Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Red-cockadedWoodpecker
2 3
DescriptionThe common name came into useduring the early 1800’s when‘cockade’ was regularly used to referto a ribbon or other ornament wornon a hat. Female RCWs lack the redcockade. Juvenile males have a red‘patch’ in the center of their blackcrown. This patch disappears duringthe fall of their first year at whichtime their ‘red-cockades’ appear.
The RCW shares the southeast withseven other species of woodpeckers.Hairy and downy woodpeckers couldbe mistaken for RCWs as they arealso small and have black and whitebarred wings, but not a barred back.Only the RCW has the white cheekpatch. Other woodpecker species,including the red-bellied, red-headed,pileated, northern flicker andyellow-bellied sapsucker, can bedistinguished from the RCW byeither having very noticeable red ontheir head or lacking the black andwhite bars on the back.
The red-cockadedwoodpecker (RCW) is asmall bird measuringabout 7 inches in length.Identifiable by its whitecheek patch and blackand white barred back,the males have a few redfeathers, or “cockade”.These red feathersusually remain hiddenunderneath blackfeathers between theblack crown and whitecheek patch unless themale is disturbed orexcited.
1 Red-cockaded
2 Hairy
3 Downy
4 Pileated
5 Red-bellied
6 Red-headed
7 Sapsucker
8 Flicker
9 Ivorybill(extinct)
Ric
hard
A. P
arks
Plate ofsoutheasternwoodpeckers;from ThomasM. Imhof ’s“Alabama Birds”
Southeastern Woodpeckers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5
Historical Distribution and AbundanceRCWs were once consideredcommon throughout the longleafpine ecosystem, which coveredapproximately 90 million acres beforeEuropean settlement. Historicalpopulation estimates are 1-1.6 million“groups”, the family unit of RCWs.The birds inhabited the open pineforests of the southeast from NewJersey, Maryland and Virginia toFlorida, west to Texas and north toportions of Oklahoma, Missouri,Tennessee and Kentucky. The longleafpine ecosystem initially disappearedfrom much of its original rangebecause of early (1700’s) Europeansettlement, widespread commercialtimber harvesting and the navalstores/turpentine industry (1800’s).Early to mid-1900 commercial treefarming, urbanization and agriculturecontributed to further declines. Muchof the current habitat is also verydifferent in quality from historicalpine forests in which RCWs evolved.Today, many southern pine forestsare young and an absence of fire hascreated a dense pine/hardwood forest.
Top: Turn of the century (1900) logging of virgin longleafpine forest in east Texas; courtesy of the East TexasResearch Center, Steen Library, Forest HistoryCollections, Stephen F. Austin State Univ, Nacogdoches,TX. Bottom: Turn of the century (1900) logging oflongleaf pine forest in east Texas; courtesy of the EastTexas Research Center, Steen Library, Forest HistoryCollections, Thompson Family Lumber EnterprisesCollection, P90T:202, Stephen F. Austin State Univ.,Nacogdoches, TX
Virgin longleafpine forest inEscambia Co. FL
6 7
Decline of RCWsThe primary habitat of the RCW, thelongleaf pine ecosystem, has beenreduced to 3% of its original expanse.This reduction of suitable habitat hascaused the number of RCWs todecline by approximately 99% sincethe time of European settlement (seemap on pages 12-13). The RCW waslisted as endangered in 1970 andreceived the protection of theEndangered Species Act (ESA) withits passage in 1973. At the time oflisting, the species had declined tofewer than 10,000 individuals inwidely scattered, isolated anddeclining populations. Today thereremains about 5,600 groups or 14,000birds. Most populations werestabilized during the 1990’s due tomanagement based on newunderstanding of RCW biology andpopulation dynamics. However, thereare still populations in decline andsmall populations throughout thespecies’ current range are still indanger of extirpation.
