xi

STATUS OF THE LEWIS’ WOODPECKER

(Melanerpes lewis)

IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

byJ.M. Cooper,

C. Siddle,and

G. Davidson

Wildlife Working Report No. WR-91

February 1998

xii

British Columbia, Canada’s most westerly province, has a bounty of biological

diversity. British Columbia’s snowclad peaks, rain-drenched forests, arid

grasslands, all sizes of rivers, lakes, and wetlands, and a long and rugged coast

provide habitats for more species of living organisms than are found anywhere

else in Canada. However, this very diversity means that there is much to be

discovered about these organisms — their distribution, abundance, habitat

requirements, and interrelationships with their environment. Increasing our

knowledge of this biodiversity will help us with the complex task of sustainably

managing our land and waters.

In 1992, the Provincial Government initiated a co-operative biodiversity

research program with funding from the Corporate Resource Inventory Initiative,

the British Columbia Ministries of Forests (Research Branch), Environment,

Lands, and Parks (Wildlife and Habitat Protection Branches), and Tourism and

Culture (Royal B.C. Museum); and the Forest Resource Development Agreement

(FRDA II).

In 1995, the Ministry of Forests Research Branch and the Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks developed a biodiversity research and extension

strategy, with the assistance of the provincial research community. This strategy

was presented to Forest Renewal BC (FRBC), who provided funding for a

program beginning in 1995. The goal of the extension component of this pro-

gram is to extend information to scientists, resource managers, and the public

through biodiversity publications. These publications are intended to increase

awareness and understanding of biodiversity, promote the concepts and impor-

tance of conserving biodiversity, and communicate provincial government

initiatives related to biodiversity. We hope that they will be used as tools for the

conservation of British Columbia’s rich, living legacy.

For more information contact:

B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, P.O. Box 9374, Stn.

Prov. Govt., Victoria, BC V8W 9M4

or

B.C. Ministry of Forests Research Branch, P.O. Box 9519 Stn. Prov. Govt., Victoria, BC

V8W 9C2

or

Royal B.C. Museum, P.O. Box 9815, Stn. Prov. Govt., Victoria, B.C. V8W 9W2

i

STATUS OF THE LEWIS’ WOODPECKER

(Melanerpes lewis)

IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

byJ.M. Cooper,

C. Siddle,and

G. Davidson

Ministry of Environment, Lands and ParksWildlife BranchVictoria, B.C.

Wildlife Working Report No. WR-91

February 1998

ii

“Wildlife Working Reports frequently contain preliminary data, soconclusions based on these may be subject to change. WorkingReports receive little review. They may be cited in publications,but their manuscript status should be noted. Copies may beobtained, depending upon supply, from the Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, P.O. Box 9374 Stn. Prov. Govt.,Victoria, BC V8W 9M4.”

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Cooper, John M. (John Morton), 1956-Status of the Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in British Columbia

(Wildlife working report ; no. WR-91)

Includes bibliographical references: p. 18ISBN 0-7726-3481-5

1. Lewis' woodpecker - British Columbia. I. Siddle, C. (Chris) II. Davidson, G. (Gary), 1949- . III. BC Environment. Wildlife Branch. IV.Title. V. Series.

QL696.P56C66 1998 598.7’2 C98-960048-3

iii

FOREWORD

In cases where a Wildlife Working Report or Bulletin is also a species' status report, it may contain astatus recommended by the author for the species. This recommended status is the opinion of the author and maynot necessarily reflect that of the Wildlife Branch. Official status designation will be made by the Wildlife Branchin consultation with experts, and the data contained in the status report will be considered during the evaluationprocess.

iv

v

ABSTRACT

The Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) is a large and colourful woodpecker and is one of the more distinc-tive vertebrates of the dry, southern interior of British Columbia. Its distribution is strongly linked to thedistribution of older-aged, open-canopied ponderosa pine stands and riparian stands of large black cottonwoodtrees, where it generally nests in large, dead or dying trees. Former breeding populations on the coast becameextirpated in the 1960s and B.C. interior breeding populations probably have declined, in concert with declinesthroughout its North American range. The primary threat to this woodpecker is the continuing loss of nestinghabitat, specifically through logging of stands of mature ponderosa pine and riparian black cottonwood, andclearing of riparian black cottonwood for urban, agriculture, or road development purposes.

The Lewis’ Woodpecker is listed on the B.C. Wildlife Branch Blue List as a sensitive or vulnerable species(B.C. Wildlife Branch 1996) because of small and declining populations, limited distribution, and threats tohabitat. This report recommends that the Blue List status be maintained.

Management recommendations include further research on ecology and habitat use in British Columbia, generalconservation of ponderosa pine and black cottonwood forests, and the education of private landowners andmunicipal governments with regard to the importance of wildlife trees and stands of riparian black cottonwoodto Lewis’ Woodpeckers. The most important research needs are (1) an assessment of the wildlife tree retentionand riparian management guidelines contained in the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act on breed-ing habitat conservation; (2) an inventory of poorly documented populations in the East Kootenay Trench,Pavilion Ranges, and Fraser River Basin ecosections; and (3) an assessment of population trends by establishingperiodic population surveys in the core range.

vi

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report could not have been written without information supplied by British Columbia naturalists who neverturned down our requests for information. These dedicated naturalists are listed by geographical location.Vernon: Mary Collins, Phil Ranson; Kelowna: Jack Bowling, Denise Brownlie, Eileen Dillabough, BrianHolmes, Robin Yellowlees; South Okanagan: Dick Cannings, Steve Cannings, Mary Doherty, Frank Metcalf,Laurie Rockwell, Geoff Scudder; Grand Forks: Daphne Hamilton, Ron Walker, Sue Walker; Kootenays: RuthBumpus, Bob Dooley, Larry Halverson, Francis King, Ed McMackin, Penny Ohanjanian, Hazel Street, MildredWhite; Revelstoke: Doug Powell, John Woods; Kamloops: Rick Howie; Williams Lake: Anna Roberts.

Wayne Campbell was very generous with his time and advice, and loaned us several hard-to-find documentsfrom his library. Dick Cannings helped us with the literature search and provided help during preparation ofa first draft of this report. Wayne Weber shared his knowledge of this species as an agricultural pest and ofits distribution in the Interior. Foresters Stan Jensen, Ted Kedge, Terry Watson, John Flanagan, J. B. Olsen,G. H. Nichols, and Don Purdy all responded to requests for information. Ella Sorensen and ChristopherJolles kindly sent copies of their recent papers. Andrew Harcombe, Bill Munro, Chris Dodd, and Myke Chutterprovided us with the opportunity of working on this project. Syd Cannings, Myke Chutter, Orville Dyer,Tom Ethier, Dave Low, and Bill Harper all made significant editorial suggestions on an earlier draft. We areindebted to Bob Jamieson for his thoughtful review of an earlier draft and for his perspective on Kootenaypopulations and habitat.

The junior authors are indebted to Mary Doherty, Frank Metcalf, Francis King, Ron and Sue Walker, and RobinYellowlees, who not only showed us where we could find Lewis’ Woodpeckers, but fed and housed us duringour field work. We thank them all for their help.

The production of this final report (extension project) was made possible through the funding supportof Forest Renewal British Columbia (FRBC) and the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, WildlifeBranch. Publication production coordination, final editing, final figure production and typesetting were providedby G.F. Harcombe, and English editing was done by E. Wagstaff.

viii

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 12 DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Global .................................................................................................................................................... 12.2 British Columbia ................................................................................................................................... 1

2.2.1 Current distribution .................................................................................................................. 12.2.2 Former distribution ................................................................................................................... 3

3 POPULATION SIZE AND TRENDS .......................................................................................................... 33.1 Population Size ..................................................................................................................................... 33.2 Population Trends ................................................................................................................................. 3

4 GENERAL BIOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 34.1 Reproductive Capability ....................................................................................................................... 34.2 Species Movement ................................................................................................................................ 54.3 Tolerance to Human Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 54.4 Food ....................................................................................................................................................... 54.5 Response to Sudden Environmental Change ...................................................................................... 64.6 Causes of Mortality .............................................................................................................................. 6

5 HABITAT ....................................................................................................................................................... 75.1 Description of Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 7

5.1.1 Breeding habitat ....................................................................................................................... 75.1.2 Roosting habitat ........................................................................................................................ 105.1.3 Post-breeding habitat ................................................................................................................ 10

5.2 Nest Site Specialization ........................................................................................................................ 105.3 Distribution of Habitats ........................................................................................................................ 115.4 Present Habitat Status (Quality and Legal) ......................................................................................... 125.5 Trend in Quantity and Quality of Critical Habitat ............................................................................. 125.6 Rate of Habitat Change ........................................................................................................................ 135.7 Can Critical Habitat be Protected by Means Other than Acquisition? ............................................. 13

6 LEGAL PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................. 147 LIMITING FACTORS ................................................................................................................................... 14

7.1 Availability of Nest Trees .................................................................................................................... 147.2 Logging ................................................................................................................................................. 147.3 Fire Suppression ................................................................................................................................... 157.4 Firewood Harvesting ............................................................................................................................. 157.5 Competition for Nest Cavities with European Starling ...................................................................... 157.6 Pesticides ............................................................................................................................................... 167.7 Grazing .................................................................................................................................................. 167.8 Winter Habitat .................................................................................................................................... 16

8 SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SPECIES ....................................................................................... 168.1 Status ..................................................................................................................................................... 168.2 Degree of Public Interest ...................................................................................................................... 168.3 Related Species ..................................................................................................................................... 16

9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ..................................................................... 169.1 Forest Management ............................................................................................................................... 169.2 Habitat Enhancement ............................................................................................................................ 179.3 Public Education ................................................................................................................................... 179.4 Habitat Acquisition ............................................................................................................................... 179.5 Wildlife Tree Sign Program ................................................................................................................. 17

x

10 RESEARCH NEEDS ..................................................................................................................................... 1811 EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................................... 1812 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................................. 1813 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 22

