Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Managing Forests with Endangered Wildlife

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Managing Forests with Endangered Wildlife

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW)

This article describes the management and conservation history of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), a bird that was first listed as endangered in 1970 by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (35 Fed. Reg. 16047, 13 Oct. 1970). The RCW was listed because populations and habitat had declined precipitously (~90%) from historic levels (Lay and Dennis 1970, Ortego and Lay 1988, Lennartz et al. 1983). A million or more RCW groups may have existed in pre-settlement times (Costa 2001, Conner et al. 2001), but only about 4000 groups were estimated in the late 20th century (Jackson 1978). The RCW decline paralleled the decline of longleaf and other old growth southern pine forests during the late 19th century and much of the 20th century (Boyce 1979 and Ware et al. 1993).

The red-cockaded woodpecker presents a case study of land management and forest industry response to an evolving conservation challenge. The 1960s and 70s was a period when commercial timberland was converted to even-aged management. This was also a time when federal legislation mandated affirmative action protection for species considered endangered (ESA 1973) and managers of public lands were required to include natural biodiversity in new management plans (NFMA 1976). The conflicting trajectories of these interests challenged conservationists and forest managers to accommodate the wood product needs of the forest industry and the nation to broader societal desires for healthy functional forest ecosystems capable of producing a range of aesthetic and recreational values, which also have considerable economic benefit. This is one story of how the decision-making process and forest management was dramatically changed during the mid-late 20th century in North America.

National Forest Plans

Conflicts about forest management policy arose on national forests in the Southeast, as nongovernment organizations (NGOs) challenged USDA Forest Service conduct of timber sales directed at harvest of large stands of mature second growth or old growth longleaf pines. Armed with the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA 1970), the ESA and eventually the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, environmental activists sought to stop or modify activities they asserted would harm extant populations of the RCW. At the time, the Forest Service was already responding to NFMA requirements mandating five year plans for each forest that included conservation of native vertebrates, natural biodiversity, while meeting the affirmative action conservation requirements of the ESA, all with the public participation mandated by the NEPA-EIS process.

To the conservation community, FS accommodation of the conservation needs of RCW and other wildlife was perceived as slow and unenthusiastic. The results led to extensive negative comments on the draft plans, and eventually numerous appeals to the Final Plans, followed by litigation in some forests. For example the Forest Service was enjoined from implementing clear-cutting because if likely impacts on the RCW; this decision was affirmed on 1999, but eventually the injunction was dissolved in 2003, with court acceptance of the assertion that USDA Forest Service had developed a forest plan that would conserve the woodpecker.

Much of the disagreement was due to an incomplete understanding of the longleaf pine forest ecosystem and its resident biota, including those impacted by the NFMA Section 6 requirements and the ESA (e.g. what is a viable population of vertebrates? See Reed et al. 1988). Subsequently considerable research activity among Southeastern U.S. universities, the USDA Forest Service and other public and private conservation agencies generated much new knowledge from which recent efforts at conservation have benefited (eg, Costa and Daniels 2004, Darden 2004, Conner et al. 2004, and James et al. 1992). It is arguable that managers now have enough knowledge to perpetuate the RCW for the foreseeable future. Some authors suggest a lack of collective will in a society distracted by other economic and social priorities precludes the implementation of needed conservation strategies (Conner et al. 2004, James et al. 2004), and unanticipated events may further complicate such work (Dusek et al. 2006). RCW Biology and Life History

Long-term and intensive field investigations of marked birds during1970-2000 provided comprehensive life history descriptions and demographic data (e.g. Walters et al. 1988, 1992, James et al. 1997, Conner et al. 2001) allowing population model development. Numerous habitat variables were identified that correlated with fitness (Walters et al. 2002), which permitted development of management programs that accommodated life history.

In summary, RCWs are non-migratory, long-lived birds (>20 years), dependent on stable, or only slowly changing habitat sustained by growing-season fires (May to August every 3 to 5 years). The birds apparently evolved their life history strategy with these conditions. RCWs live in social groups of 1to11 individuals which occupy and defend a year ’round territory.

Groups are usually comprised of a single breeding male and female plus other individuals, mostly males produced by the pair in previous years. These additional males (called “helpers”) contribute to the fitness of the groups by feeding current year’s young and assisting in territory defense (Walters et al. 1988). During their first year, female RCWs usually disperse from the natal site as they are not tolerated by the breeding female. Dispersal is a risky process and the birds suffer high mortality while seeking safe new habitat to occupy. These dispersing females will seek a territory where the breeding female has either died or deserted her mate. Unsuccessful females may “divorce” and seek a more suitable home range or a more competent mate (Walters et al. 1988). Males with a territory rarely leave. RCW habitat must provide adequate foraging habitat (large second growth or mature living pines) and living pines with cavities for roosting and nesting).