Life History andReproductive BiologyThe red-cockaded is a territorial,non-migratory species. The RCWssocial system is more complex thanmost species of birds; individuals livein groups normally consisting of abreeding pair and zero to four male(rarely female) offspring fromprevious years. These offspring,know as “helpers”assist in incubatingeggs and brooding and feedingnestlings produced by the breedingpair. The RCW social system isreferred to as a cooperative breedingsystem, that is, the breeding pairreceives assistance from offspring inthe raising of young. In mid-April,the female RCW usually lays a clutchof three to five white eggs in thebreeding male’s roost cavity. Eggshatch after 10-12 days of incubation(among the shortest incubation inbirds) and nestlings fledge from thenest cavity 24-27 days after hatching.RCW nestlings are altricial, that is,they do not have feathers whenhatched and their eyes are not open.
RCW delivering food to nestlings
Above: Seven-dayold RCW nestling.Nestlings arebanded at 7-10days old. Right:Helper malefeeding juvenilemale.
Der
rick
Ham
rick
Ral
ph C
osta
, US
FW
S
Der
rick
Ham
rick
8 9
They require a lot of care fromparents and helpers who will feed thenestlings and clean the cavity ofwaste during the nestling period. Incontrast, quail are precocial; theyhatch fully feathered and are able tofeed themselves when led to food bythe parent. After fledging, thenestlings continue to be fed by adultsfor up to six months at which time themajority of fledglings disperse fromthe territory where they hatched.Mortality is high (68%) for femalefledglings as they disperse to searchfor breeding vacancies. Malefledglings either disperse or remainon their natal territory to becomehelpers. Annual mortality is also high(57%) for male fledglings. Althoughre-nesting may occur if a clutch orbrood is lost, RCWs typically haveonly one successful nesting attemptannually. Double brooding (twosuccessful nests in one breedingseason) has been documented but isextremely rare.
Diet and Foraging BehaviorThe diet of RCWs consists mostly ofinsects in the egg, larvae and adultstages. These include beetles, ants,roaches, spiders and other insectsfound in or on pine trees. Fruits andseeds make up a small portion of theoverall diet. Methods of foraginginclude flaking away bark andprobing under the bark using theirspecialized forked tongue to extractinsects. Large, older trees arepreferred for foraging. In general,males forage on the limbs and uppertrunk while females forage on thetrunk below the crown. This divisionof foraging area is most noticeable inwinter when insect numbers are attheir lowest and their activity slowsdue to cold weather, making it harderfor RCWs to detect prey. Differencesin the foraging behavior of malesand females may help to reducecompetition between them whenfood is scarce.
Roosting and Nesting CavitiesThe RCW is the only NorthAmerican woodpecker to excavateroost and nest cavities in living pinetrees. While longleaf pine is thepreferred species for excavation,other species such as loblolly,shortleaf, slash and pond pine arealso used depending on the localforest type and tree speciesavailability. The use of live pines asroosting and nesting sites may haveevolved in response to living in a firemaintained ecosystem wherefrequent fires, primarily in thegrowing season, eliminated moststanding dead pines (snags).Longleaf pine is thought to bepreferred by the woodpeckersbecause it is the most fire-adapted ofthe pines. Longleaf pine has a unique‘grass’ stage when young, producingan abundance of long green needlesthat burn during ground fires, thusprotecting the growing stem.Longleaf also produces more resinwhen wounded than other pines,making them more resistant to insectoutbreaks such as the southern pinebeetle. RCWs use this increased
Above: MaleRCW bringingfood to nestcavity (notedifficulty seeingred-cockade).Right: RCWactive cavity tree(note candle-likeappearance andevidence of recentprescribed fire).
Jim
Han
ula,
US
FS
Ral
ph C
osta
, US
FW
S
10 11
resin flow for cavity defense bychipping holes, called ‘resin wells’,above and around the entrance to thecavity as a defense against predators.Rat snakes, skillful at climbing trees,are the main predators of RCWnests. Resin flow produced by thewells creates a physical and chemicalbarrier that impedes the snake’smovement up the tree. The birds alsoscale the outer bark off the treeabove and below the cavity entrance,exposing sapwood around the cavityentrance forming a ‘plate’ around thecavity. Resin flowing from the wellscreated by the RCWs may eventuallycoat the trunk, thus making thecavity tree conspicuous from adistance, giving it a candle-likeappearance.
