Download Babcock RCW Plan - Florida Department of Environmental Protection

BABCOCK RANCH PRESERVE RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared for
Florida Natural Areas Inventory
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida
Funded by
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Tallahassee, Florida
Authored by
Dr. John Kappes and Mr. Ralph Costa
Prepared by
Ralph Costa’s Woodpecker Outfit (RCWO), LLC
Mountain Rest, South Carolina
21 May 2008
1
RELATIONSHIP TO BACKOCK RANCH PRESERVE - FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN
This plan was developed to assist the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission and the Florida Division of Forestry in their efforts to draft an integrated
Forest Management Plan for the Babcock Ranch Preserve.
The Babcock Ranch
Preserve was purchased by the State of Florida to be operated as a “working ranch”,
consequently some of the recommendations contained herein were modified in the
Babcock Ranch Preserve – Forest Management Plan to comport with the purpose for this
acquisition. Readers are directed to the actual Babcock Ranch Preserve - Forest
Management Plan to identify specific provisions that will be followed for conserving onsite populations of the red-cockaded woodpecker.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
5
Purpose and Goal of the Plan
Property Size and Location
Relationship to Existing Conservation Lands
Details and Objectives of Acquisition
Ownership and Management
Summary of Management Agreement
History of Property
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY
9
Introduction
Breeding
Dispersal and New Group Formation
Cavity Trees, Clusters, and Cavity Limitation
Foraging Ecology
Role of Fire
Grazing
9
10
10
11
14
15
18
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER HABITAT OVERVIEW
19
Range-wide Habitat
South/Central Florida Recovery Unit Habitat
Babcock Ranch Preserve Habitat
19
19
20
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKERS and THEIR HABITAT in the SCFRC
and SOUTH FLORIDA SLASH PINE
20
Demography and Life History
Cavity Trees
Foraging Habitat
21
22
24
FOREST HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
24
Prescribed Fire
Groundcover Protection and Management
Forest Habitat Conditions
Forest Habitat Management/Silvicultural Guidelines
Forest Operations Guidelines and Coordination Requirements
Foraging Habitat Management
Timber Harvesting Concerns
24
26
27
28
30
31
35
3
NESTING HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
35
Introduction
Cluster Management
Cavity Management
Kleptoparasite Management
Predator Management
35
36
38
41
42
POPULATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
43
Introduction
Population Goal
Metapopulation Management
Recruitment Clusters
Population Expansion
Babcock Ranch Preserve as a Potential Future Donor Population
43
43
44
46
47
52
POPULATION MONITORING GUIDELINES
52
Introduction
Color Banding
Population Trend
Population Size
Monitoring Reproductive Success
Summarizing and Interpreting Monitoring Results
Assessing Population Trend
52
52
53
53
54
55
56
FORAGING HABITAT MONITORING GUIDELINES
57
Introduction
Monitoring Specifics
57
57
DEMONSTRATION SITE OPPORTUNITY
58
Introduction
Demonstration Site Justification
58
58
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
60
Introduction
Habitat Analyses and Actions
Population Actions
60
61
61
LITERATURE CITED
62
4
TABLES AND FIGURES
72
Table 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5 (Pending: to be provided by FNAI)
Figure 6
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
APPENDIX I
79
5
BABCOCK RANCH PRESERVE RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Purpose and Goal of the Plan
This document presents a plan for managing the red-cockaded woodpecker
population at Babcock Ranch Preserve (BRP). We review the population, community,
and landscape ecology of the species throughout its range to support our
recommendations for maintaining and growing the population, emphasizing data from
peninsular Florida if available. These management recommendations are compatible
with the overall ecological, economic, and cultural objectives for the property, and with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan (USFWS
2003). Potential conflicts from income-generating land uses are identified so that
managers can balance the predicted tradeoffs. In accordance with an adaptive
management approach, indices of woodpecker performance are identified that can be
monitored for the purpose of evaluating management success.
Property Size and Location
Babcock Ranch Preserve is located in southeastern Charlotte County and
northeastern Lee County in south-central Florida. The property lies between Lake
Okeechobee and the Gulf of Mexico, five miles north of the Caloosahatchee River, and
17.5 miles east of Punta Gorda. The nearly contiguous parcel covers 73,239 acres.
Elevation ranges from 15-60 feet above sea level (Pandion Systems 2008). The poor,
sandy soil is typical of south Florida flatwoods, being acidic, derived from marine
sediments, poorly drained due to a characteristic hardpan that limits percolation, and
underlain primarily by limestone and calcareous sandstone. Average annual temperature
is 74°F. Average annual rainfall is 50 inches. The rainy season is June-September and
the dry season is November-April (Figure 1). Natural communities (Florida Natural
Areas Inventory 2008) on the property include: south Florida slash pine and longleaf pine
flatwoods (51% of area), dry prairie (3%), cypress swamp (12%), and freshwater marsh
and wet prairie (10%; Figure 2). Other significant landcover types include cropland (6%)
and improved and semi-improved pasture (16%; Figure 2). The property overlaps the
southernmost inland extent of longleaf pine, and a somewhat abrupt zone of transition
between longleaf and south Florida slash pine. The purchase protects most of Telegraph
Swamp, a vital portion of the Caloosahatchee River Basin, which is critical to Everglades
restoration efforts (Pandion Systems 2008).
6
Relationship to Existing Conservation Lands
The property is vital in its proximity and ecological connectivity to other
conservation lands, including several that harbor red-cockaded woodpeckers, and among
which it provides critical linkage. The southern two-thirds of the western boundary of
BRP abuts Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area (BWWMA), which contained 29
groups of red-cockaded woodpeckers in 2007. The opposite (eastern) boundary of BRP
is adjacent to Lykes Brothers properties, where ~12 red-cockaded woodpecker groups
occur. These properties include the proposed Fisheating Creek Florida Forever Project,
which if acquired would provide a link between the BRP and Fisheating Creek WMA to
the east.
Details and Objectives of Acquisition
The BRP land formed the bulk of the 91,361 acre Crescent B Ranch, which the
Babcock family sold to Kitson & Partners, LLC. Kitson retained 17,000 acres of the
property for development into the Babcock Ranch Community, which will include
19,500 homes, 40,000 residents, and numerous commercial, school, and service
structures. Kitson sold the remaining (BRP) portion of the property to the state of Florida
and Lee County in 2006 under the Florida Forever Program, Babcock Ranch Preserve
Act, and Lee County Conservation 20/20 Program. This land purchase is the single
largest ever by the state of Florida.
According to the BRP Act, the BRP was established to “protect and preserve the
environmental, agricultural, scientific, scenic, geologic, watershed, fish, wildlife, historic,
cultural, and recreational values of the Preserve, and to provide for the multiple use and
sustained yield of the renewable surface resources within the Preserve…”.
In accordance with the BRP act and other Florida Statutes, agricultural, ranch,
forestry, and recreational activities on the property will be conducted such that the land,
water, natural resources, and plant and animal species viability will be conserved and
protected for the benefit of current and future citizens.
Ownership and Management
The BRP property is owned by the State of Florida, the Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida (Charlotte County portion), and
the Lee County Board of County Commissioners (Lee County portion). Management of
the BRP is the responsibility of Babcock Ranch Management, LLC, a private
corporation.
Babcock Ranch Management is responsible for meeting the following Goals on the
BRP (Pandion Systems 2008):
Goal 1. Protect, maintain, and restore native ecosystems and ecological corridors.
The objectives of this goal include complying with state and federal Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Recovery Plans and guidelines while the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FFWCC) develops a Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Management Plan (by 2010).
7
Goal 2. Manage all natural resources in an efficient and productive manner. The
objectives of this goal include developing and implementing “a Forest Management Plan
by 2009 that is consistent with the red-cockaded woodpecker management plan”.
Goal 3. Restore, maintain, protect, and manage hydrologic functions, systems, and
resources.
Goal 4. Assure an optimum boundary for BRP by continuing to identify and pursue
acquisition needs. The objectives of this goal include the maintenance and restoration of
habitat connectivity.
Babcock Ranch Inc. is a not-for-profit, state-appointed corporation established by the
BRP Act to advise Babcock Ranch Management during the term of the Management
Agreement (see below). Babcock Ranch Inc. will assume management of the BRP when
the Management Agreement expires in 3-8 years. The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Forestry, and Lee and Charlotte
Counties are technical advisors to Babcock Ranch Management. The six above entities,
plus the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of
Florida, and the Florida Division of State Lands, form a public-private partnership
responsible for sustaining the ecological, economic, and cultural value of the BRP. This
partnership will employ an adaptive management approach that balances incomegenerating land uses with the protection of ecosystem integrity, native biodiversity, and
viability of plant and animal populations. Management decisions are open to public
scrutiny and comment.
Summary of Management Agreement
Under the Management Agreement, the BRP will remain a working ranch, much as it
was prior to state acquisition. Operations will include cattle ranching, timber
management and harvest, a native plant nursery, apiaries, horticultural debris disposal,
and sod farms. Any current agricultural operations on the property defined in Florida
Statute 570.02(1) can continue. Tenant farming and row crop operations will be phased
out by 2011. Hunting, fishing, hiking, and ecotourism will continue.
Ranch operations will be conducted in a manner that (1) “provide(s) sustainable and
relatively natural habitat for fish, wildlife, plants or similar ecosysytems”; (2)
“conserve(s) the Property as productive agricultural land that sustains for the long term
the economic and conservation values of the current use of the Property…”; and (3)
”prevent(s) any use of the Property that will cause or result in the degradation of the
present environmental and conservation quality of the Property.”
Furthermore, the Management Agreement requires that (4) no natural plant
communities can be converted to agriculture fields or other uses, (5) tenant farms on the
property be phased out and row crop areas be evaluated for restoration or use for other
income producing practices, and (6) pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers be used only in
compliance with their labels and with Best Management Practices.
The CMP supersedes the Management Agreement should any inconsistencies
between the two documents emerge.
History of Property
8
E. V. Babcock purchased two townships east of Punta Gorda in 1914 and established
the Crescent B Ranch as a hunting preserve and cattle ranch. The property had
previously been logged and farmed, but significant timber resources remained. Timber
rights on the property were leased to Roux Crate and Lumber Company of Bartow,
Florida in the 1930s. The longleaf pine on the property was highly resinous and yielded
termite-resistant lumber that was shipped to Africa for use in diamond mines. The timber
on the ranch was depleted within a few years. Fred C. Babcock (E. V.’s son) assumed
management of the ranch during this period and established a tradition of stewardship on
the property, including restoration of the longleaf pine forest, removal of exotics, and
sustainable grazing practices. In 1941 the predecessor of the FFWCC purchased 19,200
acres of the Crescent B Ranch west of Highway 31; this area became part of what is now
known as the BWWMA. Fred C. Babcock managed the ranch until his death in 1997,
when the ranch was passed on to more than 40 heirs.
Forestry
The pinelands on BRP includes both naturally regenerated stands and plantations.
The natural stands of longleaf and slash on the BRP are uneven-aged. Most have been
thinned several times over the last 50 years with seed tree (8-15 leave trees/acre) or
shelterwood harvests (~25 trees/acre).
Cattle operations
Fred C. Babcock also established cattle operations on the ranch that minimized
overgrazing. Four- to five-thousand head of cattle were rotated through 2,600 acres of
improved pasture and 20,000 acres of native range. Cattle stocking ranged from 0.250.50 head/acre on improved pasture, and 0.02-0.03 head/acre on native range.
Regular prescribed burning of pasture and native range (primarily pine flatwoods and
dry prairies) between December and March has been an integral component of this cattle
operation. Native range has normally been burned at 3-year intervals (18,000-25,000
acres/year). This regular fire has benefited the pineland ecosystem by controlling saw
palmetto and other woody shrubs and enhancing herbaceous groundcover.
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on BRP
The red-cockaded woodpeckers on BRP are part of a larger metapopulation in
Charlotte, Lee, Glades, and Highlands counties (Cox et al. 1994, 1995). The history and
current population trend of the birds on the BRP property is unknown. The
subpopulation was presumably much larger and more contiguous with other
subpopulations before the extensive logging of the 1930’s. The first apparent mention of
red-cockaded woodpeckers on the property in the scientific literature, albeit not explicit,
was by Cox et al. (1994) as they described the distribution of the larger metapopulation:
9
“There are also records of red-cockaded woodpeckers some 20 km east of the Cecil
Webb Wildlife Management Area (BWWMA), but a thorough inventory of
woodpeckers in these areas has not been performed”.
Cox et al. (1994) went on to discuss other “populations” within the metapopulation on
Lykes Bros. properties and at the southern edge of the Lake Wales Ridge (Platt Branch?).
Other papers on the status and distribution of red-cockaded woodpeckers in Florida
reported the birds from the BWWMA and Lykes Brothers properties but made no
reference to the Babcock woodpeckers in between these sites (Baker et al. 1980, Wood
and Shapiro-Wenner 1983, Beever and Dryden 1992, Cox et al. 1995, Hovis and Swan
2004).
Johnson Engineering surveyed for red-cockaded woodpeckers on the BRP in 2006.
Although only point locations with incomplete supportive information were available
from this survey (Pandion Systems 2008), the results indicated that the red-cockaded
woodpecker population was concentrated in the northeastern corner of the preserve.
A more comprehensive survey was completed by FNAI in March 2008. This survey
documented 137 active and inactive cavity and start trees located exclusively in longleaf
habitat in the northeastern corner of the preserve. These cavity and start trees were
divided conservatively into nine active and three inactive clusters (Figure 3; inactive
clusters not shown). A total of 43 active cavities were located in the 9 active clusters (4.8
active cavities/cluster). Nest monitoring and color banding will be required to verify the
number of active clusters. The active clusters are small in number, but well aggregated in
distribution, which will enhance demographic exchange among territories.
At least two color-banded birds have recently been observed on the BRP (K.
NeSmith and J. Surdick, FNAI, pers. comm. 2008; J. Kappes, pers. obs.). One of these
birds was identified as a yearling female that was banded as a nestling in Silver Lake
South, a cluster one mile east of the easternmost active cluster on BRP (S. Shattler,
FWC, pers. comm.). This bird has been observed twice in the vicinity of BRP C-2, five
miles west of her natal site, with an unbanded bird (presumably a male) (J. Kappes, pers.
obs.; K. NeSmith and J. Surdick, FNAI, pers. obs.). Banding programs have been in
place on the surrounding properties for several years. More banded immigrants may be
discovered during ongoing work on BRP.
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY
Introduction
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a federally endangered species endemic to the
fire-maintained pine forests of the southeastern United States. The red-cockaded
woodpecker once ranged from eastern Virginia to south Florida, west to eastern Texas,
and inland to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky (Conner et al.
2001). Its populations plummeted with the wholesale cutting of old-growth longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris) woodlands between 1880 and 1920 (Williams 1989, USFWS 2003), and
continued to decline throughout the 1900’s as remnant habitat was degraded and lost to
fire suppression, hardwood invasion, continued exploitation, and site conversion to
plantations and farmland (Landers et al. 1989, Jackson 1995, Platt 1999, USFWS 2003,
10
Earley 2004). The red-cockaded Woodpecker was listed as an endangered species in
1968 (U.S.D.I. 1968), and given federal protection by the Endangered Species Act in
1973, although its widespread decline was noted decades earlier (Bent 1939).
Breeding
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a cooperative breeder. Most juvenile males and a
few juvenile females that survive their first year remain on their natal territories and help
with cavity construction and maintenance, territory defense, and reproduction (Walters et
al. 1992a). Family groups typically consist of a single breeding pair and 0-4 (rarely
more) helpers, which are usually offspring of at least one of the breeders (Walters 1990).
Helpers increase the survival and reproductive success of breeders (Lennartz et al. 1987,
Walters 1990, Khan and Walters 2002). Most juvenile females that survive disperse and
become breeders by age one-year, but a significant proportion may become floaters
(Walters et al. 1988). Juvenile males that disperse and survive may become breeders,
solitary males, or floaters in approximately equal proportions (Walters 1990).
Dispersal and New Group Formation
Juvenile red-cockaded woodpeckers pursue one of two general dispersal strategies
(Walters 1990). Most juvenile males pursue a stay-and-foray (SAF) strategy in which
they remain on their natal territory, help, and wait for a vacancy to emerge at home or on
nearby territories (Brown 1987, Walters 1990, Walters et al. 1992a). Nearby groups and
territories are monitored through extraterritorial forays (i.e., extraterritorial excursions
followed by a return home on the same day, and inter-group encounters along territory
boundaries (Kappes and Walters, in prep.). Annually, 13-27% of male helpers inherit
breeding positions on their natal territory (Walters 1988, 1990; Bowman 1998), and 14%
disperse (mostly to adjacent territories; Table 1). The presence of helpers is important to
stability at the group, neighborhood and population level as a primary source for
replacement breeders and new group formation (Conner et al. 2001, USFWS 2003).
Most juvenile females (and some juvenile males) are thought to pursue a depart-andsearch (DAS) dispersal strategy, leaving home before their first potential breeding season
to search for a breeding vacancy (Walters 1990). However, in a recent radio-telemetry
study in the North Carolina Sandhills, many juvenile females forayed extensively from
their natal territory prior to dispersal (Kappes and Walters, in prep.). These forays often
extended well beyond adjacent territories. The apparent purpose of such forays is to
gather information on the habitat quality and group composition on potential destination
territories, and to compete for breeding positions at these sites (Kappes and Walters, in
prep., Reed et al. 1999).
Breeding females may also disperse between breeding seasons (12% annually;
Daniels and Walters 2000); as in helper males, these relocations are primarily to adjacent
territories (Walters 1990). Breeding males typically remain on their territory until they
die (Walters 1988).
Although some red-cockaded woodpeckers, especially juveniles, disperse relatively
long distances, short distance foraying and dispersal is more characteristic of the redcockaded woodpecker social system (Table 1, DeLotelle et al. 2004). Seventy percent of
11
juvenile males that survive to breed either inherit their natal territory or disperse to an
adjacent site (Daniels 1997). Half of dispersing juvenile females settle within 2
territories of their natal site (Daniels and Walters 2000b). The pattern of short distance
foraying and dispersal indicates the importance (to demographic connectivity) of
maintaining or developing close aggregations of territories with suitable intervening
habitat. Isolated clusters and small or loose aggregations of territories are more prone to
decline because breeding vacancies are less likely to be detected and filled by forayers
and dispersers (Conner et al. 2001, Conner and Rudolph 1991). Although long distance
dispersers sometimes replace lost breeders in isolated sites, such events are sporadic
(Conner et al. 2001), and become increasingly rare in small populations, which have a
lower volume of dispersers and floaters. Letcher et al. (1998) used a spatially explicit
simulation model to explore the role of the spatial distribution of territories to population
stability; they found that small populations with highly aggregated territories are more
stable and resilient to demographic stochasticity than much larger populations with more
scattered distributions of territories.
Another key to the stability of small populations, and the potential for self-sustained
population growth, is the quality of individual territories. Helper retention and fledgling
production, which influence the numbers of potential replacement breeders and founders
of new groups, increase with territory quality (Walters 1990, Walters et al. 1988, Conner
et al. 2001, USFWS 2003).
The presence of helper males as potential replacement breeders may buffer against
randomly low production of male fledgling in some years. No such buffer typically
exists for females. Demographic stochasticity in the production of juvenile females may
limit group stability and formation (Walters 1990), especially in small populations
(Conner et al. 2001, Bowman et al. 2004). Female floaters provide a pool of replacement
breeders, although such individuals may interfere with the nesting success of groups with
which they associate as non-breeders (DeLotelle and Epting 1992, Kappes and Walters,
in prep.).
Cavity Trees, Clusters, and Cavity Limitation
Red-cockaded woodpeckers excavate roost and nest cavities exclusively in living
pines (Ligon 1970). Cavities require one to many years of intermittent work to excavate
but can remain suitable for a decade or longer (Walters 1990; Conner et al. 1995; Harding
and Walters 2002, 2004). Cavity trees are significantly older, have thinner sapwood, and
greater heartwood diameter than random mature pines (Hovis and Labisky 1985, Rudolph
and Conner 1991, Conner et al. 1994). Cavity trees must have sufficient heartwood to
encompass the cavity chamber; otherwise resin leakage from the sapwood may render the
cavity unsuitable (Conner et al. 1994). The presence of heartwood decay from the redheart fungus (Phellinus pini) greatly facilitates cavity excavation (Conner et al. 1994).
The diameter of heartwood and the incidence of heartwood decay increase with age and
are rare in longleaf pines < 100 years old (Hovis and Labisky 1985, Jackson and Jackson
1986, Walters 1990, Conner et al. 1994). The availability of older pines suitable for
cavity excavation is a critical limiting factor for red-cockaded woodpecker at the group
and population level.
12
Sets of cavity trees, termed clusters (Walters 1990), are typically aggregated within a
group’s territory. The most recently completed cavity usually becomes the breeding
male’s roost (Conner et al. 1998), and thus the group’s nest cavity (Ligon 1970).
Breeding females, helpers, and juveniles, roost solitarily in older cavities, including
former nest holes (Kappes 2004a). Individuals without access to cavities must roost
outside, where they are more vulnerable to predators and thermoregulatory stress (Carter
et al. 1988), and may be more likely to disperse (Daniels and Walters 2000a). The
number and availability of cavities is a primary determinant of territory quality (Ligon
1970, Walters et al. 1992a, Davenport et al 2000), limiting cluster occupation, group
formation, survival, reproductive success, group size, female retention, helper retention,
and group stability (reviewed by Kappes 2004a).
