCNF during migration and the breeding season.
Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 3 C The rufous hummingbird makes one of the longest migratory journeys of Calder, W.A. 1993. Rufous Dispersal any bird in the world, as measured by body size. At just over 3 inches Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus). Capability long, its roughly 3,900-mile movement from Alaska to Mexico is In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The equivalent to 78,470,000 body lengths (Healy and Calder 2006). Birds of North America, No. 53. Academy of Natural Sciences, There appears to be an inverse hyperbolic relationship between territory Philadelphia, and American size and flower density. This indicates that territory size is regulated to Ornithologists' Union, Washington, maintain food supply (Gass 1978). Individuals make daily adjustments to DC. 20 pp. breeding territory size and while territory size is highly variable, it appears to range from 340 to 34,000 square feet, with an average of 650 Gass, C.L. 1978. Territory inflorescences per territory (Gass 1978). Calder (1993) notes that banded regulation, tenure, and migration in birds have been recaptured at feeders 2 kilometers apart in summer. rufous hummingbirds. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 57:914-923. Quality of stopover sites during migration, in terms of nectar food sources, have been found to affect migrator body mass and duration of Healy, S., and W.A. Calder. 2006. stay at the sites. Thus quality habitat provides an essential link between Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus wintering and breeding sites (Russell et al. 1994). rufus), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Due to the vast distances covered by rufous hummingbirds in a single Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Birds of year, they are likely highly capable of dispersal across a variety of North America. Internet website: habitats and are not limited by habitat corridors per se, but quality https://birdsna.org/Species-
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations habitat at stopover sites is important for linking wintering and breeding Account/bna/species/rufhum. sites. Accessed on September 29, 2017 Russell, R.W., F.L. Carpenter, M.A. Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Hixon, and D.C. Paton. 1994. The impact of variation in stopover habitat quality on migrant rufous hummingbirds. Conservation Biology 8(2):483-490.
4 C Range-wide this is a very abundant bird with estimates of 6.5 to 11 NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Abundance on the million (NatureServe 2017). Explorer: An online encyclopedia of Salmon–Challis life [web application]. Version 7.1. National Forest Available occurrence data is minimal for the rufous hummingbird on the NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. SCNF. IDFG survey data in Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System Internet website: (Table 1), suggests this bird may be abundant on the North Fork Ranger http://explorer.natureserve.org/. District. This may also be the case Forest-wide given the abundance of Accessed on September 29, 2017. habitat (USFS 2017) and records for this species across the Forest (Criterion 1). In addition, Breeding Bird Survey results indicate that rufous Sauer, J.R., D.K. Niven, J.E. Hines, hummingbird abundance in Idaho is similar to range-wide abundance D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., K.L. Pardieck, (Sauer et al 2017). Yet, integrated Monitoring of Bird Conservation J.E. Fallon, and W.A. Link. 2017. The Regions surveys on the Forest between 2014 and 2017 detected only two North American Breeding Bird individuals (BCR 2017) and this moderates our confidence in concluding Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - this species is common on the Forest. 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Laurel, MD.
USFS United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service). 2017. Salmon–Challis National Forest Data Assessment, Terrestrial Ecosystems Section (Draft).
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations
5 D Existing surveys (BBS and IMBCR) are not adequate to estimate a trend BCR (Bird Conservancy of the Population Trend for this species on the Salmon-Challis. Breeding Bird Survey data for Rockies). 2017. Integrated on the Salmon– 1968-2013 indicate a significant survey-wide decline averaging 2.1% per monitoring in bird conservation Challis National year; 61% decline over a 45-year period (Sauer et al. 2017). Within Idaho, regions: 2016 field season report. Forest the BBS indicates that populations may be declining, though trends are June 2017. Bird Conservancy of the insignificant. However, the Breeding Bird Survey is not particularly well Rockies, Brighton, CO. Tech. Report suited to monitoring this species. The number of individuals per route # SC-IMBCR-07. tends to be quite low (2 or fewer individuals per 50 3-minute stops). Breeding Bird Survey abundance for 1968-2013 declined by about 1 Healy, S., and W.A. Calder. 2006. individual per 150 min route (from 2). Other data (eBird) indicate that the Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus range-wide trend over the past 10 years has probably been relatively rufus), The Birds of North America stable or at least has not changed at a fast rate (Sullivan et al. 2009). (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Birds of It is likely that trends on the SCNF are similar to the surrounding North America. Internet website: geographic area (Stable), although due to the lack of systematic surveys https://birdsna.org/Species- for this species on the Forest, actual population trends are unknown. Account/bna/species/rufhum. Therefore, confidence for this criterion is medium. Accessed on September 29, 2017.
Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 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.