Each member of the group roostsin a separate cavity. Cavities areexcavated in mature pines, generallyover 80 years old. Cavity excavationtakes one to six years. The birdsslowly excavate through the resinoussapwood before reaching therelatively sap-free heartwood.RCWs choose older trees for cavity
excavation. They need trees matureenough to have sufficient heartwoodfor a cavity free of sap and becausemany mature trees are infected withred heart fungus. This fungus softensthe heartwood and allows for easierexcavation of the roosting chamber.Individual cavities are known thathave been used by RCWs for over sixgenerations, or approximately 30years. The aggregate of cavity treesused by a group is referred to as a‘cluster’. The cluster consists of oneto numerous cavity trees; trees maycontain new cavity ‘starts’ andcompleted cavities. Cavity treeswithin a cluster may be ‘active’,currently being used by a RCW, or‘inactive’, not being used by a RCW.
Above: FemaleRCW working onresin well. Right:Black rat snakeclimbing RCWcavity tree.
Above: Juvenilemale RCW, justprior to fledging.Right: ActiveRCW cavity withmany resinwells, heavyresin flow andcavity “plate”.Below right:Advanced cavitystart, almost toheartwood.
Der
rick
Ham
rick
Ric
hard
N. C
onne
r, U
SF
S
Der
rick
Ham
rick
Bob
Hoo
per,
US
FS
Ral
ph C
osta
, US
FW
S
12 13
Ecological NicheBesides being unique amongNorth American woodpeckers,red-cockaded woodpeckers are‘primary’ cavity nesters, meaningthey are responsible for theconstruction of cavities. In thesouthern pine ecosystem there aremany ‘secondary’ cavity users thatbenefit from the RCWs work. RCWsare considered a ‘keystone’ speciesbecause use of their cavities by theseanimals contributes to the speciesrichness of the pine forest. At least27 species of vertebrates have beendocumented using RCW cavities,either for roosting or nesting.Species include birds, snakes, lizards,squirrels and frogs. Many of thesespecies, for example wood ducks,only use the cavities that have been
abandoned by RCWs; abandonmentusually occurs because the entrancetunnel was enlarged by pileatedwoodpeckers. However, southernflying squirrels, red-belliedwoodpeckers, red-headedwoodpeckers, eastern bluebirds,brown-headed nuthatches, tuftedtitmice and great crested flycatchersare the species most commonly seenin RCW cavities, and can use normal,unenlarged cavities that RCWs couldalso use. RCW cavities are a valuedresource for many species andcompetition occurs for their use.
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers and FireA healthy, productive RCWpopulation is also an indicator of ahealthy southern pine ecosystem.RCWs and southern pines bothevolved in a fire-dominated system.Many other species within thissystem show adaptations to fire. Themost prominent adaptation of RCWsis their use of living pines for cavityexcavation. The history of fire in thesoutheast has a natural and humancomponent. Research has suggestedthe ecosystem evolved in response toslow-moving ground fires started by
Above: Completed,very active cavity(note the largeresin wells, thickresin flow andplate formation,indicating acavity that hasbeen in use foryears). Right:RCW cluster inlongleaf pineforest. Bottomright: RCWcluster in shortleafpine/loblolly pineforest.
Right: Great-crested flycatcherusing inactiveRCW cavity fornest. Below:Southern flyingsquirrel usingRCW cavity.