Cavities also limit red-cockaded woodpeckers at the population level. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers tend to compete for breeding positions on existing territories, and rarely
establish new territories in habitat that lacks cavities (i.e., they rarely “pioneer”; Walters
1990). The formation of new groups is largely restricted to the reoccupation of
abandoned clusters by new pairs (Doerr et al. 1989), by solitary males (who may then
attract a mate), or through the division of one territory into two (territory budding;
Hooper 1983); each of these processes is cavity limited (Doerr et al. 1989, Kappes 2004).
The use of cavities in living pines renders adults, eggs, and nestlings vulnerable to
rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta and E. guttata), which can climb vertically on the rough bark
of living pines (Carr 1940). The red-cockaded woodpecker excavates a highly effective,
anti-snake barrier of numerous, shallow resin wells on its cavity trees (Dennis 1971,
Jackson 1974; Rudolph et al. 1990a). Resin barriers are maintained only on cavity trees
in current use by red-cockaded woodpeckers (i.e., “active” cavities). Active resin wells
are characterized by reddish, freshly chipped bark and exudation of clear, fresh resin
(Jackson 1977, Hooper et al. 1980).
Red-cockaded woodpecker cavities can remain suitable for decades, as long as the
entrance is not enlarged beyond 2.35 inches, and the cavity tree survives (Ligon 1970,
Jackson 1994, Kappes 2008). Red-cockaded woodpeckers typically abandon cavity trees
that die because a resin barrier can no longer be maintained. Suitable cavities are
commonly reoccupied (reactivated) by red-cockaded woodpeckers after months or even
years of disuse or occupation by other species (Baker 1971; Jackson 1978; Doerr et al.
1989; Harding and Walters 2002, 2004). Thus, even older, inactive cavities may remain
an important resource for a group.
Causes of Reduced Cavity Availability
Factors that reduce the number, quality, or availability of cavities may exacerbate
cavity limitation for red-cockaded woodpecker groups, resulting in reduced retention of
breeding females and helpers, reduced nesting success and survival, and increased
probability of territory abandonment (Kappes 2004, 2008). Such factors include cavity
tree mortality, advanced decay (collapse of cavity floor), cavity usurpation and
occupation by other species, and cavity enlargement by other species. Rates of loss may
often exceed the slow rates of cavity excavation (USFWS 2003, Kappes 2008).
Cavity Tree Mortality
13
Red-cockaded woodpeckers abandon cavities in dead or dying pines (Ligon 1970),
presumably because a resin barrier can no longer be maintained, rendering adults or nests
highly vulnerable to rat snakes (Kappes 2008). The loss of one or two cavities can
reduce the viability of a territory and greater losses may render a territory unsuitable
(Walters 1991).
The causes of cavity tree mortality are manifold. The most consistent primary cause
of mortality in mature pines is lightning (Boyer 1990). However, the older pines used by
red-cockaded woodpeckers for cavity excavation (and many potential trees) are
particularly vulnerable (e.g. turpentine scars) to a range of threats, many of which relate
to management activities. Cavity trees may be particularly susceptible to fire because of
the external flow of resin associated with the resin barrier (Conner and Locke 1979,
Conner et al. 1991).
Although longleaf pines are relatively unaffected by bark beetles compared to
other pines species, these insects may attack longleaf pines stressed or damaged by
logging, other mechanical damage (e.g., during mechanical preparation for fire), hot fires,
or drought (Dennington and Farrar 1983, Boyer 1990).
Hurricanes can cause widespread destruction of foraging habitat and cavity trees.
Cavity trees are 2-4 times more vulnerable to breakage from hurricanes than non-cavity
trees (Hooper and McAdie 1995). Fifty-three to eighty-six percent of the cavity trees
destroyed in two red-cockaded woodpecker populations by hurricane Hugo broke at the
cavity level (Lipscomb and Williams 1995, Watson et al. 1995).
Conner and Rudolph (1995) found that the vulnerability of cavity trees to wind
damage decreased with distance from forest openings (primarily clearcuts).
Other Causes of Cavity Unsuitability
Cavities with enlarged chambers (interiors) are less preferred than those with more
normal chamber volumes (USFWS 2003). Other species of woodpeckers (e.g., redbellied woodpeckers) may enlarge the inner chamber while leaving the entrance
relatively undamaged or only slightly enlarged. Chamber enlargement may also occur as
the result of advanced heartwood decay, which can eventually cause the floor of a cavity
to collapse, rendering it unsuitable. Even newly excavated cavities may sometimes
collapse and red-cockaded woodpeckers may occasionally (mistakenly) excavate into
trees already hollow from advanced decay. Red-cockaded woodpeckers may also
occasionally compromise the suitability of their own cavities by (mistakenly) excavating
a second entrance into a cavity. Finally, fire or other causes can kill the cambium around
the cavity entrance or face plate, rendering a cavity less suitable because a resin barrier
can no longer be maintained even if the tree itself survives.
Cavity Kleptoparasites
Other cavity nesting species, including red-bellied woodpeckers (Melanerpes
carolinus) and southern flying squirrels (Glaucomys volans), can exacerbate cavity
limitation and thereby affect cluster occupancy, female retention, nesting success, helper
retention, and group size (Dennis 1971b; Jackson 1978; Rudolph et al. 1990b; Loeb
14
1993; Kappes and Harris 1995; Kappes 2004a, 2008). Usurpation of the breeding male’s
roost cavity may preempt a group from nesting, and eggs or nestlings may be destroyed if
active nest cavities are usurped (Jackson 1978, Labranche and Walters 1994, Kappes
1997). Such interactions are often called interspecific competition. However, the
interaction is better described as cavity kleptoparasitism (Kappes 1997, 2004a).
Because these other species do not maintain the resin barrier while using redcockaded woodpecker cavities, they experience significantly higher rates of rat snake
predation than red-cockaded woodpeckers (Kappes 2004b). Rat snakes may thereby
increase cavity availability for red-cockaded woodpeckers (Kappes 2004a, b). This
positive indirect effect of snakes on red-cockaded woodpeckers may outweigh their direct
negative effect of predation, which is diminished by the resin barrier (Kappes 2004a,b).
Pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) or northern flickers (Colaptes auratus)
often enlarge red-cockaded woodpecker cavities (Blanc and Walters 2007), rendering
them unsuitable for red-cockaded woodpeckers, and potentially exacerbating cavity
limitation. In some cases, all the suitable cavities on a territory may be rendered
unsuitable in this manner, leading to cluster abandonment (Walters 1991, Conner et al.
2001). Occasional enlargement of cavities on territories with surplus cavities should
have minimal impacts on red-cockaded woodpeckers, while providing critical resources
for larger cavity nesters such as eastern screech owls (Otis asio), wood ducks (Aix
sponsa), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), and fox squirrels (Sciurus niger) (Blanc
and Walters 2007) (see section on cavity restrictors).
Foraging Ecology
A thorough review of red-cockaded woodpecker foraging ecology is provided in the
Recovery Plan (Section 2E. Foraging Ecology, pp. 42-60). Following is a brief
summary of the state-of-our-knowledge regarding foraging and red-cockaded
woodpeckers. Individuals responsible for implementing this Plan should thoroughly
review this section of the Recovery Plan to familiarize themselves with the basic
principles and findings on this critical topic. Note that relatively few references are
included here – see the Recovery Plan for additional citations.
Selection of Foraging Habitat
Throughout their range, red-cockaded woodpeckers selectively use open, park-like pine
habitats for foraging. They have adapted to a wide-range of habitat types, including
mountain longleaf pine in Alabama, shortleaf pine in Arkansas, loblolly pine in Texas,
longleaf pine flatwoods, savannahs and sandhills throughout its range, and hydric slash
pine flatwoods in south Florida. Red-cockaded woodpeckers show a strong preference
for living pines as foraging substrate. Dying and recently dead pines are used heavily,
and provide a bountiful foraging substrate when available. Hardwoods are used only
occasionally.
Research increasingly indicates that high quality foraging habitat is similar to
optimal nesting and roosting habitat (James et al. 2001, Walters et al. 2002). Walters et
al. (2002) concluded that management of foraging and nesting habitat be increasingly
integrated and that large and old trees be retained and grown throughout the landscape.
15
Selection of Tree Species
No definitive research has demonstrated that red-cockaded woodpeckers show a
preference for specific pine tree species. Most research has resulted in conflicting results,
perhaps in part due to confounding factors including stand density, tree size and age and
presence of hardwood midstory.
Selection of Older and Larger Trees
All studies examining selection of individual trees by foraging red-cockaded
woodpeckers have concluded that they select larger, older trees over smaller, younger
trees. There are varying results regarding: (1) at what specific sizes trees are avoided or
preferred, (2) if all trees over a certain size are equivalent in foraging value, or (3)
whether the foraging value continuously improves with increasing size and age.
Inconsistent results among the size- and age-related foraging tree research are likely a
function of different study methods and differences in available habitat; i.e., habitat
changes due to geographic variation and habitat alteration. Regardless of different
research findings, one can conclude that tree size and age strongly influence selection of
pines for foraging. In summary, the preference for older, larger pines for foraging has
been reported by various researchers throughout the species range, perhaps because pine
bark becomes more “rugose and furrowed” with age, thereby providing better habitat for
arthropod prey (reviewed by USFWS 2003, Taylor and Walters 2004).
Stand Selection
Multiple factors influence the suitability of stands as foraging areas for red-cockaded
woodpeckers, including: (1) stand size, (2) stand age, (3) stand density, (4) density of
large pines, (5) fire history (presence/absence of hardwood midstory, and condition of
herbaceous groundcover), (6) season (i.e., breeding or non-breeding), and (7) proximity
of cavity trees and territorial boundaries. In general, use of stands increases with stand
age, increasing density of large pines, decreasing density of small pines, and decreasing
density and height of hardwood midstory.
Role of Fire
Recurrent fire has been long recognized as integral to the structure and composition
of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. The best performing populations are burned
frequently, especially during the growing season (James et al. 1997, Walters 2004). The
healthiest red-cockaded woodpecker population in the SCFRU occurs on the Three Lakes
Wildlife Management Area, a longleaf pine site where growing and dormant season fires
are conducted at 3-year intervals (Hovis and Leonard 2004). Ongoing research, however,
indicates that the importance of fire to red-cockaded woodpeckers is even greater than
previously realized (James et al. 1997, 2001; USFWS 2003; Walters 2004; Taylor and
Walters 2004). Although more work is needed to identify the precise additional
16
mechanism(s) by which fire enhances red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, the leading
hypotheses relate to nutrient recycling, herbaceous groundcover, and prey abundance.
James et al. (1997) found positive correlations between wiregrass groundcover and
several measures of red-cockaded woodpecker group performance, negative correlations
between these bird variables and gallberry (Ilex spp.), and a negative relationship
between clutch size and palmetto cover. James et al. (1997) hypothesized that redcockaded woodpecker group performance is limited by some fire-driven, ecosystem
process (or processes) in addition to the previously recognized effects of fire in
maintaining optimal habitat structure. One such ecosystem process may relate to
nutrient dynamics (James et al. 1997). Flatwoods are characterized by acidic soils, low
clay and organic content (low cation exchange capacity), high nutrient leaching, and
resinous, decay-resistant litter, resulting in slow rates of remineralization and deficiencies
in phosphorous, nitrogen, and other nutrients (Gholz et al. 1985, Abrahamson and
Hartnett 1990). Fire enhances ecosystem productivity by increasing soil PH (improving
conditions for bacteria and fungi), turnover and availability of phosphorous, potassium,
calcium, magnesium, molybdenum, and other nutrients, and stimulating nitrogen fixation
(Green 1935, Christiansen 1977, Wright and Bailey 1982, Gholz et al. 1985). This
enhanced ecosystem productivity with recurrent fire may translate into greater production
of food resources, larger group sizes, smaller home ranges, and higher carrying capacities
for red-cockaded woodpeckers.
James et al. (1997) reported larger clutch sizes for red-cockaded woodpeckers on
territories burned within the past year and suggested that calcium availability might be a
limiting factor influenced by recurrent fire. In fire-suppressed flatwoods, calcium may
become sequestered in saw palmetto, other woody vegetation, and litter (Abrahamson
and Hartnett 1990), and rendered less available for uptake by plants and herbivores.
Thus, growing season fire, which reduces woody vegetation and favors herbaceous
species, may increase the availability of calcium and other nutrients compared to
dormant-season fire.
Several studies since James et al. (1997) have found that the biomass of arthropod
prey on pine boles is: (1) negatively correlated with the amount of woody groundcover,
(2) positively correlated with the amount of herbaceous groundcover, and (3) that the
positive correlation between groundcover and arboreal arthropods is causative (i.e.,
herbaceous groundcover is a primary source of arboreal arthropods on pines) (reviewed
by Taylor and Walters 2004). Moreover, growing season fire indirectly increases the
abundance of arthropod prey on pine boles by promoting herbaceous groundcover (James
et al. 1997; Taylor and Walters 2004, citing Provencher et al. 2001 and others). Taylor
and Walters (2004) concluded that these findings explain the positive correlation between
wiregrass groundcover and red-cockaded woodpecker group size and nesting success
reported by James et al. (1997). Similarly, decreased foraging habitat quality with the
density of small and medium-sized pines (Walters et al. 2002, USFWS 2003) may be due
at least in part to shading effects on herbaceous groundcover, an important source of
arboreal arthropods (Taylor and Walters 2004).
In summary, healthy herbaceous groundcover provides a primary conduit of post-fire
energy and nutrient flow by enhancing the arboreal arthropod prey base. Management
that protects and promotes herbaceous groundcover will enhance habitat for red-cockaded
woodpeckers. In stands of longleaf and south Florida slash pine, early growing season
17
fires during the spring-summer transition (April-June) are highly effective at killing
woody vegetation (but not pines), stimulating flowering by most grasses and forbs, and
promoting herbaceous groundcover (Platt 1999, Platt et al. 1991, Doren et al. 1993). It is
at this time of year that lightning-ignited fires burned the most acreage historically in
south Florida (Snyder 1989, Wade 1983). Late growing season fires, in contrast, are less
effective at killing hardwoods and enhancing herbaceous groundcover, and are more
likely to harm adult pines (Sparks et al. 1999, cited in USFWS 2003). Dormant-season
fires allow an overrepresentation of saw palmetto and other woody shrubs at the expense
of wiregrass and other herbaceous species (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990, Bowman et
al. 2004).
Fire and Pine Regeneration
Regular winter burning in SCFRU flatwoods is sufficient to prevent the development
of a significant hardwood midstory. However, such fires allow saw palmetto to dominate
the groundcover at the expense of pine regeneration, wiregrass, and other native grasses
and forbs (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990, Bowman et al. 2004). The addition of
growing season fire to the burning regime may increase regeneration of longleaf and
slash pines and enhance herbaceous groundcover (Platt et al. 1991, Platt 1999, Bowman
et al. 2004).
Mast Crops and Regeneration
Both longleaf and south Florida slash pine regeneration is limited by irregular seed
production, the frequency and timing of fire, and groundcover conditions suitable for
seedling establishment and survival (Croker and Boyer 1975, Wade 1983). Longleaf and
south Florida slash pines produce good seed crops at 4-7, and 4-year intervals,
respectively (Wahlenberg 1946, Boyer 1990, Lohrey and Kossuth 1990, Carey 1992).
Even in masting years, longleaf and south Florida slash pines may regenerate poorly
in the absence of frequent fire. The presence of a significant litter layer may preclude
seeds from coming into contact with bare mineral soil, a requirement for germination
(Wade 1983, Boyer 1990). Seedlings are outcompeted by saw palmetto and other woody
species (Croker and Boyer 1975, Wade 1983, Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990). Frequent
winter fire may be sufficient for seedling establishment under some conditions (Croker
and Boyer 1975). In areas with significant palmetto understory, however, fire during the
growing season prior to a large seed drop (fall) is necessary to promote regeneration
(Croker and Boyer 1975). Fire also controls brown-spot needle blight (Scirrhia acicola),
a fungus that attacks longleaf pines in the grass-stage (Croker and Boyer 1975,
Dennington and Farrar 1983, Boyer 1990).
Seedlings of both longleaf and south Florida slash pines have a fire resistant grass
stage, although this resistance is greater for longleaf (Likens and Dormann 1954, Wade
1983). Both species, however, are vulnerable to fire during their first 1-2 years of life
and again as saplings when they emerge from the grass stage and begin height growth
(Croker and Boyer 1975). Grass-stage longleaf seedlings become fire-resistant upon
reaching a ground-level diameter of 0.3 inches, and saplings after reaching a height of 36
inches (Croker and Boyer 1975). In both longleaf and south Florida slash pines, height
18
growth may be stimulated by release from competition, as after fire (Boyer 1990, Carey
1992).
Competition or brown spot fungus may slow growth rates and thereby increase the
time a young pine spends at vulnerable sizes (Croker and Boyer 1975). Also, fire
suppression may effectively increase the windows of vulnerability by increasing fuel
loads and fire temperature (Croker and Boyer 1975, Wade 1983).
Negative Effects of Fire Suppression
Fire suppression can lead to direct and indirect loss and degradation of red-cockaded
woodpecker habitat. First, fire suppression in longleaf forests allows invasion by
hardwoods and “weedy” pines (e.g., loblolly, typical slash, and sand pine) (Patterson and
Robertson 1981, Petrick and Hagedorn 2004), reducing the open aspect preferred by redcockaded woodpeckers, and potentially causing cluster abandonment (Walters 1991).
Fertile sites with relatively high levels of organic matter or clayey loams will change
more rapidly with fire suppression than those on deep sands (xeric sites) or flatwoods
soils (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990, Myers 1990).
Fire exclusion also allows fuels that would otherwise be reduced by periodic fire to
accumulate, resulting in devastating fires that can destroy cavity trees and foraging
habitat (Croker and Boyer 1975, Patterson and Robertson 1981, Platt et al. 1988, Doren et
al. 1993). High densities of saw palmetto and other woody shrubs, which may develop
from longer fire intervals and dormant season fires, may elevate fire temperatures and
pine mortality rates (Platt et al. 1999, Wade 1983).
Some authors have proposed that the increase in hardwoods and other mast
producing species that accompanies fire suppression may lead to increased densities of
cavity kleptoparasites. Empirical support for this hypothesis is currently lacking (Conner
et al. 1996), but further research is needed.
Grazing
Potential conflicts between red-cockaded woodpeckers and cattle relate primarily to
the long-term health of pine forests. In particular, high stocking rates of cattle may
negatively affect pine regeneration and herbaceous groundcover. Cattle may reduce pine
regeneration through direct grazing and trampling of seedlings, and by compacting soil
and reducing water infiltration, especially on poorly drained sites (Dennington and Farrar
1983, Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990). Trampling and grazing may reduce the grassy
fuels needed to carry prescribed fires for controlling brown-spot disease (Dennington and
Farrar 1983). Dennington and Farrar (1983) recommended complete cattle exclusion
from regeneration areas until the targeted sapling cohort reaches 9 ft in height. Croker
and Boyer (1975) concluded that cattle should be excluded from longleaf stands or kept
at low stocking rates.
The importance of herbaceous groundcover to red-cockaded woodpeckers has further
implications for cattle grazing. By consuming much of the increased herbage production
following fires (Wade 1983), cattle may interfere with the pathways between prescribed
fire, herbaceous groundcover, arboreal arthropods, and habitat quality for red-cockaded
woodpeckers. Certain indicators of high-quality herbaceous groundcover, including
19
Chalky bluestem (Andropogon virginicus var. glaucus), creeping bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), and lopsided indiangrass (Sorghastrum secundum) are
selectively grazed by cattle, and decrease with overgrazing (Pandion Systems 2008).
Wiregrass is less preferred except for several weeks after a burn. Bottlebrush threeawn
(Aristida spiciformis) and broomsedge (Andropogun virginicus) are avoided by cattle and
increase in relative abundance with overgrazing.
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER HABITAT OVERVIEW
Range-wide Habitat
Optimal habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker throughout its range is typified by
open and park-like, frequently burned, pine forest or savanna with a significant
component of old-growth pines, low densities of mid-story hardwoods, and groundcover
dominated by grasses and forbs (Walters 1990; James et al. 1997, 2001). The healthiest
red-cockaded woodpecker populations are found in habitats dominated by longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris), which is highly adapted to frequent fire, and often occurs in
monospecific stands. Longleaf pines provide superior cavity trees relative to other pine
species. Cavities in longleaf pines remain suitable longer because longleaf is longerlived and more resistant to fire, insects and disease than other southeastern pines
(Dennington and Farrar 1983, Boyer 1990). Longleaf pines exude more resin from
wounds, enabling red-cockaded woodpeckers to develop and maintain more effective
resin barriers (Conner et al. 1998, Bowman and Huh 1995, Kappes 2004a). The thicker
and more convoluted bark of longleaf pines may harbor a greater abundance of arthropod
prey than other pine species (Taylor and Walters 2004, Hanula and Horn 2004).