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Biogeoclimatic zones, ecoprovinces, ecosections, and broad habitat classes used by nestingLewis’ Woodpeckers in British Columbia .............................................................................................. 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Breeding range of the Lewis’ Woodpecker in British Columbia and North America ...................... 2Figure 2. Forest regions and timber supply areas within the range of Lewis’ Woodpecker in

British Columbia ................................................................................................................................... 4Figure 3. An adult Lewis’ Woodpecker on a “cache pole,” Powell Beach Municipal

Park, Summerland ................................................................................................................................. 6Figure 4. An agitated adult Lewis’ Woodpecker protests the presence of a Merlin. ........................................ 7Figure 5. Open ponderosa pine forest on rocky slopes used by nesting Lewis’ Woodpeckers,

Vaseux Lake .......................................................................................................................................... 8Figure 6. Groves of widely spaced, mature black cottonwoods provide nesting habitat

for Lewis’ Woodpeckers, Similkameen River, Keremeos .................................................................. 8Figure 7. Burned forest can provide excellent breeding habitat for Lewis’ Woodpeckers,

Dutch Creek Burn. Invermere .............................................................................................................. 9Figure 8. An active nest in a mature ponderosa pine, Haynes Lease Ecological

Reserve, Osoyoos .................................................................................................................................. 9Figure 9. Black cottonwood snags used by nesting Lewis’ Woodpeckers, and other

woodpeckers, Sun Oka Park, Summerland ......................................................................................... 10Figure 10. An active Lewis’ Woodpecker nest cavity in a living black cottonwood,

Powell Beach Municipal Park, Summerland ....................................................................................... 12Figure 11. Closed stands of young ponderosa pine, Kettle River Park and Recreation Area,

Rock Creek, not used by Lewis’ Woodpeckers .................................................................................. 13Figure 12. Lewis’ Woodpecker nests in a weeping willow, Okanagan Valley .................................................... 14Figure 13. Destruction of riparian forest in the Okanagan valley, Trout Creek Point,

Summerland .......................................................................................................................................... 15

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Explanation of abbreviations for biogeoclimatic zones, ecoprovinces, ecosections,and broad habitat classes mentioned in Table 1 .............................................................................. 22

Appendix 2. Regional status of Lewis’ Woodpecker ............................................................................................ 23

1

1 INTRODUCTION

Throughout its range, populations of the Lewis’Woodpecker have undergone periodic declines overthe last three decades (Sauer et al. 1996; Tobalske inpress). In British Columbia, coastal breedingpopulations have become extirpated and there is con-cern among wildlife managers and naturalists thatInterior populations have declined. This woodpeckerusually uses stands of mature ponderosa pine withopen canopies and riparian groves of blackcottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) for nesting habitat.Although it is the physical structure provided byponderosa pine and black cottonwood, rather than thetree species themselves, these forest types are rela-tively limited in availability and are threatened byhuman development. There have been no studies con-ducted on the ecology or habitat requirements of thiswoodpecker in British Columbia.

This report contains a synthesis of available infor-mation on the Lewis’ Woodpecker in BritishColumbia, including an overview of its biology, habi-tat requirements, limiting factors, distribution, andstatus. This report, prepared by J. Cooper (senior au-thor), is a revised and updated version of a manuscriptprepared during 1991 by C. Siddle and G. Davidson(junior authors). Information was gathered from gov-ernment biologists, consultants, local naturalists, datafiles held by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Landsand Parks and the Royal British Columbia Museum,published literature, and unpublished reports. Informa-tion gathered by the authors during field surveys in1990 and 1996 for breeding Lewis’ Woodpeckers isalso incorporated where appropriate.

The report also includes recommendations formanagement initiatives that will help to maintainpopulations, and for additional research required tomanage the Lewis’ Woodpecker and its habitat in thefuture. Status reports are part of an ongoing programof the B.C. Wildlife Branch to more efficiently man-age species at risk for long-term viability.

2 DISTRIBUTION

2.1 Global

The Lewis’ Woodpecker breeds from southern InteriorBritish Columbia and southwestern Alberta south toArizona and New Mexico, and from coastal Californiaeast to Colorado (Godfrey 1986; Tobalske in press;Figure 1). Virtually the entire Canadian population oc-curs in British Columbia. In Alberta, where the mostrecent breeding record is from 1946 (C. Wershler,pers. comm.), the Lewis’ Woodpecker is now consid-ered to be a vagrant species (Semenchuk 1992). Itwinters from southern Interior British Columbia souththrough the western states to northern Mexico, butmainly in the southwestern U.S.A. (American Orni-thologists’ Union 1983; Root 1988).

2.2 British Columbia

2.2.1 Current distribution

The Lewis’ Woodpecker breeds in the southernInterior — from the Similkameen Valley east to theEast Kootenay Trench and north to Revelstoke andnear Williams Lake (Figure 1; Campbell et al. 1990).The core breeding range in the province is in theOkanagan Valley (Cannings et al. 1987) andThompson Basin, both within the Kamloops ForestRegion (Figure 2). Occasionally, small numbers breedbeyond the normal limits of its range in British Co-lumbia [e.g., Wells Gray Park (Edwards and Ritcey1967) and Golden]. Its breeding distribution isstrongly linked with the distribution of ponderosa pine(Pinus ponderosa).

Single birds occur irregularly, mainly during thepost-breeding season, as far north as Hazelton, TaklaLake, and the Queen Charlotte Islands, and west tothe Fraser Lowland and eastern Vancouver Island(Campbell et al. 1990). Small numbers winter in theOkanagan Valley (Cannings et al. 1987).

2

Figure 1. Breeding range of the Lewis’ Woodpecker in British Columbia and North America.

Current Breeding Distribution

Historic Range

Will iamsLake

CranbrookPenticton

Pr ince George

Fort St. John

Pr ince Rupert

Victor ia

Kamloops

Vancouver

Smithers

Atlin

Fort Nelson

100 0 100 200 km

3

2.2.2 Former distribution

Small numbers formerly bred and wintered on south-eastern Vancouver Island, from Victoria to Comox,and bred in the lower Fraser River Valley fromWest Vancouver to Chilliwack (B.C. Nest RecordsScheme). The last coastal breeding records were in1963 (Campbell et al. 1990). On the coast, this wood-pecker is now only a casual visitor.

3 POPULATION SIZE ANDTRENDS

3.1 Population Size

The provincial population was estimated by the juniorauthors from 350 to 600 breeding pairs in 1990. Thisestimate is based on the results of their field surveysin 1990, interviews with naturalists, a review of litera-ture, and a review of the B.C. Nest Record Scheme.These estimates should be considered as minimumnumbers; no attempt was made to estimate the extentof suitable habitat, and numbers of pairs present, inareas that were not visited during their field surveys.Populations in the East Kootenays and in the FraserCanyon area from Boston Bar north to Williams Lakeare smaller, but poorly documented.

Winter populations are very small and are re-stricted, except for the odd vagrant, to the OkanaganValley. Probably fewer than 25 birds overwinter inthe Okanagan Valley (S. G. Cannings, pers. comm.).

3.2 Population Trends

Although comparable data on population sizes arelacking, there is no doubt that populations havedeclined during the twentieth century in BritishColumbia. Whether this trend is still occurring is de-batable. We know that breeding populations onVancouver Island and the lower Fraser River Valleywere probably extirpated by 1962 (Davidson 1966)and 1964 (Campbell et al. 1990), respectively. Localbreeding populations at Golden and Revelstokeappear to have also become extirpated in the last twodecades, but this can be expected from a species thatis known for opportunistic expansions and contrac-tions at the periphery of its range (Bock 1970).

Most biologists and naturalists who were con-sulted for this report felt that local populations in

British Columbia were declining or stable in mostareas. For example, the population in the OkanaganValley is thought to be smaller now than a century ago(R.J. Cannings, pers. comm.). Not one person inter-viewed suggested that populations anywhere wereincreasing.

In North America, large-scale declines have beendocumented, although a few populations are increas-ing (Sauer et al. 1996). Breeding Bird Survey datashow a -3.2% annual change in population in theU.S.A. from 1966 to 1991. Fifty-six percent of indi-vidual routes in the U.S.A. and British Columbiashowed a negative annual rate, but trends in BritishColumbia were not significant (Tobalske in press);very few routes in British Columbia would record thisspecies. One author suggests that overall populationsin the early 1990s may be about half of those in the1960s (Tashiro-Vierling 1994). Ehrlich et al. (1988)suspect that general declines may have stabilized.

4 GENERAL BIOLOGY

4.1 Reproductive Capability

The Lewis’ Woodpecker has a relatively large clutchsize for a woodpecker (5-9 eggs, Bock 1970). InBritish Columbia, sizes for 30 clutches ranged from2-8 eggs, with 63% having 4-6 eggs (Campbell et al.1990), which is seemingly fewer than the averageclutch size of 6-7 eggs generally reported (Bent 1939;Godfrey 1986; Koenig 1987).

Incubation takes about 14 days (Winkler et al.1995) and is performed by both sexes (Bock 1970).One clutch in British Columbia had an incubation pe-riod of about 15 days (Campbell et al. 1990). Thenestling period is usually 4-5 weeks (Bock 1970;Short 1982), but two broods in British Columbia werethought to fledge after 21-23 days (Campbell et al.1990). In British Columbia, records for 28 broodsranged from 1-5 young, with 89% having 2-4 young(Campbell et al. 1990). Annual reproductive successhas not been well documented for this woodpecker.In Colorado, 60% of 42 nests in cottonwood habitatproduced at least one fledgling with a mean of 2.1fledglings per successful nest (Tashiro-Vierling 1994).In Idaho, 81% of 150 nests in burned ponderosapine habitat produced at least one fledgling (Saab andDudley 1996, in review). In British Columbia, 20records of adults with fledged young had a range of

4

Figure 2. Forest regions and timber supply areas within the range of Lewis’ Woodpecker inBritish Columbia.