Juvenile males are often tolerated by the breeding pair and hence have the option of dispersing or remaining with their parents. Young males generally stay aware of the habitat and social circumstances of neighboring groups by making frequent forays into adjacent territories, and will move into a group if a space is opened by the death of a breeding male; if there are two or more helper males in a group, the oldest male has priority. Each bird in a group maintains a roosting cavity. Without nearby group openings in otherwise saturated habitat, young males stay home and “help”, avoiding the risk of dispersal; some males may defer dispersal and hence breeding opportunities for years. Because young males remain at home, survival is higher (essentially that of adults) and most RCW populations are heavily skewed towards males, although primary sex ratios are near 1:1 (Walters et al. 1992). Timber Management Considerations

Timber resource management strategies most compatible with RCW population management include uneven age silviculture, e.g., single tree selection, small group or cluster management or a patchwork of relatively small (<10 acres) clearcuts (McConnell 1999, James et al. 2004, Conner et al. 2004, Loeb et al. 1992). Long rotations are necessary, as longleaf pines suitable for foraging are >8-10 inches diameter (30 to 60 years old) and cavity trees must be >12” diameter and older/larger trees are best (Walters et al. 2002), and range in age from 80-300 years. Cavities may be used for decades, once constructed; cavities are a crucial resource for the birds, averaging 13 years for construction in longleaf and 4 years in loblolly (Harding 1997, Conner et al. 2001).

Long rotation timber management strategies may conflict with commercial management goals employing fast growing genetically improved, such as southern yellow pines that are fertilized and grown for whole tree chipping, rather than traditional lumber production. Thus management of the longleaf forest ecosystem for RCWs and the suite of similarly adapted flora and fauna found there often involves alternative outputs, such as high quality heart pine lumber, and/or pine straw production as well as wildlife recreation such as bird watching and hunting (Longleaf Alliance 2008). While these latter activities are of increasing value to Americans for which they are increasingly willing to pay, many private land-owners will find such alternatives unattractive (Brook et al. 2003).

Consequently, most RCW and longleaf ecosystem conservation seems destined to take place on public lands where multiple-use goals are mandated by national priorities and where ecosystems management is a primary goal (Hedrick et al. 1998, USFWS 2003, James et al. 2004,). A strategy that would employ managing 40, 60 or 80 year rotations of longleaf foraging habitat within a matrix of older cavity trees and potential cavity trees is untested, but may have potential (Wood et al. 1985, and van Lear et al. 2005). In parts of the RCW range (eg. Texas, Alabama, coastal North Carolina) other southern pines predominate, and rotations may vary (Rudolph & Conner 1996, Hedrick et al. 1998 and Carter and Brust 2004). Habitat and Population Management

The most comprehensively studied RCW populations are those of North and South Carolina, Florida and Texas, where foraging habitat associated with stable or growing populations (Darden 2004) has been clarified. The best RCW landscapes are characterized by 200 acre home ranges (Hooper et al 1982), growing season burned every 3-5 years, supporting average basal area (BA) of 40 ft2/ac of stems 10”-14” or more in diameter, and where all cavity trees and potential cavity trees (>60 years, unless BA exceeds 50 ft2/ac (USFWS 2003) are protected.

Recovery plan goals (USFWS 2003) include maintenance of 10 adequately managed populations in the Southeast, each containing at least 350 potential breeding groups of RCWs. Accordingly, forest management must be done at a very large scale to accommodate viable populations of RCW. Viable populations (genetically and demographically) require upwards of 100,000 acres occupied by 500 potential breeding groups (Reed et al. 1988). Artificial cavities, both drilled (Copeyon 1990), and cavity inserts (Allen 1991) are being used effectively by managers to assist RCWs where cavities may be limiting.

Given the lengthy period required for cavity construction by the birds, its been clearly demonstrated that cavities provided by managers for the birds are an effective tactic to enhance, or actually create RCW habitat (Walters et al. 1995) where mature timber provides the potential. Prescribed burning in the growing season (May-August) is used to encourage the appropriate mix of responses by the plant community and promote invertebrate prey populations most suitable for the birds (Hess and James 1998, James et al. 1997, Platt et al. 1988a, 1988b). Additionally, translocation of birds from healthy, growing RCW populations is being used to supplement populations struggling either demographically or genetically (Walters et al. 2004).