Forests and savannas dominated by other pine species, including south Florida slash
(P. elliottii), loblolly (P. taeda) and shortleaf (P. echinata) pines, can also support
healthy red-cockaded woodpecker populations if the appropriate fire regime is
maintained (Beever and Dryden 1992, Bowman and Huh 1995, Conner et al. 2001).
South/Central Florida Recovery Unit Habitat
Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat in much of central and southern Florida (the
South/Central Florida Recovery Unit [SCFRU]; USFWS 2003) is characterized by lower
soil productivity, smaller trees, lower basal areas, and fewer midstory hardwoods
compared to other regions (Shapiro 1983, Nesbitt et al. 1983, Delotelle et al. 1983,
Beever and Dryden 1992, Hovis and Leonard 2004, USFWS 2006). The basal area of
pines is consistently between 18.7 and 30.5 ft2/ac in longleaf, slash, and mixed stands
(Nesbitt et al. 1983, Delotelle et al. 1983, Shapiro 1983, Bowman et al. 2004), far below
that reported elsewhere (50.0-70.0 ft2/ac; Porter and Labisky 1985, James et al. 1997,
Walters et al. 2002, USFWS 2003). The low stocking is attributed to poor soil
productivity and past logging (Nesbitt 1983, Shapiro 1983).
Either longleaf pine or one of two varieties of slash pine (P. elliottii elliottii or P. e.
densa) may occur in this region depending on latitude, soils, hydroperiod, and fire history
(Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990). Longleaf pine occurs throughout Florida except south
of Lake Okeechobee. Typical slash pine (P. elliottii elliottii) occurs in the northern half
20
of Florida. South Florida slash pine occurs in the southern half of the peninsula, and is
the only pine species south of Lake Okeechobee. Longleaf dominates on frequently
burned, well-drained sites and slash pine dominates on more poorly drained, less
frequently burned sites (Langdon 1963, Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990). Mixed stands
occur where periods of fire suppression have allowed slash pines to become established
(Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990, Platt 1999). Although south Florida slash pine is less
fire and drought tolerant than longleaf, like longleaf it possesses a 2-6 year grass-like
seedling stage with a thick root collar and a deep taproot and thus possesses greater fire
and drought resistance than typical slash pine (Lohrey and Kossuth 1990, Abrahamson
and Hartnett 1990, Carey 1992).
The available evidence indicates that management should be similar for longleaf and
south Florida slash pine, with an emphasis on frequent fire, including growing season
burns, and grass and forb dominated groundcover (Landers 1991, Platt 1999). The only
difference we have identified is slightly shorter historical mean fire intervals in longleaf
vs. south Florida slash pine stands (2.9 vs. 4.0 years; Landers 1991); however, south
Florida slash pine stands can tolerate fire intervals of <3 years (Wade 1983). The
frequency of fire in the two pine types may be dictated by hydrology rather than by
managers, as hydric slash pine flatwoods may be too wet to carry fires in some years
(Beever and Dryden 1992).
Babcock Ranch Preserve Habitat
The 37,000 acres of pine woodland at BRP includes approximately 5,600 acres of
longleaf pine flatwoods, concentrated in the northeastern corner of the property; the
remainder consists primarily of hydric south Florida slash pine flatwoods. Interestingly,
the longleaf tract is at the margin of a blunt southward extension of longleaf pine’s inland
distribution (Dennington and Farrar 1983, Myers 1990). A field visit to BRP indicated
surprisingly little overlap between longleaf pine and hydric slash pine flatwoods in the
zone of transition. Preliminary assessments based on the field visit and analysis of aerial
photographs suggest that this transition zone lies close to its historical location, and is
dictated by hydrological factors more than past logging. That is, slash pine replaces
longleaf as the more upland conditions dominated by longleaf grade into hydric slash
pine flatwoods, as it typical for the region (Nesbitt et al. 1983, Beever and Dryden 1992).
All of the known red-cockaded woodpecker clusters at BRP are in the longleaf pine
portion of the property. The long term persistence and growth of this population will
depend on expanding the population into hydric slash pine habitat. Our field visit
indicated that few relict pines suitable for cavity excavation occurred in the natural slash
pine stands.
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKERS and THEIR HABITAT in the SCFRC and
SOUTH FLORIDA SLASH PINE
Four populations occur in south Florida slash pine habitat: Babcock-Webb WMA,
Corbett WMA, Picayune Strand State Forest, and Big Cypress National Preserve (Hovis
and Swan 2004, Hovis and Leonard 2004). Only Big Cypress appears to be a healthy,
21
increasing population. The population at Babcock Webb is relatively small, though the
current trend is stable.
Demography and Life History
Nesting Productivity
Nesting productivity appears to be consistently lower in SCFRU populations than
elsewhere. Clutch size estimates ranged 2.8-2.9 at a central Florida site (DeLotelle and
Epting 1992, Delotelle et al. 1995), and averaged 2.97 in a south-central Florida
population (Bowman et al. 1998). Conner et al. (2001) reported that clutch sizes range
3.1-3.5 across several populations in the Florida Panhandle and the Carolinas.
Fledgling production averaged 1.0 per potential breeding group in central Florida
(DeLotelle and Epting 1992). In south-central Florida, Bowman et al. (2004) reported
fledgling rates of 0.9 fledglings per potential breeding pair, and 1.4 fledglings per
successful nest. In both of these Florida studies, most successful groups produced only 1
fledgling/yr. These numbers are much lower than that reported from the Carolinas (1.41.7 fledglings per nest; Lennartz et al. 1987, Walters 1990).
Breeder Survival
Low productivity in SCFRU populations seems to be compensated for by higher
adult survival compared to other populations. DeLotelle and Epting (1992) reported
annual survival rates of 90% and 93% for breeding males and females, respectively.
Bowman et al. (1998) found annual survival rates of 80% and 74%, for breeding males
and females, respectively. Survival rates for breeding males and females were 76% and
70%, respectively in North Carolina (Walters 1990), and 78% and 68%, respectively in
South Carolina (Lennartz et al. 1987).
Group size
Overall, group size in SCFRU populations is similar to that reported from other
populations. At a central Florida study site, group size averaged 2.4, with 37% of groups
having helpers (DeLottelle et al. 1995). Kappes et al. (2004) reported that annual mean
group size at Camp Blanding Training Site in northeastern Florida ranged from 2.07 to
2.81, increasing monotonically over time with increased cavity provisioning and
prescribed fire.
Home Range Size
Although methodological differences warrant caution in comparing studies, home
ranges tend to be much larger in the SCFRU than in other regions due to the lower soil
productivity, smaller trees, and lower basal area in this region. Home range estimates in
the SCFRU include 365 ac (range 286-492 ac; Delotelle et al. 1983), 357 ac (Nesbitt et
al. 1983), 393 ac (Patterson and Robertson 1981) and 492 ac (range 215-874 ac; Bowman
22
et al. 2004). Home range estimates from elsewhere average 215 ac (n = 24; Hooper et al.
1982), 319 ha (n = 4; Porter and Labisky 1986) and 206 ac (range 138-319, n = 30;
Walters et al. 2002) in studies from the Florida Panhandle, South Carolina, and North
Carolina, respectively.
Nesbitt et al. (1983) attributed the larger home ranges in their study area west of
Lake Okeechobee to poorer habitat quality (generally smaller trees, lower basal area), and
the interspersion of non-foraging habitat such as dry and wet prairie. Low group density
has also been suggested as a contributing factor (Patterson and Robertson 1981, Nesbitt et
al. 1983, USFWS 2006) but habitat quality is likely the overarching factor as home range
size in red-cockaded woodpeckers appears to be inversely related to habitat quality
(Nesbitt et al. 1983, Porter and Labisky 1986, James et al. 2001). Thus, carrying
capacities are currently lower in the SCFRU than other regions.
Cavity Trees
Not surprisingly, cavity tree size tends to be smaller in the SCFRU than elsewhere
(Bowman and Huh 1995). However, tree size may be less important than age, heartwood
diameter, and the presence of heartwood decay. Within the SCFRU, cavities have been
found in trees as small as 5.9 inches in longleaf pine (Delotelle et al. 1983). In hydric
slash pine flatwoods, cavity trees have been found in south Florida slash pines as small as
6.1 inches dbh and cavities are commonly in 8-9 inch dbh trees (Beever and Dryden
1992). Shapiro (1983), working in five south Florida Wildlife Management Areas,
reported mean dbh’s of 12.6 and 13.3 inches for cavity trees in longleaf and south Florida
slash pine, respectively (mesic and hydric flatwoods habitats were not distinguished).
DeLotelle et al. (1983) reported a mean age of 110 years (range 88-135) in longleaf
pines at a central Florida site. Shapiro (1983) reported mean cavity tree ages of 104
(range 55-142) and 103 (57-182) years in longleaf and slash pines, respectively.
In sites where both slash and longleaf occur, including BRP, red-cockaded
woodpecker cavities occur almost exclusively in longleaf (Bowman et al. 2004; Bowman
and Huh 1995; FNAI, pers. comm.). The reasons for this are not clear, but they may
relate to site history rather than some inherent preference. Bowman and Huh (1995)
suggested that where the two species co-occurred, in mesic flatwoods, slash pines were
unused because they had a lower incidence of heartrot and often occurred in areas of
dense midstory.
Sources of Cavity Tree Mortality
Prescribed and wild fires can be a primary cause of cavity tree mortality in some
SCFRU populations, especially during drought years and in forests undergoing the early
stages of restoration (i.e., where fuel loads are high). At Avon Park Air Force Range
(APAFR), lightning was the most common source of cavity tree mortality in most years,
but a large spike in mortality rates occurred during one year from the interaction of
drought-induced stress and intense fires (Bowman et al. 2004). At BWWMA, the
proportion of cavity trees identified as “stressed” (as indicated by dead or dying
branches) increased from 15 to 57% between 2000 and 2002 and 13% of all cavity trees
died between 2000 and 2001 (Hovis and Leonard 2004), probably contributing to a
23
population decline during the period. Hovis and Leonard (2004) were uncertain of the
specific cause of this mortality, but tree age, disease, bark beetles, drought, and repeated
(often annual) fires were mentioned as possibilities. Managers from several central
Florida populations reported elevated rates of cavity tree mortality during this same
drought period (2000-2002; Boughton 2004, Bowman et al. 2004, Hovis and Leonard
2004).
Boughton et al. (2004) reported annual cavity tree mortality rates of 3-9% between
1995 and 2000 at Goethe State Forest in northern peninsular Florida (a SCFRU site).
Between 1997 and 2001 at this site, the rate of cavity tree mortality was ten times greater
than at Camp Blanding Training Site (CBTS), also in northern peninsular Florida
(Kappes 2008). The elevated levels of cavity tree mortality at Goethe State Forest from
1997-2001 were likely related to the fact that this site was in the early stages of habitat
restoration. Most of the Forest had not been burned during the 10-15 years prior to state
acquisition in 1992, resulting in overstocked pine stands and high fuel accumulations
(Hovis 1997). The reintroduction of fire, extensive stand thinning, drought, and bark
beetles combined to cause high rates of mortality (Boughton et al. 2004; Kappes, pers.
obs.). Mechanical disturbance to cavity tree roots during stand thinning and preparation
for prescribed fires contributed to some mortality (Kappes, pers. obs.). Trees were
predisposed to this problem because of shallow root systems that may have resulted from
flatwoods soil conditions (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990). In some cases roots were
exposed by the partial removal of extensive duff by a previous fire. The comparatively
lower cavity tree mortality rates at CBTS during the period might be attributed to several
factors. First, fire suppression was less severe. Also, sandhill soil conditions at CBTS
resulted in lower stocking, so stand thinning was less necessary. Finally, non-mechanical
means (preparatory burns) were used to prepare trees for prescribed fires at CBTS,
although the aforementioned soil conditions may have rendered cavity trees less sensitive
to disturbance.
Cavity Kleptoparasites
The most common cavity kleptoparasites in most of Florida are red-bellied
woodpeckers and southern flying squirrels. In Apalachicola National Forest in the
Florida Panhandle, red-bellied woodpeckers occupied an average of 27% of suitable
cavities per cluster (range 0-62%), and flying squirrels occupied similar numbers of
cavities at Camp Blanding Training Site in northern peninsular Florida (Kappes and
Harris 1995, Kappes 2008). Surprisingly, Patterson and Robertson (1981) did not record
any other species occupying active red-cockaded woodpecker cavities in Big Cypress,
although red-bellied woodpeckers and eastern bluebirds were observed using inactive
cavities. At a central Florida study site, few red-bellied woodpeckers, and no flying
squirrels were observed occupying cavities (Delotelle et al. 1983, DeLotelle and Epting
1992, DeLotelle et al. 1995).
Preliminary observations at BRP indicate that red-bellied woodpeckers, and to a
lesser extent eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis), occupy significant numbers of suitable redcockaded woodpecker cavities (K. NeSmith, J. Surdick, J. Kappes, pers. obs.). S.
Shattler (pers. comm.) has found that both of these species, but especially red-bellied
woodpeckers, are significant cavity kleptoparasites in the nearby Fisheating Creek/Platt
24
Branch populations. The distribution of flying squirrels in Florida does not reach BRP or
the nearby properties.
Foraging Habitat
The structure and composition of red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat is
described in several other sections of this Plan. Please see: South/Central Florida
Recovery Unit Habitat (above); Babcock Ranch Preserve Habitat (above); and Home
Range Size (above).
FOREST HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Prescribed Fire
Recurrent fire maintains the open, pine-dominated overstory, negligible hardwood
midstory, and continuous herbaceous groundcover that characterizes optimal redcockaded woodpecker habitat structure. More subtle fire effects include increased
remineralization, and maintenance of ecosystem productivity, which enhance the quality
of foraging habitat. The season and frequency of prescribed fire at BRP should mimic
historical patterns.
Season and Frequency
The prescribed burning program should strive for spring (April-June) fires at variable
intervals of 1-3 years. In southwest Florida, like other parts of the southeast, the most
expansive fires occur during April-June when the ratio of lightning strike frequency/soil
moisture is greatest (Komarek 1964, Snyder 1989, Myers 1990). The current fire regime
at BRP consists of December-March burns every 3 years, primarily to increase cattle
forage. This program should be expanded to include April-June fire. The long history of
prescribed fire on the property should facilitate the introduction of growing-season burns
with minimal risk to habitat. Dormant season fires may be necessary to maintain the
recommended rates of fire return, especially when April-June conditions offer few
opportunities for safe prescribed burns.
Fire intervals should vary in time and space. Fires in consecutive years should be
followed by gaps of 1-2 years to allow for the recovery of adult pines and seedling
recruitment. Fire intervals should not exceed 3 years unless environmental conditions
(e.g., drought) dictate otherwise.
Maintain the regime of frequent fire throughout the Preserve. This will facilitate
demographic and ecosystem connectivity between subpopulations and increase the
potential for expansion of the BRP red-cockaded woodpecker population.
Fire and Pine Regeneration
Monitor pine seed crops and schedule summer fires to prepare seed beds during mast
years.
25
To maximize pine regeneration where and when required, pine seed crops must be
monitored and fires appropriately scheduled to prepare adequate seed beds. In areas with
insufficient pine regeneration, conduct April-June fires in advance of large seed crops.
Such fires will reduce competition from saw palmetto and other woody species, and
reduce litter layers that can prevent seeds from reaching bare mineral soil. Managers
should skip at least one year of burning to enhance recruitment of mast-year seedling
cohorts into the grass stage. Do not establish new fire brakes to protect areas of pine
regeneration.
Burning Priority and Coordination
If the burning program becomes logistically constrained in some years, prioritize
red-cockaded woodpecker clusters by activity status and recruitment potential. Currently
active clusters and surrounding foraging habitat should receive top priority for burning.
Unoccupied recruitment clusters adjacent to active sites, and their allotted foraging
habitat, are the second priority.
Prescribed Fire Precautions
Use extreme caution to avoid destruction of nesting and foraging habitat.
All burn crew members should be familiar with the locations of at least the currently
active cavity trees. Issue to each burn-team member maps of all cavity trees and start
trees. The map must distinguish the nest tree and other active cavity trees. The map
should also include at least a subset of any large, old, relict, and turpentine trees,
especially in the slash pine habitat where such trees have become a critically limiting
resource. A subset of the burn crew should possess a more detailed map of all trees
slated for protection.
Although all of the above trees should be protected from fire damage (i.e., by preburning; see below), the priority for protection in the event of wildfire or logistical
constraints is as follows: 1) nest tree (highest priority), (2) other active cavity trees, (3)
inactive suitable cavity trees, (4) other cavity trees, old pines, relicts, etc.
Although prescribed fire is an integral part of red-cockaded woodpecker
management, its use is potentially destructive to red-cockaded woodpecker habitat if not
properly applied. Managers must use extreme caution to avoid burning under conditions
that may result in loss of red-cockaded woodpecker nesting or foraging habitat
Any areas of the Preserve with high fuel loads, which result from long fire intervals
and/or patchy or deficient previous fires, should be burned at least once during the
dormant season before being subjected to growing-season fire. Prescribed fire should be
avoided during droughts and extra care should be taken to minimize the potential for
wildfire. Small populations are particularly sensitive to catastrophic events. A large
wildfire could devastate a small population of red-cockaded woodpeckers through
widespread destruction of cavity trees and foraging habitat. Thus, we recommend that
the area currently occupied by red-cockaded woodpeckers receive specific attention in
the forthcoming BRP fire management plan, which is to include guidelines for wildfire
suppression as well as prescribed fires (Pandion Systems 2008). Maintenance of a
26
regime of frequent fires, including during the early growing season, will of course
minimize the risk of catastrophic fires during droughts or other dangerous conditions.
Groundcover Protection and Management
Background
Development and maintenance of a rich herbaceous groundcover, and low densities
of palmetto and other woody shrubs, is increasingly recognized as critical to redcockaded woodpecker management. Grass-dominated groundcover, and to a lesser
extent pine-needle litter (Neel 1991, Platt et al. 1999), carries low-intensity fires that
maintain open structure, pine regeneration, ecosystem productivity, and nutrient
availability in pine woodlands. An intact, native groundcover acts as a biological barrier
against invasion by exotics. At BRP, indicators of high quality groundcover on
frequently burned, relatively undisturbed sites includes wiregrass (Aristida stricta),
pineywoods dropseed (Sporobolus junceus), Florida dropseed (Sporobolus floridanus),
chalky bluestem (Andropogon virginicus var. glaucus), creeping bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), lopsided indiangrass (Sorghastrum secundum), and
toothache grass (Ptenium aromaticus) (J. Surdick, FNAI, pers. comm.). Each of these
species are stimulated to flower by April-June fire (Platt et al. 1991).
Recommendations
The amount of palmetto and other woody shrub species is low to moderate in most
areas of the BRP, perhaps due to the history of recurrent, dormant season fires. The
recommended increase in growing season fires should be sufficient to further reduce
palmetto cover and enhance grasses, forbs, and pine regeneration over time. Additional
means of enhancing herbaceous groundcover appear unnecessary. Chemical treatments
should be necessary only to control exotics. Mechanical means of controlling woody
shrubs (roller chopping, mowing, disking) are not recommended because they disturb
soil, damage groundcover, and should be unnecessary if the recommended fire regime is
implemented. Similarly, more intensive disturbance to the soil and groundcover from the
bulldozing of new roads and firebrakes, logging with heavy machinery, or stumping (see
below), should be avoided. Soil and groundcover disturbance of various levels will
greatly facilitate invasion by exotics in south Florida pinelands where even undisturbed
sites may be invaded by Malaleuca quinquenervia, Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius), downy myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosus), and other species
(Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990). Soil disturbance also facilitates invasion by fire ants.
Preliminary evidence at BRP indicates that feral hog damage to groundcover in the
longleaf stands is minimal to date, but may potentially increase if hog populations are not
controlled. Hogs are currently a significant source of soil and groundcover disturbance in
the hydric hammocks and in marshes on the Preserve (J. Surdick, pers. comm.). Feral
hog control measures (hunting, trapping) should continue to prevent further population
growth that could lead to increased use of more upland habitats.
27
Forest Habitat Conditions
Currently Occupied Habitat
The northeast section of BRP currently supports nine red-cockaded woodpecker
groups. This area consists of forested stands dominated by mature longleaf pine.
Overstory pine basal area within this northeast section is low ranging from <5 to 50ft2/ac;
averaging 16ft2/ac. Regeneration, when present, occurs in patches within the mosaic of
small to medium size openings and gaps scattered throughout stands. Scattered “relicts”
and flattops occur in some stands; however no “old-growth” stands of any size were
noted (Costa and Kappes pers. obs. 2008). In some stands, the presence of scattered
regeneration patches (i.e., seedlings and saplings), occasional old growth trees, and one
or two additional size (or age) classes of younger, larger (10-12 inches dbh) trees creates
the impression of an uneven-aged forest structure. This current condition provides a
landscape template from which the potential to implement uneven-aged silviculture can
be envisioned (see below).
Currently Unoccupied Habitat
Degraded
A substantial percentage of the pine stands outside the area currently occupied by
red-cockaded woodpeckers are in a degraded condition. Many stands have recently (last
1-2 years) been heavily logged. Although there is no evidence of recent clearcutting,
numerous areas of the BRP have been thinned very heavily with remaining basal areas of
< 5 or 5-10 ft2/ac. In addition, the largest size classes of pine were harvested resulting in
small diameter (6-10 inches dbh) trees as the “new” overstory. These stands provide
marginal foraging habitat. Additionally, because the majority of residual trees are
smaller diameters, finding suitable trees to establish recruitment clusters using artificial
cavities, whether drilled or inserts, will be difficult. Stands in the above condition will
require considerable restoration to once again make them suitable for red-cockaded
woodpeckers.