Bob
Hoo
per,
US
FS
Bob
Hoo
per,
US
FS
Phi
llip
Jord
on
D. C
raig
Rud
olph
, US
FS
Der
rick
Ham
rick
14 15
lightning strikes, which occur morefrequently in the southeast thananywhere else in North America.Most fires started by lightningstrikes occur in the spring andsummer growing season, whenthunderstorms are more prevalent.Native Americans and laterEuropean settlers used fire to clearland and improve hunting grounds.However much of this burning wasaccomplished during the winter, thenon-growing season. Frequent firescreated an open forest, with largepines, little to no mid-story, and adiverse herbaceous groundcover;described by many 19th centurynaturalists as ‘park-like’ because theycould easily ride horses and wagonsacross the land. Many of thegroundcover plant species showadaptations to fire and are termed‘pyrophytic’ or ‘fire-loving’. Forexample, wiregrass is a highlyflammable bunchgrass, typicallyproducing seed only after a summergrowing season burn. Because of itsunique fire-loving properties, thebiodiversity of herbaceousgroundcover in longleaf pine forestsis among the world’s highest.
Above:Lightening-ignited wildfirein longleaf pineforest. Below:slow movingground fire inlongleaf pineforest likelytypical of‘historic’ naturaland humanignited fires.
Top: White birds-in-a-nest (Macbridea alba), federallylisted as threatened, endemic to longleaf pine forests inFlorida; one of many listed, rare, endemic, herbaceousplants unique to southeastern pine ecosystems. Bottom:Longleaf pine—wiregrass habitat; a result of frequentgrowing season prescribed fires.
Joan
Wal
ker,
US
FS
Joan
Wal
ker,
US
FS
Ral
ph C
osta
, US
FW
S
D. C
raig
Rud
olph
, US
FS
16 17
Historic and current (1995); updated 2002, distributionmap of RCW; courtesy of Our Living Resources: AReport to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance,and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems,National Biological Service, USDI. Red-cockadedWoodpecker; Costa and Walker, 1995
Historic Distribution of Red-cockadedWoodpecker (Jackson 1971, Hooper et al.1980).
Current Red-cockaded WoodpeckerDistribution (Federal, State, and PrivateSector Biologists 1993, 1994; updated 2002)
★
Distribution of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers
?
18 19
Habitat ManagementDegradation and loss of habitat led tothe rapid decline of RCWs.Conservation and management ofadequate habitat is central torecovery goals. Quality habitatincludes forests with trees oldenough for roosting, generally atleast 80-120 years old, depending onspecies of pine. Hardwood midstoryresults in cluster abandonment;therefore, it is critical that hardwoodmidstory be controlled. Prescribedburning is the most efficient and
ecologically beneficial method toaccomplish hardwood midstorycontrol. Either mechanical and/orchemical treatment may also berequired for initial control of themidstory. Foraging habitat must alsoconsist of a forest of older pines withlittle or no midstory. Each RCWgroup uses from 75-200 acres offoraging habitat. The acres useddepend upon habitat quality andpopulation density. For example, apark-like forest of older, larger pinesand open understory is of higherquality than a dense forest with manysmall, young pines. The arearequired for RCW foraging on highquality sites is less than sites of lowerquality. However, habitatmanagement for forage and cavitytrees must include the developmentof a young age class of pines to insurethe necessary older trees for futuregenerations of RCWs. Theapplication of controlled burns isessential in keeping the structure ofthe forest beneficial to RCWs.
Above: Longleafpine forest withyoung treesand wiregrassunderstory.Right: Longleafpine forestwith turkeyoak midstory.Bottom right:High quality,longleaf pineRCW foraginghabitat.
Prescribedburning inlongleaf pineforest.
D. C
raig
Rud
olph
, US
FS
Joan
Wal
ker,
US
FS
Ral
ph C
osta
, US
FW
SF
elic
a S
ande
rs, U
SF
WS
/Cle
mso
n U
nive
rsit
y/S
CD
NR
20 21
Cavity Management andPopulation AugmentationToday’s RCW populations, especiallysmall ones, will not increase to viablesizes without human intervention.Several management techniques,introduced in the early 1990’s, havebeen responsible for increasing RCWpopulations. One of the mostsuccessful has been the installation ofartificial cavities. Cavities are criticalto RCWs nesting and roosting andtheir presence for each groupmember increases the chances forsurvival and persistence of the group.There are two main techniques forproviding artificial cavities forRCWs. These include drilling holesthat mimic natural cavities andinstalling boxes called ‘inserts’ withina suitable tree.