Fort Bragg Military Reservation in central North Carolina illustrates successful implementation of the combined tactics and the overall strategy for recovery. Fort Bragg comprises about 150,000 acres of predominately longleaf forest managed with growing season fires for nearly 15 years, and minimal timber harvest but with substantial pine needle harvesting. Artificial cavities were added to sites where appropriate, and an aggressive growing season burning program have been associated with a growing population.

Intensive monitoring of the Fort Bragg RCWs revealed persistent growth in the number of groups, group size and area occupied, such that Fort Bragg has been a donor population from which birds are “harvested” for translocation to populations needing demographic or genetic supplement. The Fort Bragg RCW population was recently announced as having met recovery goal (TNC 2006), a feat accomplished in partnership with public and private ownerships. As this population is one of 10 primary populations to be recovered, many managers harbor guarded optimism about the potential for total species recovery.

Safe Harbor

On private lands there has always been incentive to discourage the occurrence or well being of threatened and endangered (T & E) species such as RCW due to the liability associated with possible restrictions on land use. There are documented instances when RCW cavity and foraging trees were clear-cut to avoid such land use restrictions. The Safe Harbor (SF) program was initiated to correct this tragic outcome, as occurred in one case in Boiling Springs, NC. Believing that landowners with endangered species should not suffer unreasonable restrictions, and that endangered species deserve protection of the law, the USFS developed the Safe Harbor program (EDF 1996, Bonnie 1997).

Safe harbor provided that landowners under contract (10 years) could receive assistance in managing land for endangered species, but would be liable for only the baseline endangered species numbers at the start of the contract, and not liable for any additional endangered species occupying their land. Safe Harbor has proven to be a beneficial program that has encouraged landowners to retain and manage forested land even where new RCWs might be attracted to the habitat, or population expansion might occur.

In other developments, since 1993, several timber companies have established landmarks conservation agreements with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to help sustain the Red-cockaded Woodpecker on thousands of acres of company land. Georgia-Pacific Company, Hancock Timber Resource Group and Champion International Corporation led this effort. Stainback and Alavalapati (2004) have also demonstrated that silvopasture is an economically viable alternative land use with much promise and which could benefit RCWs substantially.

Prognosis in 2008

Research has increased knowledge of RCW ecology, the evolution of their cooperative breeding strategy and their co-evolution with the pyrogenic plant community. Research has also provided habitat and population management tactics to facilitate recovery of the RCW, if not all components of the longleaf community. The Recovery Plan adopted in 2003 (USFWS 2003) established population goals for the RCW in the Southeast and recovery techniques are being applied on numerous public land holdings and some private lands as well via Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) with forest management companies and “Safe Harbor” agreements. Robust and growing populations in Florida (Walters et al 2004), North Carolina (Walters et al 2004), South Carolina (Hooper et al. 1996) and other states are evidence recovery is possible. At the same time habitat fragmentation and isolation of RCW populations present serious challenges to successful recovery (Rudolph and Connor 1994, Azevedo et al. 2000, Bowman et al. 2004) as small, isolated populations are especially at risk.

Continued efforts will be made to meet the specific and inflexible requirements of the Endangered Species Act to protect the RCW and other endangered species. The use of the Safe Harbor approach, development of habitat conservation plans, and wise public lands management on national forest and military ownerships has increased RCW viability in the South. These approaches also can provide models that can be used to improve habitat and help other threatened and endangered species recover, while allowing reasonable land use and management practices.

References

Allen, D. 1991. An insert technique for constructing artificial the red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. US Forest Service Technical Report SE-73.

Azevedo, J., S. Jack, R. Coulson and D. Wunneburger. 2000. Functional heterogeneity of forest landscapes and the distribution and abundance of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Forest Ecology and Management. 127(1-3):271-283.

Bowman, R.,D. Leonard, D. Swan, and D. Schwalm. 2004. Demography and population trends of a smallred-cockaded woodpecker population in south-central Florida. Pp 187-197. In Red-Cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery. R. Costa and S. Daniels. (eds). Hancock House Publishers, Blain, Washington. USA.

Boyce, S. 1979. Prospective ingrowth of southern pine beyond 1980. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Res. Pap. SE-200.