Suitable
There are scattered pine stands, particularly in the northwest and southeast sections
of the BRP, with some regeneration, and several age/size classes, that could support
recruitment clusters immediately. There are other stands that will require carefully
planned and executed silvicultural prescriptions and habitat management activities prior
to establishing recruitment clusters. Any necessary timber management prescriptions and
cultural treatments would be designed to accomplish two primary objectives: (1) provide
good quality red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat, and (2) begin
“moving” the landscape toward the desired uneven-aged forest structure (see below).
28
Forest Habitat Management/Silvicultural Guidelines
Currently Occupied Habitat
Maintenance and development of good quality red-cockaded woodpecker nesting
and foraging habitat will be accomplished using uneven-aged silviculture. This
silvicultural system is “…implemented using a reproduction cutting method called the
selection method, used to regenerate and maintain a multi-aged structure by removing
trees either singly, or in small groups or strips” (Guldin 2006, quoting Helms 1998).
Although the single-tree selection method may have some application on BRP, the group
selection method will be more likely to produce adequate regeneration, given the shade
intolerance of both desired pine species. When using uneven-aged methods, the primary
measurement of success in the implementation of a regeneration method is whether a new
cohort of trees is established to replace those that were harvested (Guldin 2006). “Thus,
the reproduction cutting method is the primary element of the silvicultural system in that
the actions that comprise the silvicultural system depend upon the origin of the
regeneration, its age distribution, and its spatial distribution over the stand” (Guldin
2006).
It is beyond the scope of this Plan to explain in detail the complexities and
challenges associated with the group selection silvicultural system, which is not well
tested in south Florida slash pine communities. In addition to the discussion below,
managers will want to refer to Farrar and Boyer (1991), Farrar (1996), Guldin (2006),
Jose et al. (2006: and references therein), prior to proceeding with forest management
actions in current and future red-cockaded woodpecker habitat at BRP. These articles
will provide additional background for implementing uneven-aged silviculture in BRP’s
red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Developing and maintaining the desired forest
structure and composition for red-cockaded woodpecker habitat will not be accomplished
unless a through understanding of uneven-aged silviculture and group selection
regeneration in longleaf and south Florida slash pine stands is achieved. The
fundamental considerations necessary to successfully implement a group selection
method include: (1) regeneration establishment (artificial if needed), (2) pattern of
implementation, (3) approach to regulation, and (4) developmental dynamics (Guldin
2006; pages 231-238).
Currently Unoccupied Habitat
Degraded
Because the remaining overstory trees in the degraded stands are small diameter with
small crowns, widely spaced, and young, they will likely be inadequate, or at best poor
sources of seed to reestablish the forest. Therefore, under-planting these stands is the
only viable option. South Florida slash pine can be direct seeded or seedlings (preferably
containerized if available) can be planted. Local seed sources should be used if at all
possible, while ensuring that seedlings are south Florida slash pine not typical slash pine.
Site preparation should be limited to prescribed burning. These stands have already
29
experienced significant understory and soil disturbance from both the recent logging
activity and “stumping”. One or two prescribed fires should be adequate to prepare a
seed bed sufficient to establish pine reproduction. However, given the very open forest
and, therefore, lack of pine needles as fuel, prescribed fire may be difficult to conduct for
several years in some stands lacking a continuous groundcover. Seedlings should be
planted at ~400 per ac. If direct seeding is used, managers should check with local
sources to determine the number of pounds/acre to seed.
Once established, given the sparse crown cover and openness of the stands, seedlings
should germinate (direct seeded) or come out of the grass stage (planted seedlings)
relatively quickly. With the exception of prescribed fires at intervals of 2-3 years, there
will be little silvicultural-related activity to be conducted in these open stands until the
“new” forest is ~15-20 years old. However, if direct seeding is used, and a very dense
stand of pine is successfully established, a pre-commercial cultural treatment may be
required prior to the first thinning. This would be particularly important if the stand was
being used by red-cockaded woodpeckers as foraging habitat. A dense stand of pine
midstory developing under the remaining overstory could preclude use of the larger trees
as foraging substrate. At 15-20 years, a first thinning should be planned and executed.
This thinning would be the first harvest designed to begin “moving” the stand toward an
uneven-aged condition. During this, and all subsequent thinning operations, none of the
original residual trees (i.e., those remaining in 2008) should be removed. These residual
trees, at least those that survive wind, fire, and lightening, will, for decades, constitute the
only available “older age class” component and must be retained for future cavity trees as
well as a critical component of good-quality foraging habitat (see below).
After the first thinning, future cutting entry cycles, the number and location of group
selection patches needed to facilitate reproduction, and patch spacing and distribution
requirements will have to be determined using an adaptive management approach. The
knowledge gained over the coming years from implementing uneven-aged silviculture for
both pine species in the “Currently Occupied Habitat”, should prove invaluable as standby-stand, and ultimately landscape-level, management decisions are made in these
currently degraded habitats/stands. Again, the details of when, where and what to harvest
in each cutting entry cycle are determined by individuals or teams thoroughly familiar
with the fundamentals, concepts, mechanics, and operational details of the group
selection method of uneven-aged silviculture specific to BRP. The required knowledge
and experience base to implement this habitat restoration silvicultural system can only be
built by those individuals with a clear understanding of both the current and desired
future condition of the forested landscape.
Suitable
In stands on BRP where the forest has not been cut as described above, but where
red-cockaded woodpeckers currently do not occur, uneven-aged silviculture can be
implemented in the same manner as in the occupied habitat. Prior to conducting forest
silvicultural operations in these areas, whether thinning or regeneration cutting, activities
must be coordinated with appropriate wildlife staff (see below). This coordination will
focus on recruitment cluster locations and associated foraging habitat requirements.
30
Once recruitment clusters are chosen and foraging habitat stands identified, plans can
proceed, if necessary, for harvesting operations.
Forest Operations Guidelines and Coordination Requirements
The following forest management guidelines and coordination requirements are
designed to ensure that current and future red-cockaded woodpecker habitat is not
adversely impacted by forest management, restoration or maintenance operations.
Forest Operations Guidelines:
(1) Observe all guidance provided in the Recovery Plan under 8F. Clusters and
Cavity Trees (pp.178-181); and in this Plan.
(2) Observe all guidance provided in the recovery plan under 8I. Foraging Habitat
(pp.186-191); and in this Plan.
a. As applicable (see below), use the South/Central Florida Recovery Unit
Foraging Guidelines for Satisfying the Standard for Managed Stability (see
Appendix 1).
(3) Observe all applicable (i.e., uneven-aged management) guidance provided in the
recovery plan under 8J. Silviculture (pp.198-201); and in this Plan and its
recommended references.
(4) Observe all guidance provided in the recovery plan under 8K. Prescribed Burning
(pp.201-205); and in this Plan.
Coordination Requirements:
(1) Appropriate BRP staff (i.e., wildlife biologists, managers, and foresters) will meet
prior to planning and implementing forest operations (timber sales, road
reconstruction, cultural activities, e.g., prescribed burning, planting, etc.). The
purpose of these meetings is to detail the how, when, where, and why of each
operation. This coordination process will ensure that current and future redcockaded woodpecker habitat is both managed and protected, while
simultaneously meeting timber and other forest management objectives.
(2) Prior to planning forest operations, BRP staff will develop detailed maps showing
all red-cockaded woodpecker clusters (active and recruitment) and their
associated cavity trees.
(3) Prior to planning forest operations, BRP managers/foresters will be provided
detailed stand maps showing all red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat
partitions (active and recruitment clusters) and those stands within the partitions
that are currently contributing to the required foraging habitat for each
woodpecker group. Note: This map could be incorporated with the cluster/cavity
tree map described in (2) above. However, recruitment clusters may not have
31
individual cavity trees (created with artificial cavities) identified prior to selected
forest operations.
(4) Prior to implementation of forest operations, BRP staff will ensure all redcockaded woodpecker cavity trees are marked and cluster boundaries within
operation areas. Cavity trees will be marked with a ~6-inch wide white painted
band and cluster boundaries will be marked with flagging.
(5) Prior to implementing forest operations involving timber harvests, salvage
cutting, road building or improvement, logging decks, skid trails, etc., BRP
wildlife staff will be provided detailed maps showing all locations of these
proposed activities.
Foraging Habitat Management
Recovery Standard
Similar to other state-managed properties in Florida harboring red-cockaded
woodpeckers, including Division of Forestry State Forests and Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission Wildlife Management Areas, BRP foraging habitat will be
managed using the recovery standard foraging guidelines (RSFG) as presented in the
Recovery Plan (see pp.188-191 in Recovery Plan). Following RSFG recommendations,
provide 300 ac of good quality foraging habitat for each woodpecker group. This
quantity of habitat is consistent with home range/territory sizes documented for other
SCFRU populations (Nesbitt et al. 1983, Delotelle et al. 1987, DeLotelle et al. 1995,
Bowman et al. 1998). Additionally, BRP’s existing red-cockaded woodpecker home
range sizes, as defined by foraging partitions (see Convery and Walters 2004) are similar,
albeit slightly higher, to the Recovery Plan recommendations, averaging 357 acres. The
mean home range size for 8 Lykes Brothers red-cockaded woodpecker groups was
estimated at 311 acres in 2003, providing further evidence that establishing 300 ac of
good quality habitat for each woodpecker group on BRP is appropriate.
As noted in the Recovery Plan on pp.190; “Foraging ecology of red-cockaded
woodpeckers in native slash pine communities in south Florida has received little
research. It is clear, though, that the home ranges of red-cockaded woodpeckers in native
slash pine flatwoods are unusually large. It is also clear that hydric slash pine flatwoods
do not support the sizes of pines, and may not support the pine density, recommended in
the Recovery Standard.” Based on the lack of native slash pine foraging habitat
knowledge, the Recovery Plan calls for providing each woodpecker group “…at least 200
to 300 ac of good quality foraging habitat containing mature and old pines and healthy
native groundcovers that are frequently burned.”
The RSFG represent the “desired future condition” of landscapes occupied by healthy
red-cockaded woodpecker populations. Few of today’s properties harboring redcockaded woodpeckers meet all of the characteristics listed in the RSFG; however, most
are believed to be capable of doing so. Although some unknowns remain regarding
historic pine densities and tree diameters in south Florida slash pine forests, and whether
32
all characteristics of the RSFG can be satisfied in this forest type in all stands, the RSFG
still provides a reasonable forest structure goal to manage toward. Following are the
specific characteristics of the RSFG:
(1) There are ≥ 18 stems/ac of pines that are ≥ 60 years in age and ≥ 14 in dbh.
Minimum basal area for these pines is 20 ft2/ac. Recommended minimum
rotation ages apply to all land managed as foraging habitat. Notes: (a) On
BRP with uneven-aged management there are no rotation ages, and (b) since
the USFWS issued the Recovery Plan they have clarified that there is no
upper basal area limit for pine stems > 14 in dbh.
(2) Basal area of pines 10-14 in dbh is between 0 and 40ft2/ac.
(3) Basal area of pines < 10 in dbh is below 10ft2/ac and below 20 stems/ac.
Note: patches of regeneration when using the group selection method (see
below) will typically exceed this number of small pine stems per unit area.
However, these patches are not considered part of the foraging habitat until
they achieve stems averaging 10 in dbh. Therefore, these patches of small,
dense pine stems are not “violating” this RSFG element.
(4) Basal area of all pines ≥ 10 in dbh is at least 40ft2/ac. That is, the minimum
basal area of all pines for categories (1) and (2) above is 40 ft2/ac.
(5) Groundcovers of native bunchgrass and/or other native, fire-tolerant, firedependent herbs total 40% or more of ground and midstory plants and are
dense enough to carry growing season fire at least every 5 years.
(6) No hardwood midstory exists, or if a hardwood midstory is present it is sparse
and less than 7 ft in height.
(7) Canopy hardwoods are absent or less than 10% of the number of canopy trees
in longleaf forests. Note: On BRP this would also apply to south Florida slash
pine forests.
(8) All of this habitat is within 0.5 mi of the center of the cluster, and preferably,
50% or more is within 0.25 mi of the cluster center. Note: Because there are
only 125 ac within a 0.25 mi radius circle and BRP is providing ~300 ac for
each woodpecker group, at least half of the foraging habitat for every group
will always occur outside the 0.25 mi radius circle.
(9) Foraging habitat is not separated by more than 200 ft of non-foraging areas.
Non-foraging areas include: (1) any predominantly hardwood forest, (2) pine
stands less than 30 years in age, (3) cleared land such as agricultural lands or
recently clearcut areas, (4) paved roadways, (5) utility rights-of-way, and (6)
bodies of water. Note: On BRP other non-foraging areas include wetlands,
hardwood stands, and treeless (or nearly so) prairies.
Recovery Standard and Group Selection Silviculture
33
When using group selection, small patches of regeneration (<2 ac) will be scattered
throughout the forest. These individual patches of reproduction may be included within
the area identified as good quality foraging habitat (under the RSFG) once the
regenerating pines are at least 10 in dbh, the density of pines is 40 ft2/ac, and the
appropriate percentage of native groundcovers is present. Once the patch contains pines
that are 14 in dbh or greater, it should meet all elements of the recovery standard.
On BRP, the goal, at least under current forest conditions, is to manage red-cockaded
woodpeckers at a density (“home range”) of ~300 ac per group. Within this home range,
the ~300 ac of foraging habitat will be managed using the group selection method.
Under group selection silviculture, some percentage of the identified foraging acres
within each red-cockaded woodpecker territory will always be in patches of
“regeneration” of differing ages and sizes of pines. For example, some patches will have
recently been established and only contain seedlings or saplings, while others may be 30
to < 60 years old and contain all components of good quality foraging habitat except 14
inch dbh pines. According to the Recovery Plan, those patches that meet all elements of
good quality foraging habitat except the requirement for pines 14 inches and larger can be
“counted” toward the total foraging habitat acreage requirement, which for BRP will
equal ~300 acres. According to the Recovery Plan; “This exception is considered
acceptable because of the spatial distribution and size of regenerating patches (that is,
regenerating patches that lack pines 14 inches dbh and larger are small and interspersed
through the forest).”
Standard for Managed Stability
Background
The Recovery Plan provides two sets of guidelines for the management of foraging
habitat: the recovery standard (see above) and the standard for managed stability. The
recovery standard is used by federal and state agencies (and those private lands involved
in recovery) to conserve and recover red-cockaded woodpeckers (see Foraging Habitat
Management, this document). The standard for managed stability was developed to
establish a minimal threshold level of habitat, below which the loss of a red-cockaded
woodpecker group may be likely. As such, it is used by federal, state and private entities
to determine whether their project-related actions, e.g., timber sales, construction
activities, etc. will result in a level of habitat loss or degradation that would lead to such
loss, called “incidental take”. If incidental take is likely, that is, post-project there will
not be enough habitat remaining to preclude likely loss of the affected red-cockaded
woodpecker group(s), the individual or agency proposing the project would seek
incidental take authorization from the USFWS. Such take can be authorized under the
Endangered Species Act using the section 7 consultation process (federal agencies) or the
habitat conservation planning process (state and private entities). Habitat-related details
of the standard for managed stability are presented in Appendix 5 of the Recovery Plan.
Implementation details and guidance for the standard for managed stability are presented
in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service May 4, 2005 letter available at the Foraging Matrix
Application link on the USFWS website (http://rcwrecovery.fws.gov).
34
Use on BRP
In 2004, one year after the Recovery Plan Revision was approved, the USFWS,
working with the private, state and federal partners comprising the SCFRU), concluded
that a recovery unit-specific standard for managed stability was necessary for the
SCFRU. These guidelines (South/Central Florida Recovery Unit Foraging Guidelines
for Satisfying the Standard for Managed Stability) including their background and
habitat-related details, are provided in Appendix 1. The remainder of this section will
explain how the SCFRU guidelines for the standard for managed stability will be used on
BRP.
These guidelines have two applications on BRP. First, and similar to the “normal”
standard for managed stability guidelines in the Recovery Plan, they are to be used to
assess project-related impacts on RCW groups. That is, prior to approving and
implementing projects that would result in habitat-related losses (e.g., of foraging habitat)
within red-cockaded woodpecker partitions (territories), analyses must be completed to
ensure that enough habitat remains to avoid loss of the group. In other words, at least the
minimum quantity and quality of habitat specified in the SCFRU standard for managed
stability must remain post-project, or if not, and the project cannot be modified, BRP
must seek incidental take authority from the USFWS.
Their second application is related to the population expansion program. The
guidelines will be used to establish the minimum threshold of habitat (quantity and
quality) required for each recruitment territory when establishing those territories in
preparation for receiving translocated birds from the Southern Range Translocation
Cooperative. Although habitat conditions described by these guidelines do not represent
“high quality” or “ideal” habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, it is believed that they
are sufficient to support a group given that other groups in the SCFRU are surviving in
similar habitat. However, it is important to note that the wide-scale implementation of
these “short-term” guidelines (i.e., habitat will be improved over time) will: (1) not
provide future nesting habitat or good quality foraging habitat, (2) result in population
fragmentation with subsequent problems related to demographic stochasticity, and (3)
based on (1) and (2) above, not maintain a population’s long-term viability.
In summary, BRP will manage its red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat using
the recovery standard detailed in the Recovery Plan and this document. An uneven-aged
silvicultural system (group selection) will be employed. The standard for managed
stability guidelines (either the SCFRU version or Recovery Plan version) have limited
application on BRP (i.e., a project-related regulatory role), as on most properties
harboring red-cockaded woodpeckers. Conserving the red-cockaded woodpecker and its
required habitat on BRP will require a long-term strategy of both population and habitat
restoration and maintenance. The strategy outlined in this section provides a foundation
for how the process of restoration can begin.
35
Timber Harvesting Concerns
Salvage Logging
Stands damaged by wildfires or other disasters may be subject to salvage sales
(Pandion Systems 2008). Salvage logging may result in the unnecessary loss of foraging
habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. The abundance of dying, beetle-infested pines
that may follow overly intense fires may provide an abundant supply of high quality prey
for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Also, salvage operations commonly lead to the harvest
of trees that would have survived, leading to an unnecessary reduction in foraging
habitat. Salvage operations should be conducted under close scrutiny, with extreme
caution, and only in the event that an insect outbreak threatens to spread, which is less of
a threat in longleaf stands.
Recent Timber Harvests
Under the Management Agreement clearcutting is prohibited. Pine harvest
operations are required to leave approximately 30 ft2/ac of basal area, with the leave trees
being of the dominant and co-dominant class. During our field visit we observed
numerous pine stands that had recently undergone very heavy thinning to basal areas well
below 30 ft2/ac and residual trees were not from the dominant class, many being ~10
inches dbh, or less.
Lightered Stump Removal
The removal of lighter stumps has been a pervasive practice in the past that
continues currently (stumps were being removed during our March 2008 site visit
although the Conceptual Management Plan indicated it had been discontinued). The
removal of lighter stumps may be deleterious to local hydrology, provide establishment
sites for exotics, and destroy critical habitat for certain reptiles and amphibians, including
indigo snakes (Drymarchon corais). Moreover, stumping causes extensive damage to the
groundcover, the protection of which is critical to red-cockaded woodpecker management
(USFWS 2003; see above). We recommend that this practice be discontinued.
NESTING HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Introduction
Research increasingly indicates that high quality foraging habitat is similar to
optimal nesting and roosting habitat (James et al. 2001, Walters et al. 2002). Walters et
al. (2002) concluded that management of foraging and nesting/roosting habitat be
increasingly integrated and that large and old trees be retained and grown throughout the
landscape. The guidelines presented above in the FOREST HABITAT
36
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES also apply to nesting and roosting habitat. However,
because the cavity tree cluster (occupied and recruitment) is the “core” of a red-cockaded
woodpecker territory, and because of the discrete nature of cavities, special protection of
the area containing these resources is warranted. Thus, additional guidelines and
precautions apply to cavities and clusters (nesting and roosting habitat).
Cluster Management
The cluster area must be large enough to encompass all existing cavity and start
trees, as well as current and succeeding generations of potential cavity trees (artificial and
natural). The cluster area must also be large enough to allow for the “drift” of the cluster
over time as the birds select new trees for cavity excavation. The USFWS (2003) defines
the cluster area as the minimum convex polygon encompassing all suitable cavity trees
within a group’s exclusive territory, plus a 200 ft buffer surrounding the polygon. This
area must be a minimum of 10 ac of pine woodland (USFWS 2003). However, because
existing and potential cavity trees are much more widely spaced in central and south
Florida than elsewhere (Shapiro 1983), designated cluster areas for natural and
recruitment clusters will be much larger at BRP.
Cluster management involves three basic goals (modified from USFWS 2003):
(1) protection and microhabitat management of cavity trees, (2) retention and protection
of potential cavity trees, and (3) management towards an open, park-like structure with a
continuous groundcover dominated by native grasses and forbs.
Protection and Microhabitat Management of Cavity Trees
1. Mark existing cavity and start trees with narrow (≤ 6 in) white bands (no wider,
see Predator Management).