Sullivan, B.L., C.L. Wood, M.J. Iliff, R.E. Bonney, D. Fink, and S. Kelling.
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 2009. eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation 142: 2282-2292. 6 C Primary habitat for this species is chiefly secondary succession American Ornithologists Union. Habitat Trend on communities and forest openings (Calder 1993, Healy and Calder 2006). 1998. Check-list of North American the Salmon–Challis Breeding habitat includes old-growth coniferous forest stands, secondary Birds. 7th edition. American National Forest growth, thickets, and brushy hillsides, with foraging extending into Ornithologists Union, Washington, adjacent scrubby areas and meadows with abundant nectar flowers DC. 829 pages. (American Ornithologists Union 1998). Rufous hummingbirds are also associated with old-growth coniferous forest stands, where suitable food Calder, W.A. 1993. Rufous resources develop in tree-fall gaps and other natural openings and edges Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus). (NatureServe 2017). During migration they pass through mountain In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The meadows as high as 12,600 feet where nectar-rich, tubular flowers are Birds of North America, No. 53. blooming. Many subpopulations of rufous hummingbirds have shown to Academy of Natural Sciences, tolerate or even benefit from common types of habitat alteration. The Philadelphia, and American species has been observed breeding in open areas, suburban lawns, and Ornithologists' Union, Washington, parks (Healy and Calder 2006). DC. 20 pp.
Fire suppression on the Salmon-Challis has likely caused encroachment of Healy, S., and W.A. Calder. 2006. Forest into openings in some area and conditions are considered to be Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus low-moderately departed from the natural range of variability (USFS rufus), The Birds of North America 2017). Suppression, along with warmer and dryer conditions may also be (P.G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: the cause for the occurrence of unpredicted large beetle outbreaks and Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Birds of fires across the Forest over the last 20 years (USFS 2017). Considering North America. Internet website: the specie’s habitat use, these disturbances may have been of benefit. https://birdsna.org/Species- Invasive encroachment, which can affect nectar resources, is evident but Account/bna/species/rufhum. not severe (USFS 2017). In alpine and high montane scrub habitat, Accessed on September 29, 2017. conditions are considered good, as large portions of this habitat type are remote and within wilderness where development is limited. Hejl, S.J., and L.C. Paige. 1993. A preliminary assessment of birds in
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Thus, habitat for the rufous hummingbird likely remains abundant on the continuous and fragmented forests Salmon-Challis, may be stable (Rank C), although distribution may have of western redcedar/western changed due to changes in disturbance patterns. hemlock in northern Idaho. Pages 189-197 in D.M. Baumgartner, J.E. Lotan, J.R. Tonn, editors. Interior Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low cedar-hemlock-white-pine forests: ecology and management. Symposium proceedings. Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2017. Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise, ID.
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 29, 2017.
USFS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2017b. Salmon–Challis National Forest Data Assessment, Terrestrial Ecosystems Section (Draft).
USFS (United States Department of
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Agriculture, Forest Service). 1987. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plant – Challis Forest
7 C No major and imminent threats on the Forest have been identified for Hutto, R.L., and J.S. Young. 1999. Vulnerability of this species. In some instances, habitat alterations by humans may Habitat relationships of landbirds in Habitats on the improve conditions. For example, timber harvest may result in increased the Northern Region, USDA Forest Salmon–Challis abundance of nectar-producing shrubs and forbs that attract rufous Service. USDA Forest Service, Rocky National Forest hummingbirds. Although, subsequent development of dense stands of Mountain Research Station, young conifers may eventually shade and eliminate hummingbird food General Technical Report RMRS- resources, therefore, benefit to hummingbirds may be temporary (Hutto GTR-32. and Young 1999). In addition, harvest units and other human-altered environments with vegetation structures that do not occur in natural Padgett, W.G., M.C. Reeves, S.G. seral habitats may serve as "ecological traps" that attract birds with Kitchen, D.L. Tart, J.C. Chambers, C. elevated food resources but then fail to provide other necessary Howell, M.E. Manning, and J.G. resources (Hutto and Young 1999). Proctor. 2018. Chapter 7: Effects of climate change on non-forested Effects of livestock grazing are mostly unstudied for this species. Though, vegetation types. In Halofsky, J.E., negative responses to grazing in aspen riparian habitat in California and D.L. Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.L. Little, Nevada have been reported (Page et al. 1978). Unrestricted grazing may L.A. Joyce, editors. 2018. Climate produce a cascade of ecological changes, such as the invasion of change vulnerability and nonnative grasses, resulting in heightened intensity of fire cycles. Grazing adaptation in the Intermountain that widely reduces the abundance of nectar-producing shrubs and forbs Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- is disadvantageous to hummingbird populations on the Forest. xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Food sources include a wide variety of flowers, sapsucker sap-wells, and Service, Rocky Mountain Research insects. Future changes in temperature and precipitation may lead to Station. Xxx p. variable flowering phenology and a mismatch between plant flowering and pollinator emergence/migration. This could impact both plants and Page, J.L., N. Dodd, T.O. Osborne, pollinators (Padgett et al. 2018). While a real concern, the extent that and J.A. Carson. 1978. The pollinators will be able to adapt to these changes is uncertain. The rufous influence of livestock grazing on
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations hummingbird may be less affected because it exploits a wide variety of non-game wildlife. Cal. Nev. Wildl. nectar and food sources. 1978:159-173.