KamloopsRegion

NelsonRegion

5

1-5 fledglings and a mean of 2.8 fledglings (Campbellet al. 1990).

Only one brood is raised annually. Fledglingsgenerally remain near nests for about 10 days and arefed by their parents (Snow 1941; Bock 1970). Thereare no data on recruitment, but, assuming that mostbirds begin breeding at one year, then recruitment ofyearlings must equal mortality of adults if populationsare stable. Productivity is apparently higher inponderosa pine forest than in riparian cottonwoodhabitat (Linder 1994; Tashiro-Vierling 1994; Saab andDudley 1996).

Breeding pairs of Lewis’ Woodpecker likely formlong-term bonds based mainly on fidelity to nest sites,but readily pair with new mates (Bock 1970). InWyoming, 37% of pairs returned to their previousyear’s nest (Linder 1994). Lewis’ Woodpeckers areknown to nest in loose colonies in some regions(Currier 1928; Bock 1970). In British Columbia, high-est densities occur in riparian black cottonwoodgroves in the southern Okanagan (Cannings et al.1987). For example, 5-7 active nests were observed ina small black cottonwood grove at Trout Creek Pointon Lake Okanagan in the late 1960s and early 1970s(Syd Cannings, pers. comm.). These aggregationslikely occur due to the structure and decadence of thestands in providing ideal cavity-excavating opportuni-ties and an abundance of insect food, rather than dueto any co-operative breeding strategy.

Age of first breeding is unknown, but is likelyat one year (Tobalske in press). Life span, too, is un-known (Tobalske in press).

4.2 Species Movement

In British Columbia, most birds are migratory. Springmigrants return to the province from mid-Aprilthrough mid-May, with the peak movement duringthe first two weeks of May (Campbell et al. 1990),and mean first arrivals in the first week of May (pro-vincially, Bock 1970; Okanagan Valley, Cannings etal. 1987; Grand Forks, R. Walker, pers. comm.). Afterthe breeding season, flocks of adults and juvenileswander throughout foraging habitat in their localranges. The largest such flocks noted were 42 birdsnear White Lake on 10 August 1976 (Cannings et al.1987) and 46 birds near Tranquille in August 1988that were hawking insects in the lee of a stand of old-growth black cottonwoods (D. Low, pers. comm.).

Fall migration peaks in late August and early Sep-tember. It is generally over by the end of September,although late stragglers occur through the end of Oc-tober (Campbell et al. 1990). One noticeablemigration occurred near Vaseux Lake on 7 September1971 when 42 birds moved past McIntyre Bluffs in ashort period in groups of 2-3 birds (Cannings et al.1987). Migration routes presumably follow majornorth/south-oriented valleys.

4.3 Tolerance to Human Disturbance

The Lewis’ Woodpecker appears to habituate to rou-tine human activities when nesting in areas withconsiderable human activity. In British Columbia,there are several nest records from trees next to publicbeaches, in urban parks, and in orchards. One paireven nested in a power pole in a downtown Pentictonparking lot (Cannings et al. 1987). However, mostLewis’ Woodpeckers nest in quieter locations andseem more sensitive to human disturbance than someother woodpeckers such as sapsuckers, Hairy Wood-pecker, and Downy Woodpecker. During 1990, thejunior authors noted that birds nesting in openponderosa pine woodlands would not resume normalactivities until they had retreated 100+ m from a nest,whereas two pairs nesting in public parks fed nest-lings while they watched from the base of the tree.

In general, adults will ignore humans no closerthan 15 m from the base of the nest tree (Tobalske inpress), but nest abandonment can occur if the nestcavity is disturbed (Bock 1970; Tashiro-Vierling1994).

4.4 Food

The Lewis’ Woodpecker eats a variety of insects, fruit,and seeds and is an opportunistic forager. Its dietshifts seasonally as it takes advantage of the changingabundance of food (Bock 1970). This woodpecker sel-dom bores for subsurface insects. Most insect prey aretaken by aerial flycatching or surface gleaning (Bock1970; Raphael and White 1984). Insects are mainlybeetles, ants, bees, wasps, grasshoppers, spiders, andtrue bugs (Beal 1911; Snow 1941). In the OkanaganValley, commercial fruits such as cherries, apples, andcrabapples are eaten by nesting adults or post-breed-ing birds when available (Cannings et al. 1987). Inwinter, the few remaining birds in this area feed

6

on apples or the acorns of the introduced red oak(Cannings et al. 1987). Surplus food is stored in cachesites (Figure 3).

Local examples of opportunistic foraging includetwo observations by the senior author. On one warmMay day, during the generally cold spring of 1996 inBritish Columbia, more than a dozen Lewis’ Wood-peckers were noted hawking flying carpenter antsalong the Thompson River as a sudden “hatch” of fly-ing ants occurred. During July 1996, another pair fednestlings a steady diet of ripening saskatoon berriesfrom a bush near the nest tree.

4.5 Response to SuddenEnvironmental Change

The Lewis’ Woodpecker has been classified by severalauthors as a burned-forest specialist, whereby it colo-nizes burned forest several years after a burn if

adequate numbers of snags for nesting and insectpopulations for food occur (Raphael and White 1984;Tobalske in press). In British Columbia, it was a com-mon breeding bird from 1920 to 1940 in Vancouverand North Vancouver, where it occurred in burned andlogged forest that contained abundant snags (Cowan1940). This habitat disappeared as snags were cut forfirewood, second-growth forest matured, and otherareas were developed; the Lewis’ Woodpecker disap-peared as a breeding bird by the mid-1960s (Campbellet al. 1990). A few reports of breeding in British Co-lumbia (B.C. Nest Records Scheme) suggested thatclearing forests for agriculture or logging can “create”new habitat that mimics the structural characteristicsof open, mature forest/grassland ecotones.

As an opportunistic forager, breeding populationsrespond quickly to increased insect populations (Bock1970; Jackman 1974). In British Columbia, Munro(1930) noted substantial increases in breedingpopulations in the summers of 1927 and 1928 whengrasshoppers and crickets “swarmed” in the OkanaganValley.

A significant change in numbers of breeding birdsnear Revelstoke occurred for unknown reasons.Throughout the 1970s this woodpecker was “plenti-ful” near Revelstoke, but declined through the 1980s,and only one bird was observed in 1990 (D. Powell,pers. comm.). On southeastern Vancouver Island, frag-mentation of stands of the acorn-producing Garry oakis suspected of causing the loss of a small breedingpopulation there (Campbell et al. 1990).

4.6 Causes of Mortality

Causes of mortality are poorly known, but probablyrelate mainly to losses to avian predators. AmericanKestrels (Falco sparverius) are known to readily takerecently fledged juveniles (Snow 1941; Hadow 1973).Merlins (Falco columbarius), Cooper’s Hawks (Accip-iter cooperi), Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis),and Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) are other poten-tial avian predators (Figure 4). Nest mortality isunstudied, but several other species of British Colum-bia woodpeckers are known to have nests preyed onby weasels, mice, and black bear (Walters and Millerin press). Shooting of individuals is likely not exten-sive (Tobalske in press). However, Parham (1937)emphasized that, in the past at least, fruit farmers inthe Okanagan were compelled to “shoot large num-bers” to defend their ripening cherry crops.

Figure 3. An adult Lewis’ Woodpecker on a“cache pole,” a power pole with many verticaldessication cracks that is being used as a stor-age site for food. Powell Beach Municipal Park,Summerland.

7

Collisions with vehicles probably occur whenbirds nest in trees near well-travelled roads (Tobalske1996). Pesticides and other chemicals are suspected tohave a role, as yet unknown, in population declines(Sorensen 1986; Tashiro-Vierling 1994).

5 HABITAT

5.1 Description of Habitat

5.1.1 Breeding habitat

Lewis’ Woodpecker breeding habitat includes threeprimary habitat types: open ponderosa pine forest(Figure 5), open riparian woodland (Figure 6), andlogged or burned forest (Figure 7; Tobalske in press).The structural attributes necessary to provide goodbreeding habitat are an open canopy and large dead ordecayed trees or snags, or trees with large dead or de-cayed limbs, in which they can excavate nestingcavities and perch while foraging. A brushyunderstorey that provides abundant insects, perches,and ground cover is also considered important (Sousa1983; Linder 1994), but it is likely the abundance ofinsects that is critical (Bock 1970; Jackman 1974). In

British Columbia, the edge of open ponderosa pineforests with grassy understories are typical in manyareas used by nesting Lewis’ Woodpeckers (Figure 8).Where closed-canopied, riparian, deciduous stands areused for nesting, only trees at the edge of a stand nextto open areas are used.

The following are descriptions of breeding habitatin British Columbia.

• Deciduous groves, open ponderosa pine forests,sage-pine-bunchgrass grassland, farmland, orchards,and urban areas between 275 and 950 m (Campbellet al. 1990).

• In the Okanagan, ponderosa pine forest, ripariangroves of black cottonwood, older orchards, andtreed urban areas (Cannings et al. 1987).

• Open forest and wooded roadsides (Munro andMcTaggart-Cowan 1947).

• Formerly, on southern Vancouver Island, Garry oakgroves (B.C. Nest Records Scheme); in the lowerFraser River Valley, logged and burned lowlandforest (Cowan 1940).

Figure 4. An agitated adult Lewis’ Woodpecker protests the presence of a Merlin (out of picture at thesnag’s top). Vernon.

8

Figure 5. Open ponderosa pine forest on rocky slopes are used extensively by nesting Lewis’ Woodpeck-ers. Vaseux Lake.

Figure 6. Groves of widely spaced, mature black cottonwoods provide excellent nestinghabitat for Lewis’ Woodpeckers. Similkameen River, Keremeos.

9

• Historically, preferred habitat structure was avail-able in the ponderosa pine and lower Douglas-firzones where old-growth stem densities averaged<1 to 75/ha. Combinations of ponderosa pine andblack cottonwoods are the best habitat in theThompson Basin (D. Low, pers. comm.).