2. Remove hardwoods and small pines from the vicinity of cavity trees using a chain
saw or hand tools. Such trees growing close to cavity trees can cause abandonment.
However, sudden, extensive microhabitat changes may stress cavity trees under certain
conditions. Thus, such management activities should initially be limited to a few cavity
trees until their effects at BRP are understood.
It is also important to avoid uprooting of small trees and shrubs as this may result in
soil disturbance that may lead to other problems. A one-time application of herbicides
may be used on stumps to prevent re-sprouting.
3. Protect cavity trees from wild and prescribed fire. Ideally, regular fire in the
cluster area and foraging habitat will minimize the threat of overly intense fires.
However, additional precautionary measures must be taken during prescribed or
approaching wildfire given the critically small size of the BRP population and the limited
number of existing and potential cavity trees.
Prior to a prescribed fire, fuel loads should be reduced within 15 ft of cavity trees.
The preferred method is to conduct preparatory burns around cavity trees prior to a fire.
These burns will benefit the desired herbaceous groundcover (rather than harming it)
while reducing fuel loads. Preparatory burns can be conducted up to several weeks
37
before prescribed fires. The method is best applied on the day of the larger prescribed
fire when extinguishment is unnecessary.
Less preferred methods of reducing fuel loads around cavity trees include raking and
mowing, which can disturb soil and damage herbaceous groundcover. Groundcover
protection around cavity trees is important because it facilitates low intensity ground
fires. Soil and groundcover disturbance caused by raking or denuding portions of the
groundcover may promote invasion by exotics or native woody species that may increase
fire hazards, and which may require more labor to remove later. Mowing can compact
soils and damage the roots of cavity trees, especially in flatwoods, and lead to tree
mortality. If preparatory fire cannot be used, weed-wacking and light raking of pine
needles and other litter while avoiding damage to soil and grasses may provide the best
alternative. Do not leave raked fuels in piles or rings in the vicinity of cavity trees.
Although all suitable cavity trees are critical resources for a group, the nest tree is
most important. If an emergency triage situation emerges, as in the case of an
approaching wildfire, the nest tree is the highest priority for precautionary measures.
Never assume that existing cavity trees can be effectively replaced with artificial cavity
trees.
4. Protect the roots of cavity trees. Exclude heavy machinery and vehicles from
within 50 ft of cavity trees, especially in wet areas. Plow lines are prohibited within
cluster areas (USFWS 2003) to protect cavity tree roots, soil structural integrity,
groundcover vegetation, and to avoid disturbance that may facilitate exotics. Protecting
the roots of existing and potential cavity trees is also important to minimize the potential
for bark beetle attack.
Retention and Protection of Potential Cavity Trees
1. Protect and retain all large, old, relict, flat top, and turpentine pines as current and
future potential cavity trees (natural and artificial).
Given the scarcity of large pines on BRP, protecting all large and relict pines is
imperative for stabilizing and growing the number of red-cockaded woodpecker groups
on BRP. Note that some of the oldest pines in these flatwoods may be relatively small in
size. Such trees should nonetheless be identified and preserved as potential natural cavity
trees.
2. Protect younger age classes to improve stand diversity and provide for
replacement cavity trees.
Management of Forest Structure and Native Groundcover
Maintain or manage towards the park-like forest structure preferred by red-cockaded
woodpeckers: open, mature, pine-dominated woodland with a groundcover dominated by
native grasses and forbs. The primary means of managing for each of these structural
characteristics is frequent prescribed fire, including growing season burns, at 1-3 year
intervals.
38
1. Hardwoods and exotic trees should be absent from the cluster area (and foraging
habitat in the case of exotics). Use chainsaws and/or hand tools to remove any
hardwoods and exotics from the midstory, especially in the vicinity of cavity trees. The
density of small pines should be low, especially around cavity trees.
2. Protect and promote native herbaceous groundcover. A healthy groundcover
dominated by grasses and forbs is increasingly recognized as a critical aspect of redcockaded woodpecker habitat across its range. In addition to being linked to high-quality
foraging habitat, native grasses facilitate the low intensity growing-season fires that
maintain this ecosystem. Protecting the groundcover from disturbance is particularly
important in southern Florida ecosystems because of its role as a biological barrier to
invasion by exotic plants. The maintenance and protection of healthy groundcover is
particularly important at BRP after the recent logging, which will artificially reduce pine
needle fuel that facilitates fire. BRP managers should consider the feasibility of
restoration of wiregrass and other native grasses in disturbed areas. Vehicle use should
be restricted to existing roads.
3. Retain snags. Research has shown that the rate of occupation of red-cockaded
woodpecker cavities by other species decreases with increasing density of large snags,
which provide alternative cavity sites for kleptoparasites (Kappes and Harris 1995).
If management resources permit, protect some large snags during prescribed fires.
However, the protection of large and old living pines is a higher priority.
Salvage logging should not be conducted anywhere on the Preserve except in rare
cases when it is clearly necessary to prevent the spread of beetle infestations.
Cavity Management
Introduction
Cavity availability can limit new group formation, cluster occupancy, breeding
female attraction and retention, nesting success, helper retention, and group size and
stability. The loss of cavities is a primary cause of territory deterioration and
abandonment, and population declines. Thus it is critical to insure that each existing
group has a sufficient number of roost and nest cavities available to maximize survival
and reproduction. Similarly, each potential (recruitment) territory should have enough
cavities for the establishment of new groups.
Cavity Resource Monitoring
1. Inspect each cavity in each cluster at least once per year, or as soon as possible
after events that may cause the loss of cavity trees (e.g., wildfires, hurricanes). During
these inspections, cavity trees should be inspected for activity status, tree condition,
cavity entrance suitability, the condition of sapwood around the cavity entrance and
faceplate, and the condition of the cavity chamber and floor. Cavities in dead trees, and
cavities with enlarged entrances, dead sapwood, enlarged chambers, collapsed floors, or
those filled with debris (as from advanced decay from above, rather than nest material),
39
are considered unsuitable for red-cockaded woodpeckers. While part of the cavity
inspections may be accomplished from the ground with binoculars, examining cavity
interiors will require a video ‘peeper’, or the use of ladders, droplight, and mirror.
Number of Suitable Cavities
1. Maintain at least four suitable cavity trees in active clusters. However, in clusters
found to have less than the number of cavities necessary for all group members to roost,
post-breeding season, add the supplementary number of artificial cavities. Active
clusters with the fewest number of suitable cavities receive highest priority for cavity
provisioning.
2. Do not provide excessive numbers of artificial cavities. If a sufficient number of
suitable natural cavities are available on a territory, do not add any artificial cavities.
Excessive numbers of suitable cavities on a territory could elicit some unanticipated
response by the kleptoparasite community (e.g., increased density) that might negatively
affect red-cockaded woodpeckers. Perhaps more importantly, the installation of extra
artificial cavities may unnecessarily compromise the largest, oldest trees in the stand.
Artificial Cavities
1. Use the appropriate type of artificial cavity based on the dbh and heartwood
diameters of available trees.
Two methods of artificial cavity excavation have been developed and are approved
by the USFWS: (1) the original Copeyon (1990) method for drilling cavities and start
holes, and (2) the insert technique (Allen 1991). In terms of duration of suitability and
required long-term maintenance, the Copeyon method is preferred (Hooper et al. 2004).
However, the Copeyon method requires pines with: (1) ≥ 6 inches of heartwood to
completely encompass the drilled cavity chamber (otherwise sap may leak into the cavity,
putting birds at risk), and (2) ≤ 3.5 inches of sapwood (the less sapwood the better).
If there are not enough trees with the appropriate characteristics for drilling, use
the insert technique as needed to meet cavity requirements. Inserts can be placed in trees
with relatively little heartwood. Ideally, inserts require trees with a diameter of at least
15 inches at installation height (USFWS 2003). However, trees with diameters as small
as 12 inches at insert height have been used if larger trees are not available (Sullivan
2004, DeLotelle, pers. comm.), as is often the case in south-central Florida. The recent
logging on BRP dramatically reduced the number of larger trees in numerous stands.
This situation will limit the potential for establishing new red-cockaded woodpecker
groups in several areas on the property for quite a few years.
Artificial cavities should be placed at heights that are within the range observed for
natural cavities at BRP, to the extent possible, and oriented so that the entrance faces the
southwest (i.e., approximately between 200 and 250 degrees).
Before using either the Copeyon drill technique or inserts, it is critical that managers
learn the details of installation and maintenance (see Copeyon 1990, Allen 1991, USFWS
2003). For example, woodpeckers must be excluded from drilled cavities and starts with
heavy wire mesh for at least four weeks after installation while the hole is monitored for
resin leakage. Inserts must be coated with a non-toxic waterproof sealant prior to
40
installation to protect against resin leakage into the cavity chamber (USFWS 2003). Both
drilled holes and inserts should be checked for resin leakage again during the first
growing season after installation. The incorrect installation or maintenance of artificial
cavities can lead to wasted management resources, loss of large trees (a critically limiting
resource at BRP), or red-cockaded woodpecker mortalities.
Cavity restrictors
Cavity restrictors are used to prevent or repair cavity enlargement by other
woodpecker species (Carter et al. 1989, Raulston et al. 1996, Wood et al. 2000). “Cavity
restrictors are square or rectangular plates with an inverted U-shaped or circular opening,
1.5-1.75 inches wide, in the center of the plate. Typically, they are made of
approximately 22-guage stainless steel, aluminum, or sheet metal; expanded metal and
quarter-inch hardware cloth are also suitable. Restrictors range in size from 3 by 3 inches
to much larger” (USFWS 2003; Figure 4).
Restrictor plates are installed on natural and drilled cavities using four nails, or wood
screws, positioned in pre-bored holes. Short wood screws (0.5 inches) will cause
minimal damage to the cavity and are unlikely to penetrate into the chamber where they
could injure users, but longer screws or nails may be required in some cases.
Large restrictor plates that cover the entire front of inserts should be attached prior to
installation to protect these boxes from damage by other woodpecker species.
Restrictors with an inverted U-shaped opening (the original design) are preferred
because birds can grip the tree’s surface below the cavity. Restricted cavities may be
unsuitable if red-cockaded woodpeckers are unable to land and perch at the cavity
entrance. Restrictors with circular openings require modification to meet this need
(USFWS 2003).
The use of restrictors may potentially pose a risk to red-cockaded woodpeckers if not
properly installed and monitored. Birds can ensnare their legs or wings between the
restrictor and the tree if the plate is poorly fitted or if screws come loose. The activities
of other woodpeckers may also damage restrictors (Blanc and Walters 2007), potentially
resulting in jagged edges and spaces that could ensnare or otherwise injure birds. These
risks are significant enough that the technique should be used sparingly, and in
conjunction with at least annual inspections (USFWS 2003).
Restrictors should be used primarily to repair cavities with enlarged entrances. The
technique may not work safely on cavities that are excessively damaged. Restrictors
work best on cavities that are only slightly or moderately enlarged. Non-toxic wood
putty can be used to repair some of the damage to the entrance tunnel before the restrictor
plate is installed. Placing restrictors on natural or drilled cavities to prevent enlargement
should be avoided unless cavity enlargement is a frequent problem. Preliminary
observations suggest that enlargement is not a significant problem at BRP, and so
restrictors are probably not necessary as a preventative measure except for insert boxes as
mentioned above. The occasional problems associated with restrictors on natural and
drilled cavities are less likely to occur on inserts.
Another consideration is that enlarged red-cockaded woodpecker cavities provide
nest sites for larger cavity nesters, including fox squirrels, wood ducks, screech owls,
southeastern kestrels, and northern flickers (Blanc and Walters 2007). Thus, some
41
enlarged cavities should be retained for these species (Blanc and Walters 2007),
particularly in clusters that have a sufficient number of suitable unenlarged cavities.
The technique should not be used to prevent kleptoparasites from usurping cavities
unless the potential benefits are judged to outweigh the aforementioned risks. Although
restrictors should exclude most red-bellied woodpeckers, they do not exclude eastern
bluebirds (or flying squirrels). Because of the associated risks, restrictors should not be
used to exclude red-bellied woodpeckers at BRP unless further experience reveals that
cavity usurpation by this species is clearly a limiting factor. Additionally, the body size
of red-bellied woodpeckers may vary geographically. Therefore, if restrictors are to be
used to exclude this species, managers will need to experimentally determine the
appropriate size before any widespread application is implemented.
Any use of restrictors must be accompanied by careful monitoring (see below).
Kleptoparasite Management
Introduction
The negative effects of cavity kleptoparasites (i.e., cavity usurpation and occupation,
nest destruction) can be significant in small red-cockaded woodpecker populations
(USFWS 2003). However, site-specific data is needed before investing resources in
kleptoparasite management. The species involved and their effects on red-cockaded
woodpeckers vary geographically. Also, interactions between different kleptoparasite
species may complicate management because of the potential for indirect effects.
Management techniques used successfully at one site may have no affect, or even
unexpected negative effects at another site (Kappes 2004).
Preliminary evidence at BRP and adjacent properties indicates that red-bellied
woodpeckers, and to a lesser extent, eastern bluebirds, usurp and occupy substantial
numbers of red-cockaded woodpecker cavities (S. Shattler, K. NeSmith, per. comm.).
However, more data is needed to evaluate whether these species actually limit redcockaded woodpecker cluster occupancy, nesting success, or group size before deciding
if any control measures are necessary.
Monitoring
During roost checks and other routine monitoring of red-cockaded woodpecker
groups (see below), also record and quantify the occupancy of red-cockaded woodpecker
cavities by other species. These data can be used to evaluate whether other species are
occupying significant numbers of suitable cavities and thereby potentially limiting redcockaded woodpeckers at the level of particular groups or the population.
Management and Control
If field observations indicate that red-bellied woodpeckers and/or eastern bluebirds
are limiting factors at BRP, several management options may be considered. Cavity
restrictors of the appropriate size can be used to exclude red-bellied woodpeckers.
However, restrictors should be used with caution on natural and drilled cavities because
42
of the potential for damaging cavities during installation and potential risks to redcockaded woodpeckers (see above). If used, restrictors should be installed on only a few
cavities at first until managers gain experience with the technique. If restrictors are
placed on natural or drilled cavities, they should be checked as often as possible after
installation, and annually once managers are convinced the technique is working
properly. Initial inspections should include roost checks to confirm that red-cockaded
woodpeckers can readily enter and exit the restricted cavities, and to confirm that redbellied woodpeckers cannot. Restrictors with diameters ≤ 1.6 in (40 mm) (metric units
are provided here for greater precision) should be sufficient to exclude red-bellied
woodpeckers while not interfering with use by red-cockaded woodpeckers. However,
managers may need to experiment with restrictor diameter to obtain the desired results
because of geographical variation in woodpecker body size. Do not use restrictors with
entrance diameters < 1.5 in (38 mm). The use of restrictors on inserts should exclude
red-bellied woodpeckers from these cavities. Managers may also use inserts with PVC
pipe in the entrance to prevent access by red-bellied woodpeckers (Marston and Marrow
2004).
The retention of snags throughout the landscape may reduce the rate of occupancy of
red-cockaded woodpecker cavities by other species by providing alternative cavity sites
(Kappes and Harris 1995). We recommend that this practice be employed. Cavity
excavation by red-bellied woodpeckers in snags also provides alternative cavities for
non-excavating cavity nesters (e.g., bluebirds).
Bluebirds are rarely a significant problem for red-cockaded woodpeckers, but ruling
out this possibility at BRP would be premature. Nest boxes placed in the cluster area
may also provide alternative nest sites for this species (Loeb and Hooper 1997).
Predator Management
Introduction
Three techniques have been developed for the purpose of protecting red-cockaded
woodpeckers from rat snakes (reviewed by Kappes 2004a). Neal et al. (1993) placed
nylon mesh on cavity trees to ensnare climbing rat snakes, but this technique is banned
because it is hazardous to red-cockaded woodpeckers (Samano et al. 1998, USFWS
2003). Withgott et al. (1995) invented snake excluder devices (SNEDS) made of 2.4 ft
wide bands of aluminum flashing placed on the bole of nest trees. Saenz et al. (1999)
proposed a bark shaving technique designed to make it more difficult for snakes to climb
cavity trees.
Monitoring and Control
Active resin barriers are highly effective at protecting red-cockaded woodpeckers
and their nests from rat snakes. This protection is greatest in longleaf pines, which
produce more resin than other pine species (Conner et al. 1998). Thus, management
aimed at snake predation may not be necessary in longleaf habitat at BRP. However, if
snake predation is found to occur frequently enough to limit reproductive output or adult
survival at BRP, managers should consider using SNEDs, at least on nest trees with
43
compromised resin barriers (e.g., new artificial cavity trees with poorly developed resin
barriers, dying nest trees). Also, snake exclusion may become more relevant if the
woodpecker population is successfully expanded into slash pine habitat, where cavity tree
resin-flow is lower and resin barriers may thus be less effective (Bowman and Huh
1995).
However, if improperly applied or poorly monitored, snake exclusion can lead to
unexpected negative consequences that stem from complex interactions among rat
snakes, red-cockaded woodpeckers, and cavity kleptoparasites. Rat snakes may increase
cavity availability for red-cockaded woodpeckers by preying on other species that occupy
their cavities (Kappes 2004a, b). Thus it is important that snake exclusion does not
protect other species, as this may reduce cavity availability for red-cockaded
woodpeckers (Kappes 2004a,b).
If used, snake exclusion should be restricted to active cavities, and these cavities
should be monitored for occupancy. If an individual of another species occupies the
cavity, snake exclusion will unintentionally protect it, and the cavity will be less available
to red-cockaded woodpeckers. Therefore, the use of SNEDs is preferred because these
devices can readily be removed, if necessary, whereas the Saenz (1999) bark shaving
technique is less reversible (snakes are excluded for at least 6 months).
The evidence for a positive indirect effect of snakes on red-cockaded woodpeckers
also has implications for how cavity trees are marked at BRP. Some managers, in an
effort to make cavity trees as conspicuous as possible, scrape and paint bands that are
wide enough to simulate the Saenz (1999) anti-snake method. Since these painted bands
are placed on every known cavity tree in the population, the practice may result in
widespread protection of kleptoparasites from rat snakes, resulting in reduced cavity
availability for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Painted bands should therefore be as narrow
as possible (≤ 6 in) (Kappes 2004a).
POPULATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Introduction
Maintaining and growing small (<30 potential breeding groups) red-cockaded
woodpecker populations involves three general management techniques (Conner et al.
2001, USFWS 2003, Walters 2004): (1) cavity management at the territory level to
ensure that each currently active cluster includes at least four suitable cavities, (2)
frequent prescribed burning, with an emphasis on growing season fire, at the territory and
population level, and (3) establishing recruitment clusters and conducting translocations
to increase the number of groups and to increase demographic connectivity within and
between subpopulations. Background information and management guidelines for (1)
and (2) have been reviewed and presented above. The following section will focus on
(3), expanding the BRP population.
Population Goal
Population goals are “derived by dividing the area of currently or potentially suitable
upland pine on the property by 200 acres” (USFWS 2003). However, on BRP, based on
44
the mean number of acres within the existing occupied territories (357 acres) and the
naturally large territory sizes in the SCFRU, 300 acres will be used to derive an estimated
population goal. Theoretically (on paper), with BRP containing ~22,300 acres of
currently or potentially suitable pine woodland, and at 300 acres/group, the maximum
population goal would be estimated at 74 occupied territories. However, given the
interspersion of red-cockaded woodpecker non-habitat throughout the Preserve, e.g.,
prairies, and hardwood wetlands, and the small size, isolation and non-contiguous nature
of many pine stands, we do not believe 74 is a realistic goal. We recommend that a
thorough and detailed pine habitat analysis be conducted as soon as all GIS stand and
habitat layers are available. Potentially and currently suitable pine habitats comprising at
least 300 acre blocks should be digitized and subsequently used to estimate a realistic
population goal. Based on our professional judgment after careful examination of the
existing stand map and current population configuration, we believe the calculated goal
will be in the ~35-40 range.
Metapopulation Management
The long-term persistence of the BRP population will depend in large measure on the
development and maintenance of demographic connectivity to other subpopulations. We
are currently aware of three other distinct subpopulations that together with BRP form the
bulk of a metapopulation of > 50 groups in Charlotte, Lee, Glades, and Highlands
counties (Cox et al. 1994) (Figure 5). These three subpopulations are outlined below.
(1) Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area (29 active clusters in 2007 (S.
Shattler, pers. comm.). This subpopulation is west of BRP. Six miles separate the
closest active clusters on BRP and BWWMA.
(2) Flint/Silver Lake (3 groups). This subpopulation occurs on Joe Flint property (1
group) and Silver Lake Hunting Preserve (Lykes Brothers property; 2 groups). One
of the Silver Lake Hunting Preserve clusters (Silver Lake-south) is 1 mile east of the
easternmost active cluster on BRP (BRP-9).
(3) Platt Branch/Fisheating Creek Phase 1 Conservation Easement (7 active clusters).
This subpopulation occurs on Platt Branch Mitigation Park (4 active clusters; Hovis
and Swan 2004, S. Shattler pers. comm.), and Fisheating Creek Phase 1
Conservation Easement (3 active clusters; Hovis and Swan 2004, S. Shattler, pers.
comm.). This subpopulation is northeast of BRP. The closest active clusters on BRP
and this subpopulation are 11 miles apart.