These techniques were put to the testafter Hurricane Hugo destroyed 87%of the active cavity trees on theFrancis Marion National Forest in1989, the second largest RCW
population at the time. Installation ofartificial cavities, both inserts anddrilled, helped to stabilize thepopulation after this devastating loss.
Translocation of juvenile RCWs isanother management technique usedin RCW recovery. Translocationinvolves moving one or more juvenileRCWs between or within populationsto achieve management goals. Thesegoals include saving critically smallpopulations in danger of ‘extirpation’or disappearing; developing a betterspatial arrangement of groups toreduce isolation; introducing birds tosuitable habitat; and increasinggenetic diversity in critically smallpopulations. Typically, two types oftranslocations are conducted: afemale juvenile is moved to a solitarymale group; and an unrelated maleand female juvenile are moved to a‘recruitment’ cluster in hopes ofestablishing a new group.Recruitment clusters are establishedby installing artificial cavities inunoccupied but suitable habitat.Refining translocation techniques hasmade this an invaluable tool forrecovery. The most importantcomponent, quality habitat,consisting of open park-like pineforests, suitable nesting and roostingcavities, and adequate foraginghabitat, must be in place beforetranslocations are conducted.
Right: HurricaneHugo, September1989, eyecentered over theFrancis MarionNational Forest.Bottom right:Francis MarionNational Forestpost-HurricaneHugo.
Above right:Subadult femaleand male inpreparation fortranslocation toa recruitmentcluster. Above:Wildlife biologistinstallingartificial cavityinsert.
NA
SA
Ral
ph C
osta
, US
FW
S
Mik
e L
enna
rtz,
US
FS
US
FS
22 23
Conservation EffortsRecovery efforts for the RCW beganwith the listing of the bird in 1970and passage of the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973. The U. S. Fishand Wildlife Service outlined goalsand guidelines for recovery of theRCW in the Recovery Plan written in1979 and revised in 1985 and 2003.Recovery will be achieved when wehave numerous self-sustainingpopulations of woodpeckers. OnceEndangered Species Act de-listingcriteria are met, the size, number,and distribution of populations willbe sufficient to counteract threatsassociated with small population size,environmental factors, such asannual fluctuations in weather andprey abundance, genetic viability,
and catastrophic events, therebymaintaining long-term viability forthe species as defined by currentunderstanding of these processes.Regions and habitat types currentlyoccupied by the species will berepresented as adequately aspossible, given habitat limitations.The Recovery Plan identifies elevenrecovery units based on ecoregions.Populations required for recoveryare distributed among the recoveryunits to ensure the representationof broad geographic and geneticvariation within the species historicrange. The recovery strategyincludes the participation of federalagencies, state agencies and privatelandowners. Approximately 66%of RCWs occur on federal lands,including numerous national forests,national wildlife refuges, andmilitary installations, one nationalpark and one Department ofEnergy facility. Eleven percent ofRCWs occur on state lands andprivate lands harbor approximately23% of known RCWs.
Knowledge of RCW biology andlife history increased significantlyduring the 1990s. Research findingshave led to significant conservationinitiatives. Many property managersand biologists band their RCWs(both adults and nestlings), surveyand map cavity trees and annuallymonitor nesting activities to assesspopulation health. Research findingson the bird’s natural history andecology have enabled landowners andmanagers to implement habitatimprovement programs. The positivepopulation trends (early 1990’s topresent) on many public and privatelands are a direct result of successfulimplementation of a well-coordinatedregional translocation program andhabitat improvements, such ascontrolling midstory, prescribedburning, and installing artificialcavities.
Right: Artificialcavity insert withmetal restrictorplate to preventdamage bypileatedwoodpeckers(note artificiallycreated resinwells and non-toxic white paintto imitate resinflow). Belowright: wildlifebiologist bandingeight-day-oldRCW nestling.