• Burned forest with suitable snags for nesting andan appropriate successional stage that has suffi-cient grassy or shrubby understorey to providehabitat for an abundance of insects (authors’unpubl. data).

Although open ponderosa pine forest provides thebulk of breeding habitat throughout its range(Bock 1970), burned ponderosa pine forest mayprovide optimal breeding habitat (Linder 1994; Saaband Dudley in review). In British Columbia, thejunior authors found 16 adults and 5 nests in the18-year-old burn on the west side of WindermereLake (Figure 7) in 1990. This burn is in the IDFzone; trees are mainly Douglas-fir, whereas ponderosa

Figure 7. Burned forest that has standing snags and a well-vegetated undergrowth can provide excellentbreeding habitat for Lewis’ Woodpeckers. Dutch Creek Burn, Invermere.

Figure 8. (At right) An active nest in a matureponderosa pine. The brush and grass between thewidely-spaced trees supports a rich insect popu-lation used by foraging Lewis’ Woodpeckers.Haynes Lease Ecological Reserve, Osoyoos.

10

pine is absent (B. Jamieson, pers. comm.), whichagain suggests it is the structural component that iscritical rather than the tree species. Elapsed time sincethe burn appears to be critical as younger (<10 years)and older burns (40+ years) may not be used (Bock1970), probably because of successional factors.

Riparian stands of black cottonwood (Figure 9)are an important breeding habitat in British Columbia,and probably support higher densities of Lewis’Woodpecker than ponderosa pine forests (Canningset al. 1987) in the Southern Interior Ecoprovince, atleast. In the East Kootenay Trench, ripariancottonwood stands tend to be bordered by denseconifer stands rather than the open grasslands foundin the Okanagan Valley and Thompson Basin (B.

Jamieson, pers. comm.). Analysis of breeding recordsin the B.C. Nest Records Scheme and observationsmade during field work in 1990 suggested that mostpairs that nested in cottonwoods often fed in nearbyponderosa pine stands, and that the cottonwood standsused for nesting were usually close to those ponderosapine stands. Open farmlands are also used.

No research has been conducted on breedinghome-range sizes in British Columbia. In the BlueMountains of Washington and Oregon, nestingpairs regularly used about 6 ha (Thomas et al. 1979),but home ranges are undoubtedly much larger. Onlythe nest tree and the immediate vicinity are activelydefended (Bock 1970). In British Columbia, densitiesof breeding pairs are likely higher in riparian wood-lands than in ponderosa pine forests (Cannings et al.1987).

5.1.2 Roosting habitat

The Lewis’ Woodpecker roosts in cavities in trees.During the breeding season, males brood eggs andnestlings at night, while females roost in other cavi-ties. Therefore, multiple cavities are required in eachbreeding territory. Occasionally, birds will roost be-hind loose bark. Old nest cavities are used for roostingduring non-breeding seasons (Tobalske in press).

5.1.3 Post-breeding habitat

After breeding, the Lewis’ Woodpecker exploits awider variety of habitats. It forms small, nomadicflocks that take advantage of locally abundant foodsupplies. As insect populations decline in late summer,it turns to ripening berry, fruit, and nut crops, bothwild and cultivated (Cannings et al. 1987). In theOkanagan, wintering birds are restricted to orchardand urban habitats where they feed on unharvestedfruit or nuts from ornamental trees.

5.2 Nest Site Specialization

The Lewis’ Woodpecker is a relatively weak cavity ex-cavator and prefers to reuse old cavities, usually theirown, but also those excavated by the Northern Flicker(Colaptes auratus) or natural cavities (Tobalske inpress). When excavating new cavities, they choosetrees or large limbs that are dead or have extensive

Figure 9. Black cottonwood snags are frequentlyused by nesting Lewis’ Woodpeckers, and otherwoodpeckers such as Northern Flickers. This treealso has natural cavities that may be enlarged bynesting Lewis’ Woodpeckers. Nest trees in ripar-ian areas are usually along the forest edge or justinside the edge. Sun Oka Park, Summerland.

11

Table 1. Biogeoclimatic zones, ecoprovinces, ecosections, and broad habitat classes used by nestingLewis’ Woodpeckers in British Columbia (B.C. Ministry of Forests 1988; Campbell et al. 1990; Lea andHarcombe 1992; Demarchi 1995; unpubl. data in B.C. Nest Record Scheme and authors’ records). Boldtype indicates zones, ecosections, and broad habitat classes of greatest importance. Italic type refers toformer breeding areas and habitats on the coast (see Appendix 1 for key to abbreviations).

Biogeoclimatic Zone Ecoprovince Ecosection Broad Habitat Class

BG SOI SOB SSPP NOB CRIDF SOH BSICH NOH DP

NTU OVCDF STU PPCWH THB TC

PAR UROKR

GOSIM EKT OA

CCMSCM

CEI FRBGED FRL

NAL

heartrot (Sousa 1983). In British Columbia, coniferousnest trees are typically Decay Class 2-5 wildlife trees(Backhouse 1993) or trees that are dying or dead, andthat have soft cores.

In British Columbia, of 215 nests, 47%, were indeciduous trees (Figures 9, 10), 42% were in conifer-ous trees (Figure 8), 8 nests were in power poles, andone nest was in a fence post. Ponderosa pine (35%)and black cottonwood (33%) were the most frequentlyused tree species (Campbell et al. 1990). Cannings etal. (1987) suggest the high proportion of nests in de-ciduous trees reflects an observer bias, and they feelthat the majority of nests are in ponderosa pines.Nests in Victoria were mainly in Garry oaks and bigleaf maples (B.C. Nest Records Scheme). Heightsabove ground for 212 nests ranged from 1 to 31 m,with 64% between 3.5 and 9 m (Campbell et al.1990).

Relatively large trees are selected for nesting.Minimum dbh has been noted as 30.5 cm (Thomas etal. 1979). However, mean dbh of nest trees was 48 cmin Wyoming (Linder 1994) and 112 cm in Colorado(Tashiro-Vierling in press).

5.3 Distribution of Habitats

Breeding Lewis’ Woodpeckers in British Columbia areconfined to a relatively few habitat types at lower el-evations, mainly valley bottoms between 275 and 950m (Campbell et al. 1990). Essentially, this wood-pecker occurs where ponderosa pine occurs. Its corehabitat exists in the ponderosa pine zone and theecotone between the ponderosa pine and bunchgrasszones. Forest fires in dry IDF systems would seem toprovide at least temporary habitat. Most suitable habi-tat occurs in the Kamloops and Nelson forest regions(mainly in the Cranbrook and Invermere Timber Sup-ply areas (Figure 2). Table 1 lists the biogeoclimaticzones, ecoregions, and broad habitat classes used bynesting Lewis’ Woodpeckers in British Columbia.

Pairs that breed in the ICH (Southern InteriorMountains Ecoprovince and Nelson Forest Region)probably do so because of human-caused changes inhabitat that make the ICH suitable for breeding. Clear-ing forests for agriculture or urban development,logging, or transportation corridors provide structuralfeatures that may mimic those found in drier and moreopen forests.

12

those regions (B.C. Forest Service 1996a), and arethus relatively rare.

Riparian black cottonwood stands also providecritical habitat for nesting when adjacent open areasare present, but are extremely limited in amount. Forexample, in the Kamloops Timber Supply Area recentinventories list 1073 ha of black cottonwood, which isabout 2% of the total deciduous forest inventory(Simard and Vyse 1992). Considering that not all ofthis is suitable for Lewis’ Woodpecker, the loss of anycottonwood stands next to open areas should beavoided. In the East Kootenay Trench, flooding forhydro development and clearing for agriculture havedestroyed significant amounts of riparian habitat.

Because the Lewis’ Woodpecker tends to breed invalley bottoms and on the lower slopes of valleys,much of its high-quality habitat is probably privatelyowned. An unknown amount of suitable habitat exists,and is protected in, provincial and municipal parks,ecological reserves, and national wildlife areas. Indianreserves contain an unknown, but probably significantamount of good habitat.

In the South Okanagan, several significant areaswith habitat suitable for Lewis’ Woodpecker are pro-tected (Hlady 1990). These include OkanaganMountain Park, Vaseux Lake National Wildlife Area,Ecological Reserve No. 7 (upper Trout Creek),Osoyoos Lake Oxbows, Okanagan River, InkaneepPark, Cawston Slough, and Ecological Reserve No.100. The relative value of these areas to this wood-pecker has not been assessed.

Twenty-six other provincial parks within therange and habitat of Lewis’ Woodpecker protect anadditional 3600 ha of potential habitat; however, thesuitability of this habitat has not been investigated.

5.5 Trend in Quantity and Quality ofCritical Habitat

The trend in quantity and quality of critical habitat isundoubtedly one of decline as stands of matureponderosa pine and black cottonwood continue to beharvested for timber, development, and firewood. Forexample, Lewis’ Woodpeckers were common alongthe South Thompson River, east of Kamloops, instands of old black cottonwood and adjacent fields un-til the early 1960s. Since then this habitat has been allbut eliminated by cattle activity, urban development,and changing agricultural practices (D. Low, pers.comm.).

5.4 Present Habitat Status (Qualityand Legal)

The extent of suitable ponderosa pine and blackcottonwood forest habitat is unknown. Suitableponderosa pine stands must be mature, well spaced,and contain snags. Second-growth stands or maturestands with younger age classes growing among themature trees are unsuitable (Figure 11). Much of thesuitable habitat is along the ponderosa pine/grasslandecotone. Current estimates of the quantity of matureponderosa pine forest in British Columbia are about64 000 ha in the Kamloops Forest Region and 5500 hain the Nelson Forest Region (Figure 2). In the NelsonForest Region, most of the ponderosa pine is in theBoundary Timber Supply Area near Grand Forks, withonly a few hundred hectares in the East KootenayTrench (B. Jamieson, pers. comm.; Ohanjanian 1991).These ponderosa pine forests represent 0.8% and0.4%, respectively, of the timber supply available in

Figure 10. An active Lewis’ Woodpecker nestcavity in a living black cottonwood, Powell BeachMunicipal Park, Summerland.