Approximately six other active clusters, primarily on Lykes Brothers property, are
scattered between BRP and Platt Branch/Fisheating Creek Conservation Easement, and to
the east of the latter subpopulation.
Enhancing the demographic connectivity between the BRP and other subpopulations
will require close cooperation among the managers of the respective properties.
45
Babcock Ranch Community Actions
The Babcock Ranch Community (BRC) will bifurcate the shared boundary between
BRP and BWWMA, impeding dispersal between the two subpopulations (Figure 5).
BRC planners can minimize this negative effect by retaining as much pineland as
possible, including habitat fragments, and strategically planting additional pine stands.
The quality and function of such “green space” as dispersal habitat will increase with
patch or corridor size, density of mature pines, stand openness, juxtaposition with other
pineland, and groundcover condition. In any event, the two remaining connective parcels
to the north (along Tram Road Grade) and south (the Curry Lake Corridor) of the
development, and even habitat fragments within these areas, will become all the more
critical in maintaining connectivity between BRP and BWWMA.
BWWMA Actions
Strong management efforts and population growth on BWWMA would help support
the BRP subpopulation and others in the metapopulation. A large healthy BWWMA
population would serve as a strong regional source of immigrants, especially for BRP.
Developing connectivity between BWWMA and BRP will require close cooperation
between the two properties. In particular, if BWWMA can increase the number and
density of groups in the eastern portion of the property, this would enhance the potential
for eventually establishing and maintaining active territories within the adjacent western
boundary of the BRP.
BRP Actions
Good potential exists for eventually establishing several clusters in the northwestern
corner of the BRP (the Sugar Hill area). Habitat currently exists for at least 2-3 territories
but at this time the area is too isolated. The opportunity for establishing territories in the
Sugar Hill area will improve as the BRP population grows to the west and northwest, and
as the number and density of clusters in the eastern portion of the BWWMA increases.
Alternatively, this area could be the focus of a translocation program (see below).
Pasture Restoration
Connectivity between the proposed future Sugar Hill clusters and the existing BRP
population would be greatly enhanced by converting the southwestern portions of the
North Unit pastures (at least) to pine woodland. Such conversion should at least include
the pastures in township sections 10, 15, and 17.
Future Acquisition
The tract west of Sugar Hill (southwest quadrant of the intersection of Hwy 31 and
Hwy 74) would be a high priority for future acquisition.
46
Recruitment Clusters
Introduction
Red-cockaded woodpecker populations (as measured by the number of groups) grow
very slowly because individuals normally compete for positions in existing clusters rather
than establish new ones. However, new groups may readily form if clusters of artificial
cavities (recruitment clusters) are supplied in unoccupied stands with sufficient foraging
habitat (Copeyon et al. 1991), providing managers with a means to increase population
size and demographic connectivity (within or between subpopulations). Recruitment
clusters can be (1) abandoned territories rehabilitated with cavity augmentation, or (2)
unoccupied stands that previously lacked cavities. Prescribed fire, midstory control, or
other habitat restoration, in addition to cavity augmentation, may be required to make the
site suitable.
Recruitment clusters must be placed close enough to existing groups to facilitate
their detection by dispersers and forayers, but not so close that they are incorporated into
an adjacent territory (captured). The Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003) suggests that
recruitment clusters be placed 0.25 - 2.0 miles from existing active clusters. These
numbers should be greater, especially on the lower end, in south-central Florida where
intergroup spacing is greater. The mean and median distances to the nearest neighbor for
active clusters at BRP is 1.09 and 1.03 mi, respectively (range 0.93-1.46 mi; Figure 6).
Based on these numbers, we conclude that recruitment clusters should be placed ≥ 0.7
miles from the nearest active cluster. Additional evidence may indicate that shorter
distances are practicable in some cases.
Surveys for Potential Artificial Cavity Trees
The placement of recruitment clusters at BRP will be constrained by the availability
of potential artificial cavity trees. Surveys for potential cavity trees will be required
before exact locations of prospective recruitment clusters can be chosen. These surveys
should initially focus on areas identified below as potential recruitment sites (see
Population Expansion), but eventually cover all potential red-cockaded woodpecker
habitat on BRP. Record the GPS location, inventory number, dbh, bole height,
crown/bole ratio, and other relevant information on each potential artificial cavity tree
found.
Placement, Number, Monitoring, and Management of Recruitment clusters
(1) Place recruitment clusters 0.7-2.2 miles from existing active clusters on BRP,
Fisheating Creek, or BWWMA.
(2) Do not establish more recruitment clusters than can reasonably be expected to be
occupied through natural dispersal within 1-3 years (unless translocation is planned).
Otherwise, large and old trees may be unnecessarily compromised while
management resources are wasted. Also, cavities in recruitment clusters may become
47
less suitable over time, and are more likely to be occupied by other species, further
reducing the probability of occupation by red-cockaded woodpeckers.
(3) Recruitment clusters must be monitored annually. Maintain at least three suitable
cavities and, if possible, two drilled starts in each recruitment cluster. Once occupied,
recruitment clusters should be maintained and monitored as other active clusters.
Population Expansion
Introduction
Expanding the BRP population will require a concerted and focused effort.
Numerous very small populations (< 5 active clusters) have been expanded in recent
years using the techniques outlined below. BRP managers are encouraged to read some
of these case studies in Costa and Daniels (2004).
Natural Expansion
Increasing the Core Population
The BRP population, and its connectivity to other subpopulations to the east and
west, can be increased in the short term by establishing recruitment clusters adjacent to
existing territories on BRP. During our field visit and subsequent evaluation of potential
recruitment sites, we identified at least six suitable potential recruitment clusters (not all
of which should be installed at this time) adjacent to existing active clusters on BRP
(Figure 3):
R1.
R2.
R3.
R4.
R5.
R6.
0.8 miles south of C-8 and 0.8 miles east of C-6.
0.9 miles north of C-9.
1.3 miles west of C-1 and 1.1 miles south-southwest of C-4.
Between C-3 and C-7, 0.7 mi from each of these clusters.
1.2 miles at ~195˚ from C-5.
0.9 miles northeast of C-7.
Sites R1-R3 should be installed as soon as possible. Occupation of R1 and/or R2
would greatly bolster connectivity between BRP and the Flint/Silver Lake clusters to the
east. Similar efforts on the Lykes Brothers side of the boundary will further bolster
demographic connectivity between the two subpopulations.
Occupation of R3 will be a step towards enhancing connectivity with BWWMA (see
below).
The remaining sites (R4-R6) should be prioritized based on further evaluation of the
availability of trees suitable for cavity installation and quantity of foraging habitat. As
R1-R3 are occupied, the remaining sites should be established as needed to maintain a
constant supply of at least three unoccupied recruitment clusters in the vicinity of the
existing BRP population.
48
There is potential for 1-2 additional recruitment sites south of R1/east of R4 that
could be established after either or both of these recruitment clusters become occupied.
Further analyses of available habitat, and the results from the surveys for potential
artificial cavity trees, should reveal additional future recruitment sites.
BRP/BWWMA Expansion Opportunities
Two short-term opportunities exist to begin bolstering the connectivity between the
BRP and BWWMA populations.
First, one recruitment cluster (R7; Figure 3) should be established near the western
boundary of BRP (on the BRP side) in the stand just east of the intersection of the
northern boundary of BWWMA and Hwy 31. This recruitment cluster should be
established as soon as possible after installing R1-R3.
Second, BRP managers are encouraged to cooperate with BWWMA managers to
increase the number and density of active clusters in the eastern portion of the BWWMA.
Although not part of the BRP property, this step is nonetheless included because of its
significance to the BRP population. The BWWMA population is critical because of its
relatively large size, proximity and potential connectivity to BRP, and its future potential
as a source of dispersing birds that may occupy recruitment clusters and fill breeding
vacancies. The majority of the BWWMA side of the shared boundary with BRP is
optimal hydric slash pine habitat. The number of active clusters on BWWMA decreased
from 27 to 23 over 2000-2002 (Hovis and Leonard 2004), but stood at 29 in 2007 (Steve
Shattler, FFWCC, pers. comm.). A significant amount of suitable, unoccupied habitat
occurs on BWWMA, and BWWMA could theoretically support 160 clusters. The
occupation of R3 and/or R7 would begin to close the gap between these populations.
Connecting these populations would enhance the likelihood of long-term persistence.
Population Expansion via Translocation
The rate of occupation of recruitment clusters in small red-cockaded woodpecker
populations may be limited by small numbers of local source birds (dispersers, floaters,
forayers, helpers). New groups can also be created by translocating pairs of unrelated
subadults from larger (donor) populations into unoccupied recruitment clusters.
Translocation may also involve the transport of individual subadults of the appropriate
sex to territories occupied by solitary birds (usually males). Translocation is the most
effective means available for increasing the number of breeding groups, and reducing the
threat of inbreeding depression in small populations (see Haig et al. 1993, USFWS 2003,
Costa and Daniels 2004, Costa and DeLotelle 2007).
In the near future, i.e., 3-5 years, the BRP may have an opportunity to increase its
red-cockaded woodpecker population via translocations. However, we recommend that
the focus over the next 3-5 years be on expanding the population via recruitment clusters
as outlined above. In the mean time, the habitat restoration and evaluation program
should include the Sugar Hill area in the northwest corner of the preserve, which may be
a suitable site for a multi-pair translocation program. Initiation of a translocation
program would be dependent upon several factors: (1) success of the natural expansion
program, which will provide information on habitat occupation and use around the core
49
population, (2) a through evaluation of potential nesting and foraging habitat conditions
in the northwest area of BRP, (3) a detailed analysis of potential recruitment cluster
locations, (4) the ability to satisfy recipient population requirements (see below), and (5)
integration of BRP into the Southern Range Translocation Cooperative (SRTC), the
likely source of birds.
Recipient Population Requirements
1. Recipient populations must meet the following administrative requirements:
a. Possess the relevant, up-to-date, state and federal permits.
b. Staff that is trained and qualified to capture, band, transport, and monitor redcockaded woodpeckers.
c. A USFWS-approved management plan that includes (USFWS 2003):
i. An active, intensive, and comprehensive banding and population-monitoring
program.
ii. An aggressive prescribed burning program for nesting and foraging habitat.
iii. An outline of the specific objectives for the proposed translocation event(s),
including the locations of the destination clusters and criteria for success.
d. Full reporting of the details and success of translocation events through the
USFWS Annual Report and the annual SRTC meeting.
2. In order to be eligible to receive translocated birds, a population must contain ≤ 30
potential breeding groups.
3. Recipient clusters (unoccupied recruitment clusters or solitary males) must meet the
following requirements.
a. Recipient clusters must be within 2.2 miles of an existing active cluster.
An exception to this rule is the simultaneous translocation of multiple potential pairs
into an aggregation of recruitment clusters.
b. Recipient clusters must meet all the requirements established for active clusters,
including at least four suitable cavities, little or no midstory, and an adequate
quantity of foraging habitat. Recipient clusters and surrounding foraging habitat
should be managed to promote all of the desired structural characteristics of redcockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat, including the use of frequent fire
and protection of groundcover. A territory slated to receive birds should have been
burned at least once within the past three years. Ideally, a recruitment territory
should be burned 1-2 years prior to a translocation event.
50
c. For multiple-pair releases, one additional recruitment cluster must be provided for
each pair to be released and should be located between 0.7-2.2 miles from the
recipient cluster.
Protocol for Translocation Events: Recipient and Donor Clusters (modified from
USFWS 2003)
1. Confirming the condition and status of each recipient cluster prior to the translocation
event.
a. Confirm that at least four suitable cavities are still present.
b. Confirm that each recipient cluster remains unoccupied by red-cockaded
woodpeckers. This can be accomplished by conducting a morning roost check 1-3
days before the translocation (ideally the morning before translocation).
c. In the case of solitary birds that are slated for mate provisioning, confirm that the
solitary bird is still present and that it has not acquired a mate since the last visit.
This can be accomplished by conducting a morning roost check and follow 1-3 days
before the translocation (ideally the morning before translocation).
d. Confirm that the cavity or cavities in which the birds are to be placed are not
occupied by other species. Block the cavity on the last visit before the translocation
to ensure that the cavity does not become occupied by another species.
e. Ensure that the recipient cavities can be easily found at night. If necessary, flag a
path to the cavities.
2. Capturing and transporting birds identified for translocation; releasing birds at the
recipient site.
a. Conduct evening roost checks in the donor cluster to determine the roost cavity of
potential birds for translocation (this may or may not be accomplished by personnel at the
donor population; such details are agreed upon at the annual SRTC meeting).
b. Schedule the capture of the bird identified for translocation based on the time
required for transport. If the bird can be placed in its new cavity by midnight, capture it
at dusk or after dark. If the bird does not flush, climb the tree with ladders while a
colleague keeps the net over the cavity. This will often cause a stubborn bird to flush.
If a bird cannot be placed in its destination cavity by midnight, capture it in the
morning and transport it that day.
c. Once the bird is captured for translocation, double check its color bands, USGS
band number, and sex.
51
d. Transport each bird in its own uniquely marked, well-ventilated, transportation
box (see USFWS RCW website for design instructions). Before placing a bird in its
transport box, inspect the box for any frayed fabric, hanging threads, etc., that may
entangle a bird as it searches for an exit. Keep boxes as dark and stable as possible
during transport, but maintain good ventilation. The vehicle should be quiet and
unheated during transport.
e. In the case of daytime transports, feed the birds several crickets or mealworms
every 45- 60 minutes.
f. At the recipient site, place the bird in its designated recipient cavity and stuff the
entrance with a rag or other material to prevent its escape while preparing to screen the
cavity. Remove the rag and tack the screen over the cavity. The pull string should be
tied securely to the top of the screen. Consider practicing the process of tacking and
pulling the string prior to a translocation event.
g. Return to the recipient cluster at sunrise. If the bird is a female being translocated
to a solitary male, pull the screen when the male exits his cavity. In the case of
translocated pairs, pull the screens simultaneously when both birds appear at their
respective cavity entrances. Briefly and unobtrusively confirm that the translocated birds
appear healthy, and then leave the area to avoid disturbing the birds. Subsequent checks
of translocated birds are not necessary other than standard population monitoring that
begins in the breeding season.
Evaluating Translocation Success
The success of translocation events ranges from 13 to 74%, depending on definitions
of success, quality of the destination territory, and other factors (USFWS 2003, Walters
et al. 2004, Costa and DeLotelle 2007). The most common and straightforward criterion
for translocation success is whether translocated birds remain on the recipient territory
and breed. However, translocated birds may often leave their release site and become a
breeder elsewhere in the population; this may be considered a success, depending on the
objectives of the translocation (USFWS 2003). In the case of multi-pair translocations
into an aggregation of recruitment clusters, individuals commonly “reshuffle” within the
array, but the translocation is considered successful if a majority of the birds remain in
the target neighborhood.
Internal Translocation
Translocation can also be conducted within-populations. Such translocations are
similar to those between populations, except that the donor and recipient populations are
the same. Internal translocations are conducted to improve the spatial arrangement of
groups (USFWS 2003).
Internal translocations may be problematic in small populations because of the
tendency for birds moved short distances to return to their capture site. Franzreb (1999)
reported that 42% of juvenile females moved ≤ 4.3 miles returned home. The homing
52
rate tends to be higher at even greater distances for translocated males (Costa and
DeLottelle 2007). The small size of the BRP population may limit the success of internal
translocations in the vicinity of currently active clusters in the short term. The method
may be practicable for population expansion into the more distal portions of the preserve,
and/or after the population is expanded.
Babcock Ranch Preserve as a Potential Future Donor Population
BRP may qualify as a donor population (i.e., birds can be translocated to other
populations) when one of the following criteria are met (USFWS 2003):
a. The population has reached its population goal and is stable or increasing.
b. The population exceeds 50 active clusters, this number is ≥ 75% of its
population goal, and the population is increasing at ≥ 3% annually.
POPULATION MONITORING GUIDELINES
Introduction
A comprehensive population monitoring program is essential to the management of
small red-cockaded woodpecker populations. Annual monitoring is required to
determine a population’s trend relative to its recovery goal. In the context of adaptive
management, monitoring provides the data needed to evaluate the success of management
techniques. Intensive monitoring is required to receive translocated birds or to conduct
internal translocations. This section outlines the parameters of interest, and methods for
monitoring them.
Color Banding
A completely color-banded population is a prerequisite for determining the
composition of groups, and for determining the identity and group affinity of individuals
occupying clusters. Because of the small size of the red-cockaded woodpecker
population at BRP, a comprehensive banding program can be readily accomplished.
Capturing Adults
Capture adults for banding at dawn or dusk by placing a net mounted on a
telescoping pole over their roost cavities. Birds that are roosting outside, or at a location
that cannot be determined, can be captured during the breeding season as they enter nest
cavities to feed nestlings. This technique is best used during the narrow time window
when nestlings are 4-7 days old; nestlings ≤ 3 days old are still being brooded and
excessive disturbance could affect thermoregulation. As nestlings get older, adults spend
less time in the nest cavity during feeding visits, and capturing them becomes
increasingly difficult.
Further details of capturing and banding adults are provided during the required
training and in Appendix 2 of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003). Nestling banding is
covered below (See Monitoring Reproductive Success).
53
Population Trend
The number of active clusters is used to determine the population trend. A cluster is
considered active if at least one red-cockaded woodpecker is roosting in it. Note that the
number of active clusters is an imprecise index of population size or the number of
occupied territories because some clusters may be captured, occupied by a solitary bird
(usually male), or occupied by a potential breeding group. Therefore, the number of
active clusters is used to determine the population trend, not its size.
For meaningful interpretation of trends over time, the activity status of all clusters
must be determined at the same time each year. Cluster updates are carried out just prior
to nest monitoring, and in conjunction with the annual cavity suitability inspections.
Cluster Status Examinations
1. In March or April every year, inspect each cavity and start hole for evidence of
current resin well activity. Inspect each cavity and start tree for new cavities or start
holes.
2. Survey for new cavity trees within 0.25 miles of the cluster center. The discovery
of new cavity trees is critical because it ensures their protection, and because the newest
cavity tree often becomes the nest tree.
3. Survey for new territories (new cavity tree clusters) in suitable habitat at 10-year
intervals.
Population Size
The number of potential breeding groups is used to determine population size. A
potential breeding group is defined as a group containing an adult male and adult female,
regardless of whether they attempt to nest or are accompanied by a helper (USFWS
2003). Group composition is determined just prior to, or during, the nesting season as
outlined below.
Group Surveys
1. Determine group size and group composition in each cluster found to have at least
one active tree. Identify and count adults encountered during visits associated with nest
searches, nest monitoring, and fledgling checks (see below). During each visit, count the
number of birds observed in the cluster, record color bands, and record any behavioral
observations on each bird (e.g., carrying food, entering or exiting the nest cavity).
However, maintain an unobtrusive distance except for brief periods to minimize
disturbance to the birds. Several such visits are often required to count, identify, and
account for each adult bird.
54
2. If necessary, conduct morning follows and roost checks to determine group
composition. If no nest is found in a cluster by late May, or if individuals or their group
affiliations remain unidentified after nest monitoring is done, visit the site at dawn and
follow the bird(s) for 45-60 minutes after they emerge from their roost cavities. Identify
the focal birds and any other birds they may join. Morning follows can be supplemented
with evening roost checks in which 1-3 observers identify birds roosting in the cluster. In
some clusters, several morning follows and evening roost checks may be necessary to
identify all birds and to determine their status and group affiliation.
3. Based on cluster visits and band observations, determine whether each active
cluster is occupied by a potential breeding group, a solitary bird, an extra-territorially
roosting bird, or if the cluster is captured. The number of potential breeding groups,
determined annually, is used to define population size. Solitary birds (usually male) are
solitary residents of a cluster that do not associate with other birds. Extra-territorially
roosting birds are ones that roost in clusters other than the one occupied by their current
group. A cluster is captured if it is occupied and defended by members of a group from
an adjacent cluster.
Monitoring Reproductive Success
Monitoring reproductive success involves searching for and locating nests in each
active cluster. Nesting searching is accomplished in all active clusters at 7-8 day
intervals until a nest is found or a determination is made that nesting did not occur.
Nest Searching
Begin searching for nests in mid-April. Nests can often be found by simply walking
directly towards active cavities during the day in an attempt to flush incubating birds.
Begin the approach 50 ft from the target cavity and walk directly towards it, watching the
entrance. This approach is often sufficient to prompt an incubating bird to peer out of the
cavity or flush. If no bird appears, continue to the tree and scratch the trunk with a stick.
Repeat this process at each active cavity tree. If a bird is flushed from a cavity, inspect
the cavity using either a video probe, or ladders, a droplight, and mirror. Nests can also
be found by simply inspecting all the active cavities in a cluster. If a video probe is used,
it is critical that any incubating or brooding adults are flushed before the device is placed
in the cavity. Birds may be killed if they attempt to exit the cavity while the probe is
being inserted or withdrawn. Return to each active cluster every 7-8 days until a nest is
found or the breeding season ends. Nests are rarely initiated after mid- June.
Capturing and banding nestlings
Once a nest is found, monitor it at 7-8 day intervals. Record the number of eggs or
nestlings at each visit. Once nestlings are observed, their age and banding date can be
estimated (see Appendix 2 in USFWS 2003 for detailed instructions on aging nestlings).