Brook, A., M. Zint, And R. De Young. 2003. Landowners Responses to an Endangered Species Act Listing and Implications for Encouraging Conservation. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1638-1649

Bonnie, R. 1997. Safe harbor for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Journal of Forestry 95(4), 17-22.

Carter, J. III., and K. Brust. 2004. The red-cockaded woodpecker in the northeastern coastal plain of North Carolina. Pages 268-277. In Red-Cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery. R. Costa and S. Daniels. (eds). Hancock House Publishers, Blain, Washington. USA.

Carter, J. H. III, JR Walters, S.H. Everhart and P.D. Doerr. 1989. Restrictors for red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 17(1), 68-72.

Copeyon, C. 1990. A technique for constructing cavities for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 18:303-311.

Conner, R. & C. Rudolph. 1989. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Colony Status and Trends on the Angelina, Davy Crockett, and Sabine National Forests. Research Paper SO-250. New Orleans, LA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

Conner, R., A. Snow & K. O'Halloran. 1991. Red-cockaded woodpecker use of seed-tree/shelterwood cuts in eastern Texas, [USA]. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(1): 67-73.

Conner, R., C. Rudolph, & L. Bonner, 1995. Red-cockaded woodpecker population trends and management on Texas national forests. Journal of Field Ornithology 66(1): 140-151.

Conner, R, C. Rudolph, and J. Walters. 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker: surviving in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas press, Austin, Texas, USA.

Copeyon, C., J.R. Walters, & JH Carter, III. 1991. Introduction of red-cockaded woodpecker group formation by artificial cavity construction. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(4): 549-556.

Costa, R. 2001. Red-cockaded woodpecker. Pp. 309-321. In J. Dickson. Wildlife of Southern Forests: habitat and management, Hancock Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.

Costa, R. and S. Daniels. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blain, Washington. USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003.

Darden, T. 2004. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker management on National Forests: where have been and where are we going. Pp 25-30. In Costa, R. and S. Daniels. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blain, Washington. USA.

Dusek, R., D. Richardson, K. Egstad, and D. Heisey. 2006. Evaluating Red-cockaded Woodpeckers for Exposure to West Nile Virus and Blood Parasites. Southeastern Naturalist. 5(3): pp. 561–565

ESA. 1996. Environmental Defense Fund. May 28. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker "Safe Harbor" for Landowners Proves Big Success. Environmental Defense Fund News Releases. Retrieved February 13, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.edf.org/pubs/newsreleases/1996/may/e_ncpk.htmlgered/pg17.html

Harding, S. 1997. Dynamics of cavity construction and use by the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

Hedrick, L., R. Hooper, D. Krusac, J. Dabney 1998. Silvicultural Systems and Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Management: Another Perspective Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26 (1): 138-147.

Hess, C.; and F. James. 1998.Diet of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the Apalachicola National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62(2): 509-517.

Hooper, R. G., L. Niles, R. Harlow,. & Wood, G. 1982. Home ranges of red-cockaded woodpeckers in coastal South Carolina. The Auk 99(4), 675-682.

Jackson, J. 1978. Analysis of the distribution and population status of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Pp 101-110 in Proceedings of the rare and endangered wildlife symposium, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish technical Bulletin 44.

James, F. 1991.Signs of trouble in the largest remaining population of red-cockaded woodpeckers. The Auk 108(2): 419-423.

James, F., C. Hess. and D. Kufrin. 1997. Species-centered environmental analysis: Indirect effects of fire history on red-cockaded woodpeckers. Ecological Applications 7(1): 118-129.

James, F., P. Richards, C. Hess, K. McCluney, E. Walters and M. Schrader. 2004. Sustainable Forestry for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker’s ecosystem. Pp. 61-69. In Costa, R. and S. Daniels.. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blain, Washington. USA.

Lay, D., and R. Dennis. 1970. Notes On The Red-Cockaded Woodpecker In Texas. Auk. 87(4): 781-786.

Lennartz, M., H. Knight, J. McClure, and V. Rudis. 1983. Status of Red-Cockaded Woodpecker nesting habitat in the South. Pp 13-19, In D. Wood. (ed.). Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Symposium II. Proceedings Florida Game and Freshwater Game Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service.

Loeb, S., W. Pepper & A. Doyle. 1992. Habitat characteristics of active and abandoned red-cockaded woodpecker colonies. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 16(3), 120-125.