13

In the East Kootenay Trench where Lewis’ Wood-pecker is relatively rare, the drier areas near Newgateand Grasmere, which formerly contained ripariancottonwood stands adjacent to open grasslands (i.e.,likely good habitat), are now flooded by theKoocanusa Reservoir (B. Jamieson, pers. comm.).

5.6 Rate of Habitat Change

In all parts of this woodpecker’s range, rates ofchange are related mainly to harvesting matureponderosa pine and black cottonwood and loss oflowland forest to human development. The heartof this woodpecker’s range in British Columbia, theOkanagan Valley, is subject to relatively high rates ofurban and agricultural development, and loss of habi-tat will likely continue as the region’s humanpopulation grows.

Large-scale logging of ponderosa pine no longeroccurs in British Columbia. However, widely spacedmature pines that occur on steep slopes, and whichwere not previously harvested because of the steepterrain, are now being taken by helicopter-loggingtechniques. The extent of the impact on Lewis’ Wood-pecker is unknown, but is likely negative and may beincreasing.

5.7 Can Critical Habitat be Protectedby Means Other than Acquisition?

Nesting habitat is widely scattered over large geo-graphic regions, and concentrations do not exist, sothe protection of habitat through the purchase of landfor parks or reserves is impractical. The best methodof protecting habitat in most regions is through imple-mentation of guidelines for Riparian ManagementAreas and Forest Ecosystem Networks prescribed un-der the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.However, because a large amount of prime habitat invalley bottoms is privately owned, stands of matureponderosa pine and riparian cottonwood are very vul-nerable to harvesting. Conservation easements may beone way to protect riparian habitat (B. Jamieson, pers.comm.).

In the Managing Identified Wildlife Guidebook(B.C. Forest Service, in press) it is recommended thatWildlife Habitat Areas be created when aggregationsof five or more breeding pairs are found in close prox-imity (e.g., Trout Creek Point, see 4.1). If newbreeding sites are discovered on Crown lands onVancouver Island, the southern mainland coast,Okanagan or Kootenay regions, then Wildlife HabitatAreas or Ecological Reserves may be warranted.

Figure 11. Closed stands of young ponderosa pine, such as this one at Kettle River Park and RecreationArea, Rock Creek, will not be used by Lewis’ Woodpeckers.

14

6 LEGAL PROTECTION

The Lewis’ Woodpecker, its nests and its eggs, areprotected from unlawful direct persecution in Canadaand the U.S.A. under the Migratory Birds ConventionAct of 1994, and in British Columbia by the BritishColumbia Wildlife Act of 1982.

Provisions under the Forest Practices Code ofBritish Columbia Act will address some of the habitatrequirements of this species through forest operationalplans that will be required to incorporate the conser-vation needs of Lewis’ Woodpecker (see 5.7 above).

7 LIMITING FACTORS

Limiting factors have not been well-studied for thiswoodpecker, but the primary factor is widely believedto be the availability of suitable nest trees and nest

cavities (Thomas et al. 1979; Raphael and White1984; Tashiro-Vierling in press; Tobalske in press).Limiting factors are discussed below.

7.1 Availability of Nest Trees

Breeding populations are considered to be positivelycorrelated with the density of suitable nest trees(Sousa 1983). In the Blue Mountains of Washingtonand Oregon, maximum populations are thought torequire an average density of one suitable nest tree/0.4 ha (Thomas et al. 1979). In the Sierra Nevada ofCalifornia, maximum populations require one suitablenest tree/ha (Raphael and White 1984). Therefore, inareas with a lower abundance of suitable nest trees,lower numbers of breeding birds will occur. Forexample, in British Columbia, the removal of oldbottomland trees and orchards for development pur-poses in Penticton was thought to be the cause of alocal population decline (R.J. Cannings, pers. comm.).

In treed urban and rural areas, local breedingpairs continue to be lost as nest trees are removed(Figures 12, 13). For example, in Kelowna, severallarge cottonwoods used as nest trees were removedto make way for a new shopping mall and the breed-ing pair disappeared (Denis Brownlee, pers. comm.);in Penticton, several pairs disappeared when orchardswere cut down and malls built (R. J. Cannings, pers.comm.); in Kamloops, cutting of an old birch for roadchanges eliminated a breeding pair that had nested init for several years (D. Low, pers. comm.); in GrandForks, shade trees near a school held one nesting pairuntil they were cut down (S. Walker, pers. comm.).

7.2 Logging

Large-scale logging of ponderosa pine does not occurin British Columbia any longer. However, harvestingof ponderosa pine“vets” by helicopter logging or othermethods removes mature trees that would normally berecruited as future nest trees. The Lewis’ Woodpeckerwas listed as a species whose habitat will likely benegatively affected by mixedwood and ripariancottonwood harvesting in the British Columbia inte-rior (Enns et al. 1993).

Fortunately, snags are no longer removed rou-tinely when encountered in harvesting or silviculturalsituations. Hopefully, guidelines for the retention ofhigh-quality wildlife trees will reduce the loss of nesttrees.

Figure 12. In suburban areas, the Lewis’ Wood-pecker nests in a variety of native and ornamentaltrees. In this weeping willow, a nest cavity in themain trunk is hidden beneath a mass of danglingfoliage in the foreground. Okanagan Valley.

15

7.3 Fire Suppression

Fire suppression in accessible lowland ponderosa pinehas virtually eliminated fire as an agent of naturalchange, with two primary results important to theLewis’ Woodpecker. The decrease in occurrence offire tends to permit an increase in seedlings anddenser stands of ponderosa pines (J. Flanagan,Lillooet Forest District, pers. comm.). Closed standsof unburned ponderosa pine are unattractive to Lewis’Woodpeckers. The thick beds of unburned needles thataccumulate on the forest floor choke out grasses andshrubs that would harbour the abundance of insects re-quired for food. A dense stand of ponderosa pine isthe “antithesis of [Lewis’ Woodpecker] habitat” (Bock1970).

A second effect of fire suppression is the en-croachment of Douglas-fir into the long, narrow bandsof ponderosa pine that occur in British Columbia (J.B. Olsen, Kamloops Forest District, pers. comm.).Douglas-fir are seldom used as nest trees.

Fire suppression also reduces the amount ofburned forest available, a habitat that has been readilycolonized in British Columbia when snags suitable fornesting remain standing.

7.4 Firewood Harvesting

Loss of medium-to large-sized dead and decayed treesto firewood cutters in British Columbia is likely onecause of reduced availability of nest trees, especiallynear roads (Miller 1985).

7.5 Competition for Nest Cavities withEuropean Starling

Competition for nest cavities with the EuropeanStarling (Sturnus vulgaris) was thought to be onecause of declining populations (Bock 1970; Weber1980), but more recent evidence shows that the Lewis’Woodpecker generally dominates in conflicts overcavities (Cannings et al. 1987; Linder 1994; Tashiro-Vierling 1994). In the Okanagan, Lewis’ Woodpeckerseems to be as abundant as ever in cottonwood groveswhere European Starlings nest commonly (Canningset al. 1987).

However, Sorensen (1986) found a correlation be-tween the rapid increase of starlings in Salt Lake Cityand the rapid decline of the Lewis’ Woodpecker. It isalso clear that starlings occasionally evict Lewis’Woodpeckers. For example, at Grand Forks in 1990,

Figure 13. Destruction of riparian forest in the Okanagan valley. Black cottonwoods and other large treeshave been knocked down to make way for a development. Trout Creek Point, Summerland.

16

one pair of woodpeckers took over a traditional wood-pecker nest cavity from a pair of nesting starlings on15 May, only to lose control of the cavity on 1 June.Starlings begin nesting much earlier than Lewis’Woodpeckers, often having nestlings by the time themigrant woodpeckers arrive in the spring, and maytake the “best” nest cavities available. The effect ofthis on Lewis’ Woodpecker breeding success has notbeen studied, but other species of Melanerpes wood-peckers are known to lose nest cavities to starlings(Troetschler 1976; Ingold 1989, 1994).

7.6 Pesticides

Pesticides and other contaminants have a suspectedbut unstudied role in widespread populationdeclines (Sorensen 1986).

7.7 Grazing

Habitat may be negatively affected by grazing bylivestock if brushy or grassy understories are elimi-nated, which eliminates habitat for insect prey(Jackman 1974; D. Low, pers. comm.).

7.8 Winter Habitat

Loss of wintering habitat (oak woodlands and theiracorns) in the southwestern U.S.A. may be as impor-tant as the loss of breeding habitat in overallpopulation declines (C. Bock, pers. comm.). Whetheror not populations that breed in British Columbia areaffected is unknown. It is interesting to note that se-vere fragmentation of oak woodlands on southeasternVancouver Island is likely a key factor in the extirpa-tion of that breeding population.

8 SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE OFTHE SPECIES

8.1 Status

There is general consensus that North Americanpopulations of Lewis’ Woodpecker have declined. Itwas first listed on the National Audubon Society“Blue List” from 1975 to 1981 as declines had beennoted since the 1960s (Tate 1981). It was then listedas a species of special concern in 1982 (Tate and Tate1982).

There is no doubt that some local populationsin British Columbia have disappeared and others aredeclining. The Lewis’ Woodpecker first became a birdof special concern in British Columbia in the 1960swhen a drastic decline in breeding birds on VancouverIsland was noted (Stirling 1966). Warnings of a prov-ince-wide decline were sounded in 1980 (Weber1980). It was listed as a Priority 2 species in thesouthern Okanagan by the South Okanagan CriticalAreas Program (Hlady 1990). It is currently on theB.C. Wildlife Branch Blue List (1996) as it is consid-ered vulnerable because of small and decliningpopulations and threats to habitat.