Nestlings are captured by gently pulling them from the cavity with a noose constructed of
monofilament fishing line (or similar material) and surgical tubing (Jackson 1982).
55
USFWS (2003) recommends that chicks be banded between 5 and 10 days of age. The
optimal age for banding is 7-8 days. Broods ≤ 6 days old may include nestlings that are
too small for safe banding, especially in south-central Florida. Nestlings ≥ 9 days old
may often hunker down if not captured on the first attempt, making their safe capture
more difficult. Biologists can learn further details of capturing and banding nestlings
during required training and from the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003).
Late nestling-stage checks
Once nestlings are banded, they can be revisited at age 20 days to count the number
of surviving nestlings and to determine the number of males and females (color bands are
usually not visible using this method). Note that some nestlings at this age may
occasionally be concealed under their siblings. If no nestlings are present on day 20, the
nest has failed, and the nest searching cycle is re-started.
Fledgling Checks
Fledging occurs approximately 26 days after hatching. Conduct fledgling checks 2-4
days after the estimated fledge date. Follow the group for 1-2 hours, or until the
maximum number of potential fledglings (based on the number of nestlings at banding or
subsequent nest checks) are observed. Record the color bands and sex of each fledgling
observed. Male fledglings can be identified by the presence of a red crown patch.
Females lack this crown patch. A thorough view of the crown is required to verify the
absence of a crown patch. If all potential fledglings are not accounted for within 1-2
hours, return the next morning or as soon as possible for a second check. Any fledglings
unaccounted for after two thorough early-morning fledgling checks are assumed to have
not fledged successfully.
Summarizing and Interpreting Monitoring Results
Summarize the results of cluster, group, and nest monitoring
1. Count the total number of active clusters, potential breeding groups, actual
breeding groups, solitary males, captured clusters, and inactive clusters.
2. Calculate the mean number of adults per cluster (mean group size); mean clutch
size (mean number of eggs laid); total and mean number of nestlings banded; and the
mean number of fledglings produced per potential breeding group, per nesting group, and
per successfully nesting group.
Assessing Population Trend
Population trends are assessed annually by the Recovery Coordinator based on the
data provided in the USFWS Annual Report (see USFWS 2003). Populations should be
increasing at a rate of 5% a year. If after several years the population level is static,
increasing at less than the desired rate, or decreasing, management on the site should be
56
reviewed to determine if guidelines are being met. This review should include an
examination of the placement, quality, and number of recruitment clusters in the
population. Once the potential management needs or limiting factors are identified, the
management plan can be modified as needed to address the problem(s).
Population Level Analysis
As mentioned above, the number of active clusters and potential breeding groups are
the best indices of population trend and size, respectively. Solitary males and captured
clusters may be positive or negative indicators depending on a cluster’s occupancy status
the previous year.
Group Level Analysis
Group size is the best indicator and predictor of group health and fitness (as defined
by survival of group members and reproductive success). Group size varies with habitat
quality, which in turn is responsive to habitat management (James et al. 1997, Carrie et
al. 1998, Davenport et al 2000, Walters et al. 2002, USFWS 2003, Kappes et al. 2004,
Kappes 2008). Group size can range from zero (an unoccupied, low quality territory) to
≥ 4 (high quality territory).
The application of prescribed (especially growing season) fire, hardwood removal,
cavity augmentation, or kleptoparasite management, may convert a low quality territory
into a high quality site, thereby increasing the potential for an unoccupied cluster to
become occupied by a solitary male or newly formed pair, or for a solitary male to
acquire a mate. Similarly, intensified management of territories with unassisted pairs
may increase the potential for helper recruitment (Carrie et al. 1998, Kappes et al. 2004).
Management neglect or undetected management needs, in contrast, may bring about a
reduction in group-size.
Although group size is monitored annually, the time scale at which this parameter
responds to management may vary from months to years, depending on the intensity of
management, initial conditions, random events, and other factors.
Also, decreased group size on particular territories should be viewed in context. In
particular, new group formation can come at the expense of source groups, which may
lose helpers or potential helpers in the process. In other words, the loss of a helper on a
territory may not be a negative indicator if it results in the formation of a new group.
Loss of breeders without replacement, however, may warrant an evaluation of the
potential underlying causes (e.g., insufficient cavity availability, territory isolation, lack
of fire).
FORAGING HABITAT MONITORING GUIDELINES
Introduction
Monitoring the current and potential foraging habitat on BRP is critical. Detailed
foraging habitat assessments within each occupied territory will provide managers an
57
understanding of the current “level” of available habitat. This information is necessary to
determine what management actions are required (if any) to improve, restore, or maintain
the desired level of habitat, i.e., the recovery standard. Initial assessments will identify
whether the level of habitat meets the Recovery Plan’s standard for managed stability, the
SCFRU’s standard for managed stability, the recovery standard, or some other level.
Once this determination has been made, necessary management actions can be planned
and executed.
It is also necessary to conduct foraging habitat analyses for all recruitment cluster
partitions prior to establishing clusters for natural or artificial (translocation) population
expansion. Recruitment cluster partitions must meet at least the SCFRU’s standard for
managed stability prior to initiation of a translocation program. Although recruitment
cluster partitions slated for natural expansion should also satisfy the SCFRU
requirements there may be some flexibility in establishing recruitment territories with
different levels (e.g., less basal/acre, more/fewer acres) of habitat. If such flexibility is
desired contact the USFWS Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator to discuss
the specifics.
Monitoring Specifics
Frequency
Quality and quantity of foraging habitat should be assessed at least once every10
years after the initial assessment which will occur upon implementation of this plan.
Recruitment cluster partition-specific foraging habitat assessments must be conducted
prior to establishing recruitment territories. These recruitment cluster pre-establishment
assessments must be completed if: (1) existing assessments are older than 5 years or, (2)
any forest management practices that could affect foraging habitat suitability, e.g., timber
sales, have taken place any time during the period since the last assessment.
Data Collection and Evaluation
Data are collected for all habitat elements described within the recovery standard,
including but not limited to pine ages, basal areas, and size class distributions, hardwood
midstory, and percent herbaceous ground cover. Data are collected using standard
forestry methodologies (e.g., prism plots) and equipment (e.g., increment borers).
Summary data are evaluated (at the forest stand and partition scale) whenever data are
collected and compared to previous inventories/assessments to measure progress toward
meeting all elements specified in the recovery standard.
Groundcover Monitoring
To monitor groundcover, estimate percent native, site-appropriate herbaceous cover
using any one of a number of simple, standard, ocular reconnaissance sampling
techniques. Typically, random, non-permanent sample plots are used to assess
groundcover during timber/habitat inventories and surveys. Plots (e.g., 1/100 acre; =
58
~11ft. radius circle defined using a measuring tape) are “tallied” at the same locations of
timber inventory or basal area plots and more frequently (e.g., at multiple points along
transects between forestry plots) to increase sample size. Percent herbaceous
groundcover is assessed within each plot with the final stand percent estimated based on a
summary of all plots.
Prescribed Fire
Because fire is the most important element for managing red-cockaded woodpecker
habitat, it is vital that accurate and detailed records be maintained on all prescribed
burning. Fire records should track dates, burn objectives, acres, whether objectives were
met, time since last burn, and any other information thought to be relevant. Evaluating
this information along with other data (e.g., weather, fire behavior, etc.) will assist
managers in understanding the results of individual burns and in improving the burning
program to meet specific red-cockaded woodpecker habitat objectives, e.g., percent
herbaceous groundcover.
Reporting
Results of all habitat monitoring (including nesting habitat monitoring, e.g., number
of suitable cavities per cluster) and prescribed fire accomplishments are reported annually
to the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator via the USFWS Annual Report.
DEMONSTRATION SITE OPPORTUNITY
Introduction
Based on the high profile nature of BRP, our field review of BRP, and our literature
review of the state-of-our knowledge regarding uneven-aged silviculture we believe an
opportunity exists to establish the Preserve as a Red-cockaded Woodpecker – South
Florida Slash Pine/Longleaf Pine Restoration Demonstration Site. The purpose of such a
designation and associated endeavor would be to plan, implement, evaluate, and share
results of all the habitat and population management activities recommended in this plan
to restore red-cockaded woodpeckers on BRP. The Preserve offers a unique opportunity
to facilitate such a program.
Demonstration Site Justification
High Profile
BRP is a unique property in many ways given its ownership, management,
ecological conditions, land use history, and expected future conservation/land
management use and direction. Various individuals, agencies, and coalitions will have
oversight and input on its future management, thereby, presenting coordination
challenges unique among public properties in Florida. This provides an opportunity to
develop a large-scale ecological restoration program that could provide valuable,
59
heretofore unknown, information on resource conservation and management within this
rare ecosystem. We view the high profile nature of the property as a bonus to planning
and implementing a demonstration site project.
Unique Ecological Conditions
As previously noted, the natural ranges of longleaf pine and south Florida slash pine
intersect on BRP. Currently, the red-cockaded woodpeckers are located in the longleaf
area of the Preserve. However, increasing the population to its goal will require
expansion of the population into south Florida slash pine stands on the Preserve. Within
the SCFRU there are red-cockaded woodpeckers living in both predominantly longleaf
habitats (e.g. Three Lakes WMA and St. Sebastian River Buffer Preserve) and south
Florida slash pine habitats (e.g. Babcock-Webb WMA and Big Cypress National
Preserve). To our knowledge, only one other property (Avon Park Air Force Range)
harboring red-cockaded woodpeckers has a significant mix of both pine species;
however, like BRP all red-cockaded woodpecker cavities are in longleaf pine (Bowman
and Huh 1995). Given the co-occurrence of the pine species and the potentially unknown
challenges associated with expanding the population into south Florida slash pine habitat,
we believe BRP offers a unique opportunity to improve our knowledge on this topic. A
demonstration site designation would provide multiple opportunities to implement
alternative population expansion strategies under an adaptive management approach.
Additionally, because BRP is located between the BWWMA red-cockaded
woodpecker population and the Lykes subpopulation, and birds have been documented
dispersing from Lykes to BRP, an opportunity to study potential metapopulation
dynamics also exists. Currently, BWWMA and Lykes red-cockaded woodpeckers are
being banded. Implementation of the banding and recruitment cluster programs (and
future translocation program) on BRP will provide an excellent opportunity to study
dispersal behavior and success within this metapopulation.
Uneven-aged Silviculture
Managers of numerous properties harboring red-cockaded woodpeckers, within the
SCFRU and throughout the species range, have committed to management using unevenaged silviculture. However, no substantial long-term data exists for managing
southeastern pine forests using this approach, unlike clearcut, seed tree and shelterwood
methods. Nonetheless, for a variety of reasons (see below) we believe the uneven-aged
approach is also reasonable at BRP. At the same time, we understand that there are
numerous challenges and unknowns regarding the group selection method in longleaf
pine (see Guldin 2006), and that little information exists on managing south Florida slash
pine in this manner. This paucity of information on the topic is not surprising given the
restricted range of south Florida slash pine, its limited historic use as a renewable timber
resource, and until recently, the lack of research in this ecosystem with respect to redcockaded woodpecker management. However, we believe group selection is a
reasonable approach for managing BRP forests for the following reasons:
60
(1) It does not preclude short- or long-term future habitat management options,
because an intact (with the exception of small openings) forest cover is maintained.
(2) It provides a continuous supply and distribution of pine needles, the critical fuel
for an effective prescribed fire program.
(3) All upland pine stands are available to red-cockaded woodpeckers for both
nesting and foraging.
(4) We believe it can be implemented in longleaf, slash Florida slash, or mixed pine
stands.
(5) It best replicates the “natural”, non-catastrophic processes (e.g., hurricanes) of
regeneration, i.e., single tree and small gaps.
Because of recent and past BRP forest management practices, there are currently
multiple potential “starting points” from which to implement an uneven-aged silviculture
program. BRP contains: (1) mature stands that already appear (or are) uneven-aged, (2)
young pine plantations, (3) mature stands that have been thinned (lightly and more
heavily), and (4) very heavily harvested immature seed tree stands. For example,
although the recent heavy “seed tree” harvests will provide only marginal habitat for redcockaded woodpeckers for many years, they provide an interesting opportunity for
restoration (under-planting initially) while simultaneously managing them from the start
as uneven-aged. Knowledge gained from this endeavor may be applicable to other
similar stands throughout the southeast, where seed tree harvests have been conducted
during the past 20+ years.
In summary, because uneven-aged silviculture is now being practiced for redcockaded woodpecker management throughout the southeast with limited forest or
landscape scale information available on the subject (particularly in south Florida slash
pine), and given the uniqueness of BRP, we believe BRP can be a leader in this new area
of red-cockaded woodpecker/ecosystem restoration management. In our opinion, any
such endeavor must be thoroughly planned, implemented, monitored, and guided by the
principles of adaptive management.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Introduction
Following are recommendations for scheduling the immediate, i.e., short-term, habitat
and population restoration and management actions. Specific dates are not included
because we do not have information on when funding will be available to conduct these
activities. Instead, the actions are listed in the order of priority that will ensure an
efficient and coordinated program. Note that some actions can be occurring
simultaneously. Ongoing maintenance activities, e.g., prescribed burning and routine
monitoring actions, e.g., annual cavity and cluster assessments, are not included in the
schedule.
Habitat Analyses and Actions
61
1. Create a foraging habitat partition map and conduct the associated foraging habitat
analysis for all active clusters and the short term recruitment clusters (R1, R2, R3, R7).
2. Conduct any habitat management activities necessary to establish R1, R2, R3 and R7.
3. Regenerate/restore (under plant) all pine stands with <30 ft2/ac.
4. Using forest stand data and the stand map determine the potential population goal.
This will require careful analysis involving identification of all currently and potentially
suitable blocks (i.e., contiguous stands; <200 ft separation of non-habitat) of habitat ~300
acres in size.
5. Create a foraging habitat partition map and conduct the associated foraging habitat
analyses for recruitment clusters R4, R5, and R6.
6. Conduct any habitat management activities necessary to establish R4, R5, and R6.
7. Conduct a detailed habitat assessment (i.e., potential recruitment cluster sites and
associated foraging habitat analyses) of the Sugar Hill area to determine when (will
depend on both nesting and foraging habitat suitability) a translocation program can be
implemented. Follow guidance provided in the Population Expansion via Translocation
section.
Population Actions
1. Establish recruitment clusters R1, R2, R3 and R7; install artificial cavities in winter.
2. Band all adult and subadult birds prior to the first nesting season when nestlings will
be banded.
3. Band all nestlings each breeding season.
4. Establish R4, R5 and/or R6 as appropriate following guidance presented in Increasing
the Core Population.
5. Establish recruitment clusters in the Sugar Hill area as appropriate.
6. Translocate birds to the Sugar Hill area as appropriate, via the SRTC.
LITERATURE CITED
Abrahamson, W. G. and D. C. Hartnett. 1990. Pine flatwoods and dry prairies. Pages
103-149 in R. L. Myers and J. J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of
Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida, USA.
62
Allen, D. H. 1991. An insert technique for constructing artificial red-cockaded
woodpecker cavities. U.S.D.A. General Technical Report SE-73. Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station.
Baker, W. W., R. L. Thompson, and R. T. Engstrom. 1980. The distribution and status of
red-cockaded woodpecker colonies in Florida: 1969-1978. Florida Field Naturalist 8:4145.
Beever, J. W. III and K. A. Dryden. 1992. Red-cockaded Woodpeckers and hydric slash
pine flatwoods. Transactions 57th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference.
Bent, A. C. 1939. Life histories of North American Woodpeckers. Dover publications
reprint of U. S. National Museums Bulletin, Number 174, 334 pp.
Blanc, L. A. and J. R. Walters. 2007. Cavity excavation and enlargement as mechanisms
for indirect interactions in an avian community. Ecology (need volume and pages).
Boughton, R., J. J. Kappes, V. Doig, and E. Zimmerman. Habitat management and
drought: effects on red-cockaded woodpecker status at Goethe State Forest. Pages 586587 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery (R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, Editors).
Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.
Bowman, R. and C. Huh. 1995. Tree characteristics, resin flow, and heartwood rot in
pines (Pinus palustris, Pinus elliottii), with respect to red-cockaded woodpecker cavity
excavation, in two hydrologically-distinct Florida flatwood communities. Pages 415-426
in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: recovery, ecology, and management (D. L. Kulhavy, R.
G. Hooper, and R. Costa, Editors). College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State
University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA.
Bowman, R., D. L. Leonard, Jr., L. K. Backus, P. M. Barber, A. R. Mains, L. M.
Richman, and D. Swan. 1998. Demography and habitat characteristics of the redcockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) at the Avon Park Air Force Range. Final
Report 1994-1997. Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid Florida, USA.
Bowman, R., D. L. Leonard, JR., D. Swan, and D. Schwalm. 2004. Demography and
population trends of a small Red-cockaded Woodpecker population in South-Central
Florida. Pages 187-197 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery (R. Costa and S.
J. Daniels, Editors). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.
Carey, J. H. 1992. Pinus elliottii. In: Fire effects information system [online:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (19 April 2008)]. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
63
Carr, A. F., Jr. 1940. A contribution to the herpetology of Florida. University of Florida
Publications in Biological Science Series, Volume III, Number 1.
Carrie, N. R., K. R. Moore, S. A. Stephens, and E. L. Keith. 1998. Influence of cavity
availability on red-cockaded woodpecker group size. Wilson Bulletin 110: 93-99.
Christiansen, N. L. 1977. Fire and soil-plant nutrient relations in a pine-wiregrass
savanna on the coastal plain of North Carolina. Oecologia 31:27-44.
Connell, J. H. 1983. On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific
competition: evidence from field experiments. American Naturalist 122:661-696.
Conner, R. N. and B. A. Locke. 1979. Effects of a prescribed burn on cavity trees of redcockaded woodpeckers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 7:291-293.
Conner, R. N. and D. C. Rudolph. 1991. Forest habitat loss, fragmentation, and redcockaded woodpeckecker populations. Wilson Bulletin 103:446-457.
Conner, R. N. and D. C. Rudolph. 1995. Excavation dynamics and use patterns of redcockaded woodpcker cavities: relationships with cooperative breeding. Pages 343-352 in
Red-cockaded Woodpecker: recovery, ecology, and management (D. L. Kulhavy, R. G.
Hooper, and R. Costa, Editors). College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University,
Nacogdoches, Texas, USA.
Conner, R. N., D. D. Rudolph, D. L. Kulhavy, and A. E. Snow. 1991. Causes of mortality
of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:531-537.
Conner, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, D. Saenz, and R. R. Schaefer. 1994. Heartwood, sapwood,
and fungal decay associated with red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Journal of
Wildlife Management 58:728-734.
Conner, R. N., D. Saenz, D. C. Rudolph, W. G. Ross, and D. L. Kulhavy. 1998. Redcockaded Woodpecker nest-cavity selection: relationships with cavity age and resin
production. Auk 115:447-454.
Copeyon, C. K. 1990. A technique for constructing cavities for the red-cockaded
woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:303-311.
Copeyon, C. K., J. R. Walters, and J. H. Carter, III. 1991. Induction of red-cockaded
woodpecker group formation by artificial cavity construction. Journal of Wildlife
Management 55:549-556.
Costa, R. 2001. Red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 309-321 in J. G. Dickson, editor.
Wildlife of southern forests: habitat and management. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine,
Washington, USA.
64
Costa, R. and S. J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery.
Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.
Costa, R. and R. S. DeLotelle. 2006. Chapter 11. Reintroduction of fauna to longleaf
pine ecosystems: opportunities and challenges. Pages 335-376 in The longleaf pine
ecosystem: ecology, silviculture, and restoration (S. Jose, E. J. Jokela, and D. L. Miller,
Editors). Springer, New York, NY.
Cox, J. 1987. The Breeding Bird Survey in Florida: 1969-1983. Florida Field Naturalist
15:29-56.
Cox, J., W. W. Baker, and D. Wood. 1995. Status, distribution, and conservation of the
red-cockaded woodpecker in Florida: a 1992 update. Pages 457-464 in Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: recovery, ecology, and management (D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R.
Costa, Editors). College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches,
Texas, USA.
Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Pages 96-101 in Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife habitat conservation system.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Croker, T. C., Jr. and W. D. Boyer. 1975. Regenerating longleaf pine naturally. Research
Paper SO-105. U. S. Forest Service, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Daniels, S. J. 1997. Female dispersal and inbreeding in the red-cockaded woodpecker.
M.SC. thesis, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
Daniels, S. J., and J. R. Walters. 2000a. Between-year breeding dispersal in redcockaded woodpeckers: multiple causes and estimated cost. Ecology 81:2473-2484.
Daniels, S. J. and J. R. Walters. 2000b. Inbreeding depression and its effects on the natal
dispersal of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Condor 102:482-491.
DeLotelle, R. S. and R. J. Epting. 1992. Reproduction of the red-cockaded woodpecker in
central Florida. Wilson Bulletin 104:285-294.
DeLotelle, R. S., J. R. Newman, and A. E. Jerauld. 1983. Habitat use by red-cockaded
woodpeckers in central Florida. Pages 59-67 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker Symposium
II (D. A. Wood, Editor). Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
DeLotelle, R. S., R. J. Epting, and G. Demuth. 1995. A 12-year study of red-cockaded
woodpecker in central Florida. Pages 259-269 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: recovery,
ecology, and management (D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa, Editors). College
of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA.