Longleaf Alliance. 2008. Retrieved October 10, 2007 www.auburn.edu/academic/forestry_wildlife/longleafalliance/ecosystem/ecosystem.htm

McConnell, W. 1999. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Cavity Excavation in Seed-tree-Shelterwood Stands in the Wakulla (Apalachicola National Forest, Florida) Sub-Population. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27(2): 509-513.

NEPA 1970. The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4327).

Ortego, B. and D. Lay. (1988) Status of red-cockaded woodpecker colonies on private land in east Texas. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 16(4), 403-405.

Platt, W., G. Evans, and S. Rathbun. 1988a. The population dynamics of a long-lived conifer (Pinus palustris). American Naturalist 131:491-525.

Platt, W., G. Evans, and M. Davis. 1988b. Effects of fire season on flowering forbs and shrubs in longleaf pine forests. Oecologia 76:353-363.

Reed, J., P. Doerr, & J. Walters,. 1988. Minimum viable population size of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Journal of Wildlife Management 52(3): 385-391.

Rudolph, D. & R. Conner. 1994. Forest fragmentation and red-cockaded woodpecker population: An analysis at intermediate scale. Journal of Field Ornithology 65(3), 365-375.

Rudolph, C., & R. Conner. 1996. Red-cockaded woodpeckers and silvicultural practice: is uneven-aged silviculture preferable to even aged? Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:330-333.

Rudolph, C. & R. Conner. 1991. Cavity tree selection by red-cockaded woodpecker in relation to tree age. Wilson Bulletin 103(3): 458-467.

Rudolph, C. & R. Conner. 1996. Red-cockaded woodpeckers and silvicultural practice: Is uneven-aged silviculture preferable to even-aged? The Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(2), 330-333.

Rudolph, C., R. Conner, D. Carrie,. & R. Schaefer. 1992. Experimental reintroduction of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Auk 109(4): 914-916.

Society of American Foresters. 1992. Red-cockaded woodpecker protection and habitat management in private lands: A regional Society of American Foresters position statement. Journal of Forestry 90(8), 38-39.

Stainback, G. and J. Alavalapati. 2004. Restoring longleaf pine through silvopasture practices: an economic analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 6, 3-4, 2004, Pages 371-378.

The Nature Conservancy. 2006. Key Partnership Leads to Conservation Victory. http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/northcarolina/features/art18290.html, retrieved 17 August 2007.

USFWS. 2003. Recovery Plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.

Walters, J., P. Doerr,. & J. Carter III. 1988. The cooperative breeding system of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Ethology 78(4), 275-305.

Walters, J., P. Doerr,. & J. Carter III 1992. Delayed dispersal and reproduction as a life-history tactic in cooperative breeders: Fitness calculations from red-cockaded woodpeckers. American Naturalist 139(3):623-643.

Walters, J., S. Daniels, P. Doerr,. & J. Carter III. 2002. Defining quality of red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat based on habitat use and fitness. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66:1062-1082.

Walters, J., P. Doerr,. & J. Carter III. 1992. Delayed dispersal as a life history tactic in cooperative breeders: fitness calculations from red-cockaded woodpeckers. American Naturalist 139:623-643.

Walters, J., J. Carter III, P. Doerr,. and C. Copeyon. 1995. Response to drilled artificial cavities by red-cockaded woodpeckers in the North Carolina Sandhills. Pp 380-384.In D. Kulhavy, R. Hooper and R Costa, eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker recovery, ecology and management. Center fpr Applied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacagdoches, Texas, USA

Walters, J., K. Gault, B. Hagedorn, C. Petrick, L. Phillips, J. Tomcho, and A. Butler. 2004. Effectiveness of recruitment clusters and intrapopulation translocation in promoting growth of the red-cockaded woodpecker population on Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Pp 325-334. In R. Costa, and S. Daniels. (eds). Red-cockaded woodpecker: Road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine Washington. 744 pp.

Ware, S., C. Frost, and P. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: the former longleaf pine forest. Pages 447-493 in W. Martin, S. Boyce and A. Echternacht. Editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, USA.

Wood, G., L. Niles, R. Hendricks, J. Davis, T. Grimes. 1985. Compatibility Of Even-Aged Timber Management And Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(1): 5-17.

Van Lear, D., W. Carroll, P. Kapeluck and R. Johnson. 2005. History and restoration of the longleaf pine-grassland ecosystem: Implications for species at risk. Forest Ecology and Management. 211 (1-2):150-165

__________

Phillip Doerr is Professor Emeritus, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

Posted 19 May 2008