Wildlife biologistclimbing RCWnest cavity tree,with ten footsectionalSwedishclimbing ladders,to capture andband nestlings.
US
FS
Jody
Boc
k, C
lem
son
Uni
vers
ity
Nan
cy J
orda
n, C
lem
son
Uni
vers
ity
24 25
Private Land ConservationPartnershipsAlthough public lands, both federaland state, are central to recoveryefforts, approximately 23% of RCWs(1296 groups in 10 states) reside onprivate lands. In the early 1990’s, theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,realizing that population declines onprivate lands were hinderingrecovery efforts, developed andimplemented strategies for RCWconservation on private land.
The benefits of conserving RCWson private lands are numerous.They include reducing habitatfragmentation rates, maintaining orenhancing occupied habitat, restoringpopulations to unoccupied habitat,maintaining or increasing populationnumbers, establishing buffers foradjacent public land populations,reducing effects of catastrophicevents, such as hurricanes or southernpine beetle outbreaks, providingcorridors to other populations,serving as reservoirs of geneticdiversity, providing birds for otherpopulations, and contributing toresearch on life history and ecology,management techniques andconservation strategies.
Many private landowners areconcerned with restrictions onthe use of their land should anendangered species, such as RCWs,be found on or move to theirproperty. One of the foundationsof the private land conservationstrategy of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service has been to alleviatelandowner’s fears of endangeredspecies restrictions while alsominimizing the economic impactof conservation.
Strategies include Memorandumsof Agreement (MOA), HabitatConservation Plans (HCP) andSafe Harbor agreements. MOAs aregenerally between the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service and corporations.They outline actions by which acorporation can manage forRCWs and/or their habitat whilesimultaneously meeting theircorporate objectives for landmanagement. HCPs, once approvedby the Service, provide landownerswith “incidental take” (defined by theESA as taking that “is incidental to,and not the purpose of, the carryingout of an otherwise lawful activity”)of selected RCW groups in exchangefor ‘creation’ of new groups,management of occupied habitatand/or restoration of suitable habitat.Via an HCP, private landowners
Activered-cockadedwoodpecker cavitytree in urbansetting on privateland enrolled insafe harbor.Approximately 5%(70 groups) of the1296 red-cockadedgroups living onprivate land arein urban settings,such as horsefarms, golfcourses andsubdivisions.The remaining95% are on quailplantations andindustrial forestlands.
Protected, activered-cockadedwoodpeckercluster onindustrial forestland. Severalindustrial forestlandowners havetaken leadershiproles, via habitatconservationplans, inred-cockadedwoodpeckerconservation andmanagement ontheir property.
Jere
my
Poir
ier,
Inte
rnat
iona
l Pap
er
J.H
. Car
ter
III
26 27
Historic Time Line for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers
1807 Red-cockaded woodpecker “discovered” anddescribed as new species by Louis Jean PierreVieillot; given scientific name of Picus borealis,the northern woodpecker.
1810 Alexander Wilson describes the red-cockadedwoodpecker as a new species and names it Picusquerulus. Because Viellot’s scientific name camefirst, today the bird is known as Picoidesborealis, the red-cockaded woodpecker, thecommon name provided by Wilson.
1821 John James Audubon captures a red-cockadedwoodpecker near Bayou Sara, Louisiana andpaints its portrait from a living specimen; hereleases it two days later.
1880’s Red-cockaded woodpecker populations begin aprecipitous decline that continues through the1930’s as land is cleared for agriculture, timberand the war effort (World War I).
1911 F. E. L. Beal publishes first account of thered-cockaded woodpecker’s diet.
1928 L.A. Hausman describes the red-cockadedwoodpecker as a “very causal visitant into thesouthern portion of New Jersey”, suggesting ithas been extirpated by this date (assuming itnested in the state—likely in the south/centralJersey pine barrens).
1939 James Gut finds red-cockaded woodpecker fossilwingbone in a Rock Spring, Florida streambed,indicating presence of red-cockadedwoodpeckers in Florida during the Pleistocene.
1946 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in Missouri.