65
Dennington, R. W. and R. M. Farrar, Jr. 1983. Longleaf pine management. U.S. Forest
Service Forestry Report R8-FR 3.
Dennis, J. V. 1971. Utilization of pine resin by the red-cockaded woodpecker and its
effectiveness in protecting roosting and nest sites. Pages 78-86 in Ecology and
management of the red-cockaded woodpecker (R. L. Thompson, Editor). U.S. Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.
Earley, L. S. 2004. Looking for longleaf: the fall and rise of an American forest.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 322pp.
Ekman, J., J. L. Dickinson, B. J. Hatchwell, and M. Griesser. 2004. Delayed Dispersal.
Pages 33-47 in W. Koenig and J. Dickinson, eds. Ecology and evolution of cooperative
breeding in birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Franzreb, K. E. 1999. Factors that influence translocation success in the red-cockaded
woodpecker. Wilson Bulletin 111:38-45.
Gaines, G. D., K. E. Franzreb, D. H. Allen, K. S. Laves, and W. L. Jarvis. 1995. Redcockaded woodpecker management on the Savannah River Site: a management/research
success story. Pages 81-88 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: recovery, ecology, and
management (D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa, Editors). College of Forestry,
Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA.
Gholz, H. L., C. S. Perry, W. P. Cropper, and L. C. Hendry. 1985. Litterfall,
decomposition, and nitrogen and phosphorous dynamics in a chronosequence of slash
pine plantations. Forest Science 31:463-478.
Green, S. W. 1935. Effect of annual grass fires on orgainic matter and other constituents
of virgin longleaf pine soils. Journal of Agricultural Research 50:809-822.
Hagan, G., and R. Costa. 2001. Rare woodpeckers reintroduced to north Florida.
Endangered Species Bulletin 26:30-31.
Haig, S. M., J. R. Belthoff, and D. H. Allen. 1993. Population viability analysis for a
small population of red-cockaded woodpeckers and an evaluation of enhancement
strategies. Conservation Biology 7:289-301.
Hanula, J. H. and S. Horn. 2004. Availability and abundance of prey for the red-cockaded
woodpecker. Pages 633-645 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery (R. Costa
and S. J. Daniels, Editors). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.
Hooper, R. G. and C. J. McAdie. 1995. Hurricanes and the long-term management of the
red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 148-166 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: recovery,
ecology, and management (D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa, Editors). College
of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA.
66
Hooper, R. G., W. E. Taylor, and S. Loeb. 2004. Long term efficacy of artificial cavities
for red-cockaded woodpeckers: lessons learned from Hurricane Hugo. Pages 430-438 in
Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery (R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, Editors).
Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.
Hovis, J. A. 1997. Red-cockaded woodpecker surveys: Red-cockaded Woodpecker
status/Goethe Forest. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Final
Performance Report. Tallahssee, Florida. 18pp.
Hovis, J. A. and D. L. Leonard, JR. 2004. Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on three wildlife
management areas in peninsular Florida: Inventory, monitoring, and management. Pages
215-223 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery (R. Costa and S. J. Daniels,
Editors). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.
Hovis, J. A. and D. Swan. 2004. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker in Florida: a 2000
update. Pages 292-294 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery (R. Costa and S.
J. Daniels, Editors). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.
Jackson, J. A. 1982. Capturing red-cockaded woodpecker nestlings with a noose—a
technique and its limitations. North American Bird Bander 7:90-92.
Jackson, J. A. 1994. Red-cockaded woodpecker. Birds of North America 85:1-20.
Jackson, J. A. 1995. The red-cockaded woodpecker: two hundred years of knowledge,
twenty years under the Endangered Species Act. Pages 42-48 in Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: recovery, ecology, and management (D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R.
Costa, Editors). College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches,
Texas, USA.
Jackson, J. A. and B. J. S. Jackson. 1986. Why do red-cockaded woodpeckers need old
trees? Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:318-322.
James, F. C., C. A. Hess, B. C. Kicklighter, and R. A. Thum. 2001. Ecosystem
management and the niche gestalt of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in longleaf pine
forests. Ecological Applications 11:854-870.
Jose, J. E.J. Jokula, and D. L. Miller, editors. 2006. The longleaf pine ecosystem:
ecology, silviculture, and restoration. Springer, New York, NY, USA.
Kappes, J. J. 1997. Defining cavity-associated interactions between Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers and other cavity-dependent species: interspecific competition or cavity
kleptoparasitism? Auk 778-780.
Kappes, J.J. 2004a. Community interactions associated with Red-cockaded Woodpecker
cavities. in R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery.
Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, WA. Pages 458-467 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker:
67
road to recovery (R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, Editors). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine,
Washington, USA.
Kappes, J. J. 2004b. Species interactions associated with red-cockaded woodpecker
cavities at two forests in northern peninsular Florida. Dissertation, University of Florida.
Kappes, J. J. and L. D. Harris. 1995. Interspecific competition for Red-cockaded
Woodpecker cavities in Apalachicola National Forest. Pages 389-393 in Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: recovery, ecology, and management (D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R.
Costa, Editors). College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches,
Texas, USA.
Kappes, J. J., K. E. Sieving, J. Davis, M. D. Adams, J. Garrison, P. Catlett, M. Corby,
and R. Costa. 2004. Status and management of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers at Camp
Blanding Training Site, Florida. Pages 198-202 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to
recovery (R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, Editors). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine,
Washington, USA.
Labranche, M. S., and J. R. Walters. 1994. Patterns of mortality in nests of red-cockaded
woodpeckers in the sandhills of southcentral North Carolina. Wilson Bulletin 106:258271.
Landers, J. L. 1991. Disturbance influences pine traits in the southeastern United States.
Pages 61-98 in Proceedings 17th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. High intensity
fire in wildlands: management challenges and options. Tall Timbers Research Station,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Landers, J. L., N. A. Byrd, and R. Komarek. 1989. A holistic approach to managing
longleaf pine communities. Pages 135-166 in Proceedings of the Symposium on the
Mangement of Longleaf Pine. U. S. Forest Service General Technical Report SO-75.
Langdon, O. G. 1963. Growth patterns of Pinus elliottii var. densa. Ecology 33:825-827.
Lawton, J. H., and M. P. Hassell. 1981. Asymmetrical competition in insects. Nature
289:793-795.
Lennartz, M. R., R. G. Hooper, and R. F. Harlow. 1987. Sociality and cooperative
breeding of red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis). Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 20:77-88.
Letcher, B. H., J. A. Priddy, J. R. Walters, and L. B. Crowder. 1998. An individual based,
spatially–explicit simulation model of the population dynamics of the endangered redcockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis. Biological Conservation 86:1-14.
Lipscomb, D. J. and T. M. Williams. 1995. Impact of hurricane Hugo on cavity trees of a
red-cockaded woodpecker population and natural recover after two and a half years.
Pages 167-171 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: recovery, ecology, and management (D. L.
68
Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa, Editors). College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin
State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA.
Little, E. L. and K. W. Dorman. 1954. Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii), including south Florida
slash pine: nomenclature and description. U.S. Forest Service Southeastern Forest
Experimental Station Paper No. 36.
Loeb, S. C. and R. G. Hooper. 1997. An experimental test of interspecific competition for
red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1268-1280.
Lohrey, R. E. and S. V. Kossuth. 1990. Pinus elliottii Englem. Slash pine. Pages 338-337
in Burns, R. M. and B. H. Hokala, eds. Silvics of North America, Volume 1. Conifers.
Agricultural Handbook 654. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
MacArthur, R. H. 1972. Geographical ecology: Patterns in the distribution of species.
Harper and Row, New York.
Neel, W. L. 1991. An ecological approach to longleaf pine forestry. Abstract, 18th Tall
Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. Tall Timbers Research Station and The Nature
Conservancy, Tallahassee, Florida.
Nesbitt, S. A., D. T. Gilbert, and D. B. Barbour. 1978. Red-cockaded Woodpecker fall
movements in a Florida flatwoods community. Auk 95:145-151.
Nesbitt, S. A., A. E. Jerauld, and B. A. Harris. 1983. Red-cockaded Woodpecker summer
home range sizes in southwest Florida. Pages 68-71 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Symposium II (D. A. Wood, Editor). Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission,
and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Pandion Systems, Inc. 2008. Conceptual Management Plan for Babcock Ranch Preserve,
Lee County and Charlotte County, Florida.
Petrick, C. J., and B. W. Hagedorn. 2004. Population status and trend of Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers on Eglin Air Force Base Florida. Pages 203-214 in Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: road to recovery (R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, Editors). Hancock House
Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.
Platt, W. J. 1999. Southeastern Pine Savannas. Pages 23-51 in R. C. Anderson, J. S.
Fralish, and J. M. Baskin, eds. Savannas, Barrens, and Rock Outcrop Plant Communities
of North America. Cambridge University Press.
Platt, W. J., J. S. Glitzenstein, and D. R. Streng. 1991. Pages 143-161 in Proceedings 17th
Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. High intensity fire in wildlands: management
challenges and options. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.
69
Porter, M. L. and R. F. Labisky. 1986. Home range and foraging habitat of Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers in northern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:239-247.
Provencher, L., A. R. Litt, K. E. M. Galley, D. R. Gordon, G. W. Tanner, L. A. Brennan,
BN. M. Gobris, S. J. McAdoo, J. P. McAdoo, and B. J. Herring. 2001. Restoration of
fire-suppressed longleaf pine sandhills at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Final repoprt to
the Natural Resources Management Division, Eglin Air Force Base, Niceville, Florida.
Science Division, The Nature Conservancy, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Raulston, B. E., D. A. James, and J. E. Johnson. 1996. Effects of cavity-entrance
restrictors on red-cockaded woodpeckers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:694-698.
Reed, J. M., T. Boulinier, E. Danchin, and L. W. Oring. 1999. Prospecting by birds for
breeding sites. Current Ornithology 15:189-259.
Richardson, D. M., and J. Stockie. 1995. Response of a small red-cockaded woodpecker
population to intensive management at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. Pages 98-105
in Red-cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management (D. L. Kulhavy, R. G.
Hooper, and R. Costa, Editors. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of
Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State Univ., Nacogdoches, Texas.
Rudolph, D. C. and R. N. Conner. 1991. Cavity tree selection by red-cockaded
woodpeckers in relation to tree age. Wilson Bulletin 103:458-467.
Saenz, D., C. S. Collins, and R. N. Conner. 1999. A bark-shaving technique to deter rat
snakes from climbing red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27:10691073.
Samano, S., D. R. Wood, J. Cole, F. J. Vilella, and L. W. Burger, Jr. 1998. Redcockaded woodpeckers ensnared in mesh snake traps. Wilson Bull. 110:564-566.
Shapiro, A. E. 1983. Characteristics of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees and colony
areas in southern Florida. Florida Scientist 46:89-95.
Snyder, J. R. 1991. Fire regimes in subtropical south Florida. Pages 303-319 in
Proceedings 17th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. High intensity fire in wildlands:
management challenges and options. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.
Sparks, J. C., R. E. Masters, D. M. Engle, M. E. Payton, and G. A Bukenhofer. 1999.
Influence of fire season and fire behavior on woody plants in red-cockaded woodpecker
clusters. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:124-133.
Taylor, W. E. and R. G. Hooper. 1991. A modification of Copeyon’s drilling technique
for making artificial red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. U.S.D.A. General Technical
Report SE-72. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.
70
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1968. Rare and endangered fish and wildlife of the
United States. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Research Publication 34.
USFWS. 2006. South/Central Florida Recovery Unit guidelines for satisfying the
standard for managed stability. Unpublished Recovery Plan Implementation Policy.
Clemson, SC.
Wade, D. D. 1983. Fire management in the slash pine ecosystem. Pages 203-223 in The
Managed Slash Pine Ecosystem. E. L. Stone ed. School of Forest Resources and
Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Wade, D. D. and C. L. Lewis. 1987. Managing southern grazing ecosystems with fire.
Rangelands 9:115-119.
Walters, J. R. 1990. The red-cockaded woodpecker: a "primitive" cooperative breeder.
Pages 67-101 in P. B. Stacey, and W. D. Koenig, eds. Cooperative breeding in birds:
long term studies of ecology and behavior. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Walters, J. R. 1991. Application of ecological principles to the management of
endangered species: The case of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 22:505-523.
Walters, J. R. 2004. Unusual dynamics in a rapidly increasing population of red-cockaded
woodpeckers at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Pages 256-267 in Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: road to recovery (R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, Editors). Hancock House
Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA.
Walters, J. R., P. D. Doerr, and J. H. Carter, III. 1988. The cooperative breeding system
of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Ethology 78:275-305.
Walters, J. R., P. D. Doerr, and J. H. Carter, III. 1992. Delayed dispersal and
reproduction as a life-history tactic in cooperative breeders: fitness calculations from redcockaded woodpeckers. American Naturalist 139:623-643.
Walters, J. R., K. E. Gault, B. W. Hagedorn, C. J. Petrick, L. F. Phillips, Jr., J. Tomcho,
Jr., and A. Butler. 2004. Effectiveness of recruitment clusters and intrapopulation
translocation in promoting growth of the red-cockaded woodpecker population on Eglin
Air Force Base, Florida. Pages 325-334 in Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery
(R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, Editors). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington,
USA.
Wiens, J. A. 1989. The Ecology of Bird Communities. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Williams, M. 1989. Americans and their forests; a historical geography. Cambridge
University Press. 599 pp.
71
Withgott, J. H., J. C. Neal, and W. C. Montague. 1995. A technique to deter rat snakes
from climbing red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Pages 394-400 in. Red-cockaded
woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management (D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R.
Costa, Editors). Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F.
Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas.
Wood, R. W., L. W. Burger, F. J. Vilella, Jr., and B. E. Raulston. 2000. Long-term effects
of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity-entrance restrictors. Wildlife Society Bulletin
28:105-109.
Wright, H. A. and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology. Wiley, New York. 501 pp.
TABLES AND FIGURES
72
Table 1. Dispersal distances (km) of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the North Carolina
Sandhills (modified from Walters 1990).
% to adjacent
Category
Mean
Median
Maximum
territory
Fledgling female
3.0
2.0
19.5
27
Breeding female
1.3
0.8
9.3
61
Fledgling male
3.2
2.4
13.1
31
Helper male
1.1
0.6
10.6
61
73
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Jan
Feb
M ar Ap r M ay Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
Month
Figure 1. Average monthly rainfall at Punta Gorda Airport (Charlotte County), 15 miles
west of Babcock Ranch Preserve (Pandion Systems 2008).
74
Figure 2. Breakdown of landcover types at Babcock Ranch Preserve based on 2007-08
Florida Natural Areas Inventory natural community survey (FNAI 2008).
75
Figure 3. Locations of the active red-cockaded woodpecker clusters and the
proposed recruitment clusters at Babcock Ranch Preserve.
76
Figure 4. A restrictor plate with the original inverted U-shaped design of Carter et al.
(1989). This is the preferred design for use on natural and drilled red-cockaded
woodpecker cavities (USFWS 2003).
77
Figure 5. Map of the BRP – BWWMA – Flint/Silver Lake – Platt Branch/Fisheating
Creek Phase 1 Conservation Easement Metapopulation.
78
3
2
1
0
.75 - 1.00
1.00 - 1.25
1.25 - 1.50
Distance to nearest neighbor (miles)
Figure 6. Distribution of distances to the nearest neighbor for active clusters on Babcock
Ranch Preserve (n=7 distances; only one distance had to be excluded to avoid
duplication, i.e., only one cluster pair constituted reciprocal nearest neighbors).
79
APPENDIX I
NOTE: This document is on file in the USFWS’s Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Recovery Coordinator’s office in Jackson, Mississippi; it is reproduced here from the
original document.
South/Central Florida Recovery Unit Foraging Guidelines for Satisfying the Standard for
Managed Stability
Background
Many forested habitats and stands on properties harboring red-cockaded woodpeckers
(RCWs) in the South/Central Florida Recovery Unit (SCFRU) are considerably more
“open” than most other RCW habitats across the species range. In the SCFRU these
habitats occur in both the longleaf pine and south Florida slash pine ecosystems. The
open character of the stands and forests is a function of past land use management,
natural site conditions (e.g., “prairies”), or a combination of both.
One result of these low basal area (BA) habitats, which are also typically associated with
smaller (in both height and diameter than most other RCW foraging/cavity trees within
the species range) mature trees, is that RCW territories and home ranges can be quite
large in the SCFRU; e.g., 345 acres (Nesbitt et al. 1983), 370 acres (DeLotelle and
Jerauld 1983), 375 acres (DeLotelle et al. 1897), and 285 acres (DeLotelle and Epting
2000). It is important to note that territory size is also a function of population density.
Given the larger than average territories and the smaller than average trees in some areas
of the SCFRU, the Standard for Managed Stability (SMS) foraging guidelines presented
in the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Recovery Plan: Second Revision
(Plan) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003) are not representative, and thus insufficient,
for some stands and habitats in the SCFRU. Therefore, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), in coordination with SCFRU members (via 3 annual meetings; 2003,
2004, 2006) has developed SCRFU-specific SMS foraging guidelines (Guidelines). The
80
Guidelines were primarily developed relying on the extensive research, management, and
associated publications of Roy DeLotelle who has studied RCWs in the SCFRU for over
25 years.
Note: The following caveats apply to these Guidelines:
(1) The Service considers these Guidelines to be interim guidance that: (a) may be
modified as new data becomes available, and (b) will not be applicable for habitat and
stands, currently under-stocked as a result of past land use practices, once those stands
achieve “normal” stocking levels.
(2) The Guidelines DO NOT apply to habitat or stands already meeting the SMS
guidelines in the Plan (Appendix 5). That is, stands already meeting the SMS Plan
standards regarding stem size (i.e., 10”or larger dbh pines), stand stocking (i.e., 40 sq.ft.
BA/acre or more), and age (i.e., 30 or older) will not be reduced below these values.
(3) These Guidelines are to be implemented and used in the same manner as the MSS in
the Recovery Plan (see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's May 4, 2005 letter for
guidance - this memo can be accessed via the Matrix link on our website
(http://rcwrecovery.fws.gov). That is, they are not a substitute for the recovery standard
in the SCFRU, only the MSS; and only then when applicable (see 1 and 2 above).
Therefore, in state and federal recovery populations in the SCFRU, where stand
conditions are "open", management activities should be directed toward achieving wellstocked stands, assuming natural conditions support that level of stocking.
(4) See additional “Notes” below.
Guidelines
1. Provide each group of RCWs a minimum of 3000 sq.ft. of pine basal area (BA).
81
a. At least 2000 sq.ft. must be in trees 9” dbh or larger.
b. The remaining 1000 sq.ft. can be in trees from 4”- 8” dbh.
c. Trees <4” dbh cannot be counted toward the 3000 sq.ft.
Note: When natural conditions allow, the desired future condition for foraging habitat
stands is for the 3000 sq.ft. to be composed of 10” dbh trees and larger. Habitat
management and silvicultural activities should be implemented to achieve this goal.
Most sites will be capable of growing trees this size, at least at moderate stand densities,
e.g., 40-60 BA/acre.
2. Provide a minimum of 75 acres of foraging habitat.
a. At least 40 sq.ft. BA/per acre would be required to meet the 3000 sq.ft.
minimum on 75 acres.
b. If stocking is lower than 40 sq.ft., sufficient foraging habitat acreage must be
designated to supply the 3000 sq.ft. For example, if average stocking in the foraging
habitat is only 20 sq.ft./acre, 150 acres of foraging habitat would be designated for each
RCW group; 10 sq.ft./acre habitat would require 300 acres, etc.
Note: Currently, stand basal areas in some portions of the SCFRU average less than 40
sq.ft. of BA/acre in 4”-10”+ dbh pines; with some stands/habitats as low as 10
sq.ft./acre. On many sites, these low stocking conditions are primarily a result of poor
pine recruitment (i.e., few good seed crop years) and inadequate (frequency and season)
prescribed burning programs. However, during the past 15 years, several pine
recruitment classes have become established on numerous properties, and on sites with
adequate burning programs, stand basal areas are increasing. On these sites/properties,
the desired future condition for foraging habitat stands is that they contain at least 40
sq.ft. BA/acre in 10” dbh trees and larger.
82
3. Count only those pine stands with an average stand age at least 30 years old or older.
However, up to 1000 BA of the total stand may be in trees 20-29 years old (i.e., the 4” to
8” dbh stems).
4. No hardwood midstory of if a hardwood midstory is present it is sparse and less than 7
feet in height; midstory can be controlled by fire (preferred), mechanical or chemical
means.
5. Canopy hardwoods are absent or less than 10% of the number of canopy trees.
6. Total stand basal area, including canopy hardwoods, less than 80 sq.ft. BA/acre.
7. Foraging habitat stands will be within 0.05 miles of the cluster center and preferably
within 0.25 miles. Foraging habitat stands cannot be separated from one another or the
cluster by more than 200 feet of non-foraging habitat (e.g., rights-of-ways, highways,
clearcuts or forested stands less than 30 years old, hardwood stands, agricultural fields,
etc.).
8. Frequent growing season prescribed burning of nesting and foraging habitat is
recommended and encouraged.
83