8.2 Degree of Public Interest

The Lewis’ Woodpecker is a conspicuous bird thatis easily recognizable by the general public. It is adelight to observe, with its rich coloration and acro-batic flycatching manoeuvres. The economic valueof birdwatching in the southern Interior is unknown,but tangible, as the Lewis’ Woodpecker is one speciesthat birders from the B.C. coast and elsewhere cometo see.

It occasionally raids apple and cherry orchards,but damage to fruit crops in the southern Interior isquite light and generally acceptable to fruit farmers inthe 1990s (W. Weber, pers. comm.).

8.3 Related Species

There are six species of Melanerpes woodpeckers inNorth America, and 22 species world-wide (Winkleret al. 1995), but the Lewis’ Woodpecker is the onlyspecies that occurs in British Columbia. Other wood-peckers considered at risk in British Columbia, theWhite-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus),Williamson’s Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus), and“Queen Charlotte” Hairy Woodpecker (Picoidesvillosus picoideus), share a need for snags with theLewis’ Woodpecker.

9 RECOMMENDATIONS ANDMANAGEMENT OPTIONS

9.1 Forest Management

Because habitat availability is the most important lim-iting factor, appropriate management of ponderosa

17

pine forests and riparian stands of black cottonwoodto provide habitat for Lewis’ Woodpecker is the criti-cal management need. As with the White-headedWoodpecker, it needs adequate abundance of softsnags and old-growth stands, attributes that are be-coming scarce in ponderosa pine forests (Cannings1995). Young stands of ponderosa pine could bethinned severely to provide more widely spaced stands(as proposed in the East Kootenay region) that will, intime, recruit nest trees in a forest with an opencanopy.

Selective logging of ponderosa pine and blackcottonwood stands is likely compatible with retainingbreeding populations as long as sufficient large, deador decayed trees are retained for nesting. Selectivelogging that opens up denser ponderosa pine or mixedDouglas-fir/ponderosa pine stands may increase suit-able habitat.

The retention of wildlife trees to maintainbiodiversity in managed stands is a critical manage-ment procedure, which will retain habitat for Lewis’Woodpecker. Levels of retention noted in theBiodiversity Guidebook (B.C. Environment 1995) areprobably adequate for populations using ponderosapine stands. In the U.S.A., as a conservative guideline,Neitro et al. (1985) recommended leaving 118 softsnags/100 ha, >43 cm dbh and >9 m tall. An analysisof habitat used in British Columbia would be helpfulin formulating snag retention levels necessary here.However, it is probably best to leave as many deadand damaged trees as possible in harvest areas(Rodrick and Milner 1991).

Requirements for protecting riparian forest asstated in the Riparian Management Area Guidebook(B.C. Forest Service 1996b) are extremely valuablefor the future preservation of high-quality habitat.

9.2 Habitat Enhancement

Girdling of live, mature ponderosa pines or blackcottonwoods to produce snags suitable for nestingcould be an option for creating nesting habitat in areaswhere suitable nest trees are absent.

Managed burns to maintain openness of maturestands of ponderosa pine could be encouraged. How-ever, a more controlled method of mimicking firedisturbance is to selectively log stands to reduce stemdensities and create large openings. In the EastKootenays, an ecosystem restoration program has

been proposed to re-create, by selective logging, thewidely spaced ponderosa pine stands that were presentbefore wildfires were controlled (B. Jamieson, pers.comm.). If habitat needs of the Lewis’ Woodpeckerare incorporated in this plan then significant improve-ments to habitat may be possible.

9.3 Public Education

Public education programs, such as those sponsoredby the Wildlife Tree Committee and Project Wild, areimportant tools in raising public awareness of thevalue of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Courses offeredby the Wildlife Tree Committee on stand-levelbiodiversity and wildlife/danger-tree assessment offeran excellent opportunity to educate people who workin the forest on the management and identification ofhabitat that is important to wildlife, such as the Lewis’Woodpecker, that are dependent on wildlife trees.

Municipal governments control significantamounts of riparian black cottonwood forest in BritishColumbia. Initiatives by the Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests to protectriparian woodlands (e.g., Anonymous 1993; Stevens etal. 1995) should be made available to local councils inthe southern Interior.

9.4 Habitat Acquisition

Purchasing lands to protect habitat for the Lewis’Woodpecker should be considered for sites that havelocal breeding concentrations, such as a few pairsnesting in a riparian grove. Acquiring of large tracts ofhabitat is probably not necessary for this species, as itis generally thinly distributed throughout its rangeand only a few pairs might be protected, but would berecommended if other rare species would benefit.

9.5 Wildlife Tree Sign Program

Identification of nest trees by placement of aWildlife Tree sign, in areas where those trees may becut for firewood or to “improve a view,” may savesome locally important trees from being felled. Thisjoint MOF/MOELP program should be encouragedand supported. Judicious use of the signs is required.

18

10 RESEARCH NEEDS

1. An assessment of ponderosa pine and blackcottonwood forest habitat should be conducted todetermine the amount of suitable habitat availablefor the Lewis’ Woodpecker and the potential forenhancing non-suitable habitat. A current survey ofriparian values along the Elk River, funded by theColumbia Basin Fish and Wildlife CompensationProgram, is an example of the type of assessmentneeded.

2. High-quality habitats on privately owned landsshould be identified regionally, and landownersshould be contacted to inform them of the value oftheir property to rare wildlife such as the Lewis’Woodpecker, and to assist them in appropriatemanagement of their lands for wildlife.

3 A regional inventory of breeding birds is needed,especially in the East Kootenay Trench, FraserRiver Basin, and Pavilion Ranges ecosections, aspopulations there are poorly documented comparedto elsewhere in the province. Core populations inthe Okanagan Valley and Thompson Basin shouldbe monitored periodically (once every 3 to 5 years,along standard census routes selected to specifi-cally inventory Lewis’ Woodpeckers) to assesstrends in populations.

4. No studies on breeding ecology have been con-ducted in British Columbia. It seems that acomparative study of populations that nest in blackcottonwood rather than ponderosa pine has notbeen conducted anywhere in its range, and BritishColumbia may be an excellent choice as a site forsuch a study.

5. he importance of insect prey density on habitat useand breeding success seems to be a critical gap inour knowledge of the needs of this species. Studieson ecology should probably include a focus on in-sect abundance at various stem densities in thehabitat where this species occurs.

6. As the effects of competition with European Star-lings for nest cavities and food are unclear,research on this would be invaluable in assessingthe management potential of reducing competition.

11 EVALUATION

The Lewis’ Woodpecker has a more restricted distri-bution and smaller population compared to otherwoodpeckers in British Columbia, except for theWhite-headed Woodpecker. Its primary habitats arethreatened by urban and agricultural development, es-pecially in its core range in the Okanagan Valley.Harvesting of relatively uncommon, mature ponderosapines and black cottonwoods for lumber and pulp, andurban development, continue to reduce local abun-dance of nest trees. Coastal breeding populations, anda few small, local Interior populations, have been ex-tirpated.

In British Columbia, the Lewis’ Woodpeckershould maintain its Vulnerable status and remain onthe Blue List because of threats to habitat, decliningpopulations, and restricted distribution.

12 LITERATURE CITED

Anonymous. 1993. Stream stewardship: a guide forplanners and developers. Dep. Fish. and Oceans.48pp.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list ofNorth American birds. Am. Ornithol. Union, Law-rence, KS. 877pp.

Backhouse, F. 1993. Wildlife tree management inBritish Columbia. Wildl. Tree Comm., B.C. Minist.Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 32pp.

BC Environment. 1995. Biodiversity Guidebook. B.C.Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks and B.C. Minist.For., Victoria, BC. 99pp.

B.C. Forest Service. 1996a. BCFS Executive Sum-mary Reporting System 3.0. B.C. Minist. For.Home Page, Victoria, BC.

———. 1996b. Riparian management area guidebook.B.C. Minist. For. and B.C. Minist. Environ., Landsand Parks, Victoria, BC.

———. In press. Managing identified wildlife guide-book. B.C. Minist. For. and B.C. Minist. Environ.,Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC.

19

B.C. Ministry of Forests. 1988. Biogeoclimatic zonesof British Columbia. B.C. Minist. For., Victoria,BC. Map.

B.C. Wildlife Branch. 1996. Birds, mammals, reptiles,and amphibians at risk in British Columbia. B.C.Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC.

Beal, F.E.L. 1911. Food of the woodpeckers of theUnited States. U.S. Dep. Agric. Biol. Surv. Bull.37:1-64.

Bent, A.C. 1939. Life histories of North AmericanWoodpeckers. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. No. 174.Smithsonian Inst., Washington, DC. 334pp.

Bock, C.E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of theLewis’ Woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewisi). Univ.Calif. Publ. Zool. 92:1-100.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan,J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall.1990. The birds of British Columbia - Diurnalbirds of prey through woodpeckers. Royal B.C.Mus., Victoria, and Can. Wildl. Serv., Delta, BC.636pp.

Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings.1987. Birds of the Okanagan valley, B.C. RoyalB.C. Mus., Victoria, BC. 420pp.

Cannings, R.J. 1995. Status of the White-headedWoodpecker in British Columbia. Wildl. Bull. No.B-80. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks,Wildl. Branch, Victoria, BC. 8pp.

Cowan, I. McT. 1940. Bird records from British Co-lumbia. Murrelet 21:69-70.

Currier, E.S. 1928. Lewis’ Woodpeckers nesting incolonies. Condor 30:356.

Davidson, A.R. 1966. Annotated list of birds of south-ern Vancouver Island. Victoria Nat. Hist. Soc.,Victoria, BC. 23pp.

Demarchi, D.A. 1995. Ecoregions of British Colum-bia. 4th ed. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands andParks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria, BC. Map.