1958 Red-cockaded woodpecker likely extirpated inMaryland; occasional sightings in 1974 and 1976are considered “transients”.
1968 Department of Interior identifies the red-cockadedwoodpecker as a rare and endangered species.
1970 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially lists thered-cockaded woodpecker as an endangeredspecies.
1970 J.D. Ligon publishes first account on behavior andbreeding biology of red-cockaded woodpecker.
1970 First red-cockaded woodpecker symposium heldat Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia.
typically ‘create’ a new woodpeckergroup to mitigate and minimize forloss of a group they might want toeliminate from their land.
By far the most successful of theprivate lands conservation strategiesis Safe Harbor. Originally developedfor RCW conservation, the SafeHarbor approach is now being appliedto many other listed species that occuron private lands. Under a Safe Harboragreement, a landowner voluntarilyagrees to protect and manage habitatfor the ‘baseline’ population; that isthe number of groups on the propertyat the time the agreement is signed.The landowner also implementsspecific habitat improvements (suchas prescribed burning, midstoryhardwood removal, installation ofcavities) to further enhance occupiedand/or unoccupied, but potentiallysuitable, habitat. If the habitatimprovements encourage the creationof RCW groups above the ‘baseline’,the landowners are under noobligation to provide habitat for thenew groups. Safe Harbor agreementsensure that baseline RCW populationsare managed properly and removeregulatory concerns of landowners byeliminating their legal responsibilitiesfor groups above the baseline.
As of 2002, 146 landowners hadenrolled 338,697 acres in Safe Harboragreements, harboring 351 RCWgroups in 5 states. While landownersare under no obligation to encouragethe creation of new RCW groups,many have done so by establishingrecruitment clusters. Overall, theprivate lands conservation strategyfor RCWs, including MOAs, HCPsand Safe Harbor, has resulted in theprotection of approximately 561groups of woodpeckers in 10 states,43% of groups known on private land.This significant contribution ishelping to reverse the loss of habitatand RCWs on private land.
A tract of virginlongleaf pineforest on privateland in southGeorgia; oldesttrees are 400-500years old. Onlyabout 3000 acresof the southeast’soriginal90,000,000 acresof virgin longleafpine forestremains.
Gra
nt H
ilder
bran
d, U
SF
S
28 29
1994 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated inTennessee because of demographic isolation.
1995 U.S. Forest Service issues “Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement for the Management of theRed-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat onNational Forests in the Southern Region”.
1995 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery, Ecologyand Management”, the proceedings of red-cockaded woodpecker Symposium III, is published.
1995 Safe harbor policy is created and first red-cockadedwoodpecker safe harbor permit is issued for theNorth Carolina Sandhills region; similar permitsare issued for Texas (1998), South Carolina (1998),Virginia (2000) and Georgia (2000).
1995 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues “A CurrentBibliographic Resource for the Red-cockadedWoodpecker”; updated annually.
1996 U.S. Army issues “Management Guidelines for theRed-cockaded Woodpecker on Army Installations”.
1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues“Strategy and Guidelines for the Recovery andManagement of the Red-cockaded Woodpeckerand its Habitats on National Wildlife Refuges”.
1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service institutes the“Annual Red-cockaded Woodpecker PopulationData Report”, a system to track population sizeand trend and habitat accomplishments on allpublic lands and private lands, in partnershipswith the Service, harboring red-cockadedwoodpeckers.
2000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launchesred-cockaded woodpecker website<http://rcwrecovery.fws.gov>.
2001 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated inKentucky due to catastrophic loss of pine forestcaused by southern pine beetle epidemic.
2001 R.N. Conner, et al. publishes “The Red-cockadedWoodpecker: Surviving in a Fire-maintainedEcosystem”, the second book on red-cockadedwoodpeckers.
2003 Second revision of the “Red-cockadedWoodpecker Recovery Plan” is approved.
2003 Fourth red-cockaded woodpecker symposiumheld in Savannah, Georgia.
1970 “Symposium on the Red-cockaded Woodpecker”,proceedings of the first symposium, is published.