Thus, although modern stressors may be present, strong threats to this species due to alteration of habitat are not evident. Thus, this criterion is ranked B. Confidence is moderated by uncertainty about the species adaptive capacity under a changing climate.
Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 8 B The oldest recorded rufous hummingbird was a female, and at least 8 Baltosser, W.H. 1989. Nectar Life History and years 11 months old when she was recaught and rereleased during availability and habitat selection by Demographics banding operations in British Columbia (Healy and Calder 2006). hummingbirds in Guadalupe Canyon. Wilson Bulletin 101:559- Nests are placed in trees, shrubs, or vines, at heights of 3 to 45 feet 578. above the ground. Clutch size is two. The incubation period is generally 15 to 17 days and young fledge about 20 days after hatching (Terres Bent, A.C. 1940. Life histories of 1980). Bent (1940) reported of instance of as many as 20 nests only a few North American cuckoos, yards apart in second-growth. Individuals may re-use a nest in goatsuckers, hummingbirds, and subsequent years (Bent 1940, Calder 1993). their allies. Part I. US National Museum Bulletin 176. 244 pp. This hummingbird actively defends feeding and nesting territory both inter- and intraspecifically (Cody 1968; Baltosser 1989; Calder 1993). Calder, W.A., and E.J. Jones. 1989. Banding returns show the species has strong fidelity to breeding sites Implications of recapture data for (Calder and Jones 1989; Calder 1993) and a strong spatial memory for migration of the rufous nectar sites (Hurly 1996). hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) in the Rocky Mountains. Auk 106:488- There is reportedly high egg and nestling predation (25 percent to 58 489. percent) in four species of hummingbirds (Baltosser 1983). However, nest predation is apparently unstudied in rufous hummingbirds. Calder, W.A. 1993. Rufous Predation on adult hummingbirds is not likely to play a large role in adult Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus). mortality (Miller and Gass 1985; Calder 1993). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Birds of North America, No. 53. One experiment suggests that artificial feeders may increase populations Academy of Natural Sciences, above natural levels by providing food beyond flowering seasons or Philadelphia, and American encouraging birds to delay migration past availability of natural foods Ornithologists' Union, Washington, (Calder 1993). Feeders may also subject birds to predation, disease, or DC. 20 pp. collision with windows. However, none of these factors are fully studied or quantified (Calder 1993). Cody, M.L. 1968. Interspecific territoriality among hummingbird The rufous hummingbird has a relatively low reproductive rate, but is species. Condor 70:270-271. apparently relatively long lived thus is ranked B for this criterion. Healy, S. and Calder, W.A. 2006. Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low rufus), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Birds of North America. Internet website: https://birdsna.org/Species- Account/bna/species/rufhum. Accessed on September 29, 2017.
Hurly, T.A. 1996. Spatial memory in rufous hummingbirds: memory for rewarded and non-rewarded sites. Animal Behavior 51:177-183.
Miller, R.S., and C.L. Gass. 1985. Survivorship in hummingbirds: is predation important? Auk 102:175- 178.
Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North
Species (Scientific and Common Name): Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Summary and recommendations: The rufous hummingbird is widespread and abundant across its range. Within the Date: 10/3/2017 state of Idaho, the species is not rare and apparently secure. Although occurrence records are few, based on habitat and distribution maps, it is likely the rufous hummingbird occupies the SCNF and then migrates south for winter. Breeding habitat includes a broad range of seral coniferous forest stands, thickets, and brushy hillsides, with foraging extending into adjacent scrubby areas and meadows with abundant nectar flowers. There is currently a vast availability of this Habitat on the SCNF. Although fire suppression may have degraded habitat in some areas of the Forest, expansive fires and areas of beetle kill may have improved habitat in others. This species’ life history traits suggest an intermediate ability to recover from disturbance events and threats to this species on the Forest are only moderate and are not considered widespread at this time. For these reasons, there is not substantial concern for the capability of the rufous hummingbird to persist over the long-term on the Salmon-Challis and the species is not recommended as a species of conservation concern.
Evaluator(s): A. Spellmeyer and Mary Friberg