Edwards, R.Y., and R.W. Ritcey. 1967. The birds ofWells Gray Park, British Columbia. B.C. ParksBranch, Victoria, BC. 37pp.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. Thebirder’s handbook. Simon and Schuster, New York,NY. 785pp.

Enns, K.A., E. Peterson, and D. McLennan. 1993. Im-pacts of hardwood management on BritishColumbia wildlife: problem analysis. FRDA Rep.No. 208. For. Can. and B.C. Minist. For., Victoria,BC. 78pp.

Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The birds of Canada. Natl. Mus.Can., Ottawa, ON. 595pp.

Hadow, H.H. 1973. Winter ecology of migrant andresident Lewis’ Woodpeckers in southeastern Colo-rado. Condor 75:210-224.

Hlady, D. 1990. South Okanagan Conservation Strat-egy 1990-1995. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands andParks, Victoria, BC. 31pp.

Ingold, D.J. 1994. Influence of nest-site competitionbetween European Starlings and woodpeckers.Wilson Bull. 109:227-241.

———. Nesting phenology and competition for nestsites among Red-headed and Red-bellied wood-peckers and European Starlings. Auk 106:209-217.

Jackman, S.M. 1974. Woodpeckers of the PacificNorthwest: their characteristics and their role inthe forests. M.Sc. Thesis, Oregon State Univ.,Corvallis, OR. 147pp.

Koenig, W.D. 1987. Morphological and dietary corre-lates of clutch size in North Americanwoodpeckers. Auk 104:757-765.

Lea, E.C., and A.P. Harcombe. 1992. Wildlife habitatsof British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Landsand Parks, Wildl. Branch, Unpubl. Rep., Victoria,BC. 5pp.

20

Linder, K.A. 1994. Habitat utilization and behavior ofnesting Lewis’ Woodpeckers (Melanerpes lewis) inthe Laramie Range, southeast Wyoming. M.S. The-sis, Univ. Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Massie, M.R.C., E.B. Peterson, N.M. Peterson, andK.A. Enns. 1994. An assessment of the strategicimportance of the hardwood resource in BritishColumbia. FRDA Rep. 221, B.C. Minist. For., Vic-toria, BC. 206pp.

Miller, J.W. 1985. Managing wildlife trees in BritishColumbia: a problem analysis. M.R.M. Thesis,Simon Fraser Univ., Burnaby, BC. 178pp.

Munro, J.A. 1930. Miscellaneous notes on some Brit-ish Columbia birds. Condor 32:65-68.

Munro, J.A., and I. McTaggart-Cowan. 1947. A re-view of the bird fauna of British Columbia. Spec.Publ., No. 2. B.C. Prov. Mus., Victoria, BC. 285pp.

Neitro, W.A., V.W. Binkley, S.P. Cline, R.W. Mannan,B.G. Marcot, D. Taylor, and F.F. Wagner. 1985.Snags. Pages 129-169 in E.R. Brown, ed., Manage-ment of wildlife and fish habitats in forests ofwestern Oregon and Washington. U.S. Dep. Agric.For. Serv. R6F WL192. Portland, OR.

Ohanjanian, I.A. 1991. An inventory of mature andold growth stands in the Cranbrook and InvermereTimber Supply Areas, with special reference to thehabitat requirements of the Pileated Woodpecker.B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl.Branch. Unpubl. Rep., Cranbrook, BC. 51pp.

Parham, H.J. 1937. A nature lover in British Colum-bia. Witherby, London, UK. 292pp.

Raphael, M.G., and M. White. 1984. Use of snags bycavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildl.Monogr. 86:1-66.

Rodrick, E., and R. Milner. 1991. Management rec-ommendations for priority habitats and species.Lewis’ Woodpecker. Washington Dep. Wildl., Ol-ympia, WA.

Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North Americanbirds. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, MI. 312pp.

Saab, V.A., and J. Dudley. 1996. Why do burned for-ests provide conditions for nest site convergenceamong cavity-nesting birds? Abstract 119. 114thStated meeting of the Am. Ornithol. Union, Boise,ID.

______. In review. Nest usurpation and cavity use byLewis’ Woodpeckers. Condor. 13pp.

Sauer, J.R., S. Schwartz, B.G. Peterjohn, and J.E.Hines. 1996. The North American Breeding BirdSurvey home page. Version 94.3. Patuxent Wildl.Res. Cent., Laurel, MD.

Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The atlas of breeding birds ofAlberta. Fed. Alberta Nat., Edmonton, AB. 391pp.

Short, L.L. 1982. Woodpeckers of the world. Dela-ware Mus. Nat. Hist., Greeneville, DE.

Simard, S., and A. Vyse. 1992. Ecology and manage-ment of paper birch and black cottonwood insouthern British Columbia. B.C. Minist. For.,Kamloops, BC. Land Manage. Rep. No. 75. 62pp.

Snow, R.B. 1941. A natural history of the Lewis’Woodpecker Asyndesmus lewis (Gray). M.S. The-sis, Univ. Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

Sorensen, E. 1986. A precipitous decline in Lewis’Woodpecker in Salt Lake and Davis Counties.Utah Birds 2:45-54.

Sousa, P.J. 1983. Habitat suitability index models:Lewis’ Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.,Washington, DC. 14pp.

Stevens, V., F. Backhouse, and A. Eriksson. 1995.Riparian management in British Columbia: an im-portant step towards maintaining biodiversity.Working Pap. 13. Res. Br., B.C. Minist. For. andHab. Protect. Br., Minist. Environ., Lands andParks, Victoria, BC. 30pp.

21

Stirling, D. 1966. Bird report (Victoria) number four -1965. Victoria Nat. Hist. Soc., Victoria, BC. 6pp.

Tashiro-Vierling, K.Y. 1994. Population trends andecology of the Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpeslewis) in southeastern Colorado. M.A. Thesis,Univ. Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Tate, J. 1981. The blue list for 1981. Am. Birds35:3-10.

Tate, J. and D.J. Tate. 1982. The blue list for 1982.Am. Birds 36:126-135.

Thomas, J.W., R.G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E. Bull.1979. Snags. Pages 60-77 in J.W. Thomas, ed.Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the BlueMountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Dep.Agric. For. Serv. Agric. Handb. No. 553.

Tobalske, B.W. 1996. Scaling of muscle composition,wing morphology, and intermittent flight behaviorin woodpeckers. Auk 113:151-177.

___. In press. Lewis’ Woodpecker. In The birds ofNorth America. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia andAm. Ornithol. Union, Washington, DC.

Troetschler, R.G. 1976. Acorn Woodpecker breedingstrategy as affected by starling nest-hole competi-tion. Condor 78:151-165.

Vierling, K.T. 1997. Habitat selection of Lewis’Woodpecker in southeastern Colorado. WilsonBull. 109:121-130.

Walters, E., and E.H. Miller. In press. Mammal preda-tion on woodpecker nests in British Columbia.

Weber, W.C. 1980. A proposed list of rare and endan-gered bird species for British Columbia. Pages160-182 in R. Stace-Smith, L. Johns, and P. Joslin,eds. Proc. symp. on threatened and endangeredspecies and habitats in British Columbia and theYukon. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks,Victoria, BC.

Winkler, H., D.A. Christie, and D. Nurney. 1995.Woodpeckers: a guide to woodpeckers of theworld. Houghton-Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 406pp.

22

13 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Explanation of abbreviations for biogeoclimatic zones, ecoprovinces, ecosections, and broadhabitat classes mentioned in Table 1.1

Broad Habitat ClassesBS Bunchgrass GrasslandCR Black Cottonwood RiparianDP Douglas-fir - Ponderosa PineOV Orchard/VineyardPP Ponderosa PineSS Big Sagebrush Shrub/GrasslandTC Transportation CorridorUR UrbanGO Garry OakOA Garry Oak - Arbutus

Biogeoclimatic ZonesBG BunchgrassCDF Coastal Douglas-FirCWH Coastal Western HemlockICHInterior Cedar-HemlockIDF Interior Douglas-FirPP Ponderosa Pine

EcoprovincesSOI Southern InteriorSIMSouthern Interior MountainsCEI Central InteriorGED Georgia Depression

EcosectionsCCM Central Columbia MountainsEKT East Kootenay TrenchFRB Fraser River BasinFRL Fraser LowlandNAL Nanaimo LowlandNOB Northern Okanagan BasinNTU Northern Thompson UplandOKR Okanagan RangePAR Pavilion RangesSCM Southern Columbia MountainsSFH Selkirk FoothillsSOB Southern Okanagan BasinSOH Southern Okanagan HighlandSTU Southern Thompson UplandTHB Thompson Basin

1B.C. Minist. For. 1988; Campbell et al. 1990; Lea and Harcombe 1992; Demarchi 1995;

23

Appendix 2. Regional status of Lewis’ Woodpecker.

Summary of the status of the Lewis’ Woodpecker and estimates of the number of breeding pairs in 1990 in localareas of British Columbia. Population estimates and 1990 breeding status were assessed during field surveys bySiddle and Davidson in 1990. Former breeding status was assessed after a review of available historical informa-tion and discussions with knowledgeable naturalists and biologists.

FORMER POPULATIONBREEDING 1990 BREEDING ESTIMATE

REGION STATUS STATUS TREND (MAX. PAIRS)

Vancouver Island uncommon vagrant extirpated 0Lower Mainland uncommon vagrant extirpated 0Manning Park-Keremeos uncommon uncommon stable 10Upper Fraser Canyon uncommon uncommon stable 40Cache Creek-Williams L. uncommon uncommon stable 20Kamloops-Pritchard uncommon uncommon stable 30Merritt uncommon uncommon stable 10Revelstoke uncommon vagrant decline 0Golden rare extirpated extirpated 0Invermere uncommon uncommon stable 10Skookumchuck uncommon uncommon decline 4Extreme southeast B.C. uncommon uncommon stable 10Creston no records vagrant decline 0Trail, Nelson, Castlegar rare rare stable 10Edgewood local, rare extirpated extirpated 0Nakusp casual vagrant decline 0Grand Forks-Rock Creek uncommon uncommon stable 60Keremeos-Anarchist Mtn. uncommon uncommon stable 100Oliver-Okanagan Falls common uncommon decline 75Skaha Lake-Naramata common uncommon decline 75Summerland common common stable 50Okanagan Mountain Park uncommon uncommon stable 4Kelowna common uncommon decline 50Vernon common uncommon decline 20

Total Estimated Breeding Pairs 528

24

Wildlife Working Reports may be cited, but the preliminary nature of the data they contain should be noted. Working Reports 1-15 (andothers) are presently out of print, but photocopies may be available through the Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

WR-26 Quesnel Highlands wolf control project. D. Hebert. January 1987. 10pp.

