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.