1973 Red-cockaded woodpecker receives Federalprotection with the passage of the EndangeredSpecies Act.
1979 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan”approved by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1983 Second red-cockaded woodpecker symposiumheld in Panama City, Florida.
1983 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Symposium IIProceedings”, proceedings of the secondsymposium is published.
1985 First revision of the “Red-cockaded WoodpeckerRecovery Plan” is approved.
1986 “Report of the American Ornithologists’Union Committee for the Conservation of theRed-cockaded Woodpecker” is published.
1986 First successful translocations of red-cockadedwoodpeckers are conducted.
1987 First in-depth study into the sociobiology of thered-cockaded woodpecker is published.
1988 First estimate of viable population size ispublished.
1989 Hurricane Hugo devastates Francis MarionNational Forest, home of the second largestred-cockaded woodpecker population.
1990 Scientific Summit on the red-cockadedwoodpecker is held in Live Oak, Florida;Summary Report is published.
1990 Drilled cavities are invented.
1990 First investigation into the genetic health of red-cockaded woodpeckers is published.
1991 Cavity inserts are invented.
1992 R.W. McFarlane publishes “A Stillness in the Pines”,the first book about red-cockaded woodpeckers.
1993 Third red-cockaded woodpecker symposium heldin North Charleston, SC.
1993 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Georgia PacificCorporation establish first private land partnership,a memorandum of agreement, for conservation andmanagement of red-cockaded woodpeckers.
30 31
The following federal and state agencies and privateorganizations manage lands that are directly involved inthe recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker.Additionally, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, various otherstate agencies (see below), and many individual andcorporate private landowners are assisting significantlyin supporting conservation and recovery programs forthe red-cockaded woodpecker. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService appreciates and is thankful for the numerousprivate and public sector partners that are helping savethe red-cockaded woodpecker.
FederalDepartment of AgricultureU.S. Forest Service
Department of DefenseU.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S.Navy, National Guard
Department of Energy
Department of InteriorNational Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
StateFlorida Division of Forestry, Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission, Florida Park Service, NorthCarolina Department of Agriculture, North CarolinaDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources,North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, SouthCarolina Forestry Commission, South Florida WaterManagement District, Saint John’s River WaterManagement District
PrivateThe Conservation Fund
The Nature ConservancyNorth Carolina Chapter, Virginia Chapter
Other state agencies harboring, managing and conservingred-cockaded woodpeckers on lands under theiradministration:Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry,Oklahoma Department of Conservation, South CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources, South CarolinaDepartment of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, SouthCarolina Department of Transportation in cooperationwith the South Carolina Chapter of The NatureConservancy, Texas Forest Service, Texas Parks andWildlife Department
Contributors and AcknowledgementsProject Coordinator: Ralph Costa
Brochure text by:This pamphlet was originally draftedby Ms. Felicia Sanders, a Master’sdegree graduate student (1998-2000)at Clemson University studyingred-cockaded woodpeckers andenrolled in the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService’s Student Career ExperienceProgram (SCEP) at the Service’sClemson Field Office.
Ms. Nancy Jordan, also a Master’sdegree graduate student (2000-2002)at Clemson University studying red-cockaded woodpeckers and enrolledin the SCEP at the Clemson FieldOffice, completed the final draft.
The Clemson Field Office andthe Service’s Regional Office inAtlanta appreciate the significantcontributions of Felicia’s and Nancy’sgraduate programs and SCEPtoward the conservation andrecovery of the red-cockadedwoodpecker.
Layout and design: Ellen Marcus,USFWS
32
Ralph CostaRed-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery CoordinatorClemson Field OfficeU.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceDepartment of Forest Resources261 Lehotsky HallClemson UniversityClemson, SC 29634Phone: 864/656 2432Fax: 864/656 1350E-mail: [email protected]
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service1 800/344 WILDhttp://www.fws.gov
October 2002
Cover: male RCW atnest cavity entrance;Phillip Jordon