WR-27 Muskwa Wolf Management Project of northeastern B.C. 1986-87 annual report. J.P. Elliott. April 1987. 20pp.

WR-28 Vancouver Island wolf control project. Year 1 progress report. D. Janz. July 1987. 11pp.

WR-29 Habitat survey of the Mackenzie Heritage Trail corridor. V. Hignett. June 1987. 21pp + 5 maps.

WR-30 A proposal to manage coyote and cougar populations of the Junction Wildlife Management Area. D. Hebert. September 1987. 11pp.

WR-31 Wildlife habitat suitability of the Mackenzie Heritage Trail corridor. V. Hignett. May 1988. 16pp + 6 maps.

WR-32 Research priorities for furbearers in British Columbia. D. Blood. June 1988. 49pp.

WR-33 Electrically triggered drop net to capture wild sheep. J.W. Hirsch. January 1988. 18pp.

WR-34 A lynx management strategy for British Columbia. D.F. Hatler. July 1988. 121pp.

WR-35 Causes of bighorn sheep mortality and dieoffs - literature review. H.M. Schwantje. April 1988. 54pp.

WR-36 Explanatory legend for vegetation maps of the Kamloops Lake bio-physical study area. E.C. Lea. December 1988. 78pp.

WR-37 Bio-physical habitat units and interpretations for moose use of the upper Cariboo River Wildlife Management Area. E.C. Lea, T. Vold, J. Young, M. Beets, D. Blower, J. Youds, A. Roberts. December 1988. 24pp.

WR-38 Grizzly bear habitat of the Flathead River area: expanded legend. E.C. Lea, B.L. Fuhr, and L.E.H. Lacelle. December 1988.24pp.

WR-39 Managing habitat through guidelines: How far can you go? M. Fenger and V. Stevens, eds. February 1989. 48pp.

WR-40 Wolf-prey dynamics. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by B.C. Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch, Faculty ofForestry, University of British Columbia and the Northwest Wildlife Preservation Society. February 1989. 188pp.

WR-41 Caribou research and management in B.C.: proceedings of a workshop. R.Page, ed. November 1988. 275pp. (Also printedas WHR-27)

WR-42 Trapping in British Columbia - a survey. R. Reid. January 1989. 55pp.

WR-43 Biophysical habitat units of the Lower Halfway study area: expanded legend. E.C. Lea and L.E.H. Lacelle. December 1989.33pp.

WR-44 Long range habitat planning: proceedings. M. Fenger and V. Stevens, eds. March 1990. 49pp.

WR-45 Biophysical habitat units of the Mosley Creek study area: expanded legend and interpretations. E.C. Lea and R.C. Kowall.March 1990. 33pp.

WR-46 Habitat Management Section. Annual General Meeting. Yellowpoint Lodge - 1989 April 25-27. Wildlife and RecreationalFisheries Branches, Ministry of Environment. July 1990. 107pp.

WR-47 Working plan — Khutzeymateen Valley grizzly bear study. A.N. Hamilton and J.A. Nagy. September 1990. 35pp. (Also printedas WHR-28).

WR-48 Khutzeymateen Valley grizzly bear study. Annual progress report - year 1 (1989/90), annual working plan - year 2 (1990/91).J.A. Nagy and A.G. MacHutchon. January 1991. 44pp. (Also printed as WHR-29).

WR-49 Fort Nelson and area average winter maximum snowpack mapping. R. Chilton. July 1990. 12pp.

WR-50 Marten habitat suitability research project - working plan. E.C. Lofroth and V. Banci. January 1991. 31pp.

WR-51 Khutzeymateen Valley grizzly bear study. Annual progress report - year 2 (1990/91), annual working plan - year 3 (1991/92).A.G. MacHutchon and S. Himmer. March 1992. 36pp. (Also printed as WHR-30)

WR-52 Abundance, Distribution and Conservation of Birds in the Vicinity of Boundary Bay, B.C. R.W. Butler, ed. 1992. 132pp. (Also printes as Technical Report Series No. 155, Pacific and Yukon Region, Can. Wildlife Service).

WR-53 Status of the Clouded Salamander in British Columbia. T.M. Davis and P.T. Gregory. March 1993. 19pp.

WR-54 Status of the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake in British Columbia. M.B. Charland, K.J. Nelson, P.T. Gregory. March 1993. 23 pp.

WR-55 Status of the Shrew-mole in British Columbia. L. Kremsater, L. Andrusiak, F.L. Bunnell. March 1993. 26 pp.

WR-56 Status of the Nuttall’s Cottontail in British Columbia. D.W. Carter, A. Harestad, F.L. Bunnell. March 1993. 33 pp.

WR-57 Status of the Sharp-tailed Snake in British Columbia. D.J. Spalding. March 1993. 15pp.

WR-58 Guidelines for Technical Publications of the Wildlife Program. E. Stanlake. March 1993. 57pp.

WR-59 Status of Keen's Long-eared Myotis in British Columbia. M. Firman, M. Getty, and R.M.B. Barclay. March 1993. 29pp.

Continued from inside back cover:

WR-60 Biophysical Habitat Units for the Tatlayoko Lake Study Area: expanded legend and interpretations. E.C. Lea and R.C.Kowall. March 1993. 22pp.

WR-61 Status of the Pallid Bat in British Columbia. K. Chapman, K. Mc Guinness, R.M. Brigham. February 1994. 32pp.

WR-62 Status of the Bald Eagle in British Columbia. D.A. Blood and G. G. Anweiler. February 1994. 92pp

WR-63 A Survey of the Bat Fauna of the Dry Interior of British Columbia. S.L. Holroyd, R.M.R. Barclay, L.M. Merk, and R.M.Brigham. March 1994. 80pp.

WR-64 Distribution and Abundance of Four Species of Small Mammals At Risk in a Fragmented Landscape. G.A. Zuleta andC. Galindo-Leal. March 1994. 80pp.

WR-65 Problem Analysis of Integrated Resource Management of Riparian Areas in British Columbia. S.L. Rautio, P. Bunnell. March1994. 26pp. (Also RRP3003-HQ Minist. of For. Res. Br.)

WR-66 A Bibliography of Selected Literature on Wildlife Trees with Annotations and Abstracts. Wildlife Tree Committee. December1994. 90pp.

WR-67 Status of the Vaux's Swift in British Columbia. K. Summers and M. Gebauer. March 1995. 24pp.

WR-68 Status of the White-throated Swift in British Columbia. K. Summers. March 1995. 24pp.

WR-69 Status of the Williamson's Sapsucker in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper. March 1995. 24pp.

WR-70 Status of the Sharp-tailed Grouse in British Columbia. R. Ritcey. March 1995. 52pp.

WR-71 Status of the Western Harvest Mouse in British Columbia. D.W. Nagorsen. March 1995. 32pp.

WR-72 Status of the Badger in British Columbia. A.H. Rahme, A.S. Harestad and F.L. Bunnell. March 1995. 64pp.

WR-73 Status of the Fringed Myotis in British Columbia. S.A. Rasheed, P.F.J. Garcia, and S.L. Holroyd. October 1995. 28pp.

WR-74 Status of the Western Small-footed Myotis in British Columbia. P.F.J. Garcia, S.A. Rasheed, and S.L. Holroyd. October 1995.24pp.

WR-75 Status of the Spotted Bat in British Columbia. P.F.J. Garcia, S.A. Rasheed, and S.L. Holroyd. October 1995. 24pp.

WR-76 The Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Requirements of Selected Passerine Birds of the Boreal and Taiga Plains of BritishColumbia. K.A. Enns and C. Siddle. March 1996. 54pp.

WR-77 Status of the Brewer's Sparrow (breweri subspecies) in British Columbia. M.J. Sarell and K.P. McGuinness. March 1996. 22pp.

WR-78 Status of the Green Heron in British Columbia. D.F. Fraser and L.R. Ramsay. March 1996. 28pp.

WR-79 Status of the Bay-breasted Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 36pp.

WR-80 Status of the Black-throated Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 36pp.

WR-81 Status of the Canada Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 36pp.

WR-82 Status of the Cape May Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 34pp.

WR-83 Status of the Connecticut Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 32pp.

WR-84 Status of the Philadelphia Vireo in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 32pp.

WR-85 Status of the Prairie Falcon in the Chilcotin-Cariboo region, British Columbia. T.D. Hooper. March 1997. 22pp.

WR-86 Status of the Upland Sandpiper in the Chilcotin-Cariboo region, British Columbia. T.D. Hooper. March 1997. 26pp.

WR-87 Status of the Western Grebe in British Columbia. A.E.Burger. March 1997. 40pp.

WR-88 Status of the Sprague's Pipit in British Columbia. T.D. Hooper. March 1997. 20pp.

WR-89 Status of the Purple Martin in British Columbia. D.F. Fraser, C. Siddle, D. Copley, and E. Walters. March 1997. 38pp.

WR-90 Toward a Mountain Caribou Management Strategy for British Columbia - Habitat Requirements and Sub-Population Status.K.Simpson, E. Terry, and D. Hamilton. December 1997. 27pp.

WR-91 Status of the Lewis' Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, C. Siddle, and G. Davidson. February1998. 